Ok, so my friends and I land on Planet Libertia, a voluntarist, free-market utopia, ethically founded on UPB and the NAP.
The first thing we do is to disperse ourselves among the population and begin a coordinated plan to accumulate capital, then invest in key, complementary market sectors. Next, we begin to organize trading cartels and arrange price fixing, all in the happy knowledge that no-one well try to stop us. Finally we monopolize and vertically integrate markets for our new "clients".
If someone believes and follows the Non-Aggression principle(N.A.P.), it doesn't mean they don't like self defense and they aren't going to physically defend themselves when they need to. The philosophy of the N.A.P. is based off of self ownership(which you can research for yourself). So if you justly aquire your own property and someone forces you to give up that property unjustly then you have every right to use force to defend your own property. Search a vid called "The Philosophy of Liberty"
1. Usually anarcho-capitalists are the only ones who use the NAP. Minarchists tend to accept that coercion is bad, but you need a very very limited amount to "get society off the ground." So they do end up losing all of the principle, but it would be better to focus on the an-caps.
2. Protecting private property is not seen as coercive by a libertarian. A lib. asserts self-ownersihp and gaining things via trade or first-proprietorship, both of which are non-coercive.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 The point is that libertarians are not pacifists and that they are not against forcing somebody to do something against their will, if their will violates a peaceful society. They are against the * initiation * of coercion, and nothing with regards to private property is coercive and protecting private property does not initiate coercion since it is in response to coercion.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 libertarians can define coercion however they want. It does not change the fact that their usage of the term is not common and therefore not meaningful. This is why it is a rhetorical trick. The libertarian wants to be able to say that anyone who disagrees with them advocates coercion even though they do to. They just redefine coercion so they can claim they don't and therefore have the moral high ground. It's bull.
@smpunditz No, they don't change the definition of coercion. As I said, all libertarians would say that coercion is something to the effect of threatening somebody with force to do something against their will. What they are against is the initiation of coercion, which is much different than solely coercion.
Here is what the libertarian believes: Just property is that which is trade for voluntarily or is gained via first-proprietorship. These activities are not coercive in the...
@BadgeringTheWitness1 slightest. These activities do not involve threatening somebody with physical force to do something against their will. The right to ownership means that you ought to have the ability to exclude who uses your property (and remember, for libertarians, your body is property of the "I", whatever that is). So libertarians criticize statists for initiating coercion by stealing the product of other's labor (Neo-Lockean property, mixing your labor, etc.)
@BadgeringTheWitness1 So, to wrap up, regardless of how you want to define coercion, this description is entirely consistent and there is no rhetorical game being played. They criticize statists for engaging in violent behavior, which they most certainly do by threatening people that if they do not pay their taxes, they will be thrown into a rape cage and possibly shot if they resist. Defense of private property is only in response to the initiation of coercion.
@smpunditz They do? I was under the impression that taxation is theft. I think statists should embrace the fact that they support theft and explain why they do. Most statists I know don't really challenge that premise (outside of social contract theories), they just say that the theft brings about a better state of affairs and thus it is justified by utilitarianism.
Theft is when you take something from someone illegally, not just without their consent. Even if we were to broaden the definition to taking something 'wrongfully' the libertarian has to justify why it is wrong that they should not be allowed to get a free ride living in an advanced society.
Like I said you are engaging in rhetorical trickery, using words with negative connotations where they do not apply. It's rhetoric without argument, no premise just axiomatic.
@smpunditz Oh? So let's run a thought experiment here: The relevant legal agencies in smpunditz's area of living pass a law saying smpunditz's belongings belong to the state and that the SWAT teams will be there tomorrow to collect 99% of your possessions. Is this not theft? Why not? It's legal to take your stuff. You live in a democracy. You participate in society.
Property is a mix of labor and active-use. You have to have a substantive definition of it.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 as I said before we can extend the definition to include 'wrongfully' taking someone's property but you still have to present an argument as to why exactly is taxation wrong. The accurate terminology though would be stealing. We can use theft in the colloquial sense if you want but it doesn't justify your point.
@smpunditz As I've said before, I think taxation is wrong because it is theft. Theft is stealing the product of one's labor. One is entitled to the product of their labor because they own their bodies. The same reason I would say someone is justified in repelling a murderer or a rapist who is trying to utilize the victim in a way that the victim does not want. It's just barbarity.
@smpunditz One of the fundamental themes of libertarianism is that it doesn't make exceptions for state agents; they are people and only people act. It takes away the shroud of presupposed authority placed on state agents. If Obama can take the product of my labor forcefully, why can't you? What is the difference? The only difference is a legal fiction.
@smpunditz That's like saying something isn't murder because murder is only the illegal killing of individuals and not the taking of one's life without their consent. You realize it was legal policy in Germany to exterminate Jews right? I would say they are being murdered, just as I would say that citizens in states are being stolen from.
Now I'm not saying you "support" that or whatnot; I realize you would argue it's a "bad" law. But it is still murder.
'That's like saying something isn't murder because murder is only the illegal killing of individuals and not the taking of one's life without their consent.'
So you do understand? Just as I wouldn't call tax collection an act of theft. I would not call someone who killed in self-defence a murderer. Would you?
@smpunditz 'You realize it was legal policy in Germany to exterminate Jews right? I would say they are being murdered, just as I would say that citizens in states are being stolen from.'
You are using the word murder in the colloquial sense. Yes I know language can be subtle that way but again the analogy you are trying to make does not apply.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 in the colloquial sense yes. In everyday informal speech murder is often times used as a synonym for killing. That is why I'm telling you your comparison is not relevant. When you refer to taxation as theft you are not speaking colloquial language like you are with the Nazis, you are speaking in rhetoric.
@smpunditz That's fine, but what the libertarian is trying to do is point out how taxation is theft. If someone presupposed that the Holocaust was not murder but someone going on a random killing spree is murder, the libertarian would pause and try to explain why these definitions are inconsistent because they share a common element of non-retaliatory and involuntary killing. They then press the objector to come up with a coherent definition of murder which satisfies their positions
@smpunditz That's a good catch, but I would not cede my point. I should have defined murder more carefully as being non-retalitatory and involuntary killing. Still, my point remains: The current state of something's legality is completely irrelevant.
'The current state of something's legality is completely irrelevant.'
I agree to a point. Whether or not something is legal has no bearing on whether or not it is moral. Let me be clear about what I'm trying to say because I feel we are getting off track here.
Referring to other people's policy positions as 'theft' and 'coercion' are not arguments. They are rhetorical tricks used IN PLACE OF ARGUMENTS. (CONT)
The point that advocates of NAP are trying to make is that their opponents are wrong because their policies involve coercion and theft. This is often done in place of presenting actual arguments and using different definitions of the terms coercion and theft than their opponents. (CONT)
People do not consider taxation to be theft. And people do not consider assaulting someone for damaging property to be an act of self-defense (your property is not your ‘self’) even if they think that it is a justified act.
You can insist that they are defined this way or should be all you want but we both no that this is not the case.
@smpunditz I agree that property is not your "self", most libertarians don't hold that position. They just see it as an extension of the self.
But, most people don't think of taxation as theft. If you press them on it, I think they tend to cede that ground, but go on to defend taxation on utilitarian grounds. If you press them and they maintain that it is not theft, they usually lean on social contract or a vague, "society determines what property is" type of argumentation.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 'I agree that property is not your "self", most libertarians don't hold that position. They just see it as an extension of the self.'
I think the distinction here is semantics, but than again this whole debate is semantics ;-)
'If you press them on it, I think they tend to cede that ground, but go on to defend taxation...'
That is because most people are not well equipped to deal with libertarian arguments. It never occurs to them to dispute the libertarians use of the word or ask them how they would justify not paying taxes while using gov. services. Even on the social contract issue no one ever asks the libertarian if they would sign a citizen contract if the US told them they had to to be a citizen (they would).
@smpunditz Well, the issue with using government services is that if I took your money without your consent and bought shoes with it or something, it wouldn't be hypocritical of you to then use the shoes but still complain. You didn't ask for the shoes, but smpunditz + shoes - $40 is a better situation than smpunditz - $40 + nothing to show for it.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 I didn't accuse anyone of hypocrisy. I simply said it would be hard to justify using such services (no matter how ubiquitous they are) without paying for them. I don't see how one's failure to acknowledge the value of said services qualifies as an excuse not to pay for them either.
@smpunditz It's because they didn't bother to ask you. They took your money and then monopolized and/or crowded out a private service which nudges you to use the service since you're paying for it anyway through tax dollars. I don't think any obligation is created on your part to pay for a service which forcefully restricts competition and operates on money taken without consent.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 and these are all actual ARGUMENTS not axioms being spouted in place of arguments. However do not expect society to bend over backwards to accommodate you just because you support alternative policies advocated by a small minority.
@smpunditz With regards to social contract, I think that begs the question. The government claims a right to the land, but the claim to preside over the land is the very thing in dispute. This is why love it or leave it fails as an argument.
@smpunditz My point is that the "citizen contract" doesn't address the initial grievance. If someone were to challenge the legitimacy of the state's land claim and the state responds by offering them a contract which, if they don't sign, they have to leave their property or something to that effect, this doesn't address the challenge at all. So it's begging the question.
In order to respond, they would have to concoct some semi-rational standard of ownership other than the lib. one
'In order to respond, they would have to concoct some semi-rational standard of ownership other than the lib. one'
Or someone could just point out the impracticality of having a nation of several semi-autonomous fiefdoms claiming absolute ownership to blocks of land in a modern society.
@smpunditz Also I think it should be noted that this is a problem for a moral defense of anything. From a perusal of your videos, you seem to take a left-wing stance on certain issues. If you assert that equality is a value, I could say you are substituting that for an argument. Eventually, you just hit bedrock with moral argumentation.
@BadgeringTheWitness1 I don't just assert equality as a value. I am more than capable of explaining why a non-egalitarian society would be problematic and there is plenty of historical basis for it.
NAP is often times just asserted. Rarely does the advocate in any way justify the real consequences of adhering to it, instead they insist that anyone who disagree with them is just immoral.
@smpunditz Not only this, but it is confusing normative and descriptive definitions of terms. It's like saying "North Koreans don't have rights." Descriptively, no they wouldn't. Under a moral rights philosophy, they have human rights by virtue of being human even if their rights are being disregarded.
2. Coercion is used in the formation of anarcho-capitalism. However, the truth is that coercion and anarcho capitalism are mutually exclusive. Remember, the non aggression principle applies to the initiator of force. The tresspasser is the initiator of force. Although force may be used in the removal of a tresspasser, this second party has not violated the non aggression principle
@CazUnlimited 'The tresspasser is the initiator of force'
That's because the term 'force' is redefined to mean something that it does not which is trespassing. Words like coercion can have complex meanings and not everyone may agree to specific definitions however a very obvious trend among proponents of NAP is that they define coercion differently than just about everybody else. This makes their use of the word little more than a rhetorical trick.
@smpunditz Along with NAP, the principle of private property must be included. With these rules, unlawful force is clearly defined: force is either lawful or unlawful. "Lawful" in the natural law sense, not statutory.
@smpunditz Additionally, the argument you made is completely erroneous. You claim that the NAP use of the term "force" is "little more than a rhetorical trick" because it's not a popular use. Thus you claim that popular opinions are always correct. According to this, killing minorities is correct.
@CazUnlimited you are erroneously comparing the use of language with action. If you do not speak in terms that people are familiar with than you defeat the purpose of communication. If you tell me that you are opposed to all acts of coercion but don't define coercion the same way than have you accurately communicated a thought to me? Obviously not.
On what basis can NAP say that it's definition is right and others wrong anyway?
@smpunditz It isn't a "rhetorical trick." Coercion is commonly deemed to mean forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do. A libertarian is against coercion against peaceful people. That's it.
Trespassing is coercive because you are excluding the "rightful" (in the lib.'s mind) owner use of his property as he sees fit. In this sense, he is initiating the coercion, so forceful removal of the trespasser is coercive, but it isn't immoral for a libertarian.
There are a few components of your argument that I find problematic. 1. Your assertion that an anarcho-capitalist society has never been realized. This is an appeal to tradition. It is declaring an idea false because its manifestation has never been fully realized. Slavery and genocide have been realized, but only idiots & psychopaths would call them "good ideas."
@CazUnlimited I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that the outcome of anarcho-capitalism cannot be predicted. I was implying that making such radical untested changes are irresponsible and dangerous not that they were neccesarily false.
@smpunditz Ok. I must have misunderstood. You are right. Uncertainty regarding future events is a universal given. Many anarcho-capitalsts claim that such a society will act as a complete deterant of the violent nature of men. They do go too far in this assumption, which is fanciful at best. However, market economies do force people to maintain peaceful relations. Therefore, it can be expected that less aggression will be committed in a laissez-faire environment.
@CazUnlimited 'However, market economies do force people to maintain peaceful relations. Therefore, it can be expected that less aggression will be committed in a laissez-faire environment.'
@smpunditz Without a market, every other person is your competitor for the scarce resources. Stronger and more cunning people will join to kill and steal from those who cannot defend themselves. Then, the strong and cunning will turn on one another. Under the market system, every person is your potential customer. It is in a person's self interest to maintain peaceful relation with others in order to maintain higher sales receipts.
@CazUnlimited Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm specifically talking about your latter claim that laissez-faire-faire would lead to less aggression.
It assumes that such a market will lead to greater access to resources even as you permit the "stronger and more cunning people' to snatch up all the land and wealth, limiting access on their terms. High concentration of resources and money has rarely made a society more peaceful.
@smpunditz Who snatches up anything? The factors of production must be bought. A high concentration of wealth is the result of government intervention, not free competition. However, the formation of monopolies is probably the discussion for a later day.
