The core of Stefan's philosophy is that the state is fundamentally illegitimate because it requires taxes to sustain itself, and taxation is theft. Taxation is a violation of the non-aggression principle, therefore it is wrong. There is a number of problems with this. In his argument he is assuming a number of things from the get go that people must accept for his argument to have any validity whatsoever, and this sort of dupery goes over his followers heads.
>property rights exist a priori
You don't have to be a marxist to see the problems with this. By stating that taxation is theft, he is implicitly stating that people have the right to keep their money in the first place. He considers this truth to be self-evident, yet the history of the world says otherwise. For a philosopher, it is very dishonest of him to skip over this problem without much thought.
>property rights are infallible
Not only does he assume private property exists, he ignores every ethical ramification of this theory. For example, is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine? Are people ever justified in taking food from the land owner? Do people have a responsibility of anything higher than the individual? Stefan often ignores these ethical problems altogether to avoid being branded as a utilitarian. In his view the land owner is well within his rights to horde everything for himself, his logic is simply private property rights exist ad infinitum, ad nauseam. If the land owner has any incentive to keep the people fed it is from a free market perspective and not a moral one.
>>73192051
>people don't have to give up anything for a social contract
Rousseau argued that the freedoms people give up to enter a social contract they gain in civil liberty and proprietorship. By denying the state the right to be obeyed(so long as they are serving the interests of the people), Stefan is implying that these things can exist in Hobbes' state of nature. Which brings me to his next assumption:
>human nature is good
He has to believe this in order for his anarchism to make any sort of sense. Interesting that despite this he is against Muslim migration, because he believes the "uncivilized" nature of their beliefs to be fundamentally bad.
>the family is just as invalid as the state
He takes his extreme individualism a step further by attacking the traditional family structure. In his world, spanking and other types of physical discipline are a form of sexual abuse. Not only that, parents are wrong for forcing their moral beliefs(such as Christianity) on their children. He argues that you shouldn't even want your parents in your life if they've violated you in this way, and especially if they support state violence against you through taxation. And he makes all of these arguments while pointing out that atheists are flawed for not having more children.
>>73192162
>the state is necessarily inferior to the free market in every aspect of life
He is a typical anarchist in the sense that he believes you don't even need the state for things such as roads or fire departments, and other things that people consider to be common sense necessities. But if you watch enough of his videos, it is fairly easy to see his endless contradictions. He has taken a highly favorable view of Trump, who is authoritarian on issues like immigration. His reasoning for this is that by limiting migration and preserving European populations, the very liberty and freedom he values so much are ensured. This is maybe his greatest contradiction because he is basically saying
>the state is invalid unless it is being used to keep me safe from Muslims and Mexicans
Safeguarding the people has always been one of the chief responsibilities of the state, and they can only do so from either taxation or the fruits of conquest, both of which violate the NAP. By making this argument he invalidates every single one of his arguments against the state.
>>73192051
NOT
>>73192162
AN
>>73192216
ARGUMENT
>>73192051
>>73192162
>>73192216
DO YOU WANT HIM SHOT?
>>73192051
Stefan just says things /pol/ wants to here and someone is marketing his youtube channel on here on a regular basis.
>>73192269
How do I filter out these fucking leaves
>>73192467
Not an argument.
Wish I could find a single argument in those breathy posts.
>>73192051
>yet the history of the world says otherwise
Literally not an argument
>>73192051
Tldr
No one cares nigger
He helps the cause for freedom
He helps trump
Build the wall !!!!!!!!!!
>>73192269
>>73192698
Learn to read. Here's just one example from >>73192051:
>For example, is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine? Are people ever justified in taking food from the land owner?
>>73192816
An argument.
>>73192816
What the fuck is this "not an argument" thing? Here's a very clear argument, and there's many more. Learn to read (taken from >>73192051):
>For example, is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine? Are people ever justified in taking food from the land owner?
The fact that you can't answer an argument doesn't mean it's not an argument. It just means you don't know how to argue.
>>73192799
Not.
>>73192947
You mean it's not ethical?
>>73192051
>is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine?
It's not ethical but people should not be required to act in the most ethical way. Those people are not his responsibility.
>Are people ever justified in taking food from the land owner?
No.
>Do people have a responsibility of anything higher than the individual?
No. Maybe their children.
>>73192743
The argument is that if you're introducing a concept a priori that has faced tremendous backlash throughout the course of humanity then you are making an appeal to people who already agree with you on a number of things, and your philosophy is pretty much worthless to everyone else. In other words his argument is not philosophically compelling.
>>73192051
>By stating that taxation is theft, he is implicitly stating that people have the right to keep their money in the first place.
If the mafia enters your neighborhood and begins taxing all the companies there or else they'll burn your store, will you argue that you didn't have a right for your property anyway, and the mafia can do whatever they please? Who, if not you, may have a natural right over the property you acquire or generate without coercing or stealing from others? You propose that you have no rights, then who does?
>is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine
Does he have the obligation of providing for them? Everyone has their own moral code, therefore yes. it is ethical. Positive rights, unlike negative, have the potential to be never-ending, so it's absolutely retarded to claim that people have positive rights as societies and freedom collapse under them taken to a certain level.
>>73193320
So the land owner has no ethical responsibility to feed people, but the people have an ethical responsibility to respect his property not take his food, and let their children starve. Why? Are private property rights sacred?
>>73193170
An.
>>73192799
That's a loaded question fallacy, so yeah, not an argument.
>>73192051
>In his argument he is assuming a number of things from the get go that people must accept for his argument to have any validity whatsoever, and this sort of dupery goes over his followers heads.
That goes from fucking everything. Though if you think those things are wrong argue against them.
Saying there is a problem is not a refutation
> He considers this truth to be self-evident, yet the history of the world says otherwise.
The fact that some people prevent others from expressing that right(which themselves are expressing), does not invalidate this truth.
As for history, well this deosnt explain anything. Though won could say that the history of the world is based on class conflict and that oppression is mostly based on the expropriation of a person from his own property.
>For example, is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine?
That is a dumb scenario because that property owner requires people to tend to this land. This requires payment and payment is only accepted if it provides something of value to people. Furthermore, if people have money well whats the point of keeping stuff he will not use for himself. Should he simply let the potato's rott? or try to make a profit out of it?
>Are people ever justified in taking food from the land owner?
No they are not unless permitted by the owner.
>Do people have a responsibility of anything higher than the individual
Yu are responsible for anything which choice is removed over. For example your children never chose to get created. Therefore you owe them everything.
Valuing the individual means that not only one person is served but all who can be considered individuals aka humans.
> Stefan often ignores these ethical problems altogether to avoid being branded as a utilitarian.
Because atomised scenario's do not translate to reality.
(suite)
>>73192910
Not an argument.
>>73193855
Yes. Your food ends where my crops begin.
>>73192051
If you're so smart and confident in what you believe then get on his show with him.
Protip: You won't, because you're a pussy and you know he'd destroy you but you'll make up some other bullshit excuse :).
>>73193855
Where would these positive rights you advocate for end, according to your moral code?
What if tomorrow you decide that, once the famine has been solved, the rich guy has a pretty wife therefore you should have a right to bang her while he looks cause you have no wife?
Positive rights are pandora's box so no serious philosopher will ever take them into consideration. You have the right to try to take my property from me but I have the right to stop you and enforce my private property. You'd be surprised, but most people despise thieves, and societies do work together in order to protect their lives and private property.
>>73194192
It's a question with a statement in support of a proposition, so it's an argument. Learn what the word means.
>>73193855
Positive/negative rights.
Positive rights are cancer.
>>73193697
>If the mafia enters your neighborhood and begins taxing all the companies there or else they'll burn your store, will you argue that you didn't have a right for your property anyway, and the mafia can do whatever they please?
It could be argued that I don't have a "right" to anything I can't protect. In a "might makes right" sort of logic, if the mafia can take something from me, it was never really mine in the first place.
>Who, if not you, may have a natural right over the property you acquire or generate without coercing or stealing from others?
Private property is naturally coercive because it implies that I have a right to use violence against say, a homeless person who doesn't have any land for himself and is trespassing on mine.
>You propose that you have no rights
I'm proposing that assuming property rights exist is an enormous shift of the overton window in the realm of philosophy.
>>73193882
Fallacy fallacy. Why are Stefbots so afraid of ethical problems?
The irony of it is that without the state, people like Stefan would be trampled in five minutes by some lawless gunslingers.
Let's see him say "not an argument" when people are breaking into his house and taking his shit and steroid-jacked faggots are fucking him up the ass.
>>73194497
This "it's not an argument" meme is just a way for Stefan to tell his fanboys to avoid continue arguing when they don't have answers. After Joe Rogan exposed Stefan about DEFOO (google Stefan and Defoo to hear about it) he's been in a full panic mode.
>>73194161
>Saying there is a problem is not a refutation
No but it does establish that his philosophy is built on a shaky foundation.
>The fact that some people prevent others from expressing that right(which themselves are expressing), does not invalidate this truth
You are making the same mistake as him by assuming this truth to be self-evident
>That is a dumb scenario because that property owner requires people to tend to this land.
So we agree that in this scenario, according to Stefan's logic his incentive to feed them comes from a free market perspective and not a moral one.
>No they are not unless permitted by the owner.
What gives the owner alone the right to decide whether they all starve or not? A deed?
Ah look, the statist cuck thread!
>>73192051
>>73194161
>>73192051
>In his view the land owner is well within his rights to horde everything for himself,
hording is not very profitable and exposes you to social rejection.
Unless the landowner is self-sufficient in all activities. Which is a retarded position. If you accuse him of assuming many things, I would beg you to look into your own logic.
> his logic is simply private property rights exist ad infinitum, ad nauseam. If the land owner has any incentive to keep the people fed it is from a free market perspective and not a moral one.
This again assumes that the land owner is self-sufficient in all activities as opposed to the rest of the population.
as for moral reasoning to feed people, you should argue why morality derives from duty before proposing it as a refutation.
Oh and as for utility, it has no moral sphere what so ever.
>Rousseau argued that the freedoms people give up to enter a social contract they gain in civil liberty and proprietorship.
Yeah Rousseau did write a book which is basically a big list to santa too. Rousseau can argue his position all he wants but the fact of the matter bis that people never enter in a social contract and they never willingly submit part of that freeedom, it is always assumed by the State.
And for all I care, social cpontract theories only answer to this is:"well it gives us insight on how an ideal society would work". Which is not an argument but a wtv I'm right answer.
>human nature is good
never claimed once. At all. So the rest of the "argument" has no value at all.
>He takes his extreme individualism a step further by attacking the traditional family structure.
except he has hundreds of video praising the traditional family structure. I this point I don't think you know much about him at all.
>In his world, spanking and other types of physical discipline are a form of sexual abuse.
Physical abuse. He has never called a spanker a rapist.
(suite)
>>73192051
> and taxation is theft
No, it's fucking not. I like small government as much as the next guy, but lets be real here. Taxation is essentially a contractual agreement between the individual and the state in which the individual pays fees in exchange for the state providing services (like infrastructure) that the individual could not otherwise secure themselves. If you don't like it, you have a right to break that contract by leaving the country your in.
>>73195623
I didn't sign that contract. Fuck off.
>>73195623
I didn't sign that contract. Fuck off.
I didn't sign that contract. Fuck off.
>>73195257
>>73195257
>Hoarded all the water in a populated area
>non-aggression
pick one
>>73195940
>>73195257
>>73195623
Burden of proof, statist fucks
>>73192162
>Not only that, parents are wrong for forcing their moral beliefs(such as Christianity) on their children.
Yeah it is wrong. They could be reasoned into these beliefs though.
>He argues that you shouldn't even want your parents in your life if they've violated you in this way
Not true. he argues that your parenst should be held responsible or the wrong they have done. He argues that if a particular relationship in a family is abusive, it is moraly justified for a child to remove himself from this environment.
>And he makes all of these arguments while pointing out that atheists are flawed for not having more children.
I don't see how this is related to the prior point, sound like a red herring to me.
But it is true atheist are not having children and therefore will be flooded by other people which are not atheist.
>He is a typical anarchist in the sense that he believes you don't even need the state for things such as roads or fire departments, and other things that people consider to be common sense necessities. But if you watch enough of his videos, it is fairly easy to see his endless contradictions. He has taken a highly favorable view of Trump, who is authoritarian on issues like immigration. His reasoning for this is that by limiting migration and preserving European populations, the very liberty and freedom he values so much are ensured. This is maybe his greatest contradiction because he is basically saying
Why is it that your first assumption is totally unrelated to the rest? Oh yeah lets poison the well for a minute shall we?
> But if you watch enough of his videos, it is fairly easy to see his endless contradictions.
which are?
>>73196091
Is that you Stef?
>>73192051
Why don't you call him up and he'll dismantle you in minutes
>>73196347
The only person who can beat Molyneux in a debate is Chomsky
>>73192216
>He has taken a highly favorable view of Trump, who is authoritarian on issues like immigration. His reasoning for this is that by limiting migration and preserving European populations, the very liberty and freedom he values so much are ensured. This is maybe his greatest contradiction because he is basically saying
Thats not his reasoning at all.
He claims that in this context what do we do?
You have condidates, who should you choose when you compare them to each other?
Furthermore he has defended trump many times because people are juste creating lies about him.
Further more, he has claimed many time that what sell it to him is first The Don is alpha as fuck, second he is a collectie fuck you to the establishment and to the media.
>
Safeguarding the people has always been one of the chief responsibilities of the state, and they can only do so from either taxation or the fruits of conquest, both of which violate the NAP. By making this argument he invalidates every single one of his arguments against the state.
This ignores the fact that he has stated that these opinion are dependent on the relative situation of the present.
Whicih is why he says, if we want open borders we need total freedom if you wnat a welfare state well you need to protect your local population from migration which ultimately thends to have the same effects as an invasion.
So buddy sorry but 3 large text box which include no argument.
>>73196058
>Needing burden of proof to argue that taxation is a reliable and responsible way to provide things for public use that couldn't otherwise be acquired, like roads.
Yeah, I gotta be a statist for wanting a reasonable measured way for the populace to fund civil society. I mean, having millions of people who don't pay taxes or contribute to anything outside of their own base desires and needs has never caused problems right? I can't think of a single example to counter you country-that-now-has-a-muslim-mayor.
>>73195417
>hording is not very profitable and exposes you to social rejection.
This again assumes the the notion that the landowner should operate according to what is best for his economic interests and not according to what is simply "the right thing to do" ie if he lets people starve then people won't want to do business with him, so he should feed them because it's best for business.
>never claimed once. At all. So the rest of the "argument" has no value at all.
If he doesn't believe that human nature is good then why does it make any sense to allow people unlimited freedom from the state to pursue their impulses and desires?
>except he has hundreds of video praising the traditional family structure
I don't think you understand what "traditional" means if you think a family can be considered traditional without physically disciplining their children and shaping their morals. If by traditional you mean that a husband and wife and their children all cohabitate, then yes I suppose he does defend that.
>>73196496
>literally taking half of someone's income
>reasonable
fuck off
>>73196496
>having millions of people who don't pay taxes or contribute to anything outside of their own base desires and needs has never caused problems right
Causes problems when governments subsidies their mistakes.
>Governments don't have to follow the moral principles they impose on their populations
>>73196662
Bantz aside I'm sorry half your income gets taken away britbong, that's pretty shitty.
>>73195736
>>73195811
You implicitly sign it by living in the country, you autists.
>>73192051
>taxation is theft.
No its not. Its rent.
>private property
If inalienable private property exists then all land belongs to the King who is the mystical [metaphysical] body which incorporates all the people of the nation.
> is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine
No. The aristocracy has a duty to provide for the peasantry.
>Are people ever justified in taking food from the land owner?
Only foreign land owners or those whom the Mandate of Heaven has abandoned.
>Do people have a responsibility of anything higher than the individual?
Yes. Unless you are a filthy libertarian.
>free market perspective
"Economics is a dismal "science"."
>>73196426
Lawdy.
Libertarians are vulgar materialists who deny the nation and the family. The worship the dollar and empty value like liberty and freedom (regicidal Jacobins).
Bend the knee Libertines.
>>73192051
>People don't have a right to their money because history says so.
Literally not an argument. You dismiss his assertion due to some vague notion that history says so? Why? What part of history? When did Chronos come down and demand that people must give a portion of their earnings to the state? Federal income tax during peacetime wasn't even a thing until the 20th century.
>Inherent Property Rights are fallible because it gives land owners overwhelming power against those without land
But you fucking stated that land owners are incentivized to keep their neighbors fed due the free market, which is inhibited by taxation. People will always have some service to give, be it labor, skills, or as a defense against aggressors. This is literally so inherit that nearly every animal on the planet understands it. The land owner who doesn't feed his populous is just going to fall to some other land owner who does.
Even in the extreme case that a land owner somehow managed to own the entire planet he still wouldn't be able to maintain everything on his own.
>>73196808
>25% theft is okay but 50% theft is shitty because of my opinion
Hang yourself
>>73196813
>"Implicitly sign it"
Holy fuck you autist
You implicitly consent to me killing you by breathing. You can't argue with that because you gave implicit consent
>>73192162
>>human nature is good
The sheer amount amount of 'inellectuals' that belives this still suprises me
Human nature is first and foremost selfish. We do good things only because that often results in us and our peers being happier.
>>73196058
>Anarchism has never been tried so you can't point out the flaws with it while statism is real and therefor necessarily worse
That's some ebin memery right there. No, the burden of proof I'd on you to prove that this change is necessarily good.
>>73196928
>reason and pragmatism is opinion
Wew
>>73197148
Ancapism harnesses that selfish nature and turns it into productivity.
Statism hands over control to politicans and corporatists acting for their own selfish needs
>>73196058
>undeniably, factually horrendous
I deny this assertion. Your move.
>>73196091
>which are
His stance against Muslim migration requires statism. He also made a video defending the crusades. Basically his logic against statism and agression only applies for as long as there isn't a group of undemocratic peoples that pose an existential threat. And since his philosophy is simply property rights ad infinitum, that taxation isn't good even if its funding roads or fire departments, by making a single exception he invalidates his entire theory. If his logic isn't sound in every single case then it theoretically isn't necessarily sound in any case.
>>73192051
Why wouldn't property rights exist?
>>73197249
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Governments are responsible for more death in modern history than any other single factor.
>What are GOVERNMENT wars
>What is GOVERNMENT genocide
Individualism > Collectivism
OP is so stupid I feel like I lost 5 IQ points reading this shit.
>>73197355
It depends if they exist naturally, or are only granted by a state (whether it be comprised of 1, 2, 100, or 1000000 people)
>>73197235
>Ancapism harnesses that selfish nature and turns it into productivity.
The problem with that assumption is that you assume that an Ancap society will always be more beneficial for individuals than crime.
It's still easier for me to steal your shit than to work for the same shit. In an Ancap society where there isn't an authoritarian government looking over illegal dealings, I can more easily find some place in the country that is not monitored as well, gather up like-minded individuals, and start an organized crime syndicate.
Which will flourish because it will always be easier to rob and steal than to work.
>>73196496
>millions of people who don't pay taxes or contribute to anything outside of their own base desires
And welfare states are completely free of this type of people, yep.
Not ITT: Arguments
>>73197249
The assertion is backed by the fact that our country is now 19 trillion in debt due to the completely retarded actions of our welfare state, and we as citizens are now forced to pay for it straight out of our labor because the state says so.
>>73192269
>>73197699
Where's yours?
>>73197553
And why would anarchism be any better.
Because reality is arguably bad, theory is not necessarily better.
Not an argument.
>>73197643
Is it not easier to rob and steal in our current societies than to work?
>crime doesn't exist when there is government
>police forces cannot exist in an anarcho capitalist society because people won't demand protection from crime
>>73194934
>No but it does establish that his philosophy is built on a shaky foundation.
no it doesnt it established that something bothers you nothing else.
>You are making the same mistake as him by assuming this truth to be self-evident
I would argue the point if you proposed a refutation for this self-evident truth.
This is how a debate functions.
>So we agree that in this scenario, according to Stefan's logic his incentive to feed them comes from a free market perspective and not a moral one.
no absolutly not. unless your a psychic, there is no way of testing and knowing intentions in any possible way.
You might want his argument to derive from economic reasoning but tehre is no proof or test possible for that.
and furthermore, what's the problem with economic reasoning? how is it immoral? or amoral? for all Ì care economic reason do not go against NAP.
And then lets assume this land owner is a greedy asshole. If his motivation for hiring people is economic and not derived from virtuous behavior, it does matter because then regardless the people get to profit from his greed by having his ressources available for a price.
If you want people to be driven only by virtue, your asking for people to constantly motivate there choices by virtue. And since they can lie then you need a way to test perpetually all action and confirm that they are derived from virtue at all time.
So basically your asking for an unrealistic standard to be applied to human moral reasoning.
>What gives the owner alone the right to decide whether they all starve or not? A deed?
What gives you the right to assume people are starving?
But what give him ownershipo of his property is the fact that he was either the original appropriator and therefore must have homesteaded him property, or he has bought the property therefore has the right through lawful and contractual property transfer or if he was gifted that property.
>>73197592
Peru is so 3rd world that losing 5 IQ points every time you read is part for the course.
Or Austria, but what's the difference?
