RIP Ronald Reagan

[Undertoad]

Precisely. Epistemology and origins, the central questions of other philosophies, and the NAP tells you nothing.

Now let's get political. What does the NAP say about one's responsibility to society?

[Radar]

Epistemology is the basis for many philosophies, but not all, and maybe not even most. Libertarianism is an ethical philosophy, not a philosophy that searches for meaning or knowledge. There are many types of philosophy and you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Not all philosophies are about the quest for truth or the nature of knowledge.

One does not have a "responsibility to society". One has a responsibility to themselves. The term "society" refers to a collection of individuals. Society has no rights. Only individuals do. Society isn't owed anything.

The rights of a single person are equal to those of all other people on earth combined.

Nobody on earth has the legitimate right to initiate force against others (especially for political gain or social engineering), but they do have the right to use force against those who have initiated it against them.

[Undertoad]

Yes, yes we know.

I'm not talking about a responsibility to government here. I'm talking about a responsibility to society.

Libertarians are fond of noting that, when there are blackouts, people just don't enter into controlled intersections just because there is no red light. They proceed with caution. So, would you say that you have a responsibility to proceed with caution if a light is out? Or can you simply bust through the intersection at top speed without guilt? What does the NAP tell you about that?

[Radar]

I wasn't talking about a responsibility to government either.

The Non-Aggression principle means that we don't have a right to physically harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property and they don't have the right to do that to us. If we do harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property, they are within their right to use force against us or to hire agents to do it for them.

If we approach an intersection with the light out, we don't have a responsibility to "society" to proceed with caution, but we do have a responsibility not to harm or endanger those particular individuals in the intersection. If refusing to proceed with caution would endanger them, we'd be compelled to proceed with caution or face the consequences.

If there were nobody at the intersection for miles, we'd have no responsibility to slow down. If we chose to speed through an intersection because we didn't see someone, but we hit someone anyway, we'd be criminally responsible for our negligence, damage, harm, and endangerment we've caused.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Undertoad covered all the essentials of any reply I'd make, and concisely.

A difference between Radar's thinking and mine is that I'm more interested in the global betterment I think Libertarianism shows the potential for than in ideological purity. The ideological purists, of any party that actually has them (more characteristic of US third parties than the Big Two), tend to be the very worst thing to come down the pike for any society they exert themselves on if they are placed in power.

This is why I don't buy Radar's litmus test nor nor his "Christians without Christ" analogy. It does not serve Libertarianism. It may satisfy a certain mindset, but as for me, I have a wider vision and don't mind saying so.

If you actually want libertarianism to happen, don't make the party hostile to growth.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It may satisfy a certain mindset, but as for me, I have a wider vision and don't mind saying so.

You're just a bully with a new name, no better than Mao, Stalin and Osama.
Firmly convinced you know what's best for everyone else and willing to spend other peoples lives to force your utopia on the world.
Anyone that doesn't share your view is stupid and/or brainwashed and their views certainly not worthy of consideration.
You can't even see that since the beginning of time millions have willingly chosen Chiefs, Kings and even Dictators.
Your "wider vision" is laughingly myopic.

[Undertoad]

OK, so the NAP tells you that you have a responsibility to certain anonymous individual people, but not to "society".

So, now, let's say that you know the intersection will be down for a week because it needs extensive repair. And let's say your neighbor runs that intersection at 100 MPH every single morning on his way to work, because he believes he has no responsibility to anyone. And let's say the intersection is a half-block from an elementary school.

Do you have any responsibility here? What does the NAP tell you about it?

[Radar]

In this situation, nothing has changed. It doesn't matter how long the intersection is down or what speed he was going.

If people are present, and he's endangering them by speeding through the intersection, he's criminally liable. If he plows through a bunch of school kids or road workers, he should die for his actions and all of his possessions should be sold and the money given to the families of those he killed.

Each of us has a right not to be harmed or endangered by the actions of another person and none of us has a right to harm or endanger others through our actions. If someone does harm or endanger us, they have violated our rights and a crime has occurred. A crime has only occurred when the rights, person, or property of a non-consenting person are violated.

