For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[poptab]

YTMND - Colonel Jack O'Neill Loses It

 

[reesez]

“The core libertarian value is nonaggression."

Not my core value. The value is liberty. And liberty is the point. When that gets violated, aggression may be the answer.


"Surely a core libertarian value is neutrality between different conceptions of the good"

With my liberty, I am free to like or not like you or your actions. So long as they do not invade my liberty, you are free to be as stupid as you wish.

agreed

 

[IndyDave1776]

How can you defend your liberty without any form of aggression?

This discussion is reminding me a lot of the free will vs. predestination argument in church. On one hand, you can argue that forcible resistance is aggression, but the person preaching non-aggression will tell you that it isn't aggression since it is a response to aggression initiated by the .gov. One's perspective is very much at issue here.

 

[poptab]

This discussion is reminding me a lot of the free will vs. predestination argument in church. On one hand, you can argue that forcible resistance is aggression, but the person preaching non-aggression will tell you that it isn't aggression since it is a response to aggression initiated by the .gov. One's perspective is very much at issue here.

Well the problem is that he jumped to a conclusion and when he was corrected kept right on going. He didnt know what the nonaggression principle is and assumed that it was synonymous with pacifism. Instead of picking up a book and learning for himself what exactly is the nonaggression principle he seems to want to willingly maintain his ignorance.

People even tried to explain what it means and yet he still somehow manages to remain clueless.

Here is my last attempt to communicate:

http://youtu.be/RHe4OQ4bY4o

 

[rambone]

Well I thought it would naturally be "liberty" they were promoting as the core value (after all, its right there in the name) but I have since learned that the party says it is the "Zero Aggression Principal".

The reason this definition is significant is because libertarians will invariably be approached by people who make strawman arguments about not wanting the "liberty" to rob, beat, and kill your neighbors. It never fails. It is then important that you have a thoughtful counter to why they are wrong.

The result of the Non-Aggression Principle is liberty. Nobody, the State included, has the right to *initiate* force against you. A pacifist might argue that nobody has the right to *use* force.

How can you defend your liberty without any form of aggression?

I assume we are on the same page in that self-defense is righteous and not an aggressive behavior. Self-defense is a forceful response, not an initiation of force. You shouldn't pick a fight, but you should end it.

The same applies when oppressed by a tyrannical government. A tyrannical government will never make you wait long for an initiation of force against you. Throwing off your chains is a forceful response. It follows that you would not be violating your principles by responding to your oppressors with force.

 

[ViperJock]

For non-aggressors there was certainly a lot of hate toward both major parties from the libertarians on INGO prior to the election. at least one prominent INGO-Libertarian continues to aggressively attack the republicans and their "opinions." (Strangely the dems seem to get a free pass. Not sure if this is a spurned lover thing or what?)

Nationally the Libertarian party was vindictive and childish in their reprisals vs the slights from the (R).

I think claims that non-aggression is a keystone of the belief system would make most of the Libertarians I have heard into huge hypocrits. Why the need to espouse this? Its like being the younger sibling of the liberal who is all about "open minds and love." Drop the charade. Libertarianism is about non interference with **** that doesn't hurt you. Aggression toward those who threaten your liberty is part and parcel of having liberty in the first place. Peace through superior fire power and all that.

/sigh. We need a new party. One based fully in civil liberty and fiscal responsibililty. One with a FIRM platform that is not so easily hijacked as the tea-party or turned into a circus as the Libertarians. Something that represents the majority of hardworking Americans.

Why the "conservatives" are fail:
1. Republicans: outdated social dogma. can't get over the topics of abortion and gay marriage as non-issues at a national level. Roe v Wade overturned? yeah not in this life time. Why argue about it? Gays married? so what? If marriage is a God issue, God will sort it out. If its a civil issue, then clearly it is their right to do so. Lets try to keep the idea of sin and law separate. The problem with Religious voters is they want to play God's judge right now. As far as I know God said he will take care of the judging of sin. Can't escape the "we care more about corporations than people" that the dems have labeled them with.
2. Libertarians: can't escape the crazy logo. Too many are just "out there."
3. Tea Party: effectively hijacked by the (R) effectively demonized as racists and extremists by the (D)

All losing propositions in todays political/social climate.

 

[steveh_131]

For non-aggressors there was certainly a lot of hate toward both major parties from the libertarians on INGO prior to the election. at least one prominent INGO-Libertarian continues to aggressively attack the republicans and their "opinions."

Vocal opposition is not an 'aggressive' action, in the context of the 'non-aggression principle'. Do we need to take up a collection to get some of you folks a dictionary?

(Strangely the dems seem to get a free pass. Not sure if this is a spurned lover thing or what?)

What dems? Please point to some threads where 'dems' got a free pass.

