Where are the ancaps? - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14535208
RedPillAger wrote:it's all about consent. if you can view your particularism at its finest granularity, where the individual is self-governed, it would not violate the NAP. you can even have voluntary association in groups. however, any third party "applying rules" to anyone or any group is a violation of the NAP if it's done without consent.


I don't care what is and is not a violation of the NAP if I have no reason to adhere to the NAP. Why do you believe in the NAP in the first place? Is it because not doing so would violate the NAP in some way?
By lucky
#14535215
RedPillAger wrote:you contradict yourselves. people following the NAP, like myself, do not.
Saeko wrote:I've already pointed out to you that there is, in fact, no logical contradiction in being particularistic. You never responded.
RedPillAger wrote:if you can view your particularism at its finest granularity, where the individual is self-governed, it would not violate the NAP. you can even have voluntary association in groups. however, any third party "applying rules" to anyone or any group is a violation of the NAP if it's done without consent.

Your claim was that sadists who like to cause pain to others but not to themselves suffer from a logical contradiction. They don't.

Now you're backtracking and merely saying that violations of NAP are violations of NAP. That is obviously a tautology.
Last edited by lucky on 11 Mar 2015 21:19, edited 1 time in total.
#14535216
Truth To Power wrote:But some "property" -- specifically land titles and IP monopolies -- is nothing but institutionalized initiation of force.


here i think we actually agree on something. if you mean intellectual property, i don't recognize it as property. IP is an illegitimate monopoly. if you think it through, you'll find it can only be created by non-consensual governments, which i'm not a proponent of.

No land was ever initially made property through anything but aggression.


well, there was uninhabited land at one point. whomever initially claimed it did so without aggression to anyone.

In that case, you are assuming that we are born without rights to liberty, because our liberty to use land has already been removed by force and made into the property of landowners.


i don't believe that rights exist. i do think liberty exists, and i want more of it. you can't take land from anyone else without violating the NAP. i'd suggest working out a mutually beneficial arrangement to use or buy the land if you need it. quit demanding something for nothing. you are not entitled.

It may be "mutually" consensual between you and the seller, but it's not entirely consensual, because as soon as you forcibly exclude others from the land they would otherwise be at liberty to access and use, you initiate force against them. I didn't consent to the forcible removal of my right to liberty so that you could be a parasite, demanding that I pay you for the advantages government, the community and nature provide, sorry.


i think this contains our main point of disagreement. you claim some right to use my land where i don't acknowledge that you have that right. from where i'm sitting, your freedom stops where it starts to interfere with mine. the reverse is also true. therefore, my position is coherent. yours does not offer the same symmetry.
#14535218
Saeko wrote:I don't care what is and is not a violation of the NAP if I have no reason to adhere to the NAP. Why do you believe in the NAP in the first place? Is it because not doing so would violate the NAP in some way?


forget the NAP then. do you care about consent?
By lucky
#14535221
Truth To Power wrote:I've never said the Big Bang was relevant to economic policy, you just made that up.
Truth To Power wrote:No land was ever initially made property through anything but aggression.

So is the ancient history of land relevant to current economic policy or is it not?
#14535224
lucky wrote:Your claim was that sadists who like to cause pain to others but not to themselves suffer from a logical contradiction. They don't.

Now you're backtracking and merely saying that violations of NAP are violations of NAP. That is obviously a tautology.


my claim is that you guys want your rules to apply to others, while you won't adhere to someone else's rules yourselves. any type of collectivism comes with this hypocrisy. if you have to make rules in your life, the only logical solution is that they only apply to yourself or a universally consensual group.
By lucky
#14535226
RedPillAger wrote:my claim is that you guys want your rules to apply to others, while you won't adhere to someone else's rules yourselves.

I mostly adhere to rules made by others, I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't adhere to everybody's preferred rules, but that would be impossible because they differ. I don't adhere to your preferred rules because you're an extremist and your preference contradicts everybody else's rules.