>>73192051
>Non-aggression principle
>Atheist
>Abused by his single mom
>Government shouldn't exist
He's good on covering political stuff like Trump and the migrant crisis but that's it.
>>73197553
>Governments are responsible for more death
So?
>>73197730
>Thinking businesses can force you to fight other people against your will in a voluntarist society
>>73194934
>What gives the owner alone the right to decide whether they all starve or not? A deed?
and let me tell you something, the land owner own his land, not all land.
So your scenario assumes all land is owned and everybodies land is poor except the land of one person which is absurde.
>>73197634
There is no such thing as a "natural right", the notion of right is a human moral construction. You can't go naked towards a pack of hyenas and scream that you have a right to be alive. If you are not strong enough to fend off the hyenas then you don't have a "natural right" to stay alive.
>>73197947
>I don't believe murder is wrong
Discussion over. Nihilism is resistant to all arguments
>>73197993
This isn't about force, this is about individual people being shit bags on the average.
>>73197665
I'm talking about taxation in favor of infrastructure and public works that couldn't otherwise be acquired by an individual, such as roads, emergency services, power, water, sewage ect. I never said anything about welfare.
>>73194497
>It could be argued that I don't have a "right" to anything I can't protect. In a "might makes right" sort of logic, if the mafia can take something from me, it was never really mine in the first place.
You may want to claim that for you taxation isn't theft, but when he claims it is theft he is right, because for him it is. Your voluntary and quiet surrender of your property to the bigger gun is your own moral code, which may or may not be shared by others.
>Private property is naturally coercive because it implies that I have a right to use violence against say, a homeless person who doesn't have any land for himself and is trespassing on mine.
NAP and private property advocate for retaliation so you're not making a big discovery here, yes, there's a certain amount of coercion implied in private property, but only in response to a previous coercion, very specific and avoidable condition, and key for the prosperity of societies.
>I'm proposing that assuming property rights exist is an enormous shift of the overton window in the realm of philosophy.
Not an argument. The concept of initiation of force does exist, is very clearly defined and is universally perceived as evil, so extending the concept to the logical conclusion in regards to private property is nothing but reasonable.
>>73192051
That's why you derive legitimate property concepts from the Almighty God to instantiate them as an objective reality. And then you whine and cry about "muh sky wizard" while I pray your judgment is merciful you violent faggot.
>>73198154
Murder is wrong. Killing is not murder. I'm not a nihilist anyways. Nihilists should be killed for the danger they pose to the nation.
>>73198154
Murder is unlawful killing, not all killing.
Not an argument.
>>73192051
>The core of Stefan's philosophy is that the state is fundamentally illegitimate because it requires taxes to sustain itself, and taxation is theft.
Well that's too bad Stefan, the state has all the guns. It's completely legitimate, in that it can enforce its own legitimacy.
All those words and you still fell for the is-ought fallacy.
>>73198157
>individual people being shit bags
Democracy basically allows people like Bernie Sanders to come along and confiscate your wealth, just because all the dindus, spics and libtard college students voted to confiscate your wealth.
GIBSMEDAT, THE PEOPLE WILLED IT LOL BERNIE WAS DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED!
>>73194202
Your crops end where my knights decide, you filthy peasant.
>>73198271
>Most wars are self defense
>For self defense to exist there doesn't have to be a GOVERNMENT AGGRESSOR in the first place
>>73198323
No one said that democracy wasn't shit.
Not an argument.
>>73196463
>He claims that in this context what do we do?
>he has stated that these opinion are dependent on the relative situation of the present.
So his logic is flawed then, in other words.
>>73196913
>People don't have a right to their money because history says so.
Straw man, not the point I was making. The point is that this truth can hardly be considered self-evident when so many people disagree. In other words, a case for private property can be made, but he doesn't make it, he assumes the case has already been made and it is settled. And that would be fine if he was in charge of policy or simply a political commentator, and not a self proclaimed philosopher.
>The land owner who doesn't feed his populous is just going to fall to some other land owner who does.
So you are saying our morality should be guided purely by serving our own economic interests.
>>73197553
>Governments are responsible for more death in modern history than any other single factor.
Governments are also responsible for more life(and prolonged life) in modern history than any other single factor, so it's a mute point.
>>73192051
Okay, so, why don't you call into his show and present your arguments to him in person, rather than posting here on /pol where he's most likely not going to see (and rebutt) it?
>>73198286
The law has nothing to do with morality. The entire basis of the legal system you deal with is based on that premise - look up "legal positivism", and then fucking kill yourself.
>>73198288
>It's completely legitimate, in that it can enforce its own legitimacy.
You just gave me a boner.
>>73197809
You are assuming that because I say crime will be easier in an Anarchist society that it will non-existent in a society with a government.
In America right now, it is more dangerous to try to life a successful life of crime than it is to pick up a job that will pay the same amount. For now.
In an anarchist society, it will be easier to evade community-driven police groups than it is to avoid the FBI/NSA, as evil and totalitarian as they may be right now. As a criminal, I will always have the edge over honest people. I would be willing to kill, maim, bribe, and destroy lives, families and communities. No honest person will ever go as far as a criminal.
The fact that no one will even attempt an anarchist society is proof enough. American society is not perfect, but it is magnitudes better than anything else, as is evident by the technological leaps we've had in ~2 centuries.
>>73198514
Because Molyneux is a retarded hack who doesn't deserve the views.
>>73198460
If democracy is shit then the only non-democratic alternative is ANARCHISM
If you think dictatorships are better than democracy then you're retarded.
>Stalin is the dictator therefore he can take my wealth
Full on collectivism is worse than democracy.
>>73194935
goddamn I love this bald euphoric blue eyed son of a gun
>>73192051
Could you please post your address so we can come take your stuff OP
>>73198516
>tripfag
Lmao.
>>73198561
Why are competing protectorate groups somehow less competitive than non-competing government leeches...?
>>73198323
It's not "your wealth".
>>73198435
>I don't know what just war doctrine is
>Most wars are self defense
Never said this.
>For self defense to exist there doesn't have to be a GOVERNMENT AGGRESSOR in the first place
This is actually true. We 4G war now.
Read your Nietzsche anyways faggots. In any interaction between two individuals one is the governor and one the governed.
This rabid desire to throw off all just authority is what led to the French Revolution and our current mess.
>>73198631
OP must not think so, since he took the time to type this all out.
>>73198698
>wrongfag
LAMO
>>73198154
>>73198271
>being this scared of a lack of ideology
If nihilism is so bulletproof, maybe you should consider it instead of instantly entering philosophical fight-or-flight mode like a panicked ape.
>>73198471
>Governments are also responsible for more life(and prolonged life)
>What is scientific progress
>What is established religion
>What is capitalism and the enlightenment
The fastest growth in human living standards came when we started becoming more individualist and governments got out of the GODDAMN WAY.
>>73198742
It literally is.
Fuck off commie
>>73198651
Aristocratic Republics.
What do you guys think of based Bill Whittle?
Is he red pilled?
>>73198631
Molyneux is on the ball.
Which videos butthurted you the most, the ones about race or the ones about Trump?
