General

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

liberty student — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:36:20 GMT

Daniel James Sanchez:
To me this approach is not only distasteful, but it is ultimately counterproductive, because it discredits us in the eyes of others.

A fundamental libertarian insight is that we cannot control the esteem others have for us.

Daniel James Sanchez:
I think this eclectic approach to argumentation betrays a tendency to fetishize libertarianism, and the latter causes non-libertarians to dismiss us as a monomaniacal sect who has nothing to say to those who aren't already "liberty lovers" at a gut level."

To each his own, but I measure distaste in how I feel about being stolen from or threatened with violence.

At the end of the day, non-libertarians are people who sincerely or ignorantly believe that violence is an appropriate way to order a society. If they think I am mono-maniacal for pointing that out or by resisting their violence, I can live with myself.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Daniel James Sanchez — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:18:45 GMT

Autolykos,

Keep up your habit of badgering people for not paying enough attention to you, and I will delete the relavent posts, pursuant to rule #8.

If you want to comment further on this matter, do so in the Member Issues forum.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Autolykos — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:02:02 GMT

Daniel James Sanchez:
You did not parse my sentence correctly.

So acting trollish isn't the same thing as being a troll, in your opinion? That's fine. I stand corrected. But don't expect me to change my behavior unless it's explicitly against the forum rules.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Autolykos — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:00:21 GMT

xarthaz:
I told you in that thread. You employ the method of total scepticism, rejecting any premise i open for discussion, hence meaningless and boring to continue on that line. Im not sure if that is because youre one of the win at all cost or youre unaware of your lack of reasoning in premises that are given. Ive seen that in your posts in other threads too, something to think about if you dont want to keep your worldview closed like a blind fanaticist while pretending to be a debater able to defend it

Looks like I hit a raw never there, huh? ;)

Feel free to engage me in that thread. I won't argue with you about the subject anywhere else. My whole reason for posting in this thread was to point out what I see as your intellectually dishonest behavior -- putting forth arguments in other threads that have been refuted countless times in a thread you started for them.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Daniel James Sanchez — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:54:38 GMT

Autolykos:

Daniel James Sanchez:
Autolykos, if anything here is trollish, it's your pestering of people for not responding to you as much as you'd like them to.

Are you calling me a troll here? Seriously?

You did not parse my sentence correctly.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:44:44 GMT

Xarthaz, if you had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, you'd go back to the thread you started and respond to its latest posts. As far as I can tell, you haven't done that. Why not?

Troll harder next time! ;)

I told you in that thread. You employ the method of total scepticism, rejecting any premise i open for discussion, hence meaningless and boring to continue on that line. Im not sure if that is because youre one of the win at all cost or youre unaware of your lack of reasoning in premises that are given. Ive seen that in your posts in other threads too, something to think about if you dont want to keep your worldview closed like a blind fanaticist while pretending to be a debater able to defend it

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Autolykos — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:40:24 GMT

Daniel James Sanchez:
Autolykos, if anything here is trollish, it's your pestering of people for not responding to you as much as you'd like them to.

Are you calling me a troll here? Seriously?

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Daniel James Sanchez — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:36:21 GMT

Autolykos:

xarthaz:
The strongest group robbers protecting their "herd" from being overmilked by the little robbers. Not much of an argument against robbery, now is it.

Xarthaz, if you had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, you'd go back to the thread you started and respond to its latest posts. As far as I can tell, you haven't done that. Why not?

Troll harder next time! ;)

Autolykos, if anything here is trollish, it's your pestering of people for not responding to you as much as you'd like them to.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Autolykos — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:21:49 GMT

xarthaz:
The strongest group robbers protecting their "herd" from being overmilked by the little robbers. Not much of an argument against robbery, now is it.

Xarthaz, if you had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, you'd go back to the thread you started and respond to its latest posts. As far as I can tell, you haven't done that. Why not?

Troll harder next time! ;)

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Sieben — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:16:00 GMT

If you only talk about non-aggression though, there isn't much to talk about. Personally I buy the performative contradiction argument, but I almost never run it because my opponents won't appreciate it. So I do find myself running the consequentialist case. But it is always on the basis that voluntarism is a necessary condition for mutual benefit. I adamantly critique interpersonal comparisons of utility, and I would never say libertarianism for Xenu's sake.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:14:34 GMT

And if the herd is not actually helpless, but can defend itself expertly from little robbers, then its a pretty good argument against (institutionalized) robbery.

Rests on the premise of no disparity of power among populace which would obsolete the need(or possibility) of a security industry in the first place

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Daniel James Sanchez — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:02:05 GMT

Libertyandlife:

Remember if ethics doesn't work, make a utilitarian argument, and vice versa. Bust out some Rothbard, or bust out some Friedman. Because your going to get someone complaining about either or.

To quote myself, "If all one cares about is winning arguments by any means necessary, and not about the truth of the position, or clarity regarding why you yourself want the social order to be a certain way, then I suppose it's not a "versus scenario". If one adopts such a sophistic approach, there aren't any versus scenarios with regard to arguments. You could take this approach as far as you want to go. "Libertarianism, because of human utility! You don't understand economics? Okay, libertarianism because the state violates natural rights! You're religious? Okay, libertarianism, because the state violates God-given rights! You're into logic? Okay, libertarianism because to advocate anything else would be a performative contradiction! You're into evolution? Okay, libertarianism because it furthers the species! You're into aliens? Okay, libertarianism because Xenu demands it!"

To me this approach is not only distasteful, but it is ultimately counterproductive, because it discredits us in the eyes of others. I think this eclectic approach to argumentation betrays a tendency to fetishize libertarianism, and the latter causes non-libertarians to dismiss us as a monomaniacal sect who has nothing to say to those who aren't already "liberty lovers" at a gut level."

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Le Master — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:59:38 GMT

MSM: Restaurants need to be more regulated and should have to display nutrition information (e.g. calories, fat, carbs, etc) about their meals.

Ancap: Should you then every time you have a dinner party or cook for your family? Otherwise, how are they going to know if what you're serving them is healthy?

This may be followed with:

MSM: But, but... They can just go make their own dinner/No one's forcing them to eat my food/

Ancap: ...

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Sieben — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:32:14 GMT

xarthaz:
The strongest group robbers protecting their "herd" from being overmilked by the little robbers.

And if the herd is not actually helpless, but can defend itself expertly from little robbers, then its a pretty good argument against (institutionalized) robbery.

Re: Snap Responses/Turns

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:20:19 GMT

Opportunity cost of the mob members.

Crime doesn't pay... most criminals outside the state are poor, indicating that without public financing, theft is uneconomic.

Collective action problem of the mob - under anarchy, bad law because a public good while good law becomes a private good

If you can predict it, you can prevent it.

The strongest group robbers protecting their "herd" from being overmilked by the little robbers. Not much of an argument against robbery, now is it.