Culture and Polylogism

I'm using the plain text editor - that's what triggers the formating problem - but it's caused by a bug in the forum's software.

When I write my posts they look OK in the editor window - hitting enter does create line breaks as it should, so the text is not just one big paragraph. The formating is correctly saved too - I know because when clicking the "edit" link in older posts of mine they show up as they should - line breaks are preserved.

Now, if I click the "reply" link on my own posts, I see what LibertyStudent is seeing - all the line breaks are missing and all sentences get crammed into just one paragraph. So...the reply function doesn't work as it should if the posts have been written as plain text (Site Options / Content Editor / Plain Text)

LS:

J:

The market is the network of voluntary exchanges. Force is excluded by definition.

Only among the people who agree not to use force.

Look, the system known as "free market" has an objective definition. The definition has nothing to do with the possible actions of some individuals (aka criminals)

In a free society coercion is banned and in practice minimized. If a free society is taken over by people who use coercion, it ceases to be a free society - by definition. This shouldn't be too hard to grasp...

LS:

J:

Your definition, which you seem to have borrowed from Byzantine, is wrong.

Assertion or argument?

I just provided the argument - twice. Libertarians oppose theft. They don't care if the thieves are gangsters who use masks or cops who wear uniforms. From the libertarian point of view both are the very same kind of criminal. Libertarians want to get rid of thieves, and the state happens to be the biggest thief of all - so libertarians advocate the abolition of the state. If the state (coercive rule) is abolished, we get 'anarchy'. If somehow a government is imposed again then anarchy ceases to exist.

Anarchy doesn't mean that everybody is 'free' to enslave his neighbor. It means the opposite. Nobody is allowed to enslave his neighbor. An-archos = no ruler = no enslavement

Your definition seems to be different. According to you anarchy means "everybody is 'free' to do anything, including setting up a government" - but that's nonsense. Under that definition, anything that happens is 'anarchy' - so the word as you and Byzantine use it is meaningless. According to you :

free market = anarchy.
former free market now ruled by the state = anarchy as well.
former free market ruled by several mafias = anarchy too.
So..."war is peace".

Well, in the west, the state is not very violent,

You mean, consistently refusing to pay even a traffic ticket will not get you killed ? I think it will...

People in the west don't know what living under violence, whether it is night time raids on your house by soldiers,

That's right. In your parallel universe there never was any world war.

LS:

J:

How do you know ? Oh I see. You're a conservative after all.

Ad Hom? Weak stuff Juan.

It's not and ad-hominem - just a description. You're sounding like a typical conservative who believe that freedom can never be achieved. Why ? Because of misrepresented 'human nature' ? Original sin ?

I don't know, but if you have more people able to protect themselves with violence, you might see more violence.

Which is the typical hobessian (conservative) argument. The 'natural' state of society is a war of all against all. Well IF that was true, then libertarianism is hopeless.

Nonsense. Your conservative 'argument' against liberty is to brand it as 'utopian'. So liberty is not possible because it's utopian. Oh, and it's utopian because it's not possible.

Juan:

In a free society coercion is banned and in practice minimized. If a free society is taken over by people who use coercion, it ceases to be a free society - by definition. This shouldn't be too hard to grasp...

Banned by whom?  Who has the authority to ban anything?

Juan:

I just provided the argument - twice. Libertarians oppose theft. They don't care if the thieves are gangsters who use masks or cops who wear uniforms. From the libertarian point of view both are the very same kind of criminal. Libertarians want to get rid of thieves, and the state happens to be the biggest thief of all - so libertarians advocate the abolition of the state. If the state (coercive rule) is abolished, we get 'anarchy'. If somehow a government is imposed again then anarchy ceases to exist.

Right, but I don't believe that people will not create new social orders voluntarily, do you?  Remember, most of the state apparati today started much smaller, much more innocently, and with the notion of delegated rights that could be taken back on demand.

Let's say the government collapsed this morning.  A bunch of left liberals decide they will establish a new state, with centrally planned health care, trade and education.  They want to promote affirmative action, and they agree that businesses are public places, and should fall under the regulation of democratically elected leaders.

Now this is all done voluntarily.  All of the shop keepers, consumers, people in this area and with this philosophy agree to this state appartus of their own free will.  Isn't that a free market product borne out of anarchy?

I think your perspective hinges upon everyone having a Libertarian perspective, or wanting to follow the NAP.  I don't think that is very rational.  There is a very good chance that at least pockets, if not the majority of humanity won't be steeped in the philosophy of liberty, nor immediately in the wake of a collapse of the state, to accept personal responsibility without a paternal influence guiding all the portions of their lives they have never bothered to consider before.

Juan:

Your definition seems to be different. According to you anarchy means "everybody is 'free' to do anything, including setting up a government" - but that's nonsense. Under that definition, anything that happens is 'anarchy' - so the word as you and Byzantine use it is meaningless. According to you :

free market = anarchy.
former free market now ruled by the state = anarchy as well.

former free market ruled by several mafias = anarchy too.
So..."war is peace".

According to me?  I think the definition of freedom is pretty obvious.  You must be some sort of statist if you believe that there will be freedom but with regulations, rules, limits etc.

Juan:

You mean, consistently refusing to pay even a traffic ticket will not get you killed ? I think it will...

And that is why you choose to stay under the umbrella of a state.  Because you fear violent reprisal for the most ridiculous things.

Juan:

It's not and ad-hominem - just a description. You're sounding like a typical conservative who believe that freedom can never be achieved. Why ? Because of misrepresented 'human nature' ? Original sin ?

More Ad Hom and strawmen.

Juan:

Which is the typical hobessian (conservative) argument. The 'natural' state of society is a war of all against all. Well IF that was true, then libertarianism is hopeless.

That's another straw man.  I'm not saying that the natural state is violence, I'm just not buying your notion that all violence and voluntary association and group contracts will not exist.

Byzantine:

If you are worried about what might happen after the central state's monopoly on violence is broken, then you need to work to strengthen the central state.

No I don't because I don't subscribe to your wrong anarcho-conservative 'theory' - I provided some objections to it somewhere else but you just choose to ignore them.

LibertyStudent:

A bunch of left liberals decide they will establish a new state, with centrally planned health care, trade and education. They want to promote affirmative action, and they agree that businesses are public places, and should fall under the regulation of democratically elected leaders.

Now this is all done voluntarily.

Come on. That can't be done voluntarily. That's exactly why it's being done now at the point of gun. So, you've come up with a 'thought' experiment that actually proves my point.

According to me? I think the definition of freedom is pretty obvious.

So, you are saying that 'freedom' means you're free to do whatever you please, including robbing and killing ?

You must be some sort of statist if you believe that there will be freedom but with regulations, rules, limits etc.

You've gone from Paul-supporting-statism to nihilism ? Cool.

That's another straw man. I'm not saying that the natural state is violence, I'm just not buying your notion that all violence and voluntary association and group contracts will not exist.

Yours is the strawman. Please re-read what I wrote with respect to what constitutes a free society. There's no point in my repeating things you seem to be ignoring on purpose.

Juan:

Come on. That can't be done voluntarily. That's exactly why it's being done now at the point of gun. So, you've come up with a 'thought' experiment that actually proves my point.

Right.  What is wrong now, is that it is done with coercion.  But if a bunch of communists want to VOLUNTARILY establish a commune where guns are banned, church is banned and elections are held, how can you justify stopping their establishing such an institution of their own free will?

Juan:

So, you are saying that 'freedom' means you're free to do whatever you please, including robbing and killing ?

Who is going to stop you?  The answer is, there is no monopoly on violence.  So each can choose their own level of risk, and their own level of defense or resistance.  To imply that a post-state world will be without violence is pretty utopian if you ask me.

Juan:

Yours is the strawman. Please re-read what I wrote with respect to what constitutes a free society. There's no point in my repeating things you seem to be ignoring on purpose.

Ignoring what?  You seem to believe that in the absence of a rules maker, there will be universal rules.  This is totally untrue.  In the absence of a monocentric legal system, you will have polycentric legal systems, and there will be all sorts of shades and hues of social organization within that.  Some kooks might get together and create a society where people of race "X" are not welcome (voluntary association).  Some people might get together and create a society where theology is not welcome.  Some people might voluntarily agree to pay X% of their income into a mutual defense fund.  Some people may decide that working as a commune makes it difficult to precisely allocate property, so it is collective owned by the co-op, which in itself is a form of incorporation.

Sure things that are inefficient might die in the free market, but to say silly things like, "Freedom is this, this, this and this, with some of that, but none of the other." isn't freedom at all.  It's just your own vision for society, and I maintain that none of us can imagine what the free market will look like, because it will just be that new and amazing and unpredictable and spectacular and scary and wonderful and dangerous all at once.

But if a bunch of communists want to VOLUNTARILY establish a commune where guns are banned, church is banned and elections are held, how can you justify stopping their establishing such an institution of their own free will?

I can't justify stopping them and I didn't say I want to stop them. Voluntary socialism is theoretically possible within a free society. I really don't see why you bring this up.

What is not possible within a free society is coercive socialism - government, in a word. When I say "it's not possible" what I mean is not that there's a physical law preventing it, but that if coercion is used in a free society, then it can't be regarded as a free society anymore.

