Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Natural Citizen]

This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
As a start:

1) I own me.
2) You own you.
3) I own my stuff
4) You own your stuff
5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.

Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

I'll send my private police over to bust some heads if anyone gets to thinking otherwise.

Thanks, otherone.

 

[otherone]

Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

May I infer that you don't agree with the listed principles? understand that your comment could be applied to firearms as well. Where you differ is in degree. The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler? People may (and have) hurt people with pipe bombs. Where and why is the line drawn?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Nope. If you're going to make an ideal applicable rather than letting said ideal remain merely an ideal, then, you must have an operating definition. For instance. One may easily blurt out yay Democracy. But do they mean Democracy or do they mean A Democracy? Know what I mean, jelly bean?

Yeah, I do know what you mean. Do you?

 

[otherone]

Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

I'll send my private police over to bust some heads if anyone gets to thinking otherwise.

Thanks, otherone.

You're welcome!
Do you believe that owning a weapon absolves you from the consequences of using that weapon in an aggressive act?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.

Are you reading the posts I'm making, or just the posts you're quoting? Because you only seem to quote me when I lash out - which I do admit I do from time to time. But I've been making very logically consistent arguments in most of my posts in this thread and this sub-forum.

 

[Swordsmyth]

May I infer that you don't agree with the listed principles? understand that your comment could be applied to firearms as well. Where you differ is in degree. The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler? People may (and have) hurt people with pipe bombs. Where and why is the line drawn?

I would draw the line at massive indiscriminate damage.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
As a start:

1) I own me.
2) You own you.
3) I own my stuff
4) You own your stuff
5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to otherone again.

// :thumbs:

Pretty easy, ain't it?

 

[Natural Citizen]

May I infer that you don't agree with the listed principles? understand that your comment could be applied to firearms as well. Where you differ is in degree. The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler? People may (and have) hurt people with pipe bombs. Where and why is the line drawn?

Precisely. My comment could be applied to firearms. But your comment could be equally applied to my chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. My stuff.

You see?

Why should a line be drawn at all? And if you do draw a line, have you not suddenly imposed a system? A State? What gives you the authority? Is your right to own you more important than my right to own me? Is your right to own your stuff more important than my right to own my stuff. Does your right to own you and your right to own your stuff give you the right to infringe upon my right to own me and my right to own my stuff?

If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Is it dootie? Is it concern?

I can't really hang out here right now but I'll check back later.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler?

And there is no difference between The Majority and a Ruler, otherone. Talk about a strawman. Jiminy crickets. That's a weasel move.

Let us learn.

A Democracy: The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.


So don't try to compare The Majority with a Ruler in drawing any line. There is no difference.

In either case, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against unlimited power.

And this, my friend, is why you must precisely set down operating definitions. These are not labels. To minimize them to labels equates to ignoring the fundamental inconcistencies in your own argument. Respectfully.

So consider the question answered.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Precisely. My comment could be applied to firearms. But your comment could be equally applied to my chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. My stuff.

You see?

Yeah, I see.

These things exist. Would you have them in the hands of Barack Obama and Donald Trump? These are individuals who presume to speak for MILLIONS of human beings.

I agree with your unspoken premise that I don't want these things in the hands of the insane. But here's the thing - they're not going to end up in the hands of the insane... because generally speaking, the insane don't have enough money to land these things.

But even if they do end up in their hands... How are we worse off in a world without the State than we would be in a world without the State?

Why should a line be drawn at all? And if you do draw a line, have you not suddenly imposed a system? A State? What gives you the authority? Is your right to own you more important than my right to own me? Is your right to own your stuff more important than my right to own my stuff. Does your right to own you and your right to own your stuff give you the right to infringe upon my right to own me and my right to own my stuff?

Right! Now you're getting it! Good job!

I can't really hang out here right now but I'll check back later.

Don't blame you one bit, bud! :lol:

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I would draw the line at massive indiscriminate damage.

Who put you in charge?

 

[otherone]

I would draw the line at massive indiscriminate damage.

