Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Is that not my point? After all, if you make it immoral to do what you call oppressing people, that means that only immoral people will do it yes?

[Nadaka]

You benefit from a road by its contribution to society even if you don't drive on it. You have the option to not pay for any part of society even in the world we have now. All you have to do is move out far enough into the wilderness and live a hunter gatherer lifestyle alone and without support from anyone else. Why not take that option in order to live in your ideal libertarian utopia today?

[LordBucket]

All you have to do is move out far enough into the wilderness and live a hunter gatherer lifestyle alone

Why not take that option in order to live in your ideal libertarian utopia today?

This thread is discussing a conceptual basis for a society.

One does not have a society if one is living alone in the wilderness.

[Nadaka]

I can accept the restriction of my right to murder people in order to make my own murder dramatically less likely. Do you really view any form of government, any restriction as oppression? Even if that restriction is to prevent you from oppressing others?

All you have to do is move out far enough into the wilderness and live a hunter gatherer lifestyle alone

Why not take that option in order to live in your ideal libertarian utopia today?

This thread is discussing a conceptual basis for a society.

One does not have a society if one is living alone in the wilderness.

And that is the only way a libertarian society can protect you from being malevolent intentions of those who would wield power against you.

[ThreeToe]

I had to remove some sexually oriented language.  Please try to keep it clean.

[LordBucket]

Do you really view any form of government, any restriction as oppression?

If that restriction is unwanted and imposed through threat of force, yes.

Even if that restriction is to prevent you from oppressing others?

None of the following involve preventing me from oppressing others:

 * Taxes
 * Traffic fines
 * Compulsory school attendance
 * Imprisonment for failing to comply with any of the above
 * Agressive military acts upon foreign nations
 * Etc.

The premise here is the valuation of individual liberty. If people get together and agree to not oppress each other, that is consistent with this valuation. If people get together and extort money and imprison people who don't comply, it is not.

[alexwazer]

Even if that restriction is to prevent you from oppressing others?

None of the following involve preventing me from oppressing others:

 * Taxes
 * Traffic fines
 * Compulsory school attendance
 * Imprisonment for failing to comply with any of the above
 * Agressive military acts upon foreign nations
 * Etc.

There is a huge step between disagreeing with taxes and traffic fines and removing every laws. You blatantly ignore the more obvious laws concerning major crimes. Why? Why do you keep talking about taxes, but never mention murder? Why ignore rape and assault but make all a fuss over traffic fines? Do you imagine that in a libertarian society there would be no murder, no rape or violence? If so... I'm lost for words. Otherwise, how would you suggest taking care of those "crimes" (which, without laws, would not be crimes)?

I agree on many points you've made, you just lose me when you talk about some lawless utopia. Either you have much more faith in humanity than I do, you are completely disconnected from reality or you are such an horrible person that such a lawless world would become a playground (and no, I don't think so for a second).

[Vector]

which, without laws, would not be crimes

Written laws calling things crimes, and their enforcement, do not make crimes crimes--just as ceremony and governmental observance do not make a marriage.

[Glowcat]

No, I'm pretty sure the definition of crime is a breach of law which allows the crime-initiator to receive punishment from a government enforcing those laws. 100% sure, in fact.

You don't need to mess with definitions to call laws or actions immoral.

[Vector]

I'm not exactly sure why we're upholding this system of force that is apparently completely divorced from morality, then...

[alexwazer]

Avoiding the issue again. If you disagree with the system, how would you propose to handle crimes (I'm even ready to let you use the world without laws )?
Simple question. I'll even provide possible answers:

You don't.
You the victim(s) handle it how he or she see fit.
An eye for an eye...
You let someone else decide/judge. Who?
By consensus. Between who and who?

Edit: And of course, I forgot a possible answer: there would be no such crime in a libertarian society

[scriver]

I'm not exactly sure why we're upholding this system of force that is apparently completely divorced from morality, then...

That the word crime would have such a definition (which I don't agree with) and thus be separate from morals does not mean laws have to be immoral or going against what you consider moral.

[Vector]

Accidentally coinciding with morality is not moral at all.

[Gunner-Chan]

As strange as it sounds, using Morals as a baseline for laws is usually a terrible idea. Why? Well, morals are very subjective. Why do you think all the saving marriage and other bullshit happens? Not to mention laws that end up technically taking away rights from people since others think those actions are immoral.

[scriver]

Accidentally coinciding with morality is not moral at all.

It is not accidental or even coincidental when people shape their laws after their morals.

As strange as it sounds, using Morals as a baseline for laws is usually a terrible idea. Why? Well, morals are very subjective. Why do you think all the saving marriage and other bullshit happens? Not to mention laws that end up technically taking away rights from people since others think those actions are immoral.

I think not saving marriage is moral, that's why I want the laws to reflect that. I'm not sure what we could base laws on if not what we feel is right.