The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 12:54:02 PM

Title: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 12:54:02 PM
I thought I finally out my true thoughts on the matter of human order rather than sitting on the sidelines anymore. As many here remember me as ladyattis, that early on I was a minarchist up until 2006ish where I began to study the work of Rothbard (and later on Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, and etc). But as I started to explore other ideas, especially those from Asian thinkers (Confucius in particular) or Asian influenced thinkers (Schopenhauer) I've made a made a decidedly unusual conclusion: that voluntary social order itself is a contradiction.

I won't go in-depth in this post about why I made this conclusion, but I'll summarize. The base component of human societies is the family as the human species procreates sexually instead of asexually, thus males and females take on different biological roles that are essential to the continuation of the species. This biological version of the division of labor even extends to the couple's division of responsibilities. Men care for the physically challenging work, women focus on other tasks like child rearing. Sometimes the division of labor varies as I've seen in anthropological studies of certain ethnic minorities throughout the world, but the division regardless of how it is setup is always there. This is key because often such division plays to the biological strengths of each sex while shielding their given weaknesses. The more one examines this trait of playing to strengths and covering weaknesses in the human family, it becomes clear that none of this is ever chosen freely as much as a person is not free to fly to the moon on a whim. It takes some thought (although, some of this is quite spontaneous in its genesis) to organize even the smallest of families, thus it's common that decisions in a family are done by its elders (the parents themselves, or their parents). This is not done out of malice or wish to dominate, but that it is done out of the fact that those who have lived the longest have the best knowledge of what to do in most situations. If the family elders don't know, they oftener will seek out answers, and puzzle out the right questions to ask to clear up their own ignorance of a matter.

Anyways, all of this means that societies being built on top of the family unit then follow a similar division of labor where each institution stands out of either history (as accident) or necessity (as heuristic or principle). This includes the State. Now, this doesn't mean the State is in the latter category of necessity, but it does mean that those organs within the State may be necessary and wanted. And it may be to the best interests of all human beings to see those organs of necessity liberated from the State as to better their function, rather than demanding their demise at the whims of zealots (like Ian). It is this particular point of view that I take which I see as both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from Voluntaryism as the very idea of a purely voluntary society stands in conflict with my view that some social institutions and orders are not only a matter of fact, but of a matter of fulfilling the very definition of a society. And more importantly, that these institutions and orders do not necessarily derive their power from authority, but rather from function, as it is authority (or what I like to call the dominance complex) is the seed of tyranny and not functionality.

This distinction between my view on society and that of Voluntaryism means more or less that I am not a Voluntaryist in any degree. And moreover, that I have views which are more aligned with that of left-libertarians and other anti-authoritarian philosophies. I'm not sure that Voluntaryists are a problem, but I do see their philosophy as fundamentally weak as it cannot integrate both the essential nature of the human family as the genesis of social order nor explain why something being purely voluntary is in itself sufficiently good.

TLDR-Version: Society has some properties of being not voluntary, therefore Voluntaryism is contradictory in the assumption of achieving a purely voluntary society.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 21, 2010, 04:17:52 PM
Ok, so who has the gun?

Which institution, what social function in your estimation, gets away with the initiation of coercion?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: davann on July 21, 2010, 04:29:54 PM
Never ever trust anything from the East, especially their philosophy.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." - Kipling
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 04:37:41 PM
Ok, so who has the gun?

Which institution, what social function in your estimation, gets away with the initiation of coercion?

This is a false question because that which not voluntary is not necessarily coercive. For example, one must retain some means of income to survive in a modern society. Be it a job, inheritance, business, and so on. You could argue it's a choice, but that which is chosen is not voluntary (a choice can be coerced) it's simply chosen.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 04:41:08 PM
Never ever trust anything from the East, especially their philosophy.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." - Kipling

That's fine, but you'll be surprised how much in terms of mathematics and navigation Western scholars 'borrowed' when we were lagging behind (and they were lagging behind in the development of the scientific method, which Western Scholars offered to teach).
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: atomiccat on July 21, 2010, 04:47:21 PM
Social orders and orders of the family have changed rolls and will change, On this I feel that the family role in peoples lives, with the increase in technology will become smaller, families had a role in the older days for the general protection and well being of each other, and is or will no longer be a boon to people with current or future technologies.

if government were to collapse right now it would be bad, but it might be better than what we have right now.

 You need a shift in the general thinking of people, to that of violence is bad and no man is above another and for people to stop idol worshiping for voluntarism to work. Many of the freestaters have adopted theses values and more will adopt them as they come into the liberty message, if the word of liberty continues to grow stronger, it will only be a matter of time before a truly voluntary society is possible

And on a non issue of this topic...

If people From say NH were told that the people of mass were evil and they were told to take up arms to take over mass, but the people from NH knew that most people are generally good and if they did take up arms against theses people they would be committing Grievous crimes and would gain little to nothing because the leaders of NH would take it all and possibly lose theirs lives, none but the evil would come to the call of arms and would die at the feet of the mass people, whom would all be armed if they were allowed arms to defend them selves.





Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 04:54:11 PM
I don't think it's a matter of getting voluntaryism to work. In the vast majority of situations it is the default state which human beings enjoy. But the family unit offers to unique features: origin of the next generation, and a chance for a person to learn and grow (and flourish). And it's these two features that no tool or device can capture or mimic. A robot that has no mind is not a parent. A computer terminal with no network access is not an outlet for social curiosity. No matter how one slices the problem, the family is a permanent feature of human beings regardless of historical accidents. And it is from the family that liberty will come, and not from some campy libertine activities dressed up as civil disobedience (In reference to the crap that recently happened in Keene...), as it is where everyone starts and learns.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Rillion on July 21, 2010, 04:54:57 PM
I missed the part where the family structure, which varies exponentially more wildly the more technologically advanced and prosperous a country is, somehow dictates the appropriate structure of government.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 04:56:18 PM
I missed the part where the family structure, which varies exponentially more wildly the more technologically advanced and prosperous a country is, somehow dictates the appropriate structure of government.

It doesn't, but it does predicate how one views what is necessary and sufficient for a society.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: atomiccat on July 21, 2010, 04:59:57 PM
Teach the children about liberty, and from each successive generation more liberty will come.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 05:04:15 PM
Teach the children about liberty, and from each successive generation more liberty will come.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: MaikU on July 21, 2010, 05:05:59 PM
I only disagree (so far) with OP about the family. My views are quite controversial. Family doesn't have to be involuntary too, at least, not all time. If you can support yourself, I think one can be free to leave his family. No problem.

I am not quite sure where OP stands on gay families issue, but in my opinion, their families are not a problem too and can raise healthy child just like heterosexual family can raise a healthy child (which later can become gay, haha, but srsly).

What I mean by this is that to me a FAMILY is not a women and a man. To me family is at least one person raising a child. it can be group of persons, but it doesn't matter their sexual orientation or skin color.

that's my few bucks on this topic.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 21, 2010, 05:26:57 PM
So by redefining "voluntary" to an absurdity, one becomes something other than a voluntaryist.  I get it. 

The important part is the part about not initiating force.  So I presume, you're still a "non-initiation-of-forcist."
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 21, 2010, 05:33:48 PM
Ok, so who has the gun?

Which institution, what social function in your estimation, gets away with the initiation of coercion?

This is a false question because that which not voluntary is not necessarily coercive.

So voluntary interaction doesn't work because of ... gravity?

Quote
For example, one must retain some means of income to survive in a modern society.

Maybe it wasn't obvious.

Voluntary means how people interact.

I am a "voluntaryist" because I interact with the people around me in voluntary ways, without coercion.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: davann on July 21, 2010, 05:40:30 PM
Never ever trust anything from the East, especially their philosophy.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." - Kipling

That's fine, but you'll be surprised how much in terms of mathematics and navigation Western scholars 'borrowed' when we were lagging behind (and they were lagging behind in the development of the scientific method, which Western Scholars offered to teach).

Ah, but who first made this claim of borrowing and lagging behind? I suspect the claim originated from the East, thusly I can not trust it.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Bill Brasky on July 21, 2010, 06:48:46 PM
Well, its about fuckin' time you've arrived at The Conclusion. 



Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 07:32:26 PM
So by redefining "voluntary" to an absurdity, one becomes something other than a voluntaryist.  I get it. 

The important part is the part about not initiating force.  So I presume, you're still a "non-initiation-of-forcist."

You seem to not grasp the point. Let me pin it down to this particular issue. Is cannibalism ethically acceptable if it is not coerced? How about sexual relations between someone of an extremely young age (pre-teen and younger) and someone much older (teens and up)? Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral? If so, why? If not, why not? What is the standard of normativity?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 07:32:54 PM
Well, its about fuckin' time you've arrived at The Conclusion. 





I'm a slow learner.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 21, 2010, 07:41:09 PM
So by redefining "voluntary" to an absurdity, one becomes something other than a voluntaryist.  I get it.  

The important part is the part about not initiating force.  So I presume, you're still a "non-initiation-of-forcist."

You seem to not grasp the point. Let me pin it down to this particular issue. Is cannibalism ethically acceptable if it is not coerced? How about sexual relations between someone of an extremely young age (pre-teen and younger) and someone much older (teens and up)? Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral? If so, why? If not, why not? What is the standard of normativity?

Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?

If I recall correctly, our first-ever dust-up was about how happy you were that the state (I.E., people who'd been robbed) was paying for someone's sex change.  If your view has not changed, how was that moral?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 07:46:45 PM
Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

Quote
If I recall correctly, our first-ever dust-up was about how happy you were that the state (I.E., people who'd been robbed) was paying for someone's sex change.  If your view has not changed, how was that moral?

The last time I checked, I never supported such a thing.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 21, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

I'm not the one who started the thread with a claim.  If you recall, I asked questions, which you redirected to questions, which I answered.  My standard is initiation of force.

Quote
Quote
If I recall correctly, our first-ever dust-up was about how happy you were that the state (I.E., people who'd been robbed) was paying for someone's sex change.  If your view has not changed, how was that moral?

The last time I checked, I never supported such a thing.

Though you did.  I may or may not take the time to dig up the thread, but you know perfectly well you did.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 07:55:02 PM
Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

I'm not the one who started the thread with a claim.  If you recall, I asked questions, which you redirected to questions, which I answered.  My standard is initiation of force.
I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Quote
Though you did.  I may or may not take the time to dig up the thread, but you know perfectly well you did.

I'd like to see, I don't remember particularly. Maybe it was the post about an MtF in jail, wasn't it?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 21, 2010, 08:07:52 PM
Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

I'm not the one who started the thread with a claim.  If you recall, I asked questions, which you redirected to questions, which I answered.  My standard is initiation of force.
I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?

Quote
Though you did.  I may or may not take the time to dig up the thread, but you know perfectly well you did.

I'd like to see, I don't remember particularly. Maybe it was the post about an MtF in jail, wasn't it?

Sure, it's permissible to be racist, but I don't have to deal with the scum who are.  The thread had nothing to do with jail.  It had to do with a British girl suing the government for the "right" (to get it paid for) and winning, IIRC.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 21, 2010, 08:13:27 PM
Um, nope, I don't believe I ever brought that one up. But I think I remember the article about it...

Also, on the whole permissible thing, then why don't you just call yourself a moral nihilist as you can come to the same conclusion of NAP without any ethical argumentation? The reason I bring this up is because either NAP is an ethical statement or merely a statement of consequentialist origin (more akin to an economic law). If it's the former, then it's part of a larger system of ethics which describes all human interactions. If it's the latter, it merely is a subset of economics. The problem with the latter being true is that it doesn't explain why other social orders have been successful without NAP. One example would be Chile under Pinochet, which even Milton Friedman in an interview used it as an example that capitalism was only a necessary condition for a free society, but not one that is sufficient. He recognized ethics was in the mix that gave society its capability to form economic orders (essentially, social order precedes economic order). 
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: dalebert on July 21, 2010, 10:32:00 PM
You seem to not grasp the point. Let me pin it down to this particular issue. Is cannibalism ethically acceptable if it is not coerced? How about sexual relations between someone of an extremely young age (pre-teen and younger) and someone much older (teens and up)? Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral? If so, why? If not, why not? What is the standard of normativity?

I have always been under the impression that being a voluntaryist is not meant to be the be-all end-all definition of a person.  If you are a voluntaryist, at a minimum, you consistently reject aggression and fraud as part of your personal ethics.  That doesn't mean it's all that defines you or your ethics.  An atheist voluntaryist and a Christian voluntaryist might have very different views about the ethics of non-aggressive cannibalism, for instance.  It might appear they're more similar ethically because both would reject violence as a means of controlling the non-aggressive actions of others.

From an atheist POV, an already dead human body is just a hunk of meat, and one of the most nutritious things a person can consume as it has all he nutrients a person needs.  Anything beyond that is just about what seems distasteful.  It seems gross to me, but I see no reason to care if someone does it unless they expect me to watch.  In some historic cultures it was a dishonor NOT to eat your dead relatives.  It would be akin to us not having a proper burial for a loved one.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 22, 2010, 09:03:45 AM
Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral?

Yes. Otherwise, I am forcing my morality on others.

I may think something is wrong, but my using coercion to interfere in an entirely voluntary action is just more "wrong".

Two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means.

Quote
What is the standard of normativity?

Right now, that standard is whatever the man with the badge and gun says it is.

Just because it's normal doesn't make it right, or just, or moral.

That is why I asked you, and ask again, who has the gun in your scenario? What function of society is provided through coercion?

Because if there isn't one, then you're a voluntaryist.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: davann on July 22, 2010, 11:03:22 AM

I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Yes. Just as it is morally acceptable for those Midwesterners to treat their women the way they do. Those are their culture's morals. What would be immoral is for someone outside that society stand back and pass judgement on their behavior based upon standards of their own morals.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 22, 2010, 11:14:05 AM

I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Yes. Just as it is morally acceptable for those Midwesterners to treat their women the way they do. Those are their culture's morals. What would be immoral is for someone outside that society stand back and pass judgement on their behavior based upon standards of their own morals.
Fundamental disagreement.  There are universal morals.

Would it be okay to have a society that cuts off baby's heads and eats them?  If you were in a boat exploring an island and came upon natives who hurled their infants into the air and caught them on spears and ate them, would it be immoral to stop them and save the infants?  OF COURSE FUCKING NOT.  How can you argue moral relativism when people are getting hurt?  And then you go and stand on your high chair and cry the whole "evil jews are not accommodating enough to Islamofascists" routine.  Talk about irony.

It is wrong to hurt people.  I don't care what the fucked up culture believes, there is nothing wrong with me standing here and talking shit on Islamofascist culture that punishes women for not wearing burkas and racist cultures that oppress people with different skin colors.  It is WRONG to beat women because they let their ankle slip.  It is WRONG to racially oppress groups of people based on their skin tone.  It is WRONG to toss infants into the air and catch them on the tips of spears.  It is UNIVERSALLY MORAL to call out these illegitimate practices and seek an end to them.

Your beliefs that are so accommodating to racism are not surprising however.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: dalebert on July 22, 2010, 11:18:44 AM
There are plenty of non-aggressive behaviors that I would like to change, particularly if people I care about are engaged in them.  I feel that using violence to change those behaviors is inherently counter-productive and therefore, irrational.  It might be the immediately satisfying thing, but it seems like an act of desperation that may feel good right now but backfire in the long run.  It's like forcing in a screw that is likely the wrong size for the job or that you've started going in at the wrong angle.  Force will get it in there, but the thing is more likely to break later.  You fixed things on the surface, so to speak, but you didn't address the root of the problem.  You may have forced someone to stop the behavior you opposed, but you didn't convince them and make them not want to do it in the future.  Instead, you probably built resentment that will make it more difficult to actually change their hearts.

Violence intended to stop racism has probably extended its life.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 22, 2010, 11:21:42 AM
Yes. Otherwise, I am forcing my morality on others.

Then it's not morality. More or less that means you would better fit in the camp of moral nihilist more so than moral subjectivist.

Quote
I may think something is wrong, but my using coercion to interfere in an entirely voluntary action is just more "wrong".
Im/morality is not a matter of degrees, but kind.

Quote
Two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means.

I never said they did, but you seem to assume that is what I mean. I don't see ends nor necessarily means as divisible in moral arguments as often both are either the same object of moral arguments or one of them (means or ends) relate to the other as an inherent property. Either way one slices it, morality based on purely consequential grounds runs into weird situations (see the train argument made in utilitarianism).



Quote
Right now, that standard is whatever the man with the badge and gun says it is.

Then why doesn't it enforce the moral standard in most of the US that racist  slurs are bad and those that use them are low lifes? I never seen a cop ticket a race supremacist, but I've seen people give them a tongue licking that made one look like a complete jerk.

Quote
Just because it's normal doesn't make it right, or just, or moral.

You never read my original post did you? I suggest doing so to grasp the context my points.

Quote
That is why I asked you, and ask again, who has the gun in your scenario? What function of society is provided through coercion?
Your question is false as it assumes only force can be used to maintain social institutions. Who points the gun at most people as to not be racists? Who points the gun at most people as to not be rapists? The last time I checked it was no one as even cops are outnumbered by 'criminals' by a wide margin at least in the US. Nor could there ever be enough to maintain the illusion to any degree.

Quote
Because if there isn't one, then you're a voluntaryist.

False conclusion as I recognize there are social institutions and states which are not voluntary (just as me being a human on a certain continent is not voluntary, it's merely fact).
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 22, 2010, 11:23:03 AM

I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Yes. Just as it is morally acceptable for those Midwesterners to treat their women the way they do. Those are their culture's morals. What would be immoral is for someone outside that society stand back and pass judgement on their behavior based upon standards of their own morals.

Then how do you justify NAP?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 22, 2010, 12:19:14 PM
Yes. Otherwise, I am forcing my morality on others.

Then it's not morality. More or less that means you would better fit in the camp of moral nihilist more so than moral subjectivist.

So your very DEFINITION of "morality" is what I force upon others?

Quote
Quote
Two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means.

I never said they did, but you seem to assume that is what I mean.

Look at the quote above. You specifically state that my NOT forcing other people to my view of morality means I do NOT have morality.