>>73198769
>animefag
LMAO
>>73198792
>I'm a nihilist when I want to argue against your philosophy but I don't need to provide an alternative because I'm a nihilist
You're immune from arguments in the same way a feminist is immune from arguments from a white male because "you're a white male you don't understand our struggle so your point is moot"
>>73198516
Morality has no consequences except when enforced by law, so it's completely irrelevant on its own.
>>73198807
>What is scientific progress
What is stable conditions for scientific progress provided by the state.
What is government grants
>>73198891
But Anon, I support Trump and absolutely detest mudskins.
I just hate libertarians as well.
>>73192051
youre entitled to choose whatever you want to do with your time and have your own opinions. money is a function of time and opinion so saying that the collective is entitled to a portion of your money you are also enslaving a portion of your personal time and your opinion becomes invalid. obviously there is a spectrum of this but it can quickly get out of hand ie. 1776
>>73194303
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT
>>73199014
>You're immune from arguments in the same way that [completely irrelevant tangent]
Please explain how nihilists are equivalent to feminists, when nihilists have no ideology and feminists are defined by one.
>>73198741
you assume there will be competing protectorate groups
I am telling you right now, if I lived in an anarachist society, the first and only thing I would work on is to slowly corrupt/infiltrate all these protectorate groups. All humans are corruptible, all it takes is time.
Until there is only one major one that dominates all the other tiny ones. Then I can bully, intimidate, and beat the entire nation into submission, since no honest people would want to commit the crimes that I do towards them. It would eventually become a police state, with me as the Leader.
And I'm a nice guy. There are people trying to do this right now, and they'd be willing to go at much further lengths. A government such as a Republic staves off these advances, since they already have a monopoly in the space.
>>73193170
He means it's not an argument
>>73198895
>doesn't like anime
LAMO
>>73199037
Law doesn't enforce anything. Law does absolutely nothing by itself.
>>73198792
Can you read or no?
>"I am not a nihilist anyways."
Nihilism is the death of philosophy.
Disagreeing with your political ideology doesn't make someone a nihilist. '
Hell, being a murderer doesn't make you a nihilist.
>>73197819
>I would argue the point if you proposed a refutation for this self-evident truth.
The burden of proof is on you to establish why private property exists a priori. If that can't be established, then the rest of his logic fails through deductive reasoning.
>what's the problem with economic reasoning? how is it immoral? or amoral?
Because it is purely materialistic with no other considerations.
>What gives you the right to assume people are starving?
Because I put forth a famine scenario in the OP.
>>73198055
>So your scenario assumes all land is owned and everybodies land is poor except the land of one person which is absurde.
This scenario is possible, therefore not absurd.
>>73199258
>likes shit waifu Anime
LMAO
>>73199289
>enforced by law
don't split hairs. you know exactly what he means.
>>73192051
>>73192162
>>73192216
>>73192269
>>73192402
>>73192435
>>73192467
>>73192603
>>73192698
>>73192743
>>73192750
>>73192799
>>73192816
>>73192884
>>73192910
>>73192947
>>73193170
>>73193320
>>73193376
>>73193697
>>73193855
>>73193866
>>73193882
>>73194161
>>73194192
>>73194202
>>73194236
>>73194292
>>73194303
>>73194371
>>73194497
>>73194601
>>73194635
>>73194934
>>73194935
>>73195257
>>73195417
>>73195623
>>73195736
>>73195811
>>73195914
>>73195940
>>73195962
>>73196058
>>73196091
>>73196205
>>73196347
>>73196426
>>73196463
>>73196496
>>73196566
>>73196662
>>73196791
>>73196808
>>73196813
>>73196859
>>73196913
>>73196928
>>73197014
>>73197148
>>73197214
>>73197235
>>73197249
>>73197355
not an argument
>>73199243
I don't know in what world I wouldn't assume people wouldn't care about their own and other people's security.
That exact same scenario could happen now; why aren't you doing it?
>>73199289
Don't be autistic. Laws are enforced, morality isn't.
>>73199295
I was addressing where you said this:
>Nihilists should be killed for the danger they pose to the nation.
>Nihilism is the death of philosophy.
Good. It's needed to die for some time now.
>>73196791
So if not the State who protect your property rights? Yourself? You become armed? What if someone is in desperate need (or is simply a thug) and violates the non-aggro with more potent/powerful force?
Legit wondering
>>73199427
If you're not a troll, than you do know what you are right?
You are the one person whom "Not an argument" applies to.
>>73199426
No, he thinks laws have some fucking magical power to stop people from doing or encourage them to do certain things. Laws don't mean *JACK SHIT*.
>>73199537
Morality is the most enforced thing that has or ever will be enforced on humanity.
>>73198807
By this logic, Europe's greatest era of innovation and flourishment should have happened pre-Christianity and pre-feudalism, when there was much less government than there is now.
>>73199547
you have no clue what you are talking about
for starters, the state does not protect anyone or any rights, except incidentally, it protects the status quo
>>73196566
>This again assumes the the notion that the landowner should operate according to what is best for his economic interests and not according to what is simply "the right thing to do" ie if he lets people starve then people won't want to do business with him, so he should feed them because it's best for business.
so what? why is it that economic decision cannot be "the right thing to do"?
If claiming that "it is the right thing to do" is the only necessity for action then I could just claim it's the right thing to do in any possible situation if it suites me.
Your argument is based on aesthetics. this is low level reasoning.
>If he doesn't believe that human nature is good then why does it make any sense to allow people unlimited freedom from the state to pursue their impulses and desires?
Because there is such a thing as raising children and that good is preferable to evil.
>I don't think you understand what "traditional" means if you think a family can be considered traditional without physically disciplining their children and shaping their morals.
Then it would be a bit more honnest to say that he is not attacking but trying to improve it.
But man this conflicts me because you pull a Rouseeau on him but the n you seem to reject a lot of things rousseau proposed like not hitting children.
>>73199537
>Good. It's needed to die for some time now.
I think we are on the same page here. Scratch that. Are you saying philosophy needs to die? The love of knowledge needs to die? Neat.
Nihilists need to die. First of all they cannot justifiably protest their execution. If they are really nihilists there is no reason for them to fear death or cling to life.
Even Nietzsche was only a temporary nihilist (and incidentally a Jew lover). He wanted to create a new Morality with new gods.
Nihilism is a dead end that offers no benefits. Besides, its completely unjustifiable.
>tfw no arguments
>>73199669
Yes, enforced by laws, which are enforced by people with weapons. When not backed up by law, morality can only be enforced socially, which lost its effect sometime in the last century when the west lost its culture and became a collection of atomized individuals.
>>73199669
You can't force someone to be moral. You can only force them to behave morally.
>>73199616
Law necessarily implies people to enforce that law.
>>73192216
>>73192162
>>73192051
You can refute his entire argument with 3 words.
Will to Power.
All is force against force. A state or parent forcing something on a citizen or child is just another example. The human subject is not a big safe-space where nothing enters it without a 'pretty please', it's constantly being bombarded with forces of both human and non-human origin and every action it takes is an attempt to assert it's own will on both human and non human items.
>>73199818
Which is a roundabout way of saying that, effectively, the state protects your property. What a fucking dingus. Answer the question and stop being smug over nothing.
>>73199519
>I don't know in what world I wouldn't assume people wouldn't care about their own and other people's security.
