tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post4954963291489173257..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Dear Ancaps: That There Horse Has to Go in Front of the Cart!gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-88630261458430274002012-07-28T16:09:52.126-04:002012-07-28T16:09:52.126-04:00I am late to the party. I think Gene is rather for...I am late to the party. I think Gene is rather for #1. It is not a double standard he wants to employ. It is a matter of degree. The ends justify the tax so to say, which of course makes it quite arbitrary, or wrapped differently a point of meticulous weighing of pros and cons. That is what makes one a consequentialist, isn't it?skylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-34290433897980151802012-07-27T03:30:09.729-04:002012-07-27T03:30:09.729-04:00If you're asking me what I think your position...If you're asking me what I think your position is, then I will go with #2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-71279991526629130032012-07-23T13:57:51.079-04:002012-07-23T13:57:51.079-04:00"I know what position you hold with regard to..."I know what position you hold with regard to taxation. It's wrong!"<br /><br />I know you think it is wrong. I am asking if you think it is #1 or #2.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-18294083679363953952012-07-22T17:50:36.931-04:002012-07-22T17:50:36.931-04:00I know what position you hold with regard to taxat...I know what position you hold with regard to taxation. It's wrong! In fact, that was the double-standard that I was alluding to. <br /><br />Your thought experiment assumes something that is not known to be possible, let alone able to be accomplished. In other words, it's crap. <br /><br />I know, you 'Won't Back Down'. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-7864261452980573852012-07-22T16:20:35.503-04:002012-07-22T16:20:35.503-04:00Note 2:
"Also, you're making this claim ...Note 2:<br /><br />"Also, you're making this claim as if saving the earth *is* possible and is a foregone conclusion, which most certainly isn't the case."<br /><br />This is a thought experiment. You don't get to alter the conditions! ("There probably isn't an asteroid anyway!")gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-25845618264481521102012-07-22T16:16:04.435-04:002012-07-22T16:16:04.435-04:00"Next, I like that you call it cranky to hold..."Next, I like that you call it cranky to hold principles that are absolute and without double-standards. If theft is wrong, it is always wrong and in all cases, simple as that."<br /><br />Joe, Joe, Joe: I hold one of the following two positions. Please tell me which you think it is:<br /><br />1) Taxation is a form of theft, but sometimes theft is OK.<br /><br />2) Taxation is not a form of theft.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-15259479324229748712012-07-22T15:14:01.770-04:002012-07-22T15:14:01.770-04:00Also, just to be clear: in the hiker example, the...Also, just to be clear: in the hiker example, the initiation of aggression is being countered by aggression, whereas in the asteroid example, almost everybody is getting double-screwed (both from the asteroid and their fellow man). <br /><br />If anything, I would say that the best method to economically solve the asteroid problem would most surely be by voluntary means. In fact, I would be inclined to say that in the event of such a catastrophic possibility (annihilation), that it is my belief that this is the time that an absolutely free market becomes paramountly important. I think that without it, humanity would surely die. But with it, we actually have a slim chance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-22479894400578185562012-07-22T14:48:50.457-04:002012-07-22T14:48:50.457-04:00I was actually making the quoted statement in resp...I was actually making the quoted statement in response to your question, "when is it OK to coerce others?" So, I think that I was correct in stating it the way that I did.<br /><br />Next, I like that you call it cranky to hold principles that are absolute and without double-standards. If theft is wrong, it is always wrong and in all cases, simple as that. Stealing from people to possibly "save" the Earth certainly doesn't change the theft dynamic. Also, you're making this claim as if saving the earth *is* possible and is a foregone conclusion, which most certainly isn't the case. <br /><br />As somewhat of an aside, I don't think that theft of property would be necessary if an asteroid was heading toward Earth, I think that most people would cooperate voluntarily (i.e. the solution would be market-driven). I also do not believe that we would have much recourse if such a thing were to happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-4642951309115468502012-07-22T14:31:16.111-04:002012-07-22T14:31:16.111-04:00"I could have sworn that the entire purpose o..."I could have sworn that the entire purpose of libertarianism was to determine the justified use of force."<br /><br />Joe, look carefully above: did I ever say or even imply that no libertarian ever addresses the real question? No, all I said was that I often encounter people arguing as if this question needed no answer.<br /><br />As for the rest of your post, I am well aware of the cranky use libertarians make of terms like "aggression" and "innocent," thank you.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-77052405538628606662012-07-22T14:22:28.099-04:002012-07-22T14:22:28.099-04:00I could have sworn that the entire purpose of libe...I could have sworn that the entire purpose of libertarianism was to determine the justified use of force. That the libertarian determination of this is based upon both an individualist perspective, as well as natural rights (rights that can be derived from correct reasoning). The distinction between your asteroid and the hiker is that the hiker is aggressing upon the property of the owner, thus the owner is justified in countering aggression with aggression. Meanwhile, those innocents who have their property stolen from them in the asteroid example did nothing to deserve such theft (you cannot blame an inanimate object), not only are left in fear of being obliterated by an asteroid, but they are being robbed by their fellow man in the process (you would have us believe that their failure to allow themselves to be victims of theft would be synonymous with aggression. It is not).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com