That's a double negative. They cancel. So you have explicitly stated that Morality, to you, is FORCE.

Quote
Quote
Right now, that standard is whatever the man with the badge and gun says it is.

Then why doesn't it enforce the moral standard in most of the US that racist  slurs are bad and those that use them are low lifes?

You've missed 40 years of the FCC prosecuting racist slurs?

Quote
Quote
Just because it's normal doesn't make it right, or just, or moral.

You never read my original post did you?

Yes, I did. What you fail to consider is that it made just as much sense as your asserting that the only morality is the one backed up by force, above.

Quote
Quote
That is why I asked you, and ask again, who has the gun in your scenario? What function of society is provided through coercion?
Your question is false as it assumes only force can be used to maintain social institutions.

YOU are the one asserting that voluntary interaction CANNOT maintain social institutions.

I am asking you why, what institutions do you believe require force.

If that is a false question, then you are a VOLUNTARYIST by definition, since you do not believe force is required to support social institutions.

Quote
Quote
Because if there isn't one, then you're a voluntaryist.
False conclusion as I recognize there are social institutions and states which are not voluntary (just as me being a human on a certain continent is not voluntary, it's merely fact).

So, again, which institutions, in your opinion, require coercion in order to maintain them?

You've stated that force exists. I agree. However, I do not believe force is _necessary_, and I am therefore a voluntaryist.

You either demonstrate what force you believe is necessary, or stop pretending to be something you're not.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 22, 2010, 01:57:00 PM
The video's gone, but it was "Lucy: Teen Transexual" a story about a male teen who used socialized medicine for a sex change operation.  This is the thread to which I referred.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0)
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: YixilTesiphon on July 22, 2010, 02:04:48 PM
It is wrong to hurt people.

I agree. I think it's entirely permissible under NAP to use force to stop aggression against others, even if that's how that group says they want to live - it would be totally permissible to stop female genital mutilation, for example. FGM is aggression and it's the job of non-aggressors who are able to stop it to do so.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: davann on July 22, 2010, 02:47:43 PM

I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Yes. Just as it is morally acceptable for those Midwesterners to treat their women the way they do. Those are their culture's morals. What would be immoral is for someone outside that society stand back and pass judgement on their behavior based upon standards of their own morals.

Then how do you justify NAP?

NAP is something I follow. So it follows that I can not initiate others to do as I do. One has to accept that others are going to behave differently than you do.

One also has to accept that maybe the most abhorrent thing, like genital mutilation, you can think of might be common practice by others. One also has to accept that you donít know everything so there might be a very good reason why others are practicing genital mutilation. What would be wrong would be forcing your life philosophy, morals or societal practices upon people that donít want to live that way.

The person that steps into Africa and starts snatching babies away from their mothers to ďsaveĒ them from genital mutilation deserves what ever violence the tribe decides to dish out upon them. I would even join the tribe if I were there to witness it even though I find such a practice sick. I would also still be living within my own moral code of NAP.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: ForumTroll on July 22, 2010, 02:56:13 PM
It is wrong to hurt people.

I agree. I think it's entirely permissible under NAP to use force to stop aggression against others, even if that's how that group says they want to live - it would be totally permissible to stop female genital mutilation, for example. FGM is aggression and it's the job of non-aggressors who are able to stop it to do so.

So, the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine conflicts are justifiable then?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: YixilTesiphon on July 22, 2010, 03:19:38 PM
It is wrong to hurt people.

I agree. I think it's entirely permissible under NAP to use force to stop aggression against others, even if that's how that group says they want to live - it would be totally permissible to stop female genital mutilation, for example. FGM is aggression and it's the job of non-aggressors who are able to stop it to do so.

So, the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine conflicts are justifiable then?

No, and I don't see the path from A to B.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: ForumTroll on July 22, 2010, 03:28:12 PM
It is wrong to hurt people.

I agree. I think it's entirely permissible under NAP to use force to stop aggression against others, even if that's how that group says they want to live - it would be totally permissible to stop female genital mutilation, for example. FGM is aggression and it's the job of non-aggressors who are able to stop it to do so.

So, the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine conflicts are justifiable then?

No, and I don't see the path from A to B.

You are automatically presuming that people want to be rescued even if they don't say they do. So why isn't invading countries to stop these kind of aggressions permissible in your world view?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 22, 2010, 05:03:16 PM
It is not a violation of the NAP for someone who is against abortion to stand outside an abortion clinic offering anonymous adoption services and low-cost maternity care.

So long as the advocate is not blocking the entrance, I'm just fine with it. And I think if the anti-abortionists took their violence and vitriol out of their efforts, they could work together with the clinics to make sure that the customer knew they had options.

Persuasion is not force.

It would also help with the emotional problems some people associate with abortion, which I think is mostly emotional trauma from feeling trapped and hopeless.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: davann on July 22, 2010, 05:36:55 PM
It is not a violation of the NAP for someone who is against abortion to stand outside an abortion clinic offering anonymous adoption services and low-cost maternity care.

So long as the advocate is not blocking the entrance, I'm just fine with it. And I think if the anti-abortionists took their violence and vitriol out of their efforts, they could work together with the clinics to make sure that the customer knew they had options.

Persuasion is not force.

It would also help with the emotional problems some people associate with abortion, which I think is mostly emotional trauma from feeling trapped and hopeless.

Yes, that is the way to do things. Vitriol does not win. Persausion has a shot. Soft persausion has an even greater shot.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: YixilTesiphon on July 22, 2010, 09:57:25 PM
It is wrong to hurt people.

I agree. I think it's entirely permissible under NAP to use force to stop aggression against others, even if that's how that group says they want to live - it would be totally permissible to stop female genital mutilation, for example. FGM is aggression and it's the job of non-aggressors who are able to stop it to do so.

So, the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine conflicts are justifiable then?

No, and I don't see the path from A to B.

You are automatically presuming that people want to be rescued even if they don't say they do. So why isn't invading countries to stop these kind of aggressions permissible in your world view?

Good point, that becomes inconsistent on a large scale.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 23, 2010, 11:16:24 AM
It is not a violation of the NAP for someone who is against abortion to stand outside an abortion clinic offering anonymous adoption services and low-cost maternity care.

So long as the advocate is not blocking the entrance, I'm just fine with it. And I think if the anti-abortionists took their violence and vitriol out of their efforts, they could work together with the clinics to make sure that the customer knew they had options.

Persuasion is not force.

It would also help with the emotional problems some people associate with abortion, which I think is mostly emotional trauma from feeling trapped and hopeless.

Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion? If not, why? I'm just wanting to get a feel for your ideas on this.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 23, 2010, 11:22:41 AM
NAP is something I follow. So it follows that I can not initiate others to do as I do. One has to accept that others are going to behave differently than you do.
But again, what is the logical justification for NAP? Consequential? Or something else? I tend to think NAP is a logically non-consequential statement of the fact that humans are beings of harmony. And despite all the assumed stories of conflicts, wars, and violence that humans are more often able to get along even if there is still unclarified issues.  What is important is that NAP by itself doesn't justify or impede the formation of other institutions, or that these institutions themselves are not given (default mode).

Quote
One also has to accept that maybe the most abhorrent thing, like genital mutilation, you can think of might be common practice by others. One also has to accept that you donít know everything so there might be a very good reason why others are practicing genital mutilation. What would be wrong would be forcing your life philosophy, morals or societal practices upon people that donít want to live that way.

It's not so much a matter of forcing anything, but it is a matter of accepting such acts. If NAP is coupled to moral nihilism, then everything goes and NAP becomes self-refuting. But if NAP is coupled to a non-nihilist moral theory (probably moral realist in nature), then it can sustain itself and be part of a larger family of moral statements. This means that not only is NAP moral (and necessary to the human condition), but not all moral statements are predicated upon NAP. And that NAP and these other non-NAP predicated moral statements are predicated on some universal principle that ties them together. NAP by itself simply doesn't cut it, if you get what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 23, 2010, 02:22:36 PM
NAP was stolen from F. Paul Wilson's fictional worlds of Tolive and Flint and the KYFHO religion in his universe.   :P

Of course its probably the other way around, but anyways NAP certainly should not be considered moral relativism nor nihilistic in nature, although it seems that some people believe that to be the case and the reason why they support it.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 23, 2010, 02:54:24 PM
Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion?

No. He is removing his consent.

Coercion would be if he literally "kicked". That's assault.

However, that has nothing to do with persuasion concerning abortion, so I wonder how you leaped from what I was saying to this idea of someone removing their consent because of an abortion.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: davann on July 23, 2010, 04:19:08 PM
NAP is something I follow. So it follows that I can not initiate others to do as I do. One has to accept that others are going to behave differently than you do.
But again, what is the logical justification for NAP? Consequential? Or something else? I tend to think NAP is a logically non-consequential statement of the fact that humans are beings of harmony. And despite all the assumed stories of conflicts, wars, and violence that humans are more often able to get along even if there is still unclarified issues.  What is important is that NAP by itself doesn't justify or impede the formation of other institutions, or that these institutions themselves are not given (default mode).

