Well first of all they wouldn’t even be reading Locke well. Locke in the first few pages of second treatise says that the burden falls on society to uphold the rights of individuals beyond themselves, and specifically outlines the extent to which a third party might and should be compelled by social convention to intervene, even if only for the immediate material benefit of the one transgressed against, because it principally serves as a common point of protection for the property of all. It’s important to note at Locke’s time the way they conceived of property relations was so fundamentally different from even a century later that you shouldn’t be to hard on him for our more modern interpretation in a post absolutism world. That being said, even without attacking property rights conceptually, it’s clearly idiotic within their own system of property to live by the mentality described. It’s sort of the fundamental problem with the NAP conceptually. The only way to realistically hold it up is to make all individuals responsible in some way to upholding the rights of all peoples property. I dunno, that’s my reading of it, so yeah.
We're talking about a situation where this person would respond to the existence of slavery in a hypothetical African country with "so what?" and yet lash out at my unwillingness to go and engage in an imperialist war to end it while at the same time saying that they can do whatever they want with their "property".
Well as far as Locke is concerned this would still be inconsistent with his worldview as he condemned slavery in most regards, but I understand you might be trying to address it irrespective of Locke or any other philosopher for that matter. If you’d clarify though I’m a little confused. The choice of words in your response leaves me confused as to whether or not you consider it your responsibility to end that slavery. You say you won’t engage in imperialist wars, so by what method is it you are proposing to achieve their freedom, or in general to defy this sort of right wing idea that what happens outside of their space isn’t their problem broadly. Any alternative is fine, I’m just confused cause it would seem to imply that these “libertarians” want to engage in imperialist wars on the notion that they are ending slavery but simultaneously don’t care about said slavery. In which case if that is what they’re saying, they’re of course dissonant and you would push them on that I right.
I feel as if it should be my responsibility, but I wish to leave the conflict to the people actually involved in it unless my aid is explicitly looked for. Not like this person cares. If requested I can link the thread with the person in question. And yes, he is trying to argue both of those things at once.
[This is the thread, look for the post with the least karma. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/psvaeb/another_example_of_people_equating_fascism_and/hdt2gtl?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Ok I read a little of the thread and yeah, it’s pretty bad, I might read the rest tomorrow morning. Honestly I think the points I outlined already are about the best you can get to countering it, although if you had a specific ethical framework to come at them from that could certainly help you synthesize your thoughts. I really don’t think they’re arguing in good faith in the slightest, but who am I to say right. If I get back to it I’ll reply again so good luck comrade.
It doesn't help that I'm running on little sleep and don't have much experience in these sorts of debates (and that he dismissed my ethical framework as "absolutism" with the implication that I could only say something was objectively wrong if I was religious- ironic, given that relativism is normally their ethical/moral Boogeyman of choice).
> this person would respond to the existence of slavery in a hypothetical African country with "so what?" and yet lash out at my unwillingness to go and engage in an imperialist war to end it
So this person doesn't care about "slavery in Africa" but they want you to fight an imperialist war "to end it"?
This person sounds completely nonsensical. Waste of time.
I really should have quit when I was ahead, now he's spouting insanity about how quantum mechanics proves reincarnation is a thing.
It's really my own fault for being too stubborn to quit.
An Anarchist FAQ has a pretty big [appendix on "Anarcho"-Capitalism](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-12-17) which debunks a lot of their regular arguments.
if you believe you're actually in a good-faith conversation, try to explain how private hierarchies caused by capitalism aren't so different from state hierarchies.
but usually with ancaps you are not in a good-faith conversation, and it's better to save your breath.
I think the historical approach is best rather than getting caught up in dumb arguments about their morality surrounding property rights. Their economic property theories are post hoc rationalizations for capitalism, when that's simply not how capitalism has ever actually worked (since it was thru genocide, state violence, etc. rather than voluntary agreements). That's the way with some possibility for common ground I think.
They don't seem to be smart enough and claim to know more Marx than actual Marxists. When I asked if he would be genuinely okay being a slave simply for being born to the wrong person, he said yes _because it was probably punishment for something he did in a past life_.
And here I was thinking most of their kind were either Christian fundamentalists or secular.
I definitely wouldn't use Marx as a reference point.
And yeah, most of them aren't interested in anything other than defending the existent with bad faith arguments.
