Tab Content
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:20 AM
    LOL, that's precisely what I mean by a subjective standard. An objective standard would say: they have the right to use violence when it is necessary for self-defense. Your subjective standard says: they have the right to use violence when they believe it is necessary for self-defense. This subjective standard is not consistent with libertarianism, which permits violence only when it is actually necessary for defense (not whenever the actor irrationally believes that it is). The subjective standard is also absurd on its face, as you implicitly admit when you say that it shouldn't apply between natives and that, among natives, the normal, sane, objective standard should apply. So why have you tried to redefine self-defense by inventing this subjective standard? Because you want to allow natives to use violence against non-threatening foreigners, while maintaining the pretense that those policies would be justified in self-defense. While your real reason for wanting to allow natives to use violence against foreigners has nothing to do with self-defense at all; it's this collective ownership stuff, which, as I've demonstrated, is inconsistent with libertarianism.
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:55 AM
    That's fine, but then it doesn't support your argument for collective ownership of the national territory in any way. It matters a great deal. On the social contract theory of the state, one can claim that the state has the right to do all kinds of unlibertarian things: namely, whatever things it was allegedly granted the right to do by this imaginary contract. Whereas, on the pragmatic-libertarian theory of the state, the state only has the power to do what is necessary to maximize individual liberty (aka minarchism). Communism also talks about a form of collective ownership; it doesn't follow that communism is consistent with libertarianism.
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:17 AM
    I'm aware that that's your position. I'll have to continue to disagree, and advocate for whichever policies most advance liberty (of Afrikaners, in this case).
    21 replies | 175 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:13 AM
    You cited the partnership as an analogue of the state, implying that states (like partnerships) arise through contract. They don't. ...which no one is questioning, and has no relevance to this discussion.
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:04 AM
    Or it might be better, but let's rule out ever changing anything (outside our arbitrarily selected geographical borders, anyway)... I cut it off because it didn't really say anything: In other words, you would have given moral support, but opposed having effective actions taken in support of what you hoped would happen.
    21 replies | 175 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 11:58 PM
    Partnerships (and other forms of libertarian-recognized group ownership) arise through contract (i.e. voluntarily). The nation-state (or any other kind of state) does not. The state can only be justified on pragmatic grounds, not by resort to the half-baked social contract theory. That is just as preposterous as the divine right of kings.
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 11:52 PM
    LOL, alright "This is terrible! ...but if you do it anyway, for a while, you have the right to keep doing it."
    21 replies | 175 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 11:36 PM
    If Smith uses violence against Jones, it is either aggression or self-defense. There is no basis, within libertarian ethics, for creating two standards, such that whether the act by Smith is aggression or self-defense depends on whether Jones is or is not a foreigner. We might as well hear a communist say that the question depends on whether Jones is or is not a kulak (it's self-defense to shoot him if he is, murder if he isn't - preposterous nonsense). Equality under the law is a central principle of libertarianism. Nor is there anything within libertarian ethics which recognizes this collective "ownership of the territory" by the natives in the first place. You're proving my point that your theory is in conflict with libertarianism. On another note: Does this mean that the natives don't have the right to exclude any immigrants for any reason they want? They can only exclude immigrants when it is objectively necessary to defend themselves?
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 11:17 PM
    Isn't that, egad, interference in the affairs of another culture?! So you object to intervention in principle and also would have supported colonialism? :confused:
    21 replies | 175 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 11:07 PM
    Your reasoning is circular. To say that a person doesn't have the right to be in the country presupposes that the residents had the right to exclude him. But that is the very issue in question; do the residents have the right to exclude the person in the first place. Let's say he's of Singaporean ancestry (Singapore being much more free than the US).
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:55 PM
    I won't continue this discussion too much here, since it's ongoing in other threads, but, suffice it to say: Before accusing others of being indifferent to the fate of whites in S. Africa, consider that it is you who rule out the best solutions to the problem. Moreover, it would have presumably been you who favored the end of colonialism which created this mess in the first place.
    21 replies | 175 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:50 PM
    On the libertarian view, a threat has to be sufficiently imminent to justify violence in the name of self-defense. Two obvious extremes might be a girl scout approaching the door (not an imminent threat justifying violence) and a guy pointing a gun in your face (imminent threat justifying violence). You're claiming that violence against the good culture immigrants is justified because they pose a sufficiently imminent threat. Let's explore that: Suppose you're a white guy, and you learn that an Asian guy moved in down the street. You know nothing about this person as an individual, no reason to believe that he individually is a threat. All you know is that he belongs to a demographic group which on average commits fewer crimes than your own. So you go and drag him out of his house, put him in a van, drive far away, and dump him somewhere. Self-defense or kidnapping? And, if self-defense, surely it would also be self-defense to do the same to all of your fellow whites in the neighborhood (who must pose a greater threat, as far as you know, i.e. based on demographic statistics alone)?
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:30 PM
    Why not banned? Couldn't any amount of immigration possibly pose a threat?
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:24 PM
    But it would be wrong to either intervene or allow the Afrikaners to migrate to the US, right?
    21 replies | 175 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:20 PM
    So all immigration, whatever the character of the immigrants, ought to be banned, just in case they try to make the country better? ...this is the position which you wish to hang your hat on?
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:17 PM
    i.e. etc id. Are we just posting Latin shorthand or is there some point to your comment...?
    28 replies | 310 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:14 PM