'Who snatches up anything? The factors of production must be bought.'
Semantics. Property rights are exclusionary. When you grant someone ownership of something, regardless of how they got it, you are in effect denying everyone else access except on the owner's terms. There is nothing stopping anyone from corner a market by buying up all the land where a given raw resource can be found in a laissez faire.
'A high concentration of wealth is the result of government intervention, not free competition.'
It is the result of the wealthy buying politicians. Inequality always seek to perpetuate itself at the expense of the general population. Our modern economic system itself evolved from feudalism. The difference is that the aristocracy that owns the means of production is 'nominally' not part of the government but the government still derives it's power from them through campaign donations.
'A high concentration of wealth is the result of government intervention, not free competition.'
It is the result of the wealthy buying politicians. Inequality always seek to perpetuate itself at the expense of the general population. Our modern economic system itself evolved from feudalism. The difference is that the aristocracy that owns the means of production is 'nominally' not part of the government but the government still depends on them through capital flight and campaign donations.
You're absolutely correct. Carried to its logical conclusion, the non-aggression principle necessitates anarchy. Although some libertarians disagree, others do not. This principle and all its implications are examined in Murray Rothbard's "Power and Market."
I was looking more for a video on the principle it self, not so much its application. But it was interesting non the less, all your really doing though is convincing libertarians that no government is better than small government.
@MrPumkin404 the principle itself is very simple. If pointing out libertarian hypocrisy forces them into a situation where they have to support anarchism that would just put them in an even weaker position.
Govt uses coersion to protect property rights. but first, there must be a threat of aggression against a property owner. are you basically saying that knowing people have the right to protect their property is coersion against those who would violate a person's private property?
You are right that a consistent libertarian is an anarchist. So be it. You keep talking about what society wants but why does this mean that we must have a government that has a monopoly of force within a geographic area? Property rights, which include rights to ones body can be upheld in a pure private law society by societal pressure and voluntary arbitration. press
Libertarianism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Anarchists(at least of the pro-private property variety) are libertarians. And no, enforcement of laws does not require the use of a state-government, as the history of the Mild West(which widely and erroneously called the Wild West) shows, nor the collection of taxes. And no libertarians claim confidence to predict the future. That's what statists claim to be able to with their government programs, and invariably FAIL without fail.
The "coercion" that was used to enforce the private property of whites in the example that you bring doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. It's the black people you bring up who were violating the property rights, thus violating the non-aggression principle.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "woman's right to have an abortion". A woman doesn't have a "right" to have an abortion, anymore than one has any other "positive right". Killing people who do abortion is a VIOLATION of the NAP.
Also, there is no need to violate the NAP to "force" anyone to accept the outcomes of a free market. A person who doesn't accept the outcome can either try to change them by peaceful, voluntary means, or by coercive means, which would necessarily violate the NAP. Also, to say that the outcomes of a free market are "forced" upon anyone is to violate a much more fundamental and powerful principle, and that is, the non-contradiction principle, because free market=no force by definition.
Non aggression principle means not INITIATING force. You seem to think it means not using force at all. Defensive use of force does not violate the principle.
Also, you said there's never been a completely free society, which means it's outcomes cannot be predicted. There's never been a completely totalitarian society either. Does that mean we can't make predictions of freedom vs oppression?
@Antitheist98 I discussed the issue of what qualifies as an initiation of force in the second part of my video. I am well aware of the difference between NAP and pacifism.
As for your second point you are comparing apples an oranges. Attempts to make a totalitarian society have actually been made. No one has even really attempted a society founded upon the principles of NAP. Especially since advocates say any libertarian based policy failure short of absolute adherence can be blamed on gov.
@smpunditz Still don't agree with you on first point but don't wish to pursue it further.
How are these apples and oranges? Imagine a continuum with absolute freedom on one end, and absolute totalitarianism on the other. Neither extreme has been reached, but we can see the results of being closer to either side. Freedom beats tyrany every time and by every parameter. Perhaps you should use examples instead of just comparing abstract ideas. Finally, last line of your post makes no sense to me.
@Antitheist98 I say it's like comparing apples and oranges because I am strictly addressing economic issues in this video. Totalitarianism goes well beyond economic policy issues. Totalitarianism and free markets while opposed aren't exactly the exact opposite of one another.
@smpunditz I can simply add the word "economic" in front of absolute freedom, and absolute totalitarianism in the continuum example, and my point is still the same. Look up list of countries ranked by economic freedom for real word example of the theory.
Besides, NAP doesn't just apply to economics. Finally, lack of economic freedom necessarily leads to loss of all other freedoms. Watch video titled "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian" by George Reisman for reasons why
There was a time when I had some interest in libertarianism.
Then, while talking about E-bay (I wasn't even saying what I thought at the time, I was playing Devil's Advocate for Liberals) some idiot made it ABUNDANTLY clear that some Libertarians don't give a fuck about poor people. He said that protecting poor people from being ripped-off was "against nature". What part of ebay ISN'T against nature?
@dechha1981 some people are just selfish dicks but taking from using violence to give to another in itself selfish for the act was done to satisfy a moral standing the other parties may not hold.
libertarians say if you want to help people join up with people want to do the same and leave people who don't alone.
@dechha1981 some people are just selfish dicks but taking from one using violence to give to another in itself selfish for the act was done to satisfy a moral standing the other parties may not hold.
libertarians say if you want to help people more power to you and join up with people who want to do the same and leave people who don't alone.
While I acknowledge that allot of politicians are bastards, you also have to admit that the government does in fact provide some usefull services. Truth In advertising for example. It used to be perfectly legal to put any crap you liked in a bottle and say it'd cure anything you can think of, such as selling syrup to diabetics.
I'm a libertarian and I think NAP is just a stupid concept. Spontaneous order and peaceful conflict resolution are much better ways of formulating a libertarian society.
You're right - there's never been a truly free market in its entirety, but there have been successful free markets in all sorts of areas (justice, law enforcement, commerce, environmental protection etc.), just not at the same time. Thus it's justified for libertarians to want less govt intervention in just about anything.
@smpunditz Well, there's Medieval Iceland, a particular favorite of some ancaps (I'm not an ancap though) - it had a quasi-libertarian provision of justice. One may argue that such an arrangement wouldn't work in today's world, but it has existed nonetheless. Also, protection and conflict resolution are frequently provided by private agents and they originally sprang from the private sector, so it doesn't follow that govt monopoly is necessary (read John Hasnas' "The Obviousness of Anarchy").
I have a somewhat pragmatic Hayekian view on established institutions, though, so I wouldn't want to completely abolish all state institutions before determining their pros and cons. (After all, it's logically possible that absent state monopolies our lives would necessarily be complete shit) But I would like to see serious discussion about just how much voluntary association can accomplish without rushing to defend the statist status quo with ill-informed Hobbesian clichés.
I haven't watched this video yet. My response to the title: You are not engaging in serious intellectuals if you're making videos criticizing NAP. Fyi, homie. Now, I'm not a serious intellectual, but even by MY standards you're not. While there are libertarians that defend NAP, criticizing NAP is pretty much equivalent to attacking a straw-man at this point. And you should know that given the # of yrs you've been on the YouTubes.
@Decentralism how can criticizing NAP be a strawman if some libertarians still defend it? By definition a strawman requires that I argue against a position that someone doesn't hold. And by the way I have heard nothing to suggest that the concept of NAP is 'dated' if that is what you are suggesting.
@smpunditz Its a straw man in the sense of only newbies defend NAP. For example, there are some idiots who defend evolution as if the theory hasn't advanced at all since Darwin. And then some theist comes along and attacks this person's view. Anyone with any sense will say that the theory of evolution has evolved quite a bit since then. Similarly, some newbies defend NAP and then a statheist comes along and attacks those people's view. =P
@Decentralism given how often I hear libertarians invoke it there must be a lot of newbies out there. At any rate I'm not trying to address any 'intellectuals' whomever they may be as I doubt any make a habit of watching youtube videos. I'm more concerned with more 'mainstream' libertarian arguments then the ones proposed by those guys in DC whose work are funded by corporations and most libertarians don't listen to anyway.
@smpunditz Oh ok cool. yea, have at it. Maybe you could also check out the arguments by the guys in Alabama at the Mises Institute or in Florida at FSU--Dr. Benson has done some great work when it comes to non-state police force/protection. :)
@Decentralism if enough people propose such a stupid idea and I have the free time I just might. You seem to be of the impression that I should not respond to an idea if it is so blatantly stupid but that didn't stop you from enjoying videos about religion now did it?
Next time you accuse someone of using a strawman you might want to use the word correctly instead of how you please.
Also note that if you ever watched my video I address the issue of the 'free market' and spend half my time explaining why such a system would not even necessarily result in the least amount of coercion and thus more freedom. So I even granted the idea that libertarians simply want to reduce coercion rather then eliminate it as strict adherence NAP would require.
@smpunditz I mean, I explained my usage and you understood it, so meaning was conveyed... lol.
I do see your point on responding to religious videos in spite of how blatantly stupid they are... I guess my point is, when you're done making the video series criticizing NAP, don't act like you've refuted libertarianism.
@RPFS2008 you misunderstand my point. I specifically stated "even ignoring this inconsistency libertarians make the claim that a free market would require the least amount of coercion" just before that. I was referring to a possible counter argument, not claiming that it violated the NAP.
Furthermore I explained that at the end of my video that Libertarians have already violated the NAP since government requires coercion in order to fund itself and enforce their laws.
And I also said not everyone in a country is responsible for the current form of government and therefore have not initiated force against libertarians. Therefore libertarians would inevitably be guilty of initiating force on somebody by changing the government regardless.
@smpunditz Explain all you want, people who disagree have a lack of real world intelligence, they just believe what a friend, family, religious leader without question, because it makes sense to them, and everything else is illogical to them, to matter how much intelligence and logic you use, they will be blind by there personal beliefs. They cannot be convinced because they do not want to be convinced, provide all the facts you want, they believe it is fiction. Nice vid.
"And I also said not everyone in a country is responsible for the current form of government and therefore have not initiated force against libertarians. Therefore libertarians would inevitably be guilty of initiating force on somebody by changing the government regardless."
That'd be like saying that you're initiating force on the wallet thief's family (or whoever would benefit) by grabbing the thief and taking back your wallet. [cont...]
[cont..] Now, I agree, however, that Libertarians violate the NAP by keeping a State, no matter how small, but the act of taking away State powers doesn't.
It doesn't because the organisation is the initiator. As I said, taking back your wallet by force isn't the initiation of force. The NAP isn't pacifism.
@RPFS2008 I know NAP is not pacifism however others would disagree that you changing one government system they don't like to another one they don't like isn't initiating force and if they try to stop you they'll say you started it.
Personally speaking, and I think this would go for many of the people who hold the NAP as their axiom, If they like/want a system that has violence at the centre of it I couldn't care less what they think. But, to the point at hand, I agree that libertarians violate the NAP, however, the specific act of voting to put a stop to, say, farm subsidies, does not violate the NAP as it is the use of force to put a stop to the initiation of force.
@RPFS2008 'That'd be like saying that you're initiating force on the wallet thief's family (or whoever would benefit) by grabbing the thief and taking back your wallet.'
Much of the land in this world was stolen by someone at some point. That's not the kind of route a libertarian would want to take if he intends to justifying staying on the land he owns.
"Much of the land in this world was stolen by someone at some point. That's not the kind of route a libertarian would want to take if he intends to justifying staying on the land he owns."
Well, I'm not a libertarian, but they (the victims of stolen land) are long dead. Not much can be done (other than making sure we no longer steal property)
@RPFS2008 well I didn't say you were a libertarian I was speaking in reference to my video.
My point is getting back 'stolen' property is not always practical as you have pointed out with the land example. I am well aware that the stolen land argument is flawed that's why I used it. Notice that you immediately fell to pragmatism in response to that. Dismantling our current system would likely have similar consequences for us as it did for Russia in the 90's
@smpunditz I don't think libertarians are trying to get their stolen property back, they just don't want to be stolen from any longer... tho, with that said, regulations etc. are are a kind of property grab.
I wouldn't call it pragmatism when there is no alternative. It's pragmatic like not trying to draw a square-circle is pragmatic.
Dismantling the US Government practically over night would be disastrous, no doubt. But keeping the status quo will probably realise your fears also.
Ok, so my friends and I land on Planet Libertia, a voluntarist, free-market utopia, ethically founded on UPB and the NAP.
The first thing we do is to disperse ourselves among the population and begin a coordinated plan to accumulate capital, then invest in key, complementary market sectors. Next, we begin to organize trading cartels and arrange price fixing, all in the happy knowledge that no-one well try to stop us. Finally we monopolize and vertically integrate markets for our new "clients".
kokopelli314 4 days ago
If someone believes and follows the Non-Aggression principle(N.A.P.), it doesn't mean they don't like self defense and they aren't going to physically defend themselves when they need to. The philosophy of the N.A.P. is based off of self ownership(which you can research for yourself). So if you justly aquire your own property and someone forces you to give up that property unjustly then you have every right to use force to defend your own property. Search a vid called "The Philosophy of Liberty"
rman27bn1 1 month ago
Two problems I see:
1. Usually anarcho-capitalists are the only ones who use the NAP. Minarchists tend to accept that coercion is bad, but you need a very very limited amount to "get society off the ground." So they do end up losing all of the principle, but it would be better to focus on the an-caps.
2. Protecting private property is not seen as coercive by a libertarian. A lib. asserts self-ownersihp and gaining things via trade or first-proprietorship, both of which are non-coercive.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 The point is that libertarians are not pacifists and that they are not against forcing somebody to do something against their will, if their will violates a peaceful society. They are against the * initiation * of coercion, and nothing with regards to private property is coercive and protecting private property does not initiate coercion since it is in response to coercion.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 libertarians can define coercion however they want. It does not change the fact that their usage of the term is not common and therefore not meaningful. This is why it is a rhetorical trick. The libertarian wants to be able to say that anyone who disagrees with them advocates coercion even though they do to. They just redefine coercion so they can claim they don't and therefore have the moral high ground. It's bull.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz No, they don't change the definition of coercion. As I said, all libertarians would say that coercion is something to the effect of threatening somebody with force to do something against their will. What they are against is the initiation of coercion, which is much different than solely coercion.
Here is what the libertarian believes: Just property is that which is trade for voluntarily or is gained via first-proprietorship. These activities are not coercive in the...
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 slightest. These activities do not involve threatening somebody with physical force to do something against their will. The right to ownership means that you ought to have the ability to exclude who uses your property (and remember, for libertarians, your body is property of the "I", whatever that is). So libertarians criticize statists for initiating coercion by stealing the product of other's labor (Neo-Lockean property, mixing your labor, etc.)
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 So, to wrap up, regardless of how you want to define coercion, this description is entirely consistent and there is no rhetorical game being played. They criticize statists for engaging in violent behavior, which they most certainly do by threatening people that if they do not pay their taxes, they will be thrown into a rape cage and possibly shot if they resist. Defense of private property is only in response to the initiation of coercion.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1
'No, they don't change the definition of coercion.'
You can repeat yourself all you want, that doesn't make it true.
'So libertarians criticize statists for initiating coercion by stealing the product of other's labor'
Yes they tend to redefine the word stealing as well.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz They do? I was under the impression that taxation is theft. I think statists should embrace the fact that they support theft and explain why they do. Most statists I know don't really challenge that premise (outside of social contract theories), they just say that the theft brings about a better state of affairs and thus it is justified by utilitarianism.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1
Theft is when you take something from someone illegally, not just without their consent. Even if we were to broaden the definition to taking something 'wrongfully' the libertarian has to justify why it is wrong that they should not be allowed to get a free ride living in an advanced society.
Like I said you are engaging in rhetorical trickery, using words with negative connotations where they do not apply. It's rhetoric without argument, no premise just axiomatic.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Oh? So let's run a thought experiment here: The relevant legal agencies in smpunditz's area of living pass a law saying smpunditz's belongings belong to the state and that the SWAT teams will be there tomorrow to collect 99% of your possessions. Is this not theft? Why not? It's legal to take your stuff. You live in a democracy. You participate in society.
Property is a mix of labor and active-use. You have to have a substantive definition of it.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 as I said before we can extend the definition to include 'wrongfully' taking someone's property but you still have to present an argument as to why exactly is taxation wrong. The accurate terminology though would be stealing. We can use theft in the colloquial sense if you want but it doesn't justify your point.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz As I've said before, I think taxation is wrong because it is theft. Theft is stealing the product of one's labor. One is entitled to the product of their labor because they own their bodies. The same reason I would say someone is justified in repelling a murderer or a rapist who is trying to utilize the victim in a way that the victim does not want. It's just barbarity.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@smpunditz One of the fundamental themes of libertarianism is that it doesn't make exceptions for state agents; they are people and only people act. It takes away the shroud of presupposed authority placed on state agents. If Obama can take the product of my labor forcefully, why can't you? What is the difference? The only difference is a legal fiction.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@smpunditz That's like saying something isn't murder because murder is only the illegal killing of individuals and not the taking of one's life without their consent. You realize it was legal policy in Germany to exterminate Jews right? I would say they are being murdered, just as I would say that citizens in states are being stolen from.
Now I'm not saying you "support" that or whatnot; I realize you would argue it's a "bad" law. But it is still murder.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1
'That's like saying something isn't murder because murder is only the illegal killing of individuals and not the taking of one's life without their consent.'
So you do understand? Just as I wouldn't call tax collection an act of theft. I would not call someone who killed in self-defence a murderer. Would you?
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz 'You realize it was legal policy in Germany to exterminate Jews right? I would say they are being murdered, just as I would say that citizens in states are being stolen from.'
You are using the word murder in the colloquial sense. Yes I know language can be subtle that way but again the analogy you are trying to make does not apply.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz It doesn't? So they weren't murdered is what you're telling me.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 in the colloquial sense yes. In everyday informal speech murder is often times used as a synonym for killing. That is why I'm telling you your comparison is not relevant. When you refer to taxation as theft you are not speaking colloquial language like you are with the Nazis, you are speaking in rhetoric.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz That's fine, but what the libertarian is trying to do is point out how taxation is theft. If someone presupposed that the Holocaust was not murder but someone going on a random killing spree is murder, the libertarian would pause and try to explain why these definitions are inconsistent because they share a common element of non-retaliatory and involuntary killing. They then press the objector to come up with a coherent definition of murder which satisfies their positions
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@smpunditz That's a good catch, but I would not cede my point. I should have defined murder more carefully as being non-retalitatory and involuntary killing. Still, my point remains: The current state of something's legality is completely irrelevant.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1
'The current state of something's legality is completely irrelevant.'
I agree to a point. Whether or not something is legal has no bearing on whether or not it is moral. Let me be clear about what I'm trying to say because I feel we are getting off track here.
Referring to other people's policy positions as 'theft' and 'coercion' are not arguments. They are rhetorical tricks used IN PLACE OF ARGUMENTS. (CONT)
smpunditz 1 month ago
The point that advocates of NAP are trying to make is that their opponents are wrong because their policies involve coercion and theft. This is often done in place of presenting actual arguments and using different definitions of the terms coercion and theft than their opponents. (CONT)
smpunditz 1 month ago
People do not consider taxation to be theft. And people do not consider assaulting someone for damaging property to be an act of self-defense (your property is not your ‘self’) even if they think that it is a justified act.
You can insist that they are defined this way or should be all you want but we both no that this is not the case.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz I agree that property is not your "self", most libertarians don't hold that position. They just see it as an extension of the self.
But, most people don't think of taxation as theft. If you press them on it, I think they tend to cede that ground, but go on to defend taxation on utilitarian grounds. If you press them and they maintain that it is not theft, they usually lean on social contract or a vague, "society determines what property is" type of argumentation.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 'I agree that property is not your "self", most libertarians don't hold that position. They just see it as an extension of the self.'
I think the distinction here is semantics, but than again this whole debate is semantics ;-)
smpunditz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smpunditz "I think the distinction here is semantics, but than again this whole debate is semantics ;-)"
Agreed!
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
'If you press them on it, I think they tend to cede that ground, but go on to defend taxation...'
That is because most people are not well equipped to deal with libertarian arguments. It never occurs to them to dispute the libertarians use of the word or ask them how they would justify not paying taxes while using gov. services. Even on the social contract issue no one ever asks the libertarian if they would sign a citizen contract if the US told them they had to to be a citizen (they would).
