SCHWEPPE: Sorry, Justin Amash — Libertarianism Is Canceled

[familydog]

No, it shouldn't. To believe that aggression is wrong means precisely that you don't want other people to engage in aggression; you want to "tell them what to do" (namely, to not aggress). Alternatively, to "live and let live," as he proposes, would be to endorse aggression. Adopting national self-determination means abandoning libertarianism. Either aggression is wrong, regardless of whether it is politically popular, or not.

I never thought I would see the day when a libertarian argues against an individual's right to self-determination.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I never thought I would see the day when a libertarian argues against an individual's right to self-determination.

Because he is not a libertarian, he’s a neocon on foreign policy. Police the world, enforce your will on others.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I never thought I would see the day when a libertarian argues against an individual's right to self-determination.

Nor have you.

I was arguing against national self-determination.

...i.e. the idea that the right of the majority to determine their form of government trump the rights of individuals.

You're hilariously confused, criticizing me for exactly the anti-individualist position you and Diest are taking, which I'm criticizing!

lol

 

[Krugminator2]

I guess this guy wants unions and minimum wages or something. What else could griping about $10 an hour and not being able to live on it and "worker first" mean? Anytime you put a group "first" you know nothing good is going to come from that.

The worst part of Trump is he is encouraging people to be European conservatives that don't care at all about capitalism and freedom.

 

[familydog]

Nor have you.

I was arguing against national self-determination.

...i.e. the idea that the right of the majority to determine their form of government trump the rights of individuals.

You're hilariously confused, criticizing me for exactly the anti-individualist position you and Diest are taking, which I'm criticizing!

Quite the contrary. It appears that you are conflating a nation with a state. A nation is simply a group of individuals who share the same culture, heritage, language, and faith. A state (as defined by the Mises Institute) "is an organization that maintains a monopoly on force within a given territory over which it claims ultimate legal jurisdiction." The two are not synonymous.

For example, Native American tribes are nations. In order for one to be a member, one needs to share culture, heritage and DNA with the elders. Yet they do not operate a state. They arguably have never operated a state.

You can have nations and you can have states. Sometimes you can find nation-states. However, one is simply a voluntary categorization of individuals and the other is generally a gang of thieves writ large.

 

[familydog]

Because he is not a libertarian, he’s a neocon on foreign policy. Police the world, enforce your will on others.

I am beginning to see that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Quite the contrary. It appears that you are conflating a nation with a state. A nation is simply a group of individuals who share the same culture, heritage, language, and faith. A state (as defined by the Mises Institute) "is an organization that maintains a monopoly on force within a given territory over which it claims ultimate legal jurisdiction." The two are not synonymous.

For example, Native American tribes are nations. In order for one to be a member, one needs to share culture, heritage and DNA with the elders. Yet they do not operate a state. They arguably have never operated a state.

You can have nations and you can have states. Sometimes you can find nation-states. However, one is simply a voluntary categorization of individuals and the other is generally a gang of thieves writ large.

I didn't conflate nation and state, nothing I said indicates I did, and that distinction has no bearing on the issue at hand.

...which is whether national self-determination contradicts libertarianism, which, as I explained, it does.

 

[familydog]

I didn't conflate nation and state, nothing I said indicates I did,

...which is whether national self-determination contradicts libertarianism, which, as I explained, it does.

Either you do not know what a nation is, or you do and you are obfuscating nations and states for nefarious reasons. At no point did you prove how a group of individuals using their property as they see fit is a violation of the NAP. And as I pointed out, nations are simply a group of individuals who have a shared culture and heritage. It is literally impossible for this to violate the NAP in and of itself.

and that distinction has no bearing on the issue at hand.

You didn't listen to the video I linked. Otherwise you would realize how foolish this sounds.

In the end, this exchange is, once again, fruitless. You clearly have no understanding of the terms in play. What's worse is that you have no curiosity to learn the proper use of those terms. As others have pointed out, your libertarian credentials are questionable. I hope we can have more intellectually stimulating exchanges in the future, but for now, I'll take my leave.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Either you do not know what a nation is, or you do and you are obfuscating nations and states for nefarious reasons. At no point did you prove how a group of individuals using their property as they see fit is a violation of the NAP.

FFS...

National self-determination does not mean "a group of individuals using their property as they see fit." It means that "the nation" (a euphemism for some fraction of the population acting through the state) has the right to do what it likes, regardless of other considerations, such as whether this violates the NAP.

...gee whiz, do you see how that (i.e. violating the NAP) might violate the NAP?

And as I pointed out, nations are simply a group of individuals who have a shared culture and heritage. It is literally impossible for this to violate the NAP in and of itself.

And as I told you, that has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of national self-determination.

In the end, this exchange is, once again, fruitless. You clearly have no understanding of the terms in play. What's worse is that you have no curiosity to learn the proper use of those terms. As others have pointed out, your libertarian credentials are questionable. I hope we can have more intellectually stimulating exchanges in the future, but for now, I'll take my leave.

LOL