It's very obvious from the get go yuri has very limited education on NAP. Everything he has brought up is directly talked about extensively in NAP theory. And much much much more. For him to ask how law enforcement, and militaries would work. Food and labor laws plainly show he probably hasn't read anything on the subject at all. Those subjects are always exactly what IS brought up in almost all literature delving into NAP. It's the foundation of the principal. There is a saying that if you are not a liberal by 20 (which I'm assuming is close to yuri age) you don't have a heart. And if you are not a conservative by 30 you don't have a brain. I've added if you are not a anarchist by 40 you haven't learned a goddamn thing. I'd point you towards mises.org and especially Murray Rothbard. He will tackle every issue you could imagine and show why NAP and ano-cap is superior or at least equal in every issue. It's the best most effective and efficient way to exchange personal properties that enhance human lives (goods). It's the biggest check and balance for all against fraud, which seems to be your biggest concern? You keep bringing up monsanto, which is a company that only holds a monopoly through violent force paid for by taxes as a reason why NAP doesn't work? Really? And wallmart and sweatshops. It's as though you assume if they weren't in these sweatshops they'd be at the lake on a boat or in front of the 60 inch playing Nintendo. You do realize child labor doesn't exist here because we produce more than we consume and children don't have to work anymore? Children work out of necessity, so they don't starve to death. If they had a wallmart they would be ecstatic and great full for cheaper production which makes it affordable for more. it seems like you need to read up a little more and get a little better understanding of NAP and mutual exchanges. Don't forget to read up on money it's use and why people fight for more money but not higher purchasing power. How outsourcing is a good thing how it frees up human resources that are better skilled to produce more for all. Two things I think would benefit you greatly is getting a firm grasp on private property and how it applies to NAP and everything really. And the history of money. How it came to be and what it's supposed to represent. The difference between paper nominal value and purchasing power. This is important because it addresses the mobility issue and wage gaps. The reasons for a minimum wage and how better production not laws led to better working conditions. bat mobile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeqaRyrdcCY&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w Because Will Moyer is to be taken seriously.
I'll admit that I watched about 10 minutes. Who the fuck has a hour to waste watching a single YouTube video? What I did hear wasn't a rubutal... It was more of the typical hypothetical hypothesizing about what might or would happen under libertarianism. If only...
A lot of people, LOL. I work a night job and have more than enough time to listen to videos/podcasts/music. Luckily, my work allows me to do so, so I'll usually put on a podcast or two a night.
I work 60+ hours a week, I'm raising teenager, own a house to take care of, and..... A spare hour will not be wasted on Molyneux and his fantasy world. I don't have time for anything more than flippant responses
Also, there was no hypothetical hypothesizing about what happens under libertarianism (clear strawman), the critique (of the Moyer article) started at around thirty seconds, starting with the language being used. So I guess you didnt watch it, but hey, people dont have time to listen to the critiques, but have the time to try and refute a moral axiom. Strange world the internet is, ignorance is certainly blissful.
It was a lot of opinionating, not much fact. Ignorance IS bliss, when you can't recognize the difference.
I didn't hear any hypothesizing about what happens under libertarianism in the first ten minutes either. He was referring to the words, definitions, premises upon which the author drew the conclusions later in the article. The struggle is real.
I love the strawman at ~5:30 in that video when he takes the word "evolution" out of context and re-defines it to suite his agenda. Evolution, scientifically speaking (since we should stay strictly within the bounds of well-defined words and since he compares his philosophies to the laws of physics and math, and the scientific method), merely means "change over time". The word itself, and most importantly the context in which the author of the article uses the word in question, has no such meaning that he implies. Running, I would have thought you'd point this out having made yourself the strawman police of this thread. Unless of course you selectively identify your strawmans like everyone else with strong political affiliations, that is, someone who wishes to further a pre-conceived agenda. I lost interest in the video shortly after that. No time for a full hour long 'Tube video. I'm lucky if I can watch an uninterrupted Seinfeld episode from 10 years ago in my weekly allotted free time.
I agree that the assumption about the meaning of "evolution" is a shot in the dark. For all I know, he clarified what he meant later in the video or he may not have. It can have the connotation he mentioned, but it may not. "Evolve" is a common word used to describe moving from one political opinion to another. Sometimes the connotation includes an "evolution" or "betterment" of intelligent perspective. I didn't really watch enough of the video to thoroughly critique it. I didn't say anything advocating or condemning the rebuttal. I rebutted the article well without a video that lasts an hour (which is more time than necessary to critique an article this short). Unless you can really nail down a definition and context, critiquing little words like that is kind of petty. It's similar to the discussion earlier in the thread about "regulation" and the assertion that someone must be in favor of it or against it. So I'm in agreement with you in that regard. If I watched the entire thing I would find more that I agree/disagree with.
Of course it can be, but some definitions are objective. Most premises of major philosophies have their words defined in a very detailed manner. So the word "aggression" in terms of the libertarian free-will concept has been thoroughly defined. Words can have multiple possible meanings, but in order to have the most productive discussion possible, we can define terms as they pertain to a philosophy so that we can be more certain we are discussing the same thing. "Altruism" is used in multiple (though related) ways. If we are going to discuss its morality, its best we define it as it pertains to our discussion beforehand. An author I like contends that "altruism" is immoral, but they clearly define what is meant by the word, and it turns out that it is used differently by most people. She distinguishes between altruism and benevolence, although outside of a philosophic context they could be used interchangeably without necessarily causing confusion.
No offense, but it seems to me (from a teaching point of view) instead of typing up a wall of text (my eyes thank you for that btw, I mean who has time to space shit out and press 'enter' every now and then) talking about all the things a blade doesnt understand, that you apparently do, you could maybe try teaching. I dont mind admitting that I dont know a lot of about this, so thats at least two blades you could have helped. Instead you chose to torture my eyes and what did I get? You havent actually said anything, you just stated all the things a blade doesnt understand, and you made a block of text out of it. Really good job, Mr WallofText Carpenter.