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Well, the issue with using government services is that if I took your money without your consent and bought shoes with it or something, it wouldn't be hypocritical of you to then use the shoes but still complain. You didn't ask for the shoes, but smpunditz + shoes - $40 is a better situation than smpunditz - $40 + nothing to show for it.
If you follow my algebra :)
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 I didn't accuse anyone of hypocrisy. I simply said it would be hard to justify using such services (no matter how ubiquitous they are) without paying for them. I don't see how one's failure to acknowledge the value of said services qualifies as an excuse not to pay for them either.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz It's because they didn't bother to ask you. They took your money and then monopolized and/or crowded out a private service which nudges you to use the service since you're paying for it anyway through tax dollars. I don't think any obligation is created on your part to pay for a service which forcefully restricts competition and operates on money taken without consent.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 and these are all actual ARGUMENTS not axioms being spouted in place of arguments. However do not expect society to bend over backwards to accommodate you just because you support alternative policies advocated by a small minority.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz With regards to social contract, I think that begs the question. The government claims a right to the land, but the claim to preside over the land is the very thing in dispute. This is why love it or leave it fails as an argument.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1
That could be said about anyone laying claim to land. Why should I have to recognize you bought it, worked it, found it or inherited it?
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz My point is that the "citizen contract" doesn't address the initial grievance. If someone were to challenge the legitimacy of the state's land claim and the state responds by offering them a contract which, if they don't sign, they have to leave their property or something to that effect, this doesn't address the challenge at all. So it's begging the question.
In order to respond, they would have to concoct some semi-rational standard of ownership other than the lib. one
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1
'In order to respond, they would have to concoct some semi-rational standard of ownership other than the lib. one'
Or someone could just point out the impracticality of having a nation of several semi-autonomous fiefdoms claiming absolute ownership to blocks of land in a modern society.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Also I think it should be noted that this is a problem for a moral defense of anything. From a perusal of your videos, you seem to take a left-wing stance on certain issues. If you assert that equality is a value, I could say you are substituting that for an argument. Eventually, you just hit bedrock with moral argumentation.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 I don't just assert equality as a value. I am more than capable of explaining why a non-egalitarian society would be problematic and there is plenty of historical basis for it.
NAP is often times just asserted. Rarely does the advocate in any way justify the real consequences of adhering to it, instead they insist that anyone who disagree with them is just immoral.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Not only this, but it is confusing normative and descriptive definitions of terms. It's like saying "North Koreans don't have rights." Descriptively, no they wouldn't. Under a moral rights philosophy, they have human rights by virtue of being human even if their rights are being disregarded.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
Comment removed
rman27bn1 1 month ago
Comment removed
rman27bn1 1 month ago
@rman27bn1 I didn't say they were pacifists
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 Woops I didn't read the full comment before I replied.. Apologies
rman27bn1 1 month ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1
1. I've heard plenty of minarchists advocate NAP. I don't know where you got the idea that it was rare.
2. Obviously I stated as such. I merely pointed out that their definition is wrong.
smpunditz 1 month ago
Keep it up
maozebong100 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
2. Coercion is used in the formation of anarcho-capitalism. However, the truth is that coercion and anarcho capitalism are mutually exclusive. Remember, the non aggression principle applies to the initiator of force. The tresspasser is the initiator of force. Although force may be used in the removal of a tresspasser, this second party has not violated the non aggression principle
CazUnlimited 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@CazUnlimited 'The tresspasser is the initiator of force'
That's because the term 'force' is redefined to mean something that it does not which is trespassing. Words like coercion can have complex meanings and not everyone may agree to specific definitions however a very obvious trend among proponents of NAP is that they define coercion differently than just about everybody else. This makes their use of the word little more than a rhetorical trick.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Along with NAP, the principle of private property must be included. With these rules, unlawful force is clearly defined: force is either lawful or unlawful. "Lawful" in the natural law sense, not statutory.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@smpunditz Additionally, the argument you made is completely erroneous. You claim that the NAP use of the term "force" is "little more than a rhetorical trick" because it's not a popular use. Thus you claim that popular opinions are always correct. According to this, killing minorities is correct.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited you are erroneously comparing the use of language with action. If you do not speak in terms that people are familiar with than you defeat the purpose of communication. If you tell me that you are opposed to all acts of coercion but don't define coercion the same way than have you accurately communicated a thought to me? Obviously not.
On what basis can NAP say that it's definition is right and others wrong anyway?
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz It isn't a "rhetorical trick." Coercion is commonly deemed to mean forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do. A libertarian is against coercion against peaceful people. That's it.
Trespassing is coercive because you are excluding the "rightful" (in the lib.'s mind) owner use of his property as he sees fit. In this sense, he is initiating the coercion, so forceful removal of the trespasser is coercive, but it isn't immoral for a libertarian.
BadgeringTheWitness1 1 month ago
There are a few components of your argument that I find problematic. 1. Your assertion that an anarcho-capitalist society has never been realized. This is an appeal to tradition. It is declaring an idea false because its manifestation has never been fully realized. Slavery and genocide have been realized, but only idiots & psychopaths would call them "good ideas."
CazUnlimited 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@CazUnlimited I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that the outcome of anarcho-capitalism cannot be predicted. I was implying that making such radical untested changes are irresponsible and dangerous not that they were neccesarily false.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Ok. I must have misunderstood. You are right. Uncertainty regarding future events is a universal given. Many anarcho-capitalsts claim that such a society will act as a complete deterant of the violent nature of men. They do go too far in this assumption, which is fanciful at best. However, market economies do force people to maintain peaceful relations. Therefore, it can be expected that less aggression will be committed in a laissez-faire environment.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited 'However, market economies do force people to maintain peaceful relations. Therefore, it can be expected that less aggression will be committed in a laissez-faire environment.'
How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Without a market, every other person is your competitor for the scarce resources. Stronger and more cunning people will join to kill and steal from those who cannot defend themselves. Then, the strong and cunning will turn on one another. Under the market system, every person is your potential customer. It is in a person's self interest to maintain peaceful relation with others in order to maintain higher sales receipts.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm specifically talking about your latter claim that laissez-faire-faire would lead to less aggression.
It assumes that such a market will lead to greater access to resources even as you permit the "stronger and more cunning people' to snatch up all the land and wealth, limiting access on their terms. High concentration of resources and money has rarely made a society more peaceful.
smpunditz 1 month ago
@smpunditz Who snatches up anything? The factors of production must be bought. A high concentration of wealth is the result of government intervention, not free competition. However, the formation of monopolies is probably the discussion for a later day.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
'Who snatches up anything? The factors of production must be bought.'
Semantics. Property rights are exclusionary. When you grant someone ownership of something, regardless of how they got it, you are in effect denying everyone else access except on the owner's terms. There is nothing stopping anyone from corner a market by buying up all the land where a given raw resource can be found in a laissez faire.
smpunditz 1 month ago
'A high concentration of wealth is the result of government intervention, not free competition.'
