The Enemy is ALWAYS the State.

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The Enemy is ALWAYS the State.

If you are libertarian like me, I'm sure you are used to people misunderstanding your views.

Depending on the issue at hand, I will be blasted or praised by the traditional liberal or conservative ideologues.

For example, on one day I may come out in defense of the right of homosexuals to marry and enjoy the same priveledges and rights as any other couple. For this, I'll be praised by liberals and blasted by conservatives.

Another day I may say that affirmative action programs are simply reverse discrimination and really only serve to furthur disenfranchise the very people they are designed to benefit by creating a State mandated scheme of victimization. For this, the conservatives applaude, and the liberals think me an insensitive and racist or sexist bully.

What is typically lost in such issues is WHERE I'm arguing from, and why. My enemy, as it has always been, is the State, the Powers That Be.

Libertarians advocate freedom from oppression, and oppose State programs which benefit a select few at the expense of others - regardless of the perceived utlility of it.

Forcably taking from one to benefit another without consent is WRONG. Period. It doesn't matter how much or how little you have, and shouldn't. Denying a person the right to ingest any substance they wish to in their own home is equally wrong. As is denying any person priveledges based on something as inconsequential and petty as sexual preference.

So, yeah, you'll see me advocate capitalism and free trade, but you'll also see me get pissed off when the government bails out a failing mortgage firm or airline. I'll get equally pissed when the government proposes to bail out homeowners who bought estates they clearly couldn't afford on adjustable rate mortgages.

So let it be clear. I'm NOT necessarily pro-business. I'm NOT even necessarily pro-equality (this simply follows from my philosophy). In the end, what I realy am is ANTI-STATE.

In any situation, you can typically count on the libertarian in the room to side with personal liberty and against the state.

I case that was not clear enough, I think this article sums things up fairly well:

The Enemy is Always the State, by Lew Rockwell:

http://mises.org/story/2988

 

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I generally support the

I generally support the Libertarian philosophy and was even a "card carrying" member for a few years.  The problem as I see it is that they are not politically viable.   I'm not sure exactly why this is as they have been around since 1971 and have had plenty of time to get their message out. 

 

Ron Paul is an exception but he chose to run as a Republican instead of a Libertarian.  Perhaps even he sees the Libertarian label as an impediment to political success.

I guess freedom loving Americans aren't as freedom loving as they think they are.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I generally support the Libertarian philosophy and was even a "card carrying" member for a few years.  The problem as I see it is that they are not politically viable.   I'm not sure exactly why this is as they have been around since 1971 and have had plenty of time to get their message out. 

 

Ron Paul is an exception but he chose to run as a Republican instead of a Libertarian.  Perhaps even he sees the Libertarian label as an impediment to political success.

I guess freedom loving Americans aren't as freedom loving as they think they are.

You need to read the stickied article, "Why be Libertarian"

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So when the Libertarians

So when the Libertarians control the State (which I assume they wish to do otherwise why run for office), do they become the enemy?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So when the

jcgadfly wrote:

So when the Libertarians control the State (which I assume they wish to do otherwise why run for office), do they become the enemy?

Libertarians don't want a state, so no.

In my ideal world, borders (other than private property) and nations would cease to be.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So when the Libertarians control the State (which I assume they wish to do otherwise why run for office), do they become the enemy?

Libertarians don't want a state, so no.

In my ideal world, borders (other than private property) and nations would cease to be.

But they would have to assume power (become the State) in order to end it, wouldn't they? I've a strong suspicion that humans being what they are, the most die-hard Libertarian would become a statist once they'd get a taste of the power they would wield.

Hope I'm wrong.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:If

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
If you are libertarian like me, I'm sure you are used to people misunderstanding your views.

No kidding. I see a parallel between giving up deities and giving up the state. People seem terrified that all hell would break loose, as though they've never solved a problem locally, and by themselves. They often forget that their local municipality is a corporation.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
So let it be clear. I'm NOT necessarily pro-business. I'm NOT even necessarily pro-equality (this simply follows from my philosophy). In the end, what I realy am is ANTI-STATE.

... and what that translates to in political practice is state reduction. Libertarians, like any other party with a philosophical ideal, can only strive towards that ideal. The best political system would be the one that, in striving, tries to minimize the harm and hinderance of controlling organizations claiming super-human rights.

Those organizations now include corporations, since corporations have been endowed (by the state) with super-human rights.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
In any situation, you can typically count on the libertarian in the room to side with personal liberty and against the state.

Maybe it's the simplicity of it that causes all the difficulty (?)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So when the Libertarians control the State (which I assume they wish to do otherwise why run for office), do they become the enemy?

Libertarians don't want a state, so no.

In my ideal world, borders (other than private property) and nations would cease to be.

But they would have to assume power (become the State) in order to end it, wouldn't they? I've a strong suspicion that humans being what they are, the most die-hard Libertarian would become a statist once they'd get a taste of the power they would wield.

Hope I'm wrong.

I find this complaint inconsequential. The GOAL is no State(s). That is the ideal. If you want to argue with me, argue against that.

The circumstanes by which a goal is reached come down to practical implementation. That's details. The simple fact of the matter is, should enough people actually realize and agree that nation-states ought to be dissolved, we could do it tomorrow, instantly. That probably won't happen, but that is what ought to happen, and that is the ideal and goal. A similar analogy can and has been drawn concerning Americas abolition of slavery - or of desiring a world without superstition.

You probably ought to read the stickied "Why Be Libertarian" article as well.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 

In my ideal world, borders..... and nations would cease to be.

Hence my departure from the Libertarian Party.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I will certainly do that. It

I will certainly do that. It might help with this "How does one get rid of a problem (the State) by becoming it?" question.

At present, it reads similarly to "I'm going to eliminate wars by warring with everyone on the planet."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:But they

jcgadfly wrote:
But they would have to assume power (become the State) in order to end it, wouldn't they? 

Well, there's no perfection in politics. So what you'd have with a Libertarian party (which seems like a contradiction) is people striving towards a goal that can never be achieved in its perfect ideal, since no perfect ideal can be achieved. However, with libertarianism as the goal, moving in the direction of fewer government (and government-sponsored corporation) controls can't result in less freedom for the individual.

