Daily reminder that this is a god amongst men

Daily reminder that this is a god amongst men.

Is there any critique to libertarianism that doesn't devolve into apologetics of greed and theft?

Many people only have arguments with libertarianism because they seem to think we are all moral-less degenerates who only live for money. Hoppe easily denounces those arguments, and distances himself from the fake "left-libertarians," whom he calls perverts and apologists of egalitarian and anti-discrimination policies

so there isn't a right not to bve discriminated against?

so also no right of free travel I see

Hoppe's strain of libertarianism is "natural rights-based." The only rights that exist stem from the principle of self-ownership (that you own your body) and that of justly-acquired private property (by means of original appropriation or voluntary exchange). Any "rights" that violate the principle of self-ownership or go against private property and false, non-existing and will get you a one-way to the physical removal office. The "right" to asylum, nutrition, health, equality (as they are commonly understood, that is: people are *forced* to provide you these things) do not exist in a libertarian social order.

Precisely. If all property is privately owned, you may only move to places where the owner has given you consent. If it's a private street or "public" place, then naturally the only people removed from there will be bums, drug addicts, loud-mouths, etc.
If we're talking about homes, clubs, enclaves, communities, then naturally there is no right to migration. The freedom of association implied here dictates that different places will have different standards of admission.

Okay, so how does it make sense that I have ownership over my body, but that body can be forcibly displaced?

Can you temporarily take over ownership over my body?

Your body can be forcibly displaced if you are trespassing on someone else's private property. Your body cannot be forcibly displaced if you're on your private property or on virgin land (land which has not been appropriated yet).

If you trespass on private property the owner has every right to physically remove you from there

You have repeated the basis of my question, not answered it.

How does it, from the singular premise of the principle of self ownership (It is singular, is it not?) that I can also be denied that self ownership when on someone else's property, as unjust as my being there may be?

If you're trespassing on someone else's private property you are violating that person's right. He can forcefully remove you because his "trespassing" of your body will not be any higher than your original trespassing over his property.

>He can forcefully remove you because his "trespassing" of your body will not be any higher than your original trespassing over his property.

so it's a weighing up of rights-violations, and the course with the most net-rights is taken?

Essentially. Murray Rothbard advocated a "two eyes for an eye" punishment system, actually. That is: the criminal must forfeit his rights to the same extent he deprived someone else of his. So, let's say A steals 10k from B. Not only does A have to pay back the 10k to B, he must also pay an additional 10k on top of that as restitution, his "forfeiting" of ten thousand dollars.

okay, so what's more right-depriving: taking away a good chunk of one's income or dying of some plague?

>let's say A rapes 10 children ...

Oh, and a far more important question: How does that additional forfeiting of rights follow? A deterrence principle?

It all is in essence a kind of right-utilitarianism, and this is its equivalent to rule-utilitarianism, yes?

I don't understand. Care to elaborate?

kek. I actually do have doubts about less... "normal" crimes like that. I suppose the raped children (or their parents/guardians) would have a right to beat the everlasting shit out of the rapist, and to demand payment for the hospital bills, but not kill him of course. If a rape victim kills his rapist, the victim has exceeded the rights violation first committed by the criminal, and therefore is also liable for prosecution.

Rothbard and Hoppe are expressively against utilitarianism. Rothbardian ethics is natural rights-based, and not utility-based.

>Rothbard and Hoppe are expressively against utilitarianism. Rothbardian ethics is natural rights-based, and not utility-based.

but you have described a rights-utilitarianism. The utility here is not pleasure, but rights, and the highest amount of rights should be chosen.

I am really curious about the philosophy of libertarianism, but you are frustratingly selective in your answers. Please answer:
>How does that additional forfeiting of rights follow? A deterrence principle?

If I understood that, maybe I would understand how it is not a rights-utilitarianism.

to go to

>I don't understand. Care to elaborate?

My question would be if it would be justified to infringe on someone innocent's rights to protect MORE rights of many MORE innocent people. Like if I would take money from you to protect twelve people's lives from robbers by paying them off or whatever.

