8 ms·

>> The paradox of tolerance has been a major problem in liberal philosophy for a long, long time. The simplistic notion of "Don't force them" just refuses to en

>> The paradox of tolerance has been a major problem in liberal philosophy for a long, long time. The simplistic notion of "Don't force them" just refuses to engage with any kind of depth, and in doing so, perverts and defeats itself. Nope, the idea of not forcing anyone to do anything is rooted in the Non-Aggression Principle, which stipulates that any initiation of force (violence/coercion) is forbidden. The flipside of this is that everything should be voluntary. It makes sense if you allow yourself to think about it for a moment. Never mind "but self-defense is violence too!!" - that is clearly seen for the distraction it is, when you draw the line at initiating violence. The aggressor is always in the wrong. This fits together perfectly with The Golden Rule too: don't do anything to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself. In reality, there are no "victimless crimes". Whenever someone gets thrown into jail for being in possession of a certain plant, there is no victim, and no crime. Laws represent coercion one way or another. It's either: 1) don't do this or you will be punished, or 2) do this or you will be punished. Now, when people get punished for attempting to keep their property, something is very wrong. Who's the victim of you trying to keep your property? -No one. OK then, who's the victim in taxation.. ? -Why it's you, of course.

steveklabnik 13y ago
The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. People have very significant disagreements about these definitions. Furthermore, it only makes sense in an alternate reality where we're re-set to zero. The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "rob"? What does it mean to "force someone to do something"? Have you got an inkling, perhaps? >> The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible. Why would it need to? It's not a system of social organization, it's a principle. But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. Sure, not everyone does. But even their choices and actions have consequences, and that's not about to change either way.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. > But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring to, exactly. But property is based on property rights, is it not? It makes no sense to think that you have no rights in the absence of a government. Think about it. If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? -Of course you would. Governments have nothing to do with that. >> If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless The statement means what it means, even if only as a sentence. But look, I already acknowledged that not everyone adheres to the NAP. That can't be helped now, and it probably can't be helped ever. But the number of people who aggress against others can sure be reduced through peaceful, sensible, consistent parenting, for example. The fact that not every single goddamn human being out there is good is not a reason to dismiss libertarian/free-market/anarchist ideas. You'll have to do way better than that, but ultimately, you'll find that reason, logic, and evidence should / can not be dismissed at all.
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'
        anoncowherd 13y ago

steveklabnik 13y ago

The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. People have very significant disagreements about these definitions. Furthermore, it only makes sense in an alternate reality where we're re-set to zero. The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "rob"? What does it mean to "force someone to do something"? Have you got an inkling, perhaps? >> The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible. Why would it need to? It's not a system of social organization, it's a principle. But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. Sure, not everyone does. But even their choices and actions have consequences, and that's not about to change either way.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. > But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring to, exactly. But property is based on property rights, is it not? It makes no sense to think that you have no rights in the absence of a government. Think about it. If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? -Of course you would. Governments have nothing to do with that. >> If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless The statement means what it means, even if only as a sentence. But look, I already acknowledged that not everyone adheres to the NAP. That can't be helped now, and it probably can't be helped ever. But the number of people who aggress against others can sure be reduced through peaceful, sensible, consistent parenting, for example. The fact that not every single goddamn human being out there is good is not a reason to dismiss libertarian/free-market/anarchist ideas. You'll have to do way better than that, but ultimately, you'll find that reason, logic, and evidence should / can not be dismissed at all.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'
      - anoncowherd 13y ago