Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons (Read 1095 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 32524
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #50 - Apr 30th, 2018 at 4:59pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
The problem of libertarianism is trying to stop the aggression a little at a time.
Unadulterated nonsense.

Civilized people want to stop any and every act of aggression as soon as possible.

If libertarians had magic powers, no one on earth would steal or assault or murder, and no government would be necessary.

Unlike "progressives", libertarians don't actually imagine they have magic powers.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7209
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #51 - Apr 30th, 2018 at 5:06pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 4:59pm:
Unlike "progressives", libertarians don't actually imagine they have magic powers.



"The lesson [progressives] need to learn is that despite their arrogance, they do not have the power to alter reality." - Walter E. Williams
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 32524
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #52 - Apr 30th, 2018 at 5:17pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 5:06pm:
"The lesson [progressives] need to learn is that despite their arrogance, they do not have the power to alter reality." - Walter E. Williams
See? It's like I said, I've never had an original thought!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7209
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #53 - Apr 30th, 2018 at 5:47pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 5:17pm:
See? It's like I said, I've never had an original thought!
Smiley

Here's another one of my fave W. E. Williams quotes:

"Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn, and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then, tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?"
- Walter E. Williams
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7224
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #54 - Apr 30th, 2018 at 11:07pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
I think your analogy of the mafia don is spot on.  I disagree with your conclusion.  If I ask my local protection racketeer for some money for whatever purpose, I know that he gets it through threats of violence so I am just as guilty of the aggression as he is.  Same as if I ask a bank robber for a few c-notes as he's coming out with his bag of loot.


By that logic every last one of us is guilty of aggression because every last c-note any of us has came from the government - an aggressor.

In fact, by your logic, possessing money in itself is aggression. It has to have either been printed, devaluing other equal notes even if the currency is not fiat (which every currency will be anyways; currencies only ever briefly claim to be backed to increase trust - if they did more than that, they would be losing money every time they print a note).

SnarkySack wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
The problem of libertarianism is trying to stop the aggression a little at a time.  If you prevent the aggression of building a border wall, without ending the welfare state, you simply choose one aggression over another.  It would be like mother telling little Johnny that he can't aggress against little Robbie, but allowing Robbie to keep aggressing against Johnny.


Which is perfectly fine because it is a preferable state to allowing both of them to aggress. Libertarianism is not about fairness. That would be Statism.

I once fell into the trap of assuming that fairness and right were related. I was cleanly handed my ass on the debate floor. I changed my opinion.

The Opposition wrote on Mar 30th, 2015 at 6:24pm:
My problem with it is limited to protecting some people while also ignoring others.


Alan Jones wrote on Mar 31st, 2015 at 12:28am:
That reminds me of when I was a child. My cousin and I were accused of bad behavior that we didn't do. My cousin was punished, then everyone found out we were both innocent, so I was not punished. My cousin insisted that I should get the same undeserved punishment he got for the sake of fairness.

But from an adult point of view, it's clear that imposing even more unfairness for the sake of equal distribution of unfairness is absurd. The solution to unfairness is to reduce it, not add more.


I was arguing that either everyone be allowed to discriminate against gays, or no one - no exception for religious people.

But since the First Amendment adds more justice by allowing some to get away with what is right all along (the right to discriminate) the First Amendment is correct.

As Alan explains, since each instance of aggression (using force to stop discrimination) is morally wrong, stopping some even if you cannot stop them all is preferable because it is more justice.

Just like punishing Johnny for aggressing against Robbie. His aggression is objectively wrong, so punishing it is objectively right. Pointing out that we can't ever get Robbie so we should leave Johnny alone when he does the same is in the interest of equality, but clearly against the NAP.

You can read the thread if you're interested.

I realised what my mistake was as soon as I really considered why I had lost. It is the mistake you're making now.

Your argument requires the NAP not to be absolute, inclusive, and perfect. Your argument requires that factors beyond the NAP (like fairness) contribute to right and wrong. So you can say that because of something else (like fairness) less adherence to the NAP can be preferable to more adherence to the NAP.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The NAP is the perfect measure of right and wrong for all situations at all times. There are no other factors.

Punish Johnny for his aggression whether you can get Robbie or not. Get some murderers even if you cannot get them all.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3148
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #55 - May 1st, 2018 at 7:56am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 11:07pm:
By that logic every last one of us is guilty of aggression because every last c-note any of us has came from the government - an aggressor.