The most difficult part of libertarianism is the legal process. Contract law becomes everything in such a system, so individuals would be called upon to manage many of the things that they'd rather have taken care of for them. An appeal to laziness is often the easiest way to defeat a libertarian politically.

"But wouldn't you rather it if someone else took care of that?" means you just gave up responsibility and freedom, two things many people find terrifying.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 

In my ideal world, borders..... and nations would cease to be.

Hence my departure from the Libertarian Party.

Not sure that is what the LP officially advocates. The political arm of the libertarian party do themselves disservice, IMO, by compromising their ideals.

I do understand that change will come slowly and in increments, and that some progress is better than none, but by shooting for less than the ideal, the LP simply becomes what it hates the most.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 

In my ideal world, borders..... and nations would cease to be.

Hence my departure from the Libertarian Party.

Please elaborate.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm not by any means through

I'm not by any means through with the article but I am intrigued by the mention of the "immediate abolition of invasions to one's liberty".

As government by it's nature is an invasion of people's liberty, wouldn't a Libertarian government's first order of business be it's own dissolution?

Another problem I see is that as Will wrote "individuals would be called upon to manage many of the things that they'd rather have taken care of for them.", wouldn't there have to be a massive education program so that those individuals would know how to take care of those things they never had to before?

Or is it a "If they can't help themselves, screw 'em" attitude that I see in the Bush administration and the neocons there?

Or is there a "limited libertarianism" I'm missing?

will write more on further readings...

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
With no borders how then

With no borders how then could the United States ( where I live ) prevent itself from regressing to a third world nation if its national identity is dissolved and there is an unlimited amount of unskilled, uneducated workers flooding in ?

Do you perceive this as a positive or negative result ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I will

jcgadfly wrote:

I will certainly do that. It might help with this "How does one get rid of a problem (the State) by becoming it?" question.

At present, it reads similarly to "I'm going to eliminate wars by warring with everyone on the planet."

Well, no, you've not done what I asked, which is present an argument against having no nation-states.

You've done what I've asked you not to, question the way such a goal would be implemented.

When the movement to abolish slavery in the US first began to gain momentum, many questioned the practicallity of doing that. Arguments were made that slave owners ought to be compensated for giving up their slaves by the State. Nobody knew what the freed slaves would do after emancipation.

All these questions of practicallity and implementation only served to ignore the obvious injustice and prolonged it. The fact remained, should enough people share an idea of justice, slavery could be done away with in a day. It is moot that it took a decade and a war to get done what OUGHT to have been done in an instant. The hurdles to achieving a goal don't make that goal any less desirable or right or just.

So, like I said, feel free to argue against said goal. Don't waste my time with inconsequetial quibbles of what is easy or hard to get done.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:With

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

With no borders how then could the United States ( where I live ) prevent itself from regressing to a third world nation if its national identity is dissolved and there is an unlimited amount of unskilled, uneducated workers flooding in ?

Do you perceive this as a positive or negative result ?

I think the adjustment period WILL be harsh.

Ultimately though, the result will be dragging the 3rd world into the first, and an overall  higher standard of living across the board. Globalization has been happening for the last thousand years, and the standard of living has increased for all peoples during that time. What I'm proposing is complete and instant total globalization. That WILL be a shock at first, but ultimately I think it will result in a higher standard of living across the board, free and unfettered trade, fewer wars over territory and natural reserves, an ability to move freely and a greater sense of humanity.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I will certainly do that. It might help with this "How does one get rid of a problem (the State) by becoming it?" question.

At present, it reads similarly to "I'm going to eliminate wars by warring with everyone on the planet."

Well, no, you've not done what I asked, which is present an argument against having no nation-states.

You've done what I've asked you not to, question the way such a goal would be implemented.

When the movement to abolish slavery in the US first began to gain momentum, many questioned the practicallity of doing that. Arguments were made that slave owners ought to be compensated for giving up their slaves by the State. Nobody knew what the freed slaves would do after emancipation.

All these questions of practicallity and implementation only served to ignore the obvious injustice and prolonged it. The fact remained, should enough people share an idea of justice, slavery could be done away with in a day. It is moot that it took a decade and a war to get done what OUGHT to have been done in an instant. The hurdles to achieving a goal don't make that goal any less desirable or right or just.

So, like I said, feel free to argue against said goal. Don't waste my time with inconsequetial quibbles of what is easy or hard to get done.

The "do that" was "read the article", Y#5. 

I'm not trying to argue with you - I ask the questions as they come to me. Having a bastard form of mixed in with what controls a government needs to have to exist might work.

I'm still reading the article. I don't know enough yet and I don't think that article alone is going to tell me. Got others I can work through?

Although, you have to agree (unless the goal of libertarianism is to be a pipe dream) implementation details are going to have to be considered.

If you're going to say "Injustice and invasions of liberty must be stopped!" and someone asks "How?", you're going to look foolish if you respond, "I don't know but they have to be stopped". Especially if you're claiming you have an answer.

And saying "We just have to do it" isn't all that helpful either.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I'm not by

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm not by any means through with the article but I am intrigued by the mention of the "immediate abolition of invasions to one's liberty".

As government by it's nature is an invasion of people's liberty, wouldn't a Libertarian government's first order of business be it's own dissolution?

It is not as if we wanted to play this game. We are forced to be a part of the system in order to destroy it. That is the way things are set up, short of revolution.

Again, I really don't find your gripe on this aspect meaningful, and I've explained why.

Quote:
Another problem I see is that as Will wrote "individuals would be called upon to manage many of the things that they'd rather have taken care of for them.", wouldn't there have to be a massive education program so that those individuals would know how to take care of those things they never had to before?

Or is it a "If they can't help themselves, screw 'em" attitude that I see in the Bush administration and the neocons there?

Or is there a "limited libertarianism" I'm missing?

will write more on further readings...

Again, bitching about incidentals, failing to address the argument.

I used to play this game with people like you. I don't anymore. It's meaningless hypothetical masturbation.

The ONLY thing I'm concerned of is the stated goal and its merits. Methods are inconsequential.

