|
The whole idea of taxes or state services uniquely 'initiating violence' is nonsense. Property is protected by 'initiating violence' (as defined by libertarians): if I walk across your land, I haven't 'initiated violence' against anyone; if you forcibly remove me from that land, you've 'initiated violence' against me. Libertarians argue that state or private parties protecting property rights with violence or threat of violence is justified based on other ethical arguments: you deserve what you earn, property rights create the best outcome for everyone, etcetera. But this are separate arguments, and a blanket appeal against initiating violence is empty unless you are talking about literal violence against a person.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
quote:Surely this is not controversial? In case you missed when I called you out on this on the last thread, stop this. Also stop with things like "Surely we all agree" or "But clearly...". No one here agrees with you. Talking as though people do agree with you makes you seem like a condescending prick swirling brandy in his bathrobe. Don't talk down to people. Edit: Oh and since I posted the only real in depth reply on the last page, please give it the time of day before you get probated. Pretty please?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
D_I posted:Where do these people learn to excel at these tasks? Do they hope that their father learned a specialty that is considered valuable from his father who learned it from his father? Obviously no one is born with the innate knowledge of woodworking or accounting. If not for public institutions paid for with tax money then there would be a permanent underclass that is unable to advance in society because of the luck of their birth. Libertarianism is a one generation system because it does not consider the needs of future generations or the under served. What?! Are you kidding me? So education simply doesn't exist without the State? This is such a laughable statement and is clearly disproven simply by an examination of history. Hell, even recent history. Education was a local institution until the late 20th century. Carter introduced the Department of Education in 1979 and educational standards have declined since. The State has no interest in providing education. Its goal is to indoctrinate children into believing in the necessity and legitimacy of an institution of centralized power. Listen, we live in the age of the internet. The dissemination of education and information is everywhere. You can learn marketable skills very easily on your own. I received a very good education growing up. I attended some pretty expensive private schools on scholarship but I still believe I learned as much or more on my own time with the internet, certainly more information relevant to the job market and in developing marketable skills. Did you even think about this paragraph before you typed it out? You are using a computer that is connected to the internet which stores pretty much the entirety of collected human knowledge and you are making the case that people couldn't possibly learn stuff without those archaic, regimented quasi-prisons that indoctrinate children?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But politicians can steal 30% of their income each year and call it an "income tax". I think this is the dumbest part of libertarianism. The government does not "steal" part of your income. Some of the dollar (or yen or whatever) amount of your pay is spent maintaining the society whose existence allowed you to earn that money. This next part is really important: MONEY ISN'T REAL. I repeat, MONEY ISN'T REAL. Money is a symbol. It is a symbol of the amount of work you have put into society and hence how much of that society's resources you are entitled to draw on. When someone works a shift at the grocery store they are not building a house. When someone writes a computer program they are not growing any food. When someone grows 10 acres of wheat they are not raising cattle or building TVs. That's okay though, because other people are and we recognize that specialization has benefits for everyone so we allow some people to not grow any food but still eat and others to not build houses and not be homeless. Now barter is complicated and time consuming, (how do I exchange road building services for lunch?) which is why the abstract symbol called "money" came to be. Of course money only has value if other people believe that it does (because they believe they will get value for it from others who believe . . . etc.) which means that the value of a currency unit is an inherently social construct. The fact that you are using money at all rather than being self-sufficient or relying on barter means you are part of that society and deriving benefits from it. Society is therefore perfectly justified in requiring you to contribute to its upkeep and to revoke those benefits if you don't by taking back some previously allocated resources (i.e. fines and late fees) or even temporarily remove you from that society (prison). Again, MONEY ISN'T REAL. You didn't earn any money, you performed labor that society has deemed to have a certain value which is REPRESENTED by a number of dollars (or euros or whatever) that society allows you to exchange for the product of other people's labor. tl;dr: Taxes aren't theft, they're a user fee for money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Well the internet certainly wouldn't exist without the quasi-prisons of public universities, now would it? And men with guns. DARPA? You loving noob? You need to make a decision between defending the existing history of business, and its myriad interactions with coercive institutions, or totally disclaiming the status quo and proselytizing about your future market economy in which everything will be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Everything should be done by private businesses, he posted on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jrodefeld, why would private arbitration services compete for the business of people with no money? What happens when a person who has purchased an area of land the size of Pennsylvania goes up against a squatter who has pitched a yurt on a seemingly unused portion of that land? There is a huge difference between voluntary democracy and coercive democracy. If you are hanging out with a group of friends and you say "who wants to go see a movie?" and a majority say yes, then that is a form of democracy. No one is compelling you to do anything. In the case of an arbitration agency that is representing the victims of aggression, this would all be stipulated in the contract and terms of service that those people agreed to. It is not compulsory. Compulsory democracy through the State means that a majority of people can use violence against a minority, deprive them of their property and restrict their range of economic options. Aggression is not justifiable because individuals own themselves. Ethical rules for conduct must be universal. Just like lawyers do pro bono work, there will exist charity arbitration services that will represent victims who have no money. Since it is obviously in the interest of society at large that a criminal does not get away with victimizing someone, people will be willing to pay to have the convicted person tried for his crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not saying it does. A discussion is a two way street though. But it is pretty easy for a critic to sit back and nitpick about every possible issue that could arise in a proposed political order, but what is their alternative? The way to critique a proposal is not to point out that some difficult issue might arise, but rather how does a proposed society compare to any other valid alternatives? The issue is one of comparison. This is the libertarian thread, so it makes sense to talk about libertarianism here. If you want to discuss other systems, then that either belongs in threads belonging to those other systems or in a thread about these kinds of systems in general. quote:I don't know what the optimal solution is to this dilemma. Fortunately I don't have to know. Why the gently caress not? Don't you want to talk about libertarianism? If your first response to my first argument is "uhh I don't know I'm sure it'll all work out for reasons" then you're basically just wasting everyone's time quote:In an anarchist society, private arbitration services will compete for your patronage. The justice system in a libertarian world will be geared towards restitution but each arbitration service will have stipulations and policies regarding situations like this. Maybe the most recent victim will have a greater say in the punishment. Maybe a democratic vote from the victims of the murderer will rule the day. There are many viable possibilities. Who runs the justice system? What if I decide that I'm the only valid judge and that all decisions made by your justice system are invalid? If someone kills your family and that guy does not consent to be judged by your justice system, then are you allowed to initiate violence upon his person? What if he kills himself before you can initiate violence, can you initiate violence on his family, or take his belongings, or something? What happens if I bribe the arbitration service that we're using? What if I walk into the court room and say right to your face "I've bribed the judge" and he permits me to kill you as retribution for wasted my time with a frivolous lawsuit? This is all completely legal in your system. What if I take you to an arbitration service and bribe the judge to give me all of your stuff? You've obligated to agree based on whatever stupid contract you signed with the arbitration service, right? What else could you do, would you initiate violence on my person? You've basically exchanged "might makes right" with "buying power makes right", which is hosed up. When you let everything be dictated by market forces alone then you create a really lovely place. quote:I oppose capital punishment not because I think some people don't deserve death but because I believe that spiritually everyone should have the opportunity to make amends for their actions. Whether they make any effort to seriously repent is unknowable but everyone should have the opportunity in my view. Also, I think the idea of revenge is an understandable impulse but it is still not healthy for society. But if another victim strongly favored the death penalty and I couldn't convince them otherwise, I would allow them to make the final determination. I don't really care why you oppose capital punishment but okay
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What?! Are you kidding me? So education simply doesn't exist without the State? This is such a laughable statement and is clearly disproven simply by an examination of history. Hell, even recent history. Education was a local institution until the late 20th century. Carter introduced the Department of Education in 1979 and educational standards have declined since. The State has no interest in providing education. Its goal is to indoctrinate children into believing in the necessity and legitimacy of an institution of centralized power. We already know you're rather ignorant of history, so how about you look up the Prussian education system. The State does have an incontrovertible interest in providing education, and to assert otherwise is to deny reality. Jesus, you're one stupid fucker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
D_I posted:Should have worked harder to get more land I guess. Without the State, a business doesn't have any power over me. In a market economy, an entrepreneur makes money by investing money into a new business venture. The job of the entrepreneur is to anticipate consumer demand and fill a need that people have. If he bets correctly and people find value in what he provides, they reward him with profits. If he bets wrong and people find no value in what he provides, he losses money and may go bankrupt. I have the choice to trade my labor services for wages to an entrepreneur, become an entrepreneur myself or I can collude with other workers and create a Marxist commune, non-hierarchical coop where each worker owns the means of production. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. But you have choices. If you are a wage earner you can quit your job at any time. You can start your own business. You can develop different skills and move into a different line of work. The idea that a private business on the market has "power", much less anything comparable to a monopolistic State is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
quote:The constant leftist refrain that libertarianism is simply propaganda pushed by billionaires to serve their interests has always been a ludicrous claim. The pretend libertarian Koch brothers had an influence but they simply co-opted and castrated the message. But who else? If the ultra rich all wanted libertarianism and it really served their interests, why haven't we had any libertarian presidents ever? Why isn't Congress full of Ron Pauls? I have to sleep. Why won't you let me sleep!? Charles Koch was the Libertarian party candadate for Vice President in 1980. By what metric does that make him less of a libertarian than say... Ron Paul (who by the way is a massive racist)? Charles Koch is also MASSIVELY important in your ideology despite what you may think. You know Reason magazine which I mentioned above? Heavily funded by the Koch's. CATO institute? Started out as the Charles Koch foundation. Heritage Foundation, George Mason University, Freedom Works etc. The people who get libertarians elected are bought and paid for by Koch funding. quote:The truth is that the ultra rich hate the free market. The free market doesn't serve their interests. Have you ever read a book called "The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko? Kolko was no libertarian. He was a radical leftist historian and he saw that the supposed "Progressive" reforms of the early 20th century amounted to a capitulation of State power to the wishes of the largest business and financial interests. Yeah, that social security, trust busting, medicare, high unionization rates, unemployment insurance and glass steagal sure amounted to a capitulation of state power to the rich and powerful. Also you namedropped, you know my favorite part of a Jrodefeld thread? Figuring out what is wrong with the people you are quoting. In this case, Kolko. Here is what he had to say when Reason magazine was assembling a list of college professors whose courses might be of interest to libertarian students. quote:Under no circumstances should I be listed in your Registry, or thought to be in any manner a supporter of your exotic political position. If anything proves my thesis that american conservative ideology is more a question of intelligence than politics, it has been the persistent use of my works to buttress your position. I love Jrodefeld threads. Quoting a socialist poorly out of context to explain why we should go full retard free market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Without the State, a business doesn't have any power over me. In a market economy, an entrepreneur makes money by investing money into a new business venture. The job of the entrepreneur is to anticipate consumer demand and fill a need that people have. If he bets correctly and people find value in what he provides, they reward him with profits. If he bets wrong and people find no value in what he provides, he losses money and may go bankrupt. Have you ever picked up a history book in your life to do with the industrial revolution or industrial relations? You are a loving idiot, and that is being charitable. EDIT: ^ I'm glad I was right after reading Kolko's wikipedia page and thinking "What the gently caress is Jrodefeld citing this guy for?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is a huge difference between voluntary democracy and coercive democracy. If you are hanging out with a group of friends and you say "who wants to go see a movie?" and a majority say yes, then that is a form of democracy. No one is compelling you to do anything. In the case of an arbitration agency that is representing the victims of aggression, this would all be stipulated in the contract and terms of service that those people agreed to. It is not compulsory. A) Criminal commits a crime B) You hire an arbitration service C) Arbitration service demands that the criminal pay you restitution D) Criminal tells arbitration service to gently caress off, because he is his own person and you can't compel him, and he's innocent anyway What now? Guess your society is just hosed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