In fact, by your logic, possessing money in itself is aggression. It has to have either been printed, devaluing other equal notes even if the currency is not fiat (which every currency will be anyways; currencies only ever briefly claim to be backed to increase trust - if they did more than that, they would be losing money every time they print a note).



Yes, that's exactly my point.  Our system forces us to be aggressors as well as aggressed against.  If the government's pretend money was optional to use, if we were allowed to insist on either gold or gold-backed bank notes for our payments, the government's fake money would quickly lose in the free market.  That's why we are reminded by every bill in our pocked that "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."




Quote:
Which is perfectly fine because it is a preferable state to allowing both of them to aggress. Libertarianism is not about fairness. That would be Statism.

I once fell into the trap of assuming that fairness and right were related. I was cleanly handed my ass on the debate floor. I changed my opinion.



I was arguing that either everyone be allowed to discriminate against gays, or no one - no exception for religious people.

But since the First Amendment adds more justice by allowing some to get away with what is right all along (the right to discriminate) the First Amendment is correct.

As Alan explains, since each instance of aggression (using force to stop discrimination) is morally wrong, stopping some even if you cannot stop them all is preferable because it is more justice.

Just like punishing Johnny for aggressing against Robbie. His aggression is objectively wrong, so punishing it is objectively right. Pointing out that we can't ever get Robbie so we should leave Johnny alone when he does the same is in the interest of equality, but clearly against the NAP.

You can read the thread if you're interested.

I realised what my mistake was as soon as I really considered why I had lost. It is the mistake you're making now.

Your argument requires the NAP not to be absolute, inclusive, and perfect. Your argument requires that factors beyond the NAP (like fairness) contribute to right and wrong. So you can say that because of something else (like fairness) less adherence to the NAP can be preferable to more adherence to the NAP.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The NAP is the perfect measure of right and wrong for all situations at all times. There are no other factors.

Punish Johnny for his aggression whether you can get Robbie or not. Get some murderers even if you cannot get them all.


In my example, the parent was not unable to stop Robbie's aggression, the parent chose not to stop Robbie's aggression."  You are right about the murderers because we don't choose to let some go, we are logically unable to catch every single one.

Aggressive acts can often be sorted into related pairs or groups.  My example was the aggression of the welfare state being protected by the aggression of closed borders.  Stop both examples aggression simultaneously because if you open the borders while keeping the welfare state, you invite a disaster that will make people say that "libertarianism doesn't work" when it was not actually tried.

Imagine if the government started another war and drafted soldiers to fight in it.  Imagine that it also  drafted those with religious scruples against fighting as medics and ambulance drivers.  We could say, "those medics don't really help us win the war.  Let's stop aggressing against them and let the wounded die in place."  Again, people would say, "wow, libertarianism really sucks!"

Libertarianism will be doomed to failure if it isn't brought about wisely.  Best way would be a clean slate, such as a new republic founded somewhere, or a post-collapse limited government set up to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 32524
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #56 - May 1st, 2018 at 9:29am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 11:07pm:
By that logic every last one of us is guilty of aggression because every last c-note any of us has came from the government - an aggressor.

In fact, by your logic, possessing money in itself is aggression. It has to have either been printed, devaluing other equal notes even if the currency is not fiat (which every currency will be anyways; currencies only ever briefly claim to be backed to increase trust - if they did more than that, they would be losing money every time they print a note).


Which is perfectly fine because it is a preferable state to allowing both of them to aggress. Libertarianism is not about fairness. That would be Statism.

I once fell into the trap of assuming that fairness and right were related. I was cleanly handed my ass on the debate floor. I changed my opinion.



I was arguing that either everyone be allowed to discriminate against gays, or no one - no exception for religious people.

But since the First Amendment adds more justice by allowing some to get away with what is right all along (the right to discriminate) the First Amendment is correct.

As Alan explains, since each instance of aggression (using force to stop discrimination) is morally wrong, stopping some even if you cannot stop them all is preferable because it is more justice.

Just like punishing Johnny for aggressing against Robbie. His aggression is objectively wrong, so punishing it is objectively right. Pointing out that we can't ever get Robbie so we should leave Johnny alone when he does the same is in the interest of equality, but clearly against the NAP.

You can read the thread if you're interested.

I realised what my mistake was as soon as I really considered why I had lost. It is the mistake you're making now.

