What is the Difference between Anarchists and Libertarians?

Page 3 of 7 [ 109 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 4:50 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

From what I gather Libertarians are for minimum state government that only intervenes to prevent "harm" from being done to others, while anarchists are against all government whatsoever.

Of course "harm" is an ill-defined word. I have a problem with some libertarians who classify verbal abuse as free speech and is probably my single biggest claim against them. Of course some of these people may just be trolls. It's really very very difficult to tell the difference between a libertarian and a troll from my experience.

.

I have been hanging around Libertarians for 40 years and I have yet to meet one who considers verbal abuse has "harm" in the legal sense. As far as torts go libel and slander is actionable but under Common Law and according to libertarian theory. Neither is predicated upon prior constraint of speech or written output.

ruveyn

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

05 Mar 2012, 4:57 am

ruveyn wrote:

heavenlyabyss wrote:

Okay, but why not? Why is verbal abuse not considered "harm" in the legal sense by libertarians? What is the reasoning behind this rationality?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 5:07 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

Okay, but why not? Why is verbal abuse not considered "harm" in the legal sense by libertarians? What is the reasoning behind this rationality?

Because one should be able to to use harsh or insulting language freely, that is why. Good manners should not be enforced by guns, clubs, chains, whips and jail cells. Of course if one is insulting and boorish, that one will suffer the consequences of being ignored or spurned by other people which can translate into economic hardship. Why would anyone hire a person who does not know when to keep his/her mouth shut?

No one should be permitted to initiate force against another person (exceptions made for constraining the behavior of immature children). If I am punished for being insulting, that punishment is the initiation for force.

It is not within the scope of government or it should not be within the scope of government to compel us to be Good.

ruveyn

ruveyn

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

05 Mar 2012, 5:19 am

ruveyn wrote:

heavenlyabyss wrote:

Okay, but why not? Why is verbal abuse not considered "harm" in the legal sense by libertarians? What is the reasoning behind this rationality?

Okay, I see your point. I respect your admission to "exceptions made for constraining the behavior of immature children." I mean obviously guns, clubs, chains, and whips are just violent imagery. In real modern life daily life at least in the US, only jail cells would actually apply, so you are perhaps appealing to emotions here. What country are you from?

Anyway, I definitely see your point. However, I disagree with your assumption that verbally abusive people are always spurned by society. This is not actually true in real life. Most verbally abusive people can maintain their cool in public but just verbally abuse their wife or husband behind closed doors. I mean, verbal abuse is not always easily detectable, and does not always translate into negative outcomes. Most verbally abusive people are verbally abusive for the very fact that they know they can get away with it. I mean, how can I be wrong here? Most verbally abusive people are very manipulative and can distort reality to their will. They are not generally punished by society because their evil is only known to a few people (the ones that are closes to them). If the victims have no one to turn to, who will believe them? Who will protect them?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 5:25 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

Whips are currently prohibited in the U.S. But handcuffs (chains), clubs (cops carry billy clubs), guns (police are armed) are there in plain sight. What violent "imagery"? And police abuse is as common as the cold. I am talking about everyday fact (except for the whips, which are used in Muslim countries). The major thugs in our society have police badges on their uniforms.

ruveyn

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 5:29 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

Anyway, I definitely see your point. However, I disagree with your assumption that verbally abusive people are always spurned by society. This is not actually true in real life. Most verbally abusive people can maintain their cool in public but just verbally abuse their wife or husband behind closed doors. I mean, verbal abuse is not always easily detectable, and does not always translate into negative outcomes. Most verbally abusive people are verbally abusive for the very fact that they know they can get away with it. I mean, how can I be wrong here? Most verbally abusive people are very manipulative and can distort reality to their will. They are not generally punished by society because their evil is only known to a few people (the ones that are closes to them). If the victims have no one to turn to, who will believe them? Who will protect them?