Of course people will care for each other. They will never reach the same level as a crime syndicate's evil advances however. Look at the criminal cartel El Chapo built. There were plenty of people who tries to build defence forces and stop him, but his brutality won every time. They realized the safest thing to do is to cooperate.
So it would be the same for me in my criminally organized police force in an anarchist society.
>That exact same scenario could happen now; why aren't you doing it?
It is not.
Did you read what I wrote?
>A government such as a Republic staves off these advances, since they already have a monopoly in the space.
>>73199616
>No, he thinks laws have some fucking magical power to stop people from doing or encourage them to do certain things. Laws don't mean *JACK SHIT*.
You are splitting hairs. Anyone interesting in a rational discussion know that he means the laws are enforced by some policing body.
>>73197249
>His stance against Muslim migration requires statism
his stance is in the context of a State. His stance is that if you want a state this is how it works, if you don't have a State it would be completely different.
>>73199923
You can also, alternatively, not force them to do anything at all.
>>73199850
>Besides, its completely unjustifiable.
This is hilarious. If I have no ideology, I can justify whatever I want however I want. You're assuming everyone plays by your rules of consistency and proof, when all that really matters is effectiveness.
>>73198239
>there's a certain amount of coercion implied in private property, but only in response to a previous coercion, very specific and avoidable condition
A homeless person squatting on my property with no violent intentions has committed no coercion, his crime is that he underneath his feet is a portion of the earth is deemed to be mine by way of deed.
>The concept of initiation of force does exist, is very clearly defined and is universally perceived as evil
This simply isn't true.
>>73199893
The dictates of morality are enforced by the Almighty Power of God. Again - the most enforced thing that has ever or will ever be enforced on humanity.
>>73200193
When has your god ever enforced anything?
>>73199938
No it doesn't. You can have the law "the law shall not be enforced, and no law, including this law, shall have penalty for breaking".
>>73200295
Any law that isn't enforced is a law in name only. It barely counts, and you know what we're talking about. Don't be obtuse.
>>73200010
And they have no meaning since they are all superseded by God's Omnipotence. You can write down on a piece of paper "I shall never eat scones", with the penalty of gutting yourself if you fail it, and live by that law. It means *jack shit*.
>>73200091
Buy why? People are stupid and dirty. They need to be guided.
>>73200123
You are poorly defining nihilism my friend. Wikipedia seems at about your level. Here.
>Nihilism; (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.
> You're assuming everyone plays by your rules of consistency and proof
They aren't my rules. Also proof does not exist.
>when all that really matters is effectiveness.
If you are a consequentialist. Which would mean you are not a nihilist. Consequentialists still have notions of "the good." Nihilists deny that anything good can exist.
>>73200233
Every moment He's judging you. Every waking second you stack up the sin, and it comes to a crescendo of righteous justice for every soul.
>>73200429
A 2 year old can enforce a dictate.
>>73199849
>why is it that economic decision cannot be "the right thing to do"?
It can be, but not necessarily.
>I could just claim it's the right thing to do in any possible situation if it suites me.
Then your morality is guided only by your own individual interests, which has the same problems as acting out of economic interests.
>>73200010
>There were plenty of people who tries to build defence forces and stop him, but his brutality won every time.
And how did the Mexican state help, other than by stealing resources from these people and protecting the cartel with their corruption, so their coordinated defense was potentially weaker than it could have been if they were allowed to keep their production?
Your scenario is under a state. Friendly reminder.
>>73200512
You're just as stupid and dirty - there's no one to guide you among men.
>>73200295
Let's make some round squares and married bachelors.
The concept of law enforcement is intrinsic to the idea of laws.
All law that is not to be enforced is not a law.
>>73197249
>You need a government to stop immigration.
What is - fuck off we're full? You just tell them via the authority of the community you are voluntarily part of to fuck off or be forcefully removed.
They are intruding, you are on the defensive. It is not a violation of the NAP to kick them out.
>>73200605
My example isn't contradictory - hence the qualifier "including this law".
There's no objective definition of law and you fucking know it. This argument has been had *TO DEATH* and back in philosophy of law. It's a fucking dead end of dogmatism and absurdity through and through.
>>73200591
Is the state not made of of the people? Is it not supposed to be democratic?
Wasn't it democratic when it was first founded? Why is it at this state right now, and why did it's people let it fall into disrepair?
>>73200603
>You're just as stupid and dirty
Granted. Although I am less stupid and dirty then some. All men need authority. Even the King is under God.
>there's no one to guide you among men
We take the cleanest, wisest man and cede him full authority.
>>73200512
And what do you think nihilism looks like when it's actually applied? Looking at the static definition is fine, but nihil*ism* implies that there are nihil*ists*, who are humans that make decisions and take action. Knowing that truth is impossible, why would I make an attempt to argue truthfully or coherently?
Nihilists don't just sit in coffee shops repeating "truth is impossible" all day.
>>73200876
You can't identify that person. You are incapable.
>>73200770
>including this law
Except it isn't a law, you could have said "including this fish" and it would have been equally nonsensical.
Even then by, by making it so that "law" can not be enforced, you allow all other laws to be enforceable.
>>73200512
>Buy why? People are stupid and dirty. They need to be guided.
You literally criticized Stefan for making assumptions, yet you do so all the same.
Arguments discarded.
>>73200949
Donald J. Trump.
>>73200192
>A homeless person squatting on my property with no violent intentions has committed no coercion
False, he's preventing me from using my land as I see fit. Now, the importance of proportionality of the response is something that we may discuss.
>This simply isn't true.
One example of society where initiation of force is not perceived as evil?
>>73200685
>via the authority of the community
So you're admitting the collective has authority? Sounds like a huge concession to me.
>forcefully removed
>not a violation of the NAP
Mental gymnastics at work here. You're saying it's not an act of aggression to commit aggression against other humans for traveling across arbitrary lines that they might not even be aware of, and this authority comes from the collective, and these property lines are absolute without exemption, for reasons that don't have to be provided.
>>73192051
The guy actually wants anarchy and at same time to not have migrants. Who's going to control the borders if there is no country and no tax? There are no borders if there is no government.
>>73192051
Taxation is at worst rent.
>>73201005
Law *doesn't mean anything to begin with*. It's an excuse for people to try to justify their own forcing themselves on other people. And it's a non-justification in all cases. I can write down "no one else may breathe or else I shall kill them" and attempt to enforce that - it means absolutely nothing when someone else stops or kills me if I actually do. It's people taking action that actually affect physical changes, and those physical changes *THEMSELVES* mean *NOTHING* outside of the commands of God. You can stab me, give me bread, steal my watch, go bird-watching - whatever. It'll all get judged, and it won't be by the arbitrary whims of other stupid fallible humans whose actions and dictates ultimately mean absolutely nothing.
>>73200770
You seem to be intentionally muddying up definitions.
>There's no objective definition of law and you fucking know it.
There is. It is a set of rules enforced by an authority figure.
What you are arguing is whether a law is good or bad. This is not hard to determine.
We are just like every other living being on the planet, except we have the sheer luck of ending up with better intelligence. The rules that make up a good law are simple here. Just because we have better intelligence doesn't mean that we get to usurp all the natural laws that got us here. You need to follow these natural laws in order to continue to be the dominant life-form, or we will collectively face extinction.
