Stripping out some smilies again...
You drew yourself in. I don't control your actions. Supporting Lew Rockwell doesn't mean you are thus supporting racism.
First two sentences: I was unnecessarily provoked, and that's why I joined the stupid drunk driving pissing match.
Third sentence: I agree that supporting Lew Rockwell doesn't mean you're supporting racism. However, I can understand why someone might feel otherwise. Apparently, things are too black and white in your world to comprehend the distinction, which is why you consistently try to school me on concepts I've already demonstrated understanding of.
90% of the time your pushing the alternate & wrongful position, with your long winded "points" that really do amount to nothing but rambling. Then you give one sentence that you attempt to use as a clarifier. All you need to do is delete the other 90% of wrongfulness & then its aces.
Another sign you're incapable of compehending subtlety.
Says the baby with a rattle.
...and you base your assessment on what? The fact that I dare to disagree with you? The fact that I dare point out your bullyish behavior and ask you to tone it down? What a childish insult.
YES, but we are not talking as if a CRASH or destruction of property has occurred. We are simply debating DRINK DRIVING. You hop in your car, you've had a drink, you get home safely, you shut off the car, you go to sleep.
Worthless reply, already addressed.
That is it. That is what the WHOLE debate is about. There is no victim. NOW, if the person was to get pulled over whilst on the way home, Aggie et all statists would contend you have committed a crime.
That's where I differ with them. I would consider it to be breaking a rule of the road, like driving on the wrong side. The subtle difference between that and a crime is: Crimes have victims and carry heavy consequences. Breaking rules, well - the only legitimate reason to pull someone over in that case is essentially to stop a ticking time bomb and diffuse a dangerous situation, not to "punish" them. I've already explained why, and I won't bother repeating the same argument that you already proved yourself incapable of comprehending.
It's not for the sake of completeness - it is IRRELEVANT. You're bringing up points that have no basis for the argument at hand. You're the one wasting time bringing up points that aren't an issue.
Let me clarify: I mentioned it for the sake of completeness, specifically because you asked a direct question. I felt the question was irrelevant as well, and in fact it was a trap, but I answered it anyway, and then I clarified with the three sentences you purposely ignored so you could lash out at someone. With as much as you enjoy verbal aggression, I honestly find it hard to believe that you're truly so against physical aggression as well.
Once there is a crash etc - then rights have been violated and the proper libertarian position (which I - Lew Rockwell hold), then it would be dealt with. This is not in question.
Worthless comment, already addressed.
There is no victim. A 5 year old could understand this. A consumes beverage, A drives motor vehicle home without incident, A gets into bed and goes to sleep. Who is the victim? Where is the crime? Whose property has been violated? If you agree to all this, then why have you explicably bothered to write your reply, which you consider a chore. Again you write 90% defending the wrong, irrational positions then pop in a few corollaries. How about cutting out the BS aye?
Worthless comment, already addressed.
Wtf did I side step? You have NOTHING to say to it do you? Because it's the truth.
You sidestepped my clear and obvious agreement on several points and understanding of them, solely so you could act like I understand none of it and scream from your pulpit.
We are talking simply DRINK DRIVING.
This is exactly like Hate Crime... "do you really care if you are killed by someone with joy in their heart, or hate in their heart? You are still dead."
i.e "Do you really care if you are killed by someone who is drunk, or sobre? You are still dead."
Worthless comment, already addressed.
What you just did = Ad Hominem fallacy.
* Argumentum ad Hominem = Translation:
"Argument against the man" (Latin)
* The Fallacy of Personal Attack
Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
Actually, you're misusing the ad hominem fallacy, but I honestly expect no better. I did not attack your words with respect to the drunk driving argument by attacking the competence/suitability/etc. of the author. I attacked your words on the drunk driving argument by attacking your words directly. I separately attacked your attitude (but not your words on the drunk driving argument) by attacking your attitude directly. Considering one of my two primary arguments here IS that your attitude is absolute shit, it was perfectly valid to point it out. I pointed out that you:
- Sidestepped my agreement on many specific points and created a straw man argument to attack (one where the straw man disagreed with everything you were saying and did not already express understanding). By using a straw man, you were starting your argument from false premises. That's a fallacy you engaged in while discussing drunk driving.
