If libertarians are non aggressionists, why do minarchists call themselves libertarians? Their minimum state must be theft based!
They aren't libertarians. They loosely take libertarian to mean the maintenance of personal liberty via courts, police and army through a monopoly.
You have spotted the fallacy to it. In order to have liberty, you can't be beholden to a monopoly rights provider and under a social contract you did not agree to.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
alimentarius: If libertarians are non aggressionists, why do minarchists call themselves libertarians? Their minimum state must be theft based!
For some reason, it is just really difficult for us humans to admit reality. For some, it is more difficult than for others.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
liberty student: They aren't libertarians. They loosely take libertarian to mean the maintenance of personal liberty via courts, police and army through a monopoly.
Some people cannot accept the arguments for private courts, I wouldnt use that as a reason to push them out of the tent. I dont know if I can blame them, since no one seems to agree here on much of anything related to private courts. I've seen some wild theories thrown around - such as restitution for all crimes (including murder and rape).
sicsempertyrannis:I've seen some wild theories thrown around - such as restitution for all crimes (including murder and rape).
How is that wild?
Justice is in the eye of the victim, not in disinterested 3rd parties with weak stomachs.
sicsempertyrannis:Some people cannot accept the arguments for private courts, I wouldnt use that as a reason to push them out of the tent. I dont know if I can blame them, since no one seems to agree here on much of anything related to private courts. I've seen some wild theories thrown around - such as restitution for all crimes (including murder and rape).
Because its a much bigger concept than the concept of private courts. To believe in public courts over private means that one believes, on some level, that it is acceptable to take money from others, with or without their consent.
It doesn't mean we can't co-operate with them, so long as our principles are not compromised, I don't think anyone would suggest that.
liberty student:Justice is in the eye of the victim, not in disinterested 3rd parties with weak stomachs.
Justice is preserving social cooperation.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Juan:false.
True, the only yardstick of justice is the health of social cooperation.
laminustacitus:True, the only yardstick of justice is the health of social cooperation.
Is social cooperation possible without justice?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
liberty student: sicsempertyrannis:I've seen some wild theories thrown around - such as restitution for all crimes (including murder and rape). How is that wild? Justice is in the eye of the victim, not in disinterested 3rd parties with weak stomachs.
No I meant financial compensation for all crimes - a theory I've seen floating here a few times.
sicsempertyrannis:No I meant financial compensation for all crimes - a theory I've seen floating here a few times.
Well, I actually favour that. It's up to the victim though.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:True, the only yardstick of justice is the health of social cooperation. Is social cooperation possible without justice?
The sentence does not make sense for justice is the cultivation of social interactions.
laminustacitus:The sentence does not make sense for justice is the cultivation of social interactions.
So I am engaging in justice by talking to you? This is a social interaction isn't it?
OK, this has taken some time, but I think I can finally declare myself a libertarian (i. e. ancap). Even if I still get questions from critics that I have a hard time answering.
Dating back to an earlier period than their names, the two political parties at first stood respectively for two opposed types of social organization, broadly distinguishable as the militant and the industrial — types which are characterized, the one by the regime of status, almost universal in ancient days, and the other by the regime of contract, which has become general in modern days, chiefly among the Western nations, and especially among ourselves and the Americans. If, instead of using the word "co-operation" in a limited sense, we use it in its widest sense, as signifying the combined activities of citizens under whatever system of regulation; then these two are definable as the system of compulsory co-operation and the system of voluntary co-operation. The typical structure of the one we see in an army formed of conscripts, in which the units in their several grades have to fulfil commands under pain of death, and receive food and clothing and pay, arbitrarily apportioned; while the typical structure of the other we see in a body of producers or distributors, who severally agree to specified payments in return for specified services, and may at will, after due notice, leave the organization if they do not like it.
Seph:To believe in public courts over private means that one believes, on some level, that it is acceptable to take money from others, with or without their consent.
What if the public courts are funded on a voluntary basis?
OK, this has taken some time, but I think I can finally declare myself a libertarian (i. e. ancap).