Were I to ask you 1500 years ago how we could ever go from a Monarchy to a free democracy, I could have EASILY shredded you by pointing out how difficult it would be to do it, and that an elected President could easily become as corrupt and tyrannical as a King.

None of that would have changed the fact that a democracy is the better choice over a monarchy. None of that would have changed what is JUST and what is not.

What is RIGHT, and what is EASY are seldom the same. How hard it will be to implement and how to implement what is JUST is inconsequential. It matters ONLY what is JUST. For that is what we should strive for. That is where we CAN get, if only we have the will to.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 

 What I'm proposing is complete and instant total globalization.

Proposals are fine and dandy it's the implementation that brings the process to a grinding halt. 

Perhaps you may consider such issues as "quibbling".  Nevertheless such concerns regarding implementation reflect the true nature of politics when combined with human nature. 

If the success of your party's goals depend upon a major consensus of humanity then I'm afraid that the Libertarian party will continue to remain upon the outer fringes of the political landscape.  As a former member I can assure you that consensus does not even exist within the Libertarian party much less within the world at large.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:With

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

With no borders how then could the United States ( where I live ) prevent itself from regressing to a third world nation if its national identity is dissolved and there is an unlimited amount of unskilled, uneducated workers flooding in ?

Do you perceive this as a positive or negative result ?

Haha - try to think of it in a different context, in the culture of what a libertarian ideal entails. Without borders, there are only individuals and their individual rights. Individuals, naturally, have the right to form corporations (as local municipalities currently are corporations). Of course (and here's the trick) to make a territory a libertarian cartel, many municipal corporations would have to enter into a contract to hire security for the territory. Looking at it this way, you simply have a re-framing of what currently exists in the US without the pretense of state control.

Besides, in the US, is there not a great need for unskilled labour? How is meeting that demand a bad thing?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I will certainly do that. It might help with this "How does one get rid of a problem (the State) by becoming it?" question.

At present, it reads similarly to "I'm going to eliminate wars by warring with everyone on the planet."

Well, no, you've not done what I asked, which is present an argument against having no nation-states.

You've done what I've asked you not to, question the way such a goal would be implemented.

When the movement to abolish slavery in the US first began to gain momentum, many questioned the practicallity of doing that. Arguments were made that slave owners ought to be compensated for giving up their slaves by the State. Nobody knew what the freed slaves would do after emancipation.

All these questions of practicallity and implementation only served to ignore the obvious injustice and prolonged it. The fact remained, should enough people share an idea of justice, slavery could be done away with in a day. It is moot that it took a decade and a war to get done what OUGHT to have been done in an instant. The hurdles to achieving a goal don't make that goal any less desirable or right or just.

So, like I said, feel free to argue against said goal. Don't waste my time with inconsequetial quibbles of what is easy or hard to get done.

The "do that" was "read the article", Y#5. 

I'm not trying to argue with you

Of course you are. That's fine, it's fun.

Quote:
Although, you have to agree (unless the goal of libertarianism is to be a pipe dream) implementation details are going to have to be considered.

Yes, I agree. The point here is that we've not yet agreed on what is just, what should be the goal of things. In that case, we DO argue considering things without such baggage, for this really is an ethical question. How do we think society OUGHT to be? I've told you what I think, you seem to disagree, tell me why.

We are not discussing HOW to bring about such a society, but the merits of such a society. At least that is what I THOUGHT we were discussing. HOW to do it and WHY to do it are VERY different things. WHY is the more important question.

Quote:
If you're going to say "Injustice and invasions of liberty must be stopped!" and someone asks "How?", you're going to look foolish if you respond, "I don't know but they have to be stopped". Especially if you're claiming you have an answer.

And saying "We just have to do it" isn't all that helpful either.

 

Yeah, we are obviously having different conversations.

Let's begin again - a libertarian society, should we work for one on not? If you say not, we have a few dozen issues to deal with before we even begin to scratch the surface of what you mention above.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
State =Government =

State =Government = Society

Unlike human inventions like human rights society is as natural as the air you breathe. Lower forms of animals have it as do we.

You stick two people in a room you have politics, you have government you have a temporary state

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Perhaps you may consider such issues as "quibbling".  Nevertheless such concerns regarding implementation reflect the true nature of politics when combined with human nature.

As I believe I mentioned above, contract law becomes everything in a libertarian context. Arbitrators are private individuals trusted by both parties to arrive at a settlement. "Quibbling" actually becomes faster by that process, making judges submit to a labour market rather than a vote (where in most cases, the result would most likely be the same). 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If the success of your party's goals depend upon a major consensus of humanity then I'm afraid that the Libertarian party will continue to remain upon the outer fringes of the political landscape.

But consensus is reached only by market in a libertarian ideal. For instance, the current "consensus" is that one Euro costs about $1.60. A market forces consensus that would be unavailable by committee, and with greater speed.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:State

mrjonno wrote:

State =Government = Society

Unlike human inventions like human rights society is as natural as the air you breathe. Lower forms of animals have it as do we.

You stick two people in a room you have politics, you have government you have a temporary state

Okay, but a republic is more comfortable than a despotism, right?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Another

jcgadfly wrote:

Another problem I see is that as Will wrote "individuals would be called upon to manage many of the things that they'd rather have taken care of for them.", wouldn't there have to be a massive education program so that those individuals would know how to take care of those things they never had to before?

You mean like now, where poor people are shown how to manage their finances? C'mon. The best you can do is set people free. After that, let people decide how they're going to help. If you don't think people will help voluntarily, then you need to meet some new people.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Okay, but

HisWillness wrote:

Okay, but a republic is more comfortable than a despotism, right?

Societies that  allow all its citizens to use their skills and talents tend to do be stronger than those that do not.

Ie Women at least in the UK got the vote not because it was the 'right' thing to do but because it meant women were more likely to support the war effort and work in factories. Democracy reduces corruption, increases efficiency etc in most (at least in peace time)

Or in simpler terms democracies make better Tanks than non-democracies

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: Besides,

HisWillness wrote:

 

Besides, in the US, is there not a great need for unskilled labour? How is meeting that demand a bad thing?

