Federal Government Takes Final Step to Suspend Constitution

[ebtek]

damn. i'd much rather live in moscow than oakland

 

[nickCR]

He's a wimp. Vancouver is the least cold part of Canada. Yes, it's a wet cold, but still, it's not Edmonton in January, with -46C temps.

Your right but, then again once you've lived in the tropics why the FUCK would you want to live in the cold?

 

[charlesmartel]

Some of that looks like damage control backtracking spin. He used the word "society" multiple times on the page where that quote is from. When someone tells me about physically removing people from "society" I'm not thinking about people being kicked out of churches or nudist camps.

If someone tells me they think all church computers should block access to wickedfire, then I will understand where they are coming from, but if they instead tell me they want to remove wickedfire from society to maintain libertarian order, I will get a completely different impression.

A quick google search shows me that there are some relatively well known openly gay libertarians, some who have writings on lewrockwell.com, etc. These are people that in theory may end up being part of the Seasteading Institute (a private covenant community).

I think the point to remember is that he's referring to voluntary communities. Whatever they want to voluntarily agree to should be fine. It's not like you have to join their community. Say if a bunch of Mormons bought a tract of land and want to outlaw or prohibit certain behaviors. Then if you moved into that community you would have to abide by their restrictions. I see no problem with that. It's all private property and contracts.

 

[Moxie]

I think the point to remember is that he's referring to voluntary communities. Whatever they want to voluntarily agree to should be fine. It's not like you have to join their community. Say if a bunch of Mormons bought a tract of land and want to outlaw or prohibit certain behaviors. Then if you moved into that community you would have to abide by their restrictions. I see no problem with that. It's all private property and contracts.

The issue is not with the concept of contracts or private property, but with some of the examples he gave of things that would have to be forbidden in a specific contract designed to protect families and maintain libertarian order.

If a group will only let me live on their land if I agree not to visit wickedfire, that is their business. But if someone tries to tell me that visiting the site in private threatens the group's families and prevents libertarian order, then that is a different can of worms.

 

[guerilla]

The issue is not with the concept of contracts or private property, but with some of the examples he gave of things that would have to be forbidden in a specific contract designed to protect families and maintain libertarian order.

That's why he said covenant.

 

[charlesmartel]

If a group will only let me live on their land if I agree not to visit wickedfire, that is their business. But if someone tries to tell me that visiting the site in private threatens the group's families and prevents libertarian order, then that is a different can of worms.

Feel free to set up your own pro meatspin convenants.

 

[Moxie]

That's why he said covenant.

Are you confusing covenants with convents? Again, I'm not questioning the concept of covenants, contracts or whatever terminology we wish to use.

Imagine this scenario among people drawing up a contract for a seasteading project :

John Doe : "We need to protect families and maintain libertarian order."

Other people : "We agree."

John Doe : "Therefore the contract needs to say that we won't allow nature worshippers, hedonists and gay webmasters."

Other people : "Why is that?"

Feel free to set up your own pro meatspin convenants.

YTMND - Objects Gone Wild

 

[charlesmartel]

I don't know why you keep getting hung up on this. It's all voluntary. If some people want to ban nudists or whatever from their **private** colony or seasteading platform, it's up to them. Join another one or start your own.

Some choices may simply be preferences, such as no redheads, and others may be religious, political or philosophical. Again, if you think the restrictions are ridiculous or unnecessary, move on.

 

[guerilla]

Are you confusing covenants with convents?

Nope.

Again, I'm not questioning the concept of covenants, contracts or whatever terminology we wish to use.

That is exactly what you're doing, and I have no idea why.

Imagine this scenario among people drawing up a contract for a seasteading project :

John Doe : "We need to protect families and maintain libertarian order."

Other people : "We agree."

John Doe : "Therefore the contract needs to say that we won't allow nature worshippers, hedonists and gay webmasters."

Other people : "Why is that?"

