This guy is amazing!
Do I have the right to forcefully take my neighbor's property? No. Does the government have the right to do it? Yes. How? It was delegated the right by the people. But if the people didn't have the right in the first place, how could they delegate it?
Mix this in with some Bastiat, and I think this is one of the strongest weapons I have ever seen!
The relevant Basiat is this:
If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
I'm falling in love with libertarianism again.
You mean you were already being unfaithful to it?
wow...that was pretty good.
that crazy haired dude is calm and cool and super tack sharp on his logic.
do the people have the right to use force to steal from other people?
no
ok...how can you delegate a right you do not have?
blah blah blah...government...constitution
how can the principal (people) have less rights than the agent (government)?
although...someone is going to say...."we determine our rights"....we create our rights by creating rules and laws that are agreed upon
then a mises dude will say something about natural rights....at which time I won't know what the mises dude is talking about...
The problems in the Establishment narrative are so glaringly obvious, even very young children can see right through it. Inouye exhibits the very characteristics that are required to keep it up - circular reasoning, tortured definitions, "rephrasing", and finally a withdrawal into a kind of private, religious conviction: "we just disagree." Inouye is clearly not used to this kind of challenge so he's fairly inarticulate in his rebuttals. A sociologist or poli-sci or liberal economist from one fo the big name universities could have mounted a much more rigorous exhibition of circularity, definition torture and invocation of religious awe towards "democracy" or whatever in defense of statism. But it would still be the same basic crap.
Clayton -
limitgov:although...someone is going to say...."we determine our rights"....we create our rights by creating rules and laws that are agreed upon
The thing is, how many people have actually agreed to give up any rights that they think they already had? (Of course, the key is to bring people up so that they only think they have certain rights, if any at all. Then they won't protest as much.)
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I can't watch the video as my sound isn't working. However if the "argument" is this:
That's no rebuttal - it's an appeal.
In so much as you agree that there is a government (and I do), and it does take your money - there is your answer. The proof is in puddin'
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
How is it not a rebuttal?
Because the relevant body that does it, and the relevent jurists who inerpret the law are still doing the action in question.
Moreover, the person isn't even adressing relevant jurists he's just stating stuff. The only thing he can hope to do is incite a riot.
What does "rebuttal" mean to you?
look it up, pick a definition - and that's what it means to me.
vive la insurrection:look it up
No, I'm going to repeat my question. What does "rebuttal" mean to you?
vive la insurrection:pick a definition - and that's what it means to me.
Nonsense, you already had a definition in mind when you first posted. So what definition was that?
I just gave you a definition. If it's not good enough, I am unintelligible and there is absolutely no point in carrying this conversation further.
To restate the definition:
look it up, pick a definition - and that's what it means to me. In other words whatever Auto wants.
And no I didn't have a specific definition in mind. It was an "intuitive" remark without much thought - as I just typed the word "remark" and "thought" with "nothing in mind.
EDIT
vive la insurrection:I just gave you a definition. If it's not good enough, I am unintelligible and there is absolutely no point in carrying this conversation further
Where did you just give me a definition? I don't see one anywhere.
vive la insurrection:To restate the definition: look it up, pick a definition - and that's what it means to me. In other words whatever Auto wants.
I'm now calling you a liar. It completely beggars belief IMHO that you didn't have a definition of "rebuttal" in mind when you first asserted that the response to Daniel Inouye wasn't a rebuttal.
sorry see, the edit
This video is a lot better than his other (much more widely watched) video with Harry Ried. I'm not sure if you've seen it, but it is the perfect example of the great libertarian non-sequitor that bothers me so much:
[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg]
Well, Mr. Libertarian who is interviewing Harry Ried, isn't paying your rent inherently forceful? What happens if you don't pay your rent?? That's right, someone comes with a GUN and puts it in your FACE!!
Not to say Ried has such a great argument, either :P. "Taxes are voluntary because there are deductions..." Got it, Senator!
that you didn't have a definition of "rebuttal" in mind when you
I can tell you one thing for sure:
I was not expecting or thinking about quibbling over the word "rebuttle" - and when someone wants to do such a thing it seems to derail any type of statement I was trying to make.
