The following discussion fragment is continued from this thread [how-do-libertarians-balance-property-rights-against-privacy-rights]. We were properly asked to move it elsewhere, which on this BBS happens to be here. Sorry folks, we can't help ourselves. We are discussing the Libertarian (&etc) NAP code or NAP calculus for determining in LiberLand what is PC (or whatever). Here is the discussion so far...

Would it be "Libertarian Correct" if a Libertarian unilaterally threatened or used violence on a person or group who refused to voluntarily recognize the legitimacy of Libertarian property rights? Under all circumstances? And since these others have no "social contract" and no voluntary contract with the violent Libertarian, how could the Libertarian justify his violence under the NAP (or whatever)?

OK, but how do you justify that using the NAP (or whatever)? If two people have no implied "social contract" and no explicit voluntary contract, what possible justification can a Libertarian have to unilaterally use violence.

How can people outside of the Capitalists system be subjected to Capitalists violence if they there is not something like a "social contract" binding them, against their wishes and will, to the Capitalists depredations? How do Libertarians (&etc) morally justify using violence unilaterally against all non-capitalist outsiders?

And then we were properly asked to take it elsewhere...

Well the two actors do not agree on the legitimacy of the self-proclaimed landlords rights. It is only "his property", he is only "the landlord", and the sailor is only a "trespasser" if we take the legitimacy of the General's claim's of property rights as a given. In this case it is matter under discussion, the exact opposite of a given. In other words my friend Montius here has assumed his conclusion, a classic logic failure.

The self-proclaimed landlord believes his claims of property rights are legitimate because be believes in the NAP (or whatever). The sailor believes the self-proclaimed landlord's claims of property rights are illegitimate. Just like people believe in different sky-men, or not. How do the Libertarians (&etc) justify unilateral violence in these kinds of situations?

And I know that *thought experiments* burden and discomfort my friend Montius. But reality is a cruel mistress, and the fact that is we can only think about what LiberLand would be like. Not to mention only imagine ACLand, in a non-Euclidean kinda way. So sadly (not), we can only use *thought experiments* to illuminate the dirty little corners of this sordid sad pseudo-philosophy. You know like it's ambivalence to embrace of slavery. So sorry dude, it's pretty much voluntary *thought experiments* for liberty until the non-revolution doesn't happen. Here we go...

Two dozen shipwreck victims wash up on Homestead Island, half Libertarians (&etc) and half (lower case) anarchists. The first few days the survivors forgot their differences, and by practicing mutual aid,and without leaders or followers, they managed to find out much about the island.

Homestead island was blessed with mild weather. Abundant wild orchards of orange, apple, and pizza trees dotted the island, as well as an unusually stoney hemp like plant. The only sources of water were three springs in easily defended canyons. The was no sign of any large animals ever living on the island, including humans. Despite the lack of game, the survivors found that they could easily survive by gathering about fifteen hours a week.

The Libertarians were despondent of course, because they assumed they were immorally "initiating violence" by doing nothing at all to an unknown and unknowing owner of the island. Several times they had be talked out of lemming like mass plunges into the sea to stop their own "violenct" behavior of simply surviving.

That is until they realized that they had landed on Homestead Island, which because during the Breakfast Wars Queen Jamima had give up claim to the Homestead Archipelago during the regency of the House of Pancakes, and therefore ... [insert LOL-idiotic Libertarian Homestead theory of choice] ... so Homestead island is still available for homesteading.

So the Libertarians set out one dark night. They get out their 20 sided dice and finally get to play DROs&Dragons for real. The two four Warrior-Elves (or whatever) get the three water companies owners and the private security company. The other eight lowly dungeon orcs whose hit points ran out to soon (or whatever, truly) volunteer to be security goons, despite the lifetime "reserve" clause in their contracts.

And then they proceeded to the springs where the "consummated" those contracts on the new employees, and where the lucky homesteaders shrugged their fountainheads until they mingled the jism of their labor with the dirt ... [insert LOL-idiotic Libertarian Homesteading ritual of choice]... and then by their own self-serving definition, access to the springs became subject the the rights property, their owned rights of property.

And the question remains... Why do the Libertarians feel they may correctly use or threaten violence unilaterally to keep the anarchists from using the springs? How can the Libertarians possible justify this under the NAP (or whatever) when there is no implicit "social contract" or explicit voluntary contract binding the two groups together?

Well I apologize I guess, but this is pretty much the definition of low content.