    You might be getting your threads crossed... Here we're talking about good culture people migrating to bad culture country (not about state intervention in another country). The good culture people commit no crimes, work hard, make the country more prosperous, etc. Yet you say the bad culture people have to a right to restrict their immigration because they're a threat. How are they a threat? They're threatening to make the country, ...better?
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 10:00 PM
    Hold on... How is our hypothetical good culture a threat to our hypothetical bad culture? :confused:
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:51 PM
    You seem to be confused. On the one hand, you say "absolutely, ." ...e.g. deport foreigners because the natives don't like the way they look. On the other hand, you ramble on incoherently about how force must be used to preserve liberty. ...as if deporting foreigners because the natives don't like the way they look somehow preserves liberty.
    28 replies | 310 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:44 PM
    1. That is a non-response to my last post, despite the fact that you quoted it. Are you conceding that your proposed subjective standard for judging action is crazy? If not, explain to me why that's better than an objective standard. Consider also internal political decision-making. We agree (I think) that the state is justified in imposing taxes (for instance) as necessary to provide the security apparatus required to protect individual rights (which would be violated much more in anarchy). Is that too to be judged on your subjective standard? E.G. If the state decides that it should tax people at 89% of their income, when objectively 1% would do to fund the required police and courts, is that okay? 2. To the first of your points above, you said: "You are willing to use deadly force in order to make them follow your rules, they have a right to defend themselves against you." Why would people engaged in robbery (for instance) have a right to defend themselves against a person attempting to use force to prevent them from robbing? Since when do criminals have a right to commit crimes? 3. To the second of your points above, you said: "You have no justification for forcing your will on them because your rights are already secure in your own country." Why should robberies and other crimes be allowed to occur over there, just because I'm secure over here? Is the purpose of political philosophy for me to secure my own rights, or for human beings in general to have their rights secured? ...that should be a rhetorical question.
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:27 PM
    Oh, so it's a subjective standard... If the bad culture people believe that the good culture people are a threat, they're justified in using violence to "defend" themselves... Now, that's a nice, new, sophistical twist to your theory to save you from having to admit the contradiction with libertarianism, but it doesn't quite work. Here's the problem: on the libertarian view (or really anyone's view), whether violence is justified depends on objective reality, not the beliefs of the actor. E.G. If I believe (totally irrationally) that the girl scout is going to murder me, and I shoot her, I should be committed, not praised. Belief has to reasonable based on the objective facts of the situation. That, in any event, is the libertarian (and only sane, I would argue) view, but you're free to stick to a purely subjective standard for judging action - just don't claim it's consistent with libertarianism.
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:23 PM
    Your views could be formed into a coherent political philosophy, but they aren't so long as you refuse to admit that the "national rights" aspect of your theory contradicts libertarian principles. By way of analogy, socialism is a perfectly coherent political philosophy (monstrous, but coherent), but a socialist who claims that his views are consistent with libertarianism (i.e. who advocates two contradictory positions) has an incoherent political philosophy. This is all I want, for you and other nationalists to admit the contradiction between nationalism and libertarianism. Once that's done, I could care less what you believe.
    38 replies | 253 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:19 PM
    So then, once again... QED
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:16 PM
    In other words, I have a coherent political philosophy, and express it without reservation. ...disagree all you like, but there it is, clearly presented. Meanwhile, you (and RJB) have an incoherent political philosophy, and engage in intellectual dishonesty in order to conceal that incoherence.
    38 replies | 253 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:13 PM
    Suppose that there were two societies, one with a "good culture" and one with a "bad culture." You can define those terms however you like, in terms of crime rates, voting behavior, etc. Now, suppose some people from the good culture want to migrate to the country of the bad culture. Do the latter have the right to refuse them entry?
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:06 PM
    So, this is the part of the evening where you resort to intellectual dishonesty to avoid admitting the logical implications of your own statements and I've become tired of playing whackamole (you and Swordsmyth must have been exchanging notes). You didn't answer my question, and for the reason that the answer (to whether you endorse violence against people in your neighborhood to enforce libertarianism) is yes, but you don't want to admit this because it then becomes obvious that there is only an arbitrary geographical distinction between your position and mine, which troubles you. As for your question (which I had assumed was rhetorical and only intended to wrongly imply that I'm some kind of warmonger, as you also explicitly accused me of being, despite that being a stupid and/or dishonest accusation), who do I want to bomb? Whoever it is necessary to bomb to maximize human liberty. In other words, the same as you, except I extend this reasoning to all human beings, not only those who happen live within an arbitrarily selected distance from my own present location on planet Earth.
    38 replies | 253 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 09:00 PM
    If it weren't necessary to protect the natives, you would oppose it?
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 08:52 PM
    Okay, thanks, it's been real...
    38 replies | 253 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 08:51 PM
    ... So, no, you don't deny it. QED
    55 replies | 464 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    11-10-2018, 08:48 PM
    Would you answer the question?
    38 replies | 253 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
14,337
Posts Per Day
8.38
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
3
Most Recent Message
04-18-2018 10:10 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 12:02 PM
Join Date
03-06-2014
Referrals
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

05-21-2018


04-18-2018


04-08-2018


03-17-2018


01-22-2018


01-08-2018


12-30-2017


12-02-2017


09-23-2017


08-27-2017

  • 10:31 AM - Hidden

08-22-2017


08-06-2017


07-31-2017


07-18-2017


07-14-2017


05-27-2017


05-11-2017



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 291 1231151101 ... LastLast

11-11-2018


11-10-2018



Page 1 of 291 1231151101 ... LastLast