Hence, we have this process called legislation where we figure out the rules that most people want. I adhere to those, for the most part. Even in those cases where I'd like to see them changed.
#14535242
lucky wrote:I don't adhere to everybody's preferred rules, but that would be impossible because they differ.


maybe you are beginning to understand.

I don't adhere to your preferred rules because you're an extremist and your preference contradicts everybody else's rules.


it's a sad state of affairs that views the person wanting to be free as an extremist.

in any case, i've given you no rules to live by. my position is that i cannot. i can only govern myself. as for your trying to make my position seem extreme or unpopular, the golden rule is pretty well known and at least attempted to be adhered to, sometimes. it's neither extreme nor unpopular...it's just that people only use it when it suits them is the problem.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14535245
RedPillAger wrote:you're the liar i mentioned before. i maintain there is at least one thing in this world you would not consent to someone else doing to you.


You've already brought this up, but when I countered this argument, you ignored me.

RedPillAger wrote:i'm genuinely surprised to hear that. as an example, by your ethical standards, you believe all those school shootings were ok. and are you really saying that there is absolutely nothing you'd forbid some random unknown person doing to you?


Saeko wrote:
Yes.

What you want or don't want others to do to you is very different from believing what is and is not morally acceptable for others to do to you.
#14535247
Truth To Power wrote:But some "property" -- specifically land titles and IP monopolies -- is nothing but institutionalized initiation of force.

RedPillAger wrote:here i think we actually agree on something. if you mean intellectual property, i don't recognize it as property. IP is an illegitimate monopoly. if you think it through, you'll find it can only be created by non-consensual governments, which i'm not a proponent of.

Property in land can only be created by non-consensual means, too.
RedPillAger wrote:well, there was uninhabited land at one point. whomever initially claimed it did so without aggression to anyone.

When did anyone ever "claim" uninhabited land? They just started using it non-exclusively. The claim of ownership always came later, when others were already using the land, and by "claiming" it, the aggressor purposed to initiate force against all who were otherwise at liberty to use it. All land titles are founded on the intention to initiate force against others who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.
In that case, you are assuming that we are born without rights to liberty, because our liberty to use land has already been removed by force and made into the property of landowners.

i don't believe that rights exist.

What does the NAP describe but (especially property) rights?
i do think liberty exists, and i want more of it.

Which you purpose to obtain by taking others' liberty from them....?
you can't take land from anyone else without violating the NAP.

Nonsense. That's like saying you can't take your property back from a thief without violating the NAP. They only got the land in the first place by violating the NAP. You can't forcibly prevent anyone else from exercising their liberty to use what nature provided for all without violating the NAP.
i'd suggest working out a mutually beneficial arrangement to use or buy the land if you need it.

So, you suggest I meet the extortion demands of a protection racketeer....? That sounds like ancap, all right.

How is it "mutually beneficial" for me to pay him for something I would otherwise have been at liberty to use for free? If some greedy, vicious, evil parasite claims to own the earth's atmosphere, and demands I pay him rent for air to breathe, do you recommend I enter into a "mutually beneficial arrangement" with him, too? We both benefit because I get to breathe, and he gets my money? That kind of "mutually beneficial arrangement"?

The naked face of NAP aggression.
quit demanding something for nothing.

Huh??? An apologist for landowner greed, privilege and parasitism is telling me not to demand something for nothing?

BWAHAHHAHAHAAA!!! What a nerve!

I do not demand anything from anyone, except that they not initiate force against me -- conspicuously unlike the greedy, evil, parasitic landowner, who demands that others pay him for what government, the community and nature provide, in return for zero (0) contribution from him.

It is the landowner who demands something for nothing, pal, and I will thank you to remember it. I demand only that he not initiate force against me. But you claim he is entitled to initiate force against me.
you are not entitled.

An apologist for the most privileged, entitled parasites on the face of the earth is telling me I am not entitled??!?

BWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!