It is the result of the wealthy buying politicians. Inequality always seek to perpetuate itself at the expense of the general population. Our modern economic system itself evolved from feudalism. The difference is that the aristocracy that owns the means of production is 'nominally' not part of the government but the government still derives it's power from them through campaign donations.
smpunditz 1 month ago
'A high concentration of wealth is the result of government intervention, not free competition.'
It is the result of the wealthy buying politicians. Inequality always seek to perpetuate itself at the expense of the general population. Our modern economic system itself evolved from feudalism. The difference is that the aristocracy that owns the means of production is 'nominally' not part of the government but the government still depends on them through capital flight and campaign donations.
smpunditz 1 month ago
You're absolutely correct. Carried to its logical conclusion, the non-aggression principle necessitates anarchy. Although some libertarians disagree, others do not. This principle and all its implications are examined in Murray Rothbard's "Power and Market."
CazUnlimited 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I was looking more for a video on the principle it self, not so much its application. But it was interesting non the less, all your really doing though is convincing libertarians that no government is better than small government.
MrPumkin404 2 months ago
@MrPumkin404 the principle itself is very simple. If pointing out libertarian hypocrisy forces them into a situation where they have to support anarchism that would just put them in an even weaker position.
smpunditz 2 months ago
Govt uses coersion to protect property rights. but first, there must be a threat of aggression against a property owner. are you basically saying that knowing people have the right to protect their property is coersion against those who would violate a person's private property?
SuperNache 5 months ago
@SuperNache no I was pretty clear that taxing people to subsidize the protection of your property is coercion.
smpunditz 5 months ago
You are right that a consistent libertarian is an anarchist. So be it. You keep talking about what society wants but why does this mean that we must have a government that has a monopoly of force within a geographic area? Property rights, which include rights to ones body can be upheld in a pure private law society by societal pressure and voluntary arbitration. press
lagreider 6 months ago
Libertarianism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Anarchists(at least of the pro-private property variety) are libertarians. And no, enforcement of laws does not require the use of a state-government, as the history of the Mild West(which widely and erroneously called the Wild West) shows, nor the collection of taxes. And no libertarians claim confidence to predict the future. That's what statists claim to be able to with their government programs, and invariably FAIL without fail.
Akatam0t0ma 7 months ago
The "coercion" that was used to enforce the private property of whites in the example that you bring doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. It's the black people you bring up who were violating the property rights, thus violating the non-aggression principle.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "woman's right to have an abortion". A woman doesn't have a "right" to have an abortion, anymore than one has any other "positive right". Killing people who do abortion is a VIOLATION of the NAP.
Akatam0t0ma 7 months ago
Also, there is no need to violate the NAP to "force" anyone to accept the outcomes of a free market. A person who doesn't accept the outcome can either try to change them by peaceful, voluntary means, or by coercive means, which would necessarily violate the NAP. Also, to say that the outcomes of a free market are "forced" upon anyone is to violate a much more fundamental and powerful principle, and that is, the non-contradiction principle, because free market=no force by definition.
Akatam0t0ma 7 months ago
Non aggression principle means not INITIATING force. You seem to think it means not using force at all. Defensive use of force does not violate the principle.
Also, you said there's never been a completely free society, which means it's outcomes cannot be predicted. There's never been a completely totalitarian society either. Does that mean we can't make predictions of freedom vs oppression?
Pretty weak arguments overall. Sorry.
Antitheist98 8 months ago
@Antitheist98 I discussed the issue of what qualifies as an initiation of force in the second part of my video. I am well aware of the difference between NAP and pacifism.
As for your second point you are comparing apples an oranges. Attempts to make a totalitarian society have actually been made. No one has even really attempted a society founded upon the principles of NAP. Especially since advocates say any libertarian based policy failure short of absolute adherence can be blamed on gov.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz Still don't agree with you on first point but don't wish to pursue it further.
How are these apples and oranges? Imagine a continuum with absolute freedom on one end, and absolute totalitarianism on the other. Neither extreme has been reached, but we can see the results of being closer to either side. Freedom beats tyrany every time and by every parameter. Perhaps you should use examples instead of just comparing abstract ideas. Finally, last line of your post makes no sense to me.
Antitheist98 8 months ago
@Antitheist98 I say it's like comparing apples and oranges because I am strictly addressing economic issues in this video. Totalitarianism goes well beyond economic policy issues. Totalitarianism and free markets while opposed aren't exactly the exact opposite of one another.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz I can simply add the word "economic" in front of absolute freedom, and absolute totalitarianism in the continuum example, and my point is still the same. Look up list of countries ranked by economic freedom for real word example of the theory.
Besides, NAP doesn't just apply to economics. Finally, lack of economic freedom necessarily leads to loss of all other freedoms. Watch video titled "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian" by George Reisman for reasons why
Antitheist98 8 months ago
There was a time when I had some interest in libertarianism.
Then, while talking about E-bay (I wasn't even saying what I thought at the time, I was playing Devil's Advocate for Liberals) some idiot made it ABUNDANTLY clear that some Libertarians don't give a fuck about poor people. He said that protecting poor people from being ripped-off was "against nature". What part of ebay ISN'T against nature?
And thus ended my interest in Libertarianism.
dechha1981 8 months ago
@dechha1981 some people are just selfish dicks but taking from using violence to give to another in itself selfish for the act was done to satisfy a moral standing the other parties may not hold.
libertarians say if you want to help people join up with people want to do the same and leave people who don't alone.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
@dechha1981 some people are just selfish dicks but taking from one using violence to give to another in itself selfish for the act was done to satisfy a moral standing the other parties may not hold.
libertarians say if you want to help people more power to you and join up with people who want to do the same and leave people who don't alone.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
Your videos and ideas are great but I wish you would put a little more production into them.
AtheistBryce 8 months ago
While I acknowledge that allot of politicians are bastards, you also have to admit that the government does in fact provide some usefull services. Truth In advertising for example. It used to be perfectly legal to put any crap you liked in a bottle and say it'd cure anything you can think of, such as selling syrup to diabetics.
dechha1981 8 months ago
I'm a libertarian and I think NAP is just a stupid concept. Spontaneous order and peaceful conflict resolution are much better ways of formulating a libertarian society.
You're right - there's never been a truly free market in its entirety, but there have been successful free markets in all sorts of areas (justice, law enforcement, commerce, environmental protection etc.), just not at the same time. Thus it's justified for libertarians to want less govt intervention in just about anything.
ConscientiousMind 8 months ago
@ConscientiousMind when has free markets every been successful in justice and law enforcement?
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz Well, there's Medieval Iceland, a particular favorite of some ancaps (I'm not an ancap though) - it had a quasi-libertarian provision of justice. One may argue that such an arrangement wouldn't work in today's world, but it has existed nonetheless. Also, protection and conflict resolution are frequently provided by private agents and they originally sprang from the private sector, so it doesn't follow that govt monopoly is necessary (read John Hasnas' "The Obviousness of Anarchy").
