Favorite War Room poster

[Thurisaz]

No strawman simply stating that full on property rights =\= freedom.

When given as a refutation of what no one said it is a strawman.

Did U not imply that?

No.

Speaking of great posters, EEG came up with the term. He was a true anarchist, speaking of anarchist and the net, you should look up the term.

I'm not interested in splitting hairs about different names for anarchy.

 

[Gandhi]

This is a better argument than you usually see. My point was that the key issue of legitimacy of the claim is glided over rather than addressed by the offensive/defensive force distinction, while you're directly confronting the key issue.

You sort of anticipate what I'd say. The tax agreement isn't as explicit (though employment agreements mention that the employer is entitled to deduct taxes, sales tax is explicit before you pay, etc.). There's a continuum of consent. You earlier talked about workplace sexual harassment, which is coercive--not as coercive as outright physical domination, but more coercive than a relationship between two people who are equal in power. Likewise, the rental agreement is somewhat coercive (you don't want to pay the money, but you need a place to live; you don't have to live in that particular place, but you have to live somewhere), but you could argue that taxes are more coercive (the same points apply--taxes are way cheaper, though, and it's easier to not pay taxes than not pay for the place you live; but it's also easier to find another ll than another country to live in).

So there's still no *logical* argument for the distinction providing a justification for rent but not for taxes (either one is rejected or they are both accepted). But one can make different kinds of arguments that allow one but not the other. That is, if someone says that the NAP with that exception logically allows for rent but not taxes, they are simply wrong. If someone says that a desire to minimize coercive force leads them to be OK with rent but not with taxes, it might be possible for them to make an argument that holds up (which you begin to do in that post).



Yeah, I like this.

To put it another way, I think the NAP uses the whole voluntary choice mechanism as a way to distinguish between aggressive and defensive force. While I think we pretty much agree here, I might phrase it a bit differently. I think the distinction highlighted by the NAP is useful but limited.

And yes the sexual harassemt example is a perfect illustration. Suck my dick or you are fired is tantamount to rape. Power imbalances can lead to choices that are not truly voluntary by both sides and this nullify the nap. I would say that the criteria for government interference in a mutually voluntary transaction is higher than one where it is preventing a one sided infringement.

My other take is a bit more loosey goosey, these power imbalances from this state enforced voluntary system can't all be corrected, nor should they be. But the trade off for gaining collective support for these imbalances is sort some sort redistributive system (which should not ignore / should be limited by the fact that this is form of aggressive coercion). It then devolves into a pragmatic discussion around utility, growth, etc.

 

[ucunc156]

what happened to the good old days when libertarians were just people who wanted lower taxes (maybe even a flat tax) but felt weed and gay rights are all things that should exist? Since when has this group of people gone so far off the deep end? Its like libertarians don't even give a fuck about the social liberties anymore and only care about massive wealth and property collection as deciding factors for pretty much everything...

 

[Gandhi]

Libertarians should stop confusing the enforcement of property rights through coercion as freedom. True communism aka anarchism is freedom, it just is an impossibility or would be accompanied by abject poverty as well. But having everything thing owned =\= freedom. Libertarians should really change their name to propertarians.

"You can say that again. I had this one conversation with him where he claimed communism was true freedom and that national libertarianism would be tantamount to enslaving us all. He really appears to enjoy turning shit completely upside down. I can't understand how anyone can think of him as a good poster, but maybe it's easier to buy into the "nicest funklord" thing when he hasn't taken pot shots at you on a thread he hasn't previously posted at all."

It's clear you disagreed with the idea that libertarianism meant less freedom while true communism meant the opposite (which again is what anarchism is, if you don't want to argue about definitions don't bring them up). I get that you have some wiggle room because u framed things im absolutes.

If you agree that national libertarianism will lead to less freedom just not "absolute slavery", then yes i strawmanned you, but then your disagreement with JVS is a matter of degree and seems a bit bizarre (especially as you talked about things being upside down, which is the point of my post, they are NOT upside down).

 

[Jack V Savage]

To put it another way, I think the NAP uses the whole voluntary choice mechanism as a way to distinguish between aggressive and defensive force.

Maybe, but, again, rent is not fully voluntary and taxes are not fully involuntary. It's not clear that one is more coercive than the other. You need income, which is taxed, to live (unless there's a strong safety net!) but you also need a place to live (even if you're homeless, you're staying somewhere that's probably public property, which right-wing libertarians oppose). If you're poor, paying for housing could be a crushing burden while taxation could be negligible (and income taxes, specifically, are very low for most Americans). If you're the landlord, your perspective will be different, but then we're in the situation of the LL thinking that the NAP justifies rent but not taxes, while the renter has the opposite view. So, again, the key issue is who is entitled to what, and the NAP is silent on it.

And yes the sexual harassemt example is a perfect illustration. Suck my dick or you are fired is tantamount to rape. Power imbalances can lead to choices that are not truly voluntary by both sides and this nullify the nap. I would say that the criteria for government interference in a mutually voluntary transaction is higher than one where it is preventing a one sided infringement.

My other take is a bit more loosey goosey, these power imbalances from this state enforced voluntary system can't all be corrected, nor should they be. But the trade off for gaining collective support for these imbalances is sort some sort redistributive system (which should not ignore / should be limited by the fact that this is form of aggressive coercion). It then devolves into a pragmatic discussion around utility, growth, etc.

Yeah, and that's good. I think that a pragmatic discussion around those things is really what is best for society. The NAP is just a distraction used to pull a rhetorical sleight of hand (that is, it doesn't actually contribute to that discussion, but it gives people the impression that it does if they're not paying close attention). People used to be more accepting of the kind of sexual harassment you mentioned, but we've made (what I would consider) progress. Right-wing libertarians, being by nature authoritarian, what to go backwards on that kind of thing and justify it with the kind of bad reasoning we've been talking about.

BTW, good discussion on this subject here (both the original piece and the comments):

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/

 

[Gandhi]

Maybe, but, again, rent is not fully voluntary and taxes are not fully involuntary. It's not clear that one is more coercive than the other. You need income, which is taxed, to live (unless there's a strong safety net!) but you also need a place to live (even if you're homeless, you're staying somewhere that's probably public property, which right-wing libertarians oppose). If you're poor, paying for housing could be a crushing burden while taxation could be negligible (and income taxes, specifically, are very low for most Americans). If you're the landlord, your perspective will be different, but then we're in the situation of the LL thinking that the NAP justifies rent but not taxes, while the renter has the opposite view. So, again, the key issue is who is entitled to what, and the NAP is silent on it.



Yeah, and that's good. I think that a pragmatic discussion around those things is really what is best for society. The NAP is just a distraction used to pull a rhetorical sleight of hand (that is, it doesn't actually contribute to that discussion, but it gives people the impression that it does if they're not paying close attention). People used to be more accepting of the kind of sexual harassment you mentioned, but we've made (what I would consider) progress. Right-wing libertarians, being by nature authoritarian, what to go backwards on that kind of thing and justify it with the kind of bad reasoning we've been talking about.

BTW, good discussion on this subject here (both the original piece and the comments):

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/

I agree on the idea of a continuum and as well that there are real limitations to the rule. Where we may disagree is that I think the concept of coercion can be segmented along that continuum. Voluntary choice having implicitly less coercion attached to it than areas where there is no voluntary choice. It is also similar in that I don't see capital gains as redistributive. To me the NAP is a useful starting point to discuss rights in a market based economy and explore where and why those limits occur. It has been most certainly abused.

 

[Jack V Savage]

what happened to the good old days when libertarians were just people who wanted lower taxes (maybe even a flat tax) but felt weed and gay rights are all things that should exist? Since when has this group of people gone so far off the deep end? Its like libertarians don't even give a fuck about the social liberties anymore and only care about massive wealth and property collection as deciding factors for pretty much everything...

Taking their rhetoric seriously, you'd think that they'd be big supporters of BLM (specifically, Campaign Zero) and of open borders. But it turns out that they're mostly just the usual far-right types who don't like the label.

 

[Fawlty]

Can a person even call himself a libertarian if he wants his government to pass anti-union laws? Free markets mean free movement of labor too- it seems like half the libertarians today have forgotten that. That faction wants to use state violence in their favor, pure and simple.

 

[ucunc156]

Taking their rhetoric seriously, you'd think that they'd be big supporters of BLM (specifically, Campaign Zero) and of open borders. But it turns out that they're mostly just the usual far-right types who don't like the label.

Seriously, was I blinded back then or were RP supporters nowhere near this level of property centric, complete disregard for social justices?? I don't even hear libertarians speak up against the prison system anymore.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I would take Jones over Fedor in an open-weight fight.

That would be the fight I'd most want to see and would probably be cheering for Jones. I have to give Fedor the benefit of the doubt though since he is still the consensus GOAT and I don't know how Jones would handle the Russian's power. Conversely, I don't see Fedor having much problem with Jon's power.

Agree, but what's your solution, da market ?

Solution to sexual harassment or Nazis? The first one is easy. Give 'em all their own kitchen and a government stipend. The second one is just a matter of never letting a talent like Hugo Boss design government uniforms again. Who wouldn't follow those sharply-dressed bastards in the beginning? By the time you find out what they're up to it's too late.

 

[klnOmega]

what happened to the good old days when libertarians were just people who wanted lower taxes (maybe even a flat tax) but felt weed and gay rights are all things that should exist? Since when has this group of people gone so far off the deep end? Its like libertarians don't even give a fuck about the social liberties anymore and only care about massive wealth and property collection as deciding factors for pretty much everything...

What is typically called "gay rights" now is just an infringement of the rights of others.

For example, "gay rights" mean gays should be able to force a Christian baker, on penalty of law, to make them a gay-pride cake against his/her will. That's a very anti-libertarian concept.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

Probably @Jack V Savage

Guy cracks me up. The amount he posts, I'm sure he has no real job or career and social life and yet he always posting about knowing the real world

It's like a crack head telling you cigarettes are bad for you. Love the dude

 

[Jack V Savage]

Seriously, was I blinded back then or were RP supporters nowhere near this level of property centric, complete disregard for social justices?? I don't even hear libertarians speak up against the prison system anymore.

I think there was a mix.

Guy cracks me up. The amount he posts, I'm sure he has no real job or career and social life and yet he always posting about knowing the real world

I just work from home, and I'm good enough at my job (stock analyst) that it doesn't take me that long (but I have to be kind of on call at work). And certainly with a wife, a job, and a kid, I'm not a huge party animal.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

I think there was a mix.



I just work from home, and I'm good enough at my job (stock analyst) that it doesn't take me that long (but I have to be kind of on call at work). And certainly with a wife, a job, and a kid, I'm not a huge party animal.

Liar I know you flip a lid or two bra

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

@2DUM2TAP.
Whether I agree with his position or not.

 

[Gandhi]

That would be the fight I'd most want to see and would probably be cheering for Jones. I have to give Fedor the benefit of the doubt though since he is still the consensus GOAT and I don't know how Jones would handle the Russian's power. Conversely, I don't see Fedor having much problem with Jon's power.




Solution to sexual harassment or Nazis? The first one is easy. Give 'em all their own kitchen and a government stipend. The second one is just a matter of never letting a talent like Hugo Boss design government uniforms again. Who wouldn't follow those sharply-dressed bastards in the beginning? By the time you find out what they're up to it's too late.

Lmao!!!

 

[ucunc156]

What is typically called "gay rights" now is just an infringement of the rights of others.

For example, "gay rights" mean gays should be able to force a Christian baker, on penalty of law, to make them a gay-pride cake against his/her will. That's a very anti-libertarian concept.

So if you belong to a denomination that thinks black people shouldn't be served, you should be allowed that opportunity?

 

[dontsnitch]

So if you belong to a denomination that thinks black people shouldn't be served, you should be allowed that opportunity?

The bakery does not refuse gay people service, so the analogy is not quite apt, regardless of whether this is right or wrong.

 

[ehtheist]

So if you belong to a denomination that thinks black people shouldn't be served, you should be allowed that opportunity?

I think it's more a case of the black people come in and ask for a cake with some sort of crazy racist symbol on it and get turned away. I've read about it happening to white nationalists, and no-one seemed to care. Some guy went into Dairy Queen and asked for his kid's full name to be written on the birthday case - I believe it was something like "Joe Adolph Hitler Smith." His daughter's name was something like "Jane Aryan Nation Smith." Go figure, the DQ turned him down, offered to make him a cake with something else written on it, and it never made it past small media...

Religious figures refuse to marry people of certain types all the time - many Catholic churches, for instance, won't marry non-Catholics. Yet I don't remember anyone being up in arms over this? They just accept that the non-Catholics go to somewhere that non-Catholics are married...