I am entitled not to be forcibly deprived of life, liberty, and property in the fruits of my labor for the unearned profit of greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners.
It may be "mutually" consensual between you and the seller, but it's not entirely consensual, because as soon as you forcibly exclude others from the land they would otherwise be at liberty to access and use, you initiate force against them. I didn't consent to the forcible removal of my right to liberty so that you could be a parasite, demanding that I pay you for the advantages government, the community and nature provide, sorry.

i think this contains our main point of disagreement. you claim some right to use my land

No, I simply do not recognize your claim that it is "your" land, because nothing could ever have made it your land -- other than your (and much more importantly, government's) willingness to initiate force against me for your unearned profit, that is.
where i don't acknowledge that you have that right.

Right. Like all greedy, privileged, entitled, parasitic landowners, you believe that your claim to own land removes my right to liberty, enabling you to enslave me. Simple.
from where i'm sitting, your freedom stops where it starts to interfere with mine.

Your freedom to rob and enslave me by initiating force against me, you mean...?

What on earth do you think your initiation of force against me to prevent me from using what nature provided to sustain my life does but "interfere" with my liberty?

Give your head a shake.
the reverse is also true. therefore, my position is coherent.

No it's not. You simply ignore the fact that by initiating force against me to exclude me from land that cannot possibly be rightfully your property, you are forcibly depriving me of my liberty.
yours does not offer the same symmetry.

OTC, mine is much more symmetrical than yours: neither of us has any right to deprive the other of what they would otherwise have. You asymmetrically claim a right to deprive me of what I would otherwise have -- my liberty -- but I can't deprive you of what you WOULDN'T otherwise have: the land.

Your position is incoherent, self-contradictory garbage.
lucky wrote:So is the ancient history of land relevant to current economic policy or is it not?

Yes, in that it has defined the current situation. But history started several thousand years ago, not several billion.
RedPillAger wrote:it's a sad state of affairs that views the person wanting to be free as an extremist.

You want to be free... to enslave others by forcibly removing their liberty to use what nature provided for all.
in any case, i've given you no rules to live by. my position is that i cannot.

Except that we have to honor greedy, privileged parasites' claims to own land, that is.

Oh, and Red? I notice you have a picture of Jefferson under your nick. Here's what he had to say on the subject of property in land:

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural
right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813.

"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so
far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
By mikema63
#14535281
Redpillalger, perhaps the problem here is that I'm a moral subjectivist.

I think morals are a matter of opinion without any objective basis, they also depend on the context of the situation in question. In one context I personally value consent, in another I do not. It is contextual, and dependent on a variety of factors.
#14535289
mikema63 wrote:Redpillalger, perhaps the problem here is that I'm a moral subjectivist.

I think morals are a matter of opinion without any objective basis, they also depend on the context of the situation in question. In one context I personally value consent, in another I do not. It is contextual, and dependent on a variety of factors.


i'm also a moral subjectivist. regardless, we humans have an inherent need to adopt some moral system. i use the NAP because of its maximization of freedom coupled with internal consistency. i don't use it because it's some universal truth, or that it was handed down by the flying spaghetti monster.
#14535291
Saeko wrote:You've already brought this up, but when I countered this argument, you ignored me.


you didn't counter the argument. you offered a non-sequitur. what else is there to discuss? how bout this...i'd like you to give all of your material belongings to the black panthers, and go run in front of a moving bus right now. will you not consent?
Last edited by Cartertonian on 15 Jun 2015 20:28, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Rule 2 violation
#14535293
If one person stands in the way of a thousand, that one person was wrong. You are not special, your belief in your own correctness changes nothing. Right and wrong always have been and always will be determined by the "mob".

What right do you have to resist?
By mikema63
#14535295
i never said it did. in fact i stated that commies are free to be commies, as long as they don't force me into their club.


That is imposing your moral values on us though, why should we care what you think?
#14535296
and truthtopower, i'm not ignoring you, i just don't feel it's productive to do yet another rehash. you and i fundamentally disagree on the issues of property and what you claim is a right to liberty, and neither of us is going to change the others' mind.
#14535298
mikema63 wrote:That is imposing your moral values on us though, why should we care what you think?


it is you that is initiating force in that scenario. i impose no values on you. i do warn you that i will defend myself if you initiate force against me, however. if you can't see the difference, i can't help you to understand any further.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]