ConscientiousMind 8 months ago
Comment removed
ConscientiousMind 8 months ago
I have a somewhat pragmatic Hayekian view on established institutions, though, so I wouldn't want to completely abolish all state institutions before determining their pros and cons. (After all, it's logically possible that absent state monopolies our lives would necessarily be complete shit) But I would like to see serious discussion about just how much voluntary association can accomplish without rushing to defend the statist status quo with ill-informed Hobbesian clichés.
ConscientiousMind 8 months ago
@smpunditz I can't answer your question, but jesus christ can you type?
mynameaborat993 8 months ago
imagine all the people...... living life in peace.... you hooooooo you may sayyyyy I'm a dreamer..... :)
TruthSurge 8 months ago
I haven't watched this video yet. My response to the title: You are not engaging in serious intellectuals if you're making videos criticizing NAP. Fyi, homie. Now, I'm not a serious intellectual, but even by MY standards you're not. While there are libertarians that defend NAP, criticizing NAP is pretty much equivalent to attacking a straw-man at this point. And you should know that given the # of yrs you've been on the YouTubes.
Decentralism 8 months ago
@Decentralism how can criticizing NAP be a strawman if some libertarians still defend it? By definition a strawman requires that I argue against a position that someone doesn't hold. And by the way I have heard nothing to suggest that the concept of NAP is 'dated' if that is what you are suggesting.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz Its a straw man in the sense of only newbies defend NAP. For example, there are some idiots who defend evolution as if the theory hasn't advanced at all since Darwin. And then some theist comes along and attacks this person's view. Anyone with any sense will say that the theory of evolution has evolved quite a bit since then. Similarly, some newbies defend NAP and then a statheist comes along and attacks those people's view. =P
Decentralism 8 months ago
@Decentralism given how often I hear libertarians invoke it there must be a lot of newbies out there. At any rate I'm not trying to address any 'intellectuals' whomever they may be as I doubt any make a habit of watching youtube videos. I'm more concerned with more 'mainstream' libertarian arguments then the ones proposed by those guys in DC whose work are funded by corporations and most libertarians don't listen to anyway.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz Oh ok cool. yea, have at it. Maybe you could also check out the arguments by the guys in Alabama at the Mises Institute or in Florida at FSU--Dr. Benson has done some great work when it comes to non-state police force/protection. :)
Decentralism 8 months ago
@Decentralism if enough people propose such a stupid idea and I have the free time I just might. You seem to be of the impression that I should not respond to an idea if it is so blatantly stupid but that didn't stop you from enjoying videos about religion now did it?
Next time you accuse someone of using a strawman you might want to use the word correctly instead of how you please.
smpunditz 8 months ago
Also note that if you ever watched my video I address the issue of the 'free market' and spend half my time explaining why such a system would not even necessarily result in the least amount of coercion and thus more freedom. So I even granted the idea that libertarians simply want to reduce coercion rather then eliminate it as strict adherence NAP would require.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz I mean, I explained my usage and you understood it, so meaning was conveyed... lol.
I do see your point on responding to religious videos in spite of how blatantly stupid they are... I guess my point is, when you're done making the video series criticizing NAP, don't act like you've refuted libertarianism.
Decentralism 8 months ago
1:37
That doesn't violate the NAP, in the same way that taking back your wallet from a thief doesn't.
RPFS2008 8 months ago
@RPFS2008 you misunderstand my point. I specifically stated "even ignoring this inconsistency libertarians make the claim that a free market would require the least amount of coercion" just before that. I was referring to a possible counter argument, not claiming that it violated the NAP.
Furthermore I explained that at the end of my video that Libertarians have already violated the NAP since government requires coercion in order to fund itself and enforce their laws.
smpunditz 8 months ago
And I also said not everyone in a country is responsible for the current form of government and therefore have not initiated force against libertarians. Therefore libertarians would inevitably be guilty of initiating force on somebody by changing the government regardless.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz Explain all you want, people who disagree have a lack of real world intelligence, they just believe what a friend, family, religious leader without question, because it makes sense to them, and everything else is illogical to them, to matter how much intelligence and logic you use, they will be blind by there personal beliefs. They cannot be convinced because they do not want to be convinced, provide all the facts you want, they believe it is fiction. Nice vid.
Broggy69 8 months ago
@smpunditz
But you reiterate it here:
"And I also said not everyone in a country is responsible for the current form of government and therefore have not initiated force against libertarians. Therefore libertarians would inevitably be guilty of initiating force on somebody by changing the government regardless."
That'd be like saying that you're initiating force on the wallet thief's family (or whoever would benefit) by grabbing the thief and taking back your wallet. [cont...]
RPFS2008 8 months ago
@RPFS2008
[cont..] Now, I agree, however, that Libertarians violate the NAP by keeping a State, no matter how small, but the act of taking away State powers doesn't.
RPFS2008 8 months ago
And how is forcing someone to accept any changes to an organization to which they belong not violate the NAP?
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz
It doesn't because the organisation is the initiator. As I said, taking back your wallet by force isn't the initiation of force. The NAP isn't pacifism.
RPFS2008 8 months ago
@RPFS2008 I know NAP is not pacifism however others would disagree that you changing one government system they don't like to another one they don't like isn't initiating force and if they try to stop you they'll say you started it.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz
Personally speaking, and I think this would go for many of the people who hold the NAP as their axiom, If they like/want a system that has violence at the centre of it I couldn't care less what they think. But, to the point at hand, I agree that libertarians violate the NAP, however, the specific act of voting to put a stop to, say, farm subsidies, does not violate the NAP as it is the use of force to put a stop to the initiation of force.
RPFS2008 8 months ago
@RPFS2008 'That'd be like saying that you're initiating force on the wallet thief's family (or whoever would benefit) by grabbing the thief and taking back your wallet.'
Much of the land in this world was stolen by someone at some point. That's not the kind of route a libertarian would want to take if he intends to justifying staying on the land he owns.
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz
"Much of the land in this world was stolen by someone at some point. That's not the kind of route a libertarian would want to take if he intends to justifying staying on the land he owns."
Well, I'm not a libertarian, but they (the victims of stolen land) are long dead. Not much can be done (other than making sure we no longer steal property)
RPFS2008 8 months ago
@RPFS2008 well I didn't say you were a libertarian I was speaking in reference to my video.
My point is getting back 'stolen' property is not always practical as you have pointed out with the land example. I am well aware that the stolen land argument is flawed that's why I used it. Notice that you immediately fell to pragmatism in response to that. Dismantling our current system would likely have similar consequences for us as it did for Russia in the 90's
smpunditz 8 months ago
@smpunditz I don't think libertarians are trying to get their stolen property back, they just don't want to be stolen from any longer... tho, with that said, regulations etc. are are a kind of property grab.
I wouldn't call it pragmatism when there is no alternative. It's pragmatic like not trying to draw a square-circle is pragmatic.
Dismantling the US Government practically over night would be disastrous, no doubt. But keeping the status quo will probably realise your fears also.
RPFS2008 8 months ago