Quote
One also has to accept that maybe the most abhorrent thing, like genital mutilation, you can think of might be common practice by others. One also has to accept that you donít know everything so there might be a very good reason why others are practicing genital mutilation. What would be wrong would be forcing your life philosophy, morals or societal practices upon people that donít want to live that way.

It's not so much a matter of forcing anything, but it is a matter of accepting such acts. If NAP is coupled to moral nihilism, then everything goes and NAP becomes self-refuting. But if NAP is coupled to a non-nihilist moral theory (probably moral realist in nature), then it can sustain itself and be part of a larger family of moral statements. This means that not only is NAP moral (and necessary to the human condition), but not all moral statements are predicated upon NAP. And that NAP and these other non-NAP predicated moral statements are predicated on some universal principle that ties them together. NAP by itself simply doesn't cut it, if you get what I'm saying.


Yeah, you kinda lost me a little. I think the key is in the accepting that others might not behave as you do. And that they donít is okay as long as their actions do not cause you harm.

I donít think everything has to tie into each other. Taking NAP to that sort of level is kind of like making into a religion. I donít think it is. It is merely a good way to live, IMO. 
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: MaikU on July 23, 2010, 05:35:09 PM
interesting discussion has evolved here... I also noticed that many anarchists (in mises.org, for example) who believe in NAP are also moral relativists or  nihilists. I don't know which is worse, but they both are extreme cases which then refutes the whole NAP idea. Without objective (or rational, or natural, whatever you call it) morality NAP is worthless, IMO.


Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 23, 2010, 06:39:02 PM
NAP is something I follow. So it follows that I can not initiate others to do as I do. One has to accept that others are going to behave differently than you do.
But again, what is the logical justification for NAP? Consequential? Or something else? I tend to think NAP is a logically non-consequential statement of the fact that humans are beings of harmony. And despite all the assumed stories of conflicts, wars, and violence that humans are more often able to get along even if there is still unclarified issues.  What is important is that NAP by itself doesn't justify or impede the formation of other institutions, or that these institutions themselves are not given (default mode).

Quote
One also has to accept that maybe the most abhorrent thing, like genital mutilation, you can think of might be common practice by others. One also has to accept that you donít know everything so there might be a very good reason why others are practicing genital mutilation. What would be wrong would be forcing your life philosophy, morals or societal practices upon people that donít want to live that way.

It's not so much a matter of forcing anything, but it is a matter of accepting such acts. If NAP is coupled to moral nihilism, then everything goes and NAP becomes self-refuting. But if NAP is coupled to a non-nihilist moral theory (probably moral realist in nature), then it can sustain itself and be part of a larger family of moral statements. This means that not only is NAP moral (and necessary to the human condition), but not all moral statements are predicated upon NAP. And that NAP and these other non-NAP predicated moral statements are predicated on some universal principle that ties them together. NAP by itself simply doesn't cut it, if you get what I'm saying.


Yeah, you kinda lost me a little. I think the key is in the accepting that others might not behave as you do. And that they donít is okay as long as their actions do not cause you harm.

I donít think everything has to tie into each other. Taking NAP to that sort of level is kind of like making into a religion. I donít think it is. It is merely a good way to live, IMO. 

That's a good pragmatic clarification.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Zhwazi on July 23, 2010, 10:27:12 PM
I want to add in my three cents on why I'm not a voluntaryist as well.

The short version is, voluntarity is a nice rule of thumb for detecting aggression but it is not the solution to it. It is being extended outside its useful scope for the sake of being moralistic and indignant (which while fun, and is 70% of the reason for me making this post, should only be done when it does not grow your ego to eclipse your ability to explore new ideas).

Now for the long version.

Everybody with a brain (i.e. not the war economists) can see plain as day that aggression and force are destructive and should be considered a last resort if it should be a resort at all.

You've got your pacifists that won't use force even in defense, and another group of people that won't use force except in defense, but won't use it for restitution, another group that will use it only to get restitution, and another that will use force for restitution or retribution. This is all only after the fact that aggression has taken place, and it assumes that aggression has taken place.

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

I am not saying that those who do aggress in such a pre-emptive manner should not be held responsible for their actions. But if they decide that the costs of being responsible for their aggression now is less than what they stand to lose in future aggression (which doesn't even have to be deliberate, and can be accidental) then they should aggress and bear the costs. Being an anarchist I obviously don't think there should be only one group of magical people that can do this aggression.

It is not immoral to not push somebody's stalled car off the tracks with your bumper and thereby cause hundreds of dollars of damage to their car, if a train is coming and greater damage is about to occur. You may (thought I doubt it would be the case) be responsible for the damage to the car. However, moving the car off the tracks is the moral thing to do. To stand idly by and watch just because the owner of the car isn't around to grant permission to move their car (possibly looking for a gas station) is immoral itself.

It is also not immoral to use aggression against threatening groups who you believe will attack you or your family. Note I didn't say "may", I said "will". It's not acceptable to go around killing cops on the grounds of this, unless you believe a specific officer has a personal vendetta agaisnt you and would try to kill you as soon as they had an opportunity. But against groups like Al-Qaida, you don't want to wait to be attacked before you attack them.

All of this stuff is still perfectly within a stateless anarchistic moral viewpoint. The aggressors are still handled as aggressors, though they now get to enjoy the benefits that pre-emptive aggression can, in rare cases, bring. Force still should be a last resort and never the first, but the option is open and this is something that Voluntaryism is not able to handle. If you adopt this facet of my view on things you cannot fairly call yourself a voluntaryist. Furthermore this is not a prescriptive statement but a predictive one of what would happen in the real world when these situations really do occur and not everybody is a dystopian mind-clone of all other people. I don't have to make up crap answers to tough questions and act all morally indignant and superior because I stick to principles which are being misapplied in counterproductive ways which totally misunderstand the actual reason for the principles to begin with in the way I see anarchocapitalists and especially those calling themselves voluntaryists do.

Aside from that there's a whole realm of morality outside the scope of voluntaryism. Some understandings of voluntaryism take the form of "Whatever is voluntary is good, otherwise people would not choose it, and whatever is involuntary is bad, because people wouldn't freely choose it" in an attempt to fill in this gap to entitle the claimant to think they have the answer to everything in the vast complicated world of morality in 5 or fewer words. That perspective however is bullshit, I oppose stupidity whether it's harming other people or not, I will not suspend my judgement of non-aggressive behaviors due to their being non-aggressive, and truly malicious people don't need to be asked for consent before being dealt with.

Besides, the word absolutely SUCKS. Using vowels together like that is really awkward. Who cares if "voluntarist" already has a meaning, nobody cares that capitalism already has a meaning, you might as well use the version of the word that doesn't have two incompatible suffixes (-y to indicate an adjective and -ism or -ist to indicate a noun) and just go straight for tacking the noun suffix onto the root like most reasonable english words do.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 23, 2010, 11:48:44 PM
Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

While I agree, it comes down to proof.

It's easy to prove the rapist was attempting to do their deed without the rape actually having occurred. What did occur, however, was the attempt. He was NOT simply walking past on the sidewalk and smiling.

Similarly, person A drawing a gun and pointing it at someone's head is, to me, "proof" that the person so threatened (or a 3rd party who intervened) acted in "self defense" even if person A never actually pulled the trigger. What did occur, however, was a direct and specific action, not just someone checking to make sure their pistol was seated well in their holster.

So while it is arguable that both instances of violence are "pre-emptive" self-defense, the proof is the fact that both only happened due to actions on the part of the erstwhile rapist and murderer.

They acted to involve someone involuntarily, first.

Quote
I am not saying that those who do aggress in such a pre-emptive manner should not be held responsible for their actions. But if they decide that the costs of being responsible for their aggression now is less than what they stand to lose in future aggression (which doesn't even have to be deliberate, and can be accidental) then they should aggress and bear the costs.

Which really has nothing to do with "voluntary" or "involuntary", and everything to do with proof.

Prove that the person you just took out was in fact a direct threat to you.

The real beauty of non-statute law and adjudication (not "enforcement") is that each case really is treated as the unique coincidence of individuals and circumstances that it is.

Quote
Being an anarchist I obviously don't think there should be only one group of magical people that can do this aggression.

That would seem to me to be the definition of an-archy. Rules, without rulers.

Quote
However, moving the car off the tracks is the moral thing to do. To stand idly by and watch just because the owner of the car isn't around to grant permission to move their car (possibly looking for a gas station) is immoral itself.

This may be the crux of this whole "morality" thing. Looking back, I see how saying I abide the NAP, and interact with people on a voluntary basis, has been labeled "moral relativism" and "nihilism".

Yet your example of moving the car is not an interpersonal interaction. It is an interaction with an object, with an express objective of saving lives and property.

If you want to get into "voluntary" interaction, put a person on the tracks who says, "Don't save me, I want to die."

If I were an agent of the railroad, I would intervene because I am protecting property I am responsible for from damage, even if that means acting against the will of the suicidal individual, because they're trespassing.

Quote
It is also not immoral to use aggression against threatening groups who you believe will attack you or your family. Note I didn't say "may", I said "will".

Proof. By your statements, that is exactly what you are saying also. Some one or some group has already involved you involuntarily, so you're acting in self defense.

So I'm left to wonder what it is about voluntary interaction that puts you off so that you assert you are not a "voluntaryist".

Quote
Force still should be a last resort and never the first, but the option is open and this is something that Voluntaryism is not able to handle. If you adopt this facet of my view on things you cannot fairly call yourself a voluntaryist.

I hope I have pointed out how I can, and I do.

Just as a person can be both peaceful and prepared for self defense, a person who chooses to deal with others on a voluntary basis is not being hypocritical to respond "involuntarily" to someone who has initiated "involuntary" interaction.

It may be that you believe "voluntaryists" haven't thought of this. If you do believe that NAP abiding voluntarily interacting individuals are such fools, then all this "I'm not a voluntaryist" stuff finally makes sense.

Quote
I don't have to make up crap answers to tough questions and act all morally indignant and superior because I stick to principles which are being misapplied in counterproductive ways which totally misunderstand the actual reason for the principles to begin with in the way I see anarchocapitalists and especially those calling themselves voluntaryists do.

So what tough questions? Lifeboat scenarios? Trolley cars that can only be stopped by pushing a fat guy off a bridge into its way, thus saving a dozen lives by sacrificing one?

What I have seen, in contrast to what you have seen, is people so hung up on what they think the funny words mean that they concoct twisted plots and outlandish schemes and then demand that everyone else see how impossible it would be to be decent human beings in such situations, and therefore simple decency just doesn't work in every day life.
 
Quote
Aside from that there's a whole realm of morality outside the scope of voluntaryism. Some understandings of voluntaryism take the form of "Whatever is voluntary is good, otherwise people would not choose it, and whatever is involuntary is bad, because people wouldn't freely choose it" in an attempt to fill in this gap to entitle the claimant to think they have the answer to everything in the vast complicated world of morality in 5 or fewer words.

Then you haven't understood it at all.

Quote
That perspective however is bullshit,

Of course that perspective is bullshit, because you just made it up.

Now get this: You now go on to say that,

Quote
I oppose stupidity whether it's harming other people or not, I will not suspend my judgement of non-aggressive behaviors due to their being non-aggressive, and truly malicious people don't need to be asked for consent before being dealt with.

By what leap of ignorance do you think I don't oppose stupidity? Or Jim over there, or Sue over there, or the vast majority of other people in the world?

Here's how that voluntary interaction thing works: You get to oppose all the stupidity you want. So do I. You might see stupidity I don't, and I may see something you don't, and so on and so on, with millions of people all working together by the simple fact of each opposing the stupidity that they themselves see.

Some may not see any. Some may go overboard and over-react. But the vast majority simply do what they always have done, because the psychopath is an extreme minority and always has been.


Quote
Besides, the word absolutely SUCKS. Using vowels together like that is really awkward. Who cares if "voluntarist" already has a meaning, nobody cares that capitalism already has a meaning, you might as well use the version of the word that doesn't have two incompatible suffixes (-y to indicate an adjective and -ism or -ist to indicate a noun) and just go straight for tacking the noun suffix onto the root like most reasonable english words do.

Ah! I was right, you really just don't like the word.

Neither do I, which is why I still use anarchist, or rational anarchist to hopefully distinguish myself from someone who throws bombs.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Zhwazi on July 24, 2010, 01:02:39 AM
Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

While I agree, it comes down to proof.

It's easy to prove the rapist was attempting to do their deed without the rape actually having occurred. What did occur, however, was the attempt. He was NOT simply walking past on the sidewalk and smiling.

Similarly, person A drawing a gun and pointing it at someone's head is, to me, "proof" that the person so threatened (or a 3rd party who intervened) acted in "self defense" even if person A never actually pulled the trigger. What did occur, however, was a direct and specific action, not just someone checking to make sure their pistol was seated well in their holster.

So while it is arguable that both instances of violence are "pre-emptive" self-defense, the proof is the fact that both only happened due to actions on the part of the erstwhile rapist and murderer.

They acted to involve someone involuntarily, first.
It's not about "proof", it's about "I'm convinced enough that I don't care if I get charged for aggressing because I'm going to be worse off if I don't." Proof is far too elusive a target to bother with.

Quote
Quote
I am not saying that those who do aggress in such a pre-emptive manner should not be held responsible for their actions. But if they decide that the costs of being responsible for their aggression now is less than what they stand to lose in future aggression (which doesn't even have to be deliberate, and can be accidental) then they should aggress and bear the costs.

Which really has nothing to do with "voluntary" or "involuntary", and everything to do with proof.

Prove that the person you just took out was in fact a direct threat to you.

The real beauty of non-statute law and adjudication (not "enforcement") is that each case really is treated as the unique coincidence of individuals and circumstances that it is.
No, it's not about proof, it's about what you think is right. I did not say "proof" anywhere in my post because that's not what it's about. You don't need proof, you only need to be ready to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Quote
Quote
However, moving the car off the tracks is the moral thing to do. To stand idly by and watch just because the owner of the car isn't around to grant permission to move their car (possibly looking for a gas station) is immoral itself.
This may be the crux of this whole "morality" thing. Looking back, I see how saying I abide the NAP, and interact with people on a voluntary basis, has been labeled "moral relativism" and "nihilism".

Yet your example of moving the car is not an interpersonal interaction. It is an interaction with an object, with an express objective of saving lives and property.

If you want to get into "voluntary" interaction, put a person on the tracks who says, "Don't save me, I want to die."

If I were an agent of the railroad, I would intervene because I am protecting property I am responsible for from damage, even if that means acting against the will of the suicidal individual, because they're trespassing.
It is a person's property which is an extension of themselves according to my understanding of what you probably believe. You are damaging their property by moving it. Is it not a crime if I break your window while you aren't home?

Quote
Quote
It is also not immoral to use aggression against threatening groups who you believe will attack you or your family. Note I didn't say "may", I said "will".

Proof. By your statements, that is exactly what you are saying also. Some one or some group has already involved you involuntarily, so you're acting in self defense.

So I'm left to wonder what it is about voluntary interaction that puts you off so that you assert you are not a "voluntaryist".
It's absolutely NOT about proof. This isn't an instance of you having been threatened. This is members of a church that preaches death to infidels forming a group that is conspicuously armed which is totally seperate from the church. It doesn't matter what you can prove, it matters what you're willing to take responsibility for, you only need proof enough to yourself to do what needs to be done.

Quote
Quote
Force still should be a last resort and never the first, but the option is open and this is something that Voluntaryism is not able to handle. If you adopt this facet of my view on things you cannot fairly call yourself a voluntaryist.

I hope I have pointed out how I can, and I do.

Just as a person can be both peaceful and prepared for self defense, a person who chooses to deal with others on a voluntary basis is not being hypocritical to respond "involuntarily" to someone who has initiated "involuntary" interaction.

It may be that you believe "voluntaryists" haven't thought of this. If you do believe that NAP abiding voluntarily interacting individuals are such fools, then all this "I'm not a voluntaryist" stuff finally makes sense.
This is about interactions where nobody has acted in an overtly aggressive manner that could be termed aggression but you are nonetheless convinced that a threat is imminent and that taking action now is both possible and will stop the threat before it becomes immediate.

Quote
Quote
I don't have to make up crap answers to tough questions and act all morally indignant and superior because I stick to principles which are being misapplied in counterproductive ways which totally misunderstand the actual reason for the principles to begin with in the way I see anarchocapitalists and especially those calling themselves voluntaryists do.

So what tough questions? Lifeboat scenarios? Trolley cars that can only be stopped by pushing a fat guy off a bridge into its way, thus saving a dozen lives by sacrificing one?

What I have seen, in contrast to what you have seen, is people so hung up on what they think the funny words mean that they concoct twisted plots and outlandish schemes and then demand that everyone else see how impossible it would be to be decent human beings in such situations, and therefore simple decency just doesn't work in every day life.
I have seen that also. On the flipside, I've also seen idiotic statements like "If there's a road monopoly we'll just build helicopters" and "Nobody will transact with the terrorists!", terrorism being one of the situations that can't be easily handled by a voluntaryist or otherwise non-preemptive policy toward violence.
 
Quote
Quote
Aside from that there's a whole realm of morality outside the scope of voluntaryism. Some understandings of voluntaryism take the form of "Whatever is voluntary is good, otherwise people would not choose it, and whatever is involuntary is bad, because people wouldn't freely choose it" in an attempt to fill in this gap to entitle the claimant to think they have the answer to everything in the vast complicated world of morality in 5 or fewer words.

Then you haven't understood it at all.
I've understood it as I've seen it presented by a lot of other people and they include these ideas. If your version of it doesn't include this then that's fine, but don't say I don't understand when I've spoken with people who claimed to be voluntaryists and have explicitly said what I quoted.

Quote
Quote
That perspective however is bullshit,

Of course that perspective is bullshit, because you just made it up.

Now get this: You now go on to say that,
I didn't make it up, I just didn't hear it from you. Don't get all offended that somebody actually dislikes a label you choose for yourself and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it because other people are ruining the name for you. Unfair as it is, you stick by a label that's shared with idiots, you deal with consequences. That's true of every label anybody would voluntarily adopt, and no less true of voluntaryism.

