Where are the ancaps? - Page 16 - 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.
#14535304
Dagoth Ur wrote: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?


this is just another might-makes-right argument, via ad populum/numerum. i acknowledge that this is the way nature does it, and that we're just animals and a part of nature. but, it is also amoral...that mob is not determining who is 'right', just who's strongest. man has a relatively unique need for morality. is it your opinion that we should ignore this need? maybe there's a shrink here that can tell us what happens when we ignore those needs.
By mikema63
#14535306
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.


Oh that's alright then, I would be rather shocked if you didn't try to defend your life. Now if we could only get you to stop acting all self righteous and arrogant about it.
#14535311
RedPillAger wrote:this is just another might-makes-right argument, via ad populum/numerum. i acknowledge that this is the way nature does it, and that we're just animals and a part of nature. but, it is also amoral...that mob is not determining who is 'right', just who's strongest. man has a relatively unique need for morality. is it your opinion that we should ignore this need? maybe there's a shrink here that can tell us what happens when we ignore those needs.

You are just trying to claim that you have a source for morality above what has always determined it (the so-called mob). But you don't explain why you are right and the mob isn't, rather you just try to claim that the mob has no desire for what is right and instead flocks to strength. Moving the goalpost of what "morality" is isn't an argument.

Oh and lol at non-initiation. Coercion is a main aspect of human cooperation. Any more idealism for me to shatter?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14535316
RedPillAger wrote:
you didn't counter the argument. you offered a non-sequitur. you are also lying. 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?


I think you've misunderstood me.

To make it perfectly clear

i'm genuinely surprised to hear that. as an example, by your ethical standards, you believe all those school shootings were ok.


Yes.

and are you really saying that there is absolutely nothing you'd forbid some random unknown person doing to you?


No. Just because I might forbid someone to do this or that to me in no way proves that them harming me is wrong on ethical grounds, nor does it mean that there is any reason to make these rules universally applicable.

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.


This is true. There are, in fact, lots of things I would not consent to someone else doing to me. But that in no way endows consent with some sort of universal and special ethical status.
#14535320
Saeko wrote:This is true. There are, in fact, lots of things I would not consent to someone else doing to me. But that in no way endows consent with some sort of universal and special ethical status.


i can't say what's wrong or right for you. but, i can point out contradictions when they present themselves. also, i think consent is very important, particularly in ethics. it's a central theme in many ethical philosophies, including the golden rule which has permeated just about every culture in some way throughout recorded history.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14535327
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.


But you have no problem quoting said spaghetti monster when it suits your purpose.


it's a central theme in many ethical philosophies, including the golden rule which has permeated just about every culture in some way throughout recorded history.


Actually the NAP is not a central theme in any historical ethical philosophies as far as I can tell. You brought up the Golden Rule. It does not exist in a vacuum. It has virtually nothing to do with property rights. I can tell by your deliberately insulting comment about religious people that you have no real understanding of the meaning of the Golden Rule so I will not bother to explain it to you.
By lucky
#14535336
RedPillAger wrote:in any case, i've given you no rules to live by.

Ha! Really? How about the time when you claimed that our support for a tax-funded government was "illegitimate"? That word implies we're violating some rules to live by.

RedPillAger wrote: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.

That last part is what makes your position extreme. What your views share in common with everybody else's is not what defines your position in the political spectrum, it's what's different that defines it. Your views are well to the side of the distribution of typical political views, which makes your views, by definition, extreme. It's not like ancappism enjoys great popularity or is right in the center of political opinion (you don't want to call yourself an ancap, but if it quacks like a duck I might just as well call it a duck).

The Golden Rule by the way... if I understand correctly, it says something along the lines "treat others as you want to be treated". It doesn't say much about tax policy, just to give one example. I'm happy with how taxes are taken out of my paycheck along with everybody else's. This is much preferred to the alternatives of either no tax revenue, or to arbitrarily personalized tax collection without a uniform rule. So where does the Golden Rule come in? I do treat others as I want to be treated, in this case.

RedPillAger wrote: i do warn you that i will defend myself if you initiate force against me, however.

