Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: A few questions  (Read 50268 times)

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: A few questions
« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2008, 03:36:58 pm »


Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: A few questions
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2008, 03:40:56 pm »

It's a shame I've already "made the move."   Because I think you just convinced me not to join.

Look, I don't know you, so I'm a little reluctant to say this.  But that's just downright pathetic.  You got a boo-boo while playing on a message forum, in which perhaps a tiny fraction of 1% of FSP participants disagreed with you on a fundamental issue.  And that is enough to convince you to take your ball and go home??  For heaven's sake, what are you going to do when the going actually gets tough?  I'm shocked -- shocked I say! -- that you haven't learned the value of a slightly thicker skin when 1) debating libertarians, and 2) debating on the internet.

If you value liberty (not just your own, but the principle itself), and you're not going to work to promote more/bigger/nastier government, and you're going to work to any degree to decrease the size and scope of government, then I'm personally thrilled that you're in NH.  I don't care if you're in the FSP or not.

Also: how many @#%!% times does it have to be stated that no individual's or set of individuals' opinions -- on these forums or elsewhere -- are to be taken as the FSP's position?  The people in the FSP do not march in lockstep, and you shouldn't be surprised that some of them disagree (sometimes strongly) with you on some issues.
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: A few questions
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2008, 03:42:42 pm »


Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.


Please tell me that you have additional evidence implicating me in this "jackboot" fiasco.  Because in case you haven't noticed, Maineshark is not the same as margomaps.  They're spelled slightly differently.   8)
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2008, 03:43:07 pm »

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Um, yes?

I presume this is in response to margomaps?

You may want to look up the definition of a "converse error."

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: A few questions
« Reply #49 on: June 11, 2008, 04:00:25 pm »


I'm not seriously -- nor jokingly -- saying any such thing.  With all due respect, what the @#%! are you talking about?   ;D  Did I mention anything about a "jackboot"?  I think you have me confused with somebody else.  Seriously.

I didn't mean "you" as in literally you...   in this case, it was MaineShark who actually used the term.  And he did answer to my satisfaction.

I'm really at a loss to understand where you're coming from here.  Please point to where I've spent energy trying to discourage a sort-of-libertarian from moving to NH.  Are you just looking to pick a fight?  Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?  You have me totally nonplussed here.

I (rightfully, IMO) pointed out that someone's feelings on a particular matter might mean that the SOI isn't for them.  And I (truthfully, IMO) mentioned that there are probably FSPers who wouldn't welcome someone with those beliefs.  I'm pretty sure Joe's unequivocal non-welcome as stated on this thread is evidence of the veracity of that claim.

Again... sorry if you took this as a personal criticism.   It is MaineShark that is, as he clarified, actively trying to discourage "sort-of-libertarians" from move to NH.  "You" was meant in general, not specifically you.  But by posting it as a reply to your comment, I can see how it came of exactly that way.  Not my meaning, not my intention.  Sorry.

However, what I was reacting to was the particular statement about the sort of people that  "most of us [don't] want to join the FSP."  Joe's "unequivocal non-welcome" seems to extend also to people who might be inclined to debate the moral basis of property rights.

I wanted to ask Joe if he really believes that FSP membership should be restricted to "actual libertarians," defined by strict definitions.  Which he seems to, at least to some extent.  I don't think that "most freestaters" do.  But what do I know, I'm not most freestaters - just one.  And Joe weighed in as well.

I also think "unequivocal non-welcomes" are almost always counter productive.  Is that to be the new public face of the Free State Project?  That's the fight that I'm trying to pick, if you feel my posts are indeed fighting words.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #50 on: June 11, 2008, 04:07:17 pm »

However, what I was reacting to was the particular statement about the sort of people that  "most of us [don't] want to join the FSP."  Joe's "unequivocal non-welcome" seems to extend also to people who might be inclined to debate the moral basis of property rights.

All rights are property rights.  If you don't think property rights are absolute, then you don't think that any rights are absolute, no matter how much you may claim that you do.

I wanted to ask Joe if he really believes that FSP membership should be restricted to "actual libertarians," defined by strict definitions.  Which he seems to, at least to some extent.  I don't think that "most freestaters" do.  But what do I know, I'm not most freestaters - just one.  And Joe weighed in as well.

I don't speak for the FSP.  This is my home, and I know for sure who I consider welcome here, and who I do not.

I also think "unequivocal non-welcomes" are almost always counter productive.  Is that to be the new public face of the Free State Project?  That's the fight that I'm trying to pick, if you feel my posts are indeed fighting words.

The FSP is about increasing liberty, not sending armed thugs to harass your neighbors because their dog barks.  That sort of behavior is the antithesis of liberty, and is unequivocally unwelcome here.

That sort of nonsense goes against everything we're trying to achieve in NH.  Those who believe in it should stay away.  Those who live here already and believe in it should leave.  Mass would be happy to have them, among other places.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: A few questions
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2008, 04:07:53 pm »

Also: how many @#%!% times does it have to be stated that no individual's or set of individuals' opinions -- on these forums or elsewhere -- are to be taken as the FSP's position?  The people in the FSP do not march in lockstep, and you shouldn't be surprised that some of them disagree (sometimes strongly) with you on some issues.

One more time wouldn't hurt, as far as I'm concerned.

This particular discussion morphed from the opinions of one person to a "most of us" argument.  I'm just saying, if my first impression of this project was a big "you're not welcomed here,"  I'm not sure I would have been encouraged to look further, or think harder.
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: A few questions
« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2008, 04:14:27 pm »

I didn't mean "you" as in literally you...   in this case, it was MaineShark who actually used the term.  And he did answer to my satisfaction.

<snip>

Again... sorry if you took this as a personal criticism.   It is MaineShark that is, as he clarified, actively trying to discourage "sort-of-libertarians" from move to NH.  "You" was meant in general, not specifically you.  But by posting it as a reply to your comment, I can see how it came of exactly that way.  Not my meaning, not my intention.  Sorry.

Well, for future reference when you reply directly to someone, and ask a question like "is this what you think?" -- you can expect more confusion just like this.  I'm glad you cleared up the confusion eventually though.  Thank you.

Quote
However, what I was reacting to was the particular statement about the sort of people that  "most of us [don't] want to join the FSP."  Joe's "unequivocal non-welcome" seems to extend also to people who might be inclined to debate the moral basis of property rights.

That could be the case for Joe.  And by "most of us" I suppose I meant most of the handful of people who I tend to see on the forums.  This point cannot be emphasized enough: you are dealing with a very small handful of people, and they (we) do not represent "the FSP".

Quote
I wanted to ask Joe if he really believes that FSP membership should be restricted to "actual libertarians," defined by strict definitions.  Which he seems to, at least to some extent.  I don't think that "most freestaters" do.  But what do I know, I'm not most freestaters - just one.  And Joe weighed in as well.

Exactly!  You realize that Joe is just one freestater, and that you are another.  And you (obviously) realize that you two might not see eye to eye on everything.  Which makes it all the more bizarre to me that you would start talking about "dropping out" of the FSP as a result of one or two FSPers opinions.

Quote
I also think "unequivocal non-welcomes" are almost always counter productive.  Is that to be the new public face of the Free State Project?  That's the fight that I'm trying to pick, if you feel my posts are indeed fighting words.

I actually agree with you 100%.  In most circumstances I try to use honey rather than vinegar when I disagree with someone, especially if we agree on 80% and I'm trying to win the person over on the other 20%.  I'm not always successful at it, and sometimes I use a mixture of honey and vinegar -- I'm not perfect.  Other people skip the honey altogether.  Again, to take one person's comments that offend you and make a capricious judgment about the FSP as a whole...you might want to rethink that approach.

As far as concerns about warts on the "public face of the FSP", that's just the nature of a loose organization like this.  There's nobody to "clamp down" on cranky posters here, and I don't think there should be.  People just sometimes need to be reminded of the FSP's goals, and not to take disagreements with others so seriously.  That's my opinion at any rate.
Logged

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: A few questions
« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2008, 04:26:46 pm »


I actually agree with you 100%.  In most circumstances I try to use honey rather than vinegar when I disagree with someone, especially if we agree on 80% and I'm trying to win the person over on the other 20%.  I'm not always successful at it, and sometimes I use a mixture of honey and vinegar -- I'm not perfect.  Other people skip the honey altogether.  Again, to take one person's comments that offend you and make a capricious judgment about the FSP as a whole...you might want to rethink that approach.

As far as concerns about warts on the "public face of the FSP", that's just the nature of a loose organization like this.  There's nobody to "clamp down" on cranky posters here, and I don't think there should be.  People just sometimes need to be reminded of the FSP's goals, and not to take disagreements with others so seriously.  That's my opinion at any rate.

I'm also with you 100% here.

I'm happy that this last statement of yours is part of the discussion... considering in particular this is a subtopic called "Prospective Participants," presumably to be read by those who are trying to figure out what we are all about.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: A few questions
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2008, 04:30:42 pm »

No, debate involves logic, not merely, "this annoys me so it must be wrong."

I whole-heartedly agree! You may use logic all day long. But to get others to accept the validity of your reasoning, you may need to support your claims.

You cannot phrase an opposition to self-ownership without admitting self-ownership.  Ergo, it is axiomatic.

Perhaps you do not know what axiomatic means? First, one does not prove axioms. You either accept them or you do not. Second, you seem to be making a claim: that self-ownership cannot be denied without also accepting it. And you conclude that self-ownership is axiomatic (I assume you mean "valid" or "true"). But you haven't supported that claim in any way. It's like you're trying to prove an "axiom" by contradiction. But your contradiction seems to be that no one else has not disproved your statement. The burden is upon you, the maker, to demonstrate that your statement is valid. If you think your "axiom" is true, you may prove it.

Now, I'm not asking you to prove it now. I'm just saying, that if you expect people to accept grand hand-waving statements, back it up! Tell us why you think a certain way.

And none of this actually shows a link between self-ownership and how all property rights flow from it. I believe something like that was the original assertion.

We're not talking about sound as a source of physical damage.  Just sound as a source of annoyance.  Sound at damaging levels would be assault, and there would be no need for a separate "noise ordinance."

If you reread the thread, I believe there are multiple instances of sound being spoken of that can damage things. I'm quite sure of that. Either way you cut it, I cannot see how that could be assault. You may attempt to demonstrate why you think it's assault. In doing so, you should probably tell us what you think assault is. But I'd refrain from just assigning "damaging levels of sound" some actionable, legal-sounding name.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: A few questions
« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2008, 04:43:03 pm »


Meh...

I skipped a few posts in this abortion...

Here is the real deal folks...

There are ONLY two kinds of human beings...
You can only be one or the other...
You can't just have "some of both"...

You are either a "taker/looter/bureaucrat/jackboot/mercenary" and you steal and rob others for what you want and you use aggression/force/fraud against others...

Or...

You are a Philosophically Mature Student and Advocate of the Non-Aggression Principle and you apply it to each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being recognizing that each and every one has Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights such as the right to life, liberty, and property...

Of course, when two or more Individual Sovereign Human Beings conduct all their interactions based on the Non-Aggression Principle there is not a need for ANY other person to be involved...ever...

Joe's been taking care of my heavy work here...

THANKS JOE!!!

RAD

Enjoy!

fschmidt

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: A few questions
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2008, 05:01:21 pm »

Powerchuter, could you add your town to the location in your profile so that I can skip that town when I visit NH?
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: A few questions
« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2008, 05:03:23 pm »

As far as concerns about warts on the "public face of the FSP", that's just the nature of a loose organization like this.  There's nobody to "clamp down" on cranky posters here, and I don't think there should be.  People just sometimes need to be reminded of the FSP's goals, and not to take disagreements with others so seriously.  That's my opinion at any rate.

Well, I never consider myself cranky. At least, I'm not actually cranky when I write. Sorry if it comes off that way.

But the discussion might answer the original poster's question about consensus.
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: A few questions
« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2008, 06:10:05 pm »

Well, I never consider myself cranky. At least, I'm not actually cranky when I write. Sorry if it comes off that way.

No, I wasn't referring to you.  I just meant that there's nobody around to toe the company line, since there isn't a company line, and hence there's certainly nobody around to make sure that people are toeing the non-existent company line.  Er, if you get my meaning with that particular metaphor.   :D
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2008, 06:22:16 pm »

I whole-heartedly agree! You may use logic all day long. But to get others to accept the validity of your reasoning, you may need to support your claims.

Feel free to read any of the many treatises on self-ownership out there.  I'm not giving "Liberty 101" classes here.  This is basic stuff.

Perhaps you do not know what axiomatic means?

Self-evident would be one convenient definition.

First, one does not prove axioms. You either accept them or you do not.

False.

Second, you seem to be making a claim: that self-ownership cannot be denied without also accepting it.

"Seem?"  I stated that flatly.

And you conclude that self-ownership is axiomatic (I assume you mean "valid" or "true"). But you haven't supported that claim in any way. It's like you're trying to prove an "axiom" by contradiction. But your contradiction seems to be that no one else has not disproved your statement. The burden is upon you, the maker, to demonstrate that your statement is valid. If you think your "axiom" is true, you may prove it.

Someone doesn't seem to understand how self-evident statements work.  The fact is that it is logically impossible to argue against self-ownership without implicitly accepting self-ownership as valid.  Offering to let you try is just humor - you can't.

And none of this actually shows a link between self-ownership and how all property rights flow from it. I believe something like that was the original assertion.

Which is, again, "Liberty 101," and should not need to be discussed by anyone who is actually even vaguely in the liberty movement.  You own you.  Ergo, you own all the fruits of your labors, including any property you obtain by homesteading or trade.  Provided you do not aggressively violate the self-ownership of another, no one may interfere with your self-ownership, without himself being an aggressor.

If you reread the thread, I believe there are multiple instances of sound being spoken of that can damage things. I'm quite sure of that.

Yes, by individuals such as yourself, who were trying to build straw men.  The actual discussion is about "annoying" sound like loud music and barking dogs.

Either way you cut it, I cannot see how that could be assault. You may attempt to demonstrate why you think it's assault. In doing so, you should probably tell us what you think assault is. But I'd refrain from just assigning "damaging levels of sound" some actionable, legal-sounding name.

Go look up the definition of assault.  Using sound waves to cause damage to another is no different from firing bullets.

The issue, of course, is actually causing damage.  You can't fire a gun randomly at my house, either.  Or set a brush fire, knowing that you do not have the means to control it.  But simply annoying me does not cause me damage, so your dog can bark all it wants, unless we have a contract that says otherwise, in which case you would be in violation of that contract.

Powerchuter, could you add your town to the location in your profile so that I can skip that town when I visit NH?

Rob travels around a lot.  So do I.  You should probably just avoid the whole state, since you clearly think that using aggressive force to oppress others is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 11   Go Up