Discussion on ethics, violence, and libertarianism - XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG vs. The Tall Man

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This thread follows from a public challenge I issued to @The Tall Man.

you've been consistent in calling libertarianism a mental illness
I'm interested in offering you a chance to prove that in a public and intellectually honest exchange
Like, not some autistic debate club format, I'm suggesting direct engagement on your terms, provided that we both commit to no strawmanning or dodging, argument and reasoning only, and public replies only (Deep Thoughts or Mass Debates etc), not a DM cage match
[...]
tl;dr I'm inviting you to a knife fight, under the condition that we use real knives

What I was referring to is this:

Libertarianism is a mental illness.
You get what you want by using power. Violence is a form of power.
If artists and big companies use IP to get the government to exert violence on their behalf, screeching about the NAP and wanting to live in Ancapistan is nothing but an autistic temper tantrum.
The only way to get something is through force; this is how reality works. Even convincing autists of the NAP is a form of force, just a weak and ineffective one. Being weak is disgusting, and preaching weakness is even more disgusting.
The NAP is disgusting. Being openly proud that you would not strike first only makes you weak.
"Guys, if only the people in Gaza followed the NAP, the Palestinian Holocaust wouldn’t happen."

This idea that power and violence are inherently bad is divorced from reality and incredibly stupid. If I use extreme violence to get exactly what I want, then using it was nothing but good for me. If I have the power to change something the way I want, that is only good for me. Anyone who thinks something bad happens at the end of the story to the person who used force and violence to get what they wanted confuses Hollywood movies with reality.

Right before this thread, we clarified one key disagreement. I posited:

It's only aggressive violence that is evil. Punitive, retaliatory, restitutive, defensive violence are kosher
Like, libertarianism isn't the same thing as pacifism. Regarding violence, only violence against peaceful people is evil

And @The Tall Man posited:

I also disagree that aggressive or preemptive violence is evil.
Imagine you're a dad, and a non with multiple child abuse allegations moves in next door. Extreme aggressive violence is good in this case.
Many issues could be easily resolved with extreme violence. Race problems in the US could be solved this way. Immigration issues could be solved this way.
Do I want extreme violence enacted against me? No, of course not.
But to think you can take all people in the world and make them follow one set of rules inspired by Platonic ideals is just absurd to me.
Libertarianism exists in a world of ideals, a product of thought born from strong, high-trust European countries that began to deny racial reality.
No one would conceive of Libertarianism in Liberia.

tl;dr​

the purpose of this thread is to examine whether a coherent ethics can exist without reciprocity (that is, can one have a system of principles about right and wrong that doesn't apply equally to all people? Can one consistently say "X is right when I do it and wrong when you do it"?), and whether the non-aggression principle (NAP) represents weakness or principled boundary-setting

My position​

is that libertarianism draws the only line that makes peaceful co-existence possible: don't initiate physical conflict.
As I said, this doesn't mean pacifism, it just means that you have the right to act freely until your actions override someone else's control over their property. The moment you initiate force, you forfeit your claim to be left alone. Retaliation, restitution, and defense become valid, because conflict has already begun. If one rejects this distinction, it would mean denying the possibility of rules altogether. The conclusion would be that force is the principle, that power justifies itself, and that domination is sufficient.

@The Tall Man now the floor is yours​

You've stated clearly that aggressive violence can be good and that libertarian restraint is weakness.
So the first ask is: Can you justify that standard, not just as a preference, but as principle? Can you show how a framework based on domination leads to anything but fear, obedience, and arbitrary outcomes?

 

[CowBoyCormack]

This is autistic as fuck.

Libertarianism is gay because it can't exist without people in general being responsible and self-sufficient;

and the moment someone's bad choices begin to impact the community (aka your own life by proxy) its failed as an experiment.

Want freedom? Want to shoot up drugs? Want to shoot up drugs in a public park? Not on my watch

You get into all sorts of semantic arguments about 'well that violates this principle, that principle, the non-aggression, bla bla bla'

when at the end of the day, these are just copes/excuses that detract from the fact of:

Yes, we should aspire to be more independent, libertarian, hold more value for freedom- but you can't have freedom without responsibility, and no matter what you do, there are going to be retards within society who you have to tard handle.

The live and let live shit dies off the moment you go online and look at half a dozen furry or agp or pedo communities, and where living and letting them live inevitably becomes a problem for you when your son decides to troon out, etc.

but wait, kids dont have rights, etc!

See: when at the end of the day, these are just copes/excuses that detract from the fact

I don't know or care about the rest, about how someone's violence justifies violence in response- sometimes, its literally not just violence, but not wanting retardation in your neighborhood to happen. I'm not saying you can't have some libertarian paradise in Colorado somewhere just like the tranch, but Ive seen too many horror stories that spill over where someone should have stepped in, but didn't.

Libertarianism is grand, but you require responsible people first and foremost. It only works in rare cases. If and when it does, I'll admit that its great- probably the best form of 'lack of government'. But thats just it, it rarely, rarely, rarely succeeds and is usually just a shitshow, or libertarians turning into soveigrn citizens and driving around in pickup trucks complaining about the government, while using their roads. Maybe the only actual libertarians are types like John McAfee who actually fuck off and do their own thing, and even he isnt the best example.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

See, this is precisely the kind of frustrated ranting I was hoping to avoid
Very muddled.
Like,

Libertarianism is gay because it can't exist without people in general being responsible and self-sufficient;

That's completely and utterly irrelevant. All systems fail if people are malicious or incompetent. That is not some flaw of libertarianism, it's human reality. How would giving even worse people an institutional monopoly on violence solve this?

living and letting them live inevitably becomes a problem for you when

It's trivial that bad actors affect others, this applies to every system.
Like, this is so muddled. AGPs and child molesters etc. are not an argument for giving someone else a badge and a permission to rule. It's just a reminder that cowardice and confusion exist and that no system can run on the absence of virtue.
It's very very trivial that every society requires that people uphold boundaries and take responsibility. What's unique about libertarianism is that libertarians don't pretend that a monopoly on violence is going to do it for them.

 

[Coberald]

The NAP is retarded and violence is aryan.

 

[CowBoyCormack]

All systems fail if people are malicious or incompetent. That is not some flaw of libertarianism, it's human reality.

Youre a troll obviously- but maybe because other systems police people who are malicious or incompetent, and lolbertarians response is 'lol not my problem' (yet)

How would giving even worse people an institutional monopoly on violence solve this?

Youre assuming theyre worse, and Im guessing going straight to 'theres only anarchism or fascism'

which is dumb.

Im much closer to libertarianism than most, but even Im not retarded enough to be blind to its flaws. A liberal democracy is much better in some sense, but at some level- you do need people to police and wrangle the tards. Im not saying that will never change, maybe you can have a society without tard wranglers, but itd require a great amount of individual responsibility that we just don't have.

Know what you do? You don't embrace some police state or totalitarian dystopia, you try to create a bill of rights, liberalism in a classical sense, protect property rights as much as you want, etc. My problem with the current system is that our legal rights are often hypocritically trampled upon, its a 'rules for thee and not for me' situation;

Ferguson or Minneapolis during BLM, for example. Peoples businesses were torched, and police choose to let it happen. Property rights only exist, as much as they cooperate with 'current world thing'. Your freedom of speech only exists as long as it cooperates with 'current world thing'. Ive seen people get deplatformed and mobbed for saying the most basic takes. Ive seen black people get celebrated for saying behead white people. Id rather go back to when liberal values were actually upheld consistently, if they ever were. I want what the constitution and bill of rights promises, not how it currently is abused. I say that as a POC who saw his own community do literally the most stupid, self-destructive shit possible, in the name of progress.

but stateless societies are retarded. Literally. Look at the CHAZ and what happened there.

It's trivial that bad actors affect others, this applies to every system.
Like, this is so muddled. AGPs and child molesters etc. are not an argument for giving someone else a badge and a permission to rule. It's just a reminder that cowardice and confusion exist and that no system can run on the absence of virtue.
It's very very trivial that every society requires that people uphold boundaries and take responsibility. What's unique about libertarianism is that libertarians don't pretend that a monopoly on violence is going to do it for them.

This is trivial, that is trivial, this is muddled, bla bla bla

fuck off lol, its not trivial to point out that people are morons and living in a society without a state is going to put you at the mercy of morons.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I've already addressed everything you've said, @DiscoRodeo
You're upset that rights require responsibility and you're angry that libertarians don't pretend that the state solves that
If you want classical liberalism enforced without contradiction or hypocrisy, then what you want isn't a state monopoly. You just haven't realized or admitted that yet

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

OP you fucked up when you decided to start arguing “yes you totally should let people die of thirst” instead of calling it (the water monopoly LOL) out for the absurd and childish make believe it is.