Is there a commonly used name for "an utilitarianism with rights"?

What I mean is some sort of golden mean between deontology's interest with principles such as rights, and utilitarianism's interest in, well, utility. A "produce utility for all while not infringing on their rights", kind of thing.

All the variants I find on the internet are confusing as fuck, and "rights utilitarianism" while existing in encyclopedias seems very rarely used. Is it unpopular?

Well, Nozick calls "Rights-utilitarianism" not what you describe, but merely the practice of judging an action as moral depending on it having a net-positive result on the total sum of rights.

He is against that.
What you describe is closest to a rules-utilitarianism where rights would be assumed to be important to the end of utility, even if it would sometimes in specific circumstances result in a net-loss of utilities (other than rights).

Does it sound more weak rule utilitarianism or strong rule utilitarianism?

well as you put rights clearly above utility, having the latter not infringe on the former instead of the other way around, it's clearly strong rule utilitarianism.

No, no, no. The "weighing of rights violated" only applies in justice and as a manner of restitution to victims. I am not even sure we can call it the maximizing of rights, because you are only entitled to violate as many rights are your aggressor did. But it also does, indeed, serve as a deterrence against future offenses.

>My question would be if it would be justified to infringe on someone innocent's rights to protect MORE rights of many MORE innocent people. Like if I would take money from you to protect twelve people's lives from robbers by paying them off or whatever.
If you robbed or assaulted someone else on the premise that you were going to stop something more terrible from happening, you would be at your victim's whims to either forgive you or to exact compensation. So the answer is no, you cannot legally violate someone else's rights to stop a greater threat. You would have to hope for a pardon by the victims or their representatives in case you violated someone else's rights in the process of stopping a greater crime.

>No, no, no. The "weighing of rights violated" only applies in justice and as a manner of restitution to victims. I am not even sure we can call it the maximizing of rights, because you are only entitled to violate as many rights are your aggressor did. But it also does, indeed, serve as a deterrence against future offenses.

Surely deterrence is but a tiny factor if there is, as your later comment shows, no focus on actual minimization of violation.

I am most curious now wherefrom this follows:

> you are [...] entitled to violate as many rights are your aggressor did

Because from only the right of ownership of your body (which the criminal also has), this does not follow. Of course, without it, that right would be hollow, I understand that. But nothing in it implies the ability to remove it from others.

Is there a secondary premise that's made explicit, and if so: where is it based in and how is it formulated?

Your criminal loses his rights as he takes them away from you. For example: if someone murders you, your heir or representative will have absolute property rights over your body for the rest of your live. Murder is the ultimate forfeit of rights, because you have deprived your victim of his ultimate right to self-ownership.

I will be honest and tell you that I am not experienced in this kind of libertarianism. I have only read a few books by Rothbard and Hoppe, and so my argumentative skills in regards to this are are not yet as sharp as they should be. I'm just answering your questions as best as I can because you seem genuinely interested in this subject. You should give a look to Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" and Hoppe's "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property".

I will read those books in time, thank you for your recommendations.

But to summarize your last answer, your bottom line would be:

There is another premise and it is: not only do you have this singular right, you also have the singular duty to not infringe upon others, and that duty weighs stronger than the right, can overrule it when it's breached? Is that fair to say?

This is dumb

Question for libertarians itt: what determines the level of right-breaking of a certain action? If I kick a guy in the balls and steal $10 from him which is worse?

Yes, I'd say that is very fair to say. Also, I meant the heir/representative of the person you murdered, not your heir. I am sorry.

That might be subjective. But the punishment is the same: you get kicked in the balls too and also pay for any medical costs of your victim. Or, in the theft case, you pay back 20 dollars to your victim (restitution + forfeit of "right to 10 dollars")

1. Who administers these punishments?
2. What about the crimes where the victim doesn't want to just inflict it back on you (e.g. Rape)

classical and new liberals have created a Christianity without god, which means just hedonism disguised as progress and ''educating the pleb so that the pleb be free, free as in ''do what you want, entertain yourself'' [without the means to have it, perhaps, but more importantly without being blamed for your actions]. The same people equally dream of making the humanity non-hedonistic. Hedonists are crushed by their hedonism and dream, more so when they are bored, only of making people better, which is precisely being not hedonistic.

after the fall of positivism and their contradictory/ retarded faith in the fantasy of the universality in the human rights plus the fucking abysmal lack of idea of what to do with their creation which is the middle class [beyond making these people work and enjoying themselves outside of work], these people are led to embrace various doctrines for salvation, but more importantly, the doctrine which would save them would still be a doctrine
-which is not Christianity, since liberals have taken powers from Christians [which bring liberals love to hate Christians]
-allows the care free attitude towards the world [''do what you want as long as you pay my taxes''] on a pragmatic level [like people still must be able to go on vacation every few months, to take picture of their shitty meals abroad, sleep around but still feel good for calling fuckers degenerate, listening to music, enjoying yourself watching products from the entertainment industry...]
-still hide enough the above hedonism so that people can feel better about being animals, by pretending to seek a higher power on a weekly basis

THese fuckers have failed to make the middle class something else than clients. these people have tried to make the pleb
-citizens, but it turns out that the fantasy of educating the pleb so that the pleb vote for more classical.new liberalism is super expensive once you have billions of fuckers to convert and even worse, the humanity being hedonistic in nature, people remain hedonistic no matter what
-employees, but employees are disposable by definition and this fantasy is lost
-clients, where people can be moral [=adhering to the human rights] when they buy stuff form amazon or ebay

these liberals have tried to seek salvation in building a society with the asian doctrines, but the asian doctrines are
-foreign the notion of society, like buddhism
-or they say >muh tradition, but the liberals despise the tradition differing form the ''republicanism''

so they are left with the fucking savage societies where ten people eat plants in the amazonia or the jews and the muslism and the sharia which is indeed the best fusion of
-a civil law like any liberal dream of, so that liberal can control their people
-the higher power so that it puts an end to relativism and explicit hedonism

the sharia is what Christianity has failed to produce, which means it is what the christians without god crave,

>1. Who administers these punishments?
The violated or his family, or a defense corporation, or even a minimal state, in some cases (example Nozick again)

2. What about the crimes where the victim doesn't want to just inflict it back on you (e.g. Rape)

There would be an equivalence determined, most likely through a contract with the defense agency.

>1.
The victim herself or representatives of the victim.

>2.
I'm not sure I follow. I guess rape is a grey area, because it would be weird to rape a rapist as punishment. On the other hand, Rothbard once reviewed The Godfather, where a similar event happened. A man whose daughter was raped came to the Don to ask for help, and asked him to kill the rapist. The Don said he could not murder him, because the daughter had not been killed. They'd just beat him and rough him up real good. Rothbard particularly praised this scene, so I guess it's safe to say you'd get the everlasting shit beat out of you if you raped someone. Or the victim could simply demand payment for the hospital bills, and therefore you'd be in debt to your victim. Or the victim could also forgive you.

nice blog entry

libertarianism is the Marxism of the right, only more autistic. Marx' concepts of class struggle, alienation, modes of production are still quite useful for describing society. while Libertarianism is ultimately just another spooky ethical philosophy derived from Lockean muh natural rights secularized protestantism. most humans throughout history would probably regard these ethics as something completely alien and bizarre.

what makes you think you won't end up as a fugitive debt peon and get hunted down by a private militia?

Isn't the ideal libertarian/ancap society ultimately just another form of totalitarian bureaucracy with no real freedom for anyone except for the property owning feudal elite?

pretty much, ancap is the closest thing to an original state, and would, without a metaphysical enforcement of the NAP genuinely lead to a feudal systems, probably even with knight-equivalents.

I just told you how the criminal should compensate his victim and you start going off about being a fugitive?? Of course a fugitive would have to be hunted down!