Hoping for pvn or borodog response here, but mjkidd, bpcvp, tomcollins, tomveil, tomdemaine, tom cruise, hell even Taso/13th Apostle responses welcome.

This guy is hardcore liberal. We engaged in libertarian/AC discussions about a year ago when I was first turned on to the idea of limited government, and his being a PoliSci major/debate and mock trial type guy, I was never really interested in debating him. I told him he could convince me I "started the god damned Chicago fire, but that doesn't necessarily make it f'ing so."

Resume conversation one year later, and I reference meeting one of his friends after a Rent play:

His response:

Me:

Him:

Your move?

initiation of force.

Libertarians aren't against force, their against initiating force. If someone hits me with a baseball bat, I'm allowed to defend my self. Similarly, if someone breaks an agreed upon rule, they've initiated the force.


edit: wtf at me and 13th coming after tom cruise

why does he think that going to a dispute arbitrator and winning compels the loser to pay?

If the loser consented to arbitration, why would he object if we did use force? Force itself is not objectionable IMO.

Did you want advice with this question in particular or something broader?

Not an attempt to derail this thread at all, but the friends actual question was
If he's suing someone for breaking a law, is that different in the eyes of an ACist than suing for breach of contract, since it's not, in a technical sense, an "agreed upon rule"?


BTW, I understand where you're coming from with your response Taso.

Oh hai Bubbles. I dunno exactly what I'm looking for here, I've been drinking obv and prob should be in the Politics Drunk Thread.

I'll probably just copy+paste what you and Taso have said.

I expect this thread to be an ongoing series of correspondences between him and myself until he finally decides to poast here.

We'll see wat he says.

BTW, I don't see how the word 'therefore' makes any sense in the sentence.

Also, Brian, imo you're wasting your time. V difficult to convince the following:

- people extremely committed to their ideas (political activists)
- especially if they are liberals
- people who enjoy 'debates' - I have one friend just like yours who has very little interest in who is actually wrong or right, he just wants to beat me in the debate. several times I've tried to clarify if he actually believes what he's saying and he goes "who cares what I believe". They just like the competition that is the debate imo.


When you find extreme liberals who are committed to their ideas but aren't obsessed with debating, you have a better chance imo, but still its unlikely. I have a good friend in Philly who is a flat out socialist - actually, was. Over the course of a year or two he's SLIGHTLY lessened that position. Is it worth it? Nah. With the amount of time I've spent discussing politics with him, I could have converted like a thousand independents. But he's a good friend, and what else is there to talk about, eh.


edit: Also, I guarantee Borodog is 1000 more informed on political theory etcetc than he is. Every ****ing moron I know is a political science major. Majoring in something doesn't denote some incredible talent in that field. Even having a PhD doesn't, majoring doesn't even come close, though.

Taso:

Yeah, I've encountered many different people during my conversion to ACism. And I've learned that it's not worth debating it with anyone. I have 0 chance of ever converting this guy, nor do I have any aspiration to. He has made it clear to me that he hopes to one day be pulling the political strings himself. Nonetheless, if I can copy/paste a few of the brilliant posters on this forum to him (yourself included *sigh*), that's enough to make me feel like I've done good.

I think that bobman, DVaut, and ElliotR could argue circles around this guy using the AC position, so I don't feel like it's any great war for me to win or lose.

lolll watt, not possible.

What if they don't agree on your choice of arbitrator and don't show up? Do they lose automatically? Or do you have to agree on an arbitrator before anything can happen? Or would it be in the contract that they broke as to which arbitrator they could pick?

Wait, you're Brooke Davis from One Tree Hill?

I have to +1 this.

Personally, I fall into the third category, to some extent. At least to the extent that I don't really read and participate in this forum because I care what other people's beliefs are. I participate because I enjoy discussing and debating.

I know what I believe, I have my reasons for believing it, and I feel no need to attempt to convince others that I am right and they are wrong (beyond the level of attempting to win the debate, of course) or to allow others to cause me to question my own beliefs.

Debating, for me anyway, is a game. I freely admit no one on this forum, no matter how good they are at debating, has the ability to make me actually change my beliefs. There is a huge difference in eventually realizing that someone has outsmarted you in a debate and changing your political beliefs due to the results of said debate.

Ultimately, if you want to debate this because you think you'd enjoy the challenge of it, by all means go for it. If you have any notions that you're going to convert this guy to ACism, you may as well give up now. I don't see it happening. It's a game for him, and to quote you, OP he probably has this same thought when he's losing a debate, as do I when I find myself stumped by a particular Boro position, etc:

Dbl, I don't get it. If Boro stumps you, you just go "oh, touche...Well, I can't justify my position but I'm gonna keep on believing it anyways!"



elliot, i meant that as a compliment

Uneducated in *potential* AC arbitrations as I may be, I think I can answer this:

Social norms would dictate that everyone belong to some sort of judicial/arbitration system. If you choose to not follow this social norm, you would be ostracized, and likely turned away from basic needs, such as access to grocery stores, etc.