Quote
Quote
I oppose stupidity whether it's harming other people or not, I will not suspend my judgement of non-aggressive behaviors due to their being non-aggressive, and truly malicious people don't need to be asked for consent before being dealt with.

By what leap of ignorance do you think I don't oppose stupidity? Or Jim over there, or Sue over there, or the vast majority of other people in the world?

Here's how that voluntary interaction thing works: You get to oppose all the stupidity you want. So do I. You might see stupidity I don't, and I may see something you don't, and so on and so on, with millions of people all working together by the simple fact of each opposing the stupidity that they themselves see.

Some may not see any. Some may go overboard and over-react. But the vast majority simply do what they always have done, because the psychopath is an extreme minority and always has been.
Whatever, it's not your position, I undertsand that it's not everybody's but it is SOME people's positions and this is addressed to them, not you. So ignore it, unless you're hellbent on defending a stupid name.

Quote
Quote
Besides, the word absolutely SUCKS. Using vowels together like that is really awkward. Who cares if "voluntarist" already has a meaning, nobody cares that capitalism already has a meaning, you might as well use the version of the word that doesn't have two incompatible suffixes (-y to indicate an adjective and -ism or -ist to indicate a noun) and just go straight for tacking the noun suffix onto the root like most reasonable english words do.

Ah! I was right, you really just don't like the word.

Neither do I, which is why I still use anarchist, or rational anarchist to hopefully distinguish myself from someone who throws bombs.
I really really really don't like the word. But the ideas are also wrong in their own right. Not just the ones that don't apply to you, but your apparent infatuation with proof like it will remove all responsibility from you for your actions somehow. Because the last thing I advocate is that anybody is free from responsbility for their actions. If you use pre-emptive force go right ahead but your punishment for not finding a more diplomatic solution is that you will be an aggressor and treated appropriately. Proof doesn't factor into the equation anywhere.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Bill Brasky on July 24, 2010, 01:55:43 AM

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.



Evolution, man.


Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Zhwazi on July 24, 2010, 02:00:08 AM

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

Evolution, man.
I also don't really like seeing people get 'selected out' unnecessarily. :P
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Bill Brasky on July 24, 2010, 02:41:03 AM

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

Evolution, man.
I also don't really like seeing people get 'selected out' unnecessarily. :P

Nor do I. 

I have a general disposition that some things are necessary.  I don't like to propose the big lengthy arguments about what is, and what isn't.  Because that usually results in a big backlash, and I'm kinda tired of that. 

Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: ForumTroll on July 24, 2010, 02:51:27 AM
blah blah blah
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Turd Ferguson on July 24, 2010, 04:29:36 AM
I think everyone should be forced to be a voluntaryist.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 12:32:44 PM
The video's gone, but it was "Lucy: Teen Transexual" a story about a male teen who used socialized medicine for a sex change operation.  This is the thread to which I referred.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0)

It doesn't mean that I supported socialized medicine. All I stated is that she should be able to transition. It seems you like grasping desperately for things to make others into villains. Also, it doesn't make any sense to reference an old ass thread as an argument against my current thread here and how I think currently. Again, you're playing desperate, if not fallacious, tactics. Please focus on the issue at hand.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 12:33:49 PM
Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion?

No. He is removing his consent.

Coercion would be if he literally "kicked". That's assault.
Is the literal kick permissible when she has no where to go and that she's resisting?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 24, 2010, 12:40:41 PM
The video's gone, but it was "Lucy: Teen Transexual" a story about a male teen who used socialized medicine for a sex change operation.  This is the thread to which I referred.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0)

It doesn't mean that I supported socialized medicine. All I stated is that she should be able to transition. It seems you like grasping desperately for things to make others into villains. Also, it doesn't make any sense to reference an old ass thread as an argument against my current thread here and how I think currently. Again, you're playing desperate, if not fallacious, tactics. Please focus on the issue at hand.

Go back to the thread.  You defended using other people's money for elective surgery.  I'm "desperate" about nothing.  I merely pointed out you're full of shit, unless of course you denounce your previous stance.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
I'm also for using other people's money to allow me to post this thread. Especially, Ian's. :)

Also, you haven't proven that I absolutely agreed with socialized medicine, and it has nothing to do with my current position in this thread. Can you focus or do I need to cast an Int buff on you?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Bill Brasky on July 24, 2010, 01:55:05 PM
Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion?

No. He is removing his consent.

Coercion would be if he literally "kicked". That's assault.
Is the literal kick permissible when she has no where to go and that she's resisting?


Not really.  In every other situation where a person is being evicted from a residence they have a certain allowable time to make arrangements.

The personal relationships that usually end up with a kid getting kicked out of the house never follow any sort of rules.  If the kid wanted to whip out some legal-fu, she'd probably stand a chance of a magistrate (or arbitrator) supporting a right to stay until reasonable living arrangements can be made. 

The unfortunate reality of domestic squabbles is they tend to be passionate, and people share the common living areas.  This makes all the adjudication difficult and problematic, and the adjudicators have to make King Solomon-like decisions that are uncommonly dispensed elsewhere in the judicial system.  They may temporarily override the "rights" of the primary property owner in favor of a less-capable resident, because the verbal agreement suggested a long-term living arrangement was in place, and it was presumed to continue for an unspecified length of time --  then suddenly the owner rescinds, revokes, or dissolves the arrangement in haste, immediate compliance is not always possible, nor a reasonable expectation on the part of the owner.

The tl;dr version is "get bent, she can stay for ninety days, unless the cops have to keep coming back." 

In any case, the ruling of these situations needs to come from an impartial third party, which in most cases is going to be a government apparatus. 
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 24, 2010, 02:03:52 PM
It's not about "proof", it's about "I'm convinced enough that I don't care if I get charged for aggressing because I'm going to be worse off if I don't." Proof is far too elusive a target to bother with.

Let me just try to understand this difference. You are convinced A is plotting against you, but you cannot prove it, so you kill A anyway?

And since you can imagine a situation where you yourself could be convinced someone is plotting against you, but cannot prove it sufficiently to successfully investigate it and take it to court, such that you wish to keep open the option of preemptively acting against this person or group, you don't associate yourself with any term that would tend to oppose such action.

Ok. I can understand that.

I consider it just another argumentum ad absurdum, an lifeboat scenario designed to be uncivilized in order to negate a civilized respose, but I do understand it.

Thank you.

Quote
It is a person's property which is an extension of themselves according to my understanding of what you probably believe. You are damaging their property by moving it. Is it not a crime if I break your window while you aren't home?

Indeed, as you said it is about standing up for one's choices.

Yes, it would be damaging their property. However, you set up the situation in order to present a small damage to prevent a larger damage.

Just like the "fat guy stops runaway trolley" scenarios.

Quote
This is about interactions where nobody has acted in an overtly aggressive manner that could be termed aggression but you are nonetheless convinced that a threat is imminent and that taking action now is both possible and will stop the threat before it becomes immediate.

Ok, you're absolutely correct.

Once in a while, a paranoid psychotic who sees plots where there are none is going to go postal.

To assert that a voluntary society cannot exist based upon the possible actions of psychopaths is, in my opinion, silly.

Quote
I have seen that also. On the flipside, I've also seen idiotic statements like "If there's a road monopoly we'll just build helicopters" and "Nobody will transact with the terrorists!", terrorism being one of the situations that can't be easily handled by a voluntaryist or otherwise non-preemptive policy toward violence.

First, let me know when a road monopoly has occurred. Please.

On terrorism, of course it could be countered, because "terrorist" is a false and misleading label, designed to make people afraid and go crawling to government.

A murderer is a murderer, and I don't care why they did it. Plotting murder is plotting murder, again I don't care why they wish to do it.

Murderers are handled the same way as any other criminal.

Quote
I've understood it as I've seen it presented by a lot of other people and they include these ideas. If your version of it doesn't include this then that's fine, but don't say I don't understand when I've spoken with people who claimed to be voluntaryists and have explicitly said what I quoted.

That a road monopoly will spur the use of air-cars?

Quote
Don't get all offended that somebody actually dislikes a label you choose for yourself and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it because other people are ruining the name for you. Unfair as it is, you stick by a label that's shared with idiots, you deal with consequences. That's true of every label anybody would voluntarily adopt, and no less true of voluntaryism.

Fair enough.

What I wanted to know was why someone would deliberately NOT wish to interact with other people on a voluntary basis. As you point out, labels are often useless in a "you are a" sense, but when I can self-define the word and say "I am a..." just about any label works just fine.

Such as, "I am a liberal like Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, not like Diane Feinswine."

Quote
I really really really don't like the word. But the ideas are also wrong in their own right. Not just the ones that don't apply to you, but your apparent infatuation with proof like it will remove all responsibility from you for your actions somehow.

It is this "remove all responsibility" thing that really bothers me.

If I act, I am responsible for my action. If I act in self-defense, I am still responsible for my action, my action is merely justified by the social standards we all live by, because there is proof my action was in self-defense.

That is why killing in self-defense is not murder, even though it is exactly the same act.

Quote
Because the last thing I advocate is that anybody is free from responsbility for their actions.