LS:

J:

So, you are saying that 'freedom' means you're free to do whatever you please, including robbing and killing ?

Who is going to stop you?

Can I have a straight answer ? Do you think that freedom means freedom to commit any crime ?

In the absence of a monocentric legal system, you will have polycentric legal systems

That's roughly what we have now. We are all 'free' to be tyrants and some people are.

Some kooks might get together and create a society where people of race "X" are not welcome (voluntary association).

So what happens to dissenters in that 'voluntary' association ?

Some people might get together and create a society where theology is not welcome

How's that done in practice ? Answer : It can't be done.

Some people might voluntarily agree to pay X% of their income into a mutual defense fund.

Great. So what ?

Freedom is this, this, this and this, with some of that, but none of the other."

Freedom is absence of coercion.

Your posts are getting scrunched again, and I feel like you are discussing just to argue.  The points you are making are either irrelevant or flawed.

Juan:

I can't justify stopping them and I didn't say I want to stop them. Voluntary socialism is theoretically possible within a free society. I really don't see why you bring this up.

Because it is the gist of the discussion.  For most people livingin the state, they gladly pay taxes because they feel they get a return on it.  They gladly send their sons overseas to murder foreigners, because they feel it makes them more safe.  They love getting stimulus checks because it's "free money".  There is a lot more ignorant voluntaryism, than principled but coerced compliance in this world.  It is a fine line between accepting coercion (in which case, it's hard to argue it is truly coercive) and voluntaryism.

Juan:

What is not possible within a free society is coercive socialism - government, in a word. When I say "it's not possible" what I mean is not that there's a physical law preventing it, but that if coercion is used in a free society, then it can't be regarded as a free society anymore.

Why not?  It might not start out that way, but as soon as there is a property dispute, if one group has more force than the courts or opposing party, then coercion will ensue.  Remember, these polycentric free market courts are only as good as the PDAs that execute their judgments.

Juan:

Can I have a straight answer ? Do you think that freedom means freedom to commit any crime ?

Morally, I oppose theft and violence.  Do I think freedom means freedom?  Yes.  That doesn't make crime right, but I think even under statism, people are reasonably free to murder, rape and steal.  They might get caught, there might be consequences, but this world where everyone loses their aggressiveness and violence never erupts seems very utopian to me.

Juan:

That's roughly what we have now. We are all 'free' to be tyrants and some people are.

I guess so.

Juan:

So what happens to dissenters in that 'voluntary' association ?

Well, it's voluntary, so there are no dissenters.  But let's advance 10 years into the Institution or Group's future.  Let's say that it only has 80% voluntary compliance, and 20% coerced compliance.  I suppose the 20% should leave, and if they cannot, then they will have to fight for their freedom.

Juan:

How's that done in practice ? Answer : It can't be done.

Sure it can.  Homeowners association with a council who votes on all sales transactions (membership transitions).  Coercive behavior by the other members of the association.  Ostracism.  It ain't going to be a world of ginger bread houses and candy cane slides my man!

Juan:

Freedom is absence of coercion.

Right, but freedom is not a permanent state.  It must be won and defended regularly.

The points you are making are either irrelevant or flawed.

Funny, that's exactly what I think about your points. You've not yet grasped what "free society" means.

For most people livingin the state, they gladly pay taxes because they feel they get a return on it.

I won't waste my time countering the ridiculous claim that the state is 'voluntary'...Besides the only people who pay taxes gladly are those who pay $2 and collect $20 in benefits. Say, subsidized farmers - or the parasites running the financial industry - that kind of people. The majority just foots the bills...at the point of a gun.

LS:

J:

if coercion is used in a free society, then it can't be regarded as a free society anymore.

Why not?

Because, by definition, a free society is a society in which coercion is not used. Here's an analogy for you ? If a car is painted red, sensible people refer to it as a red car. If the car is now painted blue, then it's called a blue car. If you call a blue car a red car, then you're wrong - and confused. Or trolling.

Morally, I oppose theft and violence. Do I think freedom means freedom? Yes.

Do you realize that you're not using the 'libertarian' definition of freedom ?

They might get caught, there might be consequences, but this world where everyone loses their aggressiveness and violence never erupts seems very utopian to me.

Of course. Because you are a conservative ? Oh sorry, you don't want to be called that ?

LS:

J:

That's roughly what we have now. We are all 'free' to be tyrants and some people are.

I guess so.

Well, so we live in an anarchist utopia...

