"A Time for Choosing" "A Time for Choosing" - Page 5

starting strength gym
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 95

Thread: "A Time for Choosing"

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    157

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2021
    • starting strength seminar june 2021
    • starting strength seminar august 2021
    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    OK. So thatís the NAP. On its own itís a floating abstract.

    So, what prevents anyone from initiating force, or to obtain justice in the case of an initiation of force ?
    Are you:
    1 Trying to construct an argument that, as a principle, the non-aggression principle is wrong because someone might choose to violate it? In that case every political principle is wrong.
    2 Genuinely trying to find out how someone responds to it being breached? In which case this is heading nowhere because there is no guarantee that the same moral framework is in place between people.
    3. Something else?

    You asked for, and were given, a definition of libertarianism. The provided definition does lead to the requirement for the ability to appeal to a higher authority to enforce rules, which is 'normally' considered a role for a government. You can get into a deontological consistency argument about government (or other authority) needing resourcing which is appropriated by force therefore breaching its own rule. This can be countered by 1) a consequentialist argument appropriate government seeking to minimise the perceived aggression which just leads to endless discussion of whether a deontological or consequentialist view is correct, or 2) an anarcho-capitalist solution.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    44,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    The reason Iím hard on libertarians is because they have destroyed the moral case for capitalism.
    Explain.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    ďProperty rightsĒ is a concept related only in the context of a society which respects them and it requires a Government to protect them. If everyone is running around shooting everyone because they have decided their property rights have been violated where does that leave us ? Total anarchy.

    You just changed the discussion from what to do if someone initiates force to what to do if your property rights are infringed and assumed the exact same response. While the two are logically connected, is fair to assume that in its first use in this thread that 'initiates force' can be understood to be the more common usage about using physical force on your body.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    Capitalism cannot flourish in anarchy.
    We have not, on this thread at least, established that capitalism is the goal. If you want to pick holes in the logic chains of others be prepared to fully outline yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    The reason Iím hard on libertarians is because they have destroyed the moral case for capitalism.
    You cant really destroy a moral case. There are some people who call themselves libertarians who may have provided flawed examples of implementing capitalism, but that is a lot different to your statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    Hence the entire premise of the Non Aggression Principle (something plagiarised from Ayn Rand) is uprooted by Ďmight makes rightí.
    You need to read a much wider body of works. Rand was far from the first person to make statements equivalent to the non-aggression principle. One example is Albert Nock, a libertarian, in "Our Enemy, The State" which precedes Rand. There are many others too.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling View Post
    A lot of Peter Drucker's works, while management oriented, have a string underlay of the Austrian School of economics, since that is where the late Herr Drucker was born and educated. He cuts through the more current (and in the context of a 70 year old guy like me that covers 30 some years) of jargon of feel good and makes his points briefly and efficiently.
    His business models are based on the three legged stool idea, business, government and the church. This model was used to build those mega churches where you focus on growing numbers and keeping the consumers happy, a market driven approach so that they would continue to grow and eventually dominate secular society and take control. Trump had some of those folk in his religious advisory board. Some were prosperity teachers and mega church leaders and some were self appointed prophets who predicted Trump would win a second term. I don't know how Trump allowed such folk to get that close to him unless he wanted to use them the get support from the vast Christian population in the US.

    "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20 [KJVPCE])

    This verse is completely foreign to them. For these super apostles you need at least 50,000 as your customer base so that you can build your huge mega domes and buy your Lear jet.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KShedd View Post
    The US Government does not in fact have more guns than the general population.

    Also, the created idea is better than a piecemeal evolution of society. It gives the citizens a concrete standard to go back to when progressives get it off the rails. This is what makes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution important and unique.
    Agreed. Letís hope you do.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Le Comte View Post
    Are you:
    1 Trying to construct an argument that, as a principle, the non-aggression principle is wrong because someone might choose to violate it? In that case every political principle is wrong.
    2 Genuinely trying to find out how someone responds to it being breached? In which case this is heading nowhere because there is no guarantee that the same moral framework is in place between people.
    3. Something else?

    You asked for, and were given, a definition of libertarianism. The provided definition does lead to the requirement for the ability to appeal to a higher authority to enforce rules, which is 'normally' considered a role for a government. You can get into a deontological consistency argument about government (or other authority) needing resourcing which is appropriated by force therefore breaching its own rule. This can be countered by 1) a consequentialist argument appropriate government seeking to minimise the perceived aggression which just leads to endless discussion of whether a deontological or consequentialist view is correct, or 2) an anarcho-capitalist solution.
    1. No. I¬’m saying that it¬’s a floating abstract used in isolation like that.
    2. Clearly not. I¬’m suggesting it hasn¬’t been established at all. It¬’s more equivalent to revealed knowledge.
    3. Yes. As above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Explain.
    Because anarchy and capitalism are in opposition. Anarchy is rule by force. Force and freedom are complete opposites as are force and reason. It is the substitution of whim for reason. It is at its core irrational.

    What are the aims of Antifa and BLM ? Anarchy in opposition to capitalism. To destroy capitalism. They believe in the rule of force and they are applying it and you are effectively supporting that position whilst claiming to be the good guys. You surely are aware of the similarities ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Le Comte View Post
    You just changed the discussion from what to do if someone initiates force to what to do if your property rights are infringed and assumed the exact same response. While the two are logically connected, is fair to assume that in its first use in this thread that 'initiates force' can be understood to be the more common usage about using physical force on your body.



    We have not, on this thread at least, established that capitalism is the goal. If you want to pick holes in the logic chains of others be prepared to fully outline yours.



    You cant really destroy a moral case. There are some people who call themselves libertarians who may have provided flawed examples of implementing capitalism, but that is a lot different to your statement.



    You need to read a much wider body of works. Rand was far from the first person to make statements equivalent to the non-aggression principle. One example is Albert Nock, a libertarian, in "Our Enemy, The State" which precedes Rand. There are many others too.
    Physical force is what I meant. I don’t know of any other time.

    No, we have definitely NOT established capitalism as the goal. I would like to know if anyone here does so ?

    Of course you can destroy a moral case. Just sit by and do nothing, compromise or act immorally.

    Haven’t you picked up my name yet, it isn’t accidental ;-) I’ve read a very large volume of work and have an extensive library on many libertarians. Rand was the first person to take the idea that no man should initiate force against another out of the mystic. Libertarians treat it like revealed knowledge. Has any of them ever asked why ? Why shouldn’t we all just go around doing exactly whatever we want and let the strongest survive and the weak perish ?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    44,653

    Default

    Satch, what do you think he wants to do? How would he run things, besides first getting rid of all the libertarians? He won't say.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Satch, what do you think he wants to do? How would he run things, besides first getting rid of all the libertarians? He won't say.
    He doesn't know what he wants. Who does?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Satch, what do you think he wants to do? How would he run things, besides first getting rid of all the libertarians? He won't say.
    As a political system ? Laissez Faire capitalism. Complete separation of state from economics. All property privately owned. A Government strictly delimited to the defence of individual rights.

    Where did I say I want rid of libertarians ? I can only try and persuade people that capitalism is the most moral system and that Anarchy is not compatible with capitalism. If your intention is to argue against capitalism then OK thatís your position.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    2,438

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Satch, what do you think he wants to do? How would he run things, besides first getting rid of all the libertarians? He won't say.
    He's just too confused, contradictory, and unclear to be certain. Whatever it is, it's going to hurt, bad.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •