Malachi:treat X as a crime, and private police would respond
Huge cringe and simultaneous shudder. The slogan could be something like: "Aggression, it's wrong except when it's libertarian!"
Libertarian aggression is only justified in self defense.
In which case you are paying police to defend you.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
In a free society, since people are extremely concerned for their safety, from that concern would naturally sprout a volunteer police force, and other for-profit security militias. Plus, there would be no restrictions on the gun market, and so everyone would be able to carry a weapon (you'd have to be fucked out of your mind to try to mug somebody or break into the home of someone who most likely owns an automatic weapon)
Yep.
What the heck happened to the ROTHABRD IS INSANE! thread? By luminar? I dont see it on the list....
It's in the Deleted Threads zone. Go figure.
Just the realization I'm coming to that libertarians are manifestly violently aggressive, equally as much as statists. They are perfectly OK with aggression as long as it's used to enforce libertarian morals instead of some other system of ethics. It's just a violently enforced system of ethics, which I'm starting to think is mad no matter who's morals are enforced at the point of a gun.
Why would it be deleted? It was a great discussion.
Who knows. But how do you define discussion? Seemed to me like the OP was venting because libertarianism had pooped in his cereal this morning, or something. I don't know. He posted aggressively, and people responded aggressively.
Just the realization I'm coming to that libertarians are manifestly violently aggressive, equally as much as statists. They are perfectly OK with aggression as long as it's used to enforce libertarian morals instead of some other system of ethics.
It's just a violently enforced system of ethics, which I'm starting to think is mad no matter who's morals are enforced at the point of a gun.
If the guy would have posed the quotes from Rothbard's writings as inquries about why he would write such a thing, then I don't think there would have been such an outburst. But he was practically welcoming a flamewar when he titles his thread ROTHBARD IS INSANE!!!
"Huge cringe and simultaneous shudder. The slogan could be something like: 'Aggression, it's wrong except when it's libertarian!'"
"Just the realization I'm coming to that libertarians are manifestly violently aggressive, equally as much as statists. They are perfectly OK with aggression as long as it's used to enforce libertarian morals instead of some other system of ethics. It's just a violently enforced system of ethics, which I'm starting to think is mad no matter who's morals are enforced at the point of a gun."
Hashem,
You realize that this is inherent in any system which does not entirely reject the idea of violence right? By definition you accept violence whenever you accept violence, whenever it favors what you believe. I don't know exactly what you're expecting.
@ Malachi,
Aggression may be separated into two categories, initial and retaliatory. The term "defensive" is unclear to me, perhaps you can clarify it? Libertarians support aggression, they are NOT non-aggressive. They just want to use aggression to enforce their view of how things should be. But they must confront the fact/value dichotomy, aka the is/ought dichotomy. Even Rothbard recognized this in The Ethics of Liberty, and he didn't solve it there.
I agree with you that dominance hierarchies are part of the human psyche, but I don't know what you mean when you say "the task of these realms".
Pacifism? So if a bunch of guys are beating me up I don't have the right to fight back?
Pacifism sounds good, but self-defense is always necessary.
@ Neodoxy,
Maybe you made a point and I'm sorry for failing to catch it. I don't support violence against people who don't want it.
So if a bunch of guys are beating me up I don't have the right to fight back?
Fight back if you want to. Fight back BECAUSE you want to. There is no other reason. But don't invoke mystical "rights". You don't have a right to anything except when other people agree to support it.
"Pacifism? So if a bunch of guys are beating me up I don't have the right to fight back?
Pacifism sounds good, but self-defense is always necessary."
Yes and yes.
There are varying degrees of pacifism. Libertarians can, strictly speaking, be either entirely pacifistic or not pacifist at all, although historically it has never been that big an issue or influence on the ideology.
But don't invoke mystical "rights". You don't have a right to anything except when other people agree to support it.
You're talking about democracy now. When you say "you don't have a right to anything except when other people agree to support it," that's like saying people who gang rape a woman have the right to because others agreed to support it. Gang rape, at it's core, is democracy in action.
the problem is that violence against people is so much fun that its hard to pass up an opportunity to do it to someone who clearly deserves it, i.e. a known asshole, the guy who is attacking you right now. Once the chemical cocktail hits (in like a quarter of a second) and the righteous anger reaches the baseball bat, its all over.
Are you saying that you misunderstand me?
Are you saying that you oppose violence under all circumstances?
@ SkepticalMetal
The concept of rights is a social construct, it's meaningless in a Crusoe scenario. They're subjective, so you have a right from the perspective of yourself and people who support it. You don't have a right from the perspective of people who are indifferent, or who deny it.
@ Malachi
If someone's assaulting you, then fight back if you want to, or run away if you want to. But the reason 'because you want to' is a much better reason from my perspective than the reason 'because others agree'.
