7 ms·

Libertarians like to make this argument about any government enforcement action. If the government tells you that you can't play loud music after 10pm and you

Libertarians like to make this argument about any government enforcement action. If the government tells you that you can't play loud music after 10pm and you do it anyway, eventually someone will issue you a citation. If you refuse to pay that, eventually you'll get a court summons. If you fail to appear, eventually a police officer may arrest you. If you resist, they will use force to make you comply. It's a bit hyperbolic, but it is a standard libertarian/objectivist "gotcha".

betwixthewires 5y ago
It's a pretty solid gotcha.
- learc83 5y ago
  It's a terrible gotcha. It's only effective on people who already agree with you. Imagine a town council meeting where someone is proposing a $25 fine for crapping on the sidewalk. And a libertarian pops and screaming "You're saying you want to use violence up to and including murder to keep our sidewalks clean!" Again technically there is a hypothetical chain of causality from sidewalk crapping fine to bodily harm/murder, but no one other than another hardcore libertarian is going to be convinced by that argument.
  - ta07643887 5y ago
    Absolute nonsense. It’s merely walking through the chain of events and realizing that all dictates are backed by force. The fact that people “don’t agree” means they’re morons. It is fact.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Well it's not saying "nothing should be enforced ever because all enforcement is backed by violence", it is just acknowledging the reality of it and then determining if a particular rule justifies that, and then farther down, if a rule enforced by violence is unjust, determining whether the enforcing party is an enemy or not. Generally libertarians only allow for rules against behaviors that violate the rights of others because of this, and I think that's about right.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    > You're saying you want to use violence up to and including murder to keep our sidewalks clean! Because that's what you _are_ saying. Laws are enforced by the police, and they are able to be enforced by the police because the police are legally able to use force. I do not understand what other view there is to take on the issue. In my mind, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.
tomjen3 5y ago
It isn't a gotcha, it is just thinking through the second, third, etc order of what you are proposing.
- rafaelero 5y ago
  Which it is totally worth it when the counterfactual would be a dumbass playing loud music every night. Is there another solution to this that doesn't require ultimately the use of force?
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    There are plenty of options in between "person breaks law" and "person is the subject of lawful violence". They include things like warnings, fines, and the like. However, all _those_ things are backed by the possibility of the end result being violence. All of them follow a path of either the person doing what they're supposed to... or violence. The only variables are the number of steps until you get to violence... or the person doing what they're supposed to... or the rest of the society deciding to change the definition of "supposed to do".

betwixthewires 5y ago

It's a pretty solid gotcha.

learc83 5y ago
It's a terrible gotcha. It's only effective on people who already agree with you. Imagine a town council meeting where someone is proposing a $25 fine for crapping on the sidewalk. And a libertarian pops and screaming "You're saying you want to use violence up to and including murder to keep our sidewalks clean!" Again technically there is a hypothetical chain of causality from sidewalk crapping fine to bodily harm/murder, but no one other than another hardcore libertarian is going to be convinced by that argument.
- ta07643887 5y ago
  Absolute nonsense. It’s merely walking through the chain of events and realizing that all dictates are backed by force. The fact that people “don’t agree” means they’re morons. It is fact.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Well it's not saying "nothing should be enforced ever because all enforcement is backed by violence", it is just acknowledging the reality of it and then determining if a particular rule justifies that, and then farther down, if a rule enforced by violence is unjust, determining whether the enforcing party is an enemy or not. Generally libertarians only allow for rules against behaviors that violate the rights of others because of this, and I think that's about right.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > You're saying you want to use violence up to and including murder to keep our sidewalks clean! Because that's what you _are_ saying. Laws are enforced by the police, and they are able to be enforced by the police because the police are legally able to use force. I do not understand what other view there is to take on the issue. In my mind, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

tomjen3 5y ago

It isn't a gotcha, it is just thinking through the second, third, etc order of what you are proposing.

rafaelero 5y ago
Which it is totally worth it when the counterfactual would be a dumbass playing loud music every night. Is there another solution to this that doesn't require ultimately the use of force?
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  There are plenty of options in between "person breaks law" and "person is the subject of lawful violence". They include things like warnings, fines, and the like. However, all _those_ things are backed by the possibility of the end result being violence. All of them follow a path of either the person doing what they're supposed to... or violence. The only variables are the number of steps until you get to violence... or the person doing what they're supposed to... or the rest of the society deciding to change the definition of "supposed to do".