Practical Anarcho-Capitalist in favor of small war on Libya

[Vessol]

I watched the video. It doesn't change anything.

Suppose I'm not enlisting the help of others to defend myself. I'm a badass and I don't care about death, so I specifically ask everyone to not defend me when I'm attacked. But I do care about defending others. And just when a killer was about to murder an innocent kid, I took him down. How did I defend myself?

You don't have to actually shake hands or sign your name to enter in a contract to defend someone. When you see a child in the middle of the road and you save him, it is mutual unspoken consent by both parties.

You still have the right to defend your fellow man from attack. In a free market you could act as a security force for hire, you entire profession would revolve around using force to stop aggressors.

What does this have to do with Libya? Those fighting Ghaddafi are not perfect little angels who are doing no wrong. He isn't asking anyone to defend them, but rather to fight for them. They will do their own share of murder, rape and torture. All immoral acts.

 

[low preference guy]

You don't have to actually shake hands or sign your name to enter in a contract to defend someone. When you see a child in the middle of the road and you save him, it is mutual unspoken consent by both parties.

So you're saying I'm defending myself when I defend the kid? You call that SELF-defense???

 

[Vessol]

So you're saying I'm defending myself when I defend the kid? You call that SELF-defense???

Stop trying to warp what I am saying.

You enlisted with the child, a contract that involves his self-defense, as in the CHILDS self-defense.. A contract does not have to be spoken or verbally agreed upon before hand if it is mutually beneficial to both parties.

 

[sailingaway]

Our country is incapable of small wars or they would have gone into Afghanistan with special forces under a letter of marque to begin with, as Ron suggested, and might actually have caught bin Laden. Once they go in they have a 'we broke it we bought it' mentality they are incapable of extricating themselves from. You need an exit plan before you go in.

 

[low preference guy]

Stop trying to warp what I am saying.

I'm not trying to "warp" what you are saying.

You enlisted with the child, a contract that involves his self-defense, as in the CHILDS self-defense.. A contract does not have to be spoken or verbally agreed upon.

Right. So am I defending myself yes or not?

 

[RokiLothbard]

The act of defending others is not self-defense. Self-defense, as the word suggests, is about defending yourself.

Hmmm ... I'm going to have to say, that you are correct on this. Self defense only includes defending yourself.

But what about the greater moral question of "when is violence allowed?"

Am I only allowed to defend my own body? How bout my wife? How bout my children? My neighbors? My fellow Texans? My fellow Southerners? My fellow countrymen? Random Libyans being oppressed by an obvious millitary despot? Where is the line?

And actually, I have no moral problem with pure pacifism. In fact I find it quite admirable and Christian.

 

[Vessol]

Right. So am I defending myself yes or not?

No, you are assisting the child in his self-defense. Thus, you are part of that childs self-defense.

Hmmm ... I'm going to have to say, that you are correct on this. Self defense only includes defending yourself.

But what about the greater moral question of "when is violence allowed?"

Am I only allowed to defend my own body? How bout my wife? How bout my children? My neighbors? My fellow Texans? My fellow Southerners? My fellow countrymen? Random Libyans being oppressed by an obvious millitary despot? Where is the line?

And actually, I have no moral problem with pure pacifism. In fact I find it quite admirable and Christian.

If all parties find it mutally agreable, then it is self-defense in order to enter within a contract to defend that persons self.

However, it is not self-defense when you assist someone else in other immoral acts.

If you went to Libya, unless you're just walking around and guarding each rebel and shooting at anyone who attacks them directly, then you are not helping their self-defense.

 

[low preference guy]

No, you are assisting the child in his self-defense. Thus, you are part of that childs self-defense.

Right. I'm self-defending him. LOL.

 

[Vessol]

Right. I'm self-defending him. LOL.

No, you are assisting in that child's self-defense. It is in the DEFENSE of his SELF. He has a right to enter within a contract with others to defend himself when he is aggressive.

Let's take another example. Self-motivation. Self-motivation can be done in many ways. Sometimes you can enlist the help of others to assist in the MOTIVATION of your SELF.

The key word is assistance. Entering within a voluntary contract, whether it be spoken or unspoken. In either case, you are helping with that persons SELF.

 

[low preference guy]

No, you are assisting in that child's self-defense. It is in the DEFENSE of his SELF. He has a right to enter within a contract with others to defend himself when he is aggressed.

But I'm not killing in self-defense, because killing in self-defense means killing to protect yourself.

 

[RokiLothbard]

If you went to Libya, unless you're just walking around and guarding each rebel and shooting at anyone who attacks them directly, then you are not helping their self-defense.

So, in your moral opinion, just killing a random rights-violating tyrant only because he is a rights-violating tyrant is wrong?

 

[Stary Hickory]

What does this have to do with Libya? Those fighting Ghaddafi are not perfect little angels who are doing no wrong. He isn't asking anyone to defend them, but rather to fight for them. They will do their own share of murder, rape and torture. All immoral acts.

Nope no one is saying that, but what you are doing here, is over simplifying it. I do not favor getting involved myself. And you have condemned a whole bunch of people without knowing them. In the end when dealing with organized elements of force you must judge it subjectively just like anything else. Would you have supported the US when we fought the revolutionary war? Because I will tell you that we were not all perfect angels back then either.

So we can determine that you would have NOT gotten involved in the American Revolution. And that the cause of greater freedom is not one worth fighting for. We have to go there, because you make it impossible to subjectively evaluate groups of people. They are all bad in your eyes...your conditions for fighting with a common group are impossible to meet.

You have taken things to a level which borders on absurd. No one is advocating forcing anyone to support any kind of military operations or participate in them. But people DO have a right to band together and fight for freedom. If they cannot do this, then we will never be free, because there will always be those who consolidate power and use force against others.

 

[Vessol]

But I'm not killing in self-defense, because killing in self-defense means killing to protect yourself.

No, you're killing as the tool of one's self defense. Just like a gun or a dog may be a tool. If I shoot someone who is attacking me, do you call it gun-defense?

 

[Vessol]

So, in your moral opinion, just killing a random rights-violating tyrant only because he is a rights-violating tyrant is wrong?

Not when it involves the systematic slaughter of many people whom have not committed any aggression. Ghadaffi is not a one man army.

The ends do not not justify the means.

Nope no one is saying that, but what you are doing here, is over simplifying it. I do not favor getting involved myself. And you have condemned a whole bunch of people without knowing them. In the end when dealing with organized elements of force you must judge it subjectively just like anything else. Would you have supported the US when we fought the revolutionary war? Because I will tell you that we were not all perfect angels back then either.

So we can determine that you would have NOT gotten involved in the American Revolution. And that the cause of greater freedom is not one worth fighting for. We have to go there, because you make it impossible to subjectively evaluate groups of people. They are all bad in your eyes...your conditions for fighting with a common group are impossible to meet.

You have taken things to a level which borders on absurd. No one is advocating forcing anyone to support any kind of military operations or participate in them. But people DO have a right to band together and fight for freedom. If they cannot do this, then we will never be free, because there will always be those who consolidate power and use force against others.

I was just talking about this earlier, people banding together in voluntary self-defense. This is perfectly fine.

The American Revolution was NOT voluntary self-defense. Many people whom peacefully opposed the American Revolutionaries were killed, had their property burned down, and were tar and feathered.

 

[low preference guy]

No, you're killing as the tool of one's self defense. Just like a gun or a dog may be a tool. If I shoot someone who is attacking me, do you call it gun-defense?

The gun didn't choose to take any action. Guns don't make choices. It's different. When we are talking about what should be moral and proper, we are talking about humans' choices. I just don't get why you don't want to defend your positions using the words that mean that you want to convey, but instead want to invent your own language.

 

[Flash]

I'm an Anarchist, and I'm not pro-war. However, if given the choice, I'd rather have a Capitalist nation exploiting a country than a Socialist one. Meaning, it's preferable to have America dominating the world and installing Capitalist Democracies than having a nation like the Soviet Union setting up horrible Socialist nations like North Korea. But anyways, when it comes to attacking Libya I would have to say NO. Blowback would naturally occur, an increased amount of civil liberties will be lost, the country will slip further & further into bankruptcy in order to fund the war and we will face an economic crisis at home which will subsequently be followed by an even more Progressive government. (WE NEED CHANGE) What it boils down to-- is the fact that it doesn't benefit ME or the people I associate with to get into a war with Libya. I hope the best for the Libyan people but it's their own battle.

 

[Vessol]

The gun didn't choose to take any action. Guns don't make choices. It's different. When we are talking about what should be moral and proper, we are talking about humans' choices. I just don't get why you don't want to defend your positions using the words that mean that you want to convey, but instead want to invent your own language.

Self-defense means the defense of ones self.

You can defend yourself in many ways. Either by using a gun, buying a dog, or enlisting the voluntary support of others to defend your SELF.

 

[low preference guy]

Self-defense means the defense of ones self.

You can defend yourself in many ways. Either by using a gun, buying a dog, or enlisting the voluntary support of others to defend your SELF.

But the action of the guy who defends you is not self-defense.

 

[Vessol]

But the action of the guy who defends you is not self-defense.

Yes it is, because he is being used in the defense of that persons SELF.

 

[low preference guy]

Yes it is, because he is being used in the defense of that persons SELF.

Sure. Self means other people. You're a genius.