Based on the principles above, the line is drawn at any damage, whether a baseball bat to the back of the head, a truck full of home-made explosives, or automatic weapons. Are you talking about the potential for massive indiscriminate damage? In every case, individuals should be held accountable for the consequences of their behavior, regardless of the scope.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Based on the principles above, the line is drawn at any damage, whether a baseball bat to the back of the head, a truck full of home-made explosives, or automatic weapons. Are you talking about the potential for massive indiscriminate damage? In every case, individuals should be held accountable for the consequences of their behavior, regardless of the scope.

Individuals should not be able to destroy an entire city.

 

[otherone]

Precisely. My comment could be applied to firearms. But your comment could be equally applied to my chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. My stuff.

You see?

Of course. Owning the ability to cause harm does not absolve you from the consequences of doing harm. Your concern is fear of harm. IOW, you believe you have the right to feel safe. Many governments possess WMDs. These weapons are in the hands of people. Doesn't that concern you?

Why should a line be drawn at all? And if you do draw a line, have you not suddenly imposed a system? A State? What gives you the authority? Is your right to own you more important than my right to own me? Is your right to own your stuff more important than my right to own my stuff. Does your right to own you and your right to own your stuff give you the right to infringe upon my right to own me and my right to own my stuff?

If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Is it dootie? Is it concern?

I can't really hang out here right now but I'll check back later.

IRT a "system", any behavior that violates your rights is a crime.

 

[otherone]

Individuals should not be able to destroy an entire city.

Absolutely. And yet cities are destroyed. By individuals, with the power to do so.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Absolutely. And yet cities are destroyed. By individuals, with the power to do so.

And that should be limited and reduced if it can't be eliminated.

 

[otherone]

And that should be limited and reduced if it can't be eliminated.

It can't be eliminated. Those involved should be held accountable. But they aren't. Why? Because people believe that the violation of property rights by a transcendent authority to be not only necessary, or inevitable, but morally good.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It can't be eliminated. Those involved should be held accountable. But they aren't. Why? Because people believe that the violation of property rights by a transcendent authority to be not only necessary, or inevitable, but morally good.

No, it is because many people believe that foreign civilians are part of "the enemy" and deserve to be killed.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Uh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh. You do not get to be selective in our discussion, otherone. Let us reassemble our discussion.


otherone -

This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.

I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
As a start:

1) I own me.
2) You own you.
3) I own my stuff
4) You own your stuff
5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.[/QUOTE]


Natty C - Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

I'll send my private police over to bust some heads if anyone gets to thinking otherwise.

Thanks, otherone.

Otherone - May I infer that you don't agree with the listed principles? understand that your comment could be applied to firearms as well. Where you differ is in degree. The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler? People may (and have) hurt people with pipe

Natty C - Precisely. My comment could be applied to firearms. But your comment could be equally applied to my chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. My stuff.

You see?

Why should a line be drawn at all? And if you do draw a line, have you not suddenly imposed a system? A State? What gives you the authority? Is your right to own you more important than my right to own me? Is your right to own your stuff more important than my right to own my stuff. Does your right to own you and your right to own your stuff give you the right to infringe upon my right to own me and my right to own my stuff?

If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Is it dootie? Is it concern?

I can't really hang out here right now but I'll check back later.

Natty C - And there is no difference between The Majority and a Ruler, otherone. Talk about a strawman. Jiminy crickets. That's a weasel move.

Let us learn.

A Democracy: The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.


So don't try to compare The Majority with a Ruler in drawing any line. There is no difference.

In either case, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against unlimited power.

And this, my friend, is why you must precisely set down operating definitions. These are not labels. To minimize them to labels equates to ignoring the fundamental inconcistencies in your own argument. Respectfully.

So consider the question answered.

otherone - Of course. Owning the ability to cause harm does not absolve you from the consequences of doing harm. Your concern is fear of harm. IOW, you believe you have the right to feel safe. Many governments possess WMDs. These weapons are in the hands of people. Doesn't that concern you?

IRT a "system", any behavior that violates your rights is a crime.

 

[otherone]

Uh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh. You do not get to be selective in our discussion, otherone. Let us reassemble our discussion.





Now. Please efor us how your concern suddenly became my concern in our discussion, otherone.

Thanks!

If I'm to understand your comment, you are asking me why I can be concerned about government WMDs and not private ones? Or something else?