Stop Wasting Your Vote! Find Libertine candidates in your area.

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Stop Wasting Your Vote! Find Libertine candidates in your area.

Click on the links below to find candidates in your area:

http://www.votelibertarian.us/

http://www.lp.org/

For far too long, American voters have begrudgingly stepped into their voting booths with this sad thought on their minds, "I guess I'll just have to vote for the lesser of two evils."

Today, voters across the nation are realizing that there is an alternative and there is a Party of Principle – the Libertarian Party.

There are over 600 Libertarian candidates running for public office in November and, more than likely, there will be a Libertarian on your ballot.

This year, instead of wasting your vote on the "lesser of two evils," vote on principle and for the candidate that not only best represents your views, but whose party is firmly grounded in the principles of smaller government, fewer taxes and more freedom.

In the end, you get the government you deserve. If you feel shafted right now, you only have yourself to blame. Please, this year, vote your principles, not your party line.

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.


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Go ahead, throw your vote

Go ahead, throw your vote away.


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
what the hell is this, some

what the hell is this, some kind'a tube?
in all seriousness, though, i agree, YN5. however, when voting fails to solve the problem this time, i think it will be the final opportunity, and the only viable solution against neo-conservative theocracy and a lemming-style march toward WW3 will be armed revolution...and sadly, i think i'm one of very few who have excersized my "rights" in a fashion so as to be prepared for such. what will the rest of you do? sit around as grumbling conscientious objectors?

Fear is the mindkiller.


Godslayer
Silver Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-08-21
User is offlineOffline
thanks YN5

thanks YN5


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
DrFear wrote:what the hell

DrFear wrote:
what the hell is this, some kind'a tube?
in all seriousness, though, i agree, YN5. however, when voting fails to solve the problem this time, i think it will be the final opportunity, and the only viable solution against neo-conservative theocracy and a lemming-style march toward WW3 will be armed revolution...and sadly, i think i'm one of very few who have excersized my "rights" in a fashion so as to be prepared for such.

What do you mean? Prepared to vote their principles or prepared to fight an armed revolution when push comes to oppression comes to internment comes to....?

I'm prepared for both.

Wolverines! Eye-wink

/unfortunately, only half kidding. It isn't hard to imagine the shit really hitting the fan given the way things have been going.

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.


floatingegg
Posts: 73
Joined: 2006-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Most of the libertarians

Most of the libertarians that I know vote conservative. I used to be a libertarian, but I've lost faith in free market economics.


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
I CAN'T vote my principles.

I CAN'T vote my principles. There are no atheist, skeptical, scientifically minded candidates that stand a chance at winning. Even if a libertarian fit my views (none have so far), I'd likely be helping to put another republican in office.


Godslayer
Silver Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-08-21
User is offlineOffline
I am really just

I am really just independent, but because of the state of things, I would vote libertarian even if it is just to get the elected officials of future political runners thinking.


Godslayer
Silver Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-08-21
User is offlineOffline
Actually, I see this vote

Actually, I see this vote more as a protest to this tyrannical administration and just the government in general, although my representative and senators did not vote for S. 3930.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Libertarianism is not

Libertarianism is not viable.

The thread would be more accurate if it said: "stop throwing your vote away: stop voting altogether," since a lone vote changes nothing.

Anyway, I plan to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the upcoming Kahlifohnia election.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


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

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Libertarianism is not viable.

Why, exactly?

Quote:
The thread would be more accurate if it said: "stop throwing your vote away: stop voting altogether," since a lone vote changes nothing.

And that's the sort of thinking that leads to the self-fullfiling castastrofuck we've got on our hands now.

Quote:
Anyway, I plan to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the upcoming Kahlifohnia election.

Let me know how that works out.

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.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Why, exactly?

While I do like some of the purely philosophical elements of libertarianism (what you do in your own time is entirely your own business), the actual political ideology appears as utopian as communism, though as a polar opposite. I dislike large governments and all that. One might say I support libertarianism in principle, but it is fantasy market-worship in reality.

Quote:
And that's the sort of thinking that leads to the self-fullfiling castastrofuck we've got on our hands now.

On a massive scale, yes: you have to understand, an individual vote does not count. If you find some way to influence a large number of people to vote for a certain issue or candidate, that is a different story. There's also the fact that most of the time, voting comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils (that are likely to win, or a third or fourth evil that is not), a situation I do not particularly like.

Quote:
Let me know how that works out.

It's been working out great so far, and Angelides' platform of "I have big ears and want to raise taxes" does not appeal to me.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


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

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Why, exactly?

While I do like some of the purely philosophical elements of libertarianism (what you do in your own time is entirely your own business), the actual political ideology appears as utopian as communism, though as a polar opposite. I dislike large governments and all that. One might say I support libertarianism in principle, but it is fantasy market-worship in reality.

You might say that, and I'd vehemetly disagree. I find the basic principles of libertarianism quite sound and can defend them quite well. I don't find it utopian or distopian, I simply find it fair and logical.

Quote:
Quote:
And that's the sort of thinking that leads to the self-fullfiling castastrofuck we've got on our hands now.

On a massive scale, yes: you have to understand, an individual vote does not count. If you find some way to influence a large number of people to vote for a certain issue or candidate, that is a different story. There's also the fact that most of the time, voting comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils (that are likely to win, or a third or fourth evil that is not), a situation I do not particularly like.

Yeah, you simply reiterated what you said previously and never answered the charge.

I mean shit, why should we be concerned at all about the downward spiral such cynisism is bringing upon us. It's hard to change things after all, so we might as well settle for what we're given.

Quote:
quote]Let me know how that works out.

It's been working out great so far, and Angelides' platform of "I have big ears and want to raise taxes" does not appeal to me.

Yeah, big ears are deal breaker for me too.

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
Also, and forgive me if I

Also, and forgive me if I erroneously assume you to be an atheist, Insidium, I find your attitued disheartening.

So next I'm sure you'll tell us our radio program and others like it will never make a difference or change things even just a little bit for the better.

There is something to be said for principle and standing up for it.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. " - Margaret Mead.

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.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:You

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
You might say that, and I'd vehemetly disagree. I find the basic principles of libertarianism quite sound and can defend them quite well. I don't find it utopian or distopian, I simply find it fair and logical.

Fair and logical if everyone thought like you. I consider libertarianism to be far too extreme, basically. Libertarianism allows the establishment of monopolies, and we all know the probability of abuse in that scenario. Furthermore, in order to make rational economic decisions one must be properly informed. Who will be in charge of informing the populace of all the options they have? They certainly will not do it themselves. Let me bring up the recent example of the ban on trans fats in restaurants. The majority of the low-middle class citizens who were most affected by the use of trans fats in their burgers and fries have no idea what the hell a trans fat is, let alone why it's bad for you, or if they have other options. The state intervened on behalf of the health of the populace, and I consider this a sound decision. As a libertarian, you would probably defend the the restaurants' rights to cook their fries however they want. Since trans fats are easier and cheaper to use, the market provides no incentive for the restaurants to change their ingredients. This is but one example.

We can discuss other issues if you like.

Quote:
Yeah, you simply reiterated what you said previously and never answered the charge.

I mean shit, why should we be concerned at all about the downward spiral such cynisism is bringing upon us. It's hard to change things after all, so we might as well settle for what we're given.

The statistical probability of a single vote changing anything is one over the difference between the winner of an election and either the runner-up (if you voted for the winner), or whichever candidate you voted for. In other words, nil. As a personal philosophy, I see no problem with not voting. However, I do see the folly with propagating such an ideology. For all intents and purposes, I concede the point.

Quote:

Yeah, big ears are deal breaker for me too.

That part of my post was humorous and intended to convey Angelides' lack of a platform. I like and respect Schwarzenegger as a man and a politician (primarily because he is not a typical politician whose concerns are money, fame, and/or power). I think he has done a fine job in California so far.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Also, and forgive me if I erroneously assume you to be an atheist, Insidium, I find your attitued disheartening.

Do not presume to snidely insult me. Instead of assuming one way or another (especially based on political affiliation: atheism is neither a philosophy nor a political party), perhaps you should have read my posts in other threads, particularly ones concerned with god and religion.

Quote:
So next I'm sure you'll tell us our radio program and others like it will never make a difference or change things even just a little bit for the better.

There is something to be said for principle and standing up for it.

Covered in the previous post; I think your radio program and others like it are good for progress, actually, even if I do not personally care for all of the issues they are comprised of.

Quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. " - Margaret Mead.

I don't feel I can make a difference until I obtain a PhD and an AK-47.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


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

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
You might say that, and I'd vehemetly disagree. I find the basic principles of libertarianism quite sound and can defend them quite well. I don't find it utopian or distopian, I simply find it fair and logical.

Fair and logical if everyone thought like you. I consider libertarianism to be far too extreme, basically. Libertarianism allows the establishment of monopolies, and we all know the probability of abuse in that scenario.

So? How, exactly does the current system prevent monopolies? And if monopolies provide a better product cheaper than competitors, shouldn't they have a monopoly? It's called a free market. A good is worth what you are willing to pay for it.

Quote:
Furthermore, in order to make rational economic decisions one must be properly informed. Who will be in charge of informing the populace of all the options they have?

The populace. As they should be. True freedom entails responsibility. That's why many fear it.

Quote:
They certainly will not do it themselves.

Why not? They've NEVER had to do it themselves. They've never been made responsible. If we fall by the way side, simply because we're lazy, what does that say about us as a species? Let us finally sink or swim on our own merits. I think we'll be pleasently surprised.

Quote:
Let me bring up the recent example of the ban on trans fats in restaurants.

Fucking ridiculous, IMO.

Quote:
The majority of the low-middle class citizens who were most affected by the use of trans fats in their burgers and fries have no idea what the hell a trans fat is, let alone why it's bad for you, or if they have other options.

And whose fault is that?

Quote:
The state intervened on behalf of the health of the populace, and I consider this a sound decision.

No, the state FORCED a decision upon us all and took away a little bit more of my freedom and little bit more of my choices.

It is NOT the responsibility of the state to protect people from themselves.

The state has no right to tell me I cannot smoke this or drink that or eat this. I find it disgusting and disturbing how easily we relinquish control of our lives. Nobody should ever be able to tell me what I can and cannot put inside my own body - be it drugs, fat, smoke, whatever.

Quote:
As a libertarian, you would probably defend the the restaurants' rights to cook their fries however they want. Since trans fats are easier and cheaper to use, the market provides no incentive for the restaurants to change their ingredients. This is but one example.

Right, but there is also a BOOMING market for health food. Restaurantes and chains that catered to such people would provide cis-fat fried foods for them, in fact they already were long before the government made a stink about it.

Just as there were ALREADY non-smoking bars before several states banned smoking in them. The market dictates, as it should.

Quote:
We can discuss other issues if you like.

If you wish. We clearly have very different ideas of what the role of government is though, obviously.

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, you simply reiterated what you said previously and never answered the charge.

I mean shit, why should we be concerned at all about the downward spiral such cynisism is bringing upon us. It's hard to change things after all, so we might as well settle for what we're given.

The statistical probability of a single vote changing anything is one over the difference between the winner of an election and either the runner-up (if you voted for the winner), or whichever candidate you voted for. In other words, nil.

So why should we bother to vote?

Quote:
As a personal philosophy, I see no problem with not voting. However, I do see the folly with propagating such an ideology. For all intents and purposes, I concede the point.

And I would never say that a single vote could change the world except in wildly unlikely scenariors. Still, if we do not vote our principles, I think we are doing a disservice to ourselves and our country.

Quote:
Quote:

Yeah, big ears are deal breaker for me too.

That part of my post was humorous and intended to convey Angelides' lack of a platform. I like and respect Schwarzenegger as a man and a politician (primarily because he is not a typical politician whose concerns are money, fame, and/or power). I think he has done a fine job in California so far.

To tell the truth I don't have many gripes about the Ahh-nold either. He at least seems to have the balls to stand up for what he thinks is right rather than the party line on occasion.

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
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Also, and forgive me if I erroneously assume you to be an atheist, Insidium, I find your attitued disheartening.

Do not presume to snidely insult me. Instead of assuming one way or another (especially based on political affiliation: atheism is neither a philosophy nor a political party), perhaps you should have read my posts in other threads, particularly ones concerned with god and religion.

I was not being snide, at all. I haven't read many of your other posts, and this is the only forum I've personally interacted with you in. And I was not equating atheism with politics except for in the manner of "lost causes" and "no one person makes a difference" mentallity.

Quote:
Quote:
So next I'm sure you'll tell us our radio program and others like it will never make a difference or change things even just a little bit for the better.

There is something to be said for principle and standing up for it.

Covered in the previous post; I think your radio program and others like it are good for progress, actually, even if I do not personally care for all of the issues they are comprised of.

Fair enough.

Quote:
Quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. " - Margaret Mead.

I don't feel I can make a difference until I obtain a PhD and an AK-47.

I've got the gun. Still working on the PhD.

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.


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure how the PhD and

I'm not sure how the PhD and gun make a difference...

Yellow, a free market is a great concept, but the problem is that successful companies don't stop at using their better product to stay on top. They use legal and marketing strongarming to hold or improve their position. Witness Microsoft. They use their power & influence to protect themselves from the backlash of shoddy products . I forget the maker, but the "exploding truck gas tank" that was cheaper to deal with legalities than to recall & redesign.

If our marketing & policy making machines weren't purely money driven in this society, a free market would work better. But as it is, once on top, money, power & influence count for as much or more than product quality/value.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jester700 wrote:I'm not sure

jester700 wrote:
I'm not sure how the PhD and gun make a difference...

Yellow, a free market is a great concept, but the problem is that successful companies don't stop at using their better product to stay on top. They use legal and marketing strongarming to hold or improve their position.

And who provides that legal precident? You and I don't.

Quote:
Witness Microsoft. They use their power & influence to protect themselves from the backlash of shoddy products . I forget the maker, but the "exploding truck gas tank" that was cheaper to deal with legalities than to recall & redesign.

And did the maker of said gas tank get sued?

Look, fundamentally, businesses are not good or evil. Bill Gates is one of the greatest humanitarians the modern world has. Is it guilt for his enormous wealth? Is it a marketing ploy? Does it really matter in the end?

Restricting labor practices have never worked when it comes to the true exploitive scum of the earth. Just as gun laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns and drug laws don't prevent people from getting high.

Those who truely exploit are in the minority, they are the ones who hire illegals and pay them slave wages - slave wages, because the alternative is paying the arificially manufactured wage (i.e. minimum wage). Well, what would happen if we simply abolished these lines in the dirt we've drawn? Ultimately, that's what libertarians stand for and what the free market stands for. Globalization is inevitable, and with it comes the break down of boarders and other trite things. If we simply keep the government out of it and let people and the market determine the price things would be more fair and ultimately less costly for all.

Quote:
If our marketing & policy making machines weren't purely money driven in this society, a free market would work better. But as it is, once on top, money, power & influence count for as much or more than product quality/value.

Right, so don't blame the free market system, because that system certainly does NOT exist in the US. Take away the government and you take away the kick backs, the favoritism, the protectionism, and all the other things that get in the way of the people actually dictating what a product and what a skill is worth.

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.


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
jester700 wrote:

Witness Microsoft. They use their power & influence to protect themselves from the backlash of shoddy products . I forget the maker, but the "exploding truck gas tank" that was cheaper to deal with legalities than to recall & redesign.

And did the maker of said gas tank get sued?

Look, fundamentally, businesses are not good or evil. Bill Gates is one of the greatest humanitarians the modern world has. Is it guilt for his enormous wealth? Is it a marketing ploy? Does it really matter in the end?


Actually, I wasn't equating MS WITH Gates, though it is certainly his baby. I am awed by Gates' recent activities, and IF they are a reaction of guilt to business practices, I'd call it a big win. But why should I think that? I know businesses aren't good or evil, but the priority of profit means that in some cases profit takes such precedence that others' lives are unfairly jeopardized - in a real sense like the gas tanks or a financial one like the Enron deal. THAT's where oversight needs to be available. Yes, the car company was sued for the tanks, but the point IS, they made a conscious decision to continue using a flawed design that endangered (and in a couple of cases, killed) people because it was determined to be cheaper to deal with the legal fallout than to recall & fix the issue (and redesign the truck). Admittedly, I don't know if the resulting suit & decision were enough for the company to decide never to do that again or not. Nor am I sure how that whole thing would play out differently in a libertarian society vs. how it actually did.

Quote:

Those who truely exploit are in the minority, they are the ones who hire illegals and pay them slave wages - slave wages, because the alternative is paying the arificially manufactured wage (i.e. minimum wage). Well, what would happen if we simply abolished these lines in the dirt we've drawn? Ultimately, that's what libertarians stand for and what the free market stands for.

Wasn't this the situation during the industrial revolution in which 3rd world manufacturing conditions were the norm in what are now 1st world nations? What would keep that from happening again?

Quote:

Globalization is inevitable, and with it comes the break down of boarders and other trite things. If we simply keep the government out of it and let people and the market determine the price things would be more fair and ultimately less costly for all.

True. And more manufacturing would happen in this country, since the advantages of offshore manufacturing would diminish or vanish, and transportation costs would drop. But would that be a good thing, if Americans all had jobs, but even the kids had to work to pay the mortgage?

Actually, a global economy IS somewhat of an equalizer in this, since manufacturing does migrate to locations of cheap labor. Japan. Then Korea. Now China & Indonesia. Will there always be a new place of cheap labor, or will the 3rd world someday vanish and a new paradigm develop?


Godslayer
Silver Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-08-21
User is offlineOffline
I will just put voting

This is why voting libertarian is not wasting a vote:

As an axiom, I will assume that elected officials will do what it takes to get elected.
This has to be done or else someone else that will do it will be elected and the other officials not abiding by this will eventually be weeded out as in natural selection.

Now if enough people voting for say republicans, start voting libertarian such that they loose elections to say democrats then the republican party will shift to more libertarian ideals.
Similarly, this holds for any party.
So, all there needs to be is enough voters voting for another candidate with different policy agendas such that it has an effect on the election out come for there to be an effect on policy or there has to be a realistic potential for this to occur, although potential will not sway government as much.
Now there is a counter example with respect to Ralph Nader. The issue is though that Ralph Nader did not have an effect on the last presidential election, but if the democrats new that in the last presidential election, Ralph Nader took away enough voters so that the democrats loose the election, under the condition that they did not scare away other voters, the democrats would align themselves more with green party ideals.

Now, if both parties loose voters by the same percentage then it may not have as much of an effect. If one of the parties aligns themselves with this party that is taking a significant enough number of votes such that they do not push other voters away, then one of the majority parties will converge more towards the policies of this minority party which holds by the axiom of a politician wanting to get the largest number of votes(i.e. get elected).


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
you are absolutely right

you are absolutely right about that, godslayer, but in the current political climate, the republican party has created enough nationalist momentum and fear as to shift focus away from anything other than the bipartisan system once again (within the partisan frame of mind).
basically, the democrats are scrambling so hard to regain what they lost in 2000 and have been steadily losing ever since, they couldn't give less of a shit about what the green party is doing. they're too "punch drunk" to see that viable solution.

Fear is the mindkiller.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jester700

jester700 wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
jester700 wrote:

Witness Microsoft. They use their power & influence to protect themselves from the backlash of shoddy products . I forget the maker, but the "exploding truck gas tank" that was cheaper to deal with legalities than to recall & redesign.

And did the maker of said gas tank get sued?

Look, fundamentally, businesses are not good or evil. Bill Gates is one of the greatest humanitarians the modern world has. Is it guilt for his enormous wealth? Is it a marketing ploy? Does it really matter in the end?


Actually, I wasn't equating MS WITH Gates, though it is certainly his baby. I am awed by Gates' recent activities, and IF they are a reaction of guilt to business practices, I'd call it a big win. But why should I think that? I know businesses aren't good or evil, but the priority of profit means that in some cases profit takes such precedence that others' lives are unfairly jeopardized - in a real sense like the gas tanks or a financial one like the Enron deal.

This is simply short-sighted and unrealistic, IMO. Plenty of people do risky jobs, knowing the risks. Plenty of consumers pruchase dangerous products, knowing the risks. It is only when such risks are masked intentionally that the companay is at fault, and they would be as liable for such deception under a totally free market, libertarine or the current system. I really don't see your point.

Quote:
THAT's where oversight needs to be available. Yes, the car company was sued for the tanks, but the point IS, they made a conscious decision to continue using a flawed design that endangered (and in a couple of cases, killed) people because it was determined to be cheaper to deal with the legal fallout than to recall & fix the issue (and redesign the truck).

Yes, so where was this magical oversight? There are ALWAYS going to be less than scrupulous companies and people. Our current system OBVIOUSLY did not protect us in this particular case. This simply reiterates what I've already said. Prohibitions do NOT protect us, reciprocity and responsibility do - and typically after the fact. Companies who make products that do not work as intended and are dangerous tend not to get repeat buyers. They also tend to get the shit sued out of them.

Quote:
Admittedly, I don't know if the resulting suit & decision were enough for the company to decide never to do that again or not. Nor am I sure how that whole thing would play out differently in a libertarian society vs. how it actually did.

What was the company out of curiousity?

And like I said, I DON'T think things would have happened much differently in a libertine society. You're the one who should be making excuses as to why the current system failed, not the other way around.

Quote:
Quote:

Those who truely exploit are in the minority, they are the ones who hire illegals and pay them slave wages - slave wages, because the alternative is paying the arificially manufactured wage (i.e. minimum wage). Well, what would happen if we simply abolished these lines in the dirt we've drawn? Ultimately, that's what libertarians stand for and what the free market stands for.

Wasn't this the situation during the industrial revolution in which 3rd world manufacturing conditions were the norm in what are now 1st world nations? What would keep that from happening again?

Uh, that had nothing to do with politics, certainly not liberine politics. It had more to do with the simple fact of the matter that the safety protocols and equipment we enjoy now had not been invented yet.

Still, NOBODY is FORCED to do a job. We still have dangerous jobs today. Alaskan crab fishers come to mind. Nobody forces them to do it, and several of them are killed each year - highest mortality rate of any job on earth, I believe. Still, people are lined up to do it. Why do you think that is? Risk is a part of life and a part of most jobs. We weigh the pros and cons, and make our decisions. That's simply life.

Quote:
Quote:

Globalization is inevitable, and with it comes the break down of boarders and other trite things. If we simply keep the government out of it and let people and the market determine the price things would be more fair and ultimately less costly for all.

True. And more manufacturing would happen in this country, since the advantages of offshore manufacturing would diminish or vanish, and transportation costs would drop. But would that be a good thing, if Americans all had jobs, but even the kids had to work to pay the mortgage?

Define kids. I've been working since I was 10 years old. You do have a point about the cost of living increasing in the short term, at least. Still, you do ultimately realize that a global free market is going to benefit everyone - it's simply a matter of getting there.

Quote:
Actually, a global economy IS somewhat of an equalizer in this, since manufacturing does migrate to locations of cheap labor. Japan. Then Korea. Now China & Indonesia. Will there always be a new place of cheap labor, or will the 3rd world someday vanish and a new paradigm develop?

The third world vanishing is ultimately the goal. The sources of "cheap" labor are harder and harder to come by, because once companies move to such sorces they build that economy and ultimately provide a higher standard of living across the board.

Sure, there will always be poorer nations and more well off nations, just as there will always be the rich and poor. But can you honestly say that even the poorest nation on earth is not better off today than they were 50 years ago? Can you also not say the same about the average citizen of any nation?

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.


Ig
Posts: 96
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
It's a wasted vote. The near

It's a wasted vote. The near future is too important to just make a statement. This kind of thinking is what got us in the mess we are currently in.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
floatingegg wrote: Most of

floatingegg wrote:
Most of the libertarians that I know vote conservative. I used to be a libertarian, but I've lost faith in free market economics.

Ba-dum-bum, tsh!

But seriously, if you see a free market around here to lose faith in, let me know. All I see are tax breaks for the rich and subsidies for companies that have run themselves into the ground with stupid decisions.

-Triften 


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Insidium Profundis wrote:
Libertarianism is not viable.
Why, exactly?

Some of the reasons that Libertarianism is not viable:

As beautifully explained by Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel," humans kill each other, because they can.

In small groups, kinship bonds are strong enough to control this trend, but beyond a certain critical population mass, this control fades, and the kinship bonds still remaining contribute to a society of feuding armed camps. "Waves of murder and counter-murder," is how Diamond describes it. (An unspoken recognition of this fact is, I think, probably the reason that many Libertarians are such gun nuts...)

Not very practical, and it makes you easy pickings for the more unified societies surrounding you.

The only way that human societies have ever successfully controlled this tendency is to establish a centralized control over use of violent force, and once you do that, the only question left is, how do you control the controllers of that centralized legitimized use of force?

Diamond does not approve of the resulting social structures, really, he calls them "kleptocracies," because that is what they all become, to one degree or another.

I happen to believe a democratic republic like the one established by the U.S. Constitution is the best solution yet found to this problem.

With regard to the free market, one problem is that the free market is inherently short-sighted, and routinely sacrifices important long-term goals in its pursuit of short-term profits.

Another is the objection raised above, that in a true free-market economy, there is nothing stopping the controllers of economic power from abusing that power, which they therefore inevitably will do.

If I understand it correctly, modern Libertarianism accepts the need for a legal structure which prevents force and fraud, which raises yet another issue.

Until we can convict the priest offering Communion of fraud, humanity will not be ready for such a system.

I think that if people were to evolve in such a manner that Libertarianism could work, then it would establish itself naturally and effortlessly.

I think it would then be indistinguishable from its (as someone else suggested) obverse face, which is Communism.

If nobody would be content living in extravagant luxury by profiting from the suffering of the less fortunate, and if nobody would be content living as a parasite on the efforts of the more industrious, then such a system could be viable, I think.

Otherwise, not. 

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Mwahaha. Now I am back to

Mwahaha. Now I am back to piss you people off because I'm just like that. Sorry I left. Stuff distracted me.

chaospump wrote:
As beautifully explained by Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel," humans kill each other, because they can.

If killing other people is inherently wrong, then governments are by their very nature wrong. They cannot exist without threatening to kill rebels, secessionists, and those deemed criminals by arbitrary statutory law. If killing is to be avoided, government must be rid of. Nobody kills or threatens to kill more than governments.

Quote:
In small groups, kinship bonds are strong enough to control this trend, but beyond a certain critical population mass, this control fades, and the kinship bonds still remaining contribute to a society of feuding armed camps. "Waves of murder and counter-murder," is how Diamond describes it.

Only in cultures where people are taught that they are superior to all others, i.e. My brand of islam > your brand of islam, America > your country, White people > black people, Christians > Jews, etc., and only to the degree that this happens. 

Quote:
(An unspoken recognition of this fact is, I think, probably the reason that many Libertarians are such gun nuts...)

Recognition of the necessity of self-defense in general is certainly the reason why many libertarians are such gun nuts. This particular thing that needs defending against, not so much. It's not roving mobs of death squads (government obviously excepted) which are why Libertarians own guns, it's largely for defense against opportunist parasites like muggers, burglars, and rapists.

Quote:
Not very practical, and it makes you easy pickings for the more unified societies surrounding you.

Unification is not necessarily an advantage. For example, if all are unified under one leader, killing the leader will result in a feudal attempt by the subleaders to take the position of the dead man, which de-unifies the others. A more general union of peer groups would limit this problem, but a non-unified group of peers in an area have this problem even less. A unified group surrenders in unity when defeated, individual combatants oweing no loyalty, having no masters, do not have this weakness. Also to be considered are defender's advantage. It's not all "easy pickings". Hell, a truly free society might very well be more heavily armed than an army. A  typical NATO soldier may carry a .223 caliber AR , while gun nuts and hunters typically go for .30 caliber weapons, .308 or .30-06 for instance, and elephant hunters go as high as 20mm and .700 Nitro. There are no "easy pickings" in a free society.

Quote:
The only way that human societies have ever successfully controlled this tendency is to establish a centralized control over use of violent force, and once you do that, the only question left is, how do you control the controllers of that centralized legitimized use of force?

You don't because you can't because they have centralized control over violent force. 

Quote:
I happen to believe a democratic republic like the one established by the U.S. Constitution is the best solution yet found to this problem.

It is a partial solution which doesn't address the real problem. If killing is to be minimized, governments must not be given absolute monopoly power over the use of force in the first place. 

Quote:
With regard to the free market, one problem is that the free market is inherently short-sighted, and routinely sacrifices important long-term goals in its pursuit of short-term profits.

Not true. The market is naturally long-sighted. At present the market is not behaving this way because the market is not free. Politics is by far the more shortsighted decisionmaking method when compared to the market. In politics, politicians deal only until the next election cycle, 2 years away at maximum. Do you really think Microsoft could have grown to what it did if it focused only on the next two years? 

Quote:
Another is the objection raised above, that in a true free-market economy, there is nothing stopping the controllers of economic power from abusing that power, which they therefore inevitably will do.

There is. So long as the market is free, the "controllers of economic power" have power which is limited by people's freedom. Also let me point out that you are only delaying the problem, in that now you have a supposed solution to controllers of economic power in controllers of violent power, but now you have no means of controlling the controllers of violent power. 

Quote:
If I understand it correctly, modern Libertarianism accepts the need for a legal structure which prevents force and fraud, which raises yet another issue.

This is true, but these do not always require a government. 

Quote:
Until we can convict the priest offering Communion of fraud, humanity will not be ready for such a system.

Get a contract with the priest, then sue him for failure to live up to his end of the bargain. Problem solved. 

Quote:
I think that if people were to evolve in such a manner that Libertarianism could work, then it would establish itself naturally and effortlessly.

The paradigm shift necessary is what advocates of libertarianism are attempting. 

Quote:
I think it would then be indistinguishable from its (as someone else suggested) obverse face, which is Communism.

Communism is abolition of property and destruction of the owners of the means of production. Libertarianism holds private property as a central value and so opposes the owners of the means of destruction (the government). They are easily distinguishable. 

Quote:
If nobody would be content living in extravagant luxury by profiting from the suffering of the less fortunate, and if nobody would be content living as a parasite on the efforts of the more industrious, then such a system could be viable, I think.

I'm probably picturing this differently than you, but the first brings to mind a politician and the second brings to mind a welfare recipient. 

I disagree however. It's possible to be content living in extravagant luxury by profiting from the suffering of the less fortunate and to desire to live off the production of others and live under a libertarian system. Libertarians don't deny that people are greedy, most affirm that greed is what motivates us to do anything.

I believe that if nobody would be content allowing their life, liberty, and property to be taken from them, then libertarianism could be the only viable one.


ragnarok
High Level Donor
ragnarok's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-07-05
User is offlineOffline
Libertarianism is just a quaint mental exercise

I consider most of my views to be Libertarian, but I'm not so in love with the ideas that I completely divorce myself from reality.  It's almost too late for Libertarianism to work, no matter how good it looks on paper, or how much it appeals to us.  The main thing holding it back is human nature and the tendency to form into large power blocs. Groupthink vs. individual thought.  It's easier to let someone else think for you, and you have the added comfort and protection of a large number of like-minded folks.  

Someone mentioned Communism in an earlier post, and it reallly is just as idealistic and unrealistic as Libertarianism.  And in the same sense, for it to be able to work at all everybody involved has to be on the same page.  Any kind of corruption, whether political or criminal or personal, will hamper its efficiency and allow its influence and control to wane and crumble.  Yeah, sure, let's do that right away!

The most we can get from Libertarianism is a platform for addressing certain issues regarding the Constitution, maybe debate on the repeal of most if not all drug laws, and a certain relaxation of so-called 'decency laws' that are nothing less than thinly disguised censorship.  And you can't even count on that, because just like the ratio of theists to atheists in this country, Libertarians are way outnumbered by Democrat and Republican lemmings.  So many people consider themselves one or the other even if they're not actually or officially members of the party.  Libertarian party?  I thought somebody was making a joke.  

My heart is with you, but my eyes keep telling me it's over before it begins.   

I have little poignant or anecdotal to share in this space, but I'm glad I wrote something that made someone like you waste their time reading it. HAVE SOME.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I consider most of

Quote:
I consider most of my views to be Libertarian, but I'm not so in love with the ideas that I completely divorce myself from reality.

You have probably left remnants of statism completely divorced from reality in doing so.

Quote:
It's almost too late for Libertarianism to work, no matter how good it looks on paper, or how much it appeals to us.

Since Libertarianism is little more than leaving each other alone, no, it's not too late. Inaction is always an option.

Quote:
The main thing holding it back is human nature and the tendency to form into large power blocs. Groupthink vs. individual thought. It's easier to let someone else think for you, and you have the added comfort and protection of a large number of like-minded folks.

And all that has to be done is to get them to go off and groupthink and leave everyone else alone in order to have libertarianism. And if they won't do so, shoot at them until they do.

Quote:
Someone mentioned Communism in an earlier post, and it reallly is just as idealistic and unrealistic as Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is not idealistic and unrealistic. Communism is. The fundamental differences between them are what makes one idealistic and unrealistic and the other not, and the two are diametrically opposed.

Quote:
And in the same sense, for it to be able to work at all everybody involved has to be on the same page.

The opposite is true. Libertarianism is inherently tolerant of people not working toward the same goal. What "Same page" do you believe everyone has to be on? It is no more the same page that we have to be on at present, we simply have to not attack each other. We manage this. After that, it doesn't matter what language the metaphorical book is being read in.

Quote:
Any kind of corruption, whether political or criminal or personal, will hamper its efficiency and allow its influence and control to wane and crumble.

This is true of every system. This is hardly an issue with principled libertarianism unless you know of a system where this doesn't apply.

Quote:
Yeah, sure, let's do that right away!

Libertarianism is not something you do. It's something you don't do. You don't hurt other people. That's libertarianism. No action is necessary except to convince others to do the same.

Quote:
The most we can get from Libertarianism is a platform for addressing certain issues regarding the Constitution, maybe debate on the repeal of most if not all drug laws, and a certain relaxation of so-called 'decency laws' that are nothing less than thinly disguised censorship.

We'd be better off advocating communism, waiting for that to fail, and having a system ready to replace it when it does.

Quote:
And you can't even count on that, because just like the ratio of theists to atheists in this country, Libertarians are way outnumbered by Democrat and Republican lemmings.

Libertarian Party members are. Libertarians have been running as Democrats and Republicans for years and have been getting elected.

Quote:
So many people consider themselves one or the other even if they're not actually or officially members of the party. Libertarian party? I thought somebody was making a joke.

You thought correctly.

Quote:
My heart is with you, but my eyes keep telling me it's over before it begins.

Then just stay off to the side and get out of our way.


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

chaospump wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Insidium Profundis wrote:
Libertarianism is not viable.
Why, exactly?

Some of the reasons that Libertarianism is not viable:

As beautifully explained by Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel," humans kill each other, because they can.

In small groups, kinship bonds are strong enough to control this trend, but beyond a certain critical population mass, this control fades, and the kinship bonds still remaining contribute to a society of feuding armed camps. "Waves of murder and counter-murder," is how Diamond describes it. (An unspoken recognition of this fact is, I think, probably the reason that many Libertarians are such gun nuts...)

Not very practical, and it makes you easy pickings for the more unified societies surrounding you.

The only way that human societies have ever successfully controlled this tendency is to establish a centralized control over use of violent force, and once you do that, the only question left is, how do you control the controllers of that centralized legitimized use of force?

Wow, utterly wrong. First, it seems you've equated libertarianism to lawlessness - which is a flat out strawman.

 Morality, law, is formed by societal concensus and practicality. There is NO reason to think the principles that gave us the cohesive societal structure and moralistic normality would not function in a libertarian society - in fact, it is such societies who have established such things in the first place. We don't stop being human just because we have no central or ultimate authority. Otherwise, where would atheists be?

Quote:
Diamond does not approve of the resulting social structures, really, he calls them "kleptocracies," because that is what they all become, to one degree or another.

I happen to believe a democratic republic like the one established by the U.S. Constitution is the best solution yet found to this problem.

The system we have is not without merit, but it could be better.  In the end, I could give a fuck what Diamond asserts. 

Quote:
With regard to the free market, one problem is that the free market is inherently short-sighted, and routinely sacrifices important long-term goals in its pursuit of short-term profits.

 How, exactly? And how, exactly, would a libertine version of the free market differ from what we currently have? Give me specific examples exclusive and solely manifest by the free market that would not or could not exist in the absence of it.

Quote:
Another is the objection raised above, that in a true free-market economy, there is nothing stopping the controllers of economic power from abusing that power, which they therefore inevitably will do.

We DON'T have a free market now, and there is NOTING to prevent what you say is a problem now either. I fail to see how the potential for the abuse of power is tied to any market system or magically disappears in any market system. 

Quote:
If I understand it correctly, modern Libertarianism accepts the need for a legal structure which prevents force and fraud, which raises yet another issue.

Until we can convict the priest offering Communion of fraud, humanity will not be ready for such a system.

 A complete non-sequitor. People are much more ready and willing to come down on a person who ripped them of financially than they are to come down upon a person who has simply upholded a doctrine they were inculcated into since birth.

Quote:
I think that if people were to evolve in such a manner that Libertarianism could work, then it would establish itself naturally and effortlessly.

Here's where we differ. I think it IS natural and effortless. It is to me at any rate and I'm not that different from anyone else on the planet. 

Quote:
I think it would then be indistinguishable from its (as someone else suggested) obverse face, which is Communism.

If nobody would be content living in extravagant luxury by profiting from the suffering of the less fortunate, and if nobody would be content living as a parasite on the efforts of the more industrious, then such a system could be viable, I think.

Otherwise, not.

 Again, a nonsequitor.

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.


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
As the replies to my post

As the replies to my post show, Libertarians themselves are wildly inconsistent in how they expect it to work and why.

The notion that the market, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

The Enron disaster was a direct result of the de-regulation of the industry and the removal of controls against abuse of power.

If not for legislation and treaties, the environment (for one example) would be significantly more screwed than it already is, because of the short-term nature of the profit-motivated approach - as history clearly shows - is insensitive to such long-term issues.

If you read the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Madison, etc., and follow how our government was established, you'll see that the framers of the constitution were seeking a middle ground between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy - they did a pretty good job of it, too.

I would have a hard time voting for a view that seems to favor throwing out the carefully navigated middle path in exchange for an extremist approach, whether that view is Libertarian or Communistic.

I, and most people, think that Libertarianism leans too far toward anarchy to be practical, and is based on a fundamental misconception of human nature - as it currently stands.

Without government, I suspect the Libertarians, who like to consider themselves tough rugged individualists, would be the first to be washed under beneath a tide of violence generated by ideologues able to bring together followers en masse to enforce their views - for a little while, until other more unified cultures came in to take whatever they wanted from the Hatfields and McCoys stupidly taking potshots at each other.

 

Of course, this is all moot anyway.

Voting Libertarian - at the national level -  is throwing your vote away, and ends up being one less vote for the actually electable candidate who would really be the lesser of the two available evils.

 In fact, I do think the country has moved too far in the other direction in many ways since its founding, and could use some nudges in the Libertarian direction, but Libertarianism as a fundamental ideology seems inviable to me - and to the vast majority of people living in democratic nations.

Perhaps it might make sense to vote Libertarian in local elections, and see whether it can be shaped into a coherent and consistent practical approach in the real world.

But to vote Libertarian at the national level seems like a stupid and futile gesture which, in practice, supports whichever candidate you see as the greater of the two available evils.

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The notion that the

Quote:
The notion that the market, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

The notion that the government, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

Quote:
The Enron disaster was a direct result of the de-regulation of the industry and the removal of controls against abuse of power.

It was the result of many things, you are vastly oversimplifying it.

 

Quote:
If not for legislation and treaties, the environment (for one example) would be significantly more screwed than it already is, because of the short-term nature of the profit-motivated approach - as history clearly shows - is insensitive to such long-term issues.

Who is more shortsighted? Bill Gates or Bill Clinton? Bill Gates had to worry about his company 10 or 20 years from now. Bill Clinton had to worry about the next election, never more than 4 years away.  To think that bureaucrats and politicians are immune from this is pitifully stupid.

Quote:
I would have a hard time voting for a view that seems to favor throwing out the carefully navigated middle path in exchange for an extremist approach, whether that view is Libertarian or Communistic.

Because it's impossible that one side is actually right and the other wrong, therefore a "middle of the road" is necessary to ensure we get the worst of both worlds, right?

Quote:
I, and most people, think that Libertarianism leans too far toward anarchy to be practical, and is based on a fundamental misconception of human nature - as it currently stands.

Anarchy is practical if allowed to work (i.e. not letting bureaucrats fuck it up).

My idea of human nature is that people are selfish. What misconception is present here?


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Quote: The

Zhwazi wrote:

Quote:
The notion that the market, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

The notion that the government, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

Quote:
The Enron disaster was a direct result of the de-regulation of the industry and the removal of controls against abuse of power.

It was the result of many things, you are vastly oversimplifying it.

 

Quote:
If not for legislation and treaties, the environment (for one example) would be significantly more screwed than it already is, because of the short-term nature of the profit-motivated approach - as history clearly shows - is insensitive to such long-term issues.

Who is more shortsighted? Bill Gates or Bill Clinton? Bill Gates had to worry about his company 10 or 20 years from now. Bill Clinton had to worry about the next election, never more than 4 years away.  To think that bureaucrats and politicians are immune from this is pitifully stupid.