I think claims that non-aggression is a keystone of the belief system would make most of the Libertarians I have heard into huge hypocrits. Why the need to espouse this? Its like being the younger sibling of the liberal who is all about "open minds and love." Drop the charade. Libertarianism is about non interference with **** that doesn't hurt you. Aggression toward those who threaten your liberty is part and parcel of having liberty in the first place. Peace through superior fire power and all that.

Did you read my webster definition of 'aggression'? Did you read it? Scroll up a few posts and read it. Ok, did you read it now? I think, perhaps, you should scroll up and read it one more time. Done yet? Maybe a third time?

Words have meanings, folks. This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't up for debate. It isn't a matter of opinion. No amount of discussion is going to change it. The word 'aggression' does not apply to actions of self defense, especially not in this context. Non-aggression is not the same as pacifism.

Let me say that again. Non-aggression is not the same as pacifism. Did we all hear it this time? Do I need a megaphone?

 

[level.eleven]

Vocal opposition is not an 'aggressive' action, in the context of the 'non-aggression principle'. Do we need to take up a collection to get some of you folks a dictionary?



What dems? Please point to some threads where 'dems' got a free pass.



Did you read my webster definition of 'aggression'? Did you read it? Scroll up a few posts and read it. Ok, did you read it now? I think, perhaps, you should scroll up and read it one more time. Done yet? Maybe a third time?

Words have meanings, folks. This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't up for debate. It isn't a matter of opinion. No amount of discussion is going to change it. The word 'aggression' does not apply to actions of self defense, especially not in this context. Non-aggression is not the same as pacifism.

Let me say that again. Non-aggression is not the same as pacifism. Did we all hear it this time? Do I need a megaphone?

Defamation isn't aggression?

 

[rambone]

For non-aggressors there was certainly a lot of hate toward both major parties from the libertarians on INGO prior to the election. at least one prominent INGO-Libertarian continues to aggressively attack the republicans and their "opinions."

 

[steveh_131]

Defamation isn't aggression?

Link me to some examples of defamation on INGO by libertarians and we can discuss them.

 

[ViperJock]

Vocal opposition is not an 'aggressive' action, in the context of the 'non-aggression principle'. Do we need to take up a collection to get some of you folks a dictionary?



What dems? Please point to some threads where 'dems' got a free pass.



Did you read my webster definition of 'aggression'? Did you read it? Scroll up a few posts and read it. Ok, did you read it now? I think, perhaps, you should scroll up and read it one more time. Done yet? Maybe a third time?

Words have meanings, folks. This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't up for debate. It isn't a matter of opinion. No amount of discussion is going to change it. The word 'aggression' does not apply to actions of self defense, especially not in this context. Non-aggression is not the same as pacifism.

Let me say that again. Non-aggression is not the same as pacifism. Did we all hear it this time? Do I need a megaphone?

LOL @ you. Words do have meaning. Aggression does not mean Assault and battery.

I'm sorry I didn't give more weight to what YOU said. I didn't realize YOU spoke for the Libertarian party or that YOU were so important as YOU apparently are.

So, just to clarify, verbal (or typed) aggression doesn't constitute "actual" aggression? In most cases "actions of self defense" do require someone to be aggressive toward you. It seems that you can pretty much interpret any opinion you disagree with to be aggression toward you which then allows you to "self-defend."

LMAO at the circular logic.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Calling out scoundrels for being scoundrels is neither defamation nor aggression. Defamation of character revolves around presenting a false characterization as truth and is a willful and malicious act--far different than direct observation of words and actions of another or following the evidence to its logical conclusion. I would further say that hate is not aggression per se--perhaps a motive for aggression, but not aggression in and of itself.

 

[level.eleven]

Link me to some examples of defamation on INGO by libertarians and we can discuss them.

I just asked a simple question. Is defamation aggression?

 

[ViperJock]

Noun
Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
The action of attacking without provocation, esp. in beginning a quarrel or war: "the dictator resorted to armed aggression".

I would say that libertarians often meet the reqirements of hostile behaviour and readiness to attack or confront? That is of course assuming verbal aggression counts as "real" aggresssion.

There are a hundred different variations of this definition. I didn't previously realize that I was only allowed to use your definition. Apologies.

BTW I don't think aggression is necessarily a bad thing. I'm saying, why espouse an ideal that you can't keep?

 

[foszoe]

hmm so to get me up to speed...

This discussion centers around the definition of initiate and aggression?

What the definition of termination or cessation of aggression? Who gets to decide that?

 

[Liberty1911]

For non-aggressors there was certainly a lot of hate toward both major parties from the libertarians on INGO prior to the election. at least one prominent INGO-Libertarian continues to aggressively attack the republicans and their "opinions." (Strangely the dems seem to get a free pass. Not sure if this is a spurned lover thing or what?)

Nationally the Libertarian party was vindictive and childish in their reprisals vs the slights from the (R).

Yep. Pretty good summary of some of the self professing Libertarians on INGO.