 

Because the demand is not unlimited or never-ending. 

Besides the same principles apply even to skilled workers don't they ?   Even in in your field of employment there are only so many positions available.  Besides, the more people you have to compete with who have the same skills as you do decreases the chance that you as an individual will be hired.  Even if you are hired your employer may arbitrarily fire you so that they can replace you with an employee willing to work for less money.

In the US even many skilled workers are having their jobs "supplanted" by foreign workers with H1B visas.  Almost anyone's job can be outsourced.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing might depend upon if you are in management and relatively safe from foreign competition or you are only a skilled wage slave whose job hangs by a proverbial thread.

I don't see how a glut of workers, skilled or unskilled, serves the general welfare.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

With no borders how then could the United States ( where I live ) prevent itself from regressing to a third world nation if its national identity is dissolved and there is an unlimited amount of unskilled, uneducated workers flooding in ?

Do you perceive this as a positive or negative result ?

Haha - try to think of it in a different context, in the culture of what a libertarian ideal entails. Without borders, there are only individuals and their individual rights. Individuals, naturally, have the right to form corporations (as local municipalities currently are corporations). Of course (and here's the trick) to make a territory a libertarian cartel, many municipal corporations would have to enter into a contract to hire security for the territory. Looking at it this way, you simply have a re-framing of what currently exists in the US without the pretense of state control.

Besides, in the US, is there not a great need for unskilled labour? How is meeting that demand a bad thing?

This seems silly.  There would be little to no state, but there would still be state at the local level in the form of the municiple corporation?  I fail to see how humanitarianism and socialism can thrive in a system like this.  How would standard of living increase across the world?  What regulations would be in place to stop corporations from becoming corupt?  What incentives would there be for people to even be socialist or humanitarian?  I understand that Libertarianism is not just a political ideology, but an economic one as well, but how, exatly, could it mesh with free market economics?

I suppose my questions can be summed up in one, 'Who watches the watchers?'  I distrust people in general, governments included, but at the same time I am inclined to cooperate with them, even to help them.  I am socialist and I can't help but find libertarianism to be anethema to socialism.  Take from noone that which they have earned?  This is essentially how the US operates economically right now.  The rich continue to get richer, the poor poorer and the standard of living continues to trail off.  What does one do with billions of dollars?  With trillions of dollars?  What is the point to such wealth beyond simply having it?  But Libertarians would encourage this kind of greed... or would this kind of greed be possible in a libertarian society?  What guarantees that I will live in relative equality with my neighbour, neither of us wanting for anything?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Because the demand is not unlimited or never-ending.

This is actually why I laughed - you're still thinking in terms of "damage to the United States". Without a region's demand for unskilled labour, there will be no influx of unskilled labour. If two people are competing for the same job, one will get it and one will not. "American" and "Mexican" are irrelevant in a job market. See how equality follows from dropping statism?

Of course, I'm being a bit facetious, but how would you see the world if the lower part of the US merged with Mexico? Then it would all be Mex-Americans. No "foreigners" at all - you're all from the same country! Then the systems you build up regionally would have more importance: educational systems competing with educational systems in other regions in an education market would give a much better idea of quality training.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Besides the same principles apply even to skilled workers don't they ?

Absolutely. It's entirely irrelevant in a libertarian system where the labour comes from or how skilled it is required to be.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
In the US even many skilled workers are having their jobs "supplanted" by foreign workers with H1B visas.  Almost anyone's job can be outsourced.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing might depend upon if you are in management and relatively safe from foreign competition or you are only a skilled wage slave whose job hangs by a proverbial thread.

Competition is not foreign or domestic in a libertarian context, as it does away with the formal state. Competition is just competition.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I don't see how a glut of workers, skilled or unskilled, serves the general welfare.

The glut would not exist without demand or ... drum roll, please ... a welfare state that guaranteed a certain income just for showing up. The welfare state is actually a greater attractor of people who don't wish to work. That's in direct opposition to letting the job market decide where the demand is. Should that be the case, then once again, borders are irrelevant.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Perhaps you may consider such issues as "quibbling".  Nevertheless such concerns regarding implementation reflect the true nature of politics when combined with human nature.

As I believe I mentioned above, contract law becomes everything in a libertarian context. Arbitrators are private individuals trusted by both parties to arrive at a settlement. "Quibbling" actually becomes faster by that process, making judges submit to a labour market rather than a vote (where in most cases, the result would most likely be the same). 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If the success of your party's goals depend upon a major consensus of humanity then I'm afraid that the Libertarian party will continue to remain upon the outer fringes of the political landscape.

But consensus is reached only by market in a libertarian ideal. For instance, the current "consensus" is that one Euro costs about $1.60. A market forces consensus that would be unavailable by committee, and with greater speed.

Actually I was addressing my argument to consensus building aimed at correcting social injustices and broad moral issues and not necessarily financial inequities....    ( My brother is a CPA but unfortunately the intricacies of finance are foreign territory to me  )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I will certainly do that. It might help with this "How does one get rid of a problem (the State) by becoming it?" question.

At present, it reads similarly to "I'm going to eliminate wars by warring with everyone on the planet."

Well, no, you've not done what I asked, which is present an argument against having no nation-states.

You've done what I've asked you not to, question the way such a goal would be implemented.

When the movement to abolish slavery in the US first began to gain momentum, many questioned the practicallity of doing that. Arguments were made that slave owners ought to be compensated for giving up their slaves by the State. Nobody knew what the freed slaves would do after emancipation.

All these questions of practicallity and implementation only served to ignore the obvious injustice and prolonged it. The fact remained, should enough people share an idea of justice, slavery could be done away with in a day. It is moot that it took a decade and a war to get done what OUGHT to have been done in an instant. The hurdles to achieving a goal don't make that goal any less desirable or right or just.

So, like I said, feel free to argue against said goal. Don't waste my time with inconsequetial quibbles of what is easy or hard to get done.

The "do that" was "read the article", Y#5. 

I'm not trying to argue with you

Of course you are. That's fine, it's fun.

Quote:
Although, you have to agree (unless the goal of libertarianism is to be a pipe dream) implementation details are going to have to be considered.

Yes, I agree. The point here is that we've not yet agreed on what is just, what should be the goal of things. In that case, we DO argue considering things without such baggage, for this really is an ethical question. How do we think society OUGHT to be? I've told you what I think, you seem to disagree, tell me why.

We are not discussing HOW to bring about such a society, but the merits of such a society. At least that is what I THOUGHT we were discussing. HOW to do it and WHY to do it are VERY different things. WHY is the more important question.

Quote:
If you're going to say "Injustice and invasions of liberty must be stopped!" and someone asks "How?", you're going to look foolish if you respond, "I don't know but they have to be stopped". Especially if you're claiming you have an answer.

And saying "We just have to do it" isn't all that helpful either.

 

Yeah, we are obviously having different conversations.

Let's begin again - a libertarian society, should we work for one on not? If you say not, we have a few dozen issues to deal with before we even begin to scratch the surface of what you mention above.

 

Should we work for a libertarian society? Sure. Just as soon as everyone is clear what "libertarianism" means. Talk to 10 libertarians, get 10 different answers. Talk to anyone else, get blank looks.

I've heard it defined as everything from "anarchy" to "Republicans who like their weed". Your definition is in-between?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Because the demand is not unlimited or never-ending.

This is actually why I laughed - you're still thinking in terms of "damage to the United States". Without a region's demand for unskilled labour, there will be no influx of unskilled labour. If two people are competing for the same job, one will get it and one will not. "American" and "Mexican" are irrelevant in a job market. See how equality follows from dropping statism?

Of course, I'm being a bit facetious, but how would you see the world if the lower part of the US merged with Mexico? Then it would all be Mex-Americans. No "foreigners" at all - you're all from the same country! Then the systems you build up regionally would have more importance: educational systems competing with educational systems in other regions in an education market would give a much better idea of quality training.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Besides the same principles apply even to skilled workers don't they ?

Absolutely. It's entirely irrelevant in a libertarian system where the labour comes from or how skilled it is required to be.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
In the US even many skilled workers are having their jobs "supplanted" by foreign workers with H1B visas.  Almost anyone's job can be outsourced.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing might depend upon if you are in management and relatively safe from foreign competition or you are only a skilled wage slave whose job hangs by a proverbial thread.

Competition is not foreign or domestic in a libertarian context, as it does away with the formal state. Competition is just competition.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I don't see how a glut of workers, skilled or unskilled, serves the general welfare.

The glut would not exist without demand or ... drum roll, please ... a welfare state that guaranteed a certain income just for showing up. The welfare state is actually a greater attractor of people who don't wish to work. That's in direct opposition to letting the job market decide where the demand is. Should that be the case, then once again, borders are irrelevant.

  If the economic positives of such a libertarian system are in such abundance wouldn't the naked appeal to blatant self interest have already taken this process much further that it already is ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:This seems

Thomathy wrote:
This seems silly.  There would be little to no state, but there would still be state at the local level in the form of the municiple corporation?  I fail to see how humanitarianism and socialism can thrive in a system like this.

Humanitarianism certainly can thrive. Private charities are very successful at raising money, for instance. Socialism is (in one sense) the opposite of libertarianism, so you're right: they wouldn't be compatible.

Thomathy wrote:
How would standard of living increase across the world?

Well it's declining right now. Do you mean how would such a system increase the standard of living? It might not at any given moment, at any given geographic location. It's only providing the opportunity, not guaranteeing success.

Thomathy wrote:
What regulations would be in place to stop corporations from becoming corupt?

None. That's in contrast to what we have now, which is pretending like there are regulations that stop corporations from becoming corrupt.

Thomathy wrote:
What incentives would there be for people to even be socialist or humanitarian?

You mean what guarantee would there be that people would be nice to each other? I'm afraid that would be an individual or group decision, just like it is now, only we wouldn't create a bureaucracy to feel good about it. Now, I'm sure having read that, you've developed the loss-of-control zero-gravity-free-fall sickly burning in the pit of your stomach. Libertarianism is all about a government ONLY providing the means toward personal freedom. It does not cover people being nice to one another. I know a great many people who do charity work out of the kindness of their hearts.

Thomathy wrote:
I understand that Libertarianism is not just a political ideology, but an economic one as well, but how, exatly, could it mesh with free market economics?

It's an adoption of market dynamics to various systems of government. Unfortunately, it's an effective mirror. People would get to see how they really feel about things. Like when it seems that the majority of Americans thinks Bush is unfit to run a tilt-a-whirl, but votes him back in anyway.

Thomathy wrote:
I suppose my questions can be summed up in one, 'Who watches the watchers?'  I distrust people in general, governments included, but at the same time I am inclined to cooperate with them, even to help them.

Who watches the watchers watching the watchers, though? And why do you segue immediately into distrusting and cooperating simultaneously?

Thomathy wrote:
I am socialist and I can't help but find libertarianism to be anethema to socialism.

Yeah, that's because it pretty much is.

Thomathy wrote:
Take from noone that which they have earned?  This is essentially how the US operates economically right now.

Oh no. Right now, it's reward the rich, ignore the poor, and pander to the middle class. Corporations get subsidies under the auspices of creating jobs for the middle class.

Thomathy wrote:
But Libertarians would encourage this kind of greed... or would this kind of greed be possible in a libertarian society?

With freedom comes excess. It's unavoidable. But do we decide that we should eliminate freedom for that reason?

Thomathy wrote:
What guarantees that I will live in relative equality with my neighbour, neither of us wanting for anything?

What guarantees it now?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  If

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  If the economic positives of such a libertarian system are in such abundance wouldn't the naked appeal to blatant self interest have already taken this process much further that it already is ?

That's a strange hypothetical. If the benefits of using the scientific method are in such abundance, shouldn't it have taken hold sooner?

There really hasn't been an effectively stated appeal to blatant self interest for libertarianism. For a while, it was basically how the US operated (with the unfortunate addition of isolationism, which isn't compatible with the libertarian ideal).

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Actually I was addressing my argument to consensus building aimed at correcting social injustices and broad moral issues and not necessarily financial inequities...

Here's where you'd find libertarianism attractive, then. In the framework of libertarianism, the individual is the main political unit, endowed with freedoms and rights. Social injustice then becomes a matter of individuals or groups of individuals infringing upon the rights of others in cases of social injustice. Those who have infringed upon those rights are immediately in the wrong. Slavery, for instance, is not possible in a libertarian system, since an individual is guaranteed rights. Women would naturally have the right to do anything that a man did, and vice versa. Broad moral issues that hinge upon an individual's rights and freedoms are guaranteed by social contract. Infringing upon those rights is an infringement of social contract.

Libertarianism is more of a system than a government. It's a way to efficiently encourage people to organize themselves, rather than setting out methods that they might be organized. In that sense, it puts the responsibility of life in the hands of the individual.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:
Humanitarianism certainly can thrive. Private charities are very successful at raising money, for instance.
Private charities consistently fall short of necessary goals. People are generally simply unwilling to "deal with other people's problems". A children's shelter I do some volunteer work for serves a need in our community and endeavors to make its funding entirely from donations has managed in its best year to only get 28% of its operating costs from local government. This has also been the case for transitional living programs I've worked for.

It's far worse for psychiatric charities - it appears mental illness so frightens people they prefer to believe there is no such thing - all the patients are "fakers". If not that, then they just don't want to face it directly. The best the one mental hospital I've worked for managed was less than one percent operating costs from donations.

There are charities that can manage to do better than operating costs, yes. But not enough to take care of those who simply have no hope of operating under the conditions a libertarian world would impose.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Here's

HisWillness wrote:

Here's where you'd find libertarianism attractive, then. In the framework of libertarianism, the individual is the main political unit, endowed with freedoms and rights. Social injustice then becomes a matter of individuals or groups of individuals infringing upon the rights of others in cases of social injustice. Those who have infringed upon those rights are immediately in the wrong. Slavery, for instance, is not possible in a libertarian system, since an individual is guaranteed rights. Women would naturally have the right to do anything that a man did, and vice versa. Broad moral issues that hinge upon an individual's rights and freedoms are guaranteed by social contract. Infringing upon those rights is an infringement of social contract.

Libertarianism is more of a system than a government. It's a way to efficiently encourage people to organize themselves, rather than setting out methods that they might be organized. In that sense, it puts the responsibility of life in the hands of the individual.

How are these "rights" enforced?


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:For

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

For example, on one day I may come out in defense of the right of homosexuals to marry and enjoy the same priveledges and rights as any other couple. For this, I'll be praised by liberals and blasted by conservatives.

Shouldn't the libertarian position be that government ought not sananction ANY marriage heterosexual or homosexual? Why is the government in the business of marriage anyways? This is a private matter.

 

I agree with the government getting out of areas like banking, mortgages, etc... But the government does have a role to play in long term investments. Capitialist will not invest in projects that don't provide a rapid return on investment. So investment in things like transportation, energy, space exploration and education are necessary to maintain a vibrant and technologically advanced society.

The government should only tax use of natural resouses and pollution. That way the environment is protected and technology is developed that is minimally damaging to the environment.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Private

JillSwift wrote:
Private charities consistently fall short of necessary goals. People are generally simply unwilling to "deal with other people's problems". A children's shelter I do some volunteer work for serves a need in our community and endeavors to make its funding entirely from donations has managed in its best year to only get 28% of its operating costs from local government. This has also been the case for transitional living programs I've worked for.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding - 28% of costs are from local government and the rest is private donation? I get that it consistently falls short - I'm not leading up to some insensitive punch-line, I just don't understand what you're saying.

JillSwift wrote:
It's far worse for psychiatric charities - it appears mental illness so frightens people they prefer to believe there is no such thing - all the patients are "fakers". If not that, then they just don't want to face it directly. The best the one mental hospital I've worked for managed was less than one percent operating costs from donations.

Denial is a powerful thing, I'll give you that. But do we know that people wouldn't donate more if they had more to donate? We don't, really.

JillSwift wrote:
There are charities that can manage to do better than operating costs, yes. But not enough to take care of those who simply have no hope of operating under the conditions a libertarian world would impose.

It's true that a libertarian system puts a great deal of responsibility on the individual. But it also takes less from the individual. Is it better to have an insane person in an institution or under the care of a private nurse? Without the centralized burden of a hospital administration, individuals and households may, in fact, have the resources to deal with a member of their community being insane without the necessity of shipping them away.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:How are

JillSwift wrote:
How are these "rights" enforced?

Breach of rights is a contract violation. People working at various levels of the arbitration process in contract violation enforce the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for that breach of rights. 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Maybe I'm

HisWillness wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding - 28% of costs are from local government and the rest is private donation? I get that it consistently falls short - I'm not leading up to some insensitive punch-line, I just don't understand what you're saying.
Just saying that without a government wresting funds from unwilling hands, there would be far more homeless, far more abused children without aid, far more disenfranchised teens in gangs or jail...

HisWillness wrote:
Denial is a powerful thing, I'll give you that. But do we know that people wouldn't donate more if they had more to donate? We don't, really.
I think we do know, based on what is donated from what's available now.

HisWillness wrote:
It's true that a libertarian system puts a great deal of responsibility on the individual. But it also takes less from the individual. Is it better to have an insane person in an institution or under the care of a private nurse? Without the centralized burden of a hospital administration, individuals and households may, in fact, have the resources to deal with a member of their community being insane without the necessity of shipping them away.

An institution is better than an individual nurse, because it allows for a higher level of training applied to each patient. Hospitals exist as institutions because of the limited professional-to-patient ratio.

Where it's true that these institutions have become unwieldy bureaucracies because of government (regulations based on lack of understanding, obscene paperwork and record keeping to get government funding, etc.) and may well improve under a libertarian system - I'm simply unwilling to go on "may". When libertarians can offer solid evidence from experiment, I'll be much happier about it.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I agree with the

EXC wrote:
I agree with the government getting out of areas like banking, mortgages, etc... But the government does have a role to play in long term investments. Capitialist will not invest in projects that don't provide a rapid return on investment. So investment in things like transportation, energy, space exploration and education are necessary to maintain a vibrant and technologically advanced society.