Quote:
I would have a hard time voting for a view that seems to favor throwing out the carefully navigated middle path in exchange for an extremist approach, whether that view is Libertarian or Communistic.

Because it's impossible that one side is actually right and the other wrong, therefore a "middle of the road" is necessary to ensure we get the worst of both worlds, right?

Quote:
I, and most people, think that Libertarianism leans too far toward anarchy to be practical, and is based on a fundamental misconception of human nature - as it currently stands.

Anarchy is practical if allowed to work (i.e. not letting bureaucrats fuck it up).

My idea of human nature is that people are selfish. What misconception is present here?

Unrestrained government would be tyranny; I have nowhere advocated it, but instead support a form of government established by thinkers who were highly motivated to incorporate all kinds of restraints and checks and balances specifically to prevent the possibility of state tyranny.

The Enron disaster was a direct result, as I said, of deregulation, though like any real world event, there were many contribuitng causes.

However, it provides clear evidence that a dogmatic adhereence to the notion that any government regulation of commerce is a bad thing whose removal could only be a positive force is unjustifiable.

Elected officials must respond to long-term issues insofar as those issues become part of the public consciousness. Controllers of economic power derive their support from people seeking short-term profits, which therefore always dominate in that arena.

In the question of anarchy vs tyranny, yes. Neither side is right, both are wrong, and a middle path solution is the only reasonable way to proceed.

Anarchy has never worked as a social structure (or lack thereof...) in any sustained real-world example.

You are correct in your assessment that people are selfish, but you neglect the human tendency to be "joiners."

The people here are less likely than others to be joiner types, but we need to be cognizant that most of humanity is not like us.

Ideologies capture humans, and overwhelm their selfish nature to the point where they are willing to kill and die together in mass cooperative efforts.

The loner sitting in his cave or bunker has never and will never be able to stand against this kind of force.

That's why anarchy is not viable in the real world, and if Libertarianism does lean too close to anarchy, it is likewise inviable.

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
chaospump wrote:

chaospump wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

Quote:
The notion that the market, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

The notion that the government, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

Quote:
The Enron disaster was a direct result of the de-regulation of the industry and the removal of controls against abuse of power.

It was the result of many things, you are vastly oversimplifying it.

Quote:
If not for legislation and treaties, the environment (for one example) would be significantly more screwed than it already is, because of the short-term nature of the profit-motivated approach - as history clearly shows - is insensitive to such long-term issues.

Who is more shortsighted? Bill Gates or Bill Clinton? Bill Gates had to worry about his company 10 or 20 years from now. Bill Clinton had to worry about the next election, never more than 4 years away. To think that bureaucrats and politicians are immune from this is pitifully stupid.

Quote:
I would have a hard time voting for a view that seems to favor throwing out the carefully navigated middle path in exchange for an extremist approach, whether that view is Libertarian or Communistic.

Because it's impossible that one side is actually right and the other wrong, therefore a "middle of the road" is necessary to ensure we get the worst of both worlds, right?

Quote:
I, and most people, think that Libertarianism leans too far toward anarchy to be practical, and is based on a fundamental misconception of human nature - as it currently stands.

Anarchy is practical if allowed to work (i.e. not letting bureaucrats fuck it up).

My idea of human nature is that people are selfish. What misconception is present here?

Unrestrained government would be tyranny; I have nowhere advocated it, but instead support a form of government established by thinkers who were highly motivated to incorporate all kinds of restraints and checks and balances specifically to prevent the possibility of state tyranny.

The Enron disaster was a direct result, as I said, of deregulation, though like any real world event, there were many contribuitng causes.

However, it provides clear evidence that a dogmatic adhereence to the notion that any government regulation of commerce is a bad thing whose removal could only be a positive force is unjustifiable.

Elected officials must respond to long-term issues insofar as those issues become part of the public consciousness. Controllers of economic power derive their support from people seeking short-term profits, which therefore always dominate in that arena.

In the question of anarchy vs tyranny, yes. Neither side is right, both are wrong, and a middle path solution is the only reasonable way to proceed.

Anarchy has never worked as a social structure (or lack thereof...) in any sustained real-world example.

You are correct in your assessment that people are selfish, but you neglect the human tendency to be "joiners."

The people here are less likely than others to be joiner types, but we need to be cognizant that most of humanity is not like us.

Ideologies capture humans, and overwhelm their selfish nature to the point where they are willing to kill and die together in mass cooperative efforts.

The loner sitting in his cave or bunker has never and will never be able to stand against this kind of force.

That's why anarchy is not viable in the real world, and if Libertarianism does lean too close to anarchy, it is likewise inviable.

Unrestrained government is tyranny, correct. You missed something, though. The idea of putting checks and balances into place to prevent state tyranny was already tried, and failed. You can't make government put a check on government. The idea itself, at the time, may have seemed like one worth working towards. You have to understand, this idea, and the system itself, already started dying (even when most of the Anti-Federalist founding fathers were still around) shortly after its inception. They believed that a limited government was the answer to the tyranny problem. The inherent flaw with that is that government by its very nature, isn't designed to protect life, liberty, and property, although it was believed to be. Government is an inherently coercive institution. It goes about solving economic problems by stealing (taxation) and spending (inflation, to the point where government gets the power to make money out of thin air, thus de-valuing said currency). When government tries to solve an economic problem, it does more harm than it does any good. For instance, welfare. This system was designed with the intention to help the poor get back on their feet, am I correct? Then why is welfare becoming a way of life, rather than a boost to help someone out of poverty? Here's the explanation. When government takes from A to satisfy B, it makes B not want to work to satisfy itself. Why go get a job when you can get a check from the government every so often?

 

Government regulation of commerce is bad by its very definition.

 

And to counter your point about anarchy not working in reality: http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18

 

And to you claim that anarchism is just a bunch of scattered about individual free riders hiding in caves and bunkers. Take a look at the War on Terror. How is it that 6 years of fighting nothing but people hiding in caves and bunkers are still standing against this force? It's called insurgency, you can't control what you don't occupy, whether it be Tora Bora or the next bedroom in the adjacent apartment building. A centralized means of force is a rather irrational response to a bunch of commoners with guns, who don't like you.

Just because a society is in anarchy, doesn't mean it prevents people from being joiners. Nothing stops you from joining an effort to defend your turf against an enemy occupation. How do you think America came around? When the Continental Army were getting their asses kicked, we started using instances of guerilla fighting. It proved to be quite effective and an obstacle to the British.


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kalnik wrote: Unrestrained

Kalnik wrote:

Unrestrained government is tyranny, correct. You missed something, though. The idea of putting checks and balances into place to prevent state tyranny was already tried, and failed. You can't make government put a check on government. The idea itself, at the time, may have seemed like one worth working towards. You have to understand, this idea, and the system itself, already started dying (even when most of the Anti-Federalist founding fathers were still around) shortly after its inception. They believed that a limited government was the answer to the tyranny problem. The inherent flaw with that is that government by its very nature, isn't designed to protect life, liberty, and property, although it was believed to be. Government is an inherently coercive institution. It goes about solving economic problems by stealing (taxation) and spending (inflation, to the point where government gets the power to make money out of thin air, thus de-valuing said currency). When government tries to solve an economic problem, it does more harm than it does any good. For instance, welfare. This system was designed with the intention to help the poor get back on their feet, am I correct? Then why is welfare becoming a way of life, rather than a boost to help someone out of poverty? Here's the explanation. When government takes from A to satisfy B, it makes B not want to work to satisfy itself. Why go get a job when you can get a check from the government every so often?

Government regulation of commerce is bad by its very definition.

And to counter your point about anarchy not working in reality: http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18

And to you claim that anarchism is just a bunch of scattered about individual free riders hiding in caves and bunkers. Take a look at the War on Terror. How is it that 6 years of fighting nothing but people hiding in caves and bunkers are still standing against this force? It's called insurgency, you can't control what you don't occupy, whether it be Tora Bora or the next bedroom in the adjacent apartment building. A centralized means of force is a rather irrational response to a bunch of commoners with guns, who don't like you.

Just because a society is in anarchy, doesn't mean it prevents people from being joiners. Nothing stops you from joining an effort to defend your turf against an enemy occupation. How do you think America came around? When the Continental Army were getting their asses kicked, we started using instances of guerilla fighting. It proved to be quite effective and an obstacle to the British.

Government with built in restraints and checks and balances has failed how?

I, and most people I know, and most people living in cultures which have based their systems largely upon the principles encoded in the U.S. constitution - which includes all modern democratic states, as far as I know - enjoy lives that are better in almost every conceivable way than the lives lived by 99.9999 etc.  per cent of all humans who have ever lived.

Government regulation of commerce is not "a bad idea by its very definition" - back up your claim with some evidence.

Safety standards enforced by law have prevented many deaths and injuries that would otherwise have resulted from the low value that capitalism puts on the lives and safety of humans as compared to the goal of increasing profits.

I have seen this first-hand, working with producers of dangerous chemicals whose drive to cut costs regularly had to be constrained by inspection and enforcement of government regulations. But there is plenty of evidence regarding the unsafe conditions that workers faced in the days before government safety regulations.

I agree that welfare as it exists is a poor solution to helping potentially valuable contributors to society get through tough times. But the answer is reform, not that our society should abandon all such efforts. I have no problem with my taxes going to support such efforts, though I'd like to see a better implementation of them.

I also have no problem with taxes that provide for the military defense against foreign attack, or for providing public education for all so that all may have the opportunity to develop into productive contributing citizens.

Neither I nor anyone I know feels any temptation to quit working so that we can receive a welfare check - your objection there might have validity in a purely socialist or communist state, but I've already said I oppose those extremes as well.

Your arguments against the political and military weakness of a territory in anarchy don't stand up - the insurgents in Iraq are not banding together in militias to defend their lives and property in an anarchistic environment, they are joined by ethnic and religious affilitations which are certainly not anarchic in nature.

The effectiveness of guerilla warfare is not an argument for anarchy; it is practiced wherever a smaller, less well-armed group has to fight a larger and better armed one.

Your point about the colonists is just silly, since the revolutionary war was not fought by anarchists, and BTW most historians agree we'd have had no chance in that war without the military and financial support of France.

Now let's look at your list of successful anarchies.  Seven examples, presumably the best that this pro-anarchy site could think of.

I said it has not been sustainable, so we can dismiss the last five entries, since the longest lifespan among them is 23 years or less.

I said anarchy can exist in thinly-populated regions of extreme geographical isolation, like Iceland was during the years specified (no area capable of supporting a significant human population at all is truly geographically remote with modern technology).

So we are left with the claim that Ireland was an anarchy - for a thousand years!

