tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post1269923636709564780..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: I Love Hans Hoppe!bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17756993462924546882017-11-03T05:01:58.465-07:002017-11-03T05:01:58.465-07:00Thank you for the exchange; I also valued the disc...Thank you for the exchange; I also valued the discussion. Please stop by again if you find a different angle worth approaching.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73796840962600457712017-11-02T18:37:12.802-07:002017-11-02T18:37:12.802-07:00It appears that we are both now starting to repeat...It appears that we are both now starting to repeat our earlier points, so it's probably a good time for me to exit from this most interesting exchange of views. You make formidable arguments for your position. While I don't agree with your position, I certainly have a better appreciation of it. Thank you for indulging me on your blog.The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20667911611747855982017-11-02T14:20:49.468-07:002017-11-02T14:20:49.468-07:00“You say “I do not advocate for state action; I am...“You say “I do not advocate for state action; I am stuck with state action …” But the fact that there is an acting state doesn’t oblige you to advocate that it continue to act.”<br /><br />“I am stuck” means “you” are also “stuck.” It means that it cannot be avoided; there is no possibility of a policy where the state does nothing as long as there are state borders; I have explained why and don’t want to do so again.<br /><br />“First, as previously noted, with all the diverse interests of individual citizens, how can the state be expected to pick a policy that satisfies everyone?”<br /><br />It cannot; this explains part of my answer above. So what makes my preference (for the sake of argument, assume mine is different than yours) of less worth than yours?<br /><br />“In fact, aren’t those two conditions true for every aspect of society? We want no state involvement in healthcare, education, etc.”<br /><br />Wrong. Read again my link of the conversation with Walter Block; even Walter understood this – as hard-headed as he can be sometimes (Walter, if you read this, I know you understand my good-natured ribbing).<br /><br />“You suggest that I have sided with the cultural Marxists and Gramsciists against you. I reject the notion that there are only two sides.”<br /><br />Yet you have no problem insisting that I must choose from only two choices. <br /><br />You and the Gramsciists have different ends in mind yet you advocate the same means. Given the same means, two different ends cannot be achieved – a physical and logical and philosophical impossibility. One end or the other will win – a libertarian society or a state-controlled (call it communist or whatever you want) society.<br /><br />Given your means in a world of state borders and no real private property rights, I know which one will win. To believe otherwise is to ignore the evidence all around you.<br /><br />It is willful blindness or corruption. And if your version of libertarian theory and application cannot deal with this in a manner that improves and enhances human life, you are embracing a dead political philosophy.<br /><br />My version can.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-47773992813221078732017-11-02T05:43:56.625-07:002017-11-02T05:43:56.625-07:00(Part 2 of 2) As to your two conditions – absolute...(Part 2 of 2) As to your two conditions – absolute private property and no state involvement in border control – I don’t think your summary of my position is accurate. I say push for the first but don’t compromise on the second. In fact, aren’t those two conditions true for every aspect of society? We want no state involvement in healthcare, education, etc. I don’t believe that you would advocate for state involvement in those other areas in the meantime, even, for example, to teach students in government schools about the virtues of western civilization.<br /><br />You suggest that I have sided with the cultural Marxists and Gramsciists against you. I reject the notion that there are only two sides. I am in favor of a third option: even if I were to share some or all of your views about these groups, I am not willing to advocate for initiating force to defeat them.<br /><br />Finally, I go back and forward about whether you are actually articulating libertarian principle or libertarian strategy. On the latter, I offer some Rothbard sentiments from “For a New Liberty” (pp.385-6): “The insight that the State is the major enemy of mankind, on the other hand, leads to a very different strategic outlook: namely, that libertarians should push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or activity on any front. Any such reduction at any time should be a welcome decrease of crime and aggression. Therefore, the libertarian’s concern should not be to use the State to embark on a measured course of destatization, but rather to hack away at any and all manifestations of statism whenever and wherever he or she can. . . . Thus, the libertarian must never allow himself to be trapped into any sort of proposal for “positive” governmental action; in his perspective, the role of government should only be to remove itself from all spheres of society just as rapidly as it can be pressured to do so.” The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28928569171170853052017-11-02T05:42:44.171-07:002017-11-02T05:42:44.171-07:00(Part 1 of 2) You say “I do not advocate for state...