Well, it's voluntary, so there are no dissenters. But let's advance 10 years into the Institution or Group's future. Let's say that it only has 80% voluntary compliance, and 20% coerced compliance. I suppose the 20% should leave,

Really ? Because in a free society racist nonsense can be enforced at the point of gun ? By a PDA ? You also subscribe to the 'libertarian' position : Canada love it or leave it ?

Homeowners association with a council who votes on all sales transactions (membership transitions). Coercive behavior by the other members of the association.

So, again, in your vision of a free society, people who don't believe nonsense can be attacked ? Maybe they should be burnt at the stake ? I suppose that the catholic church LLC. (PDA) well take care of that ?

LS:

J:

Freedom is absence of coercion.

Right, but freedom is not a permanent state.

How long freedom lasts is another issue. But at least you realize that freedom is the absence of coercion ? So, you see that a free society is not the same thing as anarcho-feudalism ?

Juan:

Funny, that's exactly what I think about your points. You've not yet grasped what "free society" means.

I could say the same thing about you.  You seem to believe that "free society" comes with your own moral preconditions and rules for everyone.

Juan:

I won't waste my time countering the ridiculous claim that the state is 'voluntary'...Besides the only people who pay taxes gladly are those who pay $2 and collect $20 in benefits. Say, subsidized farmers - or the parasites running the financial industry - that kind of people. The majority just foots the bills...at the point of a gun.

This gun nonsense is a little bit out of control.  Leave your house and talk to people.  They don't go through each day in fear or walk around thinking they are being oppressed.  It might be better if they did, but they don't.  Most of them have accepted that this is "the way of things".

Juan:

Because, by definition, a free society is a society in which coercion is not used. Here's an analogy for you ? If a car is painted red, sensible people refer to it as a red car. If the car is now painted blue, then it's called a blue car. If you call a blue car a red car, then you're wrong - and confused.

Let's cut to the chase here Juan.  Are you saying to me, that in a free society, violence will cease to exist?  That no one will try to use violence to seize or gain property?

Juan:

Do you realize that you're not using the 'libertarian' definition of freedom ?

The idea of freedom predates the idea of libertarianism.  I'm not interested in looking at the world through rose coloured glasses or a kaleideoscope.

Juan:

Of course. Because you are a conservative ? Oh sorry, you don't want to be called that ?

No, I don't want to be called that.  It is a juvenile Ad Hom from you because once again, you're unable to make a compelling argument.

Juan:

Well, so we live in an anarchist utopia...

Strawman.

In the beginning, there were no natural archys.  So from anarchy, this is the point we have evolved to.  Through religion, coercion, ostracism, war etc.  I don't like it, but I'm not going to cover my eyes and pretend it isn't there.

Juan:

Really ? Because in a free society racist nonsense can be enforced at the point of gun ? By a PDA ? You also subscribe to the 'libertarian' position : Canada love it or leave it ?

In a free society, I do believe people will enforce freedom of association with PDAs.  Yes. As far as the libertarian position about Canada, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Juan:

So, again, in your vision of a free society, people who don't believe nonsense can be attacked ? Maybe they should be burnt at the stake ? I suppose that the catholic church LLC. (PDA) well take care of that ?

It's not "my vision" and I do wish you would find a way to communicate without rhetorical devices like strawmen.  Your style of argumentation is very poor, and based on the bully model.

In a free society, if a bunch of people with a PDA and believe in religious nonsense, decide to go persecute some poor SOB down the road, a guy with a weak or no-PDA, who will stop them?  We're not talking about what is right.  We're talking about what can happen in a society where the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence, but not all groups or individuals have an equal capacity to defend themselves.

Juan:

How long freedom lasts is another issue.

Not at all.  What if the state collapses and there are new states the next day?  It is the issue, because you keep talking about anarchy like it is a perpetual state, when we don't know howlong anarchy could be maintained.  It might last years, or it might last 10 minutes.  Which goes back to my original point, that instead of projecting your desires and values on a "free society" perhaps you should accept that none of us, neither you nor I, are capable of perceiving exactly what it will be like.

Juan:

But at least you realize that freedom is the absence of coercion ?

Freedom is also the freedom to coerce.  That is why we put coercive criminals in jail, or exile them from our societies.  To prevent them from further coercing, we remove some of their freedom.

Juan:

So, you see that a free society is not the same thing as anarcho-feudalism ?

It never was, and that was never part of the discussion.  You're back to strawmen again.

 

Also, you keep scrunching up your posts.  I'm done with this conversation for now.  It's circular, and it's really become a drain on my productivity, addressing the same arguments, and breaking up posts by hand.

Freedom is also the freedom to coerce.  That is why we put coercive criminals in jail, or exile them from our societies.  To prevent them from further coercing, we remove some of their freedom.