So in a sense the word "rebuttle": part of the "definition" would be implied not to atomize that word, and just move on with the general picture trying to be created I guess.
As for the lying and dissapointing you about the level of certainty I tend not to care about with using words, I'll try not to loose sleep over it.
vive la insurrection:I was not expecting or thinking about quibbling over the word "rebuttle" - and when someone wants to do such a thing it seems to derail any type of statement I was trying to make.
I initially asked you what "rebuttal" means to you (i.e. the definition of the word that you're using) because for you to say that it wasn't a rebuttal seemed ridiculous to me, so clearly the word "rebuttal" means very different things to each of us, and I wanted to find out what it means to you.
vive la insurrection:So in a sense the word "rebuttle": part of the "definition" would be implied not to atomize that word, and just move on with the general picture trying to be created I guess.
Well if you ask me, the general picture you seem to be trying to create is a very authoritarian one. That seems strange coming from a self-professed libertarian, so I was trying to reconcile things.
vive la insurrection:As for the lying and dissapointing you about the level of certainty I tend not to care about with using words, I'll try not to loose sleep over it.
Uh-huh.
vive la insurrection: In so much as you agree that there is a government (and I do), and it does take your money - there is your answer. The proof is in puddin'
That's not the point of the argument. It's not denying that governments can take your money, or that its agents make laws saying they can take your money. The point of the OP was to demonstrate that there is a certain argument that is logically inconsistent.
That is all.
QC - again with the taxation v rent? We already made it clear that it's about legitimate land ownership or not.
vive la insurrection: look it up, pick a definition - and that's what it means to me.
Thank you, Vive. Finally someone called Auto out on his little definition game. I suggest he ought to reference the Oxford Dictionary before responding with a post like, "How do you define..." It would save a few of us the headache of playing along, I presume.
Some day you will realize how foolish you sound.
gotlucky: Some day you will realize how foolish you sound.
? Is this geared toward me and my comment to Vive about Auto? Seriously? On this site, some people really have a difficult time comprehending why it gets annoying when someone's reply is always "How do you define..." Just take it as it is man, just saying. Lots of sensitive people today eh? Listen to this and relax a bit. It's an opinion, get over it!
You do realize that words often have multiple meanings? Considering that rebuttal typically means "The act of refuting something by making a contrary argument, or presenting contrary evidence", vive was implying that the argument presented did not actually refute by etc. If you watched the video or even read the argument, you would see that this is a false claim.
So, instead of Autolykos saying, "Hey, man, you are wrong!", he said, "Hey, man, what did you mean by what you said?".
It's a far more charitable response, even if you don't think so.
EDIT: It's also a real pain in the ass to have a huge debate with someone, only to realize that you have both been talking past each other because you were using the same word in different ways. Two of the most common words this happens with regarding libertarians are "anarchist" and "aggression". So, yeah, it's pretty foolish to demean defining words by calling it a game.
@Wheylous
I know, but that wasn't the libertarian guy's argument in the video of his interview with Harry Ried. Hence, the video in the OP is much better than that one. It's too bad the better video has <10,000 views and the Ried video has >2,000,000.
The Bastiat argument is better than the "Dontcha hate it when you got a gun in your face" thing. To apply Bastiat's point to landlords, it would be like the landlord of another apartment building wants to charge you rent. What gives this other landlord the right...'sides nothin. It's an excellent point.
so government can't tax because individuals can't tax
government can charge rent because individuals can charge rent.
government can has licence charges for use of government owned property as individuals can have licence charges for individual owned property.
a individual can own property, so a government can own property delegated to it by individuals and the power to gain more property through delegated individual rights.
cab21.
1) Yes
2) If the government has acquired the land legitimately, sure
3) I don't quite understand
4) Sort of. The problem with this is that you cannot sell yourself into voluntary slavery - you can only transfer property.
Typically, you voluntarily sign a lease/mortgage and agree to those terms. When you don't pay, the terms of the contract are effected.
