The case for the State

banned:

That's a consequentialist assumption.

And your assumptions are based on, imagination?

 

Juan:

When I was young I didn't hate the cops because I didn't have a clue about how the system worked. Having taken a closer look at things, I'm afraid I feel no love for these fine and honorable gentlemen.

But despite my feelings for them, I think my point is valid ? Cops have nothing to do with libertarianism.

I'm not sure I understand this.  Are you saying that ML can't be a libertarian because he has or does serve as a cop or soldier?  I wasn't aware that becoming libertarian was more exclusive and unforgiving than becoming a Christian!

Juan:

On the other hand, if you think that ML's project is worthwhile you're free to join him, no ? And I'm free to hate the cops ?

Juan, you're free to do as you like, certainly.  But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or be silent about it.  Yes?

Juan:

Maybe he sounds a bit juvenile ?

I love Lew.  I think he is great.  I think he's making a strong statement.

But it's not the same as your position, and I don't think it is for the same effect.  Lew knows that the only way we will see change, is not a bunch of 20 something agorists trading tomatoes for pot, it will be challenging the inevitable monetary reforms when they come, and finger the thieves and decievers.

I don't like cops.  I don't think being an imperial soldier is a noble profession.  But if a soldier or cop wants to be a libertarian and advance the cause of freedom, then they are my ally.

liberty student:

And your assumptions are based on, imagination?

If by imagination you mean logic, certainly.

Can you consequentialists prove the consequence(1) of the consequence(2) of the consequence(3) ... of the consequence(n) [as n goes to infinity] of consequentialism is the best consequence? Of course, you need to do this without assuming consequentialism to be valid in the fist place, which needless to say is impossible and results in the self defeat the premise of consequentialism.

banned:

Can you consequentialists prove the consequence(1) of the consequence(2) of the consequence(3) ... of the consequence(n) [as n goes to infinity] of consequentialism is the best consequence? Of course, you need to do this without assuming consequentialism to be valid in the fist place, which needless to say is impossible and results in the self defeat the premise of consequentialism.

Dude, I like totally flunked math and stuff.

 

Was that sarcasm?

Anyways, I'm sorry I botched it.

What I mean is is there is no way to consequentially prove consequentialism (prove consequentialism on its own terms) without assuming it, which defeats it ethically.

I was trying to think of how to put it in a limit statement, but I failed, sorry.

LibertyStudent:

Are you saying that ML can't be a libertarian because he has or does serve as a cop or soldier?

A cop/soldier is a guy who will kill people, not in self-defense, but merely because he is ordered to, right ? Are you saying that a libertarian can do such a thing ?

I wasn't aware that becoming libertarian was more exclusive and unforgiving than becoming a Christian!

I don't know. I didn't realize that you can disregard the NAP and be a libertarian at the same time ?

Juan, you're free to do as you like, certainly. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or be silent about it. Yes?

Of course. That's why we're discussing whether the people who enable the state by attacking their fellows (cops...) can be regarded as libertarians or not.

Lew knows that the only way we will see change, is not a bunch of 20 something agorists trading tomatoes for pot,

He said nothing about that - I'm not sure that was the point.

it will be challenging the inevitable monetary reforms when they come, and finger the thieves and decievers.

Well, you said you don't want to condemn state employees. Fine, that's your prerogative. But Rockwell seems to be condemning them ?

Also, you seem to be bothered by people who do nothing but complain about the state - but I don't see why that's a problem ? What should the 20 anarchists do ? Vote ? Why, in the grand scheme of things, does it matter to you what a few people say in this forum ?

I don't like cops. I don't think being an imperial soldier is a noble profession. But if a soldier or cop wants to be a libertarian and advance the cause of freedom, then they are my ally.

Well, people can certainly change - still I don't see how a cop or a soldier as such can advance the cause of freedom. Oh yes, Peter thinks free-markets are cool, but 'we' need to firebomb Tokyo - national security you know - the all-important function of the 'minimal' state, right ?

banned:

Was that sarcasm?

Oh, so now you want me to use the wink smilie!

banned:

Anyways, I'm sorry I botched it.

I'll overlook it this time.  Don't make a habit of it, ok?

 

Strong forms of consequentialism fail for the reason Mises outlined central plans fail - unintended consequences. Amongst other reasons...

-Jon

Well I agree that it's [consequentialism] praxeologically unsound. But reguardless, consequentialism defeats itself because it is fundamentally assumed, and under consequentialism, assumed ethics are not ethical. I see no reason why the ethics of ethics should be exempt from this analysis.

Juan:

LibertyStudent:

Are you saying that ML can't be a libertarian because he has or does serve as a cop or soldier?

A cop/soldier is a guy who will kill people, not in self-defense, but merely because he is ordered to, right ? Are you saying that a libertarian can do such a thing ?

I wasn't aware that becoming libertarian was more exclusive and unforgiving than becoming a Christian!

I don't know. I didn't realize that you can disregard the NAP and be a libertarian at the same time ?

Juan, you're free to do as you like, certainly. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or be silent about it. Yes?

Of course. That's why we're discussing whether the people who enable the state by attacking their fellows (cops...) can be regarded as libertarians or not.

Lew knows that the only way we will see change, is not a bunch of 20 something agorists trading tomatoes for pot,

He said nothing about that - I'm not sure that was the point.

it will be challenging the inevitable monetary reforms when they come, and finger the thieves and decievers.

Well, you said you don't want to condemn state employees. Fine, that's your prerogative. But Rockwell seems to be condemning them ?

Also, you seem to be bothered by people who do nothing but complain about the state - but I don't see why that's a problem ? What should the 20 anarchists do ? Vote ? Why, in the grand scheme of things, does it matter to you what a few people say in this forum ?

I don't like cops. I don't think being an imperial soldier is a noble profession. But if a soldier or cop wants to be a libertarian and advance the cause of freedom, then they are my ally.

Well, people can certainly change - still I don't see how a cop or a soldier as such can advance the cause of freedom. Oh yes, Peter thinks free-markets are cool, but 'we' need to firebomb Tokyo - national security you know - the all-important function of the 'minimal' state, right ?

Calm down Juan. I used to be a cop and a soldier but not anymore. Both of those things are good experiences to have. I am capable of conducting combat operations, have a good understanding of issues concerning the law and enforcement issues, and I am capable of handling myself when the dirt is flying. All of those things will be useful in the Liberty Colony. 

Maxliberty:

Calm down Juan. I used to be a cop and a soldier but not anymore. Both of those things are good experiences to have.

Yeah, I bet. It's a great experience killing innocent people. It's a great experience nourishing yourself off the labor of others. It's a great experience kidnapping people and putting them in shackles. I'm glad you had your "good experiences".

banned:

I'm glad you had your "good experiences".

When you get out in the world on your own, you will accumulate your own sins, regrets and failures.  It's easy to preach, when you've got no dirt under your nails.  Not everyone "wakes up" in their teen years.  Mises served in the military.  So did Ron Paul.  I think they have both made substantial contributions.  You might want to consider that one has to fail before they can succeed.  It doesn't always hold true, but does happen more often than not.

Neither Mises, nor Paul were ethically opposed to the state.

And If I had served in the military or as a state officer (which not long ago I would have gladly done) I wouldn't be calling it a "good experience". I would be calling it a mistake.

Not everyone is where you are right now.  They might be ahead or behind you.  It's worth considering that ML has (presumably) a lot of life left to make changes in his opinions.

A big missing ingredient among libertarians is the ability to be diplomatic and cooperate.  It's a serious impediment to success.

liberty student:

Not everyone is where you are right now.  They might be ahead or behind you.  It's worth considering that ML has (presumably) a lot of life left to make changes in his opinions.

A big missing ingredient among libertarians is the ability to be diplomatic and cooperate.  It's a serious impediment to success.

Like everyone my views changed over time to where they are now. It's pretty simple really. I didn't start with the views I have now but through time and education, and a lot of thought I have arrived at the truth.

*boinks the state FTW* :) *gobble gobble*