Your argument requires the NAP not to be absolute, inclusive, and perfect. Your argument requires that factors beyond the NAP (like fairness) contribute to right and wrong. So you can say that because of something else (like fairness) less adherence to the NAP can be preferable to more adherence to the NAP.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The NAP is the perfect measure of right and wrong for all situations at all times. There are no other factors.

Punish Johnny for his aggression whether you can get Robbie or not. Get some murderers even if you cannot get them all.
fooch
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7209
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #57 - May 1st, 2018 at 10:22am
Print Post  
Trump has demanded that Mexico absorb the Caravan people.  He said asylum would be granted only in the most urgent cases.  Many applicants will be turned away.

He said if Mexico refuses to accept the asylum rejects, NAFTA will be renegotiatiated and Mexico won't like it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7224
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #58 - May 1st, 2018 at 10:47pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on May 1st, 2018 at 7:56am:
Yes, that's exactly my point.  Our system forces us to be aggressors as well as aggressed against.  If the government's pretend money was optional to use, if we were allowed to insist on either gold or gold-backed bank notes for our payments, the government's fake money would quickly lose in the free market.  That's why we are reminded by every bill in our pocked that "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."


As far as I know, trades of goods or services for gold or other goods/services are not illegal. Skychief said he did it once, but this is beside the point.

You're stating that when someone gets $10000 from the mafia don, they share in the aggression. It's absurd because that money doesn't end with the woman asking for it. It goes to the hospital or the doctor and everyone else. Because blood money exists, everyone is guilty? Even the doughnut shop guy who sells the don a bavarian creme and a coffee every morning?

There is one knockdown refutation to anyone but the aggressor being an aggressor.

They did not use force.

Period.

SnarkySack wrote on May 1st, 2018 at 7:56am:
In my example, the parent was not unable to stop Robbie's aggression, the parent chose not to stop Robbie's aggression."


Which is a fine choice, superior to the choice of stopping the aggression of neither.

This is a clear example of you letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Less aggression is always better than more.

Fairness is nowhere in the NAP. Therefore it is irrelevant. There simply does not exist this consideration you're making for Johnny that it is somehow better to let him aggress because Robbie is let to.

SnarkySack wrote on May 1st, 2018 at 7:56am:
Aggressive acts can often be sorted into related pairs or groups.  My example was the aggression of the welfare state being protected by the aggression of closed borders.  Stop both examples aggression simultaneously because if you open the borders while keeping the welfare state, you invite a disaster that will make people say that "libertarianism doesn't work" when it was not actually tried.


That is a pragmatic, not a moral argument. If you acknowledge that the NAP needs to be broken or even bent, just because it will avert disaster, you don't really have a lot of faith in the NAP.

SnarkySack wrote on May 1st, 2018 at 7:56am:
Imagine if the government started another war and drafted soldiers to fight in it.  Imagine that it also drafted those with religious scruples against fighting, as medics and ambulance drivers.  We could say, "those medics don't really help us win the war.  Let's stop aggressing against them and let the wounded die in place."  Again, people would say, "wow, libertarianism really sucks!"


If we can only recall the medics, we recall the medics.

We're living under a government, and in a situation, wherein taxation and redistribution will not stop. The Left, who runs the country, will, however, open the borders.

It is a libertarian duty not to violate the NAP. If you are using government force to keep people off other peoples' property, just because their superior work ethic, productivity, and efficiency will destroy you, then you are guilty of aggression.

The voter uses government force (through his vote, which effects the aggression directly) and the immigrant merely receives a willing gift.

You have every right to demonstrate and protest for closed borders. You do not have a right to vote for them, or for candidates who promise them.

SnarkySack wrote on May 1st, 2018 at 7:56am:
Libertarianism will be doomed to failure if it isn't brought about wisely.  Best way would be a clean slate, such as a new republic founded somewhere, or a post-collapse limited government set up to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.


You have no faith in your own philosophy, so you concede that what is more libertarian is not always better than that which is less.

You're conceding that libertarianism is not perfect, when it actually is.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
genepool
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Dec 19th, 2014
Re: Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Reply #59 - May 2nd, 2018 at 12:46am
Print Post  
Quote:
You blew it when you said 'eagerly awaiting'.

It wasn't necessary you know, even though you probably thought it was.

Only the most ardent humanitarians would be 'eagerly awaiting'. It would perhaps be just a very few people who actually take their Christianity very seriously.

Not exactly the sentiments one would expect to hear from Sickler. LOL


There have to be better ways to deal with them. Charge them money? They can pay by working?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Mexico Should Stop the Caravan for Humanitarian Reasons
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy