Why Shouldn't the Government Engage in Aggression?

[Xerographica]

In my last post I asked strict supporters of the constitution how a small committee of government planners could know the proper scope of government. People deflected the question by referring to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

So...here is my question for supporters of the NAP...

Why shouldn't the government engage in aggression?

A. Because aggression is wrong
B. Because the outcome is desirable
C. All of the above

A = The outcome is irrelevant. You support full self-ownership no matter what the consequences would be. You wouldn't steal a loaf of bread from a billionaire to save the life of a starving child. In other words...you value property over life itself. But...perhaps if everybody followed the NAP then there wouldn't be any starving children. If that's your line of thinking then you should have selected either "B" or "C".

B = You're a closest consequentialist. You might as well allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes (pragmatarianism).

C = You're a closet consequentialist...but you do strongly support self-ownership. Given that you are concerned with outcomes you might as well allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes...(pragmatarianism)...but you would only allocate your taxes to government organizations that did not violate the NAP. Doing so would allow you to use your taxes to boycott government organizations that did violate the NAP.

[Xerographica]

Errrr...really? Nobody wants to offer a few thoughts on why the government shouldn't engage in aggression?

[noneedtoaggress]

Not really.

[CaptainAmerica]

government by nature is aggressive, that is why we intend to LIMIT its power/ability .

[Xerographica]

Not really.

Why not? Does my narrow list of options constrain you?

[noneedtoaggress]

Nah, I'm just tired of seeing all these threads and you linking half the threads in the philosophy forum to them. I don't particularly mind voicing my opinion about that though.

[kuckfeynes]

If people can directly allocate their taxes, what's the point of taxation in the first place?
I'd like to allocate mine to the Kuckfeynes bank account fund.

[kuckfeynes]

Also life and property are inextricably intertwined (unless you think the government has the right to take one of your organs and allocate it to save someone else's life).

It is impossible to value one over the other... It's a package deal.

[Xerographica]

Nah, I'm just tired of seeing all these threads and you linking half the threads in the philosophy forum to them. I don't particularly mind voicing my opinion about that though.

I empathize with you. I'm tried of seeing all the anarcho-capitalism threads. Not that I have anything against anarcho-capitalism. It's just that anybody who understands basic economic concepts...such as Smith's invisible hand, Bastiat's opportunity cost and Hayek's partial knowledge...would understand that pragmatarianism makes anarcho-capitalism a moot point.

What can we do though? Just because I disagree with the anarcho-capitalists doesn't mean I feel that we should limit their ability to voice their opinions. Yup...but it sure is hard to tolerate people with opposing political viewpoints. If it was easy to do so...then people would have embraced pragmatarianism a long long time ago.

[Sola_Fide]

...but you would only allocate your taxes to government organizations that did not violate the NAP. Doing so would allow you to use your taxes to boycott government organizations that did violate the NAP.

This makes no sense.

[Xerographica]

This makes no sense.

In that case you should read this thread...Dude, Where's My Ethical Consumerism?

[noneedtoaggress]

I empathize with you. I'm tried of seeing all the anarcho-capitalism threads. Not that I have anything against anarcho-capitalism. It's just that anybody who understands basic economic concepts...such as Smith's invisible hand, Bastiat's opportunity cost and Hayek's partial knowledge...would understand that pragmatarianism makes anarcho-capitalism a moot point.

What can we do though? Just because I disagree with the anarcho-capitalists doesn't mean I feel that we should limit their ability to voice their opinions. Yup...but it sure is hard to tolerate people with opposing political viewpoints. If it was easy to do so...then people would have embraced pragmatarianism a long long time ago.

Aww, if only the world was perfect and utopian pragmatarianism would work.

[Xerographica]

If people can directly allocate their taxes, what's the point of taxation in the first place?
I'd like to allocate mine to the Kuckfeynes bank account fund.

Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes would allow us to discern whether taxes are truly unnecessary. If one person can truly know whether taxes are unnecessary then one person can know enough to run the entire country. To learn more about this concept...see this thread...Why is Your Wife Cheating on You?

[noneedtoaggress]

And the part that's annoying is you're pretty much the only one advocating "pragmatarianism", and the philosophy forum is CHOCK FULL of your threads, derailing others threads, links to your threads, your threads linking to your other threads, and posts to your blogs.

Buy some ad space, man.

