4 ms·

> I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face

> I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring.

krapp 13y ago
Surely the libertarian model amounts to something more productive than "the state will shoot you if you aren't ready to shoot them first?"
- msandford 13y ago
  Yeah it's more about people interacting in a voluntary manner. The first and probably last rule of libertarian philosophy is that it's not OK to initiate aggression against others. So two individuals entering into a contract is OK but one person threatening another with violence is not. The fact that the state/government has a monopoly on violence means that your interactions with them aren't necessarily voluntary. Many people don't have a problem with paying for roads, or some semblance of a military, or schools or whatnot. But the very nature of a state is that if you don't do what it tells you to, you have no recourse. Someone might not put a gun to your head but you have to know that there's no negotiation.
  - anthonyb 13y ago
    > you have no recourse ... you have to know that there's no negotiation Bullshit. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/civil-disobedience-sanchez-gordillo http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/civil-d...
    - msandford 13y ago
      If you perform civil disobedience you can and probably will get arrested. It happens all the time. Choosing to break an unjust law doesn't mean that a judge will understand the injustice of it and let you go free, nor is there any assurance that jury would acquit you. That's what I mean when I say "there's no negotiation" Once a police officers decides to arrest you all negotiations have ceased and they may do whatever the law tells them to, or whatever the law lets them get away with, or perhaps a bit more.
anthonyb 13y ago
Or legal action! Of course, shooting people over "legal action" sounds crazy, so to make yourself sound better you'd better keep talking about guns. Edit: Here's a good example of the alternative to shooting people, from Bob Brown, former leader of the Greens here in Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-always-stand-up-to-be-counted-and-youll-likely-be-shot-down-20130110-2cixc.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-... a) it works, and b) if you can't find 1000 people who are also willing to come and protest, perhaps your cause isn't that worthwhile?

> I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring.

krapp 13y ago

Surely the libertarian model amounts to something more productive than "the state will shoot you if you aren't ready to shoot them first?"

msandford 13y ago
Yeah it's more about people interacting in a voluntary manner. The first and probably last rule of libertarian philosophy is that it's not OK to initiate aggression against others. So two individuals entering into a contract is OK but one person threatening another with violence is not. The fact that the state/government has a monopoly on violence means that your interactions with them aren't necessarily voluntary. Many people don't have a problem with paying for roads, or some semblance of a military, or schools or whatnot. But the very nature of a state is that if you don't do what it tells you to, you have no recourse. Someone might not put a gun to your head but you have to know that there's no negotiation.
- anthonyb 13y ago
  > you have no recourse ... you have to know that there's no negotiation Bullshit. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/civil-disobedience-sanchez-gordillo http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/civil-d...
  - msandford 13y ago
    If you perform civil disobedience you can and probably will get arrested. It happens all the time. Choosing to break an unjust law doesn't mean that a judge will understand the injustice of it and let you go free, nor is there any assurance that jury would acquit you. That's what I mean when I say "there's no negotiation" Once a police officers decides to arrest you all negotiations have ceased and they may do whatever the law tells them to, or whatever the law lets them get away with, or perhaps a bit more.

anthonyb 13y ago

Or legal action! Of course, shooting people over "legal action" sounds crazy, so to make yourself sound better you'd better keep talking about guns. Edit: Here's a good example of the alternative to shooting people, from Bob Brown, former leader of the Greens here in Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-always-stand-up-to-be-counted-and-youll-likely-be-shot-down-20130110-2cixc.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-... a) it works, and b) if you can't find 1000 people who are also willing to come and protest, perhaps your cause isn't that worthwhile?