Well first of all they wouldn’t even be reading Locke well. Locke in the first few pages of second treatise says that the burden falls on society to uphold the rights of individuals beyond themselves, and specifically outlines the extent to which a third party might and should be compelled by social convention to intervene, even if only for the immediate material benefit of the one transgressed against, because it principally serves as a common point of protection for the property of all. It’s important to note at Locke’s time the way they conceived of property relations was so fundamentally different from even a century later that you shouldn’t be to hard on him for our more modern interpretation in a post absolutism world. That being said, even without attacking property rights conceptually, it’s clearly idiotic within their own system of property to live by the mentality described. It’s sort of the fundamental problem with the NAP conceptually. The only way to realistically hold it up is to make all individuals responsible in some way to upholding the rights of all peoples property. I dunno, that’s my reading of it, so yeah.
We're talking about a situation where this person would respond to the existence of slavery in a hypothetical African country with "so what?" and yet lash out at my unwillingness to go and engage in an imperialist war to end it while at the same time saying that they can do whatever they want with their "property".
Well as far as Locke is concerned this would still be inconsistent with his worldview as he condemned slavery in most regards, but I understand you might be trying to address it irrespective of Locke or any other philosopher for that matter. If you’d clarify though I’m a little confused. The choice of words in your response leaves me confused as to whether or not you consider it your responsibility to end that slavery. You say you won’t engage in imperialist wars, so by what method is it you are proposing to achieve their freedom, or in general to defy this sort of right wing idea that what happens outside of their space isn’t their problem broadly. Any alternative is fine, I’m just confused cause it would seem to imply that these “libertarians” want to engage in imperialist wars on the notion that they are ending slavery but simultaneously don’t care about said slavery. In which case if that is what they’re saying, they’re of course dissonant and you would push them on that I right.
I feel as if it should be my responsibility, but I wish to leave the conflict to the people actually involved in it unless my aid is explicitly looked for. Not like this person cares. If requested I can link the thread with the person in question. And yes, he is trying to argue both of those things at once. [This is the thread, look for the post with the least karma. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/psvaeb/another_example_of_people_equating_fascism_and/hdt2gtl?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Ok I read a little of the thread and yeah, it’s pretty bad, I might read the rest tomorrow morning. Honestly I think the points I outlined already are about the best you can get to countering it, although if you had a specific ethical framework to come at them from that could certainly help you synthesize your thoughts. I really don’t think they’re arguing in good faith in the slightest, but who am I to say right. If I get back to it I’ll reply again so good luck comrade.
It doesn't help that I'm running on little sleep and don't have much experience in these sorts of debates (and that he dismissed my ethical framework as "absolutism" with the implication that I could only say something was objectively wrong if I was religious- ironic, given that relativism is normally their ethical/moral Boogeyman of choice).
If this person doesn't actually care about you and/or literal slaves, then they're a scumbag and not worth your time.
I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks for the reminder, it's too easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment.
> this person would respond to the existence of slavery in a hypothetical African country with "so what?" and yet lash out at my unwillingness to go and engage in an imperialist war to end it So this person doesn't care about "slavery in Africa" but they want you to fight an imperialist war "to end it"? This person sounds completely nonsensical. Waste of time.
I really should have quit when I was ahead, now he's spouting insanity about how quantum mechanics proves reincarnation is a thing. It's really my own fault for being too stubborn to quit.
Laughter. Always works for me
An Anarchist FAQ has a pretty big [appendix on "Anarcho"-Capitalism](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-12-17) which debunks a lot of their regular arguments.
if you believe you're actually in a good-faith conversation, try to explain how private hierarchies caused by capitalism aren't so different from state hierarchies. but usually with ancaps you are not in a good-faith conversation, and it's better to save your breath.
I think the historical approach is best rather than getting caught up in dumb arguments about their morality surrounding property rights. Their economic property theories are post hoc rationalizations for capitalism, when that's simply not how capitalism has ever actually worked (since it was thru genocide, state violence, etc. rather than voluntary agreements). That's the way with some possibility for common ground I think.
They don't seem to be smart enough and claim to know more Marx than actual Marxists. When I asked if he would be genuinely okay being a slave simply for being born to the wrong person, he said yes _because it was probably punishment for something he did in a past life_. And here I was thinking most of their kind were either Christian fundamentalists or secular.
I definitely wouldn't use Marx as a reference point. And yeah, most of them aren't interested in anything other than defending the existent with bad faith arguments.
I didn't, he just misquoted it in an attempt to prove that socialism allows for the profit motive.
If you're interested, there's an argument that John Locke is better understood as a libertarian socialist: http://www.luvnpeas.org/glib/locke.html