libertarian labour

Then his name must be Peter Parker.

Then we end up with the "insane owner" answer, since in that case he's not trespassing, any more than someone who is struck by a taxi should be charged with "theft of services" for the "ride" he went on but didn't want.

*sigh*
It's a condo

We can presume that you don't have an answer and will continue to duck the question.

how does that work? pointing out your logical inconsistencies isn't always a "gotcha".

crybaby.

Is there some reason why Spaceturkey and The Exception decided to read Ohoitnik's "problem kids" as "black kids" besides an intellectually bankrupt attempt to make him look and sound like a racist?

And if it isn't an obvious troll, what does it say about their outlook on life that problem kids and drug dealers are clearly black?

Doesn't change the fact that the actor who fell didn't commit a premeditated action, and therefore didn't initiate a violation of the flagpole owner's property rights. And the owner, who did initiate force, operated against the libertarian principle of non-aggression.

I'm not ducking the question. I'm answering it; it seems to me that you're not so much irritated that I'm not answering the question as you are that I'm not answering the question the way you'd like me to.

It is when the only way you can "point out ... logical inconsistencies" is to limit the answers to only those which result in logical inconsistencies.

because "inner city" isn't code for "black" anymore?

No, it isn't. It's not code for anything. Is "because" code for "I massage my anus with live gekkos"?

so a person can use another's property if he has a superior claim to it's need? I say you're dancing because it's a simple yes or no... does the owner have the right to initiate deadly force (y/n) or is the guy falling morally obligated to let go (y/n)?

wow...
you guys are making this too easy.

Since hanging off a flagpole can in no way be thought of as a threatening action, the owner will go to jail if he shoots the "trespasser".

Just because someone is Libertarian it doesn't mean they are going to lose their instinct for survival so of course they would try and save their life. Yes, it's someone else's property but it's unreasonable for that person to ask you to die rather than give you a couple minutes to try and make it to a balcony.

It's a stupid, unrealistic scenario.

Not if he initiates force in order to make use of it.

And I say it's not a simple yes or no.

No.

No.

This reminds me of the joke:

A physician, who is also a logician, delivers a baby. The father asks, "Is it a boy or a girl?" The logician answers, "Yes."

see, ya coulda saved time without the protesting how hard the question was...

I wasn't protesting that the question is "hard", because it isn't. It's simply preposterous and assumes several biases in its premise which are unsupportable and therefore necessarily lead to an inaccurate answer.

Here's a similar one:

An avowed anti-racist and anti-sexist, who happens to be a white male, encounters a black man raping a white woman. Should he stop the rape or not? If he does, he's a racist for siding with the white victim and inflicting violence on a black man. If he doesn't, he's a sexist for siding with his fellow male and allowing the woman to be victimized.

You see, it's child's play to construct these "gotcha" scenarios in which a hypothetical (name a member of your favorite philosophy to pick on) can be forced to look either superficial or dogmatic, the obvious intention being to cause the philosophy itself to then seem to be either impracticable for being so ephemeral or useless for its inflexibility. But that's all it is; cheap junk rhetoric designed to shut down discussion rather than encourage it.

And as I've said many times to dipshits like you:

I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN

Nor have I ever claimed to be one.

Creationism has no place in schools but it is the height of being a two-faced hypocrite (of which you are legendary status) to put all the blame for math and science woes on its shoulders. There are plenty of schools that are crap in science and math and have nothing to do with creationism.

Then there's your definition of libertarianism, right there, in action; it is the political position of individualist free-thinkers. I'm not about to provide a definition of what libertarianism is, on behalf of every other libertarian, because they have every right to hold definitions of it that differ from mine.

However;

Libertarianism, in my personal opinion, has two main tenets common to the majority of libertarians: maximized personal freedom derived from inherent birthrights, the only legitimate boundaries of which are the boundaries of the inherent rights of other beings; and, secondly, the principle that to initiate aggression in violation of the rights of others is unethical. In my opinion, the natural variations of the definition of libertarianism arise from differences in opinion over how a society can most widely and effectively embrace those two core principles.

Yeah, public schools.

Absolutely.

Precisely the correct reaction to the "flagpole dilemma".

No.

neither of the two other actors race is necessarily a factor in choosing to intervene though... you're going to have to explain why that'd be racist.

the flag pole, otoh, is a pretty much an extension of castle doctrine.

see, the child's play is blocking your dodges... you used to be better at this.

And this is where you reject the illogically constrained choices presented in my scenario -- just as I reject the illogically constrained choices of the flag pole dilemma.

The so-called flag pole "dilemma" comes out to nothing more than, "If you choose to suspend your principles to save your life, that means you're not really committed to your principles, i.e., your principles aren't worth committing to." It's utter pap.

Yes, there is a reason, he didn't just say problem kids, he said "inner city kids," a phrase that has connotations of impoverished African-American and Hispanic children. This is doubly true where I live, where Flint has a racial makeup where African-Americans are a majority.

Liberals talk about child labor as if it were some unnecessary punishment being inflicted on children until the state came along and put an end to the practice.

Which, as with most things liberals believe, is completely divorced from reality.

Children labored--as they had throughout human history--because their labor was economically necessary. And the (much closer to) laissez-faire conditions created the wealth in this country that gave rise to a middle class, who could afford to send their children to school rather than off to a job.

Ending child labor was politically feasible only when it was no longer economically necessary for most people.

Not really, because it sets the tone for more realistic scenarios. You've already agreed to an example where a person's right to private property can be intruded upon when another person's life is on the line. So where do you draw the line? What if I'm close to dying from exposure and I crawl into your house to warm up. Or I'm dying of hunger and I eat out of your garbage.

So do you support it being legal, at least in principle?

The question is, was their labor really always economically necessary? Or was the percentage of output earned by labor such that it was a necessity? Also, the middle class is not a recent invention, while the term is only a few hundred years old, it is similar in concept to the bourgeoisie, which have existed since the Middle Ages.

For children younger than 16, I'd have no problem with a part-time job provided (1) it is by choice, (2) they have parental consent, and (3) there is no interference with their education. For those 16 or older, they should be able to work up to full-time provided it is by choice.

I'd have to find statistics, but if the answers aren't "yes" and "yes," it's hard to explain why children would ever have worked.

While the middle class certainly has its origins in the bourgeoisie--who were the original capitalists--the modern middle class is a much larger proportion of society, and that's a change that happened with industrialization, as productive output increased tremendously, and more people could leave the farm for city life.

What you and I consider middle class today is shared by a lot of people. Two hundred years ago, the vast majority of people still worked on farms.