 

[The Tall Man]

is that libertarianism draws the only line that makes peaceful co-existence possible: don't initiate physical conflict.

This is silly, and you know it.
Let me grant you a world that is 100% Ancap, and everybody is taught the NAP and Libertarian philosophy from birth.
And you think if you walk alone into the Nog area of Ancap USA wearing your shiny watch, the Nogs won't think to themselves, "Gibs me dat," punch, stab, or shoot you just to get that shiny watch?
This is why I said nobody would ever come up with Libertarianism in Liberia.

So the first ask is: Can you justify that standard, not just as a preference, but as principle? Can you show how a framework based on domination leads to anything but fear, obedience, and arbitrary outcomes?

Sure, I can, but you won't like it because most people live in a Platonist moral framework, and it's hard for them to distance themselves from it.

My moral system is far less esoteric than Libertarianism. A universal moral code is nothing but fantasy.
What is good for me, my family, and my extended family is good. The further removed from me you are, the less important you are to me.
These are the core axioms of my moral framework.

So, I will present you with a dilemma, and let's see if your moral framework is nothing but differently dressed Platonic slave morality.

You are a White father, 13th-generation American, living next to a bunch of nons. Some non has killed a close friend of yours, and your sister-in-law got raped by a non. You know of many people who had their bikes stolen, their cars stolen, etc., by these nons.

Now, here is a preemptive force solution to the non problem: You force them to move to their respective non countries, like Africa or whatever, or they face the death squads. Let's say the nons are not willing to go at all and are ready to fight to stay next to the crackers they hate so much. You lose a bunch of men, maybe you die yourself, and you have to kill many nons before you can forcefully ship them to Africa.
But at the end of it you have effectively solved the original problem.

Now, how would you solve this hypothetical non problem and stay within your moral framework?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

So you define "good" as

What is good for me, my family, and my extended family

However, that is nothing but a label for a preference
You're basically collapsing "what is good?" and "who benefits?" into one thing, as if the answer to ethics were determined by proximity rather than principle
But identifying the beneficiary of an action does not explain the legitimacy of the action

Consider the hypothetical. It makes no distinction between individual guilt and group membership. Retaliatory force and collective punishment are treated as interchangeable.

In libertarianism, this distinction exists.
If someone commits aggression, force is justified, but only against that individual, not against a group, not against a demographic array or ethnic category.

Now, how would you solve this hypothetical non problem and stay within your moral framework?

It's really simple, I would direct force at the person who committed the aggression. And abstain from directing force at a proxy or a class or their relatives.
In other words, I would act within the boundary. That's the point of having boundaries.

I'll ask you something in return
If "good" means whatever benefits you and yours, what standard do you use when the interests of two tribes conflict?
Say, if group A wants territory and group B wants to stay, how do you resolve that without reducing ethics to "the winner is whoever wins"?

 

[The Tall Man]

So you define "good" as

HAHAHAHA Yeah you are really steelmanning my arguments.

proximity rather than principle

So, you are rejecting genetic proximity as a possible cornerstone from which to derive your principles.

Then you have to answer: Why is it wrong to base your preferential treatment of people on how genetically close they are to you?

But identifying the beneficiary of an action does not explain the legitimacy of the action

The legitimacy of the action is determined if it doesn't conflict with the moral framework.
That is what a moral framework is, I have already explained this to you.
You makes some assumptions these become the core pillars of your moral framework and you try to find answers to moral problems that respect these assumptions.

And your problem is with the pillar of my moral framework so you better come up with some argument why making genetic proximity the core pillar of my moral framework is wrong or why your system is superior.


The legitimacy of an action is determined by whether it conflicts with the moral framework.
That is what a moral framework is. I have already explained this to you. You make some assumptions; these become the core pillars of your moral framework, and you try to find answers to moral problems that respect these assumptions.

And your problem is with the pillar of my moral framework, so you better come up with some argument why making genetic proximity the core pillar of my moral framework is wrong or why your system is superior.

Consider the hypothetical. It makes no distinction between individual guilt and group membership. Retaliatory force and collective punishment are treated as interchangeable.

