Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.  (Read 13718 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #60 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. 
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #61 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.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #62 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.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #63 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.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #64 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.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Zhwazi

  • Recovering Ex-Anarchocapitalist
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3102
    • View Profile
    • Ana.rchist.net
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #65 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.
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #66 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.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #67 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?
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #68 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.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #69 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.  
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #70 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.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #71 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. :)
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #72 on: July 24, 2010, 11:50:54 PM »

...turns out it was my second 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.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #73 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 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.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

ForumTroll

  • Guest
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #74 on: July 26, 2010, 11:29:29 AM »

Oh christ.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

// ]]>

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 33 queries.