Libertarian Pragmatism

[Swordsmyth]

Who the eff do you go running to when your "rights" are violated? God?

Yes and one day he will right all wrongs and punish the guilty.

[otherone]

Rights are the foundation of liberty.
You it seems would make a good playground bully or tyrant.

Because you are obtuse.
There is a difference between right and wrong. When you turn to government to discern, you create a false God.
Liberty is the absence of government, to whatever consequences.

[Swordsmyth]

Because you are obtuse.
There is a difference between right and wrong. When you turn to government to discern, you create a false God.
Liberty is the absence of government, to whatever consequences.

Perfect liberty is not the absence of government, it is created by the bare minimum government that is required to defend the rights of the weak.
What you want is License, or anarchy which always leads to tyranny.

Since you are obviously an anarchist this conversation is now done. Pigs can't sing (see my signature) and anarchists can't learn.

[r3volution 3.0]

Liberty is the absence of government, to whatever consequences.

Liberty is the absence of aggression.

Or, in the real world (i.e. the world in which aggression can never be eliminated entirely), the minimization of aggression.

And government is necessary to accomplish that.

[Swordsmyth]

Who the eff do you go running to when your "rights" are violated? God?

There is a difference between right and wrong. When you turn to government to discern, you create a false God.

Alright class who can tell me what is wrong with these two quotes.

[otherone]

Perfect liberty is not the absence of government, it is created by the bare minimum government that is required to defend the rights of the weak.
What you want is License, or anarchy which always leads to tyranny.

Since you are obviously an anarchist this conversation is now done. Pigs can't sing (see my signature) and anarchists can't learn.

Nice try. "Rights" are only relevant when one advocates for them. By petitioning the government. In the absence of government there is Natural Law. A man on on island has no rights.

[otherone]

Liberty is the absence of aggression.

Or, in the real world (i.e. the world in which aggression can never be eliminated entirely), the minimization of aggression.

And government is necessary to accomplish that.

A SJW would say the same thing

[PierzStyx]

Responses in bold.

Is it ever justifiable to violate someone's rights to prevent a larger rights violation?

Some hypotheticals to ponder as you make your decision:

A. 1916, the bolshevik party is outlawed and its members executed (they've committed no crime yet); the bolshevik revolution is thus prevented.

The Revolution still happens. The reason people revolted and were drawn to communism was because of the policies of the Tsar.

B. Operation Valkyrie - you have a chance to kill Hitler, but it's on a public street, where there will be "collateral damage."

The problem here is the same. You kill Hitler. Wonderful. Now Himmler takes over. Not any better.

C. A person accused of a crime is afforded due process, found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, & punished; there's still a chance he's innocent.

The problems with C would suggest that, at the very least, the law be measured in its response. Executions, for example, should probably be illegal. Capital punishment does nothing to deter murder rates and the risk that you will murder an innocent person found guilty are convincing reasons to me to get rid of the issue altogether. Giving the state the power to create law and then kill you for disobeying that law seems dangerous anyway.

[r3volution 3.0]

A SJW would say the same thing

You're under the impression that SJWs want a minarchist state..?

[PierzStyx]

"Rights" are only relevant when one advocates for them. By petitioning the government. In the absence of government there is Natural Law. A man on on island has no rights.

A SJW would say the same thing

What fresh craziness are you talking about?

"To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man. " -John Locke.

Talking about rights is just another way to talk about the natural liberty you have as a person in the state of nature.

[otherone]

You're under the impression that SJWs want a minarchist state..?

Minarchist? You advocate for government to "minimize" aggression? Do you understand that government is ONLY aggression? Who defines aggression? The victim? Should we incarcerate those who hang bananas on campus?

[r3volution 3.0]

The Revolution still happens. The reason people revolted and were drawn to communism was because of the policies of the Tsar.

...

The problem here is the same. You kill Hitler. Wonderful. Now Himmler takes over. Not any better.

This sidesteps the issue.

I'm not claiming X minor aggression would prevent Y major aggression.

I'm asking whether X minor aggression would be justifiable IF it would prevent Y major aggression.

The problems with C would suggest that, at the very least, the law be measured in its response. Executions, for example, should probably be illegal. Capital punishment does nothing to deter murder rates and the risk that you will murder an innocent person found guilty are convincing reasons to me to get rid of the issue altogether. Giving the state the power to create law and then kill you for disobeying that law seems dangerous anyway.

A. Every sentence (down to a $1 fine) implicitly risks the death of the person sentenced. Resistance to any law, however minor, will ultimately escalate into a situation where the resistor is killed. So, even if the death penalty were abolished (and I disagree that it ought to be, but that's another discussion), you would still be risking the lives of innocent people by convicting criminals.

