Rant on The Goods and Evils of Libertarianism

[Wendigo]

Project 429

Wendigo

You know what this bullshit reminds me of?

Let me guess.

Wendigo

Hitler. Aktion T4, particularly.

I was right.

'Cos you know, they were murdering people by starving them until they died.

[Project 429]

Wendigo

Project 429

Wendigo

You know what this bullshit reminds me of?

Let me guess.

Wendigo

Hitler. Aktion T4, particularly.

I was right.

'Cos you know, they were murdering people by starving them until they died.

You're a disappointment.

[Wendigo]

Project 429

You're a disappointment.

I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, DAD

I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU

[azulmagia]

Project 429

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

Quote:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights.

I guess all these toddlers will just have to feed themselves then and make their own clothing, as well as educate themselves so that they have the skills to do same.

I guess if I use insecure self-questioning language I can avoid receiving criticism for my stance and still manage to sound like a d**k to this guy I hate on the internet. I guess that's better then using an ad hominem or even worse... actually refuting the argument. God forbid!!!

Yeah, an argument that says that you can't stick a baby into a furnace but that you can starve and expose it. Even though the end result is identical in both cases - a dead baby.

And what's this positive/negative bullshit. If a person is negatively compelled not to throw infants into the mouths of crocodile, that's a positive compulsion to keep the baby alive if ever there was.

Try to be honest, for once in your life. If your only response to a genuine explanation is sarcasm followed by a temper tantrum, you're never going to be taken seriously when you yourself are being genuine. It also makes it look like you don't have any cards to lay down yourself and are just another useless "I get my politics from television" idiot.

A "temper tantrum" in your own mind. There isn't even a single exclamation point in my latest post there.

You're not engaging in actual argument at this point. Just looking for pretexts to ignore what people are saying.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Why do I get the sense from this thread that 429's foray into political theory and or economics never went past core curriculum for a bachelor's degree in college? Because this all sounds eerily similar discussions I've had with these goatee sporting tool bags who were lamenting the lack of a "real libertarian" candidate in the '12 elections.

[azulmagia]

Tactical Leg Sweep

Why do I get the sense from this thread that 429's foray into political theory and or economics never went past core curriculum for a bachelor's degree in college?

I wouldn't even posit that he got that far

[Project 429]

Tactical Leg Sweep

Why do I get the sense from this thread that 429's foray into political theory and or economics never went past core curriculum for a bachelor's degree in college? Because this all sounds eerily similar discussions I've had with these goatee sporting tool bags who were lamenting the lack of a "real libertarian" candidate in the '12 elections.

Solid ******** criticism, but I don't have a goatee, credentialism alone can't win the day, and Gary Johnson was adequate enough to get my vote.

[Project 429]

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

Quote:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights.

I guess all these toddlers will just have to feed themselves then and make their own clothing, as well as educate themselves so that they have the skills to do same.

I guess if I use insecure self-questioning language I can avoid receiving criticism for my stance and still manage to sound like a d**k to this guy I hate on the internet. I guess that's better then using an ad hominem or even worse... actually refuting the argument. God forbid!!!

Yeah, an argument that says that you can't stick a baby into a furnace but that you can starve and expose it. Even though the end result is identical in both cases - a dead baby.

And what's this positive/negative bullshit. If a person is negatively compelled not to throw infants into the mouths of crocodile, that's a positive compulsion to keep the baby alive if ever there was.

Try to be honest, for once in your life. If your only response to a genuine explanation is sarcasm followed by a temper tantrum, you're never going to be taken seriously when you yourself are being genuine. It also makes it look like you don't have any cards to lay down yourself and are just another useless "I get my politics from television" idiot.

A "temper tantrum" in your own mind. There isn't even a single exclamation point in my latest post there.

You're not engaging in actual argument at this point. Just looking for pretexts to ignore what people are saying.

So what exactly did you say?

You only said that you don't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law, so what exactly am I ignoring? You asserted ignorance on the subject. You didn't offer any alternative, you didn't even respond. Who here is ignoring who?

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Project 429

Tactical Leg Sweep

Why do I get the sense from this thread that 429's foray into political theory and or economics never went past core curriculum for a bachelor's degree in college? Because this all sounds eerily similar discussions I've had with these goatee sporting tool bags who were lamenting the lack of a "real libertarian" candidate in the '12 elections.

Solid ******** criticism, but I don't have a goatee, credentialism alone can't win the day, and Gary Johnson was adequate enough to get my vote.

The criticism wasn't that you weren't qualified to speak on the subject, that's ******** stupid considering maybe 1 percent of people in EDP are actually qualified insofar as their trade or academic discipline to discuss much of the political and economic topics that are discussed here, and I'm not one of them. The criticism was that it tends to be those with enough knowledge to be dangerous but not enough knowledge to have solid understanding that tend to peddle it, in my own personal experience.

But fair enough; I respect that you took that well enough I suppose.

[azulmagia]

Project 429

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

Project 429

I guess if I use insecure self-questioning language I can avoid receiving criticism for my stance and still manage to sound like a d**k to this guy I hate on the internet. I guess that's better then using an ad hominem or even worse... actually refuting the argument. God forbid!!!

Yeah, an argument that says that you can't stick a baby into a furnace but that you can starve and expose it. Even though the end result is identical in both cases - a dead baby.

And what's this positive/negative bullshit. If a person is negatively compelled not to throw infants into the mouths of crocodile, that's a positive compulsion to keep the baby alive if ever there was.

Try to be honest, for once in your life. If your only response to a genuine explanation is sarcasm followed by a temper tantrum, you're never going to be taken seriously when you yourself are being genuine. It also makes it look like you don't have any cards to lay down yourself and are just another useless "I get my politics from television" idiot.

