The intrinsic contradiction in arguing libertarian

[labmath2]

The best way to convince others is not to tell them, but show them. A parent trying to persuade their child that violence is wrong by swatting them on the butt must realize the comedic nature of the scenario. The same must be said for the idea of trying to persuade people to abandon the immoral state, while living in the US or Canada, paying your taxes and complaining about it as theft. What better way to show a society free of violence is easier than by starting one and having others model the success. While i understand we do not all have the will of Socrates, but we must not condemn others for doing what we also opted for, stay in the comfort of a statist society, while criticizing it for being immoral. As Stefan told a caller that a parent wishing they had spent more time with their child is disingenuous since they would have done it if they really wanted to, if you really want to live in a libertarian society, you would have left statist society. The difference for someone like me who grew up in a third world country is that i have a conception of anarchy and its not the beautiful picture i often see Stefan paint. It is constantly being on guard for someone who might try to hurt you, having to higher a security guard to keep you safe from others and building giant fences to keep you safe at night. This is not to say the theory is invalid, but until it becomes practice and we see it working, it remains purely theory. Nature has given us rules to play by and anyone that seeks to persuade us to play by different rules has the burden of proof, not merely by arguments, but also by practice. None of can honestly argue that we are being forced to pay taxes since we are not forced to live here. To say we are forced is to diminish the real meaning of the word which insults those who truly have no choice like North Koreans.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

There's no contradiction. You are not initiating force on anyone by remaining in a state. If you want to apply that consistently you would have to agree that civilians do not exist in a state, right? Anyone killed on 9/11 would be a legitimate military target because "they could have left the country". Even if one leaves all states and lives in unclaimed territory they are still subject to a state because the state can still come for you. 

What anarchic region did you live in? I wasn't aware that any existed. You will of course provide specifics and a clear example of how this living situation fits with the clearly defined definition of libertarianism you're using, right?

[cynicist]

Totally agree man. I also think that slaves should have just created their own slave-free society to prove that it could work. I don't know why they opted to stay in chains and grumble about how they don't like slavery, so hypocritical.

[dsayers]

None of can honestly argue that we are being forced to pay taxes since we are not forced to live here.

 

This is the third time you've tried to pass this sophistry off despite the first two times being challenged.

 

First occurrence.

 

Second occurrence.

 

Now, I'm not sure why you need for governmental claim over you to be valid. I'm not sure why this need is so strong that you would pretend to participate in conversation and ignore that which you don't agree with. I would recommend seeking this out for your own sake.

 

You say that somebody like me (lives in the US) is not forced to live here. If I moved to evade aggression towards me by way of taxation, legislation, and the like, that would be forced to move. Not that there is anyplace you could go that doesn't have some psychopath claiming ownership over you for being there. Any reasonable person would choose to not be aggressed against. So amid the aggression, them staying where their entire life is rooted is not the same as consent. Consent is not passive.

 

[EDIT]

Almost forgot to add: I don't know where it is you grew up, but I seriously doubt that where it was was actually anarchical. Common zeitgeister mistake, as is using the word intrinsic.

Edited April 25, 2014 by dsayers

[greekredemption]

A predictably hostile response to labmath2, but I think he does raise a good practical point in the OP.

 

"This is not to say the theory is invalid, but until it becomes practice and we see it working, it remains purely theory. Nature has given us rules to play by and anyone that seeks to persuade us to play by different rules has the burden of proof, not merely by arguments, but also by practice."

 

It is difficult to persuade large swathes of the population to your PoV if you have no practical working example of the thing you advocate. This explains to an extent why anarcho-capitalism - actually, most anarcho-[philosophy] movements - is a fringe movement; beyond the ivory tower, how can we demonstrate that anarcho-capitalism works better than any other ideology we have right now? 

 

I know there is a school of thought that says, "well, just look at how you interact with your neighbour." This does not really seem to be enough for your average joe.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

A predictably hostile response to labmath2, 

So sorry for being hostile. Can you give a valid definition of "hostile" and demonstrate how the responses fit it?

[greekredemption]

So sorry for being hostile. Can you give a valid definition of "hostile" and demonstrate how the responses fit it?

I don't know, can I give a valid definition? You'd have to describe your terms, first.

 

But the OP being downvoted 3 times and the general tone - read: unfriendly and in opposition - do seem to suggest hostility. 

 

I suppose that's what he gets for not toeing the party line.

[cynicist]

I don't know, can I give a valid definition? You'd have to describe your terms, first.

 

But the OP being downvoted 3 times and the general tone - read: unfriendly and in opposition - do seem to suggest hostility. 

 

I suppose that's what he gets for not toeing the party line.

 

You forgot sarcastic. Anyway, this is just blaming the victim. Saying,

 

None of can honestly argue that we are being forced to pay taxes since we are not forced to live here.

 

is equivalent to saying that a rape victim can't argue that they were forced to have sex since nobody forced her to walk into that dark alley...

[Pepin]

None of can honestly argue that we are being forced to pay taxes since we are not forced to live here. To say we are forced is to diminish the real meaning of the word which insults those who truly have no choice like North Koreans.

 

There isn't any substance in your post. There are no arguments, more just a monologue of conclusions. I am pointing this out because this is not helpful on a board such as FDR where you are quite aware of the general opinions. To make a post of conclusions in this manner is not going to be understood nor agreed with. There are times when it is appropriate for that kind of dialog, and that is when people are in agreement with you, or after you have presented a strong argument for your case.

 

To focus on the quote above, this is invalid as words have meaning, and this meaning applies to situations that fit the definition. There are grey areas insofar as what is considered force, but creating an artificial grey area where a particular instance of violence is not violence because there is a large degree of difference makes no sense. The NAP is based on the definition of force, the degree of difference is irrelevant as that is not what the concept measures, it is binary.

 

I have no problem if you accept your argument, but please live by it. Never complain; if someone steals from you: remember that someone has it far worse off in another circumstance; if you are beat up: remember that that isn't actual violence because what people went through in concentration camps was far worse; if you lose a loved one: realize you have no reason to grieve because in other parts of the world, whole families are murdered with the exception of a child, who is conscripted into a gang.