How is the fight going so far?
#14535345
lucky wrote:The Golden Rule by the way... if I understand correctly, it says something along the lines "treat others as you want to be treated". It doesn't say much about tax policy, just to give one example. I'm happy with how taxes are taken out of my paycheck along with everybody else's. This is much preferred to the alternatives of either no tax revenue, or to arbitrarily personalized tax collection without a uniform rule. So where does the Golden Rule come in? I do treat others as I want to be treated, in this case.


you consent to those taxes. there are others that do not. that means it is theft to those people. i doubt you want others to steal from you, so yours is not an example of the golden rule.

let's say that the Capitalist Pig Dogs of America(TM) make a group. they say that you are a part of it, and must pay taxes to them. now the situation is reversed. how do you react?

you don't want to call yourself an ancap, but if it quacks like a duck I might just as well call it a duck


i'm a voluntaryist to be precise. voluntaryism allows consensual governments, so in some cases it doesn't necessarily equate to being an anarchist. as for my economic view, i'd like to be able to trade without any restriction. i think good trades are where both parties leave happy. my primary interest is not necessarily profit. if someone wants to shoe me into the capitalist position, it won't hurt my feelings, but i'm not sure how accurate it is.
Ha! Really? How about the time when you claimed that our support for a tax-funded government was "illegitimate"? That word implies we're violating some rules to live by.


it absolutely is illegitimate.

do you have any right or the authority to kill, maim, steal from, cage, and/or kidnap people? nope.
can you grant a right or authority to someone else that you do not have yourself? nope.
bingo, your government is a sham.
By lucky
#14535347
RedPillAger wrote:let's say that the Capitalist Pig Dogs of America(TM) make a group. they say that you are a part of it, and must pay taxes to them. now the situation is reversed. how do you react?

I don't understand is what sense the situation got "reversed". There's a new party in power in the country, apparently. Happens all the time. I've been keeping on paying my taxes throughout such political changes.

How do you react when you get taxes applied? I want to hear that self-defense story you've been itching to tell.

Incidentally, taxes in the US don't go into the account of the party in power, but rather to the Treasury, but I'm going to ignore that subtle distinction.

RedPillAger wrote:voluntaryism allows consensual governments, so in some cases it doesn't necessarily equate to being an anarchist.

Every ancap I've come across has mentioned that they allow consensual governments. Seems like an oxymoron to me. Regular people would rather call mutually consensual arrangements "partnerships", "corporations", "communes", "HOAs", "swinger clubs", "boards of directors", etc, not "governments". But whatever. In any case, you're a regular ancap. They all say this.

RedPillAger wrote:do you have any right or the authority to kill, maim, steal from, cage, and/or kidnap people. nope.

Look at what I was responding to:
RedPillAger wrote:i've given you no rules to live by.

Oh, look. RedPillAger says we can't kill. That's an example of a rule!
By Nunt
#14535350
Drlee wrote:You are back-pedaling so fast you might run yourself down.

I am only backpedaling from a viewpoint that I only held in your imagination. Thats because you read my posts with the intention to disagree with me. You don't bother to try and understand what I am actually saying. If you did, you might realize that I am much more nuanced than you pretend I am.

If you intend on saying I am backpedalling, please quote my previous posts where I said that I do view aggression as black and white or that there is universal agreement as to what is aggression.
By Rich
#14535420
I never gave my consent to the East Texas oil field being plundered. Resources that might take a hundred million years to be replaced. I never gave my consent to the acquisition of American land. Note this applies to the so called Native Americans as much as the "European settler". My ancestors sure as hell never gave consent to the Native Americans hunting all the Mega fauna to extinction twelve thousand years ago. Property in land and natural resources is illegitimate, because it monopolization and taking without consent. Other property used illegitimate property in its creation hence all property is illegitimate including self ownership as one's existence required past aggressions and thefts.

A sensible conversation can be had only once we throw out ridiculous notions of absolute property. Rational people support a compromise between the have mores and the have lesses. The compromise is we recognise private property and use the market, but we redistribute income. We also try and guarantee minimal levels of care and education to children. Again another compromise. We leave most children in the custody of their parents, but we don't allow them absolute ownership over the children and try to guarantee children certain right independent of their parents.

It should be noted that under full libertarianism a rich person can pay to have someone killed, without committing a crime. Only the actual killer can be convicted. This is of course brilliant for the rich because under libertarianism there is no shortage of poor desperate people who can be paid to commit illegal acts.
#14535434
Nunt wrote:Can you explain further how you get to: "if you believe that taxation is wrong, then you must also believe that property rights are wrong"? I don't understand the logical necessity of that. I admit that many things are wrong with today's property rights and changes are necessary. But just because government enforces property rights, does not automatically make it wrong in my opinion. Taxation is not evil because government does it, government is evil because (among other things) it uses taxation.


