Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Aggression
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Aggression (Read 408 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7926
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #20 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:06pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:04pm:
It's obviously immoral and a violation of the NAP. You have initiated force against your toddler to keep him from getting run over by a car. Cheesy


I didn't say it was. I asked a question.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #21 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:08pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:01pm:
Of course it's different, the question is simply whether the difference is relevant.
Differences are always relevant. So are similarities.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #22 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:11pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:06pm:
I didn't say it was. I asked a question.
And I answered it.

Initiating force against your toddler to keep him from running in the street is aggression and immoral according to a strict interpretation of the NAP, which is what you have been insisting on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 693
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: Aggression
Reply #23 - Oct 29th, 2018 at 9:39am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 3:18pm:
I'd like a simple list of the things each poster considers aggression - in other words, things that are harmful enough to others that they should be punished by force, and can justly be punished by force.

And screw your civil court and tort law bullshit - you're punishing me with force  - extracting reparations by force - and calling it justice so I must have aggressed.

My list that I actually think should be followed consists of hitting and stealing. That's it. Any form of unprovoked assault is hitting, and taking what belongs to someone else is stealing.

If you think more should be on the list, like making noise or threatening others, I challenge you to post it here before you pull that trump card out of your ass in some other thread. Libertarianism is a simple philosophy, right? The NAP is easy to interpret? Prove it. Make a list.

Even if I'm not going on a libertarian philosophy, but the philosophy you all ridicule as Statist, I can very easily make a list. It'd be short. My guess is that a list any of you would actually stick to would be too long for the character limit.


I believe one important issue here, one that you, in particular, seem to forget is that we need one list for individuals and one for the state.

If the state's officials are allowed to rule that only Bob's Fruit Stand will be allowed to sell oranges, the state has too much power.

Would it not be nice if the NAP was all we needed...  Life is unfortunately more complicated.  The Enlightenment was all about the list for the state.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #24 - Oct 29th, 2018 at 5:25pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Oct 29th, 2018 at 9:39am:
I believe one important issue here, one that you, in particular, seem to forget is that we need one list for individuals and one for the state.

The government is granted certain powers to do things that are aggression if anyone else does them. There are good reasons for the grant of such powers by the U.S. Constitution.

I guess what I'm saying is that the list for the government has already been made, and it doesn't include the power to pick and choose among people who might want to make their living selling fruit.

As far as making a list for people in general, I think the idea is absurd. People are far too clever and creative... Just when you think the list covers every possible human action that is "aggressive", some five year old boy will come up with something new!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7926
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #25 - Oct 29th, 2018 at 9:49pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Oct 29th, 2018 at 9:39am:
I believe one important issue here, one that you, in particular, seem to forget is that we need one list for individuals and one for the state.


We only need two lists to restrain extra power given to the government. The next bit leads into this perfectly.

BobK71 wrote on Oct 29th, 2018 at 9:39am:
If the state's officials are allowed to rule that only Bob's Fruit Stand will be allowed to sell oranges, the state has too much power.


Of course! This is a perfect example of what no one ought to be allowed to do. If the State needs to be retrained from this because they have some vague power to interfere in the market, they need to just not have that power in the first place.

BobK71 wrote on Oct 29th, 2018 at 9:39am:
Would it not be nice if the NAP was all we needed...  Life is unfortunately more complicated.  The Enlightenment was all about the list for the state.


I challenge you and anyone else to make one. Or two, if you feel the need.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #26 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 8:22am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 29th, 2018 at 9:49pm:
Of course! This is a perfect example of what no one ought to be allowed to do. If the State needs to be retrained from this because they have some vague power to interfere in the market, they need to just not have that power in the first place.
You agree with my argument that the federal government was not granted the power to interfere in free markets?

The power granted to Congress to regulate commerce between the states, with foreign nations and with Indian tribes was very early on used to levy non-uniform tariffs on imports as a means to control trade with England. I think they went so far as to order a complete embargo on both imports and exports. (It didn't work because the people engaged in commerce didn't support it.)

The grant of power was also used to prevent states from enforcing laws that interfered with free trade between the states.

During the New Deal, it was used to prevent a farmer from growing wheat for his own use... because by growing his own wheat, he wasn't buying the wheat that farmers in other states were growing, and that "affected interstate commerce."

The general modern "progressive" interpretation of the commerce clause follows that New Deal era idea, that anything anybody does can be connected, no matter how tenuously or remotely, with interstate or foreign commerce, so almost any activity is fair game to be regulated/controlled under the commerce clause.

That's usurpation of power by inference and extension. If the commerce clause was indeed such a grant of general power, no other powers would have needed to be enumerated in the Constitution, and the idea of Liberty under a limited government is destroyed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4209
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Aggression
Reply #27 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 10:47am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 8:22am:
You agree with my argument that the federal government was not granted the power to interfere in free markets?

The power granted to Congress to regulate commerce between the states, with foreign nations and with Indian tribes was very early on used to levy non-uniform tariffs on imports as a means to control trade with England. I think they went so far as to order a complete embargo on both imports and exports. (It didn't work because the people engaged in commerce didn't support it.)