A "temper tantrum" in your own mind. There isn't even a single exclamation point in my latest post there.

You're not engaging in actual argument at this point. Just looking for pretexts to ignore what people are saying.

So what exactly did you say?

You only said that you don't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law, so what exactly am I ignoring? You asserted ignorance on the subject. You didn't offer any alternative, you didn't even respond. Who here is ignoring who?

I never said I didn't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law. I'm controverting the very distinction. I'm saying the difference is meaningless, it's sophistry. At the very least, I'm saying that taken to extremes (as in this situation), that is certainly the case.

[Project 429]

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

Project 429

I guess if I use insecure self-questioning language I can avoid receiving criticism for my stance and still manage to sound like a d**k to this guy I hate on the internet. I guess that's better then using an ad hominem or even worse... actually refuting the argument. God forbid!!!

Yeah, an argument that says that you can't stick a baby into a furnace but that you can starve and expose it. Even though the end result is identical in both cases - a dead baby.

And what's this positive/negative bullshit. If a person is negatively compelled not to throw infants into the mouths of crocodile, that's a positive compulsion to keep the baby alive if ever there was.

Try to be honest, for once in your life. If your only response to a genuine explanation is sarcasm followed by a temper tantrum, you're never going to be taken seriously when you yourself are being genuine. It also makes it look like you don't have any cards to lay down yourself and are just another useless "I get my politics from television" idiot.

A "temper tantrum" in your own mind. There isn't even a single exclamation point in my latest post there.

You're not engaging in actual argument at this point. Just looking for pretexts to ignore what people are saying.

So what exactly did you say?

You only said that you don't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law, so what exactly am I ignoring? You asserted ignorance on the subject. You didn't offer any alternative, you didn't even respond. Who here is ignoring who?

I never said I didn't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law. I'm controverting the very distinction. I'm saying the difference is meaningless, it's sophistry. At the very least, I'm saying that taken to extremes (as in this situation), that is certainly the case.

Both have dramatically different normative implications. You aren't thinking very hard if you say there's no difference between the two ... because the difference between the two are not only enormous but at the root of probably the longest standing debate in human history.

Let's go over this briefly...
Law against harm & neglect: We have legal obligations to others.
Law against harm, but not neglect: We have no (inherent) legal obligations to others.
Law against neither: Anarchy.

[azulmagia]

Project 429

azulmagia

I never said I didn't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law. I'm controverting the very distinction. I'm saying the difference is meaningless, it's sophistry. At the very least, I'm saying that taken to extremes (as in this situation), that is certainly the case.

Both have dramatically different normative implications. You aren't thinking very hard if you say there's no difference between the two

Every positive is a negative considered from the other side. So the distinction is dubious from the outset.

Quote:

... because the difference between the two are not only enormous but at the root of probably the longest standing debate in human history.

Let's go over this briefly...
Law against harm & neglect: We have legal obligations to others.
Law against harm, but not neglect: We have no (inherent) legal obligations to others.
Law against neither: Anarchy.

That isn't even mentioned in the link you gave.

And you're responding with yet more nonsense. A law against harm still creates a legal obligation to others.

[Project 429]

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

I never said I didn't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law. I'm controverting the very distinction. I'm saying the difference is meaningless, it's sophistry. At the very least, I'm saying that taken to extremes (as in this situation), that is certainly the case.

Both have dramatically different normative implications. You aren't thinking very hard if you say there's no difference between the two

Every positive is a negative considered from the other side. So the distinction is dubious from the outset.

Quote:

... because the difference between the two are not only enormous but at the root of probably the longest standing debate in human history.

Let's go over this briefly...
Law against harm & neglect: We have legal obligations to others.
Law against harm, but not neglect: We have no (inherent) legal obligations to others.
Law against neither: Anarchy.

That isn't even mentioned in the link you gave.

And you're responding with yet more nonsense. A law against harm still creates a legal obligation to others.

You're doubting the difference between "negative" and "positive" law... because every negative is considered a positive on the other side? That doesn't make much sense. Positive and negative are descriptive words, which would mean in this context that positive law from the "other side" (false balance even if this were true) would be considered negative and vice versa.

Total deer-in-headlights response and another disappointment.

[azulmagia]

Project 429

azulmagia

Project 429

azulmagia

I never said I didn't see any difference between "positive" and "negative" law. I'm controverting the very distinction. I'm saying the difference is meaningless, it's sophistry. At the very least, I'm saying that taken to extremes (as in this situation), that is certainly the case.

Both have dramatically different normative implications. You aren't thinking very hard if you say there's no difference between the two

Every positive is a negative considered from the other side. So the distinction is dubious from the outset.

Quote:

... because the difference between the two are not only enormous but at the root of probably the longest standing debate in human history.

Let's go over this briefly...
Law against harm & neglect: We have legal obligations to others.
Law against harm, but not neglect: We have no (inherent) legal obligations to others.
Law against neither: Anarchy.

That isn't even mentioned in the link you gave.

And you're responding with yet more nonsense. A law against harm still creates a legal obligation to others.

You're doubting the difference between "negative" and "positive" law... because every negative is considered a positive on the other side? That doesn't make much sense. Positive and negative are descriptive words, which would mean in this context that positive law from the "other side" (false balance even if this were true) would be considered negative and vice versa.

Total deer-in-headlights response and another disappointment.

You're missing the entire point. If you're saying that the only legitimate scenario is when law can't compel an action, only forbid an action, the starved baby example is the reductio ad absurdum to that principle.