The power to rule others [W: 230]

[KevinKohler]

You're still talking nonsense. When people get something through fraud, the original owner CONSENTS to transferring ownership to the defrauder. It is not in any way "tantamount to stealing"

Once again, you're relying on dishonest semantic sophistries

Correct, but that consent is given under circumstances that were not, and are not, ever going to be met. That falls into the same basic category as violating contracts, something libertarians are very much against.

 

[Centinel]

I didn't say that libertarians think rape and murder are OK, at least not seriously. What I did dispute is your claim that the govt should only restrict aggression, and nothing else.

Fraud does not in any way use aggression or force. If you honestly believed what you claimed, then you would admit that the libertarians would do nothing to prevent or punish fraud

I agree with you that the government should prevent fraud as well as aggression.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So what?

Aggression is not defined as "anything injurious or destructive". It's defined as "a use of force that is injurious, hostile or destructive". Fraud doesn't use force. It uses deceit, so your claim that fraud is forceful is dishonest.

Yes it is deciet. But it is also force. The force is in the fact that people do not have a say. If someone steals your personal info and uses it to withdraw all the money out of your bank account then you had no say in it. Which is what applying force is all about. Not allowing the person to have a say in something.

You can play the semantics game all that you want but in the end reality trumps semantics.

Also you really should stop with the "dishonest" claims. You have a tendency to use it when you have no idea that a person is being dishonest or not. Dishonesty is intentionally making a false claim or or making a false stance. No one here has done that as far as you can honestly tell/prove. You may think that other peoples stances are false but that does not mean that people are intentionally doing it. It may simply be a difference of opinion based upon differnt points of view due to differences in experiance.

 

[Centinel]

You're still talking nonsense. When people get something through fraud, the original owner CONSENTS to transferring ownership to the defrauder. It is not in any way "tantamount to stealing"

Once again, you're relying on dishonest semantic sophistries

In fraud, the seller does not deliver what was promised. He owes what what promised, but withholds it and delivers something else. I think that most people agree that fraud is tantamount to theft.

 

[Centinel]

Exactly right, but Centinel must continue to dishonestly misrepresent reality and others' opinions, and pretend that any one person is ruling over him (or that he hasn't consented to being governed)

No human being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate such initiation of force.

Do you feel as if you have the right to initiate force against you neighbor? Do you feel as if you can delegate the initiation of force, and then some third party can rightly initiate force against your neighbor?

 

[sangha]

I agree with you that the government should prevent fraud as well as aggression.

But, but, but you also said that the govt should only prevent and punish the use of force. Now you've changed your tune and claim that it's OK for the govt to prevent and punish things that do not involve the use of force

Will you ever get your own arguments straight?

And when you do, how will you rationalize the govt use of force to prevent things that do not involve the use of force?

 

[sangha]

Yes it is deciet. But it is also force.

deceit <> force

The force is in the fact that people do not have a say. If someone steals your personal info and uses it to withdraw all the money out of your bank account then you had no say in it. Which is what applying force is all about. Not allowing the person to have a say in something.

The defrauded person most certainly does have a say. In the example I gave, the victim CHOSE to agree to the exchange. In your own example, the victim choose to not protect their personal info. They chose to put their money in a bank that would give their money to anyone who showed up knowing their personal info. No one forced the victim to do that and if they had made different choices, they'd still be in possession of their money.

You can play the semantics game all that you want but in the end reality trumps semantics.

You're the one who is so wrapped up in semantic games that you've deceived yourself into thinking that people have no say in where their money is kept. :lamo

 

[sangha]

In fraud, the seller does not deliver what was promised.

Nonsense. That is not the definition of fraud. Once again, you're claiming that words mean what you say they mean. You keep trying to do that, each time thinking that "this time, I'll succeed", even though your previous attempts have all failed. Theres a word for someone who keeps trying the same thing over and over, getting the same result, but hoping that this time, they'll get a different result

He owes what what promised, but withholds it and delivers something else. I think that most people agree that fraud is tantamount to theft.