Juan is correct that you're not using the libertarian meaning of freedom here. Coercion and political freedom are inherently opposing things. What you're really talking about is power, not liberty. Liberty involves a lack of coercion. It is entirely nonsensical to say that an action that inherently violates someone's liberty is an act of liberty. The fact that people may have the power to violate other people's rights does not mean that there is a "right" to do so. This is a matter of the fundamental meaning of principles. Rights-violating acts are not compatible with liberty by definition.

Brainpolice:

Juan is correct that you're not using the libertarian meaning of freedom here.

I don't care about the libertarian meaning of freedom, anymore than I care about the anti-capitalist definition of capitalism, or Juan's attempts to label me conservative, when he doesn't know me from his belly button.

Brainpolice:

Coercion and political freedom are inherently opposing things. What you're really talking about is power, not liberty. Liberty involves a lack of coercion. It is entirely nonsensical to say that an action that inherently violates someone's liberty is an act of liberty.

Being in a state of liberty involves a lack of coercion.  It doesn't mean you can't personally be in a state of liberty while coercing someone else.  Now that would be nonsensical.

Brainpolice:

The fact that people may have the power to violate other people's rights does not mean that there is a "right" to do so. This is a matter of the fundamental meaning of principles. Rights-violating acts are not compatible with liberty by definition.

Did I say that they had a right to do so?  No, I didn't.  Let's avoid strawmen, that's Juan's area of expertise.

The issue is that you and Juan attribute values to liberty.  Liberty is the absence of coercion, and thus it can also be the absence of either of your particular values.    What you think is right or good, what I think is right or good, is largely irrelevant.

I see a lot of people here regularly project their values on liberty.  I don't feel the need to point it out, I might get accused of trolling.  But it is certainly there.

 

I don't care about the libertarian meaning of freedom, anymore than I care about the anti-capitalist definition of capitalism, or Juan's attempts to label me conservative, when he doesn't know me from his belly button.

When we're on a libertarian message board debating the ins and outs of freedom, it would seem to follow that the libertarian concept of freedom is entirely relevant. That you brush it off as irrelevant seem absolutely nonsensical to me, especially in the context of this particular conversation in which we're trying to establish exactly what it is or means.

Being in a state of liberty involves a lack of coercion.  It doesn't mean you can't personally be in a state of liberty while coercing someone else.  Now that would be nonsensical.

Do we really have to walk you through libertarianism 101 here? An act of coercion violates liberty by definition. We're talking about an equilibrium of liberty here - a matter of principle. The fact that while I may have liberty and proceed to violate someone else's does not mean that my violation of someone else's liberty is compatible with liberty as such. Again, by definition, as a matter of principle, liberty is incompatible with that which rankly contradicts it. This is a matter of consistancy in application of the principle. But you continue to deliberately evade discussing the actual principle of the matter.

Did I say that they had a right to do so?  No, I didn't.  Let's avoid strawmen, that's Juan's area of expertise.

That they have a right to do so is merely the logical implication of using the concept or term liberty to describe such an act or implying that it is somehow compatible with liberty. If X is compatible with liberty, then you have a right to do X. That is not a strawman, it is a reductio ad absurdum drawn from your own statements. This is rather basic logic.

The issue is that you and Juan attribute values to liberty.  Liberty is the absence of coercion, and thus it can also be the absence of either of your particular values.    What you think is right or good, what I think is right or good, is largely irrelevant.

Now you're just making stuff up. No, the issue is that me and Juan regaurd liberty to be a value or meta-value in and of itself. That's why this is called libertarianism. It is an inherently ethical concept, a concept that presupposes normative ethics. Liberty is not an ethically neutral concept, as you seem to be construeing it as. Liberty by definition, by the very nature of the concept, is simply incompatible with things such as murder and theft.

Of course you can point to endless examples of people murdering and stealing, but that wouldn't invalidate the principle or make such things compatible with it. Yes, technically it is possible that I have the "freedom" or "power" to murder you, but that doesn't mean this is compatible with liberty or that I am acting within the context of my liberty by engaging in such an act; by engaging in such an act I violate liberty as a principle and relative to the moral agent who I'm aggressing against. Liberty and power are not the same thing. Do you comprehend this?

I see a lot of people here regularly project their values on liberty.  I don't feel the need to point it out, I might get accused of trolling.  But it is certainly there.

Drawing out the implications of liberty and clearly defining what it is to begin with (as a value!) is not projecting separate values onto it. You're confusing the matter entirely. It's really sad that I should even have to clarify such matters. This is very basic stuff.

Brainpolice:

When we're on a libertarian message board debating the ins and outs of freedom, it would seem to follow that the libertarian concept of freedom is entirely relevant. That you brush it off as irrelevant seem absolutely nonsensical to me, especially in the context of this particular conversation.

No, it isn't relevant.  We're on the Mises forums.  Mises had a certain view on capitalism.  Some here reject that as anti-capitalists.  I've never seen you reprimand someone over definitions that shift by locale.  Stop trolling me.

Brainpolice:

Do we really have to walk you through libertarianism 101 here?

Stop trolling me.

Brainpolice:

We're talking about an equilibrium of liberty here - a matter of principle.

"We're talking"?  You're a Johnny Come Lately to the discussion, for what I imagine, your express desire to troll me across the board.  You're such a condescending and arrogant creep.  Bugger off.

Brainpolice:

Now you're just making stuff up. No, the issue is that me and Juan regaurd liberty to be a value or meta-value in and of itself.

And I care what you and Juan regard how?  This is my point.  You are both projecting your own values on liberty.  When I am free, I won't have to care what either of you think, unless I want to deal with you, which I assure you, I don't.

Brainpolice:

Do you comprehend this?

Stop trolling me.  Do you understand this?

Brainpolice:

Drawing out the implications of liberty and clearly defining what it is to begin with (as a value!) is not projecting separate values onto it. You're confusing the matter entirely.

Not at all.  You're both projecting values.  Let's say I am a trollcist and I hate trolls.  I'm not going to associate with you under a free society.  I'm going to ostracize and discriminate against you.  That's my right under the freedom to associate.  Now, I start seeking out other people who also hate trolls and by definition, hate you (that's also the freedom to associate).  We all start ostracizing you, discriminating, etc.  We might not be physically forceful, but we cook anti-troll curries non-stop and allow the pungent odours to waft across your property, driving you crazier than you already are.

In the end, you might not be able to take it, you move out from the troll bridge you live under, and we buy it up at a bargain because it's a distress sale.  So you end up moving elsewhere, somewhere that tolerates trolls, but you're so financially disadvantaged from the distress sale of your property, you have to become a troll hooker, selling your sweet cheeks for money to eat and sleep.

That's liberty man. How do you like it?

No, it isn't relevant.  We're on the Mises forums.  Mises had a certain view on capitalism.  Some here reject that as anti-capitalists.  I've never seen you reprimand someone over definitions that shift by locale.  Stop trolling me.

How am I trolling you? You're making certain statements that simply don't make sense. How is the libertarian meaning of freedom irrelevant to a discussion about the meaning of freedom? Seriously, this makes no sense.

"We're talking"?  You're a Johnny Come Lately to the discussion, for what I imagine, your express desire to troll me across the board.  You're such a condescending and arrogant creep.  Bugger off.

My behavior is far from trollish. I'm merely responding with argumentation to claims or the implications of claims of yours that I disagree with. If anything, you seem to be trolling me and I'm taking the bait.

And I care what you and Juan regard how?  This is my point.  You are both projecting your own values on liberty.  When I am free, I won't have to care what either of you think, unless I want to deal with you, which I assure you, I don't.

Are you purposefully evading the point or do you really not comprehend this? To define liberty as a value itself is not to project separate values onto it. We're trying to clarify exactly what liberty means and implies as a value. Indeed, if we do not do so, libertarianism loses all meaning. Yet you seem to act as if this is a free for all in which liberty is simply assumed without being clearly defined and then everything is a matter of preferance. The moment we try to actually meaningfully define liberty you accuse us of projecting extra values, and proceed to act as if you are being value-free here. It's nonsensical.

Stop trolling me.  Do you understand this?

It should be quite clear to anyone observing this that if anyone is trolling it is you.

Not at all.  You're both projecting values.  Let's say I am a trollcist and I hate trolls.  I'm not going to associate with you under a free society.  I'm going to ostracize and discriminate against you.  That's my right under the freedom to associate.  Now, I start seeking out other people who also hate trolls and by definition, hate you (that's also the freedom to associate).  We all start ostracizing you, discriminating, etc.  We might not be physically forceful, but we cook anti-troll curries non-stop and allow the pungent odours to waft across your property, driving you crazier than you already are.

In the end, you might not be able to take it, you move out from the troll bridge you live under, and we buy it up at a bargain because it's a distress sale.  So you end up moving elsewhere, somewhere that tolerates trolls, but you're so financially disadvantaged from the distress sale of your property, you have to become a troll hooker, selling your sweet cheeks for money to eat and sleep.

That's liberty man. How do you like it?

Case in point. This entire section is trolling. You're personalizing instead of making arguments against anyone's statements or points, and are blatantly being facetious. That totally obstructs meaningful dialogue.

