/liberty/ - Liberty

However, you might also give the absurd example of shooting one's own mother who pays taxes because she's supporting the leviathan. My counter example would be that such a claim is like saying if a psychopath father has his 16 year old son who is terrified of him putting together mortar shells from component parts and said father is firing them at a community that had not harmed him in any way, this is like saying it would be justifiable to shoot the kid when you had a clear shot of the father. Similarly, if some slave was forced to support his master, an abolitionist would not be justified in shooting him, even if the slave was so foolish as to think slavery was a fantastic institution. I think that killing a random tax payer who realistically has no other option in the short run except for supporting the state is like chopping off a man's hand when clearly the brain/consciousness made the decision to fire a gun and commit murder. However, a counter example to this point might be some brainwashed cultists who are acting as human shields to the cult leader on a shooting rampage, just like with taxes we have a situation of coercion where stupid people are supporting NAP-violations, you might say that shooting the innocents and the cult leader minimizes NAP-violations, but you can't really use that as a metric because if you do you'd have to say all violent revolutions against genuine authoritarian dictatorships would have to be postponed until such a point we were sure that a civil war + new system would lead to less NAP violations in the long run than no civil war + current system.

Does virtue exist without voluntaryism? I would say that to an extent, it does not. But Molyneux himself has said that a woman and a man can recognize each other's virtue (and love each other as a result) WITHIN a statist society, which sort of contradicts that virtuedoes not exist without voluntaryism, though one might rebut this by saying that the state does not interfere with the "anarchy" of marriage enough to eliminate the virtue of pair-bonding couples within the state. While I would not endorse such measures in the current geopolitical climate (simply because they would not be effective in the vast majority of scenarios) I would say that most revolutions for greater liberty can be justified as self-defense against NAP violations. I would also agree that destroying the productive capacity of an aggressor is justifiable, even if there are a few infants strapped on top of them. I would also agree that voting is justified by the lack of voluntaryism- the limited choice between huge NAP violations, small NAP violations, or let someone else decide for you. But, it seems ridiculous that you could also say that random murders meant to destroy the state's tax base are also virtuous. In fact, if Stefan was presented with this conundrum, I have the sinking feeling he'd ask some bullshit question like "DO YOU KNOW ANY LIBERTARIANS THAT HAVE GONE OUT SHOOTING TAXPAYERS AS SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THE STATE" as if that would be relevant to the question of whether or not such measures are consistent with the NAP. What do you guys think? This is an annoying question which I think is rather important to answer.

sage

>>18828

>A violation of the NAP because you're giving moral authority to the guy who's gonna be doing the NAP violations.

So is paying taxes. Every law-abiding citizen is a violator of the NAP.

What a silly argument.

>>18840

>So is paying taxes. Every law-abiding citizen is a violator of the NAP.

That is false, citizens are forced into paying taxes, otherwise they are thrown into jail.

Why won't people admit that consequentialism is the only answer???

>>18828

>B) A violation of the NAP because you're giving moral authority to the guy who's gonna be doing the NAP violations.

Granting someone the moral authority to commit a crime is not the same as committing it yourself. Actually commanding someone to commit a crime, that's a different matter. Voting is only a violation of the NAP because of the latter topos, not because of the granting of moral authority. Otherwise, even telling someone you approve of the murder he just committed would be a crime.

>>18844

Because consequentialism is shit. One can make a strong utilitarian cause for date rape, at least when it involves rohypnol.

>>18844

>>18845

To expand a little: The problems with utilitarianism already start with how utterly impractical it is. We can't even quantify pleasure, how exactly are we supposed to weigh it? And even if we could do that, how are we supposed to do that practically? Utilitarians need fucking carts and tied up fat guys on rails to make their stupid ideology work, because if you look at a more complex system, they'd have no fucking idea of what to do.

>>18847

It just means you design a system according to consequentialist principles

You can have 'rights' so long as they justify themselves in utility

>>18840

If you don't pay taxes, you're thrown in jail. You're being coerced into it, and you can still use civil disobedience by avoiding taxation. If you work for someone else, this choice is made for you- you don't have the option to even avoid taxes in the first place.

No one is forcing you to vote.