It is this specifically that makes me wonder just who you have been talking to. No one I have ever seen last more than 30 seconds takes such a completely stupid position as that they are free from responsibility for their actions.

Quote
If you use pre-emptive force go right ahead but your punishment for not finding a more diplomatic solution is that you will be an aggressor and treated appropriately. Proof doesn't factor into the equation anywhere.

Of course it does. At the trial. There will be a trial, even you admit that, because each is held responsible for their actions.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 02:05:53 PM
Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion?

No. He is removing his consent.

Coercion would be if he literally "kicked". That's assault.
Is the literal kick permissible when she has no where to go and that she's resisting?


Not really.  In every other situation where a person is being evicted from a residence they have a certain allowable time to make arrangements.

The personal relationships that usually end up with a kid getting kicked out of the house never follow any sort of rules.  If the kid wanted to whip out some legal-fu, she'd probably stand a chance of a magistrate (or arbitrator) supporting a right to stay until reasonable living arrangements can be made. 

The unfortunate reality of domestic squabbles is they tend to be passionate, and people share the common living areas.  This makes all the adjudication difficult and problematic, and the adjudicators have to make King Solomon-like decisions that are uncommonly dispensed elsewhere in the judicial system.  They may temporarily override the "rights" of the primary property owner in favor of a less-capable resident, because the verbal agreement suggested a long-term living arrangement was in place, and it was presumed to continue for an unspecified length of time --  then suddenly the owner rescinds, revokes, or dissolves the arrangement in haste, immediate compliance is not always possible, nor a reasonable expectation on the part of the owner.

The tl;dr version is "get bent, she can stay for ninety days, unless the cops have to keep coming back." 

In any case, the ruling of these situations needs to come from an impartial third party, which in most cases is going to be a government apparatus. 

Good answer.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 24, 2010, 02:11:49 PM
In any case, the ruling of these situations needs to come from an impartial third party, which in most cases is going to be a government apparatus. 

Indeed, that is true today.

It does not need to be true tomorrow.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 02:13:46 PM
In any case, the ruling of these situations needs to come from an impartial third party, which in most cases is going to be a government apparatus. 

Indeed, that is true today.

It does not need to be true tomorrow.

One's man's DRO is another man's town elder.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Zhwazi on July 24, 2010, 02:56:22 PM
Let me just try to understand this difference. You are convinced A is plotting against you, but you cannot prove it, so you kill A anyway?

And since you can imagine a situation where you yourself could be convinced someone is plotting against you, but cannot prove it sufficiently to successfully investigate it and take it to court, such that you wish to keep open the option of preemptively acting against this person or group, you don't associate yourself with any term that would tend to oppose such action.

Ok. I can understand that.

I consider it just another argumentum ad absurdum, an lifeboat scenario designed to be uncivilized in order to negate a civilized respose, but I do understand it.

Thank you.
It's not a lifeboat scenario designed to be uncivilized. This is a real situation. And I'm not giving any oughts, I'm just saying what people WILL do in that situation. If you find this behavior permissible (even if it should be a last resort) then you can't call yourself a voluntaryist.

Indeed, as you said it is about standing up for one's choices.

Yes, it would be damaging their property. However, you set up the situation in order to present a small damage to prevent a larger damage.

Just like the "fat guy stops runaway trolley" scenarios.
It's not just like that except in the respect that it's a hypothetical situation involving tradeoffs.

Quote
This is about interactions where nobody has acted in an overtly aggressive manner that could be termed aggression but you are nonetheless convinced that a threat is imminent and that taking action now is both possible and will stop the threat before it becomes immediate.

Ok, you're absolutely correct.

Once in a while, a paranoid psychotic who sees plots where there are none is going to go postal.

To assert that a voluntary society cannot exist based upon the possible actions of psychopaths is, in my opinion, silly.
Explain what you mean by "voluntary society".

First, let me know when a road monopoly has occurred. Please.
Never, but that's not the point.

On terrorism, of course it could be countered, because "terrorist" is a false and misleading label, designed to make people afraid and go crawling to government.
Which doesn't do anything to invalidate my statement because what I am intending to say should be obvious given the context in which I said it so act appropriately instead of pontificating about the fuzziness of words and give it your best shot at interpretation.

Quote
I've understood it as I've seen it presented by a lot of other people and they include these ideas. If your version of it doesn't include this then that's fine, but don't say I don't understand when I've spoken with people who claimed to be voluntaryists and have explicitly said what I quoted.

That a road monopoly will spur the use of air-cars?
Reanswer that, this evasion is stupid and I won't put up with another one.

Fair enough.

What I wanted to know was why someone would deliberately NOT wish to interact with other people on a voluntary basis. As you point out, labels are often useless in a "you are a" sense, but when I can self-define the word and say "I am a..." just about any label works just fine.

Such as, "I am a liberal like Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, not like Diane Feinswine."
When you say "deliberately NOT wish to interact...on a voluntary basis" you introduce an arbitrary amount of overhead for interpersonal actions. It could range from stupidity like asking somebody for permission to ask a question lest you involuntarily put them in a socially awkward position, to just doing with your best guess at what other people will not mind and doing that. Personally I go with neither. I go with "Do whatever you want, you don't need to ask anybody for permission or consent." If you do something that hurts them, it doesn't matter whether you thought you had their consent or not, what matters is you hurt them and now you need to fix the problem you've created. If "do whatever you want" means you're hurting other people that doesn't matter, that's completely within the realm of the principle I advocate instead of voluntaryism, you just get held responsible for your actions.

Killing people isn't even where this has the most applicability, it's just the stress test. This answers more basic questions like "Why shouldn't I tresspass if I'm not doing any damage?". The answer is "Do what you want, just take responsibility for your actions", not "You need their permission first".

It is this "remove all responsibility" thing that really bothers me.

If I act, I am responsible for my action. If I act in self-defense, I am still responsible for my action, my action is merely justified by the social standards we all live by, because there is proof my action was in self-defense.

That is why killing in self-defense is not murder, even though it is exactly the same act.
This isn't about justifying it. This is about knowing when to abandon theories of what is good in favor of doing what's good. If you can justify it later then that's great. This isn't about that.

It is this specifically that makes me wonder just who you have been talking to. No one I have ever seen last more than 30 seconds takes such a completely stupid position as that they are free from responsibility for their actions.
If your actions are justified by others then you are free from responsibility for your actions. Who do you think you need to prove it to? A court that will then authorize you to do something they have no right to authorize in the first place? A large portion of voluntaryism is that if somebody consents then you can do whatever you want to them and their property and you're not responsible for what they consented to. I'm just removing the layer of consent and saying "You can do whatever you want to them and their property without their consent but you are responsible for it." This is aggression and isn't permitted by voluntaryism. If you agree with the "Do whatever you want, you're responsible for it" ethic then you are NOT a voluntaryist.

Quote
If you use pre-emptive force go right ahead but your punishment for not finding a more diplomatic solution is that you will be an aggressor and treated appropriately. Proof doesn't factor into the equation anywhere.

Of course it does. At the trial. There will be a trial, even you admit that, because each is held responsible for their actions.
This isn't about the trial. This isn't about being held responsible, it's about making a decision where the stakes are so great that whether you win or lose in court doesn't matter, because if you don't act, you lose anyways, and acting aggressively is the route by which you stand to lose the least.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 24, 2010, 10:12:06 PM
I'm also for using other people's money to allow me to post this thread. Especially, Ian's. :)

Also, you haven't proven that I absolutely agreed with socialized medicine, and it has nothing to do with my current position in this thread. Can you focus or do I need to cast an Int buff on you?

Straw man argument.  Ian's voluntarily providing it.  I don't have to prove jack shit.  I found the thread you claimed didn't exist.  Anyone who wants can see what a hypocrite you've been.  All you have to do is say you no longer hold that position.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 10:22:02 PM
I found the thread you claimed didn't exist.
I claimed that it didn't exist because I didn't remember it. You know, it's the Internet, not like my whole life where tons of really important shit was happening between then and now. Plus, the thread you referenced doesn't have anything to do with this thread, which shows that you're attempting an ad hom fallacy without knowing it (disparagement of character w/o qualifying how it refutes or invalidates an argument is an ad hom, sorry man).

Quote
Anyone who wants can see what a hypocrite you've been. All you have to do is say you no longer hold that position.

Lets take Google Search's definition of hypocrisy: If you accuse someone of hypocrisy, you mean that they pretend to have qualities, beliefs, or feelings that they do not really have.

Now, how am I being a hypocrite right now? Oh wait, I'm not, you're not even using the word right, thus you're being foolish in your choice of words. Have I changed my mind since that thread? Not really, because if the child's parent is paying taxes, then yes they should get services rendered for it. If that gets you pissy still, then you must hate me doubly so for taking all those Pell grants, too. :lol:

Plus, I'm still not seeing how it relates to this relates to this thread's content or the original post therein. Can you fill me in?
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 24, 2010, 11:02:38 PM
I found the thread you claimed didn't exist.
I claimed that it didn't exist because I didn't remember it. You know, it's the Internet, not like my whole life where tons of really important shit was happening between then and now. Plus, the thread you referenced doesn't have anything to do with this thread, which shows that you're attempting an ad hom fallacy without knowing it (disparagement of character w/o qualifying how it refutes or invalidates an argument is an ad hom, sorry man).