Because I am not a retard who doesn't believe in groups.
What you are saying is that you are unable to make any sort of group judgment.
Why?
What is bad about an action based on groups?

In libertarianism, this distinction exists.
If someone commits aggression, force is justified, but only against that individual, not against a group, not against a demographic array or ethnic category.

So, you won't solve the problem at all. It's just a bunch of text you can get into when you are autistic enough and find copes for the real world and its problems. Because, ultimately, you believe in the idea of the atomized individual and completely ignore the reality of groups.

So, if you are offered a cute little puppy to play with for your kids, you will take the inbred bully because you have to wait and judge it on its own individual actions. Very enlightened and moral of you.

I guess my conundrum was no problem for you to begin with because the market will come up with better bike locks.

This demonstrates how I can show with simple examples how flawed your moral framework is when pitted against reality.

I'll ask you something in return
If "good" means whatever benefits you and yours, what standard do you use when the interests of two tribes conflict?
Say, if group A wants territory and group B wants to stay, how do you resolve that without reducing ethics to "the winner is whoever wins"?

My moral framework really isn't hard to follow.
If I and my people are either A or B then I am with them 100%.
If A or B don't have anything to do with me then I don't care at all.
If there is a benefit to either A or B winning for me and my people then I side with those who will benefit me.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

So, by your own account, "good" means whatever benefits you, your family, and your people. And when two groups are in conflict, you support the one that benefits you (and if neither does, you're indifferent)

That's a description for a rule for choosing alignment based on identity and outcome. It does not describe a principle that can be applied across cases, or a constraint on force that holds regardless of group position

You also wrote that legitimacy comes from alignment with one's own selected assumptions. But that just shifts the question. If the only test for justification is whether an action fits premises you've chosen in advance, then justification no longer constrains action, it simply reflects it. A framework becomes indistinguishable from preference unless its core premise can itself be held to conflict-resolving structure

What is bad about an action based on groups?

The issue isn't with noticing patterns. The issue is with overriding individual standing using a category membership. Groups don't act, individuals do.
When action is justified against a person because of statistical traits, rather than anything they did, then there is simply no distinction between a targeted response and expedient coercion.

In your hypothetical, you proposed violence against a population as a solution to group-level harms. When I asked what boundary constrained that decision, you replied "I support whichever side benefits me". That describes outcome alignment, and not a test of legitimacy that others could apply to you without contradiction

My position is simple: force is justified only in response to specific acts of aggression by specific individuals
You've stated that force is justified when it achieves a benefit for your group, regardless of who initiated conflict

Tell me, if there are two groups of people, all people involved act from your standard (pursuing what benefits them and their kin, without regard for others), what settles a conflict between them?
If your answer is "whoever wins", then what role does justification play in your framework at all?

 

[The Tall Man]

So, by your own account, "good" means whatever benefits you, your family, and your people.

No. I am using good with it's basic definition.

You also wrote that legitimacy comes from alignment with one's own selected assumptions. But that just shifts the question. If the only test for justification is whether an action fits premises you've chosen in advance, then justification no longer constrains action, it simply reflects it. A framework becomes indistinguishable from preference unless its core premise can itself be held to conflict-resolving structure

Yes, this is how all moral frameworks work.
If you can find me a single one that doesn't, or even a single moral rule that disproves my point, you have disproven my point. If not, I expect you to concede on this point, because it's the obvious reality of moral frameworks.

That describes outcome alignment, and not a test of legitimacy that others could apply to you without contradiction

This concept of assuming absolute truth and working back from that point to find little rules that will lead to this absolute truth is retarded, and it can never work because absolute Truth doesn't exist.
The only thing that matters is the outcome, not how beautifully your little moral construct looks or sounds.

My position is simple: force is justified only in response to specific acts of aggression by specific individuals

And you could not solve the Non issue. I could.
The only way to compare two moral frameworks is by judging how they work when applied to problems.

You've stated that force is justified when it achieves a benefit for your group, regardless of who initiated conflict

And you still fail to explain why this is bad. All you keep repeating is that your moral framework is against it. Very cool, mine is not.

When action is justified against a person because of statistical traits, rather than anything they did, then there is simply no distinction between a targeted response and expedient coercion.

This is a fake problem, and you know it.
You would agree with me that the behavior and actions of a bully can be categorized and fall into similar patterns, just like for golden retrievers. That's why everyone will call you a retard if your child gets mauled by the cute, innocent bully that dindu nuffin.

Now, what if a golden retriever turns out to be super violent? Then you put it down, just like you should put down all bullies. But not all bullies are aggressive; there is this one that is really cute. Cool, don't care. We live in the real world, and there are never perfect solutions, and every single action has unintended consequences. Inaction because something is imperfect is supremely retarded.

Since you believe that the rules of your moral system apply universally, does that mean you are for the idea of the bully owner club and the local playground sharing one location? We can't collectively punish the bullies; we should assess them on an individual basis. If a bully ends up mauling a child, then we can take action. Hell yeah, Libertarianism rules.

The genetic difference between a bully and a golden retriever is less than between human subspecies.

---

Here are the questions for you.

Why is it wrong to base your preferential treatment of people on how genetically close they are to you?

How do you suppose we should compare two moral frameworks if not by comparing how they would work when applied to specific examples?

Why is it categorically bad to take actions based on group behaviors?

You seem to get hung up on what a moral framework is, so please find me one that isn't a system based on assumptions.

Make a rational argument why initiating force is categorically bad.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Hang on a moment
You said absolute truth doesn't exist, all moral frameworks are based on arbitrary assumptions, the only thing that matters is the outcome, and group traits can justify coercion.
If you put all of these things together, you get:

• Truth is unavailable
• Justification is circular
• Ethics is instrumental
• And individual boundaries are dispensable

If you stick by those premises, then there is no framework left to compare, no structure left to defend, and no criterion left to appeal to
At that point, you're not arguing positions, you're selecting tactics

If a moral framework is to be more than preference, you must offer a constraint that applies even when it's inconvenient. It must resolve conflict between two agents without collapsing into "whoever prevails". But by your account, there's nothing to constrain. Preference determines alignment, outcome determines value, and reasoning exists to support the result
So when you now ask "Why is it wrong to initiate force?", "Why is it bad to act on group behavior?", and "Why is it wrong to prefer my tribe?" - you have already defined these as unanswerable.
Not because no answers exist, but because, on your terms, no answer could be more than a preference

Like, all you can honestly do to any answer I can give is approve or disapprove. But you made it clear that you can't evaluate

Consider the following
If someone says there's no truth, no justification, no standards, and no reciprocity, then on what basis can they say that any worldview is wrong?

 

[The Tall Man]

Truth is unavailable

Truth is empirical verification. No empirical verification is absolute since it's something from the realm of subjects.
Empirical verification not being absolute doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What kind of retard thinking are you pulling here?

Justification is circular

Justifications within a moral system are static, not circular. They don't change unless the axioms change, and if the axioms change, you have a different moral framework.

Ethics is instrumental

Am I understanding you correctly, and you are surprised by the fact that ethics is nothing but an arbitrary set of rules with the intent to achieve some goal?
I mean than it's up to you to come up with a rational argument why that is not the case.

And individual boundaries are dispensable

You probably don't even have a grasp on your own identity.

If you stick by those premises, then there is no framework left to compare, no structure left to defend, and no criterion left to appeal to
At that point, you're not arguing positions, you're selecting tactics

I don't think there is a point in addressing this since your assumptions about the nature of truth are wrong.

If a moral framework is to be more than preference, you must offer a constraint that applies even when it's inconvenient.

That is not what a moral framework is.
I will explain it.
You take some points and make them your axioms (you assume they are true or you assume they are of utmost importance).
Like: Murder is bad, stealing is bad, helping is good, or perhaps something like "Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want to be done to yourself." (Pretty retarded rule since I wouldn't ever want to get fucked by a guy.)
Then you take questions from the real world and see what the answer within your framework would be.
Moral frameworks are always a bit vaguer than logical frameworks, but they are all based on axioms.

It must resolve conflict between two agents without collapsing into "whoever prevails".

Why?

Preference determines alignment, outcome determines value, and reasoning exists to support the result

The first two parts are simply reality. If you disagree, make a rational argument.
Your explanation of what you think I think reasoning is, is wrong. I use reasoning by its standard definition.

