Brainpolice:There is a good reason why I call you a conservative, you know, since you fall back on arguments that justify arbitrary authority that clearly rub up against libertarianism.
Perhaps you mean property rights? Commie.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Call it what you like. You can't refute the economic incentives.
My position doesn't contradict economic incentives. Your position, however, contradicts libertarian ethics and justifies monarchies.
It means that you're a child.
Come now. You're not even rationally responding. Calling me a child doesn't prove your conservative position.
Juan: That's an evasive answer eh ?
No, you're just posting red herrings.
Juan:So, the monarch of the town will also be a police thug ? Nice.
Of course not, he'll employ people.
Juan:Alternatively you could come to terms with reality and realize that a hypothetical, conservative, monarchical small town is not a free society by any stretch of the imagination.
Why do I get the impression you're still pissed off at the fact that you're parents sent you to bed too early?
Byzantine: Juan:Alternatively you could come to terms with reality and realize that a hypothetical, conservative, monarchical small town is not a free society by any stretch of the imagination. Don't like 'em, don't live there.
Don't like 'em, don't live there.
Surely a libertarian should know better than to make THE LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ARGUMENT, which presumes the legitimacy of the territorial claim. You have to prove the person's ownership before making a love it or leave it argument, and a monarch doesn't have just ownership by a libertarian theory of property rights. Hence, saying love it or leave it is laughable.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:There is a good reason why I call you a conservative, you know, since you fall back on arguments that justify arbitrary authority that clearly rub up against libertarianism. Perhaps you mean property rights? Commie.
My views are not communist and when I encounter communists I usually disagree strongly with them.
Brainpolice: Byzantine: Juan:Alternatively you could come to terms with reality and realize that a hypothetical, conservative, monarchical small town is not a free society by any stretch of the imagination. Don't like 'em, don't live there. Surely a libertarian should know better than to make THE LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ARGUMENT, which presumes the legitimacy of the territorial claim.
Surely a libertarian should know better than to make THE LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ARGUMENT, which presumes the legitimacy of the territorial claim.
So would it be valid to say that this hypothetical town has no claim of territory, therefore, people may disregard all of their laws & land? Wouldn't the "don't like em, don't live there" abide with the concept of free-association?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Brainpolice:My position doesn't contradict economic incentives.
Yes, it does. You've just not read the literature.
Brainpolice:Your position, however, contradicts libertarian ethics and justifies monarchies.
What's this? It violates free association.
Nitroadict: Brainpolice: Byzantine: Juan:Alternatively you could come to terms with reality and realize that a hypothetical, conservative, monarchical small town is not a free society by any stretch of the imagination. Don't like 'em, don't live there. Surely a libertarian should know better than to make THE LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ARGUMENT, which presumes the legitimacy of the territorial claim. So would it be valid to say that this hypothetical town has no claim of territory, therefore, people may disregard all of their laws & land? Wouldn't the "don't like em, don't live there" abide with the concept of free-association?
A town, as a whole, is owned by noone in a free society. Different portions of it are owned by different people, but a claim on the entire town by a single person simply isn't justifiable by any libertarian property theory that I know of, given the practical barriers to a single individual somehow voluntarily aquiring the entire thing. A claim over the entire town by someone who did not voluntarily aquire it would be a defacto monarch. So no, it's not that people may disregaurd the property of everyone in the town, it's that a monarch's claim to the entire town has no legitimacy. The monarch's claim to the town, in fact, is what disregaurds the individual owners within the town.
Brainpolice:You have to prove the person's ownership before making a love it or leave it argument, and a monarch doesn't have just ownership by a libertarian theory of property rights. Hence, saying love it or leave it is laughable.
But that's the point, such an associate would be between consenting individiauls. So, you're wrong.
You're just making an arbitrary claim without specifying. I've read plenty of the literature, and none of it logically justifies what you argue for.
Byzantine:Unless you are someone who believes in enforcement of a uniform libertine standard on everybody, this concept should not trouble you in the slightest.
Well, there's the problem.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:You have to prove the person's ownership before making a love it or leave it argument, and a monarch doesn't have just ownership by a libertarian theory of property rights. Hence, saying love it or leave it is laughable. But that's the point, such an associate would be between consenting individiauls. So, you're wrong.
A monarchy is not a free association. Where you get this idea that it is or can be is mystifying to me.
Byzantine: In anarchy, people will coalesce into communities of shared interest. This process will be facilitated thru risk-spreading tools like insurance and private defense agreements, by which the underwriting parties will group similar risks so that, e.g., conservative Sikhs don't have to subsidize promiscuous atheists, etc. Unless you are someone who believes in enforcement of a uniform libertine standard on everybody, this concept should not trouble you in the slightest.
In anarchy, people will coalesce into communities of shared interest. This process will be facilitated thru risk-spreading tools like insurance and private defense agreements, by which the underwriting parties will group similar risks so that, e.g., conservative Sikhs don't have to subsidize promiscuous atheists, etc.
Unless you are someone who believes in enforcement of a uniform libertine standard on everybody, this concept should not trouble you in the slightest.
I don't see how this addresses any of my points, or how it proves that a monarch's claim over a city is somehow legitimate and consistant with libertarianism. Furthermore, it is you and your conservative brethern in this thread who are argueing for a uniform legal standard for everybody, only a culturally conservative one. In either case, you haven't demonstrated why anyone should accept the externalization and enforcement of the terms of a contract onto people who never agreed to the contract.
Byzantine: Brainpolice:Furthermore, it is you and your conservative brethern in this thread who are argueing for a uniform legal standard for everybody, only a culturally conservative one. No. We're just arguing that people who want to live in a town with conservative values should be free to do so. You in turn are free to live in the community that allows child pornography, abortion on demand, prostitution, and homosexuality. Maybe you should go picket an Amish village.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, it is you and your conservative brethern in this thread who are argueing for a uniform legal standard for everybody, only a culturally conservative one.
No. We're just arguing that people who want to live in a town with conservative values should be free to do so. You in turn are free to live in the community that allows child pornography, abortion on demand, prostitution, and homosexuality. Maybe you should go picket an Amish village.
You are being misleading, because your arguments imply more than just a desire to be free, it implies the legitimacy of a communitarian law that uniformly bans certain non-violent cultural practises. Implicit in your argument is the assumption that such standards will apply to everyone in the community, but that doesn't make sense unless the entire community is owned by a single person (which would be a monarchy, not a free society). Otherwise, these cultural norms will only apply on the property of the people who favor them, not the entire community, and it is naive to act as if a community is going to be purely constituted by people with the exact same cultural standards as you. Why your hypothetical libertarian society assumes a uniform cultural standard is beyond me. You have also tried to justifying the initiation of violence against non-violent cultural "deviants".
Byzantine:conservative Sikhs don't have to subsidize promiscuous atheists, etc.
Unless you are someone who believes in enforcement of a uniform libertine standard on everybody,
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."
Brainpolice:A monarchy is not a free association.
Which is why we don't favour monarchies? Is this so difficult or are you going to carry on with this dishonesty?
Brainpolice:mplicit in your argument is the assumption that such standards will apply to everyone in the community, but that doesn't make sense unless the entire community is owned by a single person (which would be a monarchy, not a free society).
Really now BP, you're just lying. Unless, a person who owns a house and rents out rooms is a monarchist?
Byzantine: People voluntarily move to communities that covenant against certain non-violent practices all the time. That is part of the process of economic grouping of risks. What infuriates you about anarchy is that (1) people will be able to remove themselves from the ambit of enforced political correctness and (2) they will enjoy higher property values and more market clout by doing so.
People voluntarily move to communities that covenant against certain non-violent practices all the time. That is part of the process of economic grouping of risks. What infuriates you about anarchy is that (1) people will be able to remove themselves from the ambit of enforced political correctness and (2) they will enjoy higher property values and more market clout by doing so.
That is assuming that parental rights are not very highly valued.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:A monarchy is not a free association. Which is why we don't favour monarchies? Is this so difficult or are you going to carry on with this dishonesty?
No, because the logical implications of your arguments is monarchy.