People have been manipulating people since God invented dirt. It is the nature of human primates to do so. NTs do it more than autistic folk but all do it to some extent. And if people are verbally abused to the point of being pained, they should take a walk and not come back. Some exceptions have to be made for immature children who have not developed any defenses against verbal attacks. In this particular case, some real harm is being done. But if A insults stranger B, then B should walk away. Problem solved.

ruveyn

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

05 Mar 2012, 5:30 am

ruveyn wrote:

heavenlyabyss wrote:

Yes, I agree you, there are many sociopathic cops. I salute you for this admission.

But I still you are evading this question a little.

I guess to give a specific example, what do you think about the punishment for the famous internet troll Sean Duffy? What do you think of his sentence? Do you think there should have been any punishment whatsoever, do you think jail was appropriate, or do you think was some other punishment more appropriate? Or do you think he deserved no punishment whatsoever?

In short, do you think he was guilty of harassment or free speech?

I guess I am just trying to get to the core of your beliefs.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 5:37 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

internet troll Sean Duffy? What do you think of his sentence? Do you think there should have been any punishment whatsoever, do you think jail was appropriate, or do you think was some other punishment more appropriate? Or do you think he deserved no punishment whatsoever?

.

Who is Duffy? Was he making verbal threats? If not, why is he being punished and how is he being punished?

As a general rule, the private owner of a private computer network can set any limits on the kind of expression he permits on his property. Only governments should be prohibited from limiting speech or written expression. In my house, I decide who can say what. My turf, my rules and I am not bound to be democratic (God forbid!). Anyone who does not like my rules is free to leave.

ruveyn

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

05 Mar 2012, 5:48 am

ruveyn wrote:

heavenlyabyss wrote:

This is who I am talking about.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

He was sentenced to 18 weeks behind bars.

Personally, I don't think he deserved jail (perhaps rehab or internet restrictions, I'm really not sure), but I would say he was engaging in harassment with the sole intent to harm and not just free speech.

I have met one or two online libertarians who think this is nothing more than free speech, which I disagree with. What is your view, harassment or free speech?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 5:53 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

This is who I am talking about.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

He was sentenced to 18 weeks behind bars.

That would not have occurred in the U.S. where we have the First Amendment. HOWEVER, the owner of the internet network should have cut off access to that git. What a nasty person! Shame on him and decent folks should have nothing to do with him.

If we made it a punishable crime to be a pr*ck then half the population would be in jail.

ruveyn

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

05 Mar 2012, 6:22 am

You can't just walk away from verbal abuse and bullying in the workplace if you need the job. LGBT people can't walk away from the hatred and discrimination that is spewed by the political right and large parts of society. Ethnic minorities can't walk away from racism.

And when hate speech turns into incitement, people often end up dead. Dr. George Tiller and the gay student Lawrence King, for example, were as much victims of instigating right-wing rhetoric as of the manipulable shooters who pulled the trigger on them. Speech that is intended to dehumanize people and instigate violence against them shouldn't be protected as free speech. The same goes for deliberate and repeated bullying and harrassment.

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

05 Mar 2012, 6:26 am

Just because there is no observable scar does not mean there is no harm.

Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

05 Mar 2012, 6:30 am

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Just because there is no observable scar does not mean there is no harm.

Anyone on here who was verbally bullied as a child (and there are many) will agree wholeheartedly with you.

_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

05 Mar 2012, 6:38 am

ruveyn wrote:

heavenlyabyss wrote:

This is who I am talking about.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

He was sentenced to 18 weeks behind bars.

Yes, I suppose you are correct. You can't jail everyone who is a jerk. I appreciate your condemnation of him though. This was the kind of response I was hoping for

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

05 Mar 2012, 6:39 am

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Just because there is no observable scar does not mean there is no harm.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

This is getting on a tangent though. I mainly just wanted to see how ruveyn would respond.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,581
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Mar 2012, 9:17 am

Uggh, I'm feeling like I'm going to need to make another "this is NOT libertarianism" thread with all the strawman threads about the ethos lately.

Here's how I think of libertarianism in it's simplest form; those proposing a new restriction bear the burden of proving it's necessity. It's really that simple, a bias against an ever encroaching state and towards the least amount of government that will get the necessary done, that's it.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Page 3 of 7 [ 109 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

What is the Difference between Anarchists and Libertarians? Post Reply New Topic

What is the Difference between Anarchists and Libertarians?