View source for An example of "Will you stop being violent?" (by being a statist.)

<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
[[Category:Mike Huben]]
[[Category:We libertarians are peaceful, statists are violent!]]
<!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.-->
{{URL | url = https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/5ev98l/u_city_loop_trolley_construction_completed_and/dagqffw/}}
<!-- {{Other URL | url = }} -->
<!-- {{Old URL | url = }} -->
{{End URL}}
{{DES | des = A fine example of a libertarian with no rational or supported argument claiming (a) he is rational, (b) accusing statists of being violent (c) claiming he is non-violent, (d) claiming "defensive" force is not violent, (e) redefining words to make his claims circular and (f) etc.  Repeatedly, more than 25 times in some responses. | show=}}
<!-- insert wiki page text here -->
<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them.  Use these explicit workarounds. -->
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}}  -->
{{List|title=An example of "Will you stop being violent?" (by being a statist.)|links=true}}
{{Quotations|title=An example of "Will you stop being violent?" (by being a statist.)|quotes=true}}

{{Text |
[–]mhuben 8 points 1 day ago 
What differentiates states from any peaceful market firm is that it exerts force not only defensively, but uses it violently against peaceful people.
Wow, now that is monstrously stupid. If market firms are peaceful, it is only because of the threat of the state. A little history of the Pinkertons, Blackwater, etc. shows that market firms can be every bit as violent. And when you think about it, mafias and the like are market firms, and are not renowned for their non-violence.
Switching from government to market does NOT change the demand for violence and coercion. What it does do is remove public oversight of the violence, leaving the unaccountable private firms to commit whatever violence they find most profitable. Think private militias in Columbia and El Salvador. That's not peaceful.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi -1 points 1 day ago 
Wow, now that is monstrously stupid.
Nope. It's correct.
If market firms are peaceful, it is only because of the threat of the state.
I agree that humans in general are susceptible to abusing power. We need to be defensive against that, but this does not require a state. In fact, the state itself frequently abuses power and permits favored businesses to do terrible things.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be vigilant. I'm saying let's not institutionalize the very violence we're trying to prevent.
A little history of the Pinkertons, Blackwater, etc. shows that market firms can be every bit as violent.
Great example of state-supported firms.
And when you think about it, mafias and the like are market firms,
No, they are much more akin to state entities. They use force to impose their will — the same way the state does — instead of voluntary choice as market firms do.
and are not renowned for their non-violence.
As with states.
Switching from government to market does NOT change the demand for violence and coercion.
It does if people understand why the switch is valuable. This is why I believe education about equal rights and non-violence is the best way forward.
What it does do is remove public oversight of the violence,
No, it doesn't. In markets firms are only successful if they provide value that others want to trade for. States circumvent this by using violence.
leaving the unaccountable private firms to commit whatever violence they find most profitable.
I am not advocating that we leave firms unaccountable. Just as we shouldn't tolerate state violence, we shouldn't tolerate it from others either.
Think private militias in Columbia and El Salvador. That's not peaceful.
I am arguing for a peaceful society. So let's not permit anyone to engage in it, regardless how popular or not they are.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 2 points 1 day ago 
In markets firms are only successful if they provide value that others want to trade for.
And numerous people want to buy violence against others. They do not want public oversight: they will pay to avoid it.
We live with a market for violence regulated by government. Unregulated markets would have much more free-market violence, as mafias demonstrate. And no, they are not governments: they illustrate the fact that there will always be people who want to head their own governments.
I'm saying let's not institutionalize the very violence we're trying to prevent.
You assume it is preventable: I assume that there will be some because many people will want it, no matter what system of propaganda you propose. Given that, we REGULATE the violence by institutionalizing it with public control, rather than allowing violent competition.
You want a peaceful society, and so you assume that that peaceful desires can be universal: but there will always be defectors who want to be a government. Government is a spontaneous order. The trick is to get a good, modern one.
You may not want to tolerate violence, state or private, but you have no mechanism to stop it besides wringing your hands with your moral superiority.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi 0 points 1 day ago* 
And numerous people want to buy violence against others. They do not want public oversight: they will pay to avoid it.
Again, I understand this occurs. People need to be aware of this and defend against it. This is why I defend equal rights and non-violence; the more who support such things the better off society is.
The problem you describe is not solved by creating an all-powerful monopoly of violence. The problem is made worse. Let's not institutionalize the thing we supposedly don't want.
We live with a market for violence regulated by government.
The government engages in a whole lot of violence, and is nearly completely unaccountable for it because it is legal and financed through theft.
This will continue in one form or another until people on a widespread scale value equal rights and non-violence. I'm asking you to value these things.
Unregulated markets would have much more free-market violence, as mafias demonstrate.
The mafias have been, without question, supported in large part by states. They also frequently arise because of unjust state-supported prohibitions.
And no, they are not governments:
They are very similar. They achieve their ends through force instead of choice. This is the very mechanism of the state.
they illustrate the fact that there will always be people who want to head their own governments.
Yes, the world has lots of terrible, violent people and even more who justify it.
Will you please not be one of those people?
You assume it is preventable: I assume that there will be some because many people will want it, no matter what system of propaganda you propose.
I believe making legal for some that which is not legal for others is completely unnecessary to defend against violence. What it does is assure there will be violence by its very nature because it infringes on equal rights.
If people like yourself wouldn't support violence, then we would have a less violent world.
Given that, we REGULATE the violence by institutionalizing it with public control,
Disgusting.
You are defending violence and pretending it's peace. It is not.
I will defend equal rights and non-violence instead.
rather than allowing violent competition.
I am not proposing we tolerate violence. I am proposing the exact opposite.
You want a peaceful society, and so you assume that that peaceful desires can be universal: but there will always be defectors who want to be a government.
You are one of them. Plainly so.
Government is a spontaneous order.
This argument could be used to "defend" any absurd form of violence. Humanity has shown we can be better than that, and I encourage us to continue doing so.
The trick is to get a good, modern one.
LOL. Good, modern violence. Hah.
You may not want to tolerate violence, state or private, but you have no mechanism to stop it besides wringing your hands with your moral superiority.
My method of stopping it is appealing to others to be peaceful people.
Will you stop being violent?
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 3 points 1 day ago 
Will you stop being violent?
Now that is another stupid, sanctimonious question. Nobody will stop being violent as long as anyone wants rights, because all rights are enforced ultimately by violence. Do you want to have property rights? Only violence will stop somebody from taking or using your property. Pacifism only works when it is protected by a violent state.
Societal violence can be minimized at best. Pacifists are parasitic on the violent defense of our social system. Even Costa Rica, which is unique in having no army, has police. We put our violent defense of our rights in the hands of modern governments because they are well known to reduce violence, as opposed to the history of private violence.
Markets will not exist without the violence required to retain ownership of something to exchange. Whether that is government or private violence. Pretending violence can be eliminated (rather than reduced) is a foolishly ignorant position.
I'm not going to address the rest of your bullshit.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi 0 points 1 day ago 
Now that is another stupid, sanctimonious question.
It's not. You're defending the concentration of force and use of violence to ostensibly prevent violence. I'm asking if you'll please stop supporting violence.
Nobody will stop being violent as long as anyone wants rights, because all rights are enforced ultimately by violence.
This isn't so. There is a very important distinction between defensive and aggressive/violent force.
Force is defensive when it is used to protect equal rights. There is no issue with this.
Force is violent when it is used to infringe on equal rights. This is what I am opposing: the use of force against peaceful people.
The state has a hand in both types. To the degree it defends equal rights, then great! This part of it is indistinguishable from a market firm. However the parts that are violent — including taxation which is how it funds all its activities — are not okay.
Do you want to have property rights? Only violence will stop somebody from taking or using your property. Pacifism only works when it is protected by a violent state.
No, defense is how we protect rights, not violence.
Societal violence can be minimized at best.
We can start by not institutionalizing it. Will you stop supporting that, please?
Pacifists are parasitic on the violent defense of our social system.
I think your misunderstanding of the difference between defensive force and aggressive force is at the root of your confusion.
Even Costa Rica, which is unique in having no army, has police. We put our violent defense of our rights in the hands of modern governments because they are well known to reduce violence, as opposed to the history of private violence.
I am fine with defense. It should be funded peacefully and be subject to competition.
Markets will not exist without the violence required to retain ownership of something to exchange. Whether that is government or private violence. Pretending violence can be eliminated (rather than reduced) is a foolishly ignorant position.
Again, I am fine with defensive force. I am not okay with violent force.
I'm not going to address the rest of your bullshit.
That is your prerogative. If you choose to, I will try my best to respond when I'm able.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 0 points 1 day ago 
The only difference between defensive and aggressive force is your frame of reference. If it is for things YOU want, you call it defensive. If it is for things other people want, you call it aggressive and violent. That's a typical narcissistic libertarian fallacy.
You say it yourself: for your idea of "defense", you feel free to use force. You wrote "force is defensive when..." That's no different than anybody else except true pacifists, and you are obviously not one.
The rest of your bullshit is simply aimed at redefining "force", "violence", "defense" and "aggressive" away from ordinary meanings so that the standard libertarian propaganda doesn't sound as outrageous. You are simply using a slightly different wording of the libertarian bullshit Non-Aggression Principle.
I'd tell you to go practice what you preach in Somalia, except that the people of Somalia have finally had enough and have instituted a government.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi 1 point 1 day ago 
The only difference between defensive and aggressive force is your frame of reference. If it is for things YOU want, you call it defensive. If it is for things other people want, you call it aggressive and violent. That's a typical narcissistic libertarian fallacy.
Nope, that's incorrect. The difference is whether the force is defensive of equal rights or whether it violates equal rights.
Equal rights means all those rights which everyone can hold at the same time in the same way. In other words, all negative rights and no positive rights.
You say it yourself: for your idea of "defense", you feel free to use force. You wrote "force is defensive when..." That's no different than anybody else except true pacifists, and you are obviously not one.
You're acting like there's no difference between defensive force and violence. There obviously is. That line is drawn between the equal rights of individuals.
The rest of your bullshit is simply aimed at redefining "force", "violence", "defense" and "aggressive" away from ordinary meanings so that the standard libertarian propaganda doesn't sound as outrageous. You are simply using a slightly different wording of the libertarian bullshit Non-Aggression Principle.
No, it's the opposition to a free society that do this. I am being very clear that aggressive force being used against peaceful people is violence regardless who it is doing it.
Authoritarians pretend that the state magically cannot commit violence when it's for those infringements on equal rights that they agree with.
I'd tell you to go practice what you preach in Somalia, except that the people of Somalia have finally had enough and have instituted a government.
This tripe about Somalia being a libertarian paradise is absurd. Its history is full of state-like entities using aggressive force against peaceful people. This is what I argue against.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 0 points 1 day ago 
Ah, the waffle-word "equal rights". Whatever you think are equal rights make violence defensive, and anybody who disagrees with your idea of equal rights is somebody you can violently oppress.
Equal rights means all those rights which everyone can hold at the same time in the same way.
Well, that eliminates property, since property rights are exclusive. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, liked to point out that private property is a monopoly granted and maintained by public authority at the public's expense.
But who made YOU the arbiter of what equal rights means? And who made YOU the arbiter of "defense" as "equal rights"?
In other words, all negative rights and no positive rights.
Don't I have an equal negative right to decide what equal rights are? And an equal right to enforce my own conception, which is quite different than yours? Your argument founders on its own premises, since we will end up fighting over what equal rights are.
You're acting like there's no difference between defensive force and violence.
Well, duh! Defensive force IS violent. Period. Violence may be described in some cases as defensive in somebody's opinion, but it is still violent.
And don't get me started on the violence you are wreaking on the ordinary meanings of English words.
This tripe about Somalia being a libertarian paradise is absurd. Its history is full of state-like entities using aggressive force against peaceful people.
There is no alternative to a state: spontaneous order will produce state-like entities in large enough populations. 6000+ years of history show this. I was suggesting that you go to Somalia so that you could witness it, since you are apparently too stupid to appreciate history.
And "peaceful people"? People are peaceful only when they are sufficiently intimidated by violence. Get rid of violence, and "peaceful people" will reinvent it. You cannot eliminate power: you can only harness it.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi 1 point 1 day ago 
Ah, the waffle-word "equal rights". Whatever you think are equal rights make violence defensive, and anybody who disagrees with your idea of equal rights is somebody you can violently oppress.
To whatever degree you'd like to apply this argument to my position, it can be applied equally to yours. It doesn't really refute anything.
Yes, ultimately there is a wrestle over the gun regarding what behaviors society — the individuals within it in large numbers — will or will not tolerate. What I am proposing is that reality is a certain way, and that we think rationally about what equal rights really are. That way we get to a conclusion that logically delineates violence (or aggressive force, if you're confused) vs. defensive force. I take for granted we both want a peaceful and prosperous society; let's have a system that actually gets us there.
Well, that eliminates property, since property rights are exclusive. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, liked to point out that private property is a monopoly granted and maintained by public authority at the public's expense.
Property rights come first from our equal ownership of ourselves. If we use a previously unclaimed resource, ingenuity, something we acquire through trade, etc. and produce value that others want, then we have improved the world both for ourselves and those around us. We have a right to maintain title over those things, as we have a higher claim than anyone else to them.
Property rights defense need not be financed through taxation.
If society values equal rights — yes, as I explain them and believe them to be correct — then property can be justly defended.
But who made YOU the arbiter of what equal rights means? And who made YOU the arbiter of "defense" as "equal rights"?
I believe we should think rationally about the subjects. I encourage you to do so and come to the conclusion I have about what equal rights are.
I believe the world would be more peaceful and prosperous if you and many others did.
Don't I have an equal negative right to decide what equal rights are? And an equal right to enforce my own conception, which is quite different than yours? Your argument founders on its own premises, since we will end up fighting over what equal rights are.
This is true of any position one could take on equal rights and defensive/violent force.
If one wishes society to behave as unintelligent animals, murdering and raping at will, then the argument you've laid out here is all that's necessary.
I'm saying that we can do better than that by rationally thinking about what rights mean. If we're to control force as you say, we should aim to do it so that it is used defensively and not aggressively in a logically justifiable way.
To do that, we want a system where there is equal protection under the law. Our current setup defies this on the very face of it: the so-called property protectors must expropriate from those it is supposedly protecting the property of, 'we' legalize for some what is illegal for others, 'we' use force against people who have used no force against others, and so on.
Well, duh! Defensive force IS violent. Period. Violence may be described in some cases as defensive in somebody's opinion, but it is still violent.
Well, I disagree on your definition of violence within the framework of rights. If you'd rather substitute it for 'aggressive' or something that better suits you, I won't mind.
And don't get me started on the violence you are wreaking on the ordinary meanings of English words.
I don't think I'm wreaking any havoc, but I'm sorry if our definitions don't match.
There is no alternative to a state: spontaneous order will produce state-like entities in large enough populations. 6000+ years of history show this.
6000+ years of history shows a progression towards more decentralized and free societies and positive results from it. Yes, to this point statism has prevailed, however as it has lost steam and markets have been liberalized we have become much better off.
I think rational thought and an understanding of economics shows that we have every reason to believe that continuing to have more free societies will lead to peace and prosperity.
I argue for non-violence and equal rights because I want to convince others of this fact.
I was suggesting that you go to Somalia so that you could witness it, since you are apparently too stupid to appreciate history.
I appreciate history. I agree that Somalia is a great example of statism's failure.
And "peaceful people"? People are peaceful only when they are sufficiently intimidated by violence. Get rid of violence, and "peaceful people" will reinvent it.
This doesn't refute my position any more than, to the degree it is even true, it refutes any other.
I'm not sure I believe this though. People have become generally more peaceful over time and I believe this is related to the decentralization of power that has occurred.
You cannot eliminate power: you can only harness it.
Okay. Well let's focus on doing so in a rational way so that we only use it defensively, not violently.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]goggimoggi 1 point 1 day ago 
Ah, the waffle-word "equal rights". Whatever you think are equal rights make violence defensive, and anybody who disagrees with your idea of equal rights is somebody you can violently oppress.
To whatever degree you'd like to apply this argument to my position, it can be applied equally to yours. It doesn't really refute anything.
Yes, ultimately there is a wrestle over the gun regarding what behaviors society — the individuals within it in large numbers — will or will not tolerate. What I am proposing is that reality is a certain way, and that we think rationally about what equal rights really are. That way we get to a conclusion that logically delineates violence (or aggressive force, if you're confused) vs. defensive force. I take for granted we both want a peaceful and prosperous society; let's have a system that actually gets us there.
Well, that eliminates property, since property rights are exclusive. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, liked to point out that private property is a monopoly granted and maintained by public authority at the public's expense.
Property rights come first from our equal ownership of ourselves. If we use a previously unclaimed resource, ingenuity, something we acquire through trade, etc. and produce value that others want, then we have improved the world both for ourselves and those around us. We have a right to maintain title over those things, as we have a higher claim than anyone else to them.
Property rights defense need not be financed through taxation.
If society values equal rights — yes, as I explain them and believe them to be correct — then property can be justly defended.
But who made YOU the arbiter of what equal rights means? And who made YOU the arbiter of "defense" as "equal rights"?
I believe we should think rationally about the subjects. I encourage you to do so and come to the conclusion I have about what equal rights are.
I believe the world would be more peaceful and prosperous if you and many others did.
Don't I have an equal negative right to decide what equal rights are? And an equal right to enforce my own conception, which is quite different than yours? Your argument founders on its own premises, since we will end up fighting over what equal rights are.
This is true of any position one could take on equal rights and defensive/violent force.
If one wishes society to behave as unintelligent animals, murdering and raping at will, then the argument you've laid out here is all that's necessary.
I'm saying that we can do better than that by rationally thinking about what rights mean. If we're to control force as you say, we should aim to do it so that it is used defensively and not aggressively in a logically justifiable way.
To do that, we want a system where there is equal protection under the law. Our current setup defies this on the very face of it: the so-called property protectors must expropriate from those it is supposedly protecting the property of, 'we' legalize for some what is illegal for others, 'we' use force against people who have used no force against others, and so on.
Well, duh! Defensive force IS violent. Period. Violence may be described in some cases as defensive in somebody's opinion, but it is still violent.
Well, I disagree on your definition of violence within the framework of rights. If you'd rather substitute it for 'aggressive' or something that better suits you, I won't mind.
And don't get me started on the violence you are wreaking on the ordinary meanings of English words.
I don't think I'm wreaking any havoc, but I'm sorry if our definitions don't match.
There is no alternative to a state: spontaneous order will produce state-like entities in large enough populations. 6000+ years of history show this.
6000+ years of history shows a progression towards more decentralized and free societies and positive results from it. Yes, to this point statism has prevailed, however as it has lost steam and markets have been liberalized we have become much better off.
I think rational thought and an understanding of economics shows that we have every reason to believe that continuing to have more free societies will lead to peace and prosperity.
I argue for non-violence and equal rights because I want to convince others of this fact.
I was suggesting that you go to Somalia so that you could witness it, since you are apparently too stupid to appreciate history.
I appreciate history. I agree that Somalia is a great example of statism's failure.
And "peaceful people"? People are peaceful only when they are sufficiently intimidated by violence. Get rid of violence, and "peaceful people" will reinvent it.
This doesn't refute my position any more than, to the degree it is even true, it refutes any other.
I'm not sure I believe this though. People have become generally more peaceful over time and I believe this is related to the decentralization of power that has occurred.
You cannot eliminate power: you can only harness it.
Okay. Well let's focus on doing so in a rational way so that we only use it defensively, not violently.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 0 points 1 day ago 
Yes, ultimately there is a wrestle over the gun regarding what behaviors society — the individuals within it in large numbers — will or will not tolerate.
So in other words, you've been a colossal hypocrite, asking me to be peaceful while you wield the gun in favor of your ideology.
What I am proposing is that reality is a certain way, and that we think rationally about what equal rights really are.
And you attempt to establish this with Orwellian newspeak style distortion of language rather than plain speaking. A plainly dishonest strategy: I have a lengthy page of such Libertarian Propaganda Terms.
Property rights come first from our equal ownership of ourselves.
Nope. No philosopher has a credible argument about that. See: Self-Ownership.
And even if self-ownership was an equal right, that doesn't mean rights derived from it are equal. Period.
Here's a simple and clear explanation of why your argument is illegitimate.
If society values equal rights — yes, as I explain them and believe them to be correct — then property can be justly defended.
Now that is pathetic. "If only you mean people simply gave up and let me rule the world, I'd be right!" Find some other sucker.
I'm saying that we can do better than that by rationally thinking about what rights mean. If we're to control force as you say, we should aim to do it so that it is used defensively and not aggressively in a logically justifiable way.
In other words, you want us to accept your bafflegab justifying your ideology. Sorry, your ideology is no more rational than any of the other ideologies. People just are not rational: that's a scientific fact, and a fact that makes vast profits for a number of industries (such as advertising, gambling, investments, etc.) Claims that you are rational and other people are not are laughable on their face.
I argue for non-violence and equal rights because I want to convince others of this fact.
Just like any other ideologue, Marxist, Communist, Islamic Fundamentalist, etc. Everything would be perfect under your caliphate! But you've already conceded that your system is based on guns: why do you continue to pretend it is non-violent? As long as you allow dissent you will need your guns, and you would need guns to continually eradicate dissent.
People have become generally more peaceful over time and I believe this is related to the decentralization of power that has occurred.
While people do seem to have become more peaceful over time, your belief that decentralization is the cause is unfounded and naive. There are enormous numbers of other factors that are alternative explanations, such as increased education levels (which are a result of the state.)
Okay. Well let's focus on doing so [harnessing power] in a rational way so that we only use it defensively, not violently.
Fine. Lets all decide equally: oh look! We've re-invented democracy! Funny that democracy doesn't automatically decide that your ideology is the one great truth. Funny that democracy results in taxes, armies, laws and regulations in addition to creating only limited property rights.
In summary, you lie that your ideas are non-violent, you distort the meanings of words to create circular logic for your claims of non-violence, you claim "rationality" for ideas without a coherent philosophical basis and you employ an irritatingly smarmy condescension based on certitude that you are the true believer prophet that knows the path to utopia. You are a typical crank. I recommend that you browse my site to see just how far your thinking has gone astray.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi 1 point 1 day ago* 
So in other words, you've been a colossal hypocrite, asking me to be peaceful while you wield the gun in favor of your ideology.
No. In other words, your thinking about the issue of defensive vs. violent force is extremely irrational and misguided. You've come to conclusions that lead you to act in ways towards other people that are counterproductive to a peaceful and prosperous society.
And you attempt to establish this with Orwellian newspeak style distortion of language rather than plain speaking. A plainly dishonest strategy: I have a lengthy page of such Libertarian Propaganda Terms.
No. I attempt to discuss this using very plain meanings of words.
Using force against peaceful people — people who have not used force against others — is despicable and disgusting. Will you please not be a violent person?
Nope. No philosopher has a credible argument about that. See: Self-Ownership. Here's a simple and clear explanation of why your argument is illegitimate.
Yep. This is the most logical way to think about the issue. I suggest that you think about it more.
Now that is pathetic. "If only you mean people simply gave up and let me rule the world, I'd be right!" Find some other sucker.
Lol. You keep making "arguments" as if they only apply to me.
I am defending a peaceful and prosperous society through the plain meaning of words and with an understanding of economics.
You defend violence. It's disgusting.
In other words, you want us to accept your bafflegab justifying your ideology. Sorry, your ideology is no more rational than any of the other ideologies.
This is plainly false. The world is a certain way.
It doesn't take a very intelligent person to realize that hitting people who have not hit others first is violent. Economics also demonstrates very clearly that a peaceful society is most productive.
The view I project is the rational way to achieve a more peaceful and prosperous society.
Supporting violence as you do is not a path towards that society. It is very rationally a path towards ruin.
Please choose to be a peaceful person who respects equal rights, not violence.
People just are not rational: that's a scientific fact,
Again, every single one of your arguments that you attempt to use against me can be used against any position. You have presented no arguments against my point of view.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” - Bastiat
and a fact that makes vast profits for a number of industries (such as advertising, gambling, investments, etc.)
You simply have no understanding of economics if you're complaining about profit.
I suggest you start with a basic introduction to economics with "Economics in One Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free online.
claims that you are rational and other people are not are laughable on their face.
I am a rational person, and I will defend non-violence and equal rights. I will not use force against peaceful people, or ever support such disgusting behavior.
Will you be a non-violent person?
Just like any other ideologue, Marxist, Communist, Islamic Fundamentalist, etc.
Everyone tries to argue for their ideas. Again, this equally applies to you.
The difference is that I my perspective is rational and consistent. Yours is not, and is violent.
Everything would be perfect under your caliphate!
Why doesn't this apply to your perspective?
And, no, I do not claim everything would be perfect. However, at least we would not be institutionalizing and supporting violence. That behavior is disgusting and I suggest you change so that you are less abusive towards others.
But you've already conceded that your system is based on guns: why do you continue to pretend it is non-violent?
It is non-violent because there is a rational delineation between defensive and violent force. So long as one generally values a peaceful and prosperous world, there are better and worse ways to setup a legal framework to make that happen. A system of equal rights as I've presented them is the better way. The violence you presumably support does not. It's just disgusting behavior.
As long as you allow dissent you will need your guns, and you would need guns to continually eradicate dissent.
I am arguing for a society where individuals value non-violence and equal rights. I know this is difficult because there are people like you in the world who would rather use force against peaceful people.
I'm saying that is absolutely disgusting, and you should change to be a better person.
While people do seem to have become more peaceful over time, your belief that decentralization is the cause is unfounded and naive.
It is not. It is rationally founded, which is a skill that you lack, it seems.
There are enormous numbers of other factors that are alternative explanations, such as increased education levels (which are a result of the state.)
Increased education levels are not primarily a result of the state. They are a direct result of liberalization of markets which has provided far more time and resources for other things like education, health care, etc.
This is just plainly so.
Fine. Lets all decide equally: oh look!
No. This is irrational.
We should not decide by some system of agreement depending on whatever people's whims are at the moment. We should think rationally about the issues instead and come up with a logical conclusion. That conclusion is a system of equal rights because it doesn't have contradictions like other systems. We don't need to use force against people who haven't used force against others. We don't need the property protectors to expropriate. We don't need to have some things legal for some which are illegal for others. And on top of it, economics shows very clearly that a free society is most prosperous. So, unless you support poverty and violence, then the system I have proposed is most rational towards accomplishing 'good' objectives.
We've re-invented democracy!
Yuck. Democracy is a terrible replacement for equal rights.
I recognize that until more people stop acting violently as you do, then some form of 'democracy' or worse will prevail. Again, I'm appealing to individuals to replace their disgusting desires to be violent and control others with a better form of reasoning about things.
Funny that democracy doesn't automatically decide that your ideology is the one great truth.
No, this is not funny. Popularity is not a valid method of determining what is true.
Funny that democracy results in taxes, armies, laws and regulations in addition to creating only limited property rights.
I'm not sure why this is funny. It's violent and disgusting.
Will you please stop being violent?
In summary, you lie that your ideas are non-violent,
No, you're just still thoroughly confused.
You seem to think that whatever is popular is "right" in some bigger sense. That whoever can wrestle the gun away most effectively is supreme leader who cannot be wrong.
That is nonsense.
There is a correct way to view the world. If one values peace and prosperity, as most do, there is a better rational way to achieve that world: non-violence and equal rights
you distort the meanings of words to create circular logic for your claims of non-violence,
I do not. Using force against a peaceful person is violence. It does not change that fact that you want to act that way towards your fellow man. It just makes you vile.
you claim "rationality" for ideas without a coherent philosophical basis
Not so.
and you employ an irritatingly smarmy condescension based on certitude that you are the true believer prophet that knows the path to utopia.
Again, this same argument — like all of your arguments — can be equally applied to your own perspective. It doesn't do anything to refute my position.
I do have a good understanding of what rationally leads to a peaceful and prosperous world. I suggest you listen to what I'm saying so that you can become a better, less violent person.
nYou are a typical crank.
I am not.
However you are a typical authoritarian, wanting to control the lives of others. It is absolutely, utterly disgusting and very counter-productive if one values a peaceful and prosperous society.
Please be a less violent person.
I recommend that you browse my site to see just how far your thinking has gone astray.
I will try to do so sometime. I have very little doubt that it is you who is monstrously confused.
Please stop supporting violence. Please stop using force against peaceful people. Please stop trying to control the lives of others. You can become a better person if only you'll try.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 1 point 1 day ago 
No. I attempt to discuss this using very plain meanings of words.
That is an outright lie: you plainly redefine words to support your views.
Yep. This is the most logical way to think about the issue. I suggest that you think about it more.
Wow. No attempt at argument, just "I'm right."
I am defending a peaceful and prosperous society... You defend violence. It's disgusting.
Bullshit. You already admitted that you wield the gun in favor of your ideology. That is violent. Period. I, on the other hand, recognize and admit the violence inherent in ANY human system. If you can pretend the violence is not there, it lets you justify any level of violence. That's why libertarianism is totalitarian.
It doesn't take a very intelligent person to realize that hitting people who have not hit others first is violent.
I suppose that's lucky for you, because you are not very intelligent. But neither does it require intelligence to realize that in order to have a right, you must hit others first who would ignore or deny it, and that is violent. Because you excuse the violence you like, you pretend that you are not violent.
Again, every single one of your arguments that you attempt to use against me can be used against any position. You have presented no arguments against my point of view.
Wow, you really are stupid. You claim non-violence is rational. I point out that people are irrational. That means your assumption is false, and any pretense of argument you make is based on a false assumption and thus logically fallacious. Learn some basic logic.
Your primary mode of argument is endless repetition of unfounded assertions that everybody should be a saint like you. I count 24 uses by you of the term violence, most of them accusing me of it while pretending that your ideology doesn't employ violence. Such incessant moronic repetition only illustrates that you have no real argument, you ignore requests for one, and that there isn't really a conversation.
33 years ago, in the early days of USENET, I coined a term for this style: tarbaby argument. A tarbaby is not a real opponent, just a punching bag that covers you with goo. You may get in all the good punches, and destroy the tarbaby, but what do you have to show for it?
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi [score hidden] 23 hours ago 
That is an outright lie: you plainly redefine words to support your views.
I do not. It is violent to use force against a peaceful person who poses no threat to others.
You act like the way to think rationally is to take a vote, and then accept what the majority says as fact.
That is nonsensical. There are better ways to arrive at consistent, rational thoughts. Popularity does not make right, and neither does might.
Wow. No attempt at argument, just "I'm right."
And, again, you are doing the exact same thing you falsely accuse me of here. This is not an argument against my position specifically in any way whatsoever.
I am showing that I am correct by explaining my position rationally. The state is violent and infringes on equal rights because it makes legal for some what is illegal for others. This is a logical issue.
You are attempting to justify your position based on what most voters happen to think, regardless whether or not it is rational or consistent. That's a poor method of 'thinking'.
Bullshit. You already admitted that you wield the gun in favor of your ideology.
There is a natural, logical, rational reality that defines what is violent and what is defensive. That framework is equal rights. This means that under the law all individuals must be treated equally.
That is violent. Period.
No, it is not. It is defensive because it protects equal rights.
I, on the other hand, recognize and admit the violence inherent in ANY human system.
Well, you define violence differently, which we have discussed. You seem to think that there is no rationality to be had, and therefore all force is the same.
This is not so.
If you can pretend the violence is not there, it lets you justify any level of violence.
No, quite to the contrary. You pretend that any force is okay so long as it is accepted by the majority. This is defending the indefensible.
I'm appealing to reason and logic to say, no, there's a better way at determining what is actually real and consistent.
That's why libertarianism is totalitarian.
Lol. This is just laughable.
I am proposing a system where the law treats everyone the same. You are proposing a system where the strongest men who grab the gun most effectively are treated as though they are right. That's ridiculous and violent.
Will you please stop being a violent person?
I suppose that's lucky for you, because you are not very intelligent.
This is completely false. I am an intelligent person.
But neither does it require intelligence to realize that in order to have a right, you must hit others first who would ignore or deny it, and that is violent.
No, because again there are more rational ways to think about the world.
I agree with you that at the end of the day the people with the guns get to impose their will. The point is that who has the guns has absolutely no bearing on who is actually right about the matter.
Because you excuse the violence you like, you pretend that you are not violent.
No, I am non-violent because I protect equal rights and equal protection under the law.
You pretend that majorities' whims are somehow right and just always by virtue of them holding the gun.
That is irrational.
Wow, you really are stupid.
No, I am not stupid. You are incorrect.
You claim non-violence is rational.
Yes, non-violence as I've defined it is the best way to create a more peaceful and prosperous world for everybody. Economics tells us this.
I point out that people are irrational.
So you're trying to rationally explain to me that people are irrational? Why does that apply more to me than it does to you?
That means your assumption is false, and any pretense of argument you make is based on a false assumption and thus logically fallacious. Learn some basic logic.
I understand logic, and that sentence is absurd. If I am unable to be rational, than so are you.
I believe rationality is possible. It is accomplished by thinking logically and coming up with consistent frameworks.
Your primary mode of argument is endless repetition of unfounded assertions that everybody should be a saint like you.
I am appealing to reason, and, to some degree, basic humanity. I do expect you to not infringe on others' equal rights. You seem to really want to do that, and it makes you a violent person. Please be a better person.
I count 24 uses by you of the term violence, most of them accusing me of it while pretending that your ideology doesn't employ violence.
My ideology does not employ violence because it rationally protects equal rights. Your position does use violence because it uses force against peaceful people.
Such incessant moronic repetition only illustrates that you have no real argument, you ignore requests for one, and that there isn't really a conversation.
My position is rational and well founded.
33 years ago, in the early days of USENET, I coined a term for this style: tarbaby argument. A tarbaby is not a real opponent, just a punching bag that covers you with goo. You may get in all the good punches, and destroy the tarbaby, but what do you have to show for it?
I don't care about your term. My position is rational.
Let me ask you, as an example: do you support the war on drugs? Do you think it is just to violently raid people's houses who engage in an activity some disagree with, even though they haven't harmed others in the process? Why or why not?
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 1 point 23 hours ago 
We're done. You've simply re-illustrated my points. Enjoy your delusions.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi [score hidden] 23 hours ago 
Lol. All out of irrational ways of thinking about the world?
I do wonder how you would go about answering my question about whether you support the drug war or not and why.
I encourage you to think more logically about things. It is not so that might makes right, even if it is effective at imposing one's will. There are better ways to think and come to meaningful conclusions.
The result, if you choose to do this, is that you'll be a less violent individual and the world will be better off for it.
Thank you for the conversation.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 1 point 22 hours ago 
I have an entire web site with 2000+ links to criticisms of libertarianism and any number of my own writings. If you are too lazy to look, you don't deserve a response.
Fuck you for your annoying idiocy.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
[–]goggimoggi [score hidden] 22 hours ago 
I'm pretty sure I've encountered all of the fallacious "arguments" on your website before, but like I said I may check it out sometime (if for no other reason than sheer amusement).
I mean, I'm talking to a person who thinks other humans are hopelessly irrational, but that the way to come to right conclusions is to ask those same humans for their mass opinion. If that doesn't satisfy you, we can ask the guy who has successfully wrestled the gun away, because we know authoritarians are always right. Lol.
Of course I don't think you actually reason through all issues that way. It's just a convenient excuse when rationality doesn't align with your perverse desire to use violence to control other people.
Compare and contrast to my perspective, which is that it's okay if others disagree with me and I have no need to control them — so long as they are not infringing on the logical equal rights of others.
I am not an idiot. My argument is rational and consistent, while yours relies on "might makes right", which is just demonstrably false.
I also don't think you're annoying really. I think you're utterly confused and are an authoritarian.
Please be a less violent person. We'd all be better off if you were.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]mhuben 1 point 21 hours ago 
Blah blah, no argument, just endlessly repeated, bogus, evidence-less claims and accusations. It must be sad to have such a meaningless and endless loop going on in your head.
permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply
}}