- Link-dropped to give off airs of superiority. The link-drops were not legitimate arguments, and they were certainly not valid rebuttals for what I said (especially considering I already knew what you were trying to tell me), so for the purposes of the drunk driving argument, I ignored them. However, I might even call them appeals to authority, depending on how they were intended. Calling an irrelevant and egotistical diversion for what it is, is not an ad hominem argument. In any case, my primary purpose here for pointing out the unnecessary and superfluous link drop was pointing out another instance where your debating attitude needs adjustment (and that's entirely valid, considering that's one of my two primary arguments - and in fact, it was the sole reason I joined the thread).
- You acted like a total asshole the whole time: Statement of opinion, reiterating my primary thesis that your attitude needs adjustment (because that's what I came to discuss, not drunk driving).
Delete practically every other sentence bar that and I'll relent. 90% BS iust doesn't cut it. More to the point, this point was never originally being debated. It is the Libertarian position - property damaged, then you get reparations. Your point is moot.
I've already demonstrated complete knowledge of this, and I've already demonstrated why, on the basis of property rights, another position may be considered valid and reasonable. Furthermore, I'm not here to join a contest of libertarian purity anyway, so YOUR point is moot.
No, it's predictable. It's how the statists reason. Even driving recklessly... no-one on the roads, its 3 am - no property damaged, no harm caused = Who is the victim? What the statists want to do is legislate against assumptions; that you are more of a danger to society and that for that simple reason, you should be punished.
Once again, you're conflating the ideas of punishment and allowing someone to diffuse a dangerous situation (stop a reckless/drunk/etc. driver when they're driving like a ticking time bomb). Perhaps you HAVEN'T realized my argument is different from that of straw man statists you're ranting against?
Eg. A professional formula one driver, a guy who races cars for a living, many years of experience and skill - has several beers and hops in a car to drive home. He is slightly drunk.
You then have an 80 year old asian woman (stereotyping), with bad eye sight who is sober and hasn't driven for years.
Whose going to be the better driver? - The state says the Asian lady and punishes the formula one driver.
Do you think that's the answer I would give? If not, why argue against the state's position? After all, I am not the state. Argue against the position I actually presented.
I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to walk through it. You've got to help yourself.
Yes, Morpheus.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer
ACTUALLY reading some anarcho-capitalist material would be a GREAT start.
It would. Thankfully, I understand their extremely simple and direct argument here in its entirety. It's quite easy to comprehend. I simply don't believe it's the be-all, end-all of arguments, and that's something you're incapable of accepting. The argument I presented - not the argument statists present, which is the one YOU are arguing against, but the argument I specifically presented - is also reasonable, and it derives from the libertarian principle of property rights, even though it differs from the stock anarcho-capitalist argument. I'm not even arguing that it's necessarily the best viewpoint*, simply that it's valid and reasonable until shown otherwise.
*In fact, I'm quite accepting of the possibility that it may NOT be the best viewpoint. I haven't yet come to a firm conclusion, and I may eventually decide in favor of the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint anyway.
No, it is directly relevant.
"As long as public schools exist, would it be just for school officials (although not the property owners) to prevent people from doing this? I would say YES."
And I made the point; it can never be called just.
ie."Just like stealing from A, then giving to B - CANNOT be called compassion."
Irrelevant to the matter at hand, as I said...because the matter at hand is discussing the drunk driving issue in isolation, assuming our current world with its overarching state and public roads. The argument becomes moot once we start talking about an anarcho-capitalist world, as I said before...which is why it only makes sense to debate it within the framework of public roads.
Why... how totalitarian / statist of you!
Indeed.
The state is not legitimate. You cease to be an owner of said property, once it is stolen. If someone robs me, and takes all my money in my wallet - $100. I don't contend that I am still the owner of that $100 now do I?
Ohhh pretend, something not based in reality! Yay! Rules of the road - set by the legitimate private property owners, if there was a private organization, a company or corporation that builds and owns the private roads, those that have legitimate title to that property, who can DO what they WANT with it at a moment notice, who can RIP it up if they so choose at their whim for no other reason than they wanted to - they can set the road rules.
Yes, exactly - my first point was to establish this. I started from an imaginary scenario, and my next point was to establish the similarities to our actual scenario, keeping in mind the differences. There's not a 1:1 comparison between roads owned by private shareholders and roads owned by the state, but there's still a correlation. I already explained why, and I won't bother repeating myself. You obviously disagree, but that does not necessarily mean I'm wrong.
Don't attempt to correlate the state and private organizations - it is fallacious and flawed. There is no comparison.
If you say so.
The comparison is not direct or 1:1, but it still exists. To the degree that the rules are identical to those favored by the rightful shareholders (the public, proportionate to who paid what), rules of the road set by the state are valid. To the degree that their rules diverge, rules of the road set by the state are invalid. When it comes to setting the rules on a specific property, a democratic "majority rules" vote decides the matter when dealing with private shareholders. Now, it is impossible to get an exact tally of the opinions of the rightful shareholders (proportionate to their [forced] investment) in the case of public roads. However, if the support for a ban on drunk driving is overwhelming enough - and it is - then an exact tally is not necessary. This is why it may be reasonable to hold a democratic vote on rules of the road, and - for example - accept those with 90% support among the public, etc. Of course, there are two caveats:
- That's not actually what we do in real life. Point taken. The current law is unjust...but if we DID do it the way I suggest, I would in that case no longer be averse to a rule against drunk driving.
- More importantly, the current law is unjust because it levies penalties against drunk drivers (who don't get in accidents) which no property owner or other entity has the legitimate authority to dole out in the absence of actual aggression. My primary objection to current drunk driving laws is the fact that they actually carry legal punishments for breaking the rule. (And yes, in case you haven't been paying attention, I'll reiterate that I DO have problems with the law as it stands.)
"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." – Murray N. Rothbard
Irrelevant. This is not my argument, but you can pretend like it is if you want.
Lmao, no it doesn't hold in principle. And here you go again, you are defending the state and going off in inane tangents.
Property rights? Are you insane. The State does not HOMESTEAD anything - Lockean principle of property rights and the FOUNDATION of Libertarianism. The State robs, it has no RIGHT to property. It is theft and coercion.
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone." – Frédéric Bastiat
Yes, you know this.. yet persist in its defence at every turn.
Read above and stop arguing against a straw man. I'm not defending the state, as it exists. I'm not defending the law, as it exists. I'm defending the abstract idea that a different kind of rule against drunk driving might be considered reasonable by libertarian principles of property rights, when the rules of the road turn out to be the same ones that the
legitimate property owners would choose. To clarify again, the
legitimate property owners are the public, in proportion to payment, not the state (even if the state has usurped control). It's a subtle idea, and I don't expect that someone who divides the world into black and white would understand it, but it's nevertheless worlds apart from "defending the state."
It's not Lew Rockwells site. It is the
LvMI. Your premise is flawed. Why should I waste my time with the content of the argument, when it is the FORM, the very essence of it that it is wrong. Unfortunate that you can't see that.
Sorry, I made a mistake about the website. In any case, even if the argument would go against your moral code, that's irrelevant, because the argument I'm asking you to examine is not a moral argument. The argument is simply that, practically speaking - regardless of whether it's right or wrong - it is indeed
possible to restrain the state indefinitely using the checks and balances I suggested. Of course, since you're apparently unable to debate ethics separately from practical possibility, I do not find it surprising at all that you refuse to address such an argument.
You missed the point. Cambodia, public ownership of roads - no road rules. Did you not see people going all ways? Current roads - its the same there. It entirely addresses the issue at hand, and in fact destroys you proposition.
You missed the point yet again. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. Maybe I should draw a diagram? In America, this would not work for our current roads, as they currently exist. The roads would literally have to be repaved specifically with this kind of plan in mind. With the exception of some roads in the inner city, our roads are two-way and incapable of being trivially converted into one-way roads. They intersect each other directly, even at right angles. Therefore, while it's a cool idea and would work for roads
other than the ones that currently exist in America, it's irrelevant to the current argument, which centers around rules of the road on public two-way streets (you know,
like the ones that I actually drive on).