Why the "conservatives" are fail:
1. Republicans: outdated social dogma. can't get over the topics of abortion and gay marriage as non-issues at a national level. Roe v Wade overturned? yeah not in this life time. Why argue about it? Gays married? so what? If marriage is a God issue, God will sort it out. If its a civil issue, then clearly it is their right to do so. Lets try to keep the idea of sin and law separate. The problem with Religious voters is they want to play God's judge right now. As far as I know God said he will take care of the judging of sin. Can't escape the "we care more about corporations than people" that the dems have labeled them with.

You lost me there. Two points:

1. On abortion - The "Right to Life" is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and is the first and most basic right that we have. If someone isn't willing to defend the life of the most vulnerable people in society, then they don't have much credibility on any other issue concerning rights.

It always amazes me that liberals claim to be the protectors of the weak and vulnerable but stand at the abortion clinic door and cheer each time a baby is dumped in the trash. And not only that, they demand taxpayers foot the bill.


2. Homosexual marriage - There's no room for compromise biblically speaking. The Bible is clear about this issue.

However, if you want to look at it strictly from a civil point of view, then there's room for debate. But if you're going to debate the issue, then you have to define marriage first. I have yet to see anyone do that, and there's a reason why they won't.

Marriage isn't a right, no matter how many people scream it is. Therefore, you're left with one of two choices - Either the government can't define it at all, in which case the point is moot, or if you demand the "right" to get married, then implicit in that demand is the fact that government gets to define what marriage is.

The homosexual community has opted for the latter, although they try to have it both ways. They demand the "right" to get married, but reject the idea that government can define what marriage is.

That's fundamentally dishonest and is proof that "homosexual marriage" has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with the homosexual community seeking government endorsement of their behavior which most people consider to be immoral.

Once they have that endorsement, they will use it as a weapon to attack any opposition to their agenda.

 

[steveh_131]

\So, just to clarify, verbal (or typed) aggression doesn't constitute "actual" aggression? In most cases "actions of self defense" do require someone to be aggressive toward you. It seems that you can pretty much interpret any opinion you disagree with to be aggression toward you which then allows you to "self-defend."

LMAO at the circular logic.

Give me an example of verbal 'aggression'. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it.

I just asked a simple question. Is defamation aggression?

I can't really answer that until you define what you mean by 'defamation'. So either define it or give me an example. Viperjock wasn't talking about 'defamation', he was talking about internet debates. And no, those are not aggression.

Noun
Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
The action of attacking without provocation, esp. in beginning a quarrel or war: "the dictator resorted to armed aggression".

I would say that libertarians often meet the reqirements of hostile behaviour and readiness to attack or confront? That is of course assuming verbal aggression counts as "real" aggresssion.

There are a hundred different variations of this definition. I didn't previously realize that I was only allowed to use your definition. Apologies.

BTW I don't think aggression is necessarily a bad thing. I'm saying, why espouse an ideal that you can't keep?

I don't know how to make this any more simple.

It is my ideal. I'm defining it for you. I have the right and the burden to do so, because it is my ideal. And I am telling you that my ideal does not exclude acts of self defense, or the defense of your property. It excludes the initiation of force against another person. Note that I used the word 'initiation', not the word 'act'. Rambone already made this distinction. If force has already been initiated against me by the other party, then I am no longer the one initiating when I defend myself.

This is the non-aggression principle. 'Aggression', in this context, implies that I am the one initiating force. Not defending against it.

Does this make sense to you?

You can not, logically, come and redefine my ideals for me to include things that they do not include, and then accuse me of not meeting it. This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[level.eleven]

I can't really answer that until you define what you mean by 'defamation'. So either define it or give me an example. Viperjock wasn't talking about 'defamation', he was talking about internet debates. And no, those are not aggression..

Is a definition even possible under the umbrella of NAP? What if we disagree?

 

[steveh_131]

This sums it up rather nicely, in my opinion.

Principle of non-aggression - Mises Wiki

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

And the definition of 'aggression', in this context:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Aggression

Aggression is defined by classical liberals as the initiation of physical force against other persons or their property, the threat of such, or fraud upon other persons or their property.

Synonymous to the word physical force, simply the word force or the word violence is often used. Strictly speaking force is only violence when it is used against another persons property instead of ones own property.

The word initiation means that the force can be causally traced back to the will of a person, while this person did not have permission. The relation between force and will is called causation.

If the property A' of person A damages the property B' of person B then this is an example of A initiating force against B because person A has taken ownership over property A by his will and therefore has responsibility over A'.

This is what I mean when I reference the 'non-aggression principle'.

If you want to change your definition to include things like internet arguments, criticism, vocal opposition, bad attitudes, and self defense then feel free to do so. But let us be clear that your revised definition has no relevance to my explanation of my own ideals.

 

[level.eleven]

So defamation isn't aggression. Only physical force.