/liberty/ - Liberty

responsible for*

none of those are always true

>>96191

Why not?

>>96193

>English being my second language

>"Illiterate"

Are people in a situation of poverty able to be productive with decent working condition?

When the rich own the means of production, they aren't

>>96193

Productive people are workers

Do I have a moral obligation to help others, even at the cost of sacrificing my own well-being, time, resources, health, etc.?

The answer is debatable, but in my opinion, no, I am not obligated to sacrifice anything of my own in order to help another, without that other person giving something in return.

Note that charity, the willing giving of resources with no expectation of reward, is still a good thing. But what you are claiming is that I should be *required* to allow my empty house to be lived in by a homeless person.

Forced charity isn't charity, it is theft. You have no right to demand anything from me, not my food, not my empty house, not my protection, none of it. If I give it to you freely, count your blessings, but the second you cross over into entitlement ("I deserve this and that, and if you refuse to give it to me, you're an asshole"), you've just earned yourself a giant "Fuck off."

That is what the NAP is, at it's core: you provide mutual benefit, or you fuck the hell off.

>>96188

<When someone is starving and you don't give him food, you are partly responsible of his death.

This cannot be true, because when brought to its logical conclusion the idea is untenable. If it's a given that passing a starving man on the street and not feeding him is evil, then it must also follow that having disposable income and failing to seek out starving men to give it to (since you know there is plenty of starvation in the world) is also evil. Staying indoors with a book when you know there's crime happening in the inner city right now is also evil, because you could go out with your gun and stop muggers. This kind of positive rights rhetoric implies that anyone who isn't being Batman crossed with Mother Teresa 24/7 is criminally liable and may be punished. Or, you know, a Kulak that stockpiles grain for eventualities can be accused of "hoarding" and have all of his wealth confiscated by the secret police. Unless you consider that to be in keeping with moral behavior, this clearly is not a tenable view.

Don't conflate moral oughts with legal necessities. Leaving a 5% tip when you received excellent service is a dick move and should be shunned. It is not an act of aggression.

>>96192

If you, for instance, have no food yourself, you may very well be starving as well, you surely cannot be held responsible for his starvation. Or if he's forced to starve by his captors, or he's starving himself in protest, or you're simply not able to feed him. And cases like these are innumerable for the other examples as well. Obviously, he who lets others starve simply out of a primal malevolence would be a pariah in a free society. He would soon find himself to be in a situation worse than the man he neglected. Would taking his property by force be justified then? no. Would forcing such a man (when he is a haver) to share his property (also known as stealing his property) when, to what degree, and to whom you may arbitrarily decide to be more needing justified? no. Does such force even help with these cases? definitely not.

>>96195

>Are people in a situation of poverty able to be productive with decent working condition?

They'll manage if the state stops making it practically illegal to start a business or to work a job that pays equivalent to their production capacity.

>>96188

Why aren't you dedicating every second of every day of your life to minimizing human suffering then?

Are you, by your own admission, evil?

>>96199

>Helping shouldn't be a requirement or dictate

<LOLbertarianz r returdz cuz they shellfish!

>>96188

You can't be held responsible for something you have no authority over. This line of logic is easily abused. Usually by Socialists who like to allow themselves such authority as an excuse of moral obligation for the well-being of others.

Define what makes you responsible for any of these situations other than you feeling like it. I allow nobody else to consider themselves responsible for my actions and condition. They can take no action that overrides my decisions.

>>96205

Well yeah, I believe that it's the responsibility of each individual to care for his fellow man. I'm not a christian or anything like that, I just think that you can't really have a functioning society where people don't give a shit if no-one else is prospering.

>>96243

>I believe that it's the responsibility of each individual to care for his fellow man

But you aren't a fellow man, you're a scumbag that blames me for failures of people i don't even know.

>>96248

>It's all about me

And this is why people hate libertarians. You're like children.

>>96249

>It's all about your stuff

And that's why libertarians hate you, thieving scum

>>96243

>I believe that it's the responsibility of each individual to care for his fellow man.

You first, faggamuffin. The ones who virtue-signal the hardest are to hear always the ones that sit on their ass and demand that other people be generous on their behalf. If you want to be charitable, go do that, be the change you want to see in the world, and stop bothering everyone else about it.

>>96188

i am responsible if i feel responsible

>>96188

Ethics cannot establish positive obligations. The NAP is an ethical proposition. You're trying to get ethics to operate outside of its wheelhouse. Leave that shit to morality.

>>96199

You are literally unable to profit in a market if you do not provide for the demands (the "wellbeing") of "society". Get a hint.

>>96188

If a mutuelist openly denies responsibility for his life, can I make him my property? We know that animals are not responsible for their behaviour hence have no agency, and we can make animals our property because they have no agency, so…

Of course I will take care of my property however I see fit, be it protecting my property from harm, feeding it on time, providing my property its shed or corral or whatever, before the day I decide to roast and smoke it and sell the excess meat ofc.

How do you know that a NAP violation occurred? In China, no one helps each other because there is a risk that they are scammers instead of legitimate victims.

How do you know such actions of "helping" will not result in unintentional consequences and/or negative externalities?

>>96462

>How do you know that a NAP violation occurred?

judge will tell

>>96491

If NAP is to be a general rule, it must be understandable by everyone.

>>96501

i think that communities and societies vary and concept of NAP will vary too

>>96565

People born and raised in a system where there's a hard and fast set of rules that hypothetically gets applied equally for all have real trouble understanding how conflict resolution really works.

Unless I have a relationship with the man being assaulted, I have to reason to care about him.

Unless I have a relationship with the man who is starving, I have no reason to care about him.

Unless I have a relationship with the man who is homeless, I have no reason to care about him.

I am only responsible for their condition in that my choices have an effect on their lives. This is hardly a profound statement as everyone's choices has an effect on everyone's lives. If you want to morally invest yourself in the well-being of strangers who have no connection to you, that is your imperative, not mine.

>but you have an obligation as a citizen to do so

If I have entered into a contract with the collective to act as a public servant in a manner that would apply to one of those scenarios then yes I have an ethical obligation because I agreed to accept that obligation. If I have invested myself spiritually into the community in a manner that would apply to one of those scenarios then yes I have a moral obligation because I have agreed to accept that obligation. As it stands I have done none of these things, and thus have no obligation.

>but the state gives you roads and stuff

Unless I agree to an exchange wherein I help protect the community in exchange for goods or services, there has been no ethical or moral contract created. If you choose to adopt a moral system wherein unasked for favors must be repaid, that is on you. I have not accepted such a system and find it illegitimate.

>>96604

how does it work?

>>96659

Negotiation.