What high standards of LIBERTY I have. Your argument for them was baseless and as you afore mentioned; PRETEND. Not based on reality, good luck with that one. Yet you now try to pawn it off as reasonable? Since when is fiction reasonable?
It wasn't a pretend argument, unless you couldn't get past the first couple of sentences. I started with a hypothetical situation and then shifted the argument into the real world from there, explaining the similarities and differences, but
reading comprehension seems not to be your forte.
Anyway, as far as your low standards for using the word "tyranny," I think you knew that my point was this: You use the same extremely strong language for horrendous abuses and minor abuses alike. You can do that if you want, but I think most reasonable people will find it silly and excessive.
When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny. – Thomas Paine
Getting a life long conviction, criminal charges, fines etc. When I FEAR the violence that will inevitably result, the arrest and jail time etc.. for doing an act where NO-ONE WAS HURT, WHERE THERE IS NO VICTIM... that is when I fear the government, that is when there is tyranny.
Okay, great. Now where the fuck was I defending that? Please, point it out to me. Point out to me exactly where I said that I agree with the kind of law that entails life-long convictions, criminal charges, or fines. Point it out to me!
WAIT - I NEVER SAID THIS! In fact, I specifically said I disagree with such a law, and I actually specifically listed those as reasons why such a law is unjust!
Why do you continue to argue against a straw man argument, other than to "prove me wrong" without having to do the hard work of actually doing so?
Rofl. No, I am MAINTAINING the argument. This is what has been argued the entire time. The State is not the rightful property owners - EPIC fail, flawed premise. <-- Yet you realise this, yet still persist in the lunacy - you cling to your flawed position regardless. Rather sad. PRIVATE property owners CAN set the terms and conditions of the useage of their land - YES, NOTHING has EVER been said against this. But the STATE is NOT the legitimate owner, it has no right even by minarchist standards to legislate against drink driving.
Worthless reply, already addressed...multiple times.
More socialist none sense. This has been addressed countless times. In a free market you would write into the contract access rights. As simple as that. If you want an extended analysis - ask and I'll go bother to find it. (The question gets asked daily basically at the Mises.org forums.)
Socialist nonsense? No, not at all. I didn't even make an argument - I simply mentioned that it's possible (though I suppose I could be wrong), and I asked what you would do in such a situation.
It's an interesting corner case, and an extended analysis would be welcome.
Wrong. You think It is plausible to state that I came from being a chomskite leaning socialist in a year to an anarcho capitalist because I had conceit of anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong? LMFAO. Most absurd statement I've ever heard. I'm always open minded and check my premises always. When I realise I am wrong, I take up the new position I believe to be right and defend it until I get shown or deduct otherwise. What you at me is straw.
You may have been open-minded a year ago, but your words ring hollow considering your attitude today. By the way, your last sentence is borderline incomprehensible. Could you insert another verb, please?
There is no emotion in the arguments, logic or reasoning. In the delivery and content I mix it in yes. But it comes AFTER the conclusion has been reached, not BEFORE.
I agree that you probably came to your initial views using logic and reason, but you're certainly not assessing other posters' arguments using the same.
It has nothing to do with you being a minarchist and not accepting anarcho-capitalism. That I hardly care about. It has
everything to do with you being a
conservative, a gradualist and not an abolitionist. You DEFEND the state in practically every exchange we have. To me, that is defending robbers, liars, theives, war criminals etc. it is unacceptable.
Do I defend the state? I only defend the abstract idea of a state, just like every single other minarchist in the entire world.
Since I don't actually defend the state as it currently exists, your problem is obviously with minarchists in general - unless of course you actually believe I'm making all of the straw man arguments you're constructing for me. I'm a minarchist libertarian with anarcho-capitalist sympathies, yet you're approaching my arguments as if I'm a neocon or something.
It stems from my intolerance against anyone who is not a devout and unwavering worshipper of reason, knowledge, truth and above all - Liberty.
...and considering anarcho-capitalism is the only viewpoint you accept as coming anywhere close to reason, knowledge, truth, and liberty, that's the exact same thing as
intolerant religious fundamentalism against anyone who is not a devout and unwavering worshipper in the Church of Anarcho-Capitalism. You're acting as though you're arguing against me, but you're really only proving my point.
Based on praxeology. Human action. Not using it wrong, sorry. I suggest you read Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/schuller.pdf - More specifically the last page.
Your own viewpoints are constructed using praxeology (though not necessarily correctly), but it has nothing to do with your arguments against other posters, unless you actually believe that being condescending and insulting is the most instrumentally rational way for a human being to act.
I only vent at those that are close minded or wish to remain willfully ignorant, who refuse to think logically about the situation. I don't drive anyone away who already wasn't gone.
Closed-minded? That's certainly not me, considering my openness to anarcho-capitalism. I'm just not sold on it, and I don't believe in your "my way or the highway" approach. If you believe me closed-minded, especially in comparison to yourself, your definition is entirely backwards.
Do I remain willfully ignorant and refuse to think logically? Of course not. You haven't properly addressed my actual arguments - which are logically and rationally constructed - and you instead insist on attacking straw man arguments. The closest you came to addressing my argument on drunk driving was saying, "Don't attempt to correlate the state and private organizations - it is fallacious and flawed. There is no comparison." However, I did in fact make a comparison and explained how and why, and you have yet to properly explain why my logic in making such a comparison is flawed.
No, I think you just like being a self-righteous asshole...and my point is that you need to knock it off. The funny thing is, you act like I'm "already gone" when I'm 99% of the way to anarcho-capitalism anyway. Taking that into consideration, what non-anarcho-capitalists are you actually able to speak with that you do
not consider "already gone?"
It is not reasonable to think a prime advocate of Individualism is a racist. The Founder of the Mises Institute, someone who agrees fundamentally with Mises Human Action - ain't a racist. To contend so is delusional.
Apparently you've never heard of cognitive dissonance? The number one proponent of individuality in the entire world - with respect to law and rights - could nevertheless still be the most flagrant racist in the entire world. On an emotional level, he could think almost exclusively in terms of collectivist groups. He might know those emotions are irrational (and therefore maintain individualist political views), yet he may remain unable to overcome that emotional bias in his thoughts. I'm not saying Lew Rockwell is like this -
he's not - I'm just saying that cognitive dissonance is real, and it affects people. No one on the planet is "all rational, all the time," and no one on the planet is entirely 100% consistent in their thoughts. To contend otherwise is delusional.
4. Racial Polylogism
"Marxian polylogism is an abortive makeshift to salvage the untenable doctrines of socialism. Its attempt to substitute intuition for ratiocination appeals to popular superstitions. But it is precisely this attitude that places Marxian polylogism and its offshoot, the so-called “sociology of knowledge,” in irreconcilable antagonism to science and reason. It is different with the polylogism of the racists. This brand of polylogism is in agreement with fashionable, although mistaken, tendencies in presentday empiricism. <snip for space>
The categories of human thought and action are neither arbitrary products of the human mind nor conventions. They are not outside of the universe and of the course of cosmic events. They are biological facts and have a definite function in life and reality. They are instruments in man’s struggle for existence and in his endeavors to adjust himself as much as possible to the real state of the universe and to remove uneasiness as much as it is in his power to do so."
That's racist?!11
Page 104-105 Human Action.
Maybe you should take that up with someone else, considering I'm not actually calling anyone a racist.
I'd like for you to reply to this post with, "Okay, I understand I was wrong with that the majority of my writings containing flawed premises. I realise the state is a band of robbers who it is immoral to defend." Unfortunately I'm expecting another tiresome defense of the State and its actions along the lines that I usually get. Prove me wrong.
Pfffffffft. Notice that I never asked you to admit you were wrong about anything other than your attitude. In comparison, your hopes for my reply are
quite a bit higher and patently unreasonable...as is your attitude in general.
