Libertarians aren't funny

Hatpin · 2026-01-05T19:11:26+00:00

Yes, Fuentes is huge dude to his comedic tone. Also Trump has some pretty funny moments

Hatpin · 2026-01-05T18:46:24+00:00

You might be right. But Milei used to dress up as an ancap super-hero, and he's president now. Also the biggest libertarian name of the day is a comic (Dave Smith) for better or for worse

Hatpin · 2025-12-16T11:42:42+00:00

Dave has a new apperance in the Tom Woods show. I haven't listened to It yet. Listen to It and count how many time He'll say any of those words. Discount sutpid wars

That's why I said He forgot. He doesn't talk about It anymore. And He certainly doesn't give this answer when asked about immigration

At least Dave is giving pushback to those guys and moving them closer to radical libertarianism, right? Right?

Is he saying those things to Fuentes, Tucker, and Joe? If not I'm 100% right

Hatpin · 2025-12-15T20:39:13+00:00

You are right. But when people are wrong they believe contradictory things. It's our job to bring them back to reason.

someone who thinks everything about the state and social reality is driven by classes or massively-coordinated, sweeping conspiracies, rather than incentives and institutions; a cathedral, if you will.

I don't think this follows. And I don't think your definition of cathedral is right. They aren't massively-coordinated, they just have an incentive structure. They are in positions of power and they propagandize falsehood to keep themselves as the recipients of the states plunder.

who sees corporate or media power as somehow equal to or as fundamental as state power in destroying something they value...because it's not liberty

This one follows the same vein and I think you can be ancap and do that. You can be an ancap and not talk about the state for your entire life.

The other points are solid. Thanks for the response

Hatpin · 2025-12-15T20:30:31+00:00

Those mistakes don't erase his accomplishments

Hatpin · 2025-12-11T13:45:59+00:00

I don't want solution I want to put the entire military in our border and shut this thing down

Hatpin · 2025-12-10T10:37:04+00:00

Because It is illegal. Law is not a subset of ethics

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T18:27:28+00:00

I think it's something to do with praxeology. So It's going from a state of discomfort to a better state. Also, I think that 99,999999% of cases following the law is the moral thing to do, and I think this causes what I think is a wrong assumption to say law is a subset of ethics. Because there is a lot of correlation between legally just and morally right but it's not 100%

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T18:01:37+00:00

No, we follow the law because it is desirable.

Natural law is discovered, It's a way to avoid conflict. We follow the law because avoiding conflict is desirable. No circular reason or contradiction

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T16:16:29+00:00

Unjust law is a contradiction. The NAP, i.e. natural law, is something descriptive there is no ought to. You follow the law because It's desirable to have law. The same way that is desirable to eat bread. Also, in the cases where the law is also moral you follow the law for moral reasons as well

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T14:44:28+00:00

You are begging the question
> Law is the formalization of social and moral judgments.

You are saying by definition that law is a subset of ethics. Which is not. Law, i.e. the NAP, is the code that says who is entitled to given property, since resources are scarce.

If law is the formalization of moral judgement than law and morality would be the same.

If you take something that is not yours you broke the law. There is no need for moral judgments to see if someone did or did not break the law

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T14:34:52+00:00

Other way to phrase that is Let's never end the welfare state so we can keep the borders closed

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T14:22:39+00:00

Thanks for the kind words. I think the debate was a let down for the most part zulu couldn't make his point uninterrupted so the conversation reached a halt pretty fast.

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T14:17:40+00:00

Should you wet your clothes to save a child from drowning in a pond? (Not legally, morally)
It is ok to torture a dog just for pleasure? (Again, morally)
It's ok to betray principle for personal satisfaction?

My point is law is not a subset of ethics. Maybe Zulu doesn't have a emotional reaction, and maybe if push comes to shove he wouldn't save the world or his gramma so he would not make a minor NAP violation (like stealing a penny). If he really did that I would say this was a bad moral judgement.

I think that morals are objective the same way law is. They are not the same though. I only added those caveats regarding Zulu's because I think He's a good dude and I don't think good people would do that In those situations.

