As I've mentioned before in another thread I've been studying history for a while now. I can't figure out where people get this idea that it is honorable to fight in a war. In fact I've pretty my view on war is almost completely a pacifist one. I do not feel that wars of aggression need to be fought. Nations need not be invaded by one another. Wars of imperialist conquest are just simply wrong and there are better methods of uniting a region rather than just war. I feel that the only wars that are really justified in history are revolutionary wars, or, rebellions. I don't think even those need to happen. I feel that revolutionary wars happen only because an imperial power is somewhere they aren't supposed to be, so, they pay the consequences. Other than that- wars are just wrong- unless you love fighting for the state or being some political pawn out there. I'd like to get some libertarian views on this. I don't know why people feel that it is honorable to fightin a war. Unless you really liked empire building I don't see what you would find honorable in fighting a war.
One cannot sell his or her self into slavery, slavery implies without consent.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: One cannot sell his or her self into slavery, slavery implies without consent.
Yeah, I ought to put in my sig "WORDS ARE TRICKY." They are. One cannot sell oneself into slavery as so defined, but one can sell oneself into 100% servitude if one wishes (cancelable at any time). In fact, a job is 100% servitude for 40 hours a week. If someone worked 4.2 full-time jobs (24 hours a day, 7 days a week - may include a job where you sleep and sleep scientists study you), they would be a full-time servant.
Of course, they would get paid handsomely for that. Maybe more germane is that if 1/3 of your income goes to taxes, you're 1/3 a slave (even slaves get to sleep and have rec time), at least during your work hours.
Why anarchy fails
I agree.
GilesStratton:Haha! Trust me, I'm a delightful guy in person.
Typical consequentialist. A decent human being among people who might benefit or cost him professionally or socially, but an obnoxious lout once the Ring of Gyges of internet anonymity is slipped on.
Not getting into the Giles debate, but can't a consequentialist consider "feeling bad about oneself because one has behaved in a troll-like manner" (or whatever the accusation is) as a bad consequence?
Anarchist Cain: Harry Felker:So I can opt out of government? That's what we are trying to do.
Harry Felker:So I can opt out of government?
That's what we are trying to do.
Are you sure? That really is to say "We are free, so I can opt out of government TODAY?
Anarchist Cain: Harry Felker:So long as the advisor/mentor can imprison you for not following arbitrary rules, it is slavery, his choice is either to follow rules or not, the ruler (master) does not come into this choice, the master was chosen by his location. You have to elaborate on this point because it is not making sense.
Harry Felker:So long as the advisor/mentor can imprison you for not following arbitrary rules, it is slavery, his choice is either to follow rules or not, the ruler (master) does not come into this choice, the master was chosen by his location.
You have to elaborate on this point because it is not making sense.
The advisor/mentor to govern that you mentioned, if he has the ability to use force against you for not following arbitrary rules, it is slavery
The fact that he has a master is not his choice, that is decided by who claims legitimate authority over the land he resides in,
hence why having a government is slavery, and not a choice
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
AJ:Not getting into the Giles debate, but can't a consequentialist consider "feeling bad about oneself because one has behaved in a troll-like manner" (or whatever the accusation is) as a bad consequence?
Good point. I suppose egoist would be the word to use...
wilderness:He can choose to do that, but he can choose to not do that (though his choice to rid the slavery may at this point only change by using brute force). That choice to be a slave or not a slave is liberty. Even if his master chained him, the person could shout out in defiance. The master could tear out his vocal cords, but the slave can still think it. The master could tear out his brain, but the slave would be dead. The only way to rid liberty is kill the person, but that's only the liberty in that particular person. But now that's murder and not slavery so that's a different topic.
But when stripped of the ability to DO, thinking is pointless, do you understand that I can say I do not like blank, but without actually doing something about it, I am not invoking the power of liberty?
I am more to the agreement of what AC is saying in regard to S-D....
There are ways to rid liberty, manipulation works very well....
Harry Felker: wilderness:He can choose to do that, but he can choose to not do that (though his choice to rid the slavery may at this point only change by using brute force). That choice to be a slave or not a slave is liberty. Even if his master chained him, the person could shout out in defiance. The master could tear out his vocal cords, but the slave can still think it. The master could tear out his brain, but the slave would be dead. The only way to rid liberty is kill the person, but that's only the liberty in that particular person. But now that's murder and not slavery so that's a different topic. But when stripped of the ability to DO, thinking is pointless, do you understand that I can say I do not like blank, but without actually doing something about it, I am not invoking the power of liberty?
I'm saying the choice is potential as long as the person is alive. Liberty under the circumstances you are discussing is limited to two choices: accept or brute force (self-defense). Do I want my liberty to come down to these two choices only? Heck no. Liberty can't be removed from the person that's why it's a natural right. It is "of" the person. Aggressors (anti-liberty) can bury ones liberty into only these two choices which is why I see what I'm saying is in line with AC as well. So the futility of choosing self-defense might be so great that it could be like one person against a million, but futile or not, the choice remains.
Harry Felker: I am more to the agreement of what AC is saying in regard to S-D.... There are ways to rid liberty, manipulation works very well....
Liberty isn't rid. Restricted, yes. But if it is rid, then how can a person ever in their life get it back? They couldn't, cause it's not in their possession anymore according to what you are saying. I disagree with that notion.
Byzantine:And perhaps we are going to get in a semantic debate here.
No we are not...
"I think an agreement to sell your labor"
Fine
Byzantine:in exchange for giving up some freedom
Byzantine:the freedom to leave and seek employment elsewhere, is perfectly legitimate.
Rick James:Cocaine is a Helluva Drug!!!
You give up the freedom to do as you please for the time that you are being compensated for, but if you are part of an intern program, where you recieve free training for a time of employment (Disney does 5 years) there is nothing to say you cannot terminate the contract early and pay for the training (as exorbinant as it may be)....
Byzantine:In fact, that is what every employment relationship is to some degree.
No, it is not, every employment relationship is a market exchange of labor for X
Byzantine:Trophy wives routinely agree to forego all the rights they'd otherwise have in exchange for providing sex and companionship to wealthy men.
I missed the trophy wife booth on career day, oh wait, that is because it is not employment...
This is like saying that a housewife is forgoing rights to cook, clean and raise children....
Byzantine:My current employer won't let me earn any income from my skill set from anybody else; that is a restriction on my right to seek employment.
And how does this happen?
Byzantine:For people with marginal skills, a secure source of room and board may be far more valuable to them than their personal liberty.
Are you outing yourself as marginally skilled labor?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, because it's always the other side which is in the wrong. After all, the nazis were just protecting their wives from the evil Poles.
GilesStratton:I never said anybody was right or wrong
Look, I know you're pissed because most people here don't take your myth seriously. Fine. Whatever. Grow up, kid. Grow up or get out. And that's the bottom line.
GilesStratton:Because it shows you're willing to put your money where you mouth is. Most self proclaimed "radical libertarians" on these boards are cowards. They profess their hatred of the state and go about destroying it by blogging.
Yeah, kill that noise right now, kid.
wilderness:I'm saying the choice is potential as long as the person is alive.
Tell that to the man who is choosing compliance or imprisonment (better yet savage beating/death)
wilderness:Liberty can't be removed from the person that's why it's a natural right. It is "of" the person.
I think there are some people it is not so natural, they can choose between crunchy and smooth peanut butter and they believe they are free, despite their words and actions are controlled...
wilderness:Liberty isn't rid. Restricted, yes.
Fair enough, but restriction can be so ingrained that freedom is death....
wilderness:But if it is rid, then how can a person ever in their life get it back?
Look at the people around you that cannot survive if the US government falls... Let us play a little chess on this topic...
Government failure, looting has happened and now the food is running out, how many people do you think survived to this point, how many are ready to survive without the supermarket, electric, phone, police, etc.? People are so dependent on the society they are used to that they are unprepared to deal with others without money, without government, these people are not free, they have the restrictions on their liberty so deeply ingrained into them that they are not free, and fear freedom, as they should, look at Jacob Bloom, he is afraid of being free, and as such is catagorically consigned to slavery to the state, or death...
wilderness:They couldn't, cause it's not in their possession anymore according to what you are saying. I disagree with that notion.
What I am saying is that there are people that are so dispossessed from freedom that it is unatainable for them
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ah yes, you and Max are the only ones doing anything, right? Yeah, kill that noise right now, kid.
Ah yes, you and Max are the only ones doing anything, right?
Listen, boy. I never claimed to be a "radical libertarian", so I've no interest in investing in human capital aimed at "bringing down the state".
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Knight_of_BAAWA:Notice how you focused on that, rather than the actual meaning of what I wrote. The meaning is that wives and girlfriends aren't always in danger.
No wonder I focused on that, it was the point I was making. That the individuals in question are honourable for fighting for a cause in which they believe, and fighting for that which they value. Nothing more.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I know you're pissed because most people here don't take your myth seriously.
No, I'm pissed because my Hoppe inspired warning sign that read "Warning: Trespassers Will Be Caught in a Perfomative Contradiction" didn't work. Do you really think I'm pissed because a bunch of people on an internet discussion board don't "take my myth seriously"? (What myth would this be?)