ATTENTION JROD! YOU ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME AUTISTIC BEHAVIOR THAT GOT YOU BANNED LAST TIME. IF THE OLD THREAD STILL EXISTED I WOULD GO AND GET IT TO SHOW YOU THE EXACT POST THAT CLARIFIES WHY YOU SHOULD NOT DO THIS! STOP REPLYING TO EVERY SINGLE POST IN SEQUENCE. YOU ARE MIDWAY THROUGH PAGE 2, THE THREAD AS OF THIS UPDATE BY ME IS AT PAGE 4. YOU WILL NEVER, EVER CATCH UP AT THAT RATE AND THE CONVERSATION WILL LEAVE YOU BEHIND. READ ALL THE REPLIES, PICK A COUPLE (MAYBE GROUP THEM TOGETHER BY TYPE OF REPLY) AND THEN REPLY TO THOSE. IF YOU ATTEMPT TO REPLY TO EVERY SINGLE POST YOU WILL GET PROGRESSIVELY BEHIND AND WON'T REALLY BE INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF A DISCUSSION. SERIOUSLY, I HAD TO FIGURE OUT WHICH POST YOU HAD LAST REPLIED TO AND THEN EDIT IN COMMENTS TO A POST SLIGHTLY PAST IT TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU IN REAL TIME RATHER THAN WAIT TWO DAYS FOR YOU TO CATCH UP TO WHERE THE THREAD CURRENTLY IS. IF YOU KEEP DOING THIS XYLOJW WILL BAN YOU AGAIN FOR SURE, AND I WANT YOU TO STICK AROUND AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A PRETTY BORING WEEK FOR ME. jrodefeld posted:There is a huge difference between voluntary democracy and coercive democracy. If you are hanging out with a group of friends and you say "who wants to go see a movie?" and a majority say yes, then that is a form of democracy. No one is compelling you to do anything. In the case of an arbitration agency that is representing the victims of aggression, this would all be stipulated in the contract and terms of service that those people agreed to. It is not compulsory. Okay, one more thing and then I'm totally going to bed. What happens to people who opt out, due to lack of funds or out of choice. Say for example, I am too poor to afford it, or too cheap, or I live in too nice of a neighborhood and you come and stab my wife. What happens? Can I hire these people after the fact to go and 'investigate' her murder? Or do I just not get justice. What happens if you aren't part of the justice network, do you just get to go free and clear? Or do they get to arrest you and hold you until trial? What rights do you have? Do you have the right to an attorney? Sure there are pro-bono, but what if there isn't one available? What if its a small firm that I hired because I'm poor? Do you have the right to remain silent? Who sets up the court and how? What if you didn't do it but are poor? What if they just picked up the first hobo they saw and said "He murdered your wife?" Your justice system seems to work poorly, but semi-functionally in a vacuum where everyone arrested is guilty, but what happens when people are innocent? quote:Without the State, a business doesn't have any power over me. In a market economy, an entrepreneur makes money by investing money into a new business venture. The job of the entrepreneur is to anticipate consumer demand and fill a need that people have. If he bets correctly and people find value in what he provides, they reward him with profits. If he bets wrong and people find no value in what he provides, he losses money and may go bankrupt. Unless they build a fertilizer plant next to your children's school that happens to explode. Or unless they dump toxic chemicals into the groundwater, or release toxins in the air that will increase cancer risk for the community three decades down the line where it is too late for you to do anything about it. quote:If you are a wage earner you can quit your job at any time. You can start your own business. You can develop different skills and move into a different line of work. Unless they are poor. Do you not understand that most people work paycheque to paycheque? Caros fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is a huge difference between voluntary democracy and coercive democracy. If you are hanging out with a group of friends and you say "who wants to go see a movie?" and a majority say yes, then that is a form of democracy. No one is compelling you to do anything. Well I thought we were talking about groups of people voting on other people's punishment, not going to a movie, but whatever quote:Just like lawyers do pro bono work, there will exist charity arbitration services that will represent victims who have no money. Since it is obviously in the interest of society at large that a criminal does not get away with victimizing someone, people will be willing to pay to have the convicted person tried for his crime. No! No! No. You do not get to do this. This is the equivalent of saying "magic!" Pro bono work is already inadequate to cover the legal representation of the impoverished. You are simply deciding that it would somehow be more adequate in a market economy. That is just wishful thinking. Not good enough bitch!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Without public education, you wind up with a permanent underclass that is unable to advance in society due to no access to education. This is bad for the economy and bad for the society. You have difficulty understanding economics and history, but I thought that you'd at least have okay reading comprehension
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
quote:Without public education, you wind up with a permanent underclass that is unable to advance in society due to no access to education. This is bad for the economy and bad for the society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
gently caress it, I lied. Jrodefeld, did you know that metal lawn darts are banned in Canada? Its true, you can look it up on the HealthCanada. You can't sell them, but you can posess them, I know this because another stupid libertarian brought it up to me a while back. I looked into it and I found out why they were banned, would you like to hear? The short version is that they used to be sold as toys. You know, buy a set of lawn darts for the kids, it'll be a fun game for the whole family. They were marketed at children, then later sold provided they were not marketed as toys. This ended when Michelle Snow was killed by a lawn dart thrown by her brother's friend that went over a fence. David Snow decided this was loving dumb and after a year of lobbying he managed to get lawn darts banned in 1988. In the previous eight years 6,100 people had gone to the emergency room due to lawn dart injuries, with 81% of those being 15 or younger, and 50% being 10 years old or younger. This is naked government aggression. This is the government intruding on the free market and I LOVE IT. You want an example of where aggression is applicable here it is. The government stepped in and banned the sale of what was effectively throwing knives marketed to children. This company was selling a 'fun' product that was injuring thousands of children and killing nearly a dozen over a twenty year span. The company could not be sued because there was nothing wrong with their product, and they would have gone on selling them for years to come until the outcry finally outrode the money, during which child after child would be hurt or killed in the search of their profit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Bozza posted:How does libertarian anarchism explain the success of the great institutions of the state in Europe? For example the NHS? European nations are very in debt and are all financed through inflationary paper currencies. By what standards exactly is the socialized healthcare in Europe the best on the planet? Inevitably, the State must ration care under a socialized system. Our Corporate Fascist medicine in the United States is terrible as well but a common occurrence in Canada an Europe is to have people placed on waiting lists for a year or more for a common medical procedure. There are shortages and plenty of problems. Don't kid yourself. When comparing terrible healthcare systems, I could see that given the low standards we are accustomed to, you could hear anecdotes about how someone received superior care under a Single Payer system. But these are very flawed, centrally planned, bureaucratic systems. Fifty to sixty years ago, the United States had the best healthcare on the planet and it was not even close. Compared to today the technology was primitive of course, but the cost and delivery was superior in every way. Medical costs were affordable for almost all Americans and there existed an abundance of charity hospitals that served patients for free. Going back even further is the forgotten but once prevalent institution called a "friendly society" or "mutual aid society". These clubs were like the Moose Lodge and the Elks Club (two still existed social clubs whose roots date back to the 19th century). These societies were common among working class people and the poor. These mutual aid societies required very modest dues for membership but once you were a member, you received many benefits. One benefit was that a lodge doctor would treat you for free. Year round and for any ailment. The lodge would hire a doctor or group of doctors and pay them one large lump sum. If any member of the lodge got sick, the doctor would treat them for free. He would make house calls. And he had an incentive to keep these people healthy because it cost him more if they got sick, needed surgery or anything like that. This was a VERY successful model for healthcare delivery to the poor and working class that is all but forgotten today. It was the Corporate medical establishment that created the AMA and other institutions to crack down on the lodge doctors who were undercutting their profits. The medical establishment lobbied the government to get involved in medicine to protect their bottom line. The market was actually working to provide cheap healthcare to the masses but the State intervened on behalf of the medical establishment. Costs rose through the roof, charity hospitals and mutual aid societies were put out of business by regulations and the welfare State. One book that is absolutely indispensible on this subject is called "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967" by David Beito http://www.amazon.com/From-Mutual-A...=donations09-20
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A) Criminal commits a crime Then all of the other people in society, all of whom follow the arbitration companies the way fantasy football nerds follow NFL box scores, give the criminal the silent treatment and refuse to do business with him, and then he starves to death, which is not violent at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The idea that a private business on the market has "power", much less anything comparable to a monopolistic State is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:European nations are very in debt and are all financed through inflationary paper currencies. By what standards exactly is the socialized healthcare in Europe the best on the planet? Inevitably, the State must ration care under a socialized system. Our Corporate Fascist medicine in the United States is terrible as well but a common occurrence in Canada an Europe is to have people placed on waiting lists for a year or more for a common medical procedure. There are shortages and plenty of problems. Don't kid yourself. Yeah because your bitch-rear end "philosophy" has poisoned the ranks of politics and bureaucracy and made them think taxation is bad. Looter corporations escape their obligations, fix the system, use tax shelters and promote "austerity" for the little guy and public institutions. Austerity is a fraud meant to destroy systems and people's faith in them. You buy it as usual, you walking cloaca.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What?! Are you kidding me? So education simply doesn't exist without the State? This is such a laughable statement and is clearly disproven simply by an examination of history. Hell, even recent history. Education was a local institution until the late 20th century. Carter introduced the Department of Education in 1979 and educational standards have declined since. The State has no interest in providing education. Its goal is to indoctrinate children into believing in the necessity and legitimacy of an institution of centralized power. Augusto Pinochet introduced the school voucher system in Chile, along with numerous other shock doctrine capitalist policies, and drove the country's literacy rate and PISA into the ground. The private schools were uncompetitive. Hierarchal societies have been around a long, long time out of necessity, but conflating the current legitimacy of the United States with absolute monarchism and feudalism is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Laffo mate. I'll take a years wait for major surgery instead of having to sell my first born like I would need to in the states. Did you know that the number one reason for filing bankruptcy in the USA is for medical charges? But hey, if the poor cant pay they can just die out, right? Oh no, I forgot, there will be lots of pro bono doctors working because reasons to save the odd token poor people instead of actually looking after them in an organised manner because gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah because your bitch-rear end "philosophy" has poisoned the ranks of politics and bureaucracy and made them think taxation is bad. Looter corporations escape their obligations, fix the system, use tax shelters and promote "austerity" for the little guy and public institutions. Austerity is a fraud meant to destroy systems and people's faith in them. You buy it as usual, you walking cloaca.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:European nations are very in debt and are all financed through inflationary paper currencies. By what standards exactly is the socialized healthcare in Europe the best on the planet? Inevitably, the State must ration care under a socialized system. Our Corporate Fascist medicine in the United States is terrible as well but a common occurrence in Canada an Europe is to have people placed on waiting lists for a year or more for a common medical procedure. There are shortages and plenty of problems. Don't kid yourself. Sleeeeeppppppp. The waiting lists in Canada are based off of triage. You need that new hip now, you get it now. You need it less, you get it less. What we don't have waiting lists for are medically necessary treatments. Do you remember that story I told you about why I'm not a Libertarian? In Canada we don't ration Cancer treatment in favor of Botox like they do in the USA. Don't kid yourself. America has waiting lists too, and they ration Health Care the same way anyone does, since it is a limited thing. Places with universal healthcare ration by need, the US rations by ability to pay. One of these is immoral and sickening, guess which one! If you are unable to pay, the wait list for something like Cancer treatment is infinite in the USA. Not even talking about cost savings, or effectiveness that should debunk the idea of a pay for use healthcare system. quote:When comparing terrible healthcare systems, I could see that given the low standards we are accustomed to, you could hear anecdotes about how someone received superior care under a Single Payer system. But these are very flawed, centrally planned, bureaucratic systems. Citation loving needed. This is not an answer you coward. You're handwaving and trying to pretend that the British system which is universally admired is somehow fundimentally flawed. quote:Fifty to sixty years ago, the United States had the best healthcare on the planet and it was not even close. Compared to today