4 ms·

OK, sounds reasonable. So, if you don't mind - what about lying? What if somebody borrows something from you and they refuse to return it? How is initiating co

OK, sounds reasonable. So, if you don't mind - what about lying? What if somebody borrows something from you and they refuse to return it? How is initiating coercion against them bad? What if someone falsely claims they own the piece of land that you think no one owns? So you give it up, and find out later the claim was false. Again, what about initiating coercion against them? Frankly, I don't think the condemnation of "initiation of coercion" is a good ethics. Specifically, people can be intentionally misled and that by itself is actually a good reason to initiate coercion. Also, cannot every coercion be interpreted as a retaliation for something? Does the fact that someone initiated a coercion at some point give the other party right to infinite (sanctioned by you) retaliation? Conversely, cannot anyone facing retaliation defend himself by saying (in attempt to get help) that this is initiation? I simply think you cannot absolutely reject initiating coercion and accept retaliatory coercion.. You need to have some measure of what is fair, which will fall in the gray area. And this notion of fairness will eventually extend to things like taxes and so on.

burntsushi 11y ago
I have merely presented a core ethic of mine. If you want to delve into the particulars (I certainly don't in this thread), then I'd suggest reading other works by the OP. Answering your questions from my perspective would require introducing and applying concepts such as "ownership" and "property." (Although, others may not consider these necessary.) These words are so heavily overloaded that it's useless trying to use them in an online discussion forum. I note that most of the questions you have raised are a result of my simplistic formulation. Consider, for example, that I handed you the US constitution and said, "this is the law, use it." It is also a simplistic formulation, with respect to the body of law in the US today. Many of the questions you raised in your comment would be good questions to raise in this case too. The practice of this Constitution (or "ethic" in my case) will, in the process, answer lots of questions. I don't see any reason why this process doesn't apply in my case either. If all else fails, look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions. With respect to case law, it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  I know everything is in the Bible, but I am interested in your beliefs! This is why I find libertarianism to be close to theology; when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book, which turns out to be hopelessly circular (as in the case of property, which is defined in terms of non-coercion, which is also defined in terms of property). It seems that you want to have world black and white, and so you invent new categories to deal with difficult moral dilemmas. But personal ethics is not something coming from a book, it's a result of intuitively answering these questions (by "feel") and sometimes accepting that there is no good answer, or that answer depends on different circumstances. > look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions .. it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic Yes and no - that's my original problem. When I ask you a specific moral question, the answer indeed seems quite reasonable. But then you're (very definitely) against things like taxation or state (which are integral part of the Western culture). I would like to understand where this contradiction comes from. Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, especially given you were the only person willing to respond to my original post.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    > when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book I would do exactly the same if it was a really difficult technical topic. Instead of spending a week writing a 10,000 word essay for you, I'd point you to someone else who has already done it. Feel free to trawl through my comments on HN. I regularly defer to some other source of information. It's just common sense. The comparison with theology is weird, considering that theology is based on the premise of revealed knowledge about the world. I've not invoked any such construct, so I don't see the similarities. > It seems that you want to have world black and white No, I don't actually. I just want to stop legitimizing coercion. > Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Frankly, this is beyond the scope of my ethic. For example, if you had read other works by the OP, you would know that there is indeed quite a bit of theory behind proportion. Your absolutist views on property are your own. I do not share them. I don't care what system of property you invent, even if it means eradicating property altogether. But if your system needs legitimized coercion, then I would find it immoral. It's really as simple as that. Finally, I'd also like to note that you seem to have ignored---or at least not acknowledged---my answer to your question. Namely, that being libertarian is somehow contrary to helping others. The entire point of my response was to demonstrate why this wasn't necessarily true, while acknowledging that there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree (because there are so many different flavors of libertarianism). The conversation has now devolved into an attempt to have me build up an entire theory of case law for you in HN comments. When I refused, I was compared with theologians. Personally, I don't find this progression of discussion to be in good faith. I responded to your initial comment because I feel very strongly about helping others, and it always pains me to see a common misconception about libertarianism used to paint all of its adherents under some evil light. (Because I do consider refusal to help others to be a sort of evil.) I love to help others and I know plenty of other libertarians who share that zeal. I tried to demonstrate this by pointing out the things I truly care about ("no coercion") in libertarianism and how they don't preclude helping others.

burntsushi 11y ago

I have merely presented a core ethic of mine. If you want to delve into the particulars (I certainly don't in this thread), then I'd suggest reading other works by the OP. Answering your questions from my perspective would require introducing and applying concepts such as "ownership" and "property." (Although, others may not consider these necessary.) These words are so heavily overloaded that it's useless trying to use them in an online discussion forum. I note that most of the questions you have raised are a result of my simplistic formulation. Consider, for example, that I handed you the US constitution and said, "this is the law, use it." It is also a simplistic formulation, with respect to the body of law in the US today. Many of the questions you raised in your comment would be good questions to raise in this case too. The practice of this Constitution (or "ethic" in my case) will, in the process, answer lots of questions. I don't see any reason why this process doesn't apply in my case either. If all else fails, look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions. With respect to case law, it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic.

asgard1024 11y ago
I know everything is in the Bible, but I am interested in your beliefs! This is why I find libertarianism to be close to theology; when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book, which turns out to be hopelessly circular (as in the case of property, which is defined in terms of non-coercion, which is also defined in terms of property). It seems that you want to have world black and white, and so you invent new categories to deal with difficult moral dilemmas. But personal ethics is not something coming from a book, it's a result of intuitively answering these questions (by "feel") and sometimes accepting that there is no good answer, or that answer depends on different circumstances. > look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions .. it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic Yes and no - that's my original problem. When I ask you a specific moral question, the answer indeed seems quite reasonable. But then you're (very definitely) against things like taxation or state (which are integral part of the Western culture). I would like to understand where this contradiction comes from. Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, especially given you were the only person willing to respond to my original post.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  > when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book I would do exactly the same if it was a really difficult technical topic. Instead of spending a week writing a 10,000 word essay for you, I'd point you to someone else who has already done it. Feel free to trawl through my comments on HN. I regularly defer to some other source of information. It's just common sense. The comparison with theology is weird, considering that theology is based on the premise of revealed knowledge about the world. I've not invoked any such construct, so I don't see the similarities. > It seems that you want to have world black and white No, I don't actually. I just want to stop legitimizing coercion. > Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Frankly, this is beyond the scope of my ethic. For example, if you had read other works by the OP, you would know that there is indeed quite a bit of theory behind proportion. Your absolutist views on property are your own. I do not share them. I don't care what system of property you invent, even if it means eradicating property altogether. But if your system needs legitimized coercion, then I would find it immoral. It's really as simple as that. Finally, I'd also like to note that you seem to have ignored---or at least not acknowledged---my answer to your question. Namely, that being libertarian is somehow contrary to helping others. The entire point of my response was to demonstrate why this wasn't necessarily true, while acknowledging that there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree (because there are so many different flavors of libertarianism). The conversation has now devolved into an attempt to have me build up an entire theory of case law for you in HN comments. When I refused, I was compared with theologians. Personally, I don't find this progression of discussion to be in good faith. I responded to your initial comment because I feel very strongly about helping others, and it always pains me to see a common misconception about libertarianism used to paint all of its adherents under some evil light. (Because I do consider refusal to help others to be a sort of evil.) I love to help others and I know plenty of other libertarians who share that zeal. I tried to demonstrate this by pointing out the things I truly care about ("no coercion") in libertarianism and how they don't preclude helping others.