B. Accidentally imprisoning/fining innocent people may be better than executing them, but it's still aggression.

[Swordsmyth]

Talking about rights is just another way to talk about the natural liberty you have as a person in the state of nature.

No, rights restrain men from doing to eachother things nature does nothing to prevent, in the end GOD as the ultimate Government will meet out justice.

But otherone is still nuts, the guy on the island has rights whether anyone is threatening them or not.

[otherone]

What fresh craziness are you talking about?

"To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man. " -John Locke.

Talking about rights is just another way to talk about the natural liberty you have as a person in the state of nature.

I agree with you. But understand, the only context in which rights are abjudicated is government. To what authority does one turn when natural law is violated?

[r3volution 3.0]

Minarchist? You advocate for government to "minimize" aggression?

That's correct.

One monopoly extortion racket (government) is preferable to competing extortion rackets (gang warfare).

[otherone]

But otherone is still nuts, the guy on the island has rights whether anyone is threatening them or not.

Omergawd. The guy on the island has FREEDOM. Rights only exist when they are VIOLATED.
You gonna call the cops when a monkey steals your bananas?
"MUH RIGHTS".

[otherone]

That's correct.

One monopoly extortion racket (government) is preferable to competing extortion rackets (gang warfare).

Yeah.
One central gang is better than many. Regardless, none exist to "minimize" aggression.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah.
One central gang is better than many.

That's right.

Regardless, none exist to "minimize" aggression.

Whatever their intent (and sometimes it is to minimize aggression), that is the effect of their existence.

[otherone]

Whatever their intent (and sometimes it is to minimize aggression), that is the effect of their existence.

How does government minimize aggression? What tools do they use?

[r3volution 3.0]

How does government minimize aggression?

Q: How does someone winning a war reduce aggression?

A: It ends the war.

That is what the state is - the winning faction from the previous civil war.

The alternative to the state is the resumption of civil war.

[otherone]

Q: How does someone winning a war reduce aggression?

A: It ends the war.

That is what the state is - the winning faction from the previous civil war.

The alternative to the state is the resumption of civil war.

That isn't "reducing" aggression; it's monopolizing it.
You may as well say that sheep are most free when they are safely in their pen.

[r3volution 3.0]

That isn't "reducing" aggression; it's monopolizing it.

It's both.

You may as well say that sheep are most free when they are safely in their pen.

They are.

[otherone]

It's both.



They are.

Cue N v S Korea.
Freedom is not provided by a shepherd.

[r3volution 3.0]

Freedom is not provided by a shepherd.

The shepherd has a propriety interest in the well-being of the herd.

The wolf does not.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. Perhaps I'll start another dedicated anarchism v. minarchism thread.

[otherone]

The shepherd has a propriety interest in the well-being of the herd.

The wolf does not.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. Perhaps I'll start another dedicated anarchism v. minarchism thread.

LOL
Ok. Back on topic.

c) How many years, do you, Rev, want to serve for a crime that you did not commit, to protect the safety of the herd?

[r3volution 3.0]

c) How many years, do you, Rev, want to serve for a crime that you did not commit, to protect the safety of the herd?

I'd much rather face a .01% risk of wrongful conviction than a 10% risk of being murdered by the criminals who'd run rampant sans judicial system.

Wouldn't you?

[otherone]

I'd much rather face a .01% risk of wrongful conviction than a 10% risk of being murdered by the criminals who'd run rampant sans judicial system.

Wouldn't you?

You didn't answer the question.

How many years will you lose to keep me from being murdered?

[r3volution 3.0]

You didn't answer the question.

As stated, your question didn't make much sense, so I tried to answer what I thought you were trying to ask.

Here was your question:

How many years, do you, Rev, want to serve for a crime that you did not commit, to protect the safety of the herd?

...in what way would me volunteering to go to prison for a crime I didn't commit make anyone more safe?

If it wouldn't, then my answer is obviously "zero years."

[otherone]

As stated, your question didn't make much sense, so I tried to answer what I thought you were trying to ask.

Here was your question:



...in what way would me volunteering to go to prison for a crime I didn't commit make anyone more safe?

If it wouldn't, then my answer is obviously "zero years."

Volunteering? Do you believe your involuntary incarceration is a fair trade-off to prevent me from being murdered?

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you believe your involuntary incarceration is a fair trade-off to prevent me from being murdered?

Just you? Just one person? No. A 1:1 trade-off (1 murder prevented per innocent person convicted) is pretty awful.

But if it's, say, 10,000:1 (i.e. 10,000 murders prevented per innocent person convicted), definitely.

And that's what we're talking about.

It's completely feasible to reduce the risk of wrongful conviction to extremely low levels (just not strictly to 0%).

That should be the aim, contra the lunatic goal of abolishing the judicial system altogether.