fractional slacker Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 In the new Stefan Molyneux Show video (and podcast), Stef addressed the issue at hand starting at the 39:00 mark. Why Stef starts out mentioning Garner was reputed to have been involved with a cigarette smuggling ring seems immaterial, but whatever. I would suggest the libertarian/anarchist community takes exception with Stef's main, and most controversial point: Garner's crime was not victimless. Stef states a victimless crime is that in which there is no complainant. Therefore because the store owner complained, Garner was committing a crime with a victim (the store owner). Stef then uses gambling as an example of a victimless crime. He states if two folks voluntarily gamble, it's a victimless crime because no one is going to call the cops. I don't think casino owners (in Nevada or any other state) would see it that way. They would call the cops in a second if they got wind of their customers going to an unlicensed place to gamble. For example, offshore sports betting has been having this fight for years all because Nevada and licensed casinos didn't want competition. Stef then reiterates his point (@ 40:30) that store owners are victims because Garner is taking away their cigs business. But is that true? Garner was selling cigs 1 or two 2 maybe 5 at time for less than they could be purchased at the store in which a pack of cigs is around $13. Is it possible Garner's customers either didn't have enough money to buy a pack, or they had enough money but didn't want a whole pack? There are at least two scenarios I believe worth mentioning in regards to this situation. If customers didn't have enough money for a pack, they wouldn't be a customer of the store, at least as far as cigs go. If they had enough money for a pack but didn't want that many cigs, they wouldn't be a customer of the store. Either way, the store owner could not rightfully be considered a victim. Furthermore, would Stef argue Indian reservations and other unlicensed/agorist outlets, on the internet or otherwise, are victimizing store owners?Stef has stated the trick with economics is to see what's not obvious. I think that makes a lot of sense. In fact, Garner's presence may have added revenue to the stores. People who had only had say $8 may have spent $4 with Garner and the other $4 on a forbidden sugary drink. They may have walked by two other stores in anticipation of buying some loosies from Garner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I don't know why it's so hard to see that the victim of people that don't play by the rules is people that do play by the rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 If Garner's "business" was benefiting the store, then why would the store owner call the cops on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If Garner's "business" was benefiting the store, then why would the store owner call the cops on him? A better question is, "Does fractional slacker have extensive experience running his own business, ideally one identical to Convenience Store Owner?" If not, he's asserting that his own non-experience with business ownership is superior to the business ownership experience of those who called the cops on Garner. Such a claim ought not be accepted for the sake of argument, not even in a non-verbal / implied sort of way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I don't know why it's so hard to see that the victim of people that don't play by the rules is people that do play by the rules. Everyone sees that. The distinction here is that some believe that store owners were further victimized by the state when people don't play by the rules, and others think that the people that break the state rules are causing the victimization. A better question is, "Does fractional slacker have extensive experience running his own business, ideally one identical to Convenience Store Owner?" If not, he's asserting that his own non-experience with business ownership is superior to the business ownership experience of those who called the cops on Garner. Such a claim ought not be accepted for the sake of argument, not even in a non-verbal / implied sort of way. You don't need to know the experience of the store owners to talk about the ethics around this situation. No reason to bring this conversation into non-verifiable hypothesis land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedomain Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 All Stef was saying is that there was a complainant in this case which was not the state. If somebody is arrested for buying drugs, the drug dealer isn't making the complaint, the state is making the complaint and thus by every definition it's a victimless crime - as the state fundamentally doesn't even exist - it's just people. In this case there actually is/was a complainant. He reiterated in the original video that he wasn't making any kind of ethical/moral case or statement, and was merely trying to use accurate language. If you don't use the word victim, which seems to be pretty emotionally charged for most in this case, and instead think complainant, I think it becomes much more clear... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 He reiterated in the original video that he wasn't making any kind of ethical/moral case or statement, and was merely trying to use accurate language. Right, but I disagree with Stefan on this point. I believe the store owner is a victim of both the state and Garner and that Garner was, in a subtle way, violating the NAP. When examining the situation, the precise situation, and looking at the two dealers and their activities on the street corner in juxtaposition, the store owner has guns pointed at him and Garner doesn't. If the store owner sells "loosies" or doesn't pay taxes, the cops/IRS will come for him. If Garner sells loosies and doesn't pay taxes, the government will not come for him, unless someone complains. The evidence is clear, why else was Garner able to make a living doing this? It's because the state doesn't care about petty street criminals, they in a way enable their activity. The only way petty street criminals get caught is if someone complains. But the legitimate store owner, is always watched by regulating bodes and the IRS. Garner knows guns are pointed at the store owner and took advantage of that reality. Like I said in my second video with the picture of Al Capone, Garner likes the state, the state functions like a business partner. Garner needs the state to survive, therefore, he is a statist. If you are a statist, you are in violation of the NAP. Before you criticize my position, please watch that video and tell me where my logic fails. I would appreciate it. Thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Imagine, six people being held as slaves in a work camp, one of them gets away, which is considered a crime by the slave master.Consider, case 1, the other 5 complain about the runaway, that they have to work harder now.Consider, case 2, the other 5 are happy for the one that ran away, and complain about the slave master.Does the mental state of the other 5 slaves have any bearing on the issue of the runaway violating the NAP? Is evading the slave master immoral?Case 1, isn't what the other 5 are doing called "victim blaming"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 Imagine, six people being held as slaves in a work camp, one of them gets away, which is considered a crime by the slave master. Consider, case 1, the other 5 complain about the runaway, that they have to work harder now. Consider, case 2, the other 5 are happy for the one that ran away, and complain about the slave master. Does the mental state of the other 5 slaves have any bearing on the issue of the runaway violating the NAP? Is evading the slave master immoral? Case 1, isn't what the other 5 are doing called "victim blaming"? not an analogous situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts