>Threats of violence, and by extension government, are not always evil.
Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government.
>Using violence to punush someone for refusing to hand over a share of currency they receive in private trade, or for being 'too successful' at selling a widget and therefore being categorised as a monopolist, is not.
Well clearly we disagree. I think asking participants in society to pay for the benefits it affords, and discouraging anti-competitive practices are perfectly reasonable uses of violent coercion, and lead to better outcomes overall.
If you disagree that those policies are effective, that's fine. But please don't elevate your economic theories to morality.
>at least learn the basics, like what the Non Aggression Principle is (notice it's not called the Non Violence Principle).
I know what the NAP is, and I agree right up until libertarians start trying to define aggression to include theft. Honestly, the NAP seems at best like an awkward attempt to simplify a political philosophy, and at worst like a rhetorical device to hide property rights inside something that seems superficially unobjectionable.
>Libertarianism is just the formalization of common decency and common sense.
Yes, that's certainly how it likes to portray itself, but my impression is that as soon it gets into details, it's all about property rights.
I think society should be designed in the way that leads to the best utilitarian outcomes, and I think property rights are a very effective tool and should be part of that system. But they are not perfect, they are not morality, and they're certainly not "common decency".
>Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government.
I was implying that using threats of violence against non-violent people engaging in voluntary trade with other consenting adults is wrong.
>Well clearly we disagree. I think asking participants in society to pay for the benefits it affords, and discouraging anti-competitive practices are perfectly reasonable uses of violent coercion
So you're willing to use violent coercion against non-violent people for their refusal to pay a debt they did not voluntarily assume and/or for their engaging in too much voluntary trade with other consenting adults. Your moral framework is essentially sociopathic.
Well you can define the word "theft" that way if you want, but I see a big difference between punching someone in the face and picking up an object, whatever words you use for it.
So you can't use the moral weight of the former to make responding to the latter with actual physical violence seem significantly more necessary to me than responding with physical violence to people who don't pay taxes.
I think it's perfectly appropriate to use violence to take back the object that you crafted and someone stole from you. I don't think it's appropriate to use violence to force someone to hand over an object they crafted and which they never agreed to cede to you.
Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government.
>Using violence to punush someone for refusing to hand over a share of currency they receive in private trade, or for being 'too successful' at selling a widget and therefore being categorised as a monopolist, is not.
Well clearly we disagree. I think asking participants in society to pay for the benefits it affords, and discouraging anti-competitive practices are perfectly reasonable uses of violent coercion, and lead to better outcomes overall.
If you disagree that those policies are effective, that's fine. But please don't elevate your economic theories to morality.
>at least learn the basics, like what the Non Aggression Principle is (notice it's not called the Non Violence Principle).
I know what the NAP is, and I agree right up until libertarians start trying to define aggression to include theft. Honestly, the NAP seems at best like an awkward attempt to simplify a political philosophy, and at worst like a rhetorical device to hide property rights inside something that seems superficially unobjectionable.
>Libertarianism is just the formalization of common decency and common sense.
Yes, that's certainly how it likes to portray itself, but my impression is that as soon it gets into details, it's all about property rights.
I think society should be designed in the way that leads to the best utilitarian outcomes, and I think property rights are a very effective tool and should be part of that system. But they are not perfect, they are not morality, and they're certainly not "common decency".