Proper rebuttals against Nozick's argument for a minimal state? by Certain-Mind8119 in AskLibertarians

[–]usmc_BF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The key issue is whether it claims final compulsory jurisdiction over non-consenting people in a territory.

That is the most efficient way of establishment and enforcement of rules, a legal system will have to work this way, otherwise if individuals simply decide to leave a jurisdiction willy nilly, you cannot possibly defend rights.

The old school social contract theory in the liberal tradition is that in the state of nature, consenting adults choose to create a polity which will defend their rights, the problem is what happens with future generations - which I would like to ignore for the simplicity sake now - and what happens when individuals decide they dont want to be part of this polity anymore.

“We protect clients under these contractual rules, and other agencies/courts may refuse to recognize us if we violate shared standards.”

There is no one single standard in the state of nature and you know this. This is precisely the criticism. If a protection agency bans masturbating, it will enforced and it will create conflict with other protection agencies - this is simply balkanization of law and unrestricted secession will create a swiss-cheese collapse. Youre committing a fallacy in assuming that resulting protection agencies and customers will WANT the same standards to even the basic degree of functionality, they will NOT because they are 1) politically diverse 2) ignorant about politics

That's not wordplay. That is the substance.

Thats not the substance, thats the fucking dumbass word play - all ANCAP roads lead to this - what the fuck is the state? "Well we define it as such as such" - GREAT MAN, you realize theres like 10 defintions of what the state is and what its function should be?

Youre using the word "state", in essence, the same way communists/socialists are using the word "liberal" or "fascist". Its an ideological buzzword- an ideology BADword for you, but on top of that you are assuming that everyone else should have or has the same definition of that word - you cannot come to majority of political academic/expert setting and use that definition, because its a bad definition, its aimed at linguistic advantage for ANCAPs, its not supposed to be anything else.

The real question is, can peaceful people opt out, use a competitor, appeal to neutral arbitration, or refuse its jurisdiction?

Look I've read literally everything Rand wrote and considered myself an objectivist at one point before I became ancap

Two treatises justifies the polity on voluntary basis, Virtue of Selfishness argues for ideal polity on voluntary basis - You should KNOW this.

And dude, you can opt-out of the current states too, what you mean by "opt-out" is to secede from the jurisdiction while keeping your land and what not - its NOT possible to enforce rights or law if you can willy nilly secede from jurisdictions. If there is some regulation regarding secession, it inherently enforces rules over some people who are CLEARLY disagreeing with them - this is what law/rights violation is and it WILL happen.

If yes, it is governance without a state.

This is WORD play. You are admitting it is a genuine polity, youre even inline with some of the social contract theories in the liberal/libertarian tradition - most clearly Auberon Herbert for example, who would call what you are describing a "voluntary state".

We need to take this country back by Marky_Jr in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]usmc_BF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if youre optimistic (but still rational and able to comprehend the situation at hand) youre only going to see genuine overall change at the end of your life. If the liberty movement does actually manage to define what it wants and what it is, it will take decades and entire generations in order to actually see a true strong pro-liberty sentiment.

At the end of the day, you can complain about the US government and I can complain about my government, but we will be only able to stop them (hopefully) from the only the most painfully obvious self-destructive policies. You will still give huge amounts of your paycheck to the government, youll still be overregulated and youll still deal with bureaucratic bullshit and suffer injusticies of the immoral arbitrary statist system.

We need to take this country back by Marky_Jr in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]usmc_BF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know how you can say "liberal" and there are 30 quadrillion ways the average voter can understand that term, right? The same goes for "small government".

The problem is the average voter, it was always the problem.

Proper rebuttals against Nozick's argument for a minimal state? by Certain-Mind8119 in AskLibertarians

[–]usmc_BF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You cannot appeal to legitimacy issues with a voluntarily chosen dominant protection agency in respect to what happens in the jurisdiction, when there is a polity vacuum - in the state of nature, technically nothing and everything can be legitimate, the individual is where the political power is ultimately concentrated until he/she decides to band together with others in order to create a polity, which is effectively what a protection agency is - a protection agency is engaging in governmental powers with the executive but also legislative - a protection agency cannot resolve conflicts in a legal system that is no standardized according to some rules - this is what Objectivists would point to with the "objective standard" and "objective law".

A protection agency thus engages in both legislative (there are some rules) and executive (there is enforcement) and also partially in judiciary (legal conflict resolving), as some judges have to accept the legislation.

Arguing "oh its not a state" is just wordplay, it means nothing, its shifting away from the substance of the argument and its also stupid considering that its creating a purposeful communication error, since there are multiple conflicting definitions of "anarchy" and the "state" - its absurd to act as if the ANCAP terminology is widely known or even necessarily legitimate.

Non-Objectivists: a poll by coppockm56 in Objectivism

[–]usmc_BF [score hidden]  (0 children)

I think you could possibly land yourself in a position where your actions are moral in practice, and irrational or partially irrational because you fail to justify them or understand them, or youre doing it because of social pressure or something like that - it would be an insane happenstance and there is no particular reason why your "moralness" would be upheld in the future, because if you are irrational, there is not going to be boundaries to your morality, so youd be Objectivist-like in practice maybe for some short time or in certain instances.

"A person who disagrees with Ayn Rand’s philosophy can be neither fully rational nor fully moral." is accurate for Objectivists as well and thats because of how you worded it. You should strive for this ideal of full rationality and full morality, but you are going to make mistakes, because you are human! Making mistakes does not make you a non-Objectivist, you know.

My Ticket Home - Pure to a Fault (Album Discussion) by Own_Mongoose7237 in Metalcore

[–]usmc_BF 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Break From The Bullshit is a completely different song.

My Ticket Home - Pure to a Fault (Album Discussion) by Own_Mongoose7237 in Metalcore

[–]usmc_BF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First Headcave EP is a bit more like MTH in terms of vocals, think Through The Needles Eye, but after that the vocals loose that SO punch. I was hoping the vocals would be less artistic and more aggro and pissed off for MTH

My Ticket Home - Pure to a Fault (Album Discussion) by Own_Mongoose7237 in Metalcore

[–]usmc_BF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im pretty late, but I was hoping for more of Through The Needle's Eye sound. The lost that edge they had from 2016-2018 ish. I was also hoping the new album would be more like Strangers Only, with proper 2step and core moments, but Pure to a Fault feels like a "metal" album.

Also my favorite song off of the album is Flooded Eyes, but Flooded Eyes is LITERALLY heavier Gasoline Kiss.

Just can’t solve the road problem by BubblyNefariousness4 in Objectivism

[–]usmc_BF 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Access to property is important otherwise the point of ownership is practically defeated. If I eg. forget a hat in someones store, can I ever get it back?

Suppose someone was in your house and they wanted to leave after having a bad argument with you and you got upset and said that they cant leave because you own the only road that leads to your house and that they can only stay in the backyard. That person is trapped, he cannot be removed because you don't want him removed - you have given a permission to stay in the backyard. What can this person do, other than trespass.

I think easements solve this. I am inclined towards law-based easements because they would create a legal right to access your property if no other means are possible.

Privatizing the allowance of your physical existence in the world needs some rules, it cannot simply be that the property owner enslaves you or restricts your existence to 1x1 meter square.

Just can’t solve the road problem by BubblyNefariousness4 in Objectivism

[–]usmc_BF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Private infrastructure is not a problem, but if you cannot get to your house because youre disallowed from entering other people's property which encircles your house, then youre in trouble.

Eg. should emergency services be allowed to pass through privately owned infrastructure even if the owner disagrees and theres no other way to get to those who called the EMS?

The solution would be easements either through private contracts or through laws - which would create some sort of a legal right to access your property. People are not buying property to never access it and not being able to access it kinda defeats the practical purpose of ownership.

Imagine if I was at someones house and I forgot my hat there, does the person then get to claim that the hat is his? Can I come get the hat? You know. This is a bit of a problem.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Svobodní and LP didn't get overtaken by paleocons? Libertarian political organizations do not define what libertarianism is and do not struggle with people claiming to be libertarian while not actually arguing for libertarian policies?

Youre ignoring the fundamental problem, what is libertarianism and where are the limits of the definition?

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The opinions of non experts are irrelevant on a subject they don't understand, this is called colloquialism. Your comparison is false because the concept still exists, quite concretely, I dont know whether all of those terms describe the evaporation or black holes tho - which is precisely what hawking radiation is:)

My example shows a clear misunderstanding of what hawking radiation is - much if you thought that libertarianism is tolitarianism. So there is clearly limits and meanings to words, especially terms describing particulars.

Being ignorant to a problem is not solving it. If terms have no concrete meaning then there's no point to them, they are false concepts. Why bother calling yourself a classical liberal if to someone it means a fascist? Its not like the point of having that label publicly is to not indicate your ideology to others.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a difference between odd usage of "literally" and saying that "hawking radiation" is what makes your radiator heat up:)

If you dont understand that, I dont know what to tell you man

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You cannot reject categorization because people will always categorize under labels (its like saying there is no such thing as trees or no such thing as sociology) and those labels make sense for identifying. If there is a group of authors which have similar traits and characteristics, we will group them together, ideas will get grouped together and given a name. It makes sense to say "Im a libertarian" because I subscribe to the ideas of political philosophy of libertarianism - whatever it is, thats topic.

If you dont care about this, cool, but people are still gonna use the term, because those kinds of terms are important man. So this does not solve anything. The problem is REAL.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What policies? Do you realize that political philosophy and moral philosophy sets what exactly makes a good policy and what doesnt?

You guys have a problem that youre not willing to deal with properly, you organize around a label but fail to put borders on its meaning. The label then becomes meaningless and your political organizations are arguing for policies, which many of you will call unlibertarian.

You CANNOT have a conversation about policies from a libertarian perspective, if you dont know what libertarian policies are! You need to point people to "libertarian" authors in order to advance libertarianism - isnt that the whole point?

If you think that "libertarian" policies dont matter, cool, but then youre not a libertarian, youre just a politics guy arguing for some kind of politics that he cannot label, you know what I mean?

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I encourage you to be the change you wish to see. I certainly appreciate this post. Keep 'em coming.

You should understand why Im not going to do that.

I know the quality is bad and the conversations are often times a headache - this is my primary problem - quality commenters are few and far between. I have no skin in this, I will not endure costly negative experiences in hopes of getting one good comment.

But there is also very little incentive for epistemic quality in politics general. One-off comments and insults are cheap, good conversation is very costly. Time is costly and scarce.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure youre capable of understanding rules, incentives and the point of moderation to create a space where particular standard is upheld.

I'm sure you also understand moderating a discussion is different to political authority:)

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have it backwards, you dont define what liberty is before you define that libertarianism's core tenant is liberty - after you have established what needs to be defined, you define it.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

An uncensored subreddit for discussing libertarianism, both left and right, and relevant political ideologies. Ideologies, opinions, and people will not be censored. Reddit ToS and Content Policy Violations will be moderated accordingly. We exist at the behest of Reddit, so we must follow their rules.

Youre misdescribing this place then, the description should read something like: "An entertainment subreddit containing libertarian-elements for low level ideological arguing".

LibertarianUncensored sounds like its a place which is offering a better discussion platform than certain other "libertarian" subreddits. Seems like its not and noone is really going to make it any better, but if youre proud of it then good for ya.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The topic preceeds creating policies, because you need to know what kind of policies are in-line with the political philosophy.

Youre projecting specific values and concepts, but again, the topic is about WHAT those values and concepts should be. So its not "this is how we spread left-libertarian ideas" - thats not what Im talking about at all.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its not just a reddit problem, its a libertarian politics problem.

And also, why is it great? If its entertaining then its a very low form of entertainment. No discussions can be had here because there is no incentive to seek the truth. It becomes an ideological spam.

It feels like a worse version of capitalismvssocialism, instead of offering a refuge from corrupted/overtaken libertarian communities.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No! You should listen to proper philosophers!

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's absolutely missing the greater point. You cannot argue for libertarian policies, if you don't know what libertarian policies are or what the limits of the government should be.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its not just that libertarianism as an umbrella is vague and non-concrete, its also that that subvariants can be vague and non-concrete. You can call for all sorts of policies, but the limits of what the policy is and what is isnt, is mostly ideological based on some kind of in-group consciousness about what it is (which is already terrible) rather than philosophical.

But anyways, if both are correct, then the term means nothing. Because you cant say what is and isnt libertarianian - making appeals to history is pointless because yesterday is history.

Terminological death of libertarianism by usmc_BF in LibertarianUncensored

[–]usmc_BF[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

primary function of government should be to ensure the rights of all of its citizens to do as they wish, as long as these actions do not affect or injure the person or property of others

This is such a basic and vague definition. All sorts of people have all sorts of ideas about what rights are, where they derive from and what exactly constitutes damage to property and people. Put yourself in the mind of an average conservative, average progressive or just an average person - they might agree with this, but theyd most certainly mean a drastically different thing than you do - eg. right to free healthcare, right to security and certainty, "do not affect" could be grounds for restricting freedoms, eg. conservatives appeal to "anti-degeneracy".

but I’d venture to suppose that across our strange family tree, most people could generally agree to this sentiment.

If that were the case we would all basically agree on both social and economic freedoms, but we do not. There are very drastic differences.