I certainly do not ignore it. Prejudice is a value loaded sentiment and according to Rothbard and me; Violence can only be justified on a value free bases.

And as soon as you include value laded sentiments into a political system it cannot be justified by means of logic. Because it cannot be demonstrated to be true when the value does not exist. Par Example if your political system requires you to give nickels to hobos it can only exists when there are hobos. When they don’t exist there can be no justification for including them, thus such a political system cannot be demonstrated to be true on Mars. Because there are no hobos on Mars. Now a political system to be true it must by applicable everywhere in all times and regardless of situations.

Now to give a more general justification of my stance:

Now if people hate hobos, not all of them because someone has to advocate a bill for forcing people to give them nickels. Then they are taking their value judgment and saying it is so superior to the value judgment that you should not help hobos that they can use violence to enforce their own value judgments. Now this can be turned around. The people that hate hobos now forbid the others by punishment to give nickels to hobos. Now you have the exact same thing, people enforcing their values upon others. Same happened to the Jews, in both the 3rd reich and the USSR. Your stance originates from what I can tell from a grave epistemological error. That you can judge the justness of an action from it’s results and it is easy to justify murder with that. And you can never judge the results from an action except in models where the results are pre-determined. Now however you can predict the direct results from your own actions, granted that you have the time to evaluate them. Thus libertarians advocate that you cannot initiate force but only respond to it. as in defending yourself. That leaves you with a political system where you cannot attack people for any reason. While the other stance leaves you with infinite (infinity does not exist, it is just as high as you can count but the point is very very very many, beyond your comprehension) political systems because you can change the value judgment to anything.

–

Now if you think you are better then other people fine. But if you think you are so good that you can force other people to bow to your will then you have completely destroyed the concept of equality from your political system. Because people cannot have equal rights if other people have the right to tell you what to do. Except if all people have that right and then you have no rights at all. Thus due to the inalienable god given rights (interchangeable with natural rights if you a heathen); which have been demonstrated to be true so many times that I shall take them for granted in this argument. Thus the only system that gives everyone equal rights is to allow everything except the initiation of force upon another being. Because if you allow all people the “right” to enforce their will with violence then there is no such thing as rights.

My position is that the only consistent way of granting everyone equal rights is giving them the right to do anything so long as they do not initiate

force on other people. Now that does not mean they cannot have value judgments as you point out in your example; we all do. But do dismiss them as prejudice is perhaps right, but it isn’t a justification for forced charity. You are free to convincing them that your value judgment is right. Which then leads to a sort of market of pluralistic value judgments that compete. That is you can found a commune with a set of communistic rules and live there in peace. But you cannot horde people into your commune at gunpoint. But you are free to ask them and try convincing them to come. If you think you can horde them into your commune you are saying that your values are better. But apparently not good enough so you can convince other people of their goodness. Then you are stating that their logic is different from yours; that is superior. That is polylogicalism and is profoundly irrational and was practiced by the nazis and communist explicitly with their bourgeoisie truths, Jewish truth and Aryan truth. Then There can be no dialogue between groups and the only solution is to enforce your value. And in the case of the nazis with death camps.

The reason why that is wrong is because it is an improper definition of reason. Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or

conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The

method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. (Rand) because there is only one world which all groups perceive there is only one non-contradictory identification. Thus your political system has too by applicable to that reality and not a socially constructed (Hobos used earlier) phenomena. Which is the definition of a value judgment ANY value judgment.

In short:

Conservetism: Log in to see images!

Socialism: Log in to see images!

Communism: Log in to see images!

Libertarianism: Log in to see images!

There is a profound difference between Libertarianism and other political systems. While the others are not different in principle but only in scale.

Ps.

Libertarianism is a general term, in my usage it would be more accurate to identify it as Anarcho Capitalism where the government has the exact same rights as the populace, and because they are not allow to steal neither can the government do so with “taxation”. A more detailed definition of my stance would be the self coined Post-Anarcho-capitalistic-Institutional-Constructivism. Which is that government institutions are privatized (except for the Libertarian role of government) by handing them over to political parties which grant access to them for a taxational fee. While the right too libertarian role of government services are gained through signing a literal social contract which gives you the right to the services and obligates you to pay citizenship fees. Now if you don’t think you need it you don’t have to get citizenship and can lock yourself up in your house with your guns. But the police are then not obligated to help you against bandits.