Quote
Anyone who wants can see what a hypocrite you've been. All you have to do is say you no longer hold that position.

Lets take Google Search's definition of hypocrisy: If you accuse someone of hypocrisy, you mean that they pretend to have qualities, beliefs, or feelings that they do not really have.

Now, how am I being a hypocrite right now? Oh wait, I'm not, you're not even using the word right, thus you're being foolish in your choice of words. Have I changed my mind since that thread? Not really, because if the child's parent is paying taxes, then yes they should get services rendered for it. If that gets you pissy still, then you must hate me doubly so for taking all those Pell grants, too. :lol:

Plus, I'm still not seeing how it relates to this relates to this thread's content or the original post therein. Can you fill me in?

Yes, it does have to do with this thread.  Go back to my first post.  Thank you for admitting that you would have tax monies paid by others used for elective surgery in the form of genital mutilation.  In summary, your "view" has not changed, and you're still full of shit.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 11:10:14 PM
Yes, it does have to do with this thread.  Go back to my first post.
Again, what does it have to do with my posts? I don't think your opinions really matter if you can't dovetail them into the crux of my opinions either affirming or rebutting mine. It seems you have this vice of trying to play the ad hom card without either knowing it or caring that you do it. Either way, it's silly, dude.

Quote
Thank you for admitting that you would have tax monies paid by others used for elective surgery in the form of genital mutilation. In summary, your "view" has not changed, and you're still full of shit.
And I only thought Ian was the ideologue here. Wow, just, wow. You seem to not grasp anything I posted because it doesn't fit in your view point, so you summarily use fallacy after fallacy to attack me and others who have similar views to my own. And at the same time some how alienate every human being on planet Earth that has had a change of heart or opinion in some part of their past. That takes quite a feat of cognitive dissonance for sure.  
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 11:14:06 PM
Also, I'd like to ask you, Kenneth, have you ever had non-libertarian views in the past? If so, then can I call you out on them and say you are equally false in your pretenses? If not, then what makes your accusations that I'm "full of bullshit" even valid or pertinent in any way? Other than you have some loathing of my person for some unnamed reason, which I care not to bother discussing publicly or privately.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 24, 2010, 11:18:18 PM
Also, Kenneth, if you drive the roads or any other public service which has been funded by taxes (theft), by your own logic you're full of bullshit, too. Please be careful when you setup your fallacious logic traps next time. :)
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on July 24, 2010, 11:50:54 PM
...turns out it was my second (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=34424.msg606459#msg606459) post in this thread...

It has to do with the reality that you're for initiating force for things you think are okay, including the aforementioned activity.  You never answered the question (see the post) but instead danced around it.

There was no "ad hom card", there was no "fallacy," and it doesn't take an "ideologue" to point out the gun in the room that you're so happy to support.  As for the above, QED.  You missed your opportunity to show that you no longer support it, which you so obviously have not.  We're not talking about libertarian views "in the past."  That's why I asked if you still support it.  Straw man argument.

As for your silly canards, such as my "use" of public roads, the state seems to have me cornered, in such away that the statists always claim some fucking millionaire will, if by chance a miracle happens and a free society springs up.  Stop pretending to be so fucking brilliant.  You're just plain full of shit.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 25, 2010, 11:46:06 AM
It has to do with the reality that you're for initiating force for things you think are okay, including the aforementioned activity.

It's not a matter of being okay or not to initial force. If you have taxes taken out of your ass, you have the moral right to get some of it back: period and end of story. Much like the reality that you and I must use govt roads even though both of us would probably prefer an alternative without coercion. The fact you continue to harp on such a non-issue as an attempt to evade the crux of my original post here which is there can be cases of non-voluntary exchange which in themselves are not coercive.  

Quote
You never answered the question (see the post) but instead danced around it.

Just like you danced around my original post.


Quote
There was no "ad hom card"...

Are you attacking the person or the argument of the person? You can't attack the person and then claim it refutes the argument. That is an AD HOMINEM fallacy, sorry, dude. You need to actually read the definitions (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) of words before you can use them.

Quote
...there was no "fallacy," and it doesn't take an "ideologue" to point out the gun in the room that you're so happy to support.
Okay, again are you also "Full of bullshit" if you yourself use any publicly funded resource? By your logic, grandpa is an evil monster because he's drawing SSI. Or my sister is a villain because she's been on foodstamps. Your logic fails to account for this tautology that is created (that it is ALWAYS true regardless).

Quote
You missed your opportunity to show that you no longer support it, which you so obviously have not.  We're not talking about libertarian views "in the past."  That's why I asked if you still support it.  Straw man argument.

And I asked you how does it relate to my original post in this thread. This thread's argument is about the nature of social orders and how some are not voluntary, but not coercive. You seem to not grasp this thesis. And you continue to ignore it.

Quote
As for your silly canards, such as my "use" of public roads, the state seems to have me cornered, in such away that the statists always claim some fucking millionaire will, if by chance a miracle happens and a free society springs up.  Stop pretending to be so fucking brilliant.  You're just plain full of shit.

Again, your logic means that my sister, my mother, you, every person that I've known who's fallen on bad times (unemployed), and many other human beings probably encompassing most of the Western world (if not all of it) is a villain because they simply used a publicly funded resource. That is your logic's flaw, it is a tautology. It's always true, no false case may be derived. That means it's fucking useless for anything other than being a Sophist, which you are the text book definition of one. The fact you continue this bullshit ALL OR NOTHING ideologue crap is sad. It shows really that you don't want to consider the possibility there is such a case of a non-voluntary, but non-coercive social interaction. It bothers you so much so that you will pull every fallacy you can concoct to attempt to destroy any discourse on it.

Here's my answer to it. Your posts will be expunged from here on out. If you want to add to this discussion you will admit publicly your errors in your reasoning and apologize for it. Until then, you can just twitter away in other people's threads.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: ForumTroll on July 26, 2010, 11:29:29 AM
Oh christ.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on July 27, 2010, 11:37:22 AM
Poor Kenneth doesn't want to stand by anything of substance, so I had to expunge his posts. :)
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: ForumTroll on July 27, 2010, 11:44:19 AM
Poor Kenneth doesn't want to stand by anything of substance, so I had to expunge his posts. :)

Deleting posts in a discussion does nothing to prove that the person doing it is open-minded.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: YixilTesiphon on July 28, 2010, 09:47:25 AM
Poor Kenneth doesn't want to stand by anything of substance, so I had to expunge his posts. :)

Deleting posts in a discussion does nothing to prove that the person doing it is open-minded.

Agreed, that's a shit move.

Don't get me wrong, I totally get why you deleted my first post, as it wasn't relevant at all, but deleting WTFK's posts, despite my past disagreement with his arguing strategies, makes me assume he's right.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: BobRobertson on July 28, 2010, 10:02:45 AM
Explain what you mean by "voluntary society".

No institution of coercion.

Right now, coercion is wrong for everyone but government. It has a monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force.

Remove that legitimacy.

What is left is everyone playing by the same rules, interacting voluntarily because that is the only "legitimate" way to interact.

There will still be people who trespass, who rob, who murder, because there have always been such people. They will simply no longer have a badge, uniform or "government" to work for that will grant them immunity from liability for their actions.

Quote
This isn't about the trial. This isn't about being held responsible, it's about making a decision where the stakes are so great that whether you win or lose in court doesn't matter, because if you don't act, you lose anyways, and acting aggressively is the route by which you stand to lose the least.

I'm again left to wonder WTF this has to do with the existence of an institution of coercion or not.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on August 07, 2010, 09:21:18 AM
Poor Kenneth doesn't want to stand by anything of substance, so I had to expunge his posts. :)

Deleting posts in a discussion does nothing to prove that the person doing it is open-minded.

I never said I was open-minded. Equally, those that claim to be open-minded are often the kind that are easily deluded. Never confuse an active mind for an open one. Also, my thread is fully under my control in this subforum. If you don't like it, whine at Ian long enough, I'm sure he'll do something about it.
Title: Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on August 07, 2010, 09:25:18 AM
Poor Kenneth doesn't want to stand by anything of substance, so I had to expunge his posts. :)

Deleting posts in a discussion does nothing to prove that the person doing it is open-minded.

Agreed, that's a shit move.

Don't get me wrong, I totally get why you deleted my first post, as it wasn't relevant at all, but deleting WTFK's posts, despite my past disagreement with his arguing strategies, makes me assume he's right.

He's not, he's trolling. I don't deal with trolls that don't admit their game is afoot. His argument was pretty simple: If you espoused X in the past you must espouse it now, even if it has nothing to do with Y argument in any way. Basically, it's a form of ad hom and it reminds me of how the Bolsheviks were treated by Lenin after the October Revolution: divide and conquer with bullshit accusations. In essence, that is what WTFK does, he assumes himself the grand definer of what is libertarian and what isn't libertarian, much like Communist Party fanatics did. Anyone who deviates or said something contrary in the past must be 'purged'. That's all there is to WTFK's thought process: a false dichotomy.