I mean if you're going to criticise libertarianism, at least learn the basics, like what the Non Aggression Principle (notice it's not called the Non Violence Principle) is.
Libertarianism is just the formalization of common decency and common sense. People denigrate it so that they can term basic decency as the tenet of some fringe ideology and get a pass to promote tyranny over other people through political action.
Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government.
>Using violence to punush someone for refusing to hand over a share of currency they receive in private trade, or for being 'too successful' at selling a widget and therefore being categorised as a monopolist, is not.
Well clearly we disagree. I think asking participants in society to pay for the benefits it affords, and discouraging anti-competitive practices are perfectly reasonable uses of violent coercion, and lead to better outcomes overall.
If you disagree that those policies are effective, that's fine. But please don't elevate your economic theories to morality.
>at least learn the basics, like what the Non Aggression Principle is (notice it's not called the Non Violence Principle).
I know what the NAP is, and I agree right up until libertarians start trying to define aggression to include theft. Honestly, the NAP seems at best like an awkward attempt to simplify a political philosophy, and at worst like a rhetorical device to hide property rights inside something that seems superficially unobjectionable.
>Libertarianism is just the formalization of common decency and common sense.
Yes, that's certainly how it likes to portray itself, but my impression is that as soon it gets into details, it's all about property rights.
I think society should be designed in the way that leads to the best utilitarian outcomes, and I think property rights are a very effective tool and should be part of that system. But they are not perfect, they are not morality, and they're certainly not "common decency".
I was implying that using threats of violence against non-violent people engaging in voluntary trade with other consenting adults is wrong.
>Well clearly we disagree. I think asking participants in society to pay for the benefits it affords, and discouraging anti-competitive practices are perfectly reasonable uses of violent coercion
So you're willing to use violent coercion against non-violent people for their refusal to pay a debt they did not voluntarily assume and/or for their engaging in too much voluntary trade with other consenting adults. Your moral framework is essentially sociopathic.
So are you. Theft is not violence. If you walk into my house and take my valuables, at no point have you done anything violent.
So you can't use the moral weight of the former to make responding to the latter with actual physical violence seem significantly more necessary to me than responding with physical violence to people who don't pay taxes.
I really wish libertarians would stop using this facile rhetorical device: "Government must be bad, it relies on THREATS OF VIOLENCE!!"
But if you're talking about property rights, unless you're suggesting enforcement by stern warnings, you're already talking about using threats of violence to coerce people.