Because I have realized a very important secret of the universe.
So you too have validated and accepted the Non Aggression Principle?
I am not alone.
If this is your basis of your counter argument I must remind you that no one has claimed they were alone.
I am not one single isolated person.
Unless you are referring to your individuated conciousness, again, no one made this claim.
Who I am is a summation of myself and everyone I know, how we interact and what everyone's conditions are.
Who is questioning this? Freewill + enviroment is not denied by any reasonable person. (libritarians and anarchists included.)
I am a member of a cohesive society.
Social cohesion, again, is not apposed by anyone who lives in reality. Simply the *means* of cohesiveness are in question here.
To pretend that I stand alone from my family, my neighbors, my friends, even the people I hate, is to emotionally, mentally, and ethically stunt
myself as a human being; I.e., become a Libertarian.
So are you saying here that since you do not stand alone from these people, you stand united with them, unconditionally? (enemies included?)
What do you mean by 'standing', anyways? Sorry to nitpick, but its your argument. By 'standing' with other humans, are you referring to out
common upright position on the earth? Or do you mean you 'stand' with others by some common ideological bond? If so, what bond ties you to those
who you refer to as your 'enemies?' (besides the rational 'stand' which is to oppose them.)
It's one thing to say "I can do whatever I want so long as I don't infringe on someone else."
Some would say the only thing to say. But I wonder, do you oppose this principle on rational ethical grounds, or is it just too 'impractical' in
It's quite another thing to actually pull this off, for the simple reason that we are not simply single cattle, each meandering around our own
exclusive, fenced-off piece of pasture; we're a whole herd, and what we do inevitably affects others around us.
Again, no one with a brain would argue that actions do not have consequences. No one is saying that they are an island and live inside of a magical
bubble where cause and effect do not exist.
And heres where I think you might misunderstand Libritarianism. (or more correctly Anarcho Capitalism) Both are logical moral codes based on the
simple and valid premise that no person can *initiate* force against another and remain a *good* person. (ask yourself which of the two systems more
closely adheres to this axiom.)
Libritarianism/Anarchism is actually *based* on the premise that people must live together - our argument is not against society, but instead how
society is organised. We hold the position that *in order to live together peaceably*, no person who attacks another can be regarded as a moral
Do you hold the opposite stance?
I am not a libertarian because I have a sense of ethics.
Then you contradict yourself and thus are in error. Libritarianism/Anarchism are the only political/social philosophies that are simply a conclusion
of rational ethics. You may not realize this now/yet, but all valid moral systems simply *must* begin with Non Aggression, and because of this, any
systems that oppose this valid axiom are by definition unethical.
I am not a libertarian because I will forgo personal profit to aid my fellow person.
Again you misunderstand you opponents arguments. (or you are throwing up strawmen) No one is opposing *charity* in prinicple. (and if they did they
wouldnt be worth listening to.) What we beef with is *involuntary* charity, otherwise known as theft and bribes.
Ill clue you in on where most of us stand in this regard. (perhaps you can become a more effective devils advocate.) We *dont care* what is done
with our money after it is stolen from us. If the mafia takes 10 points off my resturant and spends it on little timmes new crutches, this does not
justify the initial theft. Stealing *destroys* and concept of ethics in the first place, and thus any ethical justifacation after the fact is
meaningless, as morality in this circumstance has been rendered irrelevant by the first causal link - the immoral theft of property.
I am not a libertarian, for the most part, because I am no longer thirteen years old, and have not been for nearly two decades.
Im sorry but admitting youre just an old conformist is not a valid counter argument. In fact your assertion that *age* has any factor in ethical
behaviour highlights you fundamental misunderstanding of the topic. (the only exception being those who are too young to act of their own will)
Being old is no excuse for unethical behaviour, and infact should be the opposite.
I am not a libertarian, because I have learned there are only two kinds of self-professed libertarians; leftists who want to sound smarter than they
actually are, and genuine sociopaths.
Which category would you convieniently bundle and dismiss me into?
If one wishes to appear smarter than they are, are they undeserving of freedom, in your eyes? How about the sociopaths? Does this classifacation
make them unfit to run their own lives, in your mind?
I am not a Libertarian, because I realize that the needs of my society are more congruous with my needs as an individual than not.
There are so many embedded contradictions implied by the above that to untangle each of them would require some serious time. But Ill try a
Firstly you believe that the ficticious conceptual entity you call 'society' actually exists in the real world and posses its own identity. This
contradicts the very first rule of logic; the law of identity. You see, this thing you submit your reason to called society (in other circumstances
this would be called 'god') do infact only exist as an aggragate of individual actors generalized as an innacurate concept in your mind. In other
words, under your contradictary thinking, 'society' is a living, breathing entity whos parts are irrelivant to the definition of the whole. Must
like a 'forest' does not actually exist in reality (but a collection of trees in close proximity does), 'society', and the defining attributes
your ascribe to it, does not actually exist in reality. What *actually* exists is individuals doin stuff. Their combined and averaged interaction is
what your mind defines as 'society'. Thus your definition/identification of what society wants/needs must always *necessarily* be invalid by your
very nature, which disallows your reading of everyones elses minds.
'Society' can be a useful conceptual term, (must like 'forest' is) but due to its very nature of grouping together unlike needs/wants, 'society'
and its 'needs/wants' can never be said to be absolute, as any desire you claim 'society' holds can easily be contradicted by the players who make
up 'society' as a whole. Thus, since society is really just a concept of the mind used to desribe individuals in numbers, when one of those numbers
steps outside of your declared 'sociatal needs', either that person can no longer be regarded as part of the 'society', which is untrue (by the
definition of society), or the 'society' itself must be recognised as having contradictary wants/needs and thus your definition of what 'society'
wants/needs becomes subjective and thus meaningless.
In short, no one can speak for 'society' because 'society' is just a group of humans who may or may not agree. In this case not, but we are still
part of 'society' together.
As one of the individuals that makes up your conceptual framework that is 'society', I personally prefer a society where no person may attack
another. (be it thugs, troops or taxmen) Do you find my preference to be invalid? Impractical? Immoral? Please show me the circumstance under
which violent aggression against me is in 'societies'(and thus mine by your grouping) interest. (self defense excluded.)