What relevance does this have to the discussion?

 

[Moxie]

That is exactly what you're doing, and I have no idea why.

LOL, no I'm not and have no idea why you would think that. As has happened in the past, I'm posting something that rubs you the wrong way and this is causing you to go into troll mode and/or abandon your normally sharp comprehension skills.

What relevance does this have to the discussion?

"Likewise, in a COLLEGE CAMPUS COVENANT founded for the purpose of PROTECTING STUDENTS, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of GUN OWNERSHIP, PIZZA OVERINDULGENCE, and NASCAR WORSHIP — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."


Do you really not see how a passage like that would cause discussions about whether or not NASCAR worshippers were a threat to students?

Guns on campus have been discussed on here before. The discussion was centered around whether or not they make it more or less safe for the students.

I don't recall you or anyone else saying, "but guys, it's a covenant agreed to by the students; therefore it's not relevant to discuss how guns impact campus safety."

 

[guerilla]

LOL, no I'm not and have no idea why you would think that. As has happened in the past, I'm posting something that rubs you the wrong way and this is causing you to go into troll mode and/or abandon your normally sharp comprehension skills.

I'm neither trolling nor doing anything else. I am merely pointing out that you're saying you're not doing, is exactly what you're doing.

And you are. And that's all there is to it.

Until you're going to address that, this conversation is going nowhere.

Do you really not see how a passage like that would cause discussions about whether or not NASCAR worshippers were a threat to students?

Who cares?

Guns on campus have been discussed on here before. The discussion was centered around whether or not they make it more or less safe for the students.

Again, who cares? If you don't want to abide by a covenant, don't agree to one. If you do, then live up to your obligation to abide by the covenant.

This is basic contract theory, it's totally uncomplicated. I cannot fathom why you struggle with this, because clearly you're a super intelligent guy, and yet you keep posting these issues or concerns that are addressed by the fact that a covenant exists already in the circumstance Hoppe describes!

I don't recall you or anyone else saying, "but guys, it's a covenant agreed to by the students; therefore it's not relevant to discuss how guns impact campus safety."

So we're guilty of a sin of omission?

You do know that is even weaker than arguing someone is guilty of a sin of commission, right?

C'mon Moxie...

 

[Moxie]

If you don't want to abide by a covenant, don't agree to one. If you do, then live up to your obligation to abide by the covenant.

I AGREE, but that doesn't mean that I agree that the requirements listed in the example covenant that was provided would actually protect families.

So we're guilty of a sin of omission?

No, I'm pointing out that everyone involved in that "debate" knew that contracts were not what was being debated. The discussion was specifically about what allowing guns into the covenant community would or would not do.

The Amish can do their thing and I don't have to join. This doesn't mean that I can't go on a message board and question the reasoning they use as to why electricity cannot be part of their society.

If I write a 500 page book about baking cookies, but include the sentence "Bakery owners who want to protect the quality of their product should not buy chocolate chips from homos or pagans" - this would be controversial and it would be obvious to most as to why.

The controversy would have nothing to do with the right of the bakery owner being able to choose where they buy from and for what reason, or the right of the customers being able to decide to shop there or not.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

I think the point to remember is that he's referring to voluntary communities. Whatever they want to voluntarily agree to should be fine. It's not like you have to join their community. Say if a bunch of Mormons bought a tract of land and want to outlaw or prohibit certain behaviors. Then if you moved into that community you would have to abide by their restrictions. I see no problem with that. It's all private property and contracts.

So in other words, joining a cult?

 

[SeoReborn]

This guy is paranoid to the max. What he's describing is a doomsday scenario.

Oh, and I like how he compares the US to South American countries. How about comparing the US to Canada, Australia, or France instead.

Every time someone wants to make it seem like this is the place to be, you can bet they're gonna stack up America to either Mexico, the worst places in South America, or the Middle East.

Interesting read. Although, a number of the points he makes can actually argue the other way, particularly if you have a decent amount of cash.

Like the corruption issue - if you live where the police are for rent you can rent them, too. It can be made to work for you, not against you.

His time line for getting things done is long due in part to lengthy permit processes, which don't exist some places. He gives the example of having a well dug. Where I live I can have them drilling tomorrow.

And I think it is silly that people argue that well-armed citizens stand a chance against a military force. Unorganized band of Texas cowboys against trained soldiers with heavy weapons? Yeah, right.

The only strong points he makes are about not sticking out and blending in, which is easier to do in a your home country.

Yes, I feel the major strong points he makes is blending in and being surrounded by prepared people. The issue with his argument is that he is generalizing a police state as just corruption. Corruption is everywhere, and in every part of the world. But the difference in US is that the government is openly declaring war on the citizens. No other country openly calls out citizens as potential terrorists and backs it up by attempting to pass legislation to attack privacy and take away rights. For example, the police and officials in China are corrupt. They take 'black money' (a Chinese phrase for accepting money to do something they are not supposed to), but the Chinese government has not openly suggested their citizens are terrorists and going about changing legislation to treat their people as such.

 

[guerilla]

Moxie, I now understand what your issue is. You did a miserably poor job of articulating it, and only after writing a long response did it click what your actual complaint was.

It's just Hoppe's opinion. You're welcome to disagree, but he hasn't proposed anything unlibertarian, and his opinion as a value statement can neither be right nor wrong.

If you sign a covenant to live in an Ayn Randian capitalist society, and then 10 minutes after joining the covenant, start handing out copies of Das Kapital and proselytizing Marxism, you can bet that the people in the covenant will do whatever they can to expel you, post haste. And I think, reasonably so.

Regardless of the merits of capitalism or marxism.

ymmv

 

[guerilla]

Not sure if serious.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I now understand what your issue is. You did a miserably poor job of articulating it,

:uhoh2: Maybe you did a miserably poor job of comprehending it? I thought what I wrote in post 87 and the example I gave in post 90 were straightforward and relatively easy to interpret.


And yuckystuff here appears to be questioning what would go into a contract among members of an "Ayn Randian capitalist society", not whether people should honor contracts.

 

[mattseh]

Uh...I would hope not. Any libertarian worth their salt has read Das Kapital, so why on earth would they be so against knowledge and information as to expel someone just for reading or distributing (or selling) something contrary to libertarian viewpoints?

You think it's reasonable to censor reading (or sharing) the wrong types of books in such a society? How exactly does that mesh with true libertarian stances on freedoms?

Any society that feels the need to actively censor books is incredibly insecure at best and outright dangerous at worst.

 

[guerilla]

:uhoh2: Maybe you did a miserably poor job of comprehending it?

It's possible, but if so, it was because I gave you too much credit and assumed you weren't talking about an empty point.

And yuckystuff here appears to be questioning what would go into a contract among members of an "Ayn Randian capitalist society", not whether people should honor contracts.

Right. And who cares? Whatever is in the contract, is in the contract.

If you sign a contract to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls, and as soon as they put you in the game, you start scoring on your own basket, you will be ostracized.

I suggest you do some reading on contract theory, specifically the notion of "good faith".

Any society that feels the need to actively censor books is incredibly insecure at best and outright dangerous at worst.

Censorship through discrimination is a key libertarian social process.

Everyone discriminates, which in turn leads to everyone censoring something. You don't allow things you do not agree with equal time to those things you do agree with.

Take for example, you blocking me on Skype. You don't give me equal time and access. You're censoring me.

 

[Kstanki2]

Censorship through discrimination is a key libertarian social process.

Everyone discriminates, which in turn leads to everyone censoring something. You don't allow things you do not agree with equal time to those things you do agree with.

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.

If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself. - Sun Tzu

The outright censorship of any text is a symptom of paranoia, but more importantly, weakness and ignorance.