I never signed a contract to be taxed.
Fkin' governments, how do they work?
1. The people
2. The government.
3. ??? (The Constitution)
4. PROFIT!
More or less.
it is actually a rebuttal, because under democratic theory - in fact under most consent theories - the government is delegated rights, which it is meant to protect. This is certainly the case with the theory behind the US government. Therefore, if government, being constituted is by humans, has the authority to deal with things those individuals do not, on an individual basis, have the authority to delegate to it, where does it derive it from?
The burden of proof is on the advocate for government, and given the assumptions I just outlined, they have a rather tough case to make.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
thetabularasa:Thank you, Vive. Finally someone called Auto out on his little definition game. I suggest he ought to reference the Oxford Dictionary before responding with a post like, "How do you define..." It would save a few of us the headache of playing along, I presume.
And just what effect do you expect this "calling out" to have? Please go right ahead and enlighten me.
vive la insurrection: That's no rebuttal - it's an appeal.
Have you heard of such a thing called a Double Standard? Are you aware that it is a logical fallacy? Do you not think that logic can be used to refute an argument?
He just kept repeating himself about "if the poeple authorize the government, blah blah blah." That's not an argument.
Wheylous: Do I have the right to forcefully take my neighbor's property? No. Does the government have the right to do it? Yes. How? It was delegated the right by the people. But if the people didn't have the right in the first place, how could they delegate it? Mix this in with some Bastiat, and I think this is one of the strongest weapons I have ever seen!
I think an important detail here is that the people before and after the delegation are different social actors. Before they were individuals within a state of nature and after they are citizens (Hobbes, Rousseau) or members of civil society (Locke). These different identities have different rights and obligations.
Aside: I'm not a proponent of state of nature theory but this is an aspect of the narrative that that seems to be overlooked here.
Ask him if parents have the right to sign a contract that their children and children's children should be forced to also abide by.
Ah, but the children can always leave! Playing the devil's statist's advocate, mostly.
Wheylous:This guy is amazing! Do I have the right to forcefully take my neighbor's property? No. Does the government have the right to do it? Yes. How? It was delegated the right by the people. But if the people didn't have the right in the first place, how could they delegate it? Mix this in with some Bastiat, and I think this is one of the strongest weapons I have ever seen!
Too bad the interviewer believes in having taxation.
National Acrobat:I think an important detail here is that the people before and after the delegation are different social actors. Before they were individuals within a state of nature and after they are citizens (Hobbes, Rousseau) or members of civil society (Locke). These different identities have different rights and obligations. Aside: I'm not a proponent of state of nature theory but this is an aspect of the narrative that that seems to be overlooked here.
I don't see how that necessarily follows from the notion of delegation. Perhaps you'd like to (try to) prove otherwise.
Autolykos: thetabularasa:Thank you, Vive. Finally someone called Auto out on his little definition game. I suggest he ought to reference the Oxford Dictionary before responding with a post like, "How do you define..." It would save a few of us the headache of playing along, I presume. And just what effect do you expect this "calling out" to have? Please go right ahead and enlighten me.
I've never seen someone so unable to take criticism, especially over the Internet. I can't imagine how you handle it in real life. I made one brief comment in the RANT/VENT forum (hence, the title) about how I find your insistent badgering about people defining this or that, and you can't let it go. Others even "call you out" (as you put it) on it, yet you persist. Please stop, man. I'm through with this. If you insist on being such a forum Nazi when people disagree with you or refuse to play your little definition game, I will persist in responding with an appropriate picture that captures the essence of your online persona in some way. Otherwise, for the record, I will politely ask that you please stop trying to entice me to converse with you unless I first initiate the conversation by directly addressing you. I'm here to learn more about economics, trade theories with others on here and enjoy my experience while doing it. If I actually ranted/vented in the RANT/VENT forum, forgive me for hurting your Web ego; apparently you have trouble letting things go, but if not for me, please, for those actually paying attention to this pointless back-and-forth, let it go buddy.