[Xerographica]

And the part that's annoying is you're pretty much the only one advocating "pragmatarianism"

LOL...I know...it annoys me too!!! Why should I be the only one promoting the invisible hand...and Bastiat's opportunity cost...and Hayek's partial knowledge?

the philosophy forum is CHOCK FULL of your threads, derailing others threads, links to your threads, your threads linking to your other threads, and posts to your blogs.

The philosophy forum is chock full of threads on the invisible hand...and Bastiat's opportunity cost...and Hayek's partial knowledge!! Wherever shall we go? Whatever shall we do??

Buy some ad space, man.

Why would I have to buy ad space on a Ron Paul forum to promote Adam Smith...Bastiat and Hayek? Seriously folks?

[Xerographica]

Also life and property are inextricably intertwined (unless you think the government has the right to take one of your organs and allocate it to save someone else's life).

It is impossible to value one over the other... It's a package deal.

Are you telling me that the billionaire would die if you stole a loaf of bread from him to save the life of a starving child?

[noneedtoaggress]

LOL...I know...it annoys me too!!! Why should I be the only one promoting the invisible hand...and Bastiat's opportunity cost...and Hayek's partial knowledge?

Because you're not just doing that, you're pushing very, very hard to advocate for your pet "pragmatarianism" and your blog, and it puts people off.

The philosophy forum is chock full of threads on the invisible hand...and Bastiat's opportunity cost...and Hayek's partial knowledge!! Wherever shall we go? Whatever shall we do??

Good point! I guess that means alternating between the full text of "That which is seen" and "The pretense of knowledge" every 3 or so posts in your threads would only make people want to read them even more.

Why would I have to buy ad space on a Ron Paul forum to promote Adam Smith...Bastiat and Hayek? Seriously folks?

Because you're spamming for attention.

[fisharmor]

Because you're spamming for attention.

Oh, be fair... 295 posts of the same thing isn't spamming, is it?

[Xerographica]

Because you're not just doing that, you're pushing very, very hard to advocate for your pet "pragmatarianism" and your blog, and it puts people off.

Good point! I guess that means alternating between the full text of "That which is seen" and "The pretense of knowledge" every 3 or so posts in your threads would only make people want to read them even more.

Because you're spamming for attention.

Do you really lack that much self-awareness that you don't realize that the same exact thing could be said about you anarcho-capitalists? Like alternating between full texts of Rothbard...and errr...Rothbard would only make people want to read him even more.

Guess what...it worked for me! I've already read Rothbard because of Anarcho-capitalists who spammed him all over Wikipedia. And I read his mentor as well...Mises. And guess who strongly influenced Mises? Bastiat!!

So let's have a division of labor. You continue spamming Rothbard and I'll continue spamming Bastiat. What could possibly be wrong with spamming Rothbard's mentor's mentor?

[RiseAgainst]

Anarchism promotes competition and the free funding of ideas. If pragmatarianism were the best possible idea, would not people decide on their own free will to create pragmatarianism out of anarchism?

Put your money where your mouth is Xero, if you truly believe pragmatarianism is the obvious best answer, then why don't you promote anarchism since obviously pragmatarianism will be the end result??

[noneedtoaggress]

You're joking right?

You do realize there's greater than 1 "anarchocapitalist" on this forum and there's ONE "pragmatarian", right?

Do you want to compare my ratio of posting Rothbard, to that of you posting links to your own threads and blog entries?

I will go through every single one of my posts and find every Rothbard post I made.

I'm sorry no one cares about pragmatarianism man, but it's pretty apparent, you're the only one. And you are not helping your case. In fact, I'll tell you right now that when I first came across your threads I found it at least engaging, while now I can't turn around without wanting to... actually I just realized people mentioned there was an ignore feature on this board. Nevermind... I'm going to go see how it works.

[Xerographica]

You're joking right?

You do realize there's greater than 1 "anarchocapitalist" on this forum and there's ONE "pragmatarian", right?

Do you want to compare my ratio of posting Rothbard, to that of you posting links to your own threads and blog entries?

I will go through every single one of my posts and find every Rothbard post I made.

I'm sorry no one cares about pragmatarianism man, but it's pretty apparent, you're the only one. And you are not helping your case. In fact, I'll tell you right now that when I first came across your threads I found it at least engaging, while now I can't turn around without wanting to... actually I just realized people mentioned there was an ignore feature on this board. Nevermind... I'm going to go see how it works.

Really...an anarcho-capitalist making an argument based on democracy? That's delicious. Mmmmmm tasty!

Hope you have fun ignoring me!

[RiseAgainst]

Really...an anarcho-capitalist making an argument based on democracy? That's delicious. Mmmmmm tasty!

Hope you have fun ignoring me!

Xero, did you miss my post?

Here it is again for you:

Anarchism promotes competition and the free funding of ideas. If pragmatarianism were the best possible idea, would not people decide on their own free will to create pragmatarianism out of anarchism?

Put your money where your mouth is Xero, if you truly believe pragmatarianism is the obvious best answer, then why don't you promote anarchism since obviously pragmatarianism will be the end result??

[Xerographica]

Anarchism promotes competition and the free funding of ideas. If pragmatarianism were the best possible idea, would not people decide on their own free will to create pragmatarianism out of anarchism?

Put your money where your mouth is Xero, if you truly believe pragmatarianism is the obvious best answer, then why don't you promote anarchism since obviously pragmatarianism will be the end result??

Anarcho-capitalism = The answer is no government
Libertarianism = The answer is limited government
Socialism = The answer is government
Pragmatarianism = Taxpayers have the answer

[noneedtoaggress]

That wasn't an argument based on democracy, are you purposefully trying to be obtuse? You're comparing the frequency of your posts to the group of ancaps here who post. You're trying to make up for the fact that no one else posts about pragmatarianism and you really want them to. You even respond to my sardonic responses to help bump up your posts.

Honestly, man you seem like a decent guy. I really don't have anything against you personally. But going through this forum is like going through my email without a spam filter. I really am sorry to have to put you on my ignore list, this is the first time I've ever done that on a forum and I've even ran some pretty big ones, but it's just getting to be too much.

[noneedtoaggress]

Why do I feel like this should be playing out in thread titled "Why Is Your Partner Cheating on You?"

[Xerographica]

Xero, did you miss my post?

Here it is again for you:

LOL...really...you're going to accuse me of ignoring questions? Oh man...I wouldn't ignore you guys for all the tea in China.

[Xerographica]

That wasn't an argument based on democracy, are you purposefully trying to be obtuse? You're comparing the frequency of your posts to the group of ancaps here who post. You're trying to make up for the fact that no one else posts about pragmatarianism and you really want them to. You even respond to my sardonic responses to help bump up your posts.

Honestly, man you seem like a decent guy. I really don't have anything against you personally. But going through this forum is like going through my email without a spam filter. I really am sorry to have to put you on my ignore list, this is the first time I've ever done that on a forum and I've even ran some pretty big ones, but it's just getting to be too much.

Ok, so you're an anarcho-capitalist that is trying to impose your rules on me regarding how frequently I can post? Oh yes...it just gets more and more delicious each time!

Likewise, I have nothing against you personally...except for the minor detail that you never even once addressed my argument. But I don't hold that against you. How are you going to argue against Hayek's concept of partial knowledge or Bastiat's opportunity cost concept? Hayek won a Nobel prize for his concept and most economists consider Bastiat's concept to be the single most important economic concept. So it's understandable that you would prefer to accuse me of spamming rather than attempting to point out the flaws in their concepts.

[RiseAgainst]

Anarcho-capitalism = The answer is no government
Libertarianism = The answer is limited government
Socialism = The answer is government
Pragmatarianism = Taxpayers have the answer

Xero, you must have missed it, I asked you a question. Feel free to answer it.

[noneedtoaggress]

Ok, so you're an anarcho-capitalist that is trying to impose your rules on me regarding how frequently I can post? Oh yes...it just gets more and more delicious each time!

Xeno, can you please show me what "rules" I'm "trying to impose on you"?

Or am I not allowed to say that I find your pragmatarian spam irritating?

Likewise, I have nothing against you personally...except for the minor detail that you never even once addressed my argument. But I don't hold that against you. How are you going to argue against Hayek's concept of partial knowledge or Bastiat's opportunity cost concept? Hayek won a Nobel prize for his concept and most economists consider Bastiat's concept to be the single most important economic concept. So it's understandable that you would prefer to accuse me of spamming rather than attempting to point out the flaws in their concepts.

That's fine. I have no plan to address your argument. I found it somewhat interesting when I first encountered it as I said, but at this point every time I see the word "pragmatarianism" I can feel acid burning my throat.