Borodog has a pretty excellent post here, though archives seem to be down. This is just but one way that markets could potentially evolve to handle dispute arbitration.

In what way is political science "handled"?

The good thing about building a bridge or playing poker is that these are voluntary engagements (unless the bridge is built by the state, but I digress...), and nobody suffers involuntarily due to an expert's faulty knowledge of bridge construction or poker playing. Everyone knows a bridge is designed by a fallible human and voluntarily takes a risk regarding the extent of the human's abilities every time they cross it. Same with a pilot, a conductor, a butcher, a dairy farmer, and so on.

But a political scientist is different. When they "handle" political science, their decisions--whether excellent or faulty--affect parties that aren't voluntarily consuming their services. This is pretty basic and obvious, and anyone that uses such condescending and smug language should already understand it.

I'm not saying political scientists are worthless or that they shouldn't be able to do what they do (I'm not an ACist, after all), but I don't have misconceptions in what I'm dealing with.

And I would never venture that the opinions of the people who are impacted by the actions of politicians or the conjectures of political scientists should be ignored and dismissed outright. This is like the ultra-appeal to authority--rejecting outright anyone who is not an authority.

Pretty much.

And you miss the point. No one here has ever actually brought it to that level, where I actually was forced to take pause about my own beliefs.

Boro in particular sets alot of traps when he debates issues, which I occasionally, because of his superior debate skills, fall into. I recognize these and realize that this is the result of being outclassed by a superior debater, not the result of having the light brought onto my own evil statist ways by someone with a more righteous, freedom seeking political path.

This guy is a huge anti-WalMart type (and that's the point I realized how far gone he is), so his reply should come as no surprise:

I think even I could own this question, but please give this drunkard an automated response, thanks.

Also, T50Omaha, thanks for your response. I felt he was being very condescending there indeed.

[EDIT]: LOL, seriously, lol @ this question. Please feel free to give me the most slam dunk, in-your-face, no-holds-barred response.

Hahaha.

He must wear the premium stato-goggles.

Ask him why he thinks random stooges in the government (or random soccer moms from Connecticut, however you want to look at it) should be telling factories how to make things or doctors how to provide health, etc.

I am unable to see how WalMart is "initiating" "force" - it seems like neither of those two words apply. WalMart is selling a good: Detergent. It (probably) bought this detergent from a company that makes detergent: Tide. Now, WalMart is selling it to the people in a small Arkansas town. WalMart is bringing them a service, they may now choose whether or not to purchase said service and said product. WalMart is not forcing anyone in the town to purchase the detergent. And if WalMart begins to charge outrageous prices for the detergent, then Bob's Detergent Supply will set up shop and sell it for cheaper.

Now, how is all of the above different than taxation? Well, how is it the same? With taxation, the government forces you to give up the money that you worked for, or you go to jail. WalMart lets you buy detergent if you want...government forces you to give up money or you to go jail.


edit: lol at me being so stupid that I'm actually writing responses even though I said this guy was hopeless.

Here's his latest response:

I think he assumes that monopolies are even possible at present (afaik monopolies are not possible in current times), and that even if they were possible, that it would be to the detriment of the consumer - quite the opposite, if a monopoly were able to be formed, it would be to the benefit of the consumer. A monopoly could only occur if a business offers prices that are so good that no one else can compete - and thus all the better for the consumer.

Anyone who can phrase this in well-to-do language will receive brownie points, or someone who can show me where I am wrong.

I'm thinking my response should be:

?

[EDIT]:

I think my response should include that monopolies can only form at present under government sanctions/protections.

I think that for guys who don't seem to interested in changing their minds and just want to win the debate the stefan molyeneux type "against me" argument is the one I go with if I decide to engage at all.

You're well within your rights to have a government and give away your money in taxation or whatever you want to call it to whomever you please using whatever method to decide. I wouldn't dream of using force to stop you. But would you grant me the same? Would you advocate a man coming to my door with a gun and if I defend my property shooting me in the head just because I don't agree with your way of structuring "society" and feel that taxation is theft?

It's then hard to have a debate with someone who with a straight face has said they'd support your death for your views when you are more than happy to let them peacefully get on with theirs.

very good read.

Or the less provocative version, I think rolex watches are a waste of money. I don't see the point in buying them. However some people love them and think it's totally worth it. I would dream of stopping them from buying a rolex watch even though I think it's dumb. If people want to spend their money in a way I think is dumb that's fine. You want to spend your hard earned money on the drug war and the war on terror and bridge to nowhere boondoggles for connected congressmen, thats fine. I think it's a bad use of money but who am I to tell you how you should spend your money? All I ask is that you extend me the same courteousy. If I think that the war on drugs is a horrific and soul destroying travesty against all that is right and correct in the world tell me again why I should be forced to pay for it?

I've yet to hold a position I can't justify.

I've held positions you can't justify, but that's different. I think that's what I was trying to say to begin with.