№2489934[Quote]
>>2489929 (OP)niggers are violent and communists are irrational so I guess they're fair game
№2489935[Quote]
the peaceful rational being is Jeffrey Epstein raping and unconscious child
№2489939[Quote]
>>2489929 (OP)Speaking like this is not how you promote libertarianism, chuddy.
№2489944[Quote]
>>2489934Yes actually. If someone engages in aggression and does not engage in argumentation, they are categorically the same as animals and are ethically not people.
>>2489935>Britbong talking about child rapeGeg!
Anyway obviously that is not peaceful action and therefore the being is not peaceful.
>>2489939Attempt the challenge or accept the contradiction in your ethical system.
№2489946[Quote]
>>2489929 (OP)what if they have AIDS
№2489948[Quote]
Why would I need to justify the initiation of force against a peaceful, rational being to justify statism
№2489949[Quote]
>>2489944Talking like Liquidzulu will not help us even if he's hypothetically right. Speak more like taxes brass or mentiswave, this is killing our reputation, be pragmatic here.
№2489959[Quote]
>>2489946Marge
>>2489948BECAUSE statism is, at its core, the claim that the state may rightfully impose rules, taxes, and punishments on people who haven't harmed anyone. If you can't explain why that initiation of force is morally legitimate, then you can't explain why the state itself is morally legitimate.
>>2489949Actually I think it's good to engage in philosophical discussions, I find it fun.
>>2489954No argument.
>>2489955This is the alternative to non-aggression. Might makes right. Which means a state of constant war and no ethical justification for any norms. There is no system for conflict avoidance in this system.
№2489968[Quote]
>>2489959So you having fun is more important than succesfully progressing your movement?
№2489969[Quote]
>>2489962
>>2489964
Still no argument geg
№2489973[Quote]
>>2489968I reject your premise that the two are mutually exclusive. I can have fun while progressing my movement. Hell, how could I not find it fun?
№2489977[Quote]
bump
№2489988[Quote]
>>2489959>BECAUSE statism is, at its core, the claim that the state may rightfully impose rules, taxes, and punishments on people who haven't harmed anyone. If you can't explain why that initiation of force is morally legitimate, then you can't explain why the state itself is morally legitimate.Do you consider "rules" to be the initiation of force? Notice I didn't say the enforcement of rules, just rules themselves.
№2489989[Quote]
>>2489973That's only true if your style of rhetoric is working. Which it will not, especially for people not knee deep in philosophy. You have to speak these people's language. And that isn't hard considering property rights taken to their logical conclusion leads to physical removal.
№2489994[Quote]
>>2489989Which social conservatives vibe with.
№2490021[Quote]
>>2489988No, rules aren't force. But rules that claim authority over you without your consent only matter if they're backed by force. That's why the justification question matters.
>>2489989I think you can simultaneously say that Libertarianism will get them what they want, while also saying that other systems are unethical and unworkable. I don't think that harms our argument.
№2490032[Quote]
>>2490021Yeah, but you're deciding to not talk about how it'll give them what they want and instead focusing on how their entire philosophical system is flawed to it's core. It's far easier to argue from the former than the latter, i don't know why you just do that.
№2490033[Quote]
>>2490021So claiming the state has the right to impose rules on its citizens is justifiable if the rules are justified, no? The state can very well claim authority over the citizens right (or rather, lack there of) to harm another citizen and impose force in order to prevent such harm.
№2490057[Quote]
>>2490032I have, and it's what I do most often. But that doesn't preclude me from making more philosophical challenges to people's worldview lol.
>>2490033This fails to meet the challenge. If someone is already aggressing upon others, then they are not a peaceful rational being. If they are not aggressing upon others, then the justification for initiating force against this non-aggressing, peaceful being is that they might have their rights violated, which is contradictory (since you're violating their rights to supposedly prevent violations to their rights). So then what needs justifying is the states extra claim, the claim to the right to command peaceful people and force compliance even when no one's rights are being violated. That's the leap that's never been justified.
№2490072[Quote]
>>2489929 (OP)There's no reason nor the justification to initiate force against a peaceful and rational person ever, especially under the rule of law. I think the whole point of libertarianism is to live in a civil and fair society where we don't act like barbarians against one another for no apparent reason.
№2490090[Quote]
>>2490072Correct! That's the fundamental principal. Once you accept that there's never a valid reason to initiate force against a peaceful, rational person, the entire logic of a coercive state collapses.
From there, the rest of libertarian philosophy all follows naturally.
№2490102[Quote]
>>2490057>This fails to meet the challenge. If someone is already aggressing upon others, then they are not a peaceful rational being. I guess we agree on that then geg.
>So then what needs justifying is the states extra claim, the claim to the right to command peaceful people and force compliance even when no one's rights are being violated.Could you give me an example? My politics aren't really "rights-based", but I don't see how I can't agree with this and still be a statist.
№2490149[Quote]
>>2490090TSMT.
This is a bit abstract but somewhat related, I also believe that an isolationist culture would be required to achieve that kind of libertarian society where everyone is homogenous and on the same page. Japan is a great example of this (not libertarianism, just the homogenous part). If immigration is necessary, only accept those who are completely abandoning their foreign identity to fully assimilate to maintain that peace, whether it be religion, understanding the law, and treating everyone else fairly as one would to themselves.
№2490160[Quote]
>>2490149>An isolationist society would make libertarianism workIsolation from reality maybe
№2490173[Quote]
>>2490149The question is less what libertarianism is compatible with, and more what libertarianism creates. Libertarianism is compatible with every system, as it's simply the rejection of the use of violence against peaceful people, and the acceptance that once you accept aggression, you no longer are a person and therefore lack rights. This can be implemented anywhere. So, what does libertarianism create? Highly discriminatory societies. Without forcing nonalike people to live together, they don't have to. So you can have communities comprised of people of similar values, who reject and remove those who do not follow those values from their community. This is seemingly the ultimate form of cultural isolationism, while not having to forfeit the benefits of economic connectedness (someone doesn't have to live in your town for you to trade with them! you can still benefit from products manufactured elsewhere!)