This would come as great surprise to the chieftains and kings who ruled in Ireland during this period, and even more so to the  people who paid them taxes and fought in their wars. Here's a link to some actual history as opposed to vague and misleading claims, in case you're interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/plantation/ireland_before/ib01.shtml

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
chaospump

chaospump wrote:

Government with built in restraints and checks and balances has failed how?

If this is not painfully obvious to you by just looking at the US Government and comparing it to the Consitution, you're oblivious.

Quote:
I, and most people I know, and most people living in cultures which have based their systems largely upon the principles encoded in the U.S. constitution - which includes all modern democratic states, as far as I know - enjoy lives that are better in almost every conceivable way than the lives lived by 99.9999 etc. per cent of all humans who have ever lived.

Not because of government. Because of the market. The government does not invent, create, or produce, the market does. The government spends all it's time trying to regulate, stop, impede, or otherwise loot the market.

Quote:
Government regulation of commerce is not "a bad idea by its very definition" - back up your claim with some evidence.

Read "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises for a good explanation.

Quote:
Safety standards enforced by law have prevented many deaths and injuries that would otherwise have resulted from the low value that capitalism puts on the lives and safety of humans as compared to the goal of increasing profits.

If these safety standards were unwanted, then the laws have been wasteful. Reality is, things like seatbelts and airbags were in cars before they were mandated by law. It is impossible to make anything 100% safe, the operator has to take some responsibility for that.

Quote:
I have seen this first-hand, working with producers of dangerous chemicals whose drive to cut costs regularly had to be constrained by inspection and enforcement of government regulations. But there is plenty of evidence regarding the unsafe conditions that workers faced in the days before government safety regulations.

Some people would rather have higher pay than a safer workplace; you are not involved in that decision so you are not to make that decision for anyone else.

Quote:
I agree that welfare as it exists is a poor solution to helping potentially valuable contributors to society get through tough times. But the answer is reform, not that our society should abandon all such efforts. I have no problem with my taxes going to support such efforts, though I'd like to see a better implementation of them.

They very principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong, no matter how much a bureaucrat thinks Paul needs the money more.

Quote:
I also have no problem with taxes that provide for the military defense against foreign attack, or for providing public education for all so that all may have the opportunity to develop into productive contributing citizens.

Great. Just don't make me pay for those things and we're cool.

Quote:
Neither I nor anyone I know feels any temptation to quit working so that we can receive a welfare check - your objection there might have validity in a purely socialist or communist state, but I've already said I oppose those extremes as well.

People tend not to quit working to recieve a welfare check, but a welfare check is certainly disincentive for going out and getting another job. The disincentive to work is still present. It's hard to put yourself in the situation without being in the situation.

Quote:
Your arguments against the political and military weakness of a territory in anarchy don't stand up - the insurgents in Iraq are not banding together in militias to defend their lives and property in an anarchistic environment, they are joined by ethnic and religious affilitations which are certainly not anarchic in nature.

Which is not by any means a good example for how things would work in the West where people are sane. Government has certainly not stopped the problems in Iraq, and has actually amplified them.

Quote:
The effectiveness of guerilla warfare is not an argument for anarchy; it is practiced wherever a smaller, less well-armed group has to fight a larger and better armed one.

Such as is used to rebut the common objection of private armies.

Quote:
Your point about the colonists is just silly, since the revolutionary war was not fought by anarchists, and BTW most historians agree we'd have had no chance in that war without the military and financial support of France.

The war was fought over the principle of liberty, the same principle that is why me and Kalnik are anarchists. And yes, France was pivotal, but it's not necessarily true that a government was necessary in France either. I imagine any large number of people angered by Britan as France was would have offered support for anyone who opposed Britan.

Quote:
I said anarchy can exist in thinly-populated regions of extreme geographical isolation, like Iceland was during the years specified (no area capable of supporting a significant human population at all is truly geographically remote with modern technology).

Why won't it work anywhere else?

I personally think seasteads or other kinds of dynamic geography are the best chance for it to work, then you can have unlimited population density without government. 

Quote:
So we are left with the claim that Ireland was an anarchy - for a thousand years!

This would come as great surprise to the chieftains and kings who ruled in Ireland during this period, and even more so to the people who paid them taxes and fought in their wars. Here's a link to some actual history as opposed to vague and misleading claims, in case you're interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/plantation/ireland_before/ib01.shtml

The main claim is that of a stateless system of justice, not that Ireland was really anarchy. In fact, the site doesn't even use the word anarchy in the Celtic Ireland section, and says immediately prior that examples exist "more or less" because anarchy is a theoretical model. Here's what it actually says:

Quote:
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice."


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
The evidence I put forth

The evidence I put forth says enough.  Most of these societies have exhibited many traits of a society based on liberty. 

 The example shown with Celtic Ireland was an example that shows a significant peice of a model for the closest thing to anarcho-capitalism.  

America showed the closest thing to a Libertarian society at its beginning.  It already started dying by the time the Federalists were favoring things such as nationalized banking systems, centralized planning for roads, canals, etc.   


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

chaospump wrote:

As the replies to my post show, Libertarians themselves are wildly inconsistent in how they expect it to work and why.

 Asserting is does not make it so. I'm waiting for you to do something other than assert.

The notion that the market, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

Quote:
The Enron disaster was a direct result of the de-regulation of the industry and the removal of controls against abuse of power.

 And it happened in a quasi-socialistic society. So, I'm wondering how you can pin such abuses on libertarianism when they are manifest in pretty much ALL systems? 

We don't have a libertine system in the US, yet there is Ken Lay and rampant abuse. What gives. Why did our current system FAIL?

Perhaps we can simply chalk it up to the fact that there will ALWAYS be criminals and less than scrupulous people. We can recogize this and then REFRAIN from punishing law abiding people because of the abuses of the minority. Wouldn't that be a novel idea? 

Quote:
If not for legislation and treaties, the environment (for one example) would be significantly more screwed than it already is, because of the short-term nature of the profit-motivated approach - as history clearly shows - is insensitive to such long-term issues.

 Bullshit. I can point to the logging and paper industry as a prime example. There is more lumber in the US NOW than there was 100 years ago. Same for industries like fisheries and what not - they routinely work under quotas in order to conserve wild stocks; it simply makes practical business sense. You cannot run a paper mill without trees, you cannot sell tuna without tuna. In already industrialized nations this is the case. In developing nations, well they're simply doing what nations like the US did 200 years ago - what right do we have to tell them "NO"? Unless you're willing to pay for the modernization of the entire world, you need to STFU.

Quote:
If you read the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Madison, etc., and follow how our government was established, you'll see that the framers of the constitution were seeking a middle ground between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy - they did a pretty good job of it, too.

 I agree.

Quote:
I would have a hard time voting for a view that seems to favor throwing out the carefully navigated middle path in exchange for an extremist approach, whether that view is Libertarian or Communistic.

 Reread what the founders wrote. I'm sure my views are not so extreme as you claim in their eyes. If we retorted to simply a strictly Constitutional form of governance, I could probably be perfectly happy with that - it would be minimalist and greatly in tune with my views.

Quote:
I, and most people, think that Libertarianism leans too far toward anarchy to be practical, and is based on a fundamental misconception of human nature - as it currently stands.

 IOW, you have no idea what I adnocate. Libetine =/ anarchy. 

Quote:
Without government, I suspect the Libertarians, who like to consider themselves tough rugged individualists, would be the first to be washed under beneath a tide of violence generated by ideologues able to bring together followers en masse to enforce their views - for a little while, until other more unified cultures came in to take whatever they wanted from the Hatfields and McCoys stupidly taking potshots at each other.

 I won't dignify that with a response. Your predjudice and utter ignorance of my position is evident. Strawman away if it makes you feel better.

 

Quote:
Of course, this is all moot anyway.

Voting Libertarian - at the national level - is throwing your vote away, and ends up being one less vote for the actually electable candidate who would really be the lesser of the two available evils.

Right, because arguing out of principle or to generate pardigm sifts is for suckers. I guess we'll knock that Blasphemy Challenge thing off post haste. Sigh. 

Quote:
In fact, I do think the country has moved too far in the other direction in many ways since its founding, and could use some nudges in the Libertarian direction, but Libertarianism as a fundamental ideology seems inviable to me - and to the vast majority of people living in democratic nations.

How can you say that when you are so clearly clueless on what the position actually is? For fucks sake, you equate the position with anarchy - you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 

Quote:
Perhaps it might make sense to vote Libertarian in local elections, and see whether it can be shaped into a coherent and consistent practical approach in the real world.

It already IS a coherent and practical approach. You simply choose to construct a strawman of the actual position then try to tear it down. 

Quote:
But to vote Libertarian at the national level seems like a stupid and futile gesture which, in practice, supports whichever candidate you see as the greater of the two available evils.

And this is exactly why YOU are part of the problem. 

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.


politicalhumanist
politicalhumanist's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Voting is useless. Stop

Voting is useless. Stop fooling yourselves. Smiling


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: People tend not to

Quote:
People tend not to quit working to recieve a welfare check, but a welfare check is certainly disincentive for going out and getting another job. The disincentive to work is still present. It's hard to put yourself in the situation without being in the situation.

Hmm...
Quote:

Many studies show that welfare recipients find welfare degrading and demoralizing, and greatly prefer the chance to work.  In fact, in March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view" that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work.


"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:

qbg wrote:
Quote:
People tend not to quit working to recieve a welfare check, but a welfare check is certainly disincentive for going out and getting another job. The disincentive to work is still present. It's hard to put yourself in the situation without being in the situation.

Hmm...
Quote:

Many studies show that welfare recipients find welfare degrading and demoralizing, and greatly prefer the chance to work. In fact, in March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view" that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work.


This is from 1987, you idiot.  Get up to date, and stop getting information from the government. 

The General Accounting Office is an arm of the government. You can't go up to government and ask "Hey, does welfare create an incentive not to work?" and expect to get an answer that incriminates the government itself. "Research does not support the view that welfare sigificantly reduces the incentive to work" is a bland statement. I wouldn't trust studies done by the government, they often skew the report at the last minute to keep a program alive. I don't see anyone in the bureaucratic land of the General Accounting Office that wants to get rid of welfare.


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
chaospump wrote:

As the replies to my post show, Libertarians themselves are wildly inconsistent in how they expect it to work and why.

 Asserting is does not make it so. I'm waiting for you to do something other than assert.

The notion that the market, if left completely unrestrained, would somehow prevent abuse of power seems utterly naive to me.