Throughout your entire post you didn't directly address barely anything I said. Do you want to engage in discussion and debate or just playing games? I have good reason to believe that you are purposefully motivated to sabotage discussions so long as me and certain others are involved in them. You don't seem interested in an exchange with us.

Brainpolice:

How am I trolling you? You're making certain statements that simply don't make sense. How is the libertarian meaning of freedom irrelevant to a discussion about the meaning of freedom? Seriously, this makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense to trolls.  How are you trolling me?  Because you are doing exactly what I did the other day, when you accused me of trolling.  No wonder you can't see that you are projecting your values, you can't even admit your own hypocrisy!

Brainpolice:

My behavior is far from trollish. I'm merely responding with argumentation to claims or the implications of claims of yours that I disagree with. If anything, you seem to be trolling me and I'm taking the bait.

It is completely trollish.  Just like your misguided and malicious attempt to confront me in the voting thread, by quoting me out of context.

Brainpolice:

Are you purposefully evading the point or do you really not comprehend this?

Honestly, I don't like you.  I think you're an ass.  So I'm not taking you seriously, and I'm not going to debate you.  Juan and I disagree, but he's not an ass.  He's not arrogant, and he's not totaly disconnected from reality, and his trolling is more like fanatic obsession, which is flattering in a way.

Brainpolice:

We're trying to clarify exactly what liberty means and implies as a value.

"We" are not trying to do anything.  I want no part of discussing with you.  I was discussing with Juan.  Juan and I are a "We".  You and trolish behaviour are not a "We".

Brainpolice:

Throughout your entire post you didn't directly address anything I said.

Why address a troll directly?  That is what they want.  The way to beat a troll, is to call him out as a troll, not to engage and try to win an argument with him.  When someone plays games with you, change the winning conditions.  That is what I have done.

Brainpolice:

Do you want to engage in discussion and debate or just playing games?

I do not want to engage in discussion with you.  I don't like you, I don't respect you and I think you are a troll.

Brainpolice:

I have good reason to believe that you are purposefully motivated to sabotage discussions so long as me and certain others are involved in them.

If you mean you and Nicky the banned, you might be right.  I don't have a problem with anyone else here.  Well, maybe the Knight too.  I hate people who try to win a debate on semantics or attacking their opposite.  But I don't see how I am motivated to sabotage discussions, when you have jumped into two of my discussions with others (known as INTERJECTING).  I would say it is you who is attempting to sabotage already established discussions.

Brainpolice:

You don't seem interested in an exchange with us.

I'm just not interested in an exchange with you.  Because you are a troll.  And arrogant.  I am interested in exchanges with 10s of others.  Just not you.  Comprende?

liberty student:

Brainpolice:

How am I trolling you? You're making certain statements that simply don't make sense. How is the libertarian meaning of freedom irrelevant to a discussion about the meaning of freedom? Seriously, this makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense to trolls.  How are you trolling me?  Because you are doing exactly what I did the other day, when you accused me of trolling.  No wonder you can't see that you are projecting your values, you can't even admit your own hypocrisy!

Brainpolice:

My behavior is far from trollish. I'm merely responding with argumentation to claims or the implications of claims of yours that I disagree with. If anything, you seem to be trolling me and I'm taking the bait.

It is completely trollish.  Just like your misguided and malicious attempt to confront me in the voting thread, by quoting me out of context.

Brainpolice:

Are you purposefully evading the point or do you really not comprehend this?

Honestly, I don't like you.  I think you're an ass.  So I'm not taking you seriously, and I'm not going to debate you.  Juan and I disagree, but he's not an ass.  He's not arrogant, and he's not totaly disconnected from reality, and his trolling is more like fanatic obsession, which is flattering in a way.

Brainpolice:

We're trying to clarify exactly what liberty means and implies as a value.

"We" are not trying to do anything.  I want no part of discussing with you.  I was discussing with Juan.  Juan and I are a "We".  You and trolish behaviour are not a "We".

Brainpolice:

Throughout your entire post you didn't directly address anything I said.

Why address a troll directly?  That is what they want.  The way to beat a troll, is to call him out as a troll, not to engage and try to win an argument with him.  When someone plays games with you, change the winning conditions.  That is what I have done.

Brainpolice:

Do you want to engage in discussion and debate or just playing games?

I do not want to engage in discussion with you.  I don't like you, I don't respect you and I think you are a troll.

Brainpolice:

I have good reason to believe that you are purposefully motivated to sabotage discussions so long as me and certain others are involved in them.