the technology was primitive of course, but the cost and delivery was superior in every way. Medical costs were affordable for almost all Americans and there existed an abundance of charity hospitals that served patients for free. First off, not true, you have to go back to about 1920 for this to be accurate. Also operating rooms looked like this.  quote:Going back even further is the forgotten but once prevalent institution called a "friendly society" or "mutual aid society". These clubs were like the Moose Lodge and the Elks Club (two still existed social clubs whose roots date back to the 19th century). These societies were common among working class people and the poor. Do you know why these systems failed? I'll give you a hint it had gently caress all to do with the AMA and a lot more to do with something you might have heard of called the great depression. You see, mutual aid societies are great when things are going good. However, when you have a giant gently caress off recession, mutual aid societies react the same way that other forms of charity do, which is to say that they collapse. Mutual aid societies for say... welfare are great until everyone needs it, and they're great for healthcare until 25% of their members (more like 50 since they were used largely by the poor) are unemployed. Then they collapse because they don't have enough income vs exposure. Mutual Aid Societies cannot replace a robust public system. Univeral healthcare in Britain did not retract when the financial crash hit, it kept steady. Food stamps didn't dry up when the recession hit, they actually expanded to cover more people since they are what is called a universal stabilizer. Fun fact, food stamps by itself accounted for more of the US GDP than all charity in the US combined in the 2008 recession. People give less when times are bad, which is the same point where they need to be giving more. quote:The market was actually working to provide cheap healthcare to the masses but the State intervened on behalf of the medical establishment. Costs rose through the roof, charity hospitals and mutual aid societies were put out of business by regulations and the welfare State. Here is a link debunking the idea that Mutual Aid socities were some perfect snowflake system that could somehow cover everyone for medical care despite all evidence to the contrary. quote:But there did exist a system of voluntary social insurance during the turn of the century. In From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, historian David Beito writes that there were thousands of fraternal societies across America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These societies were organized by religion, ethnicity, and other similar affiliations. They were also the most common provider of insurance and relief before the New Deal. In general, they would cover funeral costs and provide some sick pay. These were particularly important for low-wage workers, and played a bigger role in insurance than charity or welfare institutions. Politically and socially fragmented, they played no part in calling for a public role in social insurance. These institutions continue to be a focus of celebration for conservatives. Just a helpful hint since I am now for realsies going to sleep. You know absolutely nothing about healthcare. Way more than any other catagory of things you know nothing about. Do not try and tell me how awesome a free market healthcare system totally would be. I've seen the free market of healthcare in action. It killed a friend of mine. Caros fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Yes that was very sad, but obviously the death of your friend made you too irrational to appreciate the virtue of libertarianism <--what jrodefeld actually said
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I just realized he actually put a tag on this one rather than leaving it as a poo poo post. Or was that a mod?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Read this and you're good. I skimmed through that link. I've heard all that before. Yes, left anarchists think that it is "not enough" to oppose the State but you also must oppose Capitalist private property and supposed "exploitation". I find this position untenable. As I explained, if you own yourself then you are able to acquire property in certain ways. If you acquire property through original appropriation or through legitimate trade with someone who was a legitimate owner of property, then you should be permitted to exercise control over that scarce resource provided you don't violate anyone else's property rights. Wage labor is not exploitative. The reason is because of time preference and the need to reward risk. The worker has a low time preference, which means he wants to receive a guaranteed income now rather than going into debt and waiting on a return on investment down the line sometime. The entrepreneur takes a risk on an unproven idea. He puts his capital at risk and must wait on the potential of profits down the road. He agrees to pay his workers today for the value of their labor, even though he makes no profits to begin with. He is assuming all the risk and if he loses everything, he still is required to pay his workers the agreed to hourly wage for their labor services. Without the potential for profits, there would be no reason for the entrepreneur to assume this risk. The worker of course is free to become an entrepreneur as well, but he freely trades a a potential larger return in the future for a guaranteed income in the present. The profits are the reward the entrepreneur gets for assuming all the risk. As with the interest that one must pay on a loan, the profits are like interest for the worker. The entrepreneur is paying his workers a guaranteed wage today, even though he won't see profits for maybe months or even years. This is money that the entrepreneur could be using in the present. But he "loans" it out to the worker in the present and the profits that he could receive later account for the difference in time preference, like interest on a loan. This is why the employer/employee relationship is absolutely not exploitative in a pure free market, private property libertarian society. Also, how can you have no State and enforce prohibitions on private property and Capitalism? If you have no State then that must mean that the entities that are entrusted to enforce norms of conduct on society must be privately agreed to. If a small group of people want to sign a contract that says that one person will work for another and that the employer will own the capital and receive a profit, who is going to use force against them to prevent this economic relationship? If you don't have a central State, why wouldn't such economic relationships be permissible? See, a libertarian market anarchist would permit the Marxist to form any sort of voluntary Socialist system he would like but we would just stipulate that he permit us libertarians to engage in the free market, private property and entrepreneurship. If socialism and Marxism prove to be superior systems, then they shouldn't need violence to enforce them. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
QUIT loving SKIMMING. You've asked "oh gee what are the alternatives to my babyish ideas? Why would you withhold this information from me???" multiple times. You get a source, loving read it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
OP, do you believe that the government banning lead-based additives to gasoline was unreasonable aggression and that burning lead should be permitted? Free market, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In a market economy everyone is compensated for their work when an economic transactions takes place. In the division of labor people specialize in tasks that they excel at, then they trade their goods and services for a medium of exchange. When I pay for tools, I have compensated the tool maker for his efforts. When I pay a toll road owner to use his road, I have compensated the road builder for the use of his road. When another person pays me for the crops I grow on my farm, they have compensated me for the effort to harvest food. Everyone IS compensated for the work they do in a market economy. Market economy is a not a very good tool to compensate people for the work they did. You have CEOs or celebrities, for example, earning hundred times more than scientists, teachers or doctors despite the latter being much more useful to the society than the former. There are plenty of businesses which earn their money solely by tricking their customers into making harmful decisions. Some companies, for example, target old, lonely and frequently senile people and persuade them to buy inferior goods for inflated prices. Alternative medicine practitioners are frequently paid a lot of money for their worthless services, because they approach sick and desperate people and their families who are in no position to refuse anything they think might help. Large enough companies can also engage in practices that manipulate the market, artificially driving the price of the good up - either by making it seem more scarce it is, or by artificially creating a need for their product. On the other hand, there are many social interactions that are beneficial to you despite you never having paid for them. Your mind, for example, didn't sprung straight from your brain - it developed during the process called "socialization". Your ideology, your culture, your skills - an overwhelming part of them were already developed by someone else. You would have never heard about this "market" thing without entire generations of people tryuing to find the most effective way of exchanging goods and several thinkers who conceived the abstract idea and described it. If you are curious how much could you achieve without the rest of your society, there are many examples of children growing up years without human contact. Have you paid all the people who helped you achieve sentience? Are you going to? There are plenty of other benefits you just take for granted. For example, you're not getting attacked by wild animals because human societies try their best to chase them out from inhabited areas. You won't get smallpox, because the disease has been completely eliminated thanks to mandatory vaccinations and quarantine of infected individuals (government-sponsored violence!). All other epidemics are contained in the same way, so you don't have to worry about getting infected with measles, typhus or bubonic plague by a random passerby. If you pass out on the street, someone will probably call an ambulance despite having nothing to do with you and definitely not getting paid for that. Even a homeless person is much more safe in the city than they were somewhere in the wild. I wonder how would a libertarian society deal with such problems. Are you allowed to isolate a plague carrier against their will? Without mandatory or even free vaccinations, how would people deal with diseases running rampant in poor communities, such as tuberculosis or typhus? Are wild animals vaccinated against rabies and who pays for that? If a group of people lets wild animals such as bears wander around their homes in search of food, how does the rest of society respond for that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:snip Ok, right, sorry. Now I don't expect you to be an expert in the history of socialised medicine within the UK but this is plainly bollocks. Utter, utter bollocks. You know that system of healthcare you're describing? Yeah we had that too. Actually, it's the exact model of healthcare we replaced with the NHS. We're not talking about some backwater shithole here, we are talking about Great Britian as it was just leaving the height of its power as the most advanced and richest nation on the planet. Free markets? Bitch, we invented that poo poo. But the NHS was formed, forced through by a government with a sweeping mandate to transform the country after the Second World War. People wept, loving wept, in the streets when they found out they could just wander into any hospital, doctors surgery, dentist, opticians and just get their poo poo fixed. It was so sucessful that the whole thing nearly collapsed because of years of the 'free market' not providing for people, the rush caused a massive overspend. It all settled down by 1950, and the NHS now treats 50,000 people A DAY in A&E. For free. As for the NHS as per the rest of the world now: best in the world on Quality of Care (safe care, effective care, coordinated care and patient centred care), access (cost related problem) and financial efficiency. Second in finanical equity and third in timeliness. $3,405 per person spent. This myth that there's waiting lists as long as your arm is such utter bullshit bandied about by people who don't understand how triage works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Also, how can you have no State and enforce prohibitions on private property and Capitalism? If you have no State then that must mean that the entities that are entrusted to enforce norms of conduct on society must be privately agreed to. If a small group of people want to sign a contract that says that one person will work for another and that the employer will own the capital and receive a profit, who is going to use force against them to prevent this economic relationship? If you don't have a central State, why wouldn't such economic relationships be permissible? See the case company towns - places built by various private enterprises for their workers. Especially Pullman, Illinois which pretty much was a state within the state. quote:The industrialist still expected the town to make money as an enterprise. By 1892 the community, profitable in its own right, was valued at over $5 million. Pullman ruled the town like a feudal baron. He prohibited independent newspapers, public speeches, town meetings or open discussion. His inspectors regularly entered homes to inspect for cleanliness and could terminate workers' leases on ten days' notice. The church stood empty since no approved denomination would pay rent, and no other congregation was allowed. He prohibited private charitable organizations. In 1885 Richard Ely wrote in Harper's Weekly that the power exercised by Otto Von Bismarck (known as the unifier of modern Germany), was "utterly insignificant when compared with the ruling authority of the Pullman Palace Car Company in Pullman." [6] quote:When manufacturing demand fell off in 1894, Pullman cut jobs and wages and increased working hours in his plant to lower costs and keep profits, but he did not lower rents or prices in the company town. Eventually the workers launched the Pullman Strike. When violence broke out, he gained the support of President Grover Cleveland for the use of United States troops. Cleveland sent in the troops, who harshly suppressed the strike in action that caused many injuries, over the objections of the Illinois governor, John Altgeld. quote:See, a libertarian market anarchist would permit the Marxist to form any sort of voluntary Socialist system he would like but we would just stipulate that he permit us libertarians to engage in the free market, private property and entrepreneurship. Capitalism also needs violence to be enforced. All possible models of society do. Libertarians just redefine the concept - in your definition, every breach of contract or violation of personal property counts as violence, while no action employed by the owner does. According to your ideology, a hobo spending a night in your barn without your permission is a brutal criminal - and peppering them with bullets if they won't immediately leave is a perfectly reasonable response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:European nations are very in debt and are all financed through inflationary paper currencies. By what standards exactly is the socialized healthcare in Europe the best on the planet? Inevitably, the State must ration care under a socialized system. Our Corporate Fascist medicine in the United States is terrible as well but a common occurrence in Canada an Europe is to have people placed on waiting lists for a year or more for a common medical procedure. There are shortages and plenty of problems. Don't kid yourself. I have literally never had to wait a year for a necessary medical procedure. Hell, I can decide to go to the GP and AT MOST have to wait until the next day. Universal healthcare is best in the planet on a variety of metrics, including cost per person, fatal disease survival rates/times and user satisfaction. jrodefeld posted:Fifty to sixty years ago, the United States had the best healthcare on the planet and it was not even close. The best healthcare system in the world on every metric was and remains the British National Health Service. Your statement is based on a false premise, and so is the rest of your argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:44