You're not advocating anarchy, and you also just appealed to the status quo as if it already is free. The fact that people voluntarily move to various communities does not mean that the communities are free, and it does not justify whatever the community's laws happen to be. The mere ability to move between different authoritarian-controlled regions is not liberty.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:mplicit in your argument is the assumption that such standards will apply to everyone in the community, but that doesn't make sense unless the entire community is owned by a single person (which would be a monarchy, not a free society). Really now BP, you're just lying. Unless, a person who owns a house and rents out rooms is a monarchist?
I'm responding to the specific arguments that he made earlier in this thread. Do not mislead people.
GilesStratton:But that's the point, such an associate would be between consenting individiauls. So, you're wrong.
Brainpolice:No, because the logical implications of your arguments is monarchy.
What people who voluntarily obtain land and rent it out is monarchical? You're clueless. However, there's a solution: read Hoppe.
Brainpolice:I'm responding to the specific arguments that he made earlier in this thread. Do not mislead people.
Well respond to mine.
Juan: GilesStratton:But that's the point, such an associate would be between consenting individiauls. So, you're wrong. And the next point is that such an association is loosely related to a general theory about a free society and libertarianism. You're just talking about your small conservative club. Such clubs could exist, as relics, in a free society, but would never be the backbone of it.
I'm not really suprised by the lack of economic knowledge of most LLs (David_z not included). What I am suprised by is their ignorance to anything that goes against their LL dogma of equality and that nonsense. The LLs on these forums seem to be entirely incapable of any decency. The left is entirely delusional.
Byzantine:What infuriates you about anarchy is that (1) people will be able to remove themselves from the ambit of enforced political correctness
GilesStratton:I'm not really suprised by the lack of economic knowledge of most LLs
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:No, because the logical implications of your arguments is monarchy. What people who voluntarily obtain land and rent it out is monarchical? You're clueless. However, there's a solution: read Hoppe.
You're not talking about people voluntarily obtaining land and renting it out, you're refering to an illegitimate claim over an entire city that is NOT based on homesteading or voluntary trade. There is no way for a single person to homestead and voluntarily trade for an entire city, particularly given the pre-existance of people within that city who have their own individual cases of ownership. Hence, an individual's claim to own an entire city, that is currently occupied by people, is simply the establishment of a monarchy. That individual has no legitimate authority over everyone in the city according to any libertarian theory of rights.
You need to stop telling me to read Hoppe when I have read him and reject his arguments.
Of course they're free, they just don't share your particular values.
No, they are not free. Currently, we can move between different states, but this does not mean that we are free. Are you purposefully missing the point?
You're the mirror image of the Puritans--furious that some people somewhere may be perfectly happy to abide by a prohibition against child pornography.
The way you characterize the matter is misleading, because what's in question is not a small enclave of people who prohibit child pornography on their own property, you're talking about a uniform law for an entire community banning it. You are misusing libertarian theory to justify authoritarianism.
If you voluntarily live there, then you are no more oppressed than going to work for an employer who requires a certain dress code.
This is the love it or leave it argument, which is not a legitimate argument. This exact same line of reasoning justifies the state. But it begs the question of just ownership, and it also begs the question of what rights follow from ownership. I don't think that just because someone owns something that absolute authoritarianism is justified, but that is precisely what you seem to be argueing. In either case, the argument you just made is not a libertarian argument, it is an argument commonly used to justify the state, and by implication of your own argument, you should accept state legitimacy. Now, don't go claiming "straw man" on me now - this is a perfectly valid reductio ad absurdum by drawing out the premises implications of your argument and putting it to the test of consistancy.
You can always pool your resources with other like-minded folks and start your own place that can compete for human and financial capital like every place else.
No, you have to justify a uniform law for an entire community that bans non-violence cultural practises to begin with. You have yet to do that, you've just told me I can leave, which is a bunk argument. Quite simply, you're argueing for conservative authoritarianism and are only helping to confirm my prior accusations in this thread. A uniform law banning vices is not consistant with libertarianism.
Of course, that is the secret dread of the Left--that it will be outcompeted, hence it seeks nothing less than the permanent levelling of society to avoid all hierarchy of merit or wealth.
These would be really amusing rhetorical statements if you weren't actually serious. This is a straw man and the same old conservative rhetoric that makes one's eyes roll.
Brainpolice:This is a straw man and the same old conservative rhetoric that makes one's eyes roll.
That would be the shrooms.