If you mean you and Nicky the banned, you might be right.  I don't have a problem with anyone else here.  Wlel, maybe the Knight too.  I hate people who try to win a debate on semantics or attacking their opposite.  But I don't see how I am motivated to sabotage discussions, when you have jumped into two of my discussions with others (known as INTERJECTING).  I would say it is you who is attempting to sabotage already established discussions.

Brainpolice:

You don't seem interested in an exchange with us.

I'm just not interested in an exchange with you.  Because you are a troll.  And arrogant.  I am interested in exchanges with 10s of others.  Just not you.

You do realize that you're just personalizing throughout this whole post, right? And if you really didn't want to discuss anything with me that badly, you wouldn't be making all these responses. Since you do continue to make responses, while not actually addressing the substance of my posts, I have no choice but to conclude that you have a vested interest in attacking me and derailing any discussion that I am a part of. Please stop it.

I genuinely believe what I am saying on this forum. You're welcome to doubt that I genuinely believe what I say, but I do and I don't think you're exactly in a position to tell other people what they think for them. It'd be nice if you actually responded to me as a real human being rather than starting flame fests whenever I interject my honest opinion. But I guess that's not a possibility since you appear to place being antagonistic with me for the sake of it as a higher goal than meaningful communication.

Brainpolice:

You do realize that you're just personalizing throughout this whole post, right? And if you really didn't want to discuss anything with me that badly, you wouldn't be making all these responses. Since you do continue to make responses, while not actually addressing the substance of my posts, I have no choice but to conclude that you have a vested interest in attacking me and derailing any discussion that I am a part of. Please stop it.

I genuinely believe what I am saying on this forum. You're welcome to doubt that I genuinely believe what I say, but I do and I don't think you're exactly in a position to tell other people what they think for them. It'd be nice if you actually responded to me as a real human being rather than starting flame fests whenever I interject my honest opinion. But I guess that's not a possibility since you appear to place being antagonistic with me for the sake of it as a higher goal than meaningful communication.

Sometimes people think they can bully you.  With their words, with their friends, with their opinions.

I won't stand for it.  You accuse me of attacking you, but you are the one following me from thread to thread, interjecting yourself into discussions that you had no part in.  You are the one initiating posts to me.  When I referenced you in another post the other day, only as BP, you accused me of being a troll.  Well what you are doing is 10x more direct, and I consider it, within my standard and apparently your own, trollish behaviour.

The reason why I continue to reply, is to leave no doubt in my or anyone else's mind, including your own, what I think of you, and how I have no wish to debate with you.  In the absence of an "ignore" function on this forum, I feel compelled to at least point out what is obvious trolling.

Now if you want to stop being "attacked" then stop following me around the board.  If you want to keep crying and playing the victim, when you are the one initiating the conflict, then carry on.  The other day when Jon recommended we take it to PM, the difference in our responses was telling.  I apologized and was ready to move on, you still want to cry about how you have been wronged.  I'm not interested in your self-immolation or attention seeking over my posts.  I'm also not interested in your posts or opinion.

I've changed your troll game (just as I did to the Knight, and Nicky), and I define the victory conditions now.  Step off.  There are lots of other people here who will be incredibly impressed by your tactics, ability to debate and the depth of your knowledge.  But I am not one of them.

@Juan - Send me a message if you want to continue our discussion later.  I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

Interjecting one's honest opinion in response to what one honestly disagrees with is not trolling. I hardly see how it is "bullying" to *gasp* engage in formal argumentation. I don't go out of my way to follow you around the board - you just happen to make statements I disagree with more than most people here (and have consistantly stood in support behind the board's true resident troll, maxliberty, simply because it was me argueing with them), and I have no issues with expressing such disagreements. Anyone with half their wits can look through the thread to clearly see that I'm not in the wrong here (I most certainly am not trolling, as trolling would require intellectual dishonesty) and that you're either blatantly obfuscating or lack a full understanding of certain basic libertarian concepts. So good day to you then if you're going to be like this.

Wonderful, another somewhat purposful, yet ultimatley pointless, intellectual catfight.  

Sigh.

And this is the second time now. One more offensive post and I am closing this thread.

-Jon

Brainpolice:

Freedom is also the freedom to coerce.  That is why we put coercive criminals in jail, or exile them from our societies.  To prevent them from further coercing, we remove some of their freedom.

Juan is correct that you're not using the libertarian meaning of freedom here. Coercion and political freedom are inherently opposing things.

BP... It's better to use the term 'aggression' which inherently means initiatory force. 'Coercion' is a broader, more vague word that not only includes defensive and initiatory force but is also often used to refer to non-force forms of social oppression or pressure.

Aggression and political liberty ARE antithetical. But one can still rightfully coercive criminals.