If you are a religious-fag, this still applies. The most successful/longest living faiths will endorse these natural laws, along with the other baggage that comes with a religion.
>>73201279
What's the difference between mafia extortion and taxation, then?
>>73201130
Glorious Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
For the greater good, comrade!
>>73199298
>The burden of proof is on you to establish why private property exists a priori.
the argument is out there.
If you say there is something wrong about it. the burden of proof is on you. You have to demonstrate how it is wrong. you have never established this.
>If that can't be established, then the rest of his logic fails through deductive reasoning.
But he has. The failure comes from you since you cannot deliver on why his argument is wrong.
>Because it is purely materialistic with no other considerations.
so what? we live in a material world. Are you telling me that the thieves wont be stealing for material reasons?
And regardless if the reasoning is prelu materialistic, it doesnt make it bad or devoided of morality.
>Because I put forth a famine scenario in the OP.
in which you determin how things are arranged.
This is a Kobayashi Maru scenario in which mostly nobody can be right or wrong
>This scenario is possible, therefore not absurd.
saying so doesnt make it so mister god person.
The only way a person can accumulate is bey either stealing, generating value to others or if the person is in a situation of complete self-sufficiency.
In scenario 1, every person wronged would have legal recource to get back there shit.
In scenario 2, the owner cannot own all the wealth since he does not own everything and if he creates value to others then they have something and therefore are not in aposition of starvation.
In the third scenario, if he is self-sufficient, he either live on the margin and therefore has nothing to be taken or he has so much that taking doesnt matter at all.
plus, historically, Capitalistic economies have never had a starvation. even in economic down turns, no one has dies of starvation.
So my bad, you example is not impossible but so improbable that it is not even to be considered.
>>73201538
>There is
And where does this objectivity come from, oh great scholar of legal philosophy?
>>73201394
Youat attempt to enforce that within your jurisdiction, but don't be surprised when that intersects with the jurisdictions of other authorities.
>commands of god... judgement
I will care what God has to say when he sends a choir of angels to enforce his kaw. Until then, he can go fuck himsrlf.
Ethics =/= Social responsibility
Argument discarded
>>73201130
>False, he's preventing me from using my land as I see fit
What makes it your land in the first place? If the social contract is so invalid, what makes your belief that you own the land underneath you as granted by the social contract supersedes an individual choosing to opt out of it, believing that the land is for everyone?
>One example of society where initiation of force is not perceived as evil?
Any place that implements shariah law, for one. Any country that has legal child prostitution or slavery, capital punishment, or imprisonment. Basically any society that isn't entirely pacifist, which is all of them.
>>73200921
>And what do you think nihilism looks like when it's actually applied?
I don't think it can actually be fully applied.
> Knowing that truth is impossible, why would I make an attempt to argue truthfully or coherently?
Because you can't truly know that truth is impossible. If truth was impossible then Truth will be possible.
>>73200949
Also granted. Great men make themselves and take power. Power cannot be given.
>>73201100
>You literally criticized Stefan for making assumptions,
Where? I couldn't give half a shit about some internet libertine. Also people being dirty and stupid is not an assumption. Its math. Half of the population is stupider then the other half.
>>73201560
The Mafia don't own what they're 'lending'
>>73201560
Legitimacy.
>>73201606
So you choose to not deliberate over my comment, and resort to ad-hom atacks.
Nice to see you didn't forget your tripcode though, buddy.
>>73201610
So you're a relativist then, who believes might = right. And are thus actually just a nihilist in denial, since you can't actually instantiate *anything* mattering at all.
You won't be seeing a choir of angels, but that won't make your judgment for every sin you've ever committed any less excruciatingly real and eternal.
>>73201538
>Just because we have better intelligence doesn't mean that we get to usurp all the natural laws that got us here.
Not necesarily, as technology has allowed us to ignore some, and possibly more.
Even then, I don't think natural behavior and phenomena can truly be considered laws, as the universe has no will or teleos (as far as we know).
>>73201394
>>73201610
This. God's laws are unenforced, so they aren't laws.
>inb4 "they'll be enforced after you die!!!"
Delayed punishment of dubious existence doesn't make for a very effective law. Imagine if the state said "if you kill someone, you might go to jail in 50 years!" Do you think people would take that law seriously? Do you think that law would achieve its goal of not having people get murdered?
>>73200586
>It can be, but not necessarily.
which is why it doesnt matter as long as nobody is directly and willingly harmed.
>Then your morality is guided only by your own individual interests, which has the same problems as acting out of economic interests.
Well he says that he wants decision to be only done when they are "the right thing to do". Iamd elevating the absurdity about the claim by asking who and how is this determined. That idf the standard of action is to claim prior to action that "it is the right thing to do" i could just say it for everything.
And bizzarely I wouldnt say that it service individual self-interest since a person could actively destroy himself and everybody around him.
>>73201729
There's no power outside of God's to begin with. Vermin are powerless.
None of you fucking faggots have ever taken a logic class, have you?
>>73201729
>I don't think it can actually be fully applied.
Well too bad, you're wrong.
>Because you can't truly know that truth is impossible.
The thought is in my head, which satisfies my definition of "knowing".
>>73201947
None of us needed to
>>73201742
The government does? So when the French or the Spaniards claimed enourmous swathes of land without even ever having stepped foot on them, and then "sold" them to us, that was a legitimate exchange of property? So them simply saying "we own all that" actually made it so they did?
>>73201758
Why is taxation legitimate and mafia extortion not?
>>73201895
No, we get to improve our situation. When we ignore certain natural states, such as allowing metally handicapped people procreate or promote faggot marriage, is rots the core of society. This is happening here right now, and the result is that society is breaking apart due to ignoring this natual order.
>>73201845
Not necesarily, I can argue that the mighty warlord is less right than I, and I might perhaps convince him.
That doesn't matter if he chooses to ignore me, however.
>Judgement
I eagerly await the day I can look God in the eye and curse him for his evil ways
>>73202075
In some cases, yes.
Ownership is complicated.
>>73201947
>wow you people weren't even indoctrinated into my method of thinking
>i can't even talk to you!!
>>73201763
I'm asking you a direct question, since you made a direct assertion - and here it's *YOU* who focuses on a small substance-less quibble made in a post. Not me.
>>73202103
The state has more guns than the mafia, dipshit. They have a monopoly on legitimacy.
>>73201916
All punishments meted out by humans on earth are necessarily delayed. That's a complete dud of an argument.
>>73201947
I've taken four.
>>73202257
>there's no difference between going to jail in 5 minutes and possibly getting spanked by god in 50 years
t. autist
Scale matters. Waiting an hour is different than waiting a second, even though in both cases you wait.
>>73202153
>in some cases, yes
So I claim ownership of Mars. Legitimate?
>Arguing with Stefan on a philosophical level
It's easier to argue against the practicality of anarcho-capitalism. He'll slip up easily if you know what you're talking about.
>>73202191
There is order in the universe. Therefore there are actual rules that dictate the state of our existence, and how it will procede.
>There is. It is a set of rules enforced by an authority figure.
>What you are arguing is whether a law is good or bad. This is not hard to determine.
Read the rest of what I posted. You are acting just like someone I know, constantly shifting the goalposts and splitting hairs to appear as coming out on top of an argument.