The grant of power was also used to prevent states from enforcing laws that interfered with free trade between the states.

During the New Deal, it was used to prevent a farmer from growing wheat for his own use... because by growing his own wheat, he wasn't buying the wheat that farmers in other states were growing, and that "affected interstate commerce."

The general modern "progressive" interpretation of the commerce clause follows that New Deal era idea, that anything anybody does can be connected, no matter how tenuously or remotely, with interstate or foreign commerce, so almost any activity is fair game to be regulated/controlled under the commerce clause.

That's usurpation of power by inference and extension. If the commerce clause was indeed such a grant of general power, no other powers would have needed to be enumerated in the Constitution, and the idea of Liberty under a limited government is destroyed.


The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard Vs. Filburn that the federal government had the right to fine a farmer for growing more wheat than allowed per his acreage owned.  The farmer was growing it only for the consumption of his animals,  not selling it and certainly not moving it across state lines. 

The court stated that if a person grows wheat on his farm and feeds it to his livestock, he can be regulated by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause.   Their logic was that if he grows his own wheat, he doesn't buy wheat on the free market and therefore affects wheat farmers in other states who want to sell their grain to his state.

That logic allows the feds to regulate that which is neither commerce nor interstate under the interstate commerce clause.   You can cry about it, but the constitution gives the USSC power to decide cases and that's what they decided.  It basically means that there are zero limits on congress' power to tax and regulate.

What you and other "constitutional libertarians" fail to grasp is that a law that fines a farmer for growing "too much wheat," wouldn't be any less absurd if it were passed by his state representatives or his "local community."  It wouldn't be more absurd it it were passed by the United Nations.

It's the loss of freedom we should be concerned about, not what level of government it is that is taking our freedom or who gets elected to be the front man for the deep state.
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #28 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 2:57pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 10:47am:
The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard Vs. Filburn that the federal government had the right to fine a farmer for growing more wheat than allowed per his acreage owned.  The farmer was growing it only for the consumption of his animals,  not selling it and certainly not moving it across state lines. 

The court stated that if a person grows wheat on his farm and feeds it to his livestock, he can be regulated by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause.   Their logic was that if he grows his own wheat, he doesn't buy wheat on the free market and therefore affects wheat farmers in other states who want to sell their grain to his state.

That logic allows the feds to regulate that which is neither commerce nor interstate under the interstate commerce clause.   You can cry about it, but the constitution gives the USSC power to decide cases and that's what they decided.  It basically means that there are zero limits on congress' power to tax and regulate.

What you and other "constitutional libertarians" fail to grasp is that a law that fines a farmer for growing "too much wheat," wouldn't be any less absurd if it were passed by his state representatives or his "local community."  It wouldn't be more absurd it it were passed by the United Nations.

It's the loss of freedom we should be concerned about, not what level of government it is that is taking our freedom or who gets elected to be the front man for the deep state.
Yes, thanks, that's the case I mentioned, and it was essentially a "progressive" alteration of the meaning of the Constitution, which is something the S.Ct. is not empowered to do, for good reasons. There have always been dissenters on the court, whether the decisions were arrived at by reading the Constitution expansively and finding "implied powers" or reading it strictly and referring to the ample records from state ratifying conventions for insight on what the people actually ratified... And it's really completely absurd to claim that a constitution that gave the new government the power to completely control the entire economy was ever ratified or ever would have been ratified.

It is absurd also to imagine that five men can change the meaning of the Constitution, and that subsequently, five different men can change it back. That is a clear indicator of tyrannical government at work.

The root of this evil is the failure to read that the S.Ct. has been granted jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, the key word being under. No authority over the Constitution was granted, and none exists. Only the people, through the provided mechanisms for altering the Constitution in Article V have power over the Constitution.

And yes, it's the loss of freedom that comes from taking control of the government out of the hands of the people that concerns me also.

You continue to fail to understand that under our federal system, states and local governments possess powers that are different from those of the federal government, and the powers of those state and local governments are properly controlled by the people that live under them. Certainly the federal government has been granted power to protect the basic rights of everyone n the U.S., but that does not mean they can usurp powers not granted to them but remaining with the state and local governments.

What you and other anarchists fail to realize is that tearing down existing governments completely will not lead to the magical creation of a wonderful libertarian world.

Maybe if the coming economic collapse leads to world war (Russia and China are both preparing for war. Maybe the U.S. is too...?) and the imposition of martial law in the U.S. Libertarians and anarchists and conservatives and liberals will unite... I'd liked to have seen that happen years ago, but "progressives" created a winner-take-all TwoParty partisan electoral system and government, feeding the worst tribal instincts of all people...

Are there any people left in America who are simply Americans?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7926
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #29 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 9:07pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 8:22am:
You agree with my argument that the federal government was not granted the power to interfere in free markets?


It clearly was granted that power. I maintain that such a grant of power is wrong.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Aggression
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy