Repeat after me: choices made under coercion are not voluntary, choices made under coercion are not voluntary, choices made under coercion are not voluntary. Stop eradicating the distinction between a voluntary choice and a coerced one. This is basic stuff.
No, it’s not a straw man, it’s the logical implication of your claim. If all human action is voluntary, then the state is voluntary, taxation is voluntary, war is voluntary, slavery is not voluntary, and so on. In my world, libertarians use the fact that these things are not voluntary to delegitimize them and statists try to construe them as voluntary to legitimize them. Apologia for the state commonly implies that it is truly voluntary by making appeals to “society”, “the social contract” and so on. What you are doing is defending these common statist fallacies while claiming to be a libertarian.
Actually the absurd claim is your own, the claim that all human relationships are voluntary. Of course, throughout this thread you’ve done nothing but continually obliterate the meaning of voluntaryism and coercion. Meanwhile, you’re continually trying to straw man me as if I’m denying that people have volition or free will, but you fail to understand that volition and free will in and of itself does not equal voluntaryism. The mere fact that humans have the capacity to make choice and indeed do make choices does not necessarily mean that all of their choices are voluntary or unconstrained by coercion and factors outside of their control. Then again, I tried establishing this a page back and you didn’t grasp it then.
This is what I’ve tried to tell him for many posts now and he still doesn’t understand it. Maybe if it comes from you instead of me he’ll actually listen and make an attempt to understand.
BP, it is not a logical implication. It is a strawman.
In order for it to be a logical implication, you would need to provide a model for human behaviour that explains why people make different decisions under the same coercive threat. Oh wait, that is called praxeology…
Stop talking about winning and losing. You’ve obstructed this discussion and you most certainly have not substantiated your claims or refuted the criticism that has been made of them. If anything, all that you’ve done is demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic libertarian political theory.
No, it is not a strawman. If the state is voluntary, then it’s legitimate, and many statist political theories have been developed to prove just this. Libertarians reject the state precisely because it’s not voluntary. Oh, man. This is libertarianism 101. It’s strange that I should have to baby step you through it. Praxeology is essentialy irrelevant to this discussion. This is about what constitutes voluntaryism, and praxeology has nothing to say about it, since it is only a value-free descriptive economic method, not an all-encompassing political theory of interpersonal relations.
No, I havent agreed with you. You’ve trolled this thread and obstructed the discussion.
What you seem to be doing is doing anything in your power to “win” regaurdless of truth or virtue. I’m trying to have an actual discussion and establish precisely what is true, and you’re to busy trying to “win” to genuinely participate.
No, not my personal theories, the very basics of libertarianism, which you seem ignorant of. *beats you over the head with a copy of “For A New Liberty”. Apparently the basics never sunk in and you jumped head first into the movement without knowing them.
No, you continually have argued as if there is no distinction between voluntary and involuntary interpersonal relations, and I have continually tried to establish this distinction to no avail as you make arguments implying that all human relations are voluntary. You use praxeology as something to appeal to but are misusing it.
In a free society, some people may choose to be slaves. That is their free choice. In our modern societies, billions of people choose to be slaves. Turn off your computer and go outside and meet them. They actually think government is good, government makes their lives better, and they can control government. Now I think we can both agree that most of them are idiots or at the least, badly informed, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that they have chosen the state.
And if you try to speak about or explain anti-statism to them, they shrink in horror, as though you are some demon or manifest-satan.
So yes, the state is voluntary. In fact, the entire notion of Agorism is to defeat the state by mass withdrawing consent. Which I believe, implies that tacit consent has been given or is assumed.
Why do you write crap like this? Does it make you feel smart and self-important?
Praxeology is the modeling of human action. Hence, it is always relevant. And yes, it is value free. I reject your notion of imposing your own values on every discussion. I could give two craps about your values.
The reason why our discussions run on endlessly, is that you have to muddy the waters with subjectivity (your values) in order to maintain most of the positions you hold. I’m beginning to wonder how much, if any of your beliefs are based on logic as opposed to emotional projection.
You might want to quit while you are ahead, you’re beginning to make very silly arguments.
Uhm, yes you have. Do I need to go back and pull the quotes?
Winning is the virtue, truth is the method. And yes, I use truth as much as possible.
No, you are as usual picking a fight with me, then creating strawmen, resorting to Ad Homs and applying your own subjective values to every facet of the discussion, until it becomes an endless pissing match.
Your first mistake is trolling me around the forum.
The second mistake is thinking that you will be able to beat me with your personal values and ethics.
Slavery, by definition, is not freely chosen. Why do I have to keep repeatedly pointing out the distinction between a voluntary and coerced choice? This is beyond ridiculous.
Then libertarianism is pointless and we should all become statists. Because libertarianism rejects this claim.
Here’s a concept for you: libertarianism is meaningless without value judgements; in fact, it is one and it involves tons of them. Praxeology is not libertarianism, it’s an economic methodology. Economics isn’t all there is to this. Also, I’m not imposing my own values on every discussion, I’m trying to have an actual discussion of values, and you don’t seem to understand that values are inherently implied in this particular discussion. It is also a facade to pretend that you dont have value judgements.
Not at all. You’re putting on a facade of being value free, you misunderstand praxeology and demonstrate ignorance about very basic libertarian concepts. So drop the disingenous attitude, because you are not value free and values are not irrelevant in a discussion about interpersonal relations.
Not at all. You’re continually making it clear that you’re out of touch with libertarian political theory.
I’m beginning to think that you don’t know what a straw man is.
This is what we’ve been going in circles about for pages now, and a reductio ad absurdum is not a straw man. If you refuse to aknowledge the logical implications of your own premises, that problem is your own, not those who point out such implications.
I find your claims of the highground by pretending to be value free to be disingenous.
Because praxeology does not establish all human action as voluntary. We’ve been through this already.
I haven’t asserted any personal ethics, I’ve merely made mention of basic libertarian political theory (which you seem to think is purely personal on my own part, when it isn’t). Here, try learning about it: Read “Ethics of Liberty” by Murray Rothbard. It’s available at this very site. I’d also suggest you stop speaking as if interpersonal ethics is not relevant to a discussion about politics, since politics inherently involves interpersonal ethics and it is disingenous to argue as if you dont have value judgements of your own.
I don’t know. I wish you would give up by now. It is patently obvious that I do not accept the distinction as you explain it.
Are you crying?
That’s a concept.
I thought praxeology was a model for all human action, not just economic behaviour.
I’m trying not to have a discussion about values, and you don’t seem to understand that.
I
DON’T
CARE
WHAT
YOUR
VALUES
ARE.
I’m not pretending. I do have value judgments. I am not involving them in this discussion. I don’t come online to argue my values vs. yours. So if you continue to debate me, as I have already made clear, don’t expect me to participate in your value laden discussions in a manner you approve of. You will be disappointed.
Strawman, see above.
How? Please quote me when you justify your assertion.
Strawman.
Strawman.
I’m not having a discussion about interpersonal relations. If I did, it wouldn’t be with you. I have told you this repeatedly on this forum.