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
I like how the solution to a massive, uneducated underclass that has no access to education due to lack of wealth in Jrodenfeld's utopia is to just plop them down in front of the computer and tell them to read Wikipedia. I'm sure six year olds who don't know how to read will benefit greatly from this magnanimous offer. Wait, how is their family to afford a computer? Internet access? I suppose the free market will sort them out in the end. If a majority of them fall through the cracks and don't get into the charity schools that can only accomodate for a handful of children, there is a use for roving packs of feral children in society after all. Food source, sex slaves, you name it! So it's not all bad. E: also I'm alive today due to my country's horrible socialized medical scheme. I grind my teeth every day from the bitter knowledge that I owe my life to a filthy socialist healthcare system that is virtually free for anyone who needs it, the shame, the shame. murphyslaw fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I skimmed through that link. I've heard all that before. I'm sure you think you have. quote:Yes, left anarchists think that it is "not enough" to oppose the State but you also must oppose Capitalist private property and supposed "exploitation". I find this position untenable. As I explained, if you own yourself then you are able to acquire property in certain ways. If you acquire property through original appropriation or through legitimate trade with someone who was a legitimate owner of property, then you should be permitted to exercise control over that scarce resource provided you don't violate anyone else's property rights. Pure fantasy. Property in the real world does not descend from libertarian "original appropriation" and no property in the real world is ever more than a few generations from violent expropriation. Under capitalism there is no legitimate owner of property anywhere. quote:Wage labor is not exploitative. The reason is because of time preference and the need to reward risk. The worker has a low time preference, which means he wants to receive a guaranteed income now rather than going into debt and waiting on a return on investment down the line sometime. The entrepreneur takes a risk on an unproven idea. He puts his capital at risk and must wait on the potential of profits down the road. He agrees to pay his workers today for the value of their labor, even though he makes no profits to begin with. He is assuming all the risk and if he loses everything, he still is required to pay his workers the agreed to hourly wage for their labor services. Without the potential for profits, there would be no reason for the entrepreneur to assume this risk. The worker of course is free to become an entrepreneur as well, but he freely trades a a potential larger return in the future for a guaranteed income in the present. The profits are the reward the entrepreneur gets for assuming all the risk. That a particular theft may not go as planned does not legitimize theft. Gambling is not a legitimate means of acquiring things and the fact that an individual business owner may not succeed is no reason for business owners as a class to control virtually all of the wealth in our society, especially when that level of ownership entails control over the culture and politics of our society. quote:As with the interest that one must pay on a loan, the profits are like interest for the worker. The entrepreneur is paying his workers a guaranteed wage today, even though he won't see profits for maybe months or even years. This is money that the entrepreneur could be using in the present. But he "loans" it out to the worker in the present and the profits that he could receive later account for the difference in time preference, like interest on a loan. Are you seriously trying to use an analogy to the justice of for-profit loans to justify something to an anti-capitalist? quote:This is why the employer/employee relationship is absolutely not exploitative in a pure free market, private property libertarian society. Nope. quote:Also, how can you have no State and enforce prohibitions on private property and Capitalism? Why would it be necessary to? Why would the inhabitants of a libertarian socialist society need to be prevented from choosing to be abused and exploited? quote:If you have no State then that must mean that the entities that are entrusted to enforce norms of conduct on society must be privately agreed to. If a small group of people want to sign a contract that says that one person will work for another and that the employer will own the capital and receive a profit, who is going to use force against them to prevent this economic relationship? If you don't have a central State, why wouldn't such economic relationships be permissible? In a proletarian society where capital is publicly held and everybody has access to it, why would anybody choose to surrender that access to capital, along with the control over their lives that that access entails? And why would the rest of society tolerate the enclosure? Why would those living in this society not use force to protect the public good against private enclosure and theft from the commons? quote:See, a libertarian market anarchist would permit the Marxist to form any sort of voluntary Socialist system he would like but we would just stipulate that he permit us libertarians to engage in the free market, private property and entrepreneurship. No, historically capitalists do not tend to "permit" socialists to do anything but be kept quiet, or in times of stress, die. Capitalism is a tremendously violent system held together by coercion, as indeed any honest capitalist will admit, as the use of violence to secure one's rights and to protect the structure which enables them is universal among all political ideologies. And let's be sure not to leave anarchism or socialism or any other system out. Anybody who claims that their politics are nonviolent is either delusional or incapable of dressing himself. Violence is the underlying fundament upon which the more polite aspects of a political ideology must be built or else collapse like a house without a foundation. Simply defining away the use of violence to secure the privileges of the capitalist class does not make your ideology not a violent one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:Goddamnit you fucker! I have to sleep! I was literally brushing my teeth, saw this thread and went. No. NO! And now since I have poor impulse control I have to come in here and refute your poo poo before XyloJW can see that you've come back and lock the thread. On the first request, if a moderator asks me to shut down this thread and move to an existing thread I'll do just that. For now, I'll continue to post here since this thread already exists. I don't see why starting a new thread is ban-worthy but I'll follow the rules. Caros posted:Your post is a giant word salad of nonsense, so you'll have to forgive me for breaking it down into individual chunks. I consider Argumentation Ethics to be persuasive but I recognize that not everyone agrees. There are plenty of arguments against it from within libertarian circles as well. I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of Argumentation Ethics right now. I