Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Associated Press
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Associated Press (Read 2606 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11681
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #20 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 5:31pm
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 2:50pm:
Rothbard stated that "If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property — to defend it by violence against violent invasion,"


And he also said you can't shoot a kid for stealing your stick of gum because his life is worth more than your gum.

Violent defense then must be confined to violent invasion — either actually, implicitly, or by direct and overt threat. But given this principle, how far does the right of violent defense go? For one thing, it would clearly be grotesque and criminally invasive to shoot a man across the street because his angry look seemed to you to portend an invasion. The danger must be immediate and overt, we might say, "clear and present" — a criterion that properly applies not to restrictions on freedom of speech (never permissible, if we regard such freedom as a subset of the rights of person and property) but to the right to take coercive action against a supposedly imminent invader.

Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's — including the urchin's — right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?


Yes, this means that if he is running away with your stick of gum, and the only option you have is violence, you have to let him get away with the gum.

Tommy Palven wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 2:50pm:
You and Kaz apparently agree with the vast majority of people who think it's fine for governments to initiate force to achieve political and/or social goals.


I think it's not acceptable to use force to achieve political and/or social goals.

You think that because the government doesn't select policies that you want, they're an aggressor and it's open season.

(Insofar as the individuals aggress, you're correct, but hacking servers is still aggression.)
  

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: 8719
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #21 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 9:31pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 5:31pm:
And he also said you can't shoot a kid for stealing your stick of gum because his life is worth more than your gum.

Violent defense then must be confined to violent invasion — either actually, implicitly, or by direct and overt threat. But given this principle, how far does the right of violent defense go? For one thing, it would clearly be grotesque and criminally invasive to shoot a man across the street because his angry look seemed to you to portend an invasion. The danger must be immediate and overt, we might say, "clear and present" — a criterion that properly applies not to restrictions on freedom of speech (never permissible, if we regard such freedom as a subset of the rights of person and property) but to the right to take coercive action against a supposedly imminent invader.

Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's — including the urchin's — right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?


Yes, this means that if he is running away with your stick of gum, and the only option you have is violence, you have to let him get away with the gum.


I think it's not acceptable to use force to achieve political and/or social goals.

You think that because the government doesn't select policies that you want, they're an aggressor and it's open season.

(Insofar as the individuals aggress, you're correct, but hacking servers is still aggression.)


Bravo, so you show that you are fully capable of actual logical responses.

Meanwhile, with me you continue to argue hyperbole, absurdity and you act like Jeff.  I provided both links and quotes to demonstrate that your made up definitions and arguments were full of shit.

So what about it?  Are you going to man up and admit you were full of shit arguing that libertarians are all anarchists?  I'm guessing no.  I would be thrilled if I'm wrong.  So?
  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49677
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #22 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:37pm
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 2:50pm:
Your statement is both a misinterpretation and immaterial.

Rothbard stated that "If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property — to defend it by violence against violent invasion," and he added that "Defensive violence ...must be confined to resisting invasive actions."

The LP pledge is:
"I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

You and Kaz apparently agree with the vast majority of people who think it's fine for governments to initiate force to achieve political and/or social goals.

That's fine.  If you haven't accepted that LP position by now, I'm not going to argue with you guys about it a moment more.

I'm a Jacob Hornberger fan, and not a Hans Hoppe Libertarian Lite fan.  I don't think Hoppe's position is logically valid.

Period.  End of my part in this discussion.
Good. This part of the discussion is a waste.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49677
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #23 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:39pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 3:18pm:
Yes.  And clearly hacking servers violates that standard.
Learning that our government is violating our rights and publicizing that truth is a good thing from the perspective of individual liberty. How could it not be?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49677
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #24 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:41pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 5:31pm:
I think it's not acceptable to use force to achieve political and/or social goals.
Do you think it's acceptable for our government to spy on us in secret and try to hide the evidence?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8719
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #25 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:48pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:39pm:
Learning that our government is violating our rights and publicizing that truth is a good thing from the perspective of individual liberty. How could it not be?


That has nothing to do with the point I made, drunken sot.  Sleep it off
  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49677
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #26 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:57pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:48pm:
That has nothing to do with the point I made, drunken sot.  Sleep it off
Your point was beside the point of the thread.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11681
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #27 - Apr 21st, 2019 at 11:19am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 9:31pm:
with me you continue to argue hyperbole


You lay out a principle. I take it to extremes because I wish to know the range in which that principle is valid.

If that range is limited then the principle is of no use to me.

If your principle allows X, and X is bad, then your principle is of limited use.

For example, Jeff's principle is:

Jeff wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:39pm:
Learning that our government is violating our rights and publicizing that truth is a good thing from the perspective of individual liberty. How could it not be?


So I am going to want to know the limits of that principle.

I am going to ask him what he would do if this same knowledge was locked up in a tamper-proof strychnine capsule in a baby's heart. Is obtaining the information, even at the cost of aggressing, really such a good thing?

Then, if he's Kaz, he's going to pitch a shit fit and scream about me going to extremes.

Damn right I'm going to extremes because I am proving that he does not hold that principle for all situations.

Now he needs something other than that principle to prove that in this instance, committing aggression to achieve the desired result, is justified, because a principle that does not always apply does not prove this by itself.
  

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: 49677
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #28 - Apr 21st, 2019 at 1:10pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 21st, 2019 at 11:19am:
I am going to ask him what he would do if this same knowledge was locked up in a tamper-proof strychnine capsule in a baby's heart. Is obtaining the information, even at the cost of aggressing, really such a good thing?

If pigs start to lay eggs, will they be chickens?

If the government is discovered to be breaking the law, is it aggression to publicize that fact?

If you see your employee murder someone, should you report the crime, or would that be aggression because it would result in their arrest?

The principle is to not initiate aggression.

Revealing a crime is most certainly not the initiation of aggression and can be plausibly held to be self defense. The people of American are protected against the lawless actions of our government by revealing the lawbreaking. It would be aiding and abetting the crime to not reveal it.

It's only a shame that the individuals responsible for illegally spying on us have not been held accountable.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2034
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Associated Press
Reply #29 - Apr 21st, 2019 at 4:05pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 21st, 2019 at 1:10pm:
The people of American are protected against the lawless actions of our government by revealing the lawbreaking. It would be aiding and abetting the crime to not reveal it.


Good points.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Associated Press
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy