/liberty/ - Liberty

>>69914

Oh boy. This sentence here perfectly exemplifies where you're wrong:

>Taxation is theft, and yet the state gets away with it because of its force

And where did it get that force from? From the consent of most of its subjects. If everyone stopped believing that what the state did was right, then how could it enforce its whims and laws? There's one cop for every two-hundreth or three-hundredth inhabitant of your country. Why aren't most of these inhabitants dangeorus criminals, and why aren't the cops among those dangerous criminals? They could easily get away with it. Yet, we see that people, as a general thing, do not commit crime at every opportunity. All but the most savage people in modern society do respect other people and their property most of the time. Not just that, they often even feel bad for breaking the law. There are studies and books on the kinds of neutralization techniques that criminals use to convince themselves that they aren't bad persons.

>or what is the difference between being right or wrong when you dont have the force to enforce one over the other?

I never got this opinion. You just made every moral category superfluous and devoid of content, so why not do away with them completely? But then it becomes obvious that you run into the same problems as all emotivist positions. You make every discourse on ethics unintelligible by reducing statements that clearly pretend to have a universal application to entirely subjective opinions. I have never met a person who consistently treated ethical judgements on the same level as judgements of whether his ice was tasty or not. Not even the worst Stirnerfags can do that. The fact that your theory cannot be applied by real people without stumbling over it every two seconds should give you pause to think on whether you're really doing it right.

Damn physicalists ruined it all. You cannot even describe most objects without invoking their telos. Try describing a car in purely physical terms. You'll have trouble differentiating it from planes and wheelchairs because these things, two, can drive. If you look at the telos of a car, suddenly it becomes a trivial task to understand what it is. Not just that, you can also describe what a good car is. You cannot do that without the telos. If you claim otherwise, you cannot explain why it is coherent to say that you prefer a car even though it's a bad car, or that no one appreciates a good car anymore.

There's nothing to prevent us from looking at the telos of humans and institutions the same way. We do this instinctively all the time, in fact, and it takes considerable effort to blind ourselves to this.

>And if joining communism/antifa/police force/nazis/nationalists/whatever, you should do it.

>you should do it

Kek.

Left-right, communism-market, authoritarianism-liberty, it is all bullshit.

Force, is all there is. Force is what makes either one possible. Just force.

>>76100

This: >>69920

I posted it for a reason.

>>69914

Just a quick note, if your end goal is liberty and yet your conclsuion is that joining antifa, nazis or communist causes is somehow a rational course of action in regards to achieving the end of liberty then I think it's safe to say that there's something wrong with your core thesis.