>>18845

You're the guy who doesn't think the driver is responsible if he doesn't make his passenger wear a seat belt, aren't you?

You saying "lol I approve of you murdering X" is not the equivalent of giving moral authority. If you're the judge in a case and you say "lol, I approve of you murdering X, therefore I'm letting you off free of charge" then you are giving them the moral authority.

In the case of voting, the moral authority is provided by the fact that your vote, even if it only counts for 0.000000774% of the vote It's actually much smaller when you consider the electoral college, rigging, etc., was a contracted agreement of your consent to the state's power and actions taken by the person voting.

>>18809

>bank scenario

The robber initiated the violence, so he is responsible for the consequences thereof. In fact, I believe that Molyneux has addressed this particular point in one of his videos, though for the life of me I can't remember which one. I think he mentions that this principle was recognized in traditional common law.

>voting for "the better slave master"

You are not forced to do so by the extant conditions, so you are still personally responsible for the consequences of your vote.

Furthermore, >>18828 hits the nail on the head.

>train scenario

Whoever set it up is morally responsible for the deaths. It would be clearly virtuous to not willfully participate in the murders, but flipping the switch is a trickier scenario.

You might argue that your use of the switch is an application of defensive force, but the ruling on that in a court is highly dependent on prevailing values.

>immigration

I'll admit that my medication may be cutting into my reading comprehension somewhat, but I've got no idea how to follow that mess.

I think you're saying that closing borders is acceptable when its interaction with extant statist programs is taken into account (as a "lesser evil" sort of measure). If this is what you're saying, then I would argue that you're missing the point of principle-based argument; you don't just accept those things (welfare state, voting, taxes, public education, public spaces, etc.). Extant conditions are hardly relevant to normative arguments because you cannot derive an ought from an is. Those things are all wrong, and we need to find ways of ending all of them.

Holy shit typing is difficult when you're on this much pain medication.

>>18848

>It just means you design a system according to consequentialist principles

>You can have 'rights' so long as they justify themselves in utility

Did you invent toilet paper this week, too? Your mindset is what's caused every fucking political clusterfuck ever.

>>18849

>You're the guy who doesn't think the driver is responsible if he doesn't make his passenger wear a seat belt, aren't you?

I was one of them, yes.

>You saying "lol I approve of you murdering X" is not the equivalent of giving moral authority. If you're the judge in a case and you say "lol, I approve of you murdering X, therefore I'm letting you off free of charge" then you are giving them the moral authority.

I wouldn't call that giving someone moral authority. In that case, it is a terminological disagreement.

>>18854

Political clusterfucks have mostly been caused by people ignoring evidence and clinging to principles like 'profit is bad'/ muh homeland muh people

>>18851

>You are not forced to do so by the extant conditions, so you are still personally responsible for the consequences of your vote.

So if you had the option of voting for slave master A who would anally rape you (and all the other slaves) with a broom and whip you 5 times a day and slave master B who would only whip you when he thought you were slacking the morally just thing to do would be not to vote lest you endorse slavery..?

>I think you're saying that closing borders is acceptable when its interaction with extant statist programs is taken into account (as a "lesser evil" sort of measure). If this is what you're saying, then I would argue that you're missing the point of principle-based argument; you don't just accept those things (welfare state, voting, taxes, public education, public spaces, etc.). Extant conditions are hardly relevant to normative arguments because you cannot derive an ought from an is. Those things are all wrong, and we need to find ways of ending all of them.

Immigrants are going to use the state to commit violations of the NAP, it is self defense to have a border in such a case.

>>18868

>would anally rape you (and all the other slaves) with a broom and whip you 5 times a day

That right there's coercion. I touched on the fact that coercion negates your personal responsibility. Admittedly, I might not have done so very gracefully in that particular segment, but I'm pretty sure I covered that ground. Consent extracted under threats is null; they call it "duress".

>Immigrants are going to use the state to commit violations of the NAP, it is self defense to have a border in such a case.

You quoted my passage, but you didn't address it.

>>18870

>You quoted my passage, but you didn't address it.

I was showing how it is a normative argument for self-defense and not just utilitarianism

>>18856

Actually, they have been caused by politicians giving a shit about individual rights whenever they deemed it necessary.