Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions (Read 873 times)
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #50 - Jan 8th, 2019 at 5:54pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 8th, 2019 at 5:24pm:
I take this blather to mean you have absolutely no evidence for your implied assertion that people do well at recovering their own property without the help of police, that what you said is complete B.S.


I actually said people would have a success rate for recovering their own stolen property of “nearly zero” which I would not call doing well.  I just acknowledge that the police do no better.

Based on the graph which I saw later, they do well at recovering stolen cars, but extremely poorly at every other kind of property.

And, again, that doesn’t even include how hard it is to get property back so I have no doubt that if you subtract the property stolen through civil forfeiture from the property that citizens are actually able to get back from non-law enforcement thieves, your result would be near zero.

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #51 - Jan 8th, 2019 at 6:07pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 8th, 2019 at 5:54pm:
I actually said people would have a success rate for recovering their own stolen property of “nearly zero” which I would not call doing well.  I just acknowledge that the police do no better.

Based on the graph which I saw later, they do well at recovering stolen cars, but extremely poorly at every other kind of property.

And, again, that doesn’t even include how hard it is to get property back so I have no doubt that if you subtract the property stolen through civil forfeiture from the property that citizens are actually able to get back from non-law enforcement thieves, your result would be near zero.

Blah blah.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8463
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #52 - Jan 8th, 2019 at 10:16pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:58am:
Technically, it is extortion, i.e. obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.


I really don't want to take Jeff's side on this one but this has been on my mind and I'm not convinced extortion is aggression.

Of course, it's a minor point, because the government absolutely will make good on its threats, but if they didn't...

...Well them I'm not sure.

And furthermore I'm not sure whether to be aggression against you, they specifically have to make good their threats against you, specifically.

So most taxpayers might not be victims.

It really falls to a lack of basics. What does the NAP say? Ask six different libertarians and you'll get seven different answers.

Little Big Man wrote on Jan 8th, 2019 at 5:54pm:
Based on the graph which I saw later, they do well at recovering stolen cars, but extremely poorly at every other kind of property.


It's because, in many cases, they're restrained from taking action against thieves.

Cars are well regulated, and jurisdiction is more often granted.



Thieves are well protected with many rights, and in this case, the victim must blur the faces of those he has caught red-handed, stealing from him.

The police do nothing, because they're not going to be able to get a warrant to go inside peoples' houses, and thieves will never give them permission.
  

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
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 5891
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #53 - Jan 9th, 2019 at 8:22am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 8th, 2019 at 10:16pm:
I really don't want to take Jeff's side on this one but this has been on my mind and I'm not convinced extortion is aggression


Extortion is aggression by definition.  And taxes are extortion.  Which is why I keep pointing out that most libertarians do not actually believe in NAP, only anarchists do.  And most anarchists don't support NAP for law and order either.  Very few people believe in NAP who know what it means
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #54 - Jan 9th, 2019 at 9:21am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 9th, 2019 at 8:22am:
Extortion is aggression by definition.  And taxes are extortion.  Which is why I keep pointing out that most libertarians do not actually believe in NAP, only anarchists do.  And most anarchists don't support NAP for law and order either.  Very few people believe in NAP who know what it means
Taxes that are legally collected by governments that are legally authorized to collect taxes are not extorted, they are collected as the law allows.

I can't imagine any philosophical argument that you might be working from other than one that says that creating a government is wrong even if the government is created to protect everyone's rights equally, because having any government will prevent people from being perfectly free.

If the root of your argument isn't anarchy, what is it?

All libertarians believe it is wrong to initiate aggression.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #55 - Jan 9th, 2019 at 9:23am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 8th, 2019 at 10:16pm:
What does the NAP say?
The the initiation of aggression is wrong.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #56 - Jan 9th, 2019 at 9:25am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 8th, 2019 at 10:16pm:
It's because, in many cases, they're restrained from taking action against thieves.

Cars are well regulated, and jurisdiction is more often granted.



Thieves are well protected with many rights, and in this case, the victim must blur the faces of those he has caught red-handed, stealing from him.

The police do nothing, because they're not going to be able to get a warrant to go inside peoples' houses, and thieves will never give them permission.
What you speak of are not special rights created to protect thieves or criminals in general, they are rights that are recognized in order to protect the rights of innocent people.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #57 - Jan 11th, 2019 at 8:42pm
Print Post  
Jeff, you have argued several times that the constitution means only what its exact wording says and that if SCOTUS says otherwise, it is unconstitutionally altering the constitution.

Yet, on a thread about the occupation of Fort Sumter, you stated that my argument that South Carolina was no longer a part of the Union was not sufficient to say that the U.S. had no right to stay on Fort Sumter because the federal government controls coastal waters. 

When I asked you to name the part of the constitution that grants that power to the federal government, you responded, "it's one of those things governments do . . . " and went on to site SCOTUS rulings as your evidence that the U.S. government has the right to claim that power.

Which is your actual position?
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #58 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:57am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 11th, 2019 at 8:42pm:
Jeff, you have argued several times that the constitution means only what its exact wording says and that if SCOTUS says otherwise, it is unconstitutionally altering the constitution.

Yet, on a thread about the occupation of Fort Sumter, you stated that my argument that South Carolina was no longer a part of the Union was not sufficient to say that the U.S. had no right to stay on Fort Sumter because the federal government controls coastal waters. 

When I asked you to name the part of the constitution that grants that power to the federal government, you responded, "it's one of those things governments do . . . " and went on to site SCOTUS rulings as your evidence that the U.S. government has the right to claim that power.

Which is your actual position?
That the task of national defense assigned to the federal government required/requires that it defend coastal waters because they are U.S. coastal waters.

The Constitution gives the federal government authority to use the power of eminent domain to secure land for military bases. Once they do that, the land becomes U.S. land.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 5891
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #59 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 9:14am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:57am:
That the task of national defense assigned to the federal government required/requires that it defend coastal waters because they are U.S. coastal waters.

The Constitution gives the federal government authority to use the power of eminent domain to secure land for military bases. Once they do that, the land becomes U.S. land.


Proving Opposition is an idiot yet again for claiming the town drunk who clearly supports aggression is his example I'm wrong that no one on the site believes in NAP.  That while he argues the town drunk doesn't believe in NAP as if no one can connect ideas across threads
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy