4 ms·

I absolutely 100% agree with that statement. Acting in an immoral fashion that violates the non-aggression principle is a fundamental step toward a "modern nati

I absolutely 100% agree with that statement. Acting in an immoral fashion that violates the non-aggression principle is a fundamental step toward a "modern nation-state." But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives. The major difference is that an AC homestead would be voluntary, while a social contract imposed at birth is involuntary. And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing.

danans 6y ago
> But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives. That's a lovely principle, but it means little without enforcement. How would property rights be enforced in anarcho-capitalist society without a system of property laws, courts to adjudicate them, and law enforcement? > And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing. Every real-world society is more complicated than the models we use to describe them. These things all exist on multiple spectra. Socialist Northern Europe is not perfectly or fairly distributive of wealth. Some people in Afghanistan have their property rights enforced by the state. But on balance, the enforcement of property rights in a country with a weak state like Afghanistan is lower than in Northern Europe, especially the further you get from the government's seat of power. At least today, a warlord cannot take over a town in Belgium and forcibly take over a section of houses to build a garrison. State enforcement of property rights is the stable foundation on which higher level societal productivity happens. Without it, there are no factories, no secure supply lines, limited commerce and communication. The GDP of most advanced nations would vaporize.
- bofadeez 6y ago
  I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level. I like to think that's not true. Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good. You're just trying to morally justify it for practicality.
  - danans 6y ago
    > I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level. No, I'm saying you can't make a stable practical system that protects property rights that doesn't use monopolies of violence at some scale. > Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good. Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group?
    - bofadeez 6y ago
      >No, I'm saying you can't make a stable practical system that protects property rights that doesn't use monopolies of violence at some scale. Monopolizing and using violence to enforce involuntary contracts is already a violation of property rights. So it's impossible to have the two simultaneously. You're referring to a limited form of property rights at the expense of moral rationality that more resembles a feudal system. > Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group? Do you realize you're saying that one group needs to initiate violence (in the form of law enforcement over a social contract imposed at birth) so that we can protect people from violence? You're initiating violence against peaceful people to achieve some political agenda. “they who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
      - danans 6y ago
        > Do you realize you're saying that one group needs to initiate violence (in the form of law enforcement over a social contract imposed at birth) You can describe it in inflammatory sounding terms, but it is the basis of all large human societies, regardless of the model of governance they subscribe to. Please describe the alternative that is free from the monopoly on violence, and please provide examples.
        bofadeez 6y ago
        > Please describe the alternative that is free from the monopoly on violence, and please provide examples. Sure - just a government that, while perhaps monopolizing most violence, also protects citizens' rights to bear arms as a competitive force. And not compelling anyone to enter into contracts like Social Security. As long as every single government expense is the minimum necessary intervention to protect property, that's fine with me. You aren't actually even advocating for anything outside of a monopoly over violence. If that's all you support, that's a very extreme libertarian position to have, so we're not far off. But I suspect you're using this as a method to just try to win a debate and justify your immoral belief system. We should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that immoral actions are necessary but should be minimized. I was originally replying to a self-described communist. You're here debating the nuances of how extreme you can be as a libertarian before it becomes impractical.

danans 6y ago

> But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives. That's a lovely principle, but it means little without enforcement. How would property rights be enforced in anarcho-capitalist society without a system of property laws, courts to adjudicate them, and law enforcement? > And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing. Every real-world society is more complicated than the models we use to describe them. These things all exist on multiple spectra. Socialist Northern Europe is not perfectly or fairly distributive of wealth. Some people in Afghanistan have their property rights enforced by the state. But on balance, the enforcement of property rights in a country with a weak state like Afghanistan is lower than in Northern Europe, especially the further you get from the government's seat of power. At least today, a warlord cannot take over a town in Belgium and forcibly take over a section of houses to build a garrison. State enforcement of property rights is the stable foundation on which higher level societal productivity happens. Without it, there are no factories, no secure supply lines, limited commerce and communication. The GDP of most advanced nations would vaporize.

bofadeez 6y ago
I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level. I like to think that's not true. Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good. You're just trying to morally justify it for practicality.
- danans 6y ago
  > I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level. No, I'm saying you can't make a stable practical system that protects property rights that doesn't use monopolies of violence at some scale. > Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good. Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group?
  - bofadeez 6y ago
    >No, I'm saying you can't make a stable practical system that protects property rights that doesn't use monopolies of violence at some scale. Monopolizing and using violence to enforce involuntary contracts is already a violation of property rights. So it's impossible to have the two simultaneously. You're referring to a limited form of property rights at the expense of moral rationality that more resembles a feudal system. > Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group? Do you realize you're saying that one group needs to initiate violence (in the form of law enforcement over a social contract imposed at birth) so that we can protect people from violence? You're initiating violence against peaceful people to achieve some political agenda. “they who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    - danans 6y ago
      > Do you realize you're saying that one group needs to initiate violence (in the form of law enforcement over a social contract imposed at birth) You can describe it in inflammatory sounding terms, but it is the basis of all large human societies, regardless of the model of governance they subscribe to. Please describe the alternative that is free from the monopoly on violence, and please provide examples.
      - bofadeez 6y ago
        > Please describe the alternative that is free from the monopoly on violence, and please provide examples. Sure - just a government that, while perhaps monopolizing most violence, also protects citizens' rights to bear arms as a competitive force. And not compelling anyone to enter into contracts like Social Security. As long as every single government expense is the minimum necessary intervention to protect property, that's fine with me. You aren't actually even advocating for anything outside of a monopoly over violence. If that's all you support, that's a very extreme libertarian position to have, so we're not far off. But I suspect you're using this as a method to just try to win a debate and justify your immoral belief system. We should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that immoral actions are necessary but should be minimized. I was originally replying to a self-described communist. You're here debating the nuances of how extreme you can be as a libertarian before it becomes impractical.