Anyway I would be happy to get a Libertarian Containment thread. Unfortunately I feel it would be improper for me to start one as I am only going to make fun of those goffyball dudes and their goffyball ideas. When I first started blogging on this BBS back in 1992 I asked the mods about this, this is what an unidentified mod PMed me back with...

Hey MissleDog, thanks for asking. Unfortunately I am going to have to say "no" to this kind of thread as it would just lead to pointless flame wars in our forum. Even if it is true that there is plenty to make fun of.

You do know that the uses of the word "anarchism" is coincidental, contradictory, and not at all indicative of being in of any "school" together. Kinda like the Roma people, Gypsy Moths, and the band Gypsy Kings are coincidental. Here me blog a condos worth of walls of text to explain the difference... Oh wait... Well played [phill], well played...

My response was of a funny nature, and have enjoyed the sport with which you spar with Montius. Start a thread, there is a good chance it may not draw other combatants, but will give you both a wall of text battle ground.

Wait a minute. How do you use aggression to promote non-aggression without committing hypocrisy?

By declaring the other side to be worse than the Nazis.

Edit:crazy dictator works too.
Edit 2:no ,it is not really hypocrisy if you believe it.

I know you're looking for your opponent to turn up, or some other AC-fantasist. But I give u the Evolian/traditional/perennialist perspective.

If you believe your civilisation superior to others who reject it, yet they seek to trespass in some way which either physically or culturally taints it, then you must do away with them in whatever manner necessary. Violence is always an option, even to maintain a civilisation of non-violence. It has always been so.

Life is about conflict, and those who lose their dominance deserve to. Life is hierarchical, antagonistic and inegalitarian, and no amount of high philosophy can change this.

This doesn't answer your question, because I'm not an ACist. You seek an answer from your opponent in terms of contract theory or utility or any other theory, you will be disappointed. Self-determination can only result from self-assertion.

The anarchists must join the libertarians' civilisation or go to war. The alternative is death. The libertarians must abandon/lose their civilization or go to war. So they have to weigh up the value of their civilization against the demerits of committing violence.

If non-aggression is their main thing, then really they are pacifists and it is not worth arguing with them because their civilization will never arise, not could it ever last, if they are not prepared to kill to maintain it.

In case of conflict with no preexisting due process arraignment, it comes down to a bidding war between counterparties to see who's the bad guy because he can't afford proper legal services. If your firm happens to have media affiliates with a bigger audience than your counterparty's, all the better to properly inform prospective jurors of your side of the story.

I would like to point out that while I did write the OP, I did not write the thread title. BTW, my original proposed title was "ITT we make fun of Libertarians". Sure it might sound hypocritical in normal English, but normal English is only partially relevant to Libertarianism (&etc).

In fact, since "aggression" is one of the Libertarians (&etc) "special" words I really couldn't tell you what the thread title actually is supposed to mean in LiberSpeak. But someone could give us a good LiberSpeak definition of the word "aggression" and "non-aggression" and sure, we could try to puzzle out the thread title. Could be LOL-hilarious...

this thread has excellent potential.

burn the village to save it, imo

Obviously OP was too long - is the landlord's property being "trespassed" by someone who doesn't recognize property the basic issue? If so, the landlord's use of force to remove the naked man (he'd have no clothes, because he doesn't believe in ownership of stuff, right), isn't aggression, it's a defensive action. So what is this thread about? ITT we just go back and forth saying "no, its not defensive, its aggressive" "no, its not aggressive, its defensive"?

The OP is a good hypothetical. In game theory terms, cooperation looks like a superior strategy for each individual on homestead island. They naturally have well aligned interests and they can't afford to lose human resources or the risks of conflict. That doesn't mean people won't miscalculate and choose conflict, or if the resources are lacking, conflict will happen regardless of ideology. But the key point is a smart, selfish person will choose cooperation here.

Expecting people to behave selfishly has advantages. When the population grows to the point that defecting is attractive, harnessing the power of selfishness and granting property rights to the guy who tills a rocky field will be a good idea.

You're sort of assuming your conclusion with the bolded. Each party has a different idea about who has what claim the property, with no mutually agreed procedure to resolve their dispute.

And he's inflated it with strong negative connotation language. A landlord is interested in payment for space, his entire business is founded on "trespass", he invites, not shuns entrance.

It does become a civil matter wrt payment amounts and terms. Does the landlord have a right to act in an aggressive manner, or is part of his business an acceptance of an element of risk of non-payment?

The moment the True Libertarian attempts to manipulate the will of others he shall lose his freedom and join the ranks of the Looters.

The struggle for the True Libertarian is not with others, only with himself. He who conquers others is strong, but he who conquers himself is mighty.

Therefore a True Libertarian is free no matter where his physical body is currently occupied within the space/time continuum.

A True Libertarian is free...he has no honor, no dignity, no family, no home, no country, but only life to be lived.

What happens if someone doesn't believe in self-ownership? When that individual tries to enslave another, and that accosted man fights back, is he acting in aggression?

Are you addressing me?

no. i'm making fun of missile dog. I didn't get your post, so no response to it.

This whole thread/discussion is just a result of libertarians on this forum wasting their time talking about "rights", which is a stupid meaningless thing to talk about. Leading to folks like missiledog saying "how can you justify blah blah blah".

It doesn't need to be justified, what is the point of justifying stuff? Here's what would happen: I'd use force to get the trespasser out of my house.

That's about it. Might makes right. Non-aggression would be rewarded, I believe, in a free market system and would be the profitable decision in most cases, but trying to justify **** based on principles, axioms, and allegedly deduced logical truths is quite silly and will get no where with most intelligent people. "well, I own my self, therefore I own the fruits of my labor" blah blah blah "property rights" blah blah blah. No. I work for a living, I have money, I bought something, and I have the means to protect it, so the would-be squatter can deal with that in whatever way he chooses. There is no objective logical morality.

Well if you had read the OP there is no trespassers in this *thought experiment*, instead the Libertarians are using violence to attempt to collect spring access fees. But thanks for cutting to the chase. I agree it is pointless for Libertarians to blah blah about rights and justifying stuff... it is really just a rationalization to use violence, might makes right, as you so correctly stated.

Well unless you believe the Star Trek borg are real, there is no practical way your soul can lose possession of your body, is there? In that case it makes no difference if you "believe" in self-ownership or not. BTW "self ownership" is a LOL-idiotic propagandist phrase which really has no meaning.

Attempting to enslave someone is a illegitimate violent act. Defending yourself from enslavement is a legitimate use of violence, IMO. No concept of ownership required.

Now that I have answered your question, care to answer mine in the OP using my example of Homestead Island? Or were you just popping in to "make fun" and not contribute anything useful. Oh wait, you already did... So after we strip the NAP and all the other sophistry, what we get is Libertarianism is really just the belief that might makes right.

So /THREAD I guess, we have answered my question...

How can it be "Libertarian Correct" by the NAP (or whatever) for Libertarians to unilaterally use violence against victims where no implicit "social contract" or explicit voluntary contract exist binding the two groups together?

why

why


I don't think there's anything wrong with using violence if necessary to get someone to stop messing with something I own. I don't need a contract for this. My morality says that it IS NOT aggression to defend something I believe I own, therefore the NAP hasn't been violated. If the "trespasser" disagrees, too bad for him.


(And sorry, I don't feel like wading through a bunch of dungeons and dragons jargon to understand your scenario. If I had ever played the game, maybe I'd appreciate it more.).

I don't think its a rationalization. The talk of "rights" has been used for a very long time, coming originally from religion. If you believe in God, then you should continue to use the "God given rights" talk - its awesome. For those of us who have moved beyond mythology, however, its just a holdover from the 1700s, and many libertarian authors and philosophizers (remember, the ones who are worshiped as if its a cult, right), continued to use those terms in the 20th century. The result is the modern libertarian movement heavily relying on them.

It's not really that bad to use the terms - people understand them, most people believe in "rights", and so it makes convincing people of things much easier. But once you get beyond the "rights" babble, reading a bunch of people going "oh, well, property rights dictate blahblah" is quite amusing. IMO, the funniest one is the "inalienable" rights so many libertarians believe they have, despite the complete alienation of those rights.

Well if you don't understand that slavery is wrong, if you actually need a reason, well I don't know what to say. And you already stated that you believe that there is no reason to talk about "rights and blah, blah and justifying things" so what could I say anyway? Might makes right to you so there is really no reason for you not to go enslaving... party on.

You already stated you didn't read the OP, and you just repeated above that sorry, you weren't going to. You ignored my response where I said there were no trespassers in this *thought experiment*. But still you posted a completely off-tangent reply.

I think you are trolling.

Taso comes and says what MissileDog hoped some forum libertarian would say, MissileDog deems him representative of all forum libertarians and declares victory. This is gold.

I was joking about /THREAD. Care to comment on the *thought experiment*?