4 ms·

Interesting that the libertarian solution to someone violating your rights seems to be to violate their rights back in even more spectacular and violent fashion

Interesting that the libertarian solution to someone violating your rights seems to be to violate their rights back in even more spectacular and violent fashion.

krapp 13y ago
It's not really violence if it's the government you're killing, I guess... Though this might not be so much a libertarian solution as an example of the degree to which libertarian ideals can be twisted to achieve the sort of ends they claim to fight against.
- anthonyb 13y ago
  "Killing the government" is a euphemism. He's talking about killing government employees who implement things you don't like. What you're ultimately talking about is terrorism - if you're a government employee, don't do bad things* or we might "predict" your death. The choice they're presenting seems to be either bad, violent actors in government, or bad, violent lynch mobs. *Where "bad things" might be anything from "invading Iraq" to "free healthcare".
  - krapp 13y ago
    And it's no small leap to extend that to any government employee, to the party, to anyone who votes for the party, to anyone whose politics you just don't agree with...
msandford 13y ago
In a just world do you lose rights when you violate another's? Most people would accept that it's moral for someone who's threatened with a gun by another to kill that other person, thus preserving their own life. Many would still accept as moral the same situation, but where the assailant has a knife. Many would again accept as moral everything the same, except instead of someone intent to kill with a knife, an assailant who only intended to rob. Robbery is taking a thing against the wishes/desires/rights of another. Some might argue that the government collecting taxes is robbery by that definition and thus they have the moral right to defend their property with deadly force. The government certainly will use force to ensure that it gets it's taxes. They won't shoot you but they will take away your freedom and the only way they can do that is with force or the threat of force. At what point do you disagree with that line of thinking? Why? I'm not trolling you, genuinely curious.
- anthonyb 13y ago
  In this case, there is no overt threat - the government employee is not holding a gun to your head, so you have no right to kill him. Most people are not very even handed when they feel that their rights have been violated, so it tends to lead to escalation, and tribal/gang style violence, tit-for-tat. It's much better IMO for a society to deal with disputes by legal means, not by stalking, harassing and killing each other, eg. if I shoot you in self defence, then that's 1 person's worth of productivity lost to the world, similarly if I harass you and threaten you at your home address (0.5 x PP?). And yes, if you consistently violate other people's rights, or act with poor judgement, then you should lose rights. For example, if you're in the US and threaten people with a gun, you should lose the right to carry a gun, or the right to not be searched.
  - msandford 13y ago
    So immediate threats aren't OK but eventual ones are? I guess I can see how a person might think that way. What if the US had a post-earning tax where the tax collector had to physically come to your house and demand the money that the government said you owed it. And he was armed. And he made the threat of violence personally rather than through a large bureaucracy? Would that change things? Why or why not? Again, not trolling but genuinely interested. Agree 100% that people don't react well when they feel their rights are being violated. The loss of agency and personal sovereignty is a really big deal. I'm with you on the loss of rights examples you give up to a point. I'm totally on board with situational loss of rights (I threaten you with a gun and you're in the right to shoot me) but I'm less in favor of doing that systematically. Mostly because of how safe things are these days (I think quite good) versus the potential for abuse (I think quite high).
    - anthonyb 13y ago
      I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. The Rule of Law is one of modern societies great inventions, as long as all parties agree to abide by it. When they don't, organised opposition (eg. protests) and negotiation are usually far better at instigating change than randomly shooting back. It's very much an i-win-you-lose mindset, I don't think it's really based much in reality and I'd rather not live anywhere near a society based on those principles.
Houshalter 13y ago
All forms of punishment "violate their rights". Most libertarians are not pacifists, and most people in general approve of some kind of consequences for criminals.
nandemo 13y ago
It's not fair to call this "the" libertarian solution just because this guy proposes it and calls himself libertarian. I haven't seen Rothbard or Friedman advocating wanton killing of government employees.

Interesting that the libertarian solution to someone violating your rights seems to be to violate their rights back in even more spectacular and violent fashion.

krapp 13y ago

It's not really violence if it's the government you're killing, I guess... Though this might not be so much a libertarian solution as an example of the degree to which libertarian ideals can be twisted to achieve the sort of ends they claim to fight against.

anthonyb 13y ago
"Killing the government" is a euphemism. He's talking about killing government employees who implement things you don't like. What you're ultimately talking about is terrorism - if you're a government employee, don't do bad things* or we might "predict" your death. The choice they're presenting seems to be either bad, violent actors in government, or bad, violent lynch mobs. *Where "bad things" might be anything from "invading Iraq" to "free healthcare".
- krapp 13y ago
  And it's no small leap to extend that to any government employee, to the party, to anyone who votes for the party, to anyone whose politics you just don't agree with...

msandford 13y ago

In a just world do you lose rights when you violate another's? Most people would accept that it's moral for someone who's threatened with a gun by another to kill that other person, thus preserving their own life. Many would still accept as moral the same situation, but where the assailant has a knife. Many would again accept as moral everything the same, except instead of someone intent to kill with a knife, an assailant who only intended to rob. Robbery is taking a thing against the wishes/desires/rights of another. Some might argue that the government collecting taxes is robbery by that definition and thus they have the moral right to defend their property with deadly force. The government certainly will use force to ensure that it gets it's taxes. They won't shoot you but they will take away your freedom and the only way they can do that is with force or the threat of force. At what point do you disagree with that line of thinking? Why? I'm not trolling you, genuinely curious.

anthonyb 13y ago
In this case, there is no overt threat - the government employee is not holding a gun to your head, so you have no right to kill him. Most people are not very even handed when they feel that their rights have been violated, so it tends to lead to escalation, and tribal/gang style violence, tit-for-tat. It's much better IMO for a society to deal with disputes by legal means, not by stalking, harassing and killing each other, eg. if I shoot you in self defence, then that's 1 person's worth of productivity lost to the world, similarly if I harass you and threaten you at your home address (0.5 x PP?). And yes, if you consistently violate other people's rights, or act with poor judgement, then you should lose rights. For example, if you're in the US and threaten people with a gun, you should lose the right to carry a gun, or the right to not be searched.
- msandford 13y ago
  So immediate threats aren't OK but eventual ones are? I guess I can see how a person might think that way. What if the US had a post-earning tax where the tax collector had to physically come to your house and demand the money that the government said you owed it. And he was armed. And he made the threat of violence personally rather than through a large bureaucracy? Would that change things? Why or why not? Again, not trolling but genuinely interested. Agree 100% that people don't react well when they feel their rights are being violated. The loss of agency and personal sovereignty is a really big deal. I'm with you on the loss of rights examples you give up to a point. I'm totally on board with situational loss of rights (I threaten you with a gun and you're in the right to shoot me) but I'm less in favor of doing that systematically. Mostly because of how safe things are these days (I think quite good) versus the potential for abuse (I think quite high).
  - anthonyb 13y ago
    I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. The Rule of Law is one of modern societies great inventions, as long as all parties agree to abide by it. When they don't, organised opposition (eg. protests) and negotiation are usually far better at instigating change than randomly shooting back. It's very much an i-win-you-lose mindset, I don't think it's really based much in reality and I'd rather not live anywhere near a society based on those principles.

Houshalter 13y ago

All forms of punishment "violate their rights". Most libertarians are not pacifists, and most people in general approve of some kind of consequences for criminals.

nandemo 13y ago

It's not fair to call this "the" libertarian solution just because this guy proposes it and calls himself libertarian. I haven't seen Rothbard or Friedman advocating wanton killing of government employees.