So when you now ask "Why is it wrong to initiate force?", "Why is it bad to act on group behavior?", and "Why is it wrong to prefer my tribe?" - you have already defined these as unanswerable.
Not because no answers exist, but because, on your terms, no answer could be more than a preference

I’m gonna be nice and assume you legitimately never thought deeply enough about truth and moral systems to not confuse yourself into this insane corner.
You can still talk and have rational arguments with people despite the reality that moral systems are built on axioms.

Consider the following
If someone says there's no truth, no justification, no standards, and no reciprocity, then on what basis can they say that any worldview is wrong?

Now please find the quotes where I said that. Don't quote me where you feel like I said that.

---

Now that I have cleared this up for you, how about you answer my questions instead of dodging them.

Why is it wrong to base your preferential treatment of people on how genetically close they are to you?

How do you suppose we should compare two moral frameworks if not by comparing how they would work when applied to specific examples?

Why is it categorically bad to take actions based on group behaviors?

You seem to get hung up on what a moral framework is, so please find me one that isn't a system based on assumptions.

Make a rational argument why initiating force is categorically bad.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

absolute Truth doesn't exist.

Truth is empirical verification. No empirical verification is absolute since it's something from the realm of subjects.

So, by your account, truth is not objective. It's probabilistic, perception-bound, and non-final.

Justifications within a moral system are static [...] unless the axioms change

[All moral frameworks are] based on assumptions

So justification is internal to the system and changes when the assumptions change. That means there is no evaluative standard outside the framework itself

ethics is nothing but an arbitrary set of rules with the intent to achieve some goal

So ethics is instrumental, not a structure of constraint, but a tool for outcome

Why is it categorically bad to take actions based on group behaviors?

You would agree with me that the behavior and actions of a bully can be categorized and fall into similar patterns, just like for golden retrievers.

Now, what if a golden retriever turns out to be super violent? Then you put it down, just like you should put down all bullies. But not all bullies are aggressive; there is this one that is really cute. Cool, don't care. We live in the real world, and there are never perfect solutions

So you affirm that individual standing can be overridden by group traits and that statistical patterns are sufficient to justify preemptive coercion

So when you now ask

Make a rational argument why initiating force is categorically bad.

Why is it categorically bad to take actions based on group behaviors?

Why is it wrong to base your preferential treatment of people on how genetically close they are to you?

you are using language that your own stance has already stripped of all meaning.

You said there's no objective truth, no stable ground for justification, and no obligation that survives goal conflict. But those are the conditions that are required for the questions you're asking to make sense in the first place.

If ethics = outcome selection, and justification is internal, then all I can do is state a preference and all you can do is reject it. Not the same thing as evaluation.

To be clear: I'm not dodging your questions, I'm rejecting the terms on which they're asked.
Like, you've already said that ethics is an arbitrary ruleset aimed at achieving outcomes, that justification depends on selected premises, that truth is not absolute, and that reciprocity is not a necessary component of moral structure.
If those are your premises, then the questions you posited are prompts for preference signaling. You're asking for categorical answers while denying the categories.
Answering you "within your system" would be pure theater. It would be like performing logic in a world where contradiction is allowed. It would be larping essentially

If you maintain that ethics is outcome selection, justification is internal, and truth is subjective, then by your own account, no worldview can be "wrong". It can only be aligned or misaligned with your whims.
And if that is your position, say it plainly: "There is no such thing as justification, only preference."
And if you don't say that, then you're back on the hook to explain how one framework can be better than another, without just pointing to outcomes you like.
Like, you can't have both. Either you exit the domain of ethics or you re-enter it and face the requirements. And if you're serious about re-entering the domain of ethics, start by naming a standard that can resolve conflict without collapsing into preference

 

[The Tall Man]

So, by your account, truth is not objective.

No, that is the reality of the matter.

I explained this to you already. True and False are answers to questions.

For example, imagine you and I are standing on a beach, looking down at a gray, motionless object. I ask, "Is this a stone?" You pick it up, examine it, and because you know what kind of object the word "stone" describes, and you can compare it with your memories of other objects called stones, you judge that it is a stone.
If you then say, "The Tall Man, my best friend in the world, let me tell you, this is a stone," you are telling a truth according to yourself.
If you say, "The Tall Man, my best friend in the entire world, this object is not a stone," then you are telling a falsehood according to yourself.