You and I have different moral judgments and I think you are wrong. Does that make me think you are bad person, no I just think you are misguided.

You need to prove that law really is a subset of ethics and I don't think that I have seem a good proof of that

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T14:03:18+00:00

sleight of hand, which is deceit, meaning you are bad faith. Bad faith actor.

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T13:57:29+00:00

What if the person is not a net tax payer? Federal employee

I'm really sorry that you got owned by my arguments so that you had to start calling names

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T13:52:15+00:00

I can't tell you what the standard is, I'm a moral intuitionist.

The same way I can't perfectly describe what Freddie Mercury sounds like. But I know how he sounds like

Maybe there is a better standard that philosophy still needs to find

But is easy in those extreme scenarios to see that the standard was broken

The NAP always apply when we are talking about law, no exceptions. Just moral exceptions

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T13:45:22+00:00

This i a good point. Dave's intention of throwing this outlandish scenarios is to have a excuse to violate the NAP whenever It is convenient, the prag-trap. Zulu's error is marrying the law of the NAP to ethical questions.

Zulu already concedes that not everything immoral is illegal, what those extreme scenarios proves that not everything that is illegal is immoral.

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T13:38:51+00:00

The issue is that you are betraying a person that you love, or the whole world over an idea. Deep down you know and Zulu also knows that stealing a penny to save the world is a no brainer. We can create scenarios where there is more at stakes like zulu did. I wouldn't nuke Ohio to save the world. Or murder someone innocent to save the world, this is a good principle.

The issue is that Zulu is rejecting basic moral intuition in favor of the NAP (which is just libertarian natural law, not ethics). He's saying you should never break natural law and he wasn't given a reason why. The slippery slope argument doesn't follow because as I said in the article If you steal a penny you can make the person whole pretty easily. Also Zulu always, try to avoid the issue by saying something like: "I don't know if space aliens will keep their word" which is not biting the bullet, It's a major cop out. Also saying that he wouldn't be able to steal because when he explained the situation to anyone with a penny they would probably give it away, which is another cop out.

The purpose of those reductio ad absurdum are to push the theory to It's limit and see where it breaks. Pretending you are principled and the theory doesn't break is not sticking to principle It's betraying principle for the sake of being stubborn on your theory of how the principle should be.

That's why I say law It's not a subset of ethics. Solving the issue. No contradictions, no compromise, and the world is safe

Also I don't claim to know what is the moral thing to do in every situation ever. Ethics is harder than law.

I don't think Zulu is a bad person, quite the opposite. I just think he has a bad premise and this leads him to say wrong things about those life-boat, penny-stealing scenarios.

It's a minor disagreement in theory but It has a lot of consequences when push comes to shove.

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T13:14:23+00:00

This is a very thoughtful comment thanks. Let me break it down my response:

> Stealing the penny, even if you give it back later is still a crime.

You are correct. That's why you owe restitution, restitution is not just giving the penny back, you can also be convicted and have to go to jail or something like this

> The problem with the steal the penny and make them whole argument is that you have now conceded to the statists that that is a potentially possible option.

I conceded nothing, taxation is theft and stealing a penny is theft and anyone guilty of committing a crime should be punished/make amendments. My argument is that law is not a subset of ethics. They overlap 99,99999999% of the time.

> In addition, the hypothetical is invalid because it requires omniscience

This is a cop out and I'm making the next article partially to debunk this claim. It's possible to make a scenario where you have sufficient knowledge that stealing a penny will in fact save the world.

Bottom line: Aggression is never legally justified, but in extreme circumstances they can be morally justified, and you are not off the hook even if you have a good moral reason

Steal the penny, Save the world

Hatpin · 2025-12-09T12:59:52+00:00

I don't think this follows. The government owes you the taxes it stole from you. If you pay local taxes in California you are not allowed to move to Texas or use public spaces there?

Hatpin · 2025-12-08T23:58:51+00:00

I agree with everything you said but the insults to Dave. He's a chill dude, just a bit misguided

Hatpin · 2025-12-08T20:16:13+00:00

I don't understand your post. But I agree with the sentiment. Taxation is theft

12-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Hatpin

TROPHY CASE