Thanks! How many are we, on world base?
alimentarius:What if the public courts are funded on a voluntary basis?
whats public about them?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
alimentarius: Seph:To believe in public courts over private means that one believes, on some level, that it is acceptable to take money from others, with or without their consent. What if the public courts are funded on a voluntary basis?
That's an oxymoron
Doctor Ron Paul is not an-cap is he?, can he still call himself a libertarian?
alimentarius: why do minarchists call themselves libertarians?
Because the dictionary allows it, much to the discontent of those who pretend to have the powers to freely define words.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
nirgrahamUK: alimentarius:What if the public courts are funded on a voluntary basis? whats public about them?
The monopoly.
laminustacitus:Justice is preserving social cooperation.
Poptech: alimentarius: why do minarchists call themselves libertarians? Then taxation isn't theft, because the dictionary doesn't allow it? Because the dictionary allows it, much to the discontent of those who pretend to have the powers to freely define words.
Then taxation isn't theft, because the dictionary doesn't allow it?
Felipe: Doctor Ron Paul is not an-cap is he?, can he still call himself a libertarian?
He's not publicly, nor should he be. Ancap - that is.
And yes he can. What else would he be? A Republican? Ha!
Juan:Thanks! How many are we, on world base? Well, maybe a thousand people ? Make it two thousand ? =P
Pffft! Way more than that...! Ron Paul votes in the US presidential campaign in total were around 2 million and that's just the United States. World wide , this gives a bit of a figure. More folks are being pushed into the direction of Austrian Economics daily, and will naturally end up ancaps imo.
"What chiefly makes it so, I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade." - Albert Jay Nock
alimentarius: OK, this has taken some time, but I think I can finally declare myself a libertarian (i. e. ancap). Even if I still get questions from critics that I have a hard time answering.
Wooohhooooo!!!!!! Btw, I apologize for insulting you so many times.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Ideologically, I would say there are maybe 10,000 ancaps. People who try to walk the walk, is probably closer to 2,000.
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:Justice is preserving social cooperation.False. Justice is meting out the earned.
So, one kind taking 99% of the resources for himself, and leaving the other 1% to everyone else is just for the sole reason that it involved "meting out the earned"? Your concept of justice is far too vague.
Poptech:Because the dictionary allows it, much to the discontent of those who pretend to have the powers to freely define words.
I can almost see you pout when you post. lol
Anyway, you're making progress, and for that, I am happy.
Conza88:He's not publicly, nor should he be.
Why not?
liberty student:I can almost see you pout when you post. lol
I actually never pout. I was smirking when I wrote that.
alimentarius: nirgrahamUK: alimentarius:What if the public courts are funded on a voluntary basis? whats public about them? The monopoly.
Which is why the Randian State is still coercive in nature.
Justice 2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice. 3. the moral principle determining just conduct. 4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward. 6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
Justice
2.
rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3.
the moral principle determining just conduct.
4.
conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5.
the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6.
the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
Neither view is false. There is one’s personal sense of justice as well as how one acts within the larger framework of people that have rules and customs in place.
3 Examples:
-We have a Pinochle game and set the rules for “no cheating” and define what cheating is. Anyone caught has agreed to forfeit their game, or points, etc. I play the game because I prefer playing games with no cheating.
- I have a business and I set the rules for “be polite and courteous in front of customers, do not steal, work when scheduled, etc” or else your job will be terminated if you do not comply.
- I see a government agent trying to legally seize my property for tax evasion and I resist, sticking with my personal sense of justice but not the justice of the authority of the government.
Whether one agrees to enter an environment where there are laws in place, or whether one is forced into said environment makes no difference; so long as you comply within the rules of the group that has their justice/laws/customs in place, you are serving their sense of justice. If you do not comply to any group, philosophical, or individual’s sense of justice and act according to your own will, you are operating within your sense of justice.
I think the argument of whether justice is something that is for social cooperation, to protect the individual, or any other definition or concept of what one has of justice is secondary. What should be of primary concern is the concepts, science, and philosophies of the way people tend to act in variously structured environments.