So justification is internal to the system and changes when the assumptions change. That means there is no evaluative standard outside the framework itself

Do you think 1+1=2 is true within my system of irrational thought where one of the axioms is that 1 = potato?
If something is true within a moral system, it doesn't make it an absolute objective truth; it is always only true in relation to the axioms.
It is usually the axioms themselves that try to connect the system to reality.

So ethics is instrumental, not a structure of constraint, but a tool for outcome

Not "it is," but "it can be."

So you affirm that individual standing can be overridden by group traits and that statistical patterns are sufficient to justify preemptive coercion

Because you don't do that, you look at the mosquito landing on your arm until it has stung you to judge it. Since you believe in judging individually, you have to do this to stay consistent with your holy, absolute rules of Libertarianism. You never know; that mosquito might behave like a butterfly and not sting you.

you are using language that your own stance has already stripped of all meaning.

You are being a weaselly little faggot from this point on, and all you do is whine that if there is no objective truth, nothing matters, like some 13-year-old alt girl.
All your if-then assumptions are infantile.
If you are so absolutely dumbfounded that there is no objective truth, then make an argument why I am wrong instead of whining about what I said.

If you maintain that ethics is outcome selection, justification is internal, and truth is subjective, then by your own account, no worldview can be "wrong".

'Wrong' always requires a question.
Is it wrong to rape a girl younger than 3 years?
Most from a Western frame would say yes.
A devout Jew would say no.

Answering you "within your system" would be pure theater.

Are you stupid?
Did I ever ask you to answer my questions within my system?
All you’ve done so far is refuse to answer my questions and extrapolate stupid misunderstandings from me having to teach you the basics of philosophy in my responses.
You are being a massive fag right now. I am answering you honestly with consistency within my moral frame, and all you do is misconstrue what you think I think might lead to instead of answering my questions.

---

So, let's try this again.
This might surprise you, but I’m not asking you these questions so that you can try to answer them how you think I would answer them.
Answer them from your own perspective and stop being a coward.

Why is it wrong to base your preferential treatment of people on how genetically close they are to you?

How do you suppose we should compare two moral frameworks if not by comparing how they would work when applied to specific examples?

Why is it categorically bad to take actions based on group behaviors?

You seem to get hung up on what a moral framework is, so please find me one that isn't a system based on assumptions.

Make a rational argument why initiating force is categorically bad.

 

[Luke Heaven 13!]

act freely until your actions override someone else's control over their property

By this logic, the cartels in Mexico and the citizens of Mexico are technically living under a NAP since they both act freely until their actions override someone else’s control over their property.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

So, let's try this again.
This might surprise you, but I’m not asking you these questions so that you can try to answer them how you think I would answer them.
Answer them from your own perspective [...]

You're still demanding answers while holding a position that makes answers meaningless
You've said truth is perspective-bound, justification is circular, moral standards are internal to groups, outcomes define value, and force is valid when it benefits your tribe.
Then you ask me to explain why something is wrong, as if there were a standard outside either of us that could make that question answerable.
But you've already denied that such a standard exists. You've ruled out truth, reciprocity, and evaluative comparison. You've said that frameworks can't be judged, only selected.

That means there's nothing left to resolve. I'm not going to perform inside a frame that discards the conditions that make reasoning possible.

If you've changed your position somehow, if you now think truth is real, or that justification matters, or that there is a way to resolve conflict without reducing it to dominance, then let me know. That's when talking makes sense.
Otherwise, just answer this:
If all standards are internal, and all outcomes are relative, what exactly do you mean when you say someone else's worldview is wrong? Such as when you call libertarianism so wrong that adhering to it implies mental illness

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

By this logic, the cartels in Mexico and the citizens of Mexico are technically living under a NAP since they both act freely until their actions override someone else’s control over their property.

That's not how the NAP works
The NAP doesn't say "act freely until override occurs", it says don't initiate conflict, and it defines conflict in terms of who has legitimate control over a given thing
If a gangster murders or extorts someone, that's not "acting freely", it's initiating force. If a citizen defends their home, that's responding to force. These are not symmetrical actions, and the NAP is precisely the principle that makes that distinction intelligible
If you can't distinguish between a mugger and the person being mugged, then no framework can help you

 

[A Very Big Fish]

Make a rational argument why initiating force is categorically bad.

If I initiate force, its good. If someone initiates force against me, its bad.

Man, I'm good at this.