@ Neodoxy
What I meant was that I'm unsure what point you were making or how it was relevant (and I'm being literal, not trying to be rude or anything). But I thought you said I accept violence, which I don't when someone doesn't want it to be used against them.
But I probably was too quick to say that. Really, what I mean is that the only reason to support violence is when your brain comes to the conclusion that it should be supported. Violence isn't a valid 'should' just because other people support it.
Sounds like libertarian socialism to me.
The fundamental nature of the concept of rights "sounds like libertarian socialism"? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you...
@ Hashem
I believe we're actually kind of talking about the same thing but coming from two totally different directions, although I misunderstood you at first. What I was saying is that it's foolish to criticize libertarians for criticizing violence except when it was libertarian because libertarians necessarily support violence under circumstances which are "libertarian", and a statist supports violence in those situations which they believe to be worthy of inciting violence. This is by nature true for the reasons that you point out. Therefore I don't understand why you are criticizing libertarians when they are doing anything except that which they must, by their nature as human beings do; advocate a certain form of action under the circumstances they believe that it is justified.
So please explain why you are criticizing libertarians for advocating violence when you yourself say (rightly) that wanting violence to occur is reason enough for violence to be incited. If I am misunderstanding you then please correct me.
Ok fair enough, and that's making sense and I tend to agree.
Neodoxy:So please explain why you are criticizing libertarians for advocating violence when you yourself say (rightly) that wanting violence to occur is reason enough for violence to be incited.
Because libertarians say violence should be used because their morals should be valued—the violence should even be used against people who don't value their morals. Even Rothbard acknowledged the fact/value dichotomy presents an obstruction, and he didn't overcome it. I'm not saying 'violence should be used because my values should be valued by others', but rather that the reason to use violence is when the subject himself feels compelled to regardless of what others value—and that others shouldn't have to have the same values as the subject.
I agree wholly, but first of all why do you seem so revolted when libertarians pass judgment and what do you think the repercussions of this are? And I agree, is-ought kills all ethics from the getgo.
I revolt because it's so transparent when seen through consistency, but it had decieved me for so long. The reprecussions seem to be that libertarianism seeks to fasten a "new, moral" state on us, with "libertarian courts" and "private police" and the whole works. Specifically, I believe court processes are vulnerable to corruption. We've all seen enough "what would libertarian courts/police do in X situation" to realize that none of us agree on what should be done. And if libertarians can't even agree, then based on what should anyone make such ultimate calls? I'm not comfortable passing violent judgment on people—except when I'm the victim, and rarely then, and that's my point.
There's no saying anarchism should be achieved. If it isn't achieved, there are very real, natural, historical, definite reasons why it isn't. And none of us has objective reason to defy mother nature and impose libertarianism on a world which doesn't want it. Otherwise, I think if we worry about ourselves more and others less, and have empathy and build strong, positive relationships then liberty is the natural tendency anyway, without the need for threats of hell or courts.
I feel like you're overreacting against anarcho-capitalism now that you've learned it's not the be all end all of ideologies.
There are still reasons for anarchism, plenty of them. I also don't understand why, if you understand value is entirely subjective, that you have a hard time passing judgment upon others.
I accept that people aren't objectively justified in using violence, that even in the most defensible circumstance—self defense—the only justification is still subjective.
There are still reasons for anarchism, plenty of them.
Objective, or subjective reasons?
I also don't understand why, if you understand value is entirely subjective, that you have a hard time passing judgment upon others.
Because I understand that people act based on their circumstances. An aggressive person is aggressive because he was raised bad; I feel bad for him no less than I feel bad for his victims. I can't find objective justification for using force against him, but it doesn't seem to contradict any beliefs I hold to ostracize him. ***Whether the victim feels compelled to use force is a different issue entirely, and whether society accepts a given amount of retaliation is also another issue.
I wrote a really eloquent response and then it got deleted. Awesome. Here's the short version
1. Read Nietzsche if you have not done so already
2. You are limiting yourself because you have lost the illusion of objective value, yet you yourself are a function and evaluating human being. It is within your power and capability to determine based upon your own judgment what is good and evil within your own world. Do not chain yourself by saying that "because there is no objective value, I can pass no judgment", for the death of inherent value is freedom and it is exactly what gives you the power to judge the situation. In the case you outlined, even if you empathize with the aggressor, do you not also empathize with the victim? What of the societal consequences, and the sort of attitude within your own life that your judgment of abstinence has incurred?
It is precisely because of the lack of a real ethic that man is free, a moral free agent, what is your morality? What do you accept as good and evil? And what sort of world do you want to see?
Ctrl + C, man. The Mises Forums user's best friend.
Will have to respond later.
What does Ctrl + C do?
copy/paste
Only skimmed this, so...
1. Read the Private Production of Defense by Hoppe.
2. I seriously hope these theoretical places aren't called Ancapiland or Libertopia if they do ever form, because I just won't go there.