Taxes and property rights both rely on the state for legitimacy. If you think that the state is not legitimate, then neither taxes nor property rights

Nunt wrote:I will agree with you that there is not social contract about property rights as long as you do not consent to it. Would you also not agree with the idea that if someone were to say to you: "well as long as you do not abandon all property and go live in Antartica, you tacitly consent to with the moral legitimacy of property rights", then that person would make a faulty circular reasoning?


I would agree that it is circular reasoning.

-------------------

velvet wrote:The experiences I've had with an-caps has led me to believe that the (moral basis for the) existence of property rights has nothing to do with contractualism and more to do with natural rights or utilitarianism.


In practical terms, however, the current existence of property rights does depend on state enforcement.

----------------

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. 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.


So we should not enforce traffic laws?
User avatar
By Drlee
#14535443
If you did, you might realize that I am much more nuanced than you pretend I am.


Why don't you make a nice long post discussing this "nuance". Be specific. Tell us where your lines are. And then tell us why we should agree with those lines.

You won't do this because you can't. Why? Because the flaws in your beloved NAP will be quickly exposed. You are getting nowhere because we are disassembling your arguments. You are forwarding your broad generalities and then when we specifically pull them apart you are whining because we don't understand your "nuance". Make us understand. Here is your chance.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14535444
RedPillAger wrote:
i can't say what's wrong or right for you. but, i can point out contradictions when they present themselves.


Such as?

also, i think consent is very important, particularly in ethics. it's a central theme in many ethical philosophies, including the golden rule which has permeated just about every culture in some way throughout recorded history.


Good for you? Since when is the mere fact that you or a whole bunch of other people think something is important a good argument for its truth?
#14535533
lucky wrote:How do you react when you get taxes applied?


i pay them under duress. i also register my vehicle, get a driver's liscense, etc. i obey laws. i do it because i do not wish to be killed, maimed, kidnapped, or caged. unfortunately, the monster you statists have created is too powerful for one man to defend himself against. that's one of the many reasons why i argue that power should not be consolidated centrally.

Every ancap I've come across has mentioned that they allow consensual governments. Seems like an oxymoron to me. Regular people would rather call mutually consensual arrangements "partnerships", "corporations", "communes", "HOAs", "swinger clubs", "boards of directors", etc, not "governments". But whatever. In any case, you're a regular ancap. They all say this.


they typically use the term voluntary association. they're typically referring to something other than a government, like the things you listed. anarchy is the lack of government/hierarchy. so yes, anarchists do contradict themselves, even when they speak of things like DRO's (dispute resolution organizations). anything that involves a hierarchy of power is contradictory to their position, even if entered into consensually.

RedPillAger wrote:do you have any right or the authority to kill, maim, steal from, cage, and/or kidnap people. nope.


i notice you didn't answer the question. that's why i answered them for you. i didn't make a rule. if you disagree, feel free to answer the questions for yourself, the ones i predicted you'd avoid.
Last edited by RedPillAger on 12 Mar 2015 21:06, edited 2 times in total.
#14535536
mikema63 wrote:Oh that's alright then, I would be rather shocked if you didn't try to defend your life. Now if we could only get you to stop acting all self righteous and arrogant about it.


that's the first thing i've seen you say that was actually a good argument. unfortunately, i'm narcissistic, so the self-righteousness isn't likely to change. i actually am working on it though.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14535539
RedPillAger wrote:
i've littered this thread with examples.


You have absolutely nothing that stands up to even the barest scrutiny.

i'm not going to continue to restate them to a self-admitted liar that is now continuing to deliberately be obtuse.


What exactly did I lie about? I said that there are things that I would not consent to being done to me. I also said that that in itself does not prove that the things I don't want done to me are unethical or that my preferences somehow apply universally.

The only one being obtuse here is you. Whenever someone points out flaws in your argument, you just either ignore them or attack them personally.
By lucky
#14535542
mikema63 wrote:why should we care what you think?
RedPillAger wrote:i do warn you that i will defend myself if you initiate force against me

Drlee wrote:So what are you going to do about it sport? Welcome to life in the food-chain.
RedPillAger wrote:i expect i'll defend myself

RedPillAger wrote:i obey laws [...] unfortunately, the monster you statists have created is too powerful for one man to defend himself against

So what's with the threats above??
#14535557
RedPillAger wrote: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.

Translation: you know that you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, yet you decline, merely on that account, to reconsider your proved-false views.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
Trump and Russiagate

I agree and am also glad to see that you acknowle[…]

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Really Blackjack. You just can't resist childish […]

Atheism is Evil

But, socially, psychologically, and work wise, ma[…]