Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Poor Kenneth doesn't want to stand by anything of substance, so I had to expunge his posts.

[ForumTroll]

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.

[YixilTesiphon]

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.

[BobRobertson]

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.

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.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

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.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

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.