You want an argument where you come out on top, not a discussion where we all bring informative viewpoints to the table.
>>73202103
Because the government actually owns the land. The Mafia does not. That and some esoteric mumbo jumbo about God granting authority to Adam and Nations having their root in individual Patriarchs and their families.
A denial of the governments right to rule is the denial of the right of the father to rule over his children.
>>73201997
>Well too bad, you're wrong.
Good argument. How would only apply nihilism? (especially when you define it as an empty vessel)
>The thought is in my head, which satisfies my definition of "knowing".
Pathetic. At least I'm banging Catherine the Great right now. The thought is in my head so I know its true. Also fuck logic and gravity. I thought those thoughts in my head and that satisfies my definition of knowing.
>>73202359
Only
If
You
Can
Enforce
It
Jesus fucking christ you're dense.
>>73202359
If you can enforce and defend your claim against co-claimants. Then yes.
>>73202131
That's funny, since God is necessarily good, and anything counter to God is necessarily evil as an existential/ontological tautology.
There's no less-right or more-right to a relativist - there's no such thing as right or wrong at all.
>>73192051
>Arguments against
Why exactly?
He's literally the god of /pol/ on YouTube.
I literally worship Stefan every day by sacrificing a toddler in hopes that it will keep my non-arguments away.
>>73202434
>How would only apply nihilism?
Living without any principles whatsoever.
>Pathetic. At least I'm banging Catherine the Great right now. The thought is in my head so I know its true. Also fuck logic and gravity. I thought those thoughts in my head and that satisfies my definition of knowing.
Whatever floats your boat, man.
>>73202131
>I eagerly await the day I can look God in the eye and curse him for his evil ways
Don't forget to slice him with your katana. Dear God you're edgy.
>>73202436
He wants an argument where he can out-argue everyone. Not an intelligent discussion, because he does not have any insightful viewpoints.
>>73202215
You can monopolize an abstract concept? So, what, me thinking I'm legitimate in my judgment that 2+2 is equal to four right now is... blasphemy? Impossible?
The implications of that premise are nonsensical.
>>73202359
No, dumbass.
>>73202355
Scale matters? *Really*? So at one point does it matter if I'm threatened with jail time? A minute in the future? 5 days in the future? 5 years in the future? 200 years in the future? Tell me when it *MATTERS*, oh great one!
>>73202656
>>73202773
>So, what, me thinking I'm legitimate in my judgment that 2+2 is equal to four right now is... blasphemy? Impossible?
>Tell me when it *MATTERS*, oh great one!
See how he resorts to sarcasm
>>73202656
I personally don't even think legitimacy is an important concept to begin with. I'm only using the word because you insist on arguing about it. You're pretty adept at worming your way around a conversation though, are you a Jew?
>>73198514
>>73192162
>>73192051
I agree with this guy. Call in and link us before hand and tell us how it goes!
>>73202773
That's up for you to define for yourself. Feel free to continue to go into hysterics over the idea that a long time is different (and it's arbitrary, oh my god!) than a short time, though.
>>73202419
I agree, but you're simply asserting both 1) there is order in the universe, since the universe could be completely dynamic with only the appearance to you of being ordered and 2) that any order implies rules that bind we as humans in particular - since there are plenty of possible rules that would have absolutely nothing to do with humans and how they conduct themselves.
You need to instantiate "law" as an *OBJECTIVELY CONCRETE DEFINITION* (which is impossible unless God were to have made it such, since all definitions are subjective in nature coming from humans) or else the rest of your post is irrelevant to me - I'm not arguing whether law is good or bad - I'm arguing whatever law is or isn't is *irrelevant*.
>>73202990
Ditto. Unfortunately, arguing with Stefan will be a lot like arguing with an SJW. They both invest their beliefs with emotions as opposed to logic.
Stefan will do just like the tripfag did, shifting goalposts and splitting hairs until it looks like he won the 'argument'.
>>73202436
So if I kill you and take your wallet, I legitimately own it.
>>73203191
Not an argument.
That's all great, but there's nothing stopping you from writing into our show to debate these points publicly.
>>73203321
Sure, until the state legitimately kills you for doing that. Then you're legitimately dead. Like I said, it's a worthless concept. Things happen or they don't. Legitimacy ultimately boils down to an over-educated way of saying "I like when this happens".
>>73202695
Really? So when the French and Spaniards did it, it was legitimate, but when I do it it's not?
What makes them claiming some land they've never been to theirs legitimate and me doing the same not?
>>73203189
Splitting hairs. There is order in the universe, and we are clearly in it.
Any other 'Enlightenment' bullshit has no place in a rational discussion.
>>73203332
>Not an argument.
See what I mean? You think you're clever by repeating some youtuber's catchphrase, and whenever there is a difficult point you try to deny the existence of a concrete thing.
>>73202845
See how you resort to addressing the tone and not the substance in a post?
How brilliant.
>>73203436
>implying any of those are arguments
>>73203436
>our show
Hmm...
>>73203513
If there was any substance, I'm sure he would have addressed it.
>>73203513
you've ignored multiple posts I've made. I was addressing someone else who was making basic, self-evident points. You are the attention whore/tripfag.
>>73202913
So you abandon a term key to an argument when it becomes inconvenient for your position to stand for it. Neat. You must rock the debate stage.
>>73203270
>So when the French or the Spaniards claimed enourmous swathes of land without even ever having stepped foot on them, and then "sold" them to us, that was a legitimate exchange of property?
Yes. I could buy a building in Korea and resell it without ever going to Korea.
>So them simply saying "we own all that" actually made it so they did?
Yes. The defeated all other claimants. I can claim dominion on a plot of land. I can appoint myself prime minister and institute a tax to pass through my land. But if I have no power to enforce these decrees then I am no government. I am a bandit and a robber to be hanged by the legitimate authorities.
How do we know if an authority is legitimate? If they rely on no other entities to enforce their authority.
>>73203458
You're honestly retarded if you think there are no differences between you and the French and Spanish Empires
As I said before, ownership is complicated. It's not something you can isolate into a fucking predicate and say "gotcha"
>>73199427
Do Macedonians love Estebán?
>>73203081
That's what I mean. If we're dealing with relativistic values then there's no value to begin with. It's meaningless.
>>73203457
The state never does. So I just always legitimately own it then?
>>73203608
I should've abandoned it from the get-go. It's a useless term that people can use to indirectly state their personal preference under the guise of having a position of power. I can say I like vanilla ice cream, sure. But if I say vanilla ice cream is *legitimate*, boy does that make me sound important.
It's silly.
>>73203698
>>73203741
Couldn't be said any better.
>>73203635
>It's not something you can isolate into a fucking predicate and say "gotcha"
>>73203741
Sure, why not.
>>73203321
>>73203367
Sure. Except for the State (proper, just authority) will most likely punish you.
>>73203458
>So when the French and Spaniards did it, it was legitimate, but when I do it it's not?
Yes, you stupid asshole. France and Spain are legitimate authorities because they can defend and enforce their claim to the land. You are some shitty thief.
>>73203502
You're literally just asserting there's order.
Why are those threads always so funny?
And why DO YOU SUPPORT ME GETTING SHOT?
