3 ms·

Because "force" means you're not willing to talk and argue your point. You are advocating that someone can pull a gun to other people's head and make them do wh

Because "force" means you're not willing to talk and argue your point. You are advocating that someone can pull a gun to other people's head and make them do what he wants, and this is unsustainable, detestable and immoral. So you should care because I am advocating a philosophy that is cogent and supporting of a peaceful society, while what you are arguing is the opposite of that.

mikeash 12y ago
The Libertarian conceit that theirs is the only moral way to govern, and all the rest of us are amoral scumbags, is a piss-poor way to make a point.
- innguest 12y ago
  I'd like to point out that you have ascribed to me some sense of scorn towards others, and that you have insulted my approach to argumentation, but that that does not constitute a refutation and does not address the points I'm making.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    You're right, I didn't. The main thing I wanted to know about your original post is why your morals are relevant to my opinions, and you didn't answer that, but just repeated the standard annoying Libertarian line that libertarianism is the only moral political philosophy.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > why your morals are relevant to my opinions Please show an excerpt where I imply that my morals are relevant to your opinions. When I say 'I have a moral problem with your willingness to "force" someone to do something' I mean 'I can refute it on moral grounds'. The refutation being, forcing someone/a monopoly/a group of people/a corporation to act against its incentives is perverse (it minimizes freedom) and especially so when there are alternatives that are not perverse and that maximize freedom, which is competition. I think you're overcomplicating this.
- Prophasi 12y ago
  The libertarian view is that pretty much everything is fine as long as everyone involved is participating willingly. Consider the ramifications: with voluntarism as nearly the only requirement, libertarianism is a substrate for communities to layer additional rules on top as befit their values: socialist communes, gun-free zones, drug markets, shared libraries, required weapons training, a Greek-style local democracy, whatever. Two communities can be diametrically opposed in their values, sharing only the common tenet that everyone participates voluntarily. Of course it's impossible to pull off: can kids born in each community be considered voluntary participants? Can someone revoke their rights for the rest of their life with the stroke of a pen? How does someone traveling through these places even keep track of the laws (we see this with states already)? Lots of difficult/impossible/senseless questions arise. But it's a thought experiment: absent religious considerations, is there a more moral system that allowing everyone to voluntarily interact with others in only those ways that are mutually beneficial? Those details aside, if allowing as many people to craft their life experiences as voluntarily as possible is of merit, investing great power in a central power governing over 300 million people is an extremely poor way to achieve it.

mikeash 12y ago

The Libertarian conceit that theirs is the only moral way to govern, and all the rest of us are amoral scumbags, is a piss-poor way to make a point.

innguest 12y ago
I'd like to point out that you have ascribed to me some sense of scorn towards others, and that you have insulted my approach to argumentation, but that that does not constitute a refutation and does not address the points I'm making.
- mikeash 12y ago
  You're right, I didn't. The main thing I wanted to know about your original post is why your morals are relevant to my opinions, and you didn't answer that, but just repeated the standard annoying Libertarian line that libertarianism is the only moral political philosophy.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > why your morals are relevant to my opinions Please show an excerpt where I imply that my morals are relevant to your opinions. When I say 'I have a moral problem with your willingness to "force" someone to do something' I mean 'I can refute it on moral grounds'. The refutation being, forcing someone/a monopoly/a group of people/a corporation to act against its incentives is perverse (it minimizes freedom) and especially so when there are alternatives that are not perverse and that maximize freedom, which is competition. I think you're overcomplicating this.
Prophasi 12y ago
The libertarian view is that pretty much everything is fine as long as everyone involved is participating willingly. Consider the ramifications: with voluntarism as nearly the only requirement, libertarianism is a substrate for communities to layer additional rules on top as befit their values: socialist communes, gun-free zones, drug markets, shared libraries, required weapons training, a Greek-style local democracy, whatever. Two communities can be diametrically opposed in their values, sharing only the common tenet that everyone participates voluntarily. Of course it's impossible to pull off: can kids born in each community be considered voluntary participants? Can someone revoke their rights for the rest of their life with the stroke of a pen? How does someone traveling through these places even keep track of the laws (we see this with states already)? Lots of difficult/impossible/senseless questions arise. But it's a thought experiment: absent religious considerations, is there a more moral system that allowing everyone to voluntarily interact with others in only those ways that are mutually beneficial? Those details aside, if allowing as many people to craft their life experiences as voluntarily as possible is of merit, investing great power in a central power governing over 300 million people is an extremely poor way to achieve it.