I gave him the bottle of water I promised him. And what you think most people agree with is not the same thing as what most people actually agree with. Once again, you are claiming that words mean what you say they mean, and not what they actually mean

 

[sangha]

No human being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate such initiation of force.

Do you feel as if you have the right to initiate force against you neighbor? Do you feel as if you can delegate the initiation of force, and then some third party can rightly initiate force against your neighbor?

Once again, Centinal is engaged in the dishonest claim that someone is ruling him without his consent

No one is ruling you without your consent. The govt rules you and does so without your consent. If you want to withdraw your consent, here's a helpful link:
Renunciation of citizenship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ryanm]

I didn't say that libertarians think rape and murder are OK, at least not seriously. What I did dispute is your claim that the govt should only restrict aggression, and nothing else.

Fraud does not in any way use aggression or force. If you honestly believed what you claimed, then you would admit that the libertarians would do nothing to prevent or punish fraud

That's why Centinel wrote, "aggression against person and property and support the use of force to prevent such aggression."

 

[KevinKohler]

No human being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate such initiation of force.

Do you feel as if you have the right to initiate force against you neighbor? Do you feel as if you can delegate the initiation of force, and then some third party can rightly initiate force against your neighbor?

If my neighbor is doing something, or, more to the point, NOT doing something, that is conducive, or required, by society that he/she do.

Hypothetical.

No public roads. Why, because there are no public taxes to fund public roads. So, everyone funds only the roads they use. Small neighborhood of 10 houses, nestled back in some woods. They have a road, that they upkeep themselves. Except for ONE neighbor, who flat out refuses to do so. Do you have the right, then, to bar that neighbor from using the one and only road to and from his/her house? And if so, at the point of signing the contract stating such, is that not FORCE being applied? "Either agree with us to help fund the road, or buy another house, or just never leave your house."

 

[Centinel]

Once again, Centinal is engaged in the dishonest claim that someone is ruling him without his consent

No one is ruling you without your consent. The govt rules you and does so without your consent. If you want to withdraw your consent, here's a helpful link:
Renunciation of citizenship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dishonest claim? I think there's pretty widespread agreement that people in the government initiate force.

Are you saying that you believe people have the right to initiate force against another's person or property?

 

[sangha]

That's why Centinel wrote, "aggression against person and property and support the use of force to prevent such aggression."

But as I"ve already proven, and Centinal has agreed, fraud does not involve aggression

 

[Ryanm]

You're still talking nonsense. When people get something through fraud, the original owner CONSENTS to transferring ownership to the defrauder. It is not in any way "tantamount to stealing"

Once again, you're relying on dishonest semantic sophistries

I think you just want to argue. It's extremely clear how fraud is similar to stealing. If you need someone to explain it to you using the 20 volume set of the Oxford English Dictionary I just feel bad for you. Anyway, go ahead and think that libertarians like fraud, and that fraud is not in the same category as theft.

 

[Ryanm]

But as I"ve already proven, and Centinal has agreed, fraud does not involve aggression

Yes it does. Against property. Aggression doesn't always mean a fist/gun in someone's face.

 

[Mach]

What's with the fraud != aggression nonsense? Drop this issue, it's pointless.

Aside from anarchists, most every other strain of libertarians/libertarians I assume support the below. We could argue how they are derived from similar things, but it's irrelevant, and isn't going to lead anywhere other then the below anyway.

Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You're already explained that you are a consequentialist, so I acknowledge that you believe your worthy ends justify setting yourself up as ruler of your fellow man.

I don't believe I am worthy of squat, not try at categorizing me with your odd idea of rulership.

 

[sangha]

Dishonest claim? I think there's pretty widespread agreement that people in the government initiate force.

No, the govt initiates the force. The people are merely "agents of the govt". You do understand what the word "agent" means, or do we have to have another of your dishonest debates about the meaning of a word?

Also, you have consented to being governed and consented to submitting to govt force

Are you saying that you believe people have the right to initiate force against another's person or property?

ANd again centinel uses the word "people" as if it were synonymous with the word "government", even though he admits that they are not synonyms. His arguments are so dishonest, that he has had to deny making them (before doing the same thing over again

"People" aren't intiating force against you; the "govt" is and you have consented to it

 

[sangha]

I think you just want to argue. It's extremely clear how fraud is similar to stealing. If you need someone to explain it to you using the 20 volume set of the Oxford English Dictionary I just feel bad for you. Anyway, go ahead and think that libertarians like fraud, and that fraud is not in the same category as theft.

Similar does not mean "same"

They are different things.

Cats and dogs have similarities, but cats are not dogs.

 

[sangha]

Yes it does. Against property. Aggression doesn't always mean a fist/gun in someone's face.

No it does not

Aggression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2
: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3
: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Fraud dies not involve force, hostility, injury or destruction

 

[sangha]

What's with the fraud != aggression nonsense? Drop this issue, it's pointless.

Aside from anarchists, most every other strain of libertarians/libertarians I assume support the below. We could argue how they are derived from similar things, but it's irrelevant, and isn't going to lead anywhere other then the below anyway.

If that's what you believe, then thats fine and dandy. I was merely refuting Centinals inane claim that the only time the govt could use force was to prevent or punish a persons use of force.

 

[Centinel]

No, the govt initiates the force. The people are merely "agents of the govt". You do understand what the word "agent" means, or do we have to have another of your dishonest debates about the meaning of a word?

Yet the people, whether or not they are acting as agents, are initiating force.

And who are the principals who have delegated to their the authority to initiate force? And how did the principles get the right to that which they have delegated?

Also, you have consented to being governed and consented to submitting to govt force



ANd again centinel uses the word "people" as if it were synonymous with the word "government", even though he admits that they are not synonyms. His arguments are so dishonest, that he has had to deny making them (before doing the same thing over again

"People" aren't intiating force against you; the "govt" is and you have consented to it

Cops are not people?

 

[Centinel]

If that's what you believe, then thats fine and dandy. I was merely refuting Centinals inane claim that the only time the govt could use force was to prevent or punish a persons use of force.

I appreciate your criticism. Given your critique, I realize that I would have been better to have used the language Mach used above and initially said that the purpose of government is to prevent aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. That's a much better way to put it. Hopefully I'll not slip again and just mention aggression.

 

[sangha]

Yet the people, whether or not they are acting as agents, are initiating force.

No. Again, it's the govt that initiates the force, not any person or persons. Individuals, either alone or acting together, do not have the authority to initiate governmental force.

Again, the people are only acting as agents of the govt. Again, do you know what the phrase "agent of the govt" means?

You can't win by ignoring the arguments other people make. All you do by that is reveal how weak your position is.

And who are the principals who have delegated to their the authority to initiate force? And how did the principles get the right to that which they have delegated?

The govts power to use force comes from the consent of we, the people. And you have consented to their use of force too. If you want to withdraw your consent, here's a helpful link, which I'm sure you;ll ignore just as you have ignored the arguments I've made, and the dictionarys' definition of many words

Renunciation of citizenship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cops are not people?

Police officers are "agents of the govt". This is an argument that I'm sure you'll ignore because your position can't stand up to the facts

 

[sangha]

I appreciate your criticism. Given your critique, I realize that I would have been better to have used the language Mach used above and initially said that the purpose of government is to prevent aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. That's a much better way to put it. Hopefully I'll not slip again and just mention aggression.

Good. I appreciate your finally acknowledging that your initial claim was wrong. Now I can move forward and show why your latest formulation is just as weak as your earlier one was

Why is using force to prevent fraud a valid (under libertarianism) function of the govt?