might come back to that point though. I don't accept that Hans Hoppe is a "racist shithead". I've read all of his supposed controversial statements and, without exception, those smears on the internet against him rely on distorted quotes and improper context. He strikes a nerve with some people. I don't agree with everything he says. And indeed, he does have a peculiar sort of social conservatism that he brings to bear on his libertarian analyses, but I think he is among the best in his theoretical economic work and his logical rigor. Caros posted:Okay, so I'm going to sort of speed through some of this poo poo cuz it IS 2:20 and my wife will soon be in to give me funny looks. I know Rothbard has written quite extensively on questions such as these. I don't recall his precise wording on this subject. It's always amusing when you have to resort to completely impossible fantasies and cartoons to illustrate a potential problem with a real world principle for private property rights. It may be that other libertarian thinkers have a better answer than this, but if you were to literally erect a giant disk that would block out sunlight to an entire neighborhood, this would constitute an act of aggression unless the disk was built first before any houses were built. People's gardens would die, their health would suffer and their property would be as hurt as if you directly poisoned their soil, destroyed their lawns, etc. As for more concrete examples of property use that might block a view, or lower property value but not directly use aggression against the property of another, I would say that those property owners are within their rights. It might be selfish and inconsiderate to use your property in certain ways. But I would suggest that people use peaceful means to deal with it. I think that voluntary communities that develop in the libertarian society could and would have certain standards that people would agree to when they move in. Sort of a voluntary building code. There is no reason why a peaceful solution cannot be devised to deal with these inconveniences. Caros posted:I actually think I covered this in my thread, but if not I'll just mention it here. Almost everything in the national 'Libertarian' thought process is based off of southern demands for 'states rights' and other white supremacy jargon. As a prime example the Freemen on the Land got their start as Posse Comitatus, which in turn started as a way to get Northerners to gently caress off so they could go back to abusing freed slaves. Most of the top thinkers in your ideology who were born in the USA can be directly tied to Neo-Confederates, White Supremacists and so forth. I don't accept your characterization. I think you are attributing racist motivations to people who are not racist. I support nullification and secession because I believe in decentralization and in weakening the State. I think the State has been especially vicious to minorities and they would stand to benefit most from its abolition. I don't know of Reason magazine and those articles you mention. So they had an article about Holocaust denial? And one that you characterize as "Pro apartheid"? I'd have to see a lot more specifics before I condemn them as racists. Why don't you name names. If so many libertarian intellectuals are really closet racists and their motivations are to get rid of the State just so we can go back to enslaving blacks and oppressing people, then I'd like to see some concrete proof. No it doesn't "concern me" that you think that some libertarians are racist. I don't see this racism in the movement and if it exists, it is clearly on the fringes. Since my concern is aggression and violence, what people think in their minds is less important to me. If some people hold some outdated prejudices and stereotypes about different people but they believe strongly in the non-aggression principle this would make them far more moral and decent people that most politicians who actually enact policies that murder people. Racism is a stupid, collectivist belief but on the scale of potential harm actually using violence against someone is far worse than secretly thinking ill of them. Caros posted:This is hosed up. You should not support capital punishment, Libertarian or not. Seriously reconsider this viewpoint. I actually don't believe in capital punishment. I especially oppose granting the State the power to execute someone. But can I honestly say that in a libertarian society no one would ever be justified in executing someone for any crime? What about Jeffrey Dahmer? If the family of the victims of Dahmer wanted him executed, would you not permit this? I admit to struggling with this topic myself. I just find it hard to argue that it should be considered a violation of the non aggression principle if someone gives a mass murderer lethal injection at the request of the families of the victims. I might advocate against capital punishment as a preference but I can't see how libertarian principles and any theory of justice could preclude the possibility of capital punishment under certain conditions. Caros posted:
I don't accept moral relativism. There are certain ways that humans interact that can be considered "moral" and certain ways that are "immoral". The discovery of ethical rules for conduct come through philosophic inquiry. But I cannot accept that an ethical standard for behavior can be discarded due to popular opinion or a democratic election. What you are doing is muddying the waters. You are purposefully making things as vague as possible. Ethics and philosophy are supposed to bring clarity to the questions: "what is right action?", "What are morals?" Again if Xy1oJW wants me to abandon this post and go to another thread I'll do that at his request. But until then I'll continue posting on this thread since it already exists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 12:15
|
|
again pretty soon.
|
Can I marry my dog in Libertarian land? Without government what's to enforce the societal recognition of our joint ownership of squeak toys, and a mutts power of attorney over me if I ever become incapacitated?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Unlearning posted:The whole idea of taxes or state services uniquely 'initiating violence' is nonsense. Property is protected by 'initiating violence' (as defined by libertarians): if I walk across your land, I haven't 'initiated violence' against anyone; if you forcibly remove me from that land, you've 'initiated violence' against me. Libertarians argue that state or private parties protecting property rights with violence or threat of violence is justified based on other ethical arguments: you deserve what you earn, property rights create the best outcome for everyone, etcetera. But this are separate arguments, and a blanket appeal against initiating violence is empty unless you are talking about literal violence against a person. No, property is not protected by initiating violence. It is protected by the use of defensive violence if necessary. If you are trespassing on my land and you don't pose any direct threat to me or my property (i.e. you are not attempting to steal anything) I can't just shoot you. I can't come up to you and start punching you in the face. I can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave then I can have you physically removed by calling the police. If I use excessive force against someone who was absent-mindedly wandering across my property, then I become the aggressor and he can press charges against me. Defensive violence has to be proportional. The unique thing about the State is that it does not and cannot merely provide a service of defensive force to protect person and property. It claims ownership over your income and your property. It initiates force against the person and property of its citizens. I never claimed that it was the only source of aggression in society. I only said that aggression is immoral and must be opposed. Both private aggression and State aggression are equally unjustified to the libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 12:25
|
|