What you're talking about is "keeping up appearances" which is the option of any local municipal government or organized cartel of municipal corporations. However, that falls outside the purview of a libertarian system. Obviously it's allowed, provided a region has the resources.

EXC wrote:
The government should only tax use of natural resouses and pollution. That way the environment is protected and technology is developed that is minimally damaging to the environment.

But natural resources and the environment are both private property in the libertarian ideal. If you pollute my property, you've infringed upon my rights to inviolable property. The smoke from your smokestack blows through my barn and makes my cows sick? You're going to have to either fix that problem, or deal with me. In a libertarian society, environmental violations would be considered heinous mass violations of individuals' rights.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Breach of

HisWillness wrote:
Breach of rights is a contract violation. People working at various levels of the arbitration process in contract violation enforce the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for that breach of rights.
Unless the arbitrators happen to agree that "right" isn't, after all, a right... right?

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:This seems

Thomathy wrote:
This seems silly.  There would be little to no state, but there would still be state at the local level in the form of the municiple corporation?  I fail to see how humanitarianism and socialism can thrive in a system like this.

HisWillness wrote:
Humanitarianism certainly can thrive. Private charities are very successful at raising money, for instance. Socialism is (in one sense) the opposite of libertarianism, so you're right: they wouldn't be compatible.
Which poses a serious problem for me.  Private charities are successful, but there are incentives for them to be so.  I don't think it is due to pure philanthropism, that would naïve.  But that doesn't really answer the question does it?  Humanitarianism can thrive, but how and will it?

Thomathy wrote:
How would standard of living increase across the world?

Quote:
Well it's declining right now. Do you mean how would such a system increase the standard of living? It might not at any given moment, at any given geographic location. It's only providing the opportunity, not guaranteeing success.
Of course it's declining right now.  I never indicated otherwise.  I meant exactly what I wrote, but thanks for the redundancy.  That answer in inadequate and I'm sure you appreciate how.  If the individual becomes ultimately concerned for herself and her community it would seem to be obvious that she would not interest herself with the welfare of the world at large.  That is problematic.

Thomathy wrote:
What regulations would be in place to stop corporations from becoming corupt?

Quote:
None. That's in contrast to what we have now, which is pretending like there are regulations that stop corporations from becoming corrupt.
I don't mean to compare libertarianism to what we have now.  I don't support the current manifestation anymore than you do, I'm sure.  None would seem to be as problematic as the current system.

Thomathy wrote:
What incentives would there be for people to even be socialist or humanitarian?

Quote:
You mean what guarantee would there be that people would be nice to each other?
Does rephrasing my questions help you answer them?

Quote:
I'm afraid that would be an individual or group decision, just like it is now, only we wouldn't create a bureaucracy to feel good about it.
The bureaucracy doesn't make me feel good about it.  Nor am I sure it is as effective as it should be.  I believe that a bureaucracy can be effective, you would not seem to at all.

Quote:
Now, I'm sure having read that, you've developed the loss-of-control zero-gravity-free-fall sickly burning in the pit of your stomach.
You should not be so sure; you are wrong.

Quote:
Libertarianism is all about a government ONLY providing the means toward personal freedom. It does not cover people being nice to one another. I know a great many people who do charity work out of the kindness of their hearts.
So do I.  It would appear that there are not enough or that their efforts are fultile.  If libertarianism offers no counsil on this, then what compatible philosophies do?  If libertarianism is anathema to socialism... well you can finish that one for yourself.

Thomathy wrote:
I understand that Libertarianism is not just a political ideology, but an economic one as well, but how, exatly, could it mesh with free market economics?

Quote:
It's an adoption of market dynamics to various systems of government. Unfortunately, it's an effective mirror. People would get to see how they really feel about things. Like when it seems that the majority of Americans thinks Bush is unfit to run a tilt-a-whirl, but votes him back in anyway.
If there are no regulations what would stop a corporation from using any kind of marketing it can to induce in people the want to buy their product?  I fail to see how people would necessarily get to see how they really feel about things.  In fact, there's no guarantee that they would.  Actually, it's worse than that.  Corporations would have every incentive in such a system to take advantage of consumers.

Thomathy wrote:
I suppose my questions can be summed up in one, 'Who watches the watchers?'  I distrust people in general, governments included, but at the same time I am inclined to cooperate with them, even to help them.

Quote:
Who watches the watchers watching the watchers, though? And why do you segue immediately into distrusting and cooperating simultaneously?
That is not an answer and you know it.  Who watches the watchers?  I wouldn't trust any government with atruistism in regards to my personal freedoms.  What makes a libertarian government different?  What makes the people different?  The segue is only meant to portray the struggle between altruistic tendancies and skepticism.

Thomathy wrote:
I am socialist and I can't help but find libertarianism to be anethema to socialism.

Quote:
Yeah, that's because it pretty much is.
That don't sit well with me.

Thomathy wrote:
Take from noone that which they have earned?  This is essentially how the US operates economically right now.

Quote:
Oh no. Right now, it's reward the rich, ignore the poor, and pander to the middle class. Corporations get subsidies under the auspices of creating jobs for the middle class.
Fair enough.

Thomathy wrote:
But Libertarians would encourage this kind of greed... or would this kind of greed be possible in a libertarian society?

Quote:
With freedom comes excess. It's unavoidable. But do we decide that we should eliminate freedom for that reason?
Eliminate?  That's extreme.  I don't deny that with freedom comes excess, but I can't condone excess that excludes anyone.

Thomathy wrote:
What guarantees that I will live in relative equality with my neighbour, neither of us wanting for anything?

Quote:
What guarantees it now?
That's not an answer.  Once again, you must know this.  Retorting with that question is bogus.  I don't defend the current system.  Try again.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:HisWillness

JillSwift wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Breach of rights is a contract violation. People working at various levels of the arbitration process in contract violation enforce the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for that breach of rights.
Unless the arbitrators happen to agree that "right" isn't, after all, a right... right?

 

Right.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:HisWillness

mrjonno wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Okay, but a republic is more comfortable than a despotism, right?

Societies that  allow all its citizens to use their skills and talents tend to do be stronger than those that do not.

Ie Women at least in the UK got the vote not because it was the 'right' thing to do but because it meant women were more likely to support the war effort and work in factories. Democracy reduces corruption, increases efficiency etc in most (at least in peace time)

Or in simpler terms democracies make better Tanks than non-democracies

 

 

But HOW did they get the right to vote? Did you argue over the praticallity of it, or was it done, because it was the JUST thing to do.

I've been making this point for a while now.

The US went through the same things with giving women suffrage and doing away with slavery and working to give african-americans equal standing under the law. IMO, we are STILL working on that. How many protests, lynchings and assassinations did that take?

And yet people have the gall to sit there and tell me, libertine ideals are impractical. Freeing the slaves and giving women the vote was impractical too. We did it though. We had no idea how it would work out while we were doing it, but we did it, because that is what JUSTICE demanded.

The Right thing and the easy thing are seldom the same thing.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I will certainly do that. It might help with this "How does one get rid of a problem (the State) by becoming it?" question.

At present, it reads similarly to "I'm going to eliminate wars by warring with everyone on the planet."

Well, no, you've not done what I asked, which is present an argument against having no nation-states.

You've done what I've asked you not to, question the way such a goal would be implemented.

When the movement to abolish slavery in the US first began to gain momentum, many questioned the practicallity of doing that. Arguments were made that slave owners ought to be compensated for giving up their slaves by the State. Nobody knew what the freed slaves would do after emancipation.

All these questions of practicallity and implementation only served to ignore the obvious injustice and prolonged it. The fact remained, should enough people share an idea of justice, slavery could be done away with in a day. It is moot that it took a decade and a war to get done what OUGHT to have been done in an instant. The hurdles to achieving a goal don't make that goal any less desirable or right or just.

So, like I said, feel free to argue against said goal. Don't waste my time with inconsequetial quibbles of what is easy or hard to get done.

The "do that" was "read the article", Y#5. 

I'm not trying to argue with you

Of course you are. That's fine, it's fun.

Quote:
Although, you have to agree (unless the goal of libertarianism is to be a pipe dream) implementation details are going to have to be considered.

Yes, I agree. The point here is that we've not yet agreed on what is just, what should be the goal of things. In that case, we DO argue considering things without such baggage, for this really is an ethical question. How do we think society OUGHT to be? I've told you what I think, you seem to disagree, tell me why.

We are not discussing HOW to bring about such a society, but the merits of such a society. At least that is what I THOUGHT we were discussing. HOW to do it and WHY to do it are VERY different things. WHY is the more important question.

Quote:
If you're going to say "Injustice and invasions of liberty must be stopped!" and someone asks "How?", you're going to look foolish if you respond, "I don't know but they have to be stopped". Especially if you're claiming you have an answer.

And saying "We just have to do it" isn't all that helpful either.

 

Yeah, we are obviously having different conversations.

Let's begin again - a libertarian society, should we work for one on not? If you say not, we have a few dozen issues to deal with before we even begin to scratch the surface of what you mention above.

 

Should we work for a libertarian society? Sure. Just as soon as everyone is clear what "libertarianism" means. Talk to 10 libertarians, get 10 different answers. Talk to anyone else, get blank looks.

I've heard it defined as everything from "anarchy" to "Republicans who like their weed". Your definition is in-between?

I shall clarify, to the point that sparked our sparring. Should we work toward a world without nation-states?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Just saying

JillSwift wrote:
Just saying that without a government wresting funds from unwilling hands, there would be far more homeless, far more abused children without aid, far more disenfranchised teens in gangs or jail...

And in that unfortunate circumstance, you believe that private donations would not increase? (If not simply in the self-interest of those who wish to remain safe from the disenfranchised masses.) I understand what you're saying, but the people on our side, who care about what happens to others, would have more money to make sure that good things happen to others. The people who don't care would still not care.

JillSwift wrote:
An institution is better than an individual nurse, because it allows for a higher level of training applied to each patient. Hospitals exist as institutions because of the limited professional-to-patient ratio.

I shouldn't have said "nurse" in the singular, because obviously there are cases even of individuals who would require around-the-clock care. Naturally, I have to defer to your experience in this matter, but I'd still maintain that if resources were left in the hands of a community's members, that they could decide amongst themselves what the best course of action would be for handling dysfunctional individuals. Without government constraints, for instance, smaller decentralized institutions could be built which might be easier to manage.

JillSwift wrote:
Where it's true that these institutions have become unwieldy bureaucracies because of government (regulations based on lack of understanding, obscene paperwork and record keeping to get government funding, etc.) and may well improve under a libertarian system - I'm simply unwilling to go on "may". When libertarians can offer solid evidence from experiment, I'll be much happier about it.

Who could blame you? I doubt I'd start the libertarian experiment with health care, though. The most important aspect of the system working is cultural. People would gradually have to learn to accept responsibility for their actions, and contract law would have to become the prevalent system for dispute resolution. The changes after that would be less catastrophic.

It's toward the point of "regulations based on lack of understanding" that I'd like to take us in this discussion. The main reason I lean towards libertarianism is my work in the government. It struck me then that no amount of cleverness on the part of my colleagues (and they were clever) would ever make the system of government fund allocation work. The whole process was unwieldy. Given more local resources and an economy based on trade rather than subsidy, a community is forced to organize itself, and is presented with more opportunity and less subjugation. I see that as a good thing.  

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:HisWillness

JillSwift wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Breach of rights is a contract violation. People working at various levels of the arbitration process in contract violation enforce the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for that breach of rights.
Unless the arbitrators happen to agree that "right" isn't, after all, a right... right?

That's why municipal corporations and cartels would have constitutions: to define rights for the individual.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:JillSwift

HisWillness wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Breach of rights is a contract violation. People working at various levels of the arbitration process in contract violation enforce the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for that breach of rights.
Unless the arbitrators happen to agree that "right" isn't, after all, a right... right?

That's why municipal corporations and cartels would have constitutions: to define rights for the individual.

Those rights could be different from place to place though... like really, very different, even within kilometres of another place?


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."