If the same neighbor drove through the intersection at 150 mph at 2am on a Saturday night, during the summer time when there wasn't a person for miles and nobody was physically harmed or endangered by this (not a residential street), he would not have committed a crime.

There is no entity known as "society". Society is nothing but a logical grouping of individuals. Society has no rights, only individuals do. Society is no more important than the individual. The wants of millions are less important than the rights of a single person.

[Undertoad]

But you have not answered my question. Do YOU have a responsibility here?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This is why I don't buy Radar's litmus test nor nor his "Christians without Christ" analogy. It does not serve Libertarianism. It may satisfy a certain mindset, but as for me, I have a wider vision and don't mind saying so.

Actually, you don't buy the litmus test (Non-Aggression Principle) because it excludes you. And the reason it excludes you is because you're genuinely NOT a libertarian. You don't buy the Christians without Christ example because it makes absolutely perfect sense and you have no argument to refute it.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If you actually want libertarianism to happen, don't make the party hostile to growth.

I am not making the party hostile to growth. I am merely refusing to sell out our principles for the sake of growth. This is exactly what the major parties did, and why everything is screwed up in America. They sold their souls to get in office and promised they'd change everything when they got there. When they did get there, they OWED the politically influential and wealthy special interests who paid for them to get there. They have always worked against the best interests of Americans and for the best interests of others.

Growth merely for the sake of growth is worthless. Growth while adhering to our principles is slower but more respectable. The Libertarian Party is THE ONLY way to achieve liberty in America without a bloody and violent revolution.

Bruce nailed you perfectly. History is replete with examples of people who thought they could make the world a "better place" if they could just kill all the people they think are bad, and use force to enforce their own vision of what was best for them. They've always been arrogant bullies like Napoleon.

All of the empires ever made or ever to be made have crumbled or will crumble because you can't change people's minds with force. Though if you use force against them, you can unite your opposition and entrench the ideas you are trying to fight.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But you have not answered my question. Do YOU have a responsibility here?

Do I personally have a responsibility if my neighbor is speeding through an intersection and endangering or harming people? No, I don't. But I do have a responsibility to protect myself and my own family. As such, I'd most likely volunteer my assistance to those who were harmed or endangered in apprehending and punishing the criminal.

[Undertoad]

So -- via the NAP -- you not only reject government solutions, but also the notion that there is a resonsibility towards voluntary charity that nine out of ten Libertarians say would replace government solutions.

[Radar]

No. Via the NAP, I reject government solutions because they are funded by force, fraud, and theft and because they don't help those in need as much as private charities. I wouldn't have a RESPONSIBILITY to help those in need, but I would have a desire to help them. And because my money wasn't being stolen by government, I'd be able to afford to give more help those in need through private charity than I do now.

It's not charity unless it's voluntary.

The fact is many people don't give to charity because they mistakenly believe that these failed government programs must be helping someone and even if they did want to give, they've had so much money stolen from them by government, they can't afford to give as much as they'd like. Even if 1/3 of the money collected by government for social programs like welfare, medicare, public education, social security, etc. were donated privately, the benefits to those in need would double.

If government suddenly ended each and every one of those programs, private donations would skyrocket to help those in need because people who normally don't donate would not longer assume it was being handled by government, and they'd dig deep. Americans are among the most generous people on earth when people are in need. This would be especially true for our own people.

So do people have a responsibility to help those in need? No. But most people have a desire to help those in need and would do so if given the opportunity to choose what to do with their own money rather than having it stolen from them. Responsibility means obligation. It denotes a lack of choice in the matter. We have a choice. Some people will choose to be greedy bastards, and some will choose to be generous to a fault. The point is the choice is ours, not "society's".

[Undertoad]

Still, the NAP philosophy tells you have no responsibilities (and yes, no obligations) in a situation where you know your neighbor is endangering children.

[Radar]

No, it tells us we have no responsibilities that we don't willingly choose for ourselves. My neighbors have every right to stop him if he is endangering their children. They also have the right to appoint agents to help them. If my neighbors ask me to help and I agree, I can choose to stop this man, but at no point am I under an obligation to do so, unless I enter into some sort of contract with the neighbor for instance if they hire me to stop him.

The NAP does not say we don't have obligations and responsibilities, just that those can't be forced upon us.