(Part 1 of 2) You say “I do not advocate for state action; I am stuck with state action …” But the fact that there is an acting state doesn’t oblige you to advocate that it continue to act. You could also advocate that it cease acting, as I’m guessing you do in all other areas of society, and advocate for private, peaceful solutions to issues. So what you seem to be saying is that, while there IS a state, you advocate that it act to reflect your preferred immigration policy, but you will cease advocating for state action when there is no longer a state. That seems to be half-libertarian. And yes, I do not admit that there cannot be a libertarian position in a world with states; in fact, what is the point of libertarianism as a contemporary philosophy if not to argue against state action when states exist? As I have noted previously, in my view the libertarian position is to oppose the initiation of force, which means (among other things) opposing state action. <br /> <br />The libertarian toolbox to resolve societal issues includes persuasion, self-defense against imminent physical threat, market transactions, shunning, secession, etc. You have given sound examples of restrictions the state places on certain types of shunning. But other peaceful means exist and, moreover, what you’re saying is that if I can’t make them work, then let’s use force. I can’t square that with the NAP.<br /><br />Moreover, practically speaking, there are lots of libertarian issues with relying on the state to do your bidding. First, as previously noted, with all the diverse interests of individual citizens, how can the state be expected to pick a policy that satisfies everyone? If, per your wishes, the state forcibly excludes individuals who might not be in favor of traditional western civilization, it may be forcibly excluding some of these individuals who nevertheless want to engage, and have been invited to engage, in peaceful activities with residents (trade, employment, common interests, etc.). Second, why would you expect that the entity that has prohibited forms of shunning in which you might want to engage will in parallel exclude those who are protected by its own anti-shunning policies? Third, to advocate for the state to act as border cop is to support taxation to finance the state’s activities. <br /> <br /><br />The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-6685841573286230412017-11-01T03:25:52.424-07:002017-11-01T03:25:52.424-07:00NAPster, it's your time to reply or not. What...NAPster, it's your time to reply or not. What I do thereafter is my time.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-4393224785974249362017-10-31T18:19:11.176-07:002017-10-31T18:19:11.176-07:00You didn't convince me last time, and I specif...You didn't convince me last time, and I specifically wanted to explore with you some ideas that came out of Hoppe's talk which was the reason for your initial blog post. But it's your blog and your rules, so if you'd prefer to use your time elsewhere, we can end our correspondence. Otherwise I would reply in substance.The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-29536280927365636402017-10-31T06:53:45.896-07:002017-10-31T06:53:45.896-07:00See here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017...See here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/10/nap-time-ii.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27545450896919717212017-10-31T06:29:19.564-07:002017-10-31T06:29:19.564-07:00NAPster
Something has been bothering me about our...NAPster<br /><br />Something has been bothering me about our entire conversation. It is a conversation covering ground that I have covered a dozen times, but this doesn't bother me - nothing says I had the same conversation with you, and I don't expect every reader to have read everything I have written on a subject.<br /><br />But this is what was bothering me: I HAVE had this same conversation with you:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/05/nap-time.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-90655716440391954542017-10-31T05:10:13.588-07:002017-10-31T05:10:13.588-07:00“Finally, I would like to state my version of your...“Finally, I would like to state my version of your summary: to advocate for state action in any world IS NOT LIBERTARIAN.”<br /><br />Let’s begin at the end:<br /><br />1) I do not advocate for state action; I am stuck with state action – no matter what – on this topic as long as there are state borders.<br /><br />2) I am honest enough to admit that my position on this topic is not libertarian, as no position in a world with state borders can be libertarian; you are unable to either see this or admit this.<br /><br />“As to shunning, not all is lost: consumers are still allowed to shun vendors, tenants to shun landlords, employees to shun employers, and neighbors to shun neighbors.”<br /><br />Yes, all of the shunning that makes a communist happy and makes a libertarian cringe. In each of your examples save the last one, consider that it is illegal for the one who owns property to “shun,” and it is legal for the one without property to “shun.” <br /><br />My position is clear: it takes TWO things to come to a libertarian open borders position in a world of state borders:<br /><br />1) Absolute property rights and all property in private hands<br /><br />2) No state involvement in border control<br /><br />I say why not push for the first; you say let’s take the second without the first. My priority is at the foundation of libertarianism – without absolute private property rights, there is no such thing as “libertarian”; your solution works with the cultural Marxists and Gramsciists and the state to destroy western civilization.<br /><br />So, when faced with two actions necessary to move to a libertarian policy on border control, why do you side with THAT crowd? The crowd that is worried about outcomes, not means?<br /><br />“I’m not saying that things have worked out well in Germany, but libertarianism is concerned solely with means, not outcomes.”<br /><br />It is comments such as these from less-than-well-considered libertarian positions that will ensure that libertarianism will never gain ground. Some applications of libertarian theory are not so simple, yet too many libertarians bellow simple slogans, ensuring we remain marginalized.<br /><br />Rothbard has written about such libertarians:<br /><br />“One argument that paleoconservatives make about libertarians is that we tend to become so enamored of our "abstract" though correct theory that we tend to underweigh concrete political or cultural problems, and here is a lovely example.”<br /><br />He is writing of educational vouchers, but his thoughts are perfectly applicable to the topic we are discussing, and I make the point here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/rothbard-and-open-borders.html <br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33431001574624848692017-10-30T20:43:35.806-07:002017-10-30T20:43:35.806-07:00Several times you raise the point about constructi...Several times you raise the point about constructing a “libertarian immigration policy.” I guess I don’t see libertarianism as a political philosophy that needs to come up with any policy other than “Don’t initiate force,” which is the whole basis for rejecting the legitimacy of the state, even when it exists. Thus when the state forcibly restricts humans from interacting with one another -- which is what it does when it plays border cop -- isn’t the libertarian “policy” to reject the legitimacy of that restriction? I understand that a libertarian is also a human being, and thus he will have his own unique objectives and desires that he may want to layer on top of that “policy,” but in his capacity simply as a libertarian, isn’t he supposed to reject all state action? Why is the NAP “incompetent in this situation”? It seems to supply an answer here as cogently as it would in any other situation.<br /><br />We also seem to differ on what it means to “initiate force.” If I understand your view correctly (based on your Merkel example), if a state does not restrict the movement of a person, it is initiating force against those people who might wish that there had been a restriction on that person’s movement. Yes, the state is initiating force against those people in its taxation and regulation activities, but these are positive acts of expropriation of private property and restriction on the exercise of self-ownership. However, in relation only to this individual’s movement, I cannot see how the state failing to restrict his movement initiates force against other people (and, conversely, because taxation funds state action, there IS initiation of force against these people when the state garners the resources to restrict this person’s movement). If a state does not tax A to provide a subsidy to B that B desires, is the state initiating force against B? Doesn’t your position amount to a statement that “Not acting equals acting”? Isn’t this a logical contradiction which renders the definition of “initiation” meaningless? <br /><br />I’m not saying that things have worked out well in Germany, but libertarianism is concerned solely with means, not outcomes.<br /><br />In this world where you want the state to act to defend its borders, how is the state supposed to concurrently serve all the varied and conflicting interests of its many citizens (leaving aside the point that, by its nature, the state will more likely act to serve itself)? Do you end up having to support majority rule? <br /><br />Two small points.<br /><br />On the topic of exclusion, I will grant that I was not as clear as I could have been. I did not mean not associating with someone, but rather initiating force to prevent that person from interacting with someone else.<br /><br />As to shunning, not all is lost: consumers are still allowed to shun vendors, tenants to shun landlords, employees to shun employers, and neighbors to shun neighbors. <br /><br />Finally, I would like to state my version of your summary: to advocate for state action in any world IS NOT LIBERTARIAN. <br /><br />It is a circle that cannot be squared.<br />The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-37690502771567781692017-10-28T07:26:59.440-07:002017-10-28T07:26:59.440-07:00“…but it seems that there is a particular outcome ...“…but it seems that there is a particular outcome you want – a particular make-up of the society in which you live – and your position on immigration in a world with states is designed to achieve that outcome…”<br /><br />The closest I can come to a libertarian immigration policy in world with state borders is a policy of invitation and guarantee: invitation by a citizen, with the citizen guaranteeing that the immigrant will not be a burden to society and will not be a criminal. Consequences attach to the citizen if either of these is breeched.<br /><br />So…this doesn’t assume any particular outcome; it is merely as close to a libertarian policy in a world of state borders that I can come up with.<br /><br />“But where I do differ with you and Hoppe is that I don’t believe it is consistent with libertarian philosophy to advocate for the initiation of force – through the use of the state as border control – to create a society that rejects the legitimacy of the initiation of force….”<br /><br />I do not advocate for the initiation of force; I also do not advocate for cultural and political suicide. I do not accept that there can be any libertarian policy on immigration as long as there is a state; there is no such thing as a “do nothing” option – every option involves an initiation of force. Merkel did the “do nothing option”; do you believe this to be a libertarian solution? Do you believe she did not initiate force against those already living in Germany?<br /><br />As long as there is a state – impossible under the NAP but accepted by libertarian minarchists – there will be state borders. To have state borders requires some sort of defense of those borders – defense being one of the few tasks allotted to government by minarchists. How does the state defend its borders without knowing who comes and goes and having some idea of their intentions?<br /><br />Now, for the anarchist: the state cannot be derived from the NAP; how can the NAP offer a solution to state borders? I go further: to have a libertarian policy on immigration requires 1) absolute private property rights, and 2) no government intervention in immigration matters.<br /><br />Libertarians are looking for an answer on immigration in a world of state borders that the NAP cannot offer – the NAP is impotent in this situation, it is incapable of squaring this circle.<br /><br />“I can imagine that someone might respond “Well then, how are we supposed to get to a libertarian society if we don’t forcefully exclude or remove those who would reject its very principles?””<br /><br />I admit to being one of the libertarian wimps when it comes to “forcibly removing” people already living in peace. I lean on other moral principles in this regard. This is me, personally. But I understand the view.<br /><br />But what of “exclude”? If you and a dozen friends created your own “society,” and you wanted this to be a society solely comprised of Christian families, are you not allowed to exclude others? For libertarians, there is only one answer to this; that our only option is to rely on the state to make this happen (because we do not have absolute property rights) means what, exactly? <br /><br />Because we are forced to work via the state in this matter, are we to merely accept being left naked regarding our own personal preferences, our own property? This is a very non-libertarian concept, don’t you think?<br /><br />“…there are some obvious peaceful means that come to mind that may enable progress towards that goal, such as group shunning of unwanted newcomers…”<br /><br />Illegal today. Even individual shunning is illegal – try not baking the wedding cake for the gay couple. It is impossible to square the circle you are attempting to square.<br /><br />Finally, I appreciate your distinction of type 1 and type 2 OBLs. The type 1 I view as either useful idiots or criminally complicit. For the type 2, I have given my best response above (well, actually my best responses are probably in my more formal posts).<br /><br />I will summarize: to advocate for open borders in a world absent full private property rights IS NOT LIBERTARIAN.<br /><br />It is a circle that cannot be squared.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-81925611716856091902017-10-26T06:44:20.440-07:002017-10-26T06:44:20.440-07:00BM:
I have read these blog posts, but they do not...BM:<br /><br />I have read these blog posts, but they do not respond directly to the points I raised above. I am still interested in your views on those points.<br /><br />The reason I ask is as follows. Perhaps I am misinterpreting you and Hoppe (and I feel sure you will tell me if this is so), but it seems that there is a particular outcome you want – a particular make-up of the society in which you live – and your position on immigration in a world with states is designed to achieve that outcome, even if the means are inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. I don’t have any quarrel with your having an objective, nor the nature of that objective. But where I do differ with you and Hoppe is that I don’t believe it is consistent with libertarian philosophy to advocate for the initiation of force – through the use of the state as border control – to create a society that rejects the legitimacy of the initiation of force (this seems to be of a piece with Bush Jr.’s comment in 2008 that we had to abandon free market principles to save the free market). <br /> <br />I can imagine that someone might respond “Well then, how are we supposed to get to a libertarian society if we don’t forcefully exclude or remove those who would reject its very principles?” There are at least two answers I would give. First, even if I can’t articulate how we get there, the shortcomings of my or the questioner’s imagination are not a justification to fall back on the initiation of force (this is one of statists’ favorite arguments: “Hey, if you can’t tell me what a stateless society is going to look like, then I think we need the state.”). Second, there are some obvious peaceful means that come to mind that may enable progress towards that goal, such as group shunning of unwanted newcomers, homeowner association covenants (e.g., the famously difficult process to buy into a New York City co-op building), and local residents pooling resources to buy neighboring property put up for sale so as to control who comes in.<br /><br />There is one related point I would also like to make. I have long wondered if, in the context of debating immigration policy in a world with states, you are unfairly grouping together two different sets of so-called “open borders” libertarians (OBLs). It does seem that some OBLs (call them Type 1 OBLs) want anyone and everyone to be able to move to the US; some of them may want this for nefarious reasons (i.e., to dilute or destroy the traditional culture), and some of them may have other, less nefarious reasons (e.g., because they believe immigration is good for economic growth). However, there are other OBLs (call them Type 2 OBLs) who believe that to initiate force against individuals coming from abroad who have committed no NAP violation, and/or to forcibly prevent residents from contracting or associating with such foreigners as they so choose, is contrary to libertarian philosophy. I view Type 1 OBLs as being concerned mainly with ends, and Type 2 OBLs being concerned only with means. I just don’t understand the argument against Type 2 OBLs if it essentially says that IN THIS INSTANCE it’s OK to initiate force.<br />The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36955802438691788822017-10-24T17:46:33.371-07:002017-10-24T17:46:33.371-07:00>Specifically on the alt right, I don't und...>Specifically on the alt right, I don't understand their strategy. Why introduce race into the equation? That is the game of the left: identity politics. They will win or bring you down to their level every time. Why not just focus on cultural values and the Western tradition? You are going to attract mostly white people anyway so why bother bringing race into it. It seems idiotic. <br /><br />Whatever criticism you have of “Altright” strategy (I have many myself), race shouldn’t be one of them. In democratic politics it is always best to be on the attack. You are correct that the left has won the identity politics game for awhile now, but that’s because the right wasn’t playing! The idea that they will win just because they have in the past is incorrect. The election of trump proves that implicit racial politics (immigration) can seal the divide between white union democrats and small gov republicans. If the white can become pro-white it will force the left to double/triple down on anti-white politics. It’s already happening even though pro-whites aren’t in positions of power. In fact if the GOP can’t become hardline anti immigration (and implicitly or explicitly pro-white) it will cease to exist as a political force when America loses a white majority.<br /><br />Unhappy Conservative (2.0)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05647440445427537430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27886536339593177582017-10-24T07:20:29.033-07:002017-10-24T07:20:29.033-07:00Since it is not aggression to refuse to deal with ...Since it is not aggression to refuse to deal with someone, for whatever reason, the answer to your long-winded comment is, "Yes."Bob Robertsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-34588576339350664622017-10-24T07:18:04.910-07:002017-10-24T07:18:04.910-07:00One of the things often forgotten in nay-saying pr...One of the things often forgotten in nay-saying private property is the fact that people do not live in isolation. We live in communities, we associate with others, and there is an emergent "social standard" that is very real.<br /><br />Sure, the little girl is trespassing on my lawn to pick a dandelion, but if I shoot her I have committed murder. Did she trespass first? Yes. Did she violate my property rights? Yes. It remains a fact that the _society_ I live in has set a standard of conduct that considers such a radically disproportionate use of force to be invalid, and no appeal to the NAP is going to do any good.<br /><br />The theory of private property in land is a pyramid stretching from the center of the earth to the limits of the atmosphere (at least). However, the fact remains that the social standard allows me unrestricted _access_ to the underground through my two-dimensional ground plot, the limits of which are my ability to homestead that volume.<br /><br />Sky is just the same. I can build up just as I can dig down. Can I build a 300-story building with a radio tower on it? Yes. Yet the space above what I can homestead remains open access to transit, and I would be in violation of the social standard if I shot down aircraft merely because they flew over my building.<br /><br />The social standard also applies to just what is and is not trespassing in air. An aircraft, the operation of which is deliberately "violating my space" is open to retaliation. I happen to think Mike Rowe shooting down a camera drone was wonderful, and I consider his defense of his privacy to be fully within his rights.<br /><br />Courts exist because people disagree with what constitutes a violation of property. The social standard exists for exactly the same reason.Bob Robertsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27093042857959429402017-10-24T06:49:12.670-07:002017-10-24T06:49:12.670-07:00Media reports every time Richard Spencer sneezes b...Media reports every time Richard Spencer sneezes because they are in panic that they won't get culture adulteration. For the same reason for a time they reported every little utterance of that "God hates fags" joke of a group. They never got any more than some 75 people in their following despite the <br />overwhelming free publicity and some backwards half-truths in their message. (Romans One is one of the natural results (judgments) for rejecting God, not its cause). <br /><br />But they were able to talk about "God hates fags" as a lead-in to something Dennis Prager said about "gay marriage" or Dr. Dobson said...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84837695668768939772017-10-24T06:27:59.262-07:002017-10-24T06:27:59.262-07:00Whiteness cannot be the ultimate criterion for any...Whiteness cannot be the ultimate criterion for anything, much less a strategy for promoting liberty. What is usually described as "whiteness" in these debates, when not meant as a strictly racial or skin color concept, involves references to civilization, cultural contexts, respect for others' rights and property, and so on. <br /><br />But what is good in European cultural heritage is really a Christian heritage, built over the millenia in steps. St. Patrick invoked Christian concepts to condemn slavery, practiced the love of Christ by introducing literacy to the Irish, who learned to love the written word and preserved many Greek and Roman classics for posterity, shared their Biblical and secular knowledge in the universities of Charlemagne, incubated Western science and principles of individual rights, clinics and hospitals, orphanages, taboos against human sacrifice, and even Charles Darwin wrote about the relief of world travelers to find a church steeple on an unknown island because they would not find themselves in a stew where Christian missionaries had been. <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-66937835770501360302017-10-24T06:15:32.643-07:002017-10-24T06:15:32.643-07:00I should say, compatible with...I should say, compatible with...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84042857035467389502017-10-24T06:10:49.358-07:002017-10-24T06:10:49.358-07:00Adrian, I am more and more coming to the view that...Adrian, I am more and more coming to the view that our success (for those of us who want to move more toward a libertarian society) hinges on advocating and advancing the best traditions and norms of Western Civilization, while openly discarding the worst of the traditions (e.g. as has been done with slavery, etc.)<br /><br />The destruction of this tradition will lead to a defenseless population; the enhancement of this tradition will lead to a population that values liberty.<br /><br />No small task.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25941437340592538102017-10-24T06:06:51.074-07:002017-10-24T06:06:51.074-07:00NAPster
I offer the following three posts in resp...NAPster<br /><br />I offer the following three posts in response. I think this is the most efficient way I can move the conversation forward. After you read these, I will gladly discuss further.<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-logical-inconsistency-of-open.html<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/open-borders-no-answer-in-non.html<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/06/block-and-bionic-duke-it-out.html <br /><br />In this last post, "open borders" Walter Block decides I might be on to something; the first two posts set up the "something."bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45845093423183677812017-10-24T06:05:57.827-07:002017-10-24T06:05:57.827-07:00:Can a Christian be a non-fake libertarian?"
...:Can a Christian be a non-fake libertarian?"<br /><br />Abolutely yes. Libertarian rules for society, in fact, are really based on the Golden Rule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42513729722508046752017-10-24T05:28:39.717-07:002017-10-24T05:28:39.717-07:00"And while it is true that the State is a cri..."And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry."<br /><br />This was a strange comment coming from someone like Hoppe, for a few reasons. I am interested to get your thoughts, BM.<br /><br />First, it sounds quite utilitarian, weighing up the cost of one policy vs. another and trying to pick the one with the least negative utility. "Utilitarian" is not a word that I am used to associating with Hoppe. How can he know or measure the "utils" for each person in society from one policy vs. another, and then sum them up to get to this conclusion?<br /><br />Second, where else in Hoppe's writings has he advocated for state action, as opposed to cessation of action / inaction? I would have picked Hoppe to be someone who always and everywhere is for a reduction in state action and who never depends on the state to achieve an outcome.<br /><br />Third, I don't see how inaction can be described as action just because of its consequences. When the state acts, it coerces people. When it doesn't act, it does not coerce people. Aren't libertarians against coercion? Moreover, one could extend his concept as follows: if the state stopped collecting taxes to pay the police, and thus the police went on strike, yes, society would suffer somewhat from the police being on strike, but does that justify advocating for the state to continue to collect taxes? I would have thought the libertarian answer is to applaud the cessation of tax collection and to look for private sector solutions to protecting property in the absence of police action.The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-30349485657584963292017-10-24T00:41:23.472-07:002017-10-24T00:41:23.472-07:00Bionic, I agree. I would not doubt that the intel...Bionic, I agree. I would not doubt that the intelligence services have their infiltrators on both the SJW left and alt right. I also suspect that the excessive coverage of Spencer as an alt right figurehead is deliberate by the media. The core alt right somehow needs to figure out how to marginalize or expunge the fringe losers for as small as they are, their actions could poison the reputation of their movement. Especially with the mainstream media involved. Maybe the damage has already been done. Time will tell.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377005509866420932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11410846737410267162017-10-23T19:00:59.210-07:002017-10-23T19:00:59.210-07:00"If" perhaps the biggest two-letter wor..."If" perhaps the biggest two-letter word in the English language.<br /><br />We will never get this with imperfect, fallen humans. So...here we are.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.com