Quote:
The Enron disaster was a direct result of the de-regulation of the industry and the removal of controls against abuse of power.

 And it happened in a quasi-socialistic society. So, I'm wondering how you can pin such abuses on libertarianism when they are manifest in pretty much ALL systems? 

We don't have a libertine system in the US, yet there is Ken Lay and rampant abuse. What gives. Why did our current system FAIL?

Perhaps we can simply chalk it up to the fact that there will ALWAYS be criminals and less than scrupulous people. We can recogize this and then REFRAIN from punishing law abiding people because of the abuses of the minority. Wouldn't that be a novel idea? 

Quote:
If not for legislation and treaties, the environment (for one example) would be significantly more screwed than it already is, because of the short-term nature of the profit-motivated approach - as history clearly shows - is insensitive to such long-term issues.

 Bullshit. I can point to the logging and paper industry as a prime example. There is more lumber in the US NOW than there was 100 years ago. Same for industries like fisheries and what not - they routinely work under quotas in order to conserve wild stocks; it simply makes practical business sense. You cannot run a paper mill without trees, you cannot sell tuna without tuna. In already industrialized nations this is the case. In developing nations, well they're simply doing what nations like the US did 200 years ago - what right do we have to tell them "NO"? Unless you're willing to pay for the modernization of the entire world, you need to STFU.

Quote:
If you read the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Madison, etc., and follow how our government was established, you'll see that the framers of the constitution were seeking a middle ground between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy - they did a pretty good job of it, too.

 I agree.

Quote:
I would have a hard time voting for a view that seems to favor throwing out the carefully navigated middle path in exchange for an extremist approach, whether that view is Libertarian or Communistic.

 Reread what the founders wrote. I'm sure my views are not so extreme as you claim in their eyes. If we retorted to simply a strictly Constitutional form of governance, I could probably be perfectly happy with that - it would be minimalist and greatly in tune with my views.

Quote:
I, and most people, think that Libertarianism leans too far toward anarchy to be practical, and is based on a fundamental misconception of human nature - as it currently stands.

 IOW, you have no idea what I adnocate. Libetine =/ anarchy. 

Quote:
Without government, I suspect the Libertarians, who like to consider themselves tough rugged individualists, would be the first to be washed under beneath a tide of violence generated by ideologues able to bring together followers en masse to enforce their views - for a little while, until other more unified cultures came in to take whatever they wanted from the Hatfields and McCoys stupidly taking potshots at each other.

 I won't dignify that with a response. Your predjudice and utter ignorance of my position is evident. Strawman away if it makes you feel better.

 

Quote:
Of course, this is all moot anyway.

Voting Libertarian - at the national level - is throwing your vote away, and ends up being one less vote for the actually electable candidate who would really be the lesser of the two available evils.

Right, because arguing out of principle or to generate pardigm sifts is for suckers. I guess we'll knock that Blasphemy Challenge thing off post haste. Sigh. 

Quote:
In fact, I do think the country has moved too far in the other direction in many ways since its founding, and could use some nudges in the Libertarian direction, but Libertarianism as a fundamental ideology seems inviable to me - and to the vast majority of people living in democratic nations.

How can you say that when you are so clearly clueless on what the position actually is? For fucks sake, you equate the position with anarchy - you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 

Quote:
Perhaps it might make sense to vote Libertarian in local elections, and see whether it can be shaped into a coherent and consistent practical approach in the real world.

It already IS a coherent and practical approach. You simply choose to construct a strawman of the actual position then try to tear it down. 

Quote:
But to vote Libertarian at the national level seems like a stupid and futile gesture which, in practice, supports whichever candidate you see as the greater of the two available evils.

And this is exactly why YOU are part of the problem. 

Anyone who responds to a post about Libertarianism here can expect to be inundated by the anarchist contingent; maybe you should step up and clarify how Libertarianism differs from anarchism, and why.

I've already conceded that insofar as Libertarianism is not an effort to dismantle the constitution, I'm all for giving Libertarians a chance to prove themselves at the local level, if they stand some chance of being elected or at least getting a significant enough portion of the vote to make some impression.

I don't see how my statement of the simple and obvious fact that voting Libertarian at the national level amounts to de facto support of whichever electable candidate is actually the worst in your view makes me "part of the problem." Nor is your accusation to that effect a strong argument.

Also, calling everyone that disagrees with you an idiot and telling them to STFU are not strong or rational debate tactics, and not likely to convince any undecided readers that you have the stronger position.

 

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Y#5, I'd consider voting

Y#5,

I'd consider voting libertarian if Schansberg wasn't such a fundy asshat.

 

"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


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Anyone who responds to a

Anyone who responds to a post about Libertarianism here can expect to be inundated by the anarchist contingent; maybe you should step up and clarify how Libertarianism differs from anarchism, and why.

I've already conceded that insofar as Libertarianism is not an effort to dismantle the constitution, I'm all for giving Libertarians a chance to prove themselves at the local level, if they stand some chance of being elected or at least getting a significant enough portion of the vote to make some impression.

I don't see how my statement of the simple and obvious fact that voting Libertarian at the national level amounts to de facto support of whichever electable candidate is actually the worst in your view makes me "part of the problem." Nor is your accusation to that effect a strong argument.

Also, calling everyone that disagrees with you an idiot and telling them to STFU are not strong or rational debate tactics, and not likely to convince any undecided readers that you have the stronger position.

 

Libertarianism differs from anarchism in the fact that Libertarianism generally calls for government to exist for only three reasons: the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Anarchism is statelessness, pure and absolute. From the particular anarcho-capitalist point of view. Government shouldn't exist at all, because even in its desired Libertarian model in which the Anti-Federalist founding fathers were advocating, history since that time has proven that government is not able to do even that, protect life, liberty, and property. Ultimately what it does is it results with the violation of these three things, by government. Government by its very nature isn't designed to protect anyone, fund anyone, or provide for anyone, but itself. Any efforts by government to help the poor or regulate an economy have ended with perverse results of what were originally intended.

Government needs money to surivive. If government tried to ask people for money by voluntary mutual consent, it would not get its desired result; the result being it getting money from everyone. So since it knows it won't be able to achieve its desired goal, it forcefully coerces money from people through a process called "taxation." Taxes are involuntary. If you don't pay them, you are threatened with jail and possibly, if you resist long enough, you risk getting shot.

Libertarianism does differ from anarchism.  Both of these worldviews are very close to eachother. Each of them recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society.


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kalnik

Kalnik wrote:
Libertarianism differs from anarchism in the fact that Libertarianism generally calls for government to exist for only three reasons: the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Anarchism is statelessness, pure and absolute. From the particular anarcho-capitalist point of view. Government shouldn't exist at all, because even in its desired Libertarian model in which the Anti-Federalist founding fathers were advocating, history since that time has proven that government is not able to do even that, protect life, liberty, and property. Ultimately what it does is it results with the violation of these three things, by government. Government by its very nature isn't designed to protect anyone, fund anyone, or provide for anyone, but itself. Any efforts by government to help the poor or regulate an economy have ended with perverse results of what were originally intended.

Government needs money to surivive. If government tried to ask people for money by voluntary mutual consent, it would not get its desired result; the result being it getting money from everyone. So since it knows it won't be able to achieve its desired goal, it forcefully coerces money from people through a process called "taxation." Taxes are involuntary. If you don't pay them, you are threatened with jail and possibly, if you resist long enough, you risk getting shot.

Libertarianism does differ from anarchism.  Both of these worldviews are very close to eachother. Each of them recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society.

I'd like to see the distinction clarified by YN5, but let's examine your response.

If Libertarians believe that a government is necessary to protect "life, liberty and property" then it cannot be true that they "recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society."

Clearly they recognize some other threat or threats so dire that some type of government is required to protect society from them.

So, despite any areas where I (as a proponent of the form of government established in the U.S. Constitution) might disagree with the Libertarian approach, in one sense, at least, we are philosophically closer to each other than you are to either.

We think of the state as a necessary evil, and only disagree about where in the spectrum between tyranny and anarchy societies' governing mechanisms should reasonably be established.

You, the anarchists, have so far completely failed to provide a reasonable answer to the simplest and most obvious objection to your proposed approach.

We all know that humans are subject to ideologies (rational or not), and that they will act en masse in support of those ideologies.

I asked before how atheists in an anarchist world would protect themselves from the vastly more numerous, and demonstrably violent and intolerant adherents of Christianity.

The answers I got were along the lines of "pretend you're a Christian " and "get a machine gun."

These are not serious responses. Do you have one?

The same question can be applied to how any minority can hope to protected from the tyranny of some more numerous and powerful group.

What makes you believe that in the absence of any state, you would not be swallowed up into some theocracy?

Or that petty warlords would not arise, consolidate local power, and expand, enforcing their own tyranny on conquered territory?

Finally, if you are less hostile to the Libertarian approach than any other but anarchy, why would you want to invade these Libertarian threads and undermine the efforts of the Libertarians to get a fair hearing and discussion?

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
chaospump wrote:

You should read the wikipedia article on anarcho-capitalism, it'll answer most of your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism 

chaospump wrote:
I'd like to see the distinction clarified by YN5, but let's examine your response.
As I understand it, YN5 essentially believes in a geographic monopoly on courts and law, with that being the extent of government, and with law enforcement, the military, the roads, et cetera all provided privately. I believe in polycentric law, he believes in monopoly law, and that's basically where we differ as far as I know and in the realm of how big the government should be. Libertarianism is an extremely diverse group, there's multiple levels of minarchists (the courts-only type, the courts-and-police type, the courts-and-military type, the courts-police-military type, the Orthodox Objectivists and Randroids), multiple flavors of anarchists (left-anarchism, right-anarchism, mutualism, some georgists, anarcho-capitalism, individualist-anarchism, agorism), and uncounted numbers of "small government" flavors. Getting libertarians to agree on something is like herding cats, so when you ask such a question to 10 libertarians, you'll get 10 different answers.
Quote:
If Libertarians believe that a government is necessary to protect "life, liberty and property" then it cannot be true that they "recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society." Clearly they recognize some other threat or threats so dire that some type of government is required to protect society from them.
No. The state is the biggest *single* threat to society. It's seen by libertarians as a tool to deal with the more numerous threats of more normal, non-government crime, and in the libertarian ideal, the protection of rights afforded by government makes giving some freedom up to have a government worth it.
Quote:
So, despite any areas where I (as a proponent of the form of government established in the U.S. Constitution) might disagree with the Libertarian approach, in one sense, at least, we are philosophically closer to each other than you are to either.
It's more the logic which got us (libertarians/anarchocapitalists) to our conclusions which is similar, not the extent of it. And when compared to the particular brand of libertarianism I understand YN5 believes in, libertarians an anarchocapitalists have more in common than libertarians and constitutionalists.
Quote:
We think of the state as a necessary evil, and only disagree about where in the spectrum between tyranny and anarchy societies' governing mechanisms should reasonably be established.
Whereas we anarchocapitalists think of the state as an unnecessar evil, and believe that everything the government does which people want can be done privately without government, including the police, roads and military. YN5 believes in government courts (and I can understand why), if I'm correct then that's all that separates him from us.
Quote:
You, the anarchists, have so far completely failed to provide a reasonable answer to the simplest and most obvious objection to your proposed approach. We all know that humans are subject to ideologies (rational or not), and that they will act en masse in support of those ideologies. I asked before how atheists in an anarchist world would protect themselves from the vastly more numerous, and demonstrably violent and intolerant adherents of Christianity. The answers I got were along the lines of "pretend you're a Christian " and "get a machine gun." These are not serious responses. Do you have one?
Yes. Although I think the other two would be effective, I think I have one that'll satisfy you. What presumably protects us today is the police. I don't believe that if the police suddenly ceased to exist people would suddenly start killing each other, and you vastly overestimate how dogmatic and stupid Christians can be in any kind of numbers. But let's assume that what protects atheists from rampaging Christian death squads is the police. A patrol or two a day in a neighborhood and a response time of 15 minutes or more is somehow sufficient to stop mass killings. Let's go with that. People demand protection. There is a market for it. People will pay money for it. If the government did not provide police free of charge, security agencies would appear which would protect you from things like that. So you'd still have roving patrol cars and cops on the street, although unlike current cops whose job is "Law Enforcement" and not "Protection", they won't sit in the undercover car and watch you get mugged while they're staking out a drug bust (yes, this actually happened). I picture it happening on a subscription basis, i.e., for $120 a month, they'll send a patrol through your neighborhood, and if there's some kind of hostage situation or something, they'll come help you. Subscription or not, they'll probably send some guys out to help you if you call them, and they'll have an interest in keeping you safe and possibly getting you subscribed if they respond well, and they could probably use any help you'll give them to catch a repeat offender. Some think it'll be more of an insurance company type thing, and the insurance company will try to minimize it's losses by having patrols or something. I personally don't, but the idea could have more merit than I give it. It's one of those herding-cats issues.
Quote:
The same question can be applied to how any minority can hope to protected from the tyranny of some more numerous and powerful group.
But it brings up another question. The cops will protect you from homicidal nuts, but who do you call when the homicidal nuts are the cops? In anarchocapitalism, you would simply call in another group of cops (who would have the homicidal nuts kicked off because they're bad for business) from another company. Under government, such a redundant layer does not exist.
Quote:
What makes you believe that in the absence of any state, you would not be swallowed up into some theocracy?
Protection agencies, atheist gun nuts, disapproval of nontheocratic Christians.
Quote:
Or that petty warlords would not arise, consolidate local power, and expand, enforcing their own tyranny on conquered territory?
I believe petty warlords would be an improvement in conditions over the present system. At the very least, petty warlords do not have the time or patience to enforce stupid laws and economic regulations. They may extract taxes, but they will not be licensing your plumber, asking for approval before hooking up high-draw electric devices, prohibiting certain substances, and so forth. They have far better things to do. Governments do not. Don't misconstrue this as thinking we should be ruled by petty warlords, just consider that it does have some advantages over a formal government. I'm not denying the existance of disadvantages to warlords either. But the protection agencies would keep the petty warlords down. Since I see the objection coming that protection agencies would become the warlords, no, the other protection agencies wouldn't allow one protection agency to do that, and that it is far easier to get a voluntary payment from a mass market where people are throwing money at you than it is to extract a tax of equal amount from an equal number of people if your power is known to be limited, unlike under a government of effectively unlimited power, and who has the vast majority indoctorinated with the idea that the government is their rightful sovereign.
Quote:
Finally, if you are less hostile to the Libertarian approach than any other but anarchy, why would you want to invade these Libertarian threads and undermine the efforts of the Libertarians to get a fair hearing and discussion?
What we advocate is extreme libertarianism. And if Libertarianism is defined by it's intellectual leaders such as the nobel prize winning economist David Friedman, or Murray Rothbard, who carries on the tradition of Hayek and Mises, Libertarianism is a friendlier name for anarchism. Technically the word Libertarian changes in the minds of Libertarians according to it's capitalization. What's called "Big-L" Libertarianism is essentially anarcho-capitalism. "little-l" libertarianism is not.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Thank you Zhwazi for your

Thank you Zhwazi for your input. I've been following this for a bit, to see where it will go.

Jared Diamond doesn't have a clue.

Let's not confuse libertine with libertarian. They are not the same.

Webster's gives us for libertine...
1 usually disparaging : a freethinker especially in religious matters
2 : a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality; specifically : one leading a dissolute life

A libertarian however...
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

Built into that definition is personal responsibility. If you have the liberty to annoy me I have the liberty to retaliate, and so on. 

As I'm reading along what I gather from those opposed to libertarianism is that they equate it with anarchy, it is not. With anarchy comes disrespect and a disregard for all others. Unlike the libertine whom acts without a set of morals the libertarian sets for them self a standard. Sure for one person the standard might be low. But for most it will not be. It's akin to the ability for an atheist to be forgiven. If I've wronged someone I can ask only for their forgiveness and hope to make amends. Theists often claim that without god belief we will just run amok, we know that isn't true. The idea that we'll all become criminals in the absence of strict laws is equally nonsense. The libertarian realizes that others will react to their actions.

Voting for what you don't want is a wasted vote. And as for not voting at all, if done correctly is not a wasted vote either. In most places the number of voters that turn out at the polls are tabulated separately from the votes cast. You can go in, give your name, go to the booth, cast no votes, and leave. It is the same as selecting none of the above.

A Libertarian Party is itself an oxymoron. A group of free-thinkers gathered together with one goal? Never. One, if not the largest hurdle for a successful Libertarian Party is the variety of thoughts and ideas of the members.

I've spent quite a lot of time looking at a truly free market versus any type of government intervention, the choice is clear for me.

A libertarian voting Republican is like an atheist going to church.

In my experience about 1/3 of those voting their first time for a Libertarian are former Democrats, 1/3 former Republicans, and 1/3 previous non-voters.

It's unlikely we'll see many Libertarian successes. This isn't due to the positions or candidates. It's mainly due to the difficulty in running for office and the expense involved. The Republicrats have made it virtually impossible to even get on the ballot as anything other than one of them. Until you've stood at a store front or post office collecting thousands of signatures, only to have the election board attempt to throw them all out, having attorneys battle to get you back on the ballot, you have no idea. Then there's no money left for campaigning. I collected 5007 signatures when I ran for State Rep., you cannot imagine how much work that is. I will never do that again.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


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

chaospump wrote:
Kalnik wrote:
Libertarianism differs from anarchism in the fact that Libertarianism generally calls for government to exist for only three reasons: the protection of life, liberty, and property.

 

Anarchism is statelessness, pure and absolute. From the particular anarcho-capitalist point of view. Government shouldn't exist at all, because even in its desired Libertarian model in which the Anti-Federalist founding fathers were advocating, history since that time has proven that government is not able to do even that, protect life, liberty, and property. Ultimately what it does is it results with the violation of these three things, by government. Government by its very nature isn't designed to protect anyone, fund anyone, or provide for anyone, but itself. Any efforts by government to help the poor or regulate an economy have ended with perverse results of what were originally intended.

Government needs money to surivive. If government tried to ask people for money by voluntary mutual consent, it would not get its desired result; the result being it getting money from everyone. So since it knows it won't be able to achieve its desired goal, it forcefully coerces money from people through a process called "taxation." Taxes are involuntary. If you don't pay them, you are threatened with jail and possibly, if you resist long enough, you risk getting shot.

Libertarianism does differ from anarchism. Both of these worldviews are very close to eachother. Each of them recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society.

I'd like to see the distinction clarified by YN5, but let's examine your response.

I do not disagree with Kalnik. Not sure why you need so much to argue with me, but I'll weigh in. I've been acquainted with the term "minarchist" and I kind of like it. I'm for only the goverment that is necessary - which IMO, isn't much government at all. Most things can be handled at the community or private enterprise level, I see little point for a federal government. I do however still support some governmental institutions like the courts - which should be supported by fines paid by transgressors whenever possible. 

 

Quote:
If Libertarians believe that a government is necessary to protect "life, liberty and property" then it cannot be true that they "recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society." Clearly they recognize some other threat or threats so dire that some type of government is required to protect society from them.

No, it means we understand the PURPOSE of the state and the government, and that we RECOGNIZE how it utterly FAILS to fullfill said purpose in most cases. Plain and simple.

The rest of your post was a rant and strawman I don't feel the need to comment on. 

 

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.


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: Thank

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Thank you Zhwazi for your input. I've been following this for a bit, to see where it will go.

Jared Diamond doesn't have a clue.

Let's not confuse libertine with libertarian. They are not the same.

Webster's gives us for libertine...
1 usually disparaging : a freethinker especially in religious matters
2 : a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality; specifically : one leading a dissolute life

A libertarian however...
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

Built into that definition is personal responsibility. If you have the liberty to annoy me I have the liberty to retaliate, and so on.

As I'm reading along what I gather from those opposed to libertarianism is that they equate it with anarchy, it is not. With anarchy comes disrespect and a disregard for all others. Unlike the libertine whom acts without a set of morals the libertarian sets for them self a standard. Sure for one person the standard might be low. But for most it will not be. It's akin to the ability for an atheist to be forgiven. If I've wronged someone I can ask only for their forgiveness and hope to make amends. Theists often claim that without god belief we will just run amok, we know that isn't true. The idea that we'll all become criminals in the absence of strict laws is equally nonsense. The libertarian realizes that others will react to their actions.

Voting for what you don't want is a wasted vote. And as for not voting at all, if done correctly is not a wasted vote either. In most places the number of voters that turn out at the polls are tabulated separately from the votes cast. You can go in, give your name, go to the booth, cast no votes, and leave. It is the same as selecting none of the above.

A Libertarian Party is itself an oxymoron. A group of free-thinkers gathered together with one goal? Never. One, if not the largest hurdle for a successful Libertarian Party is the variety of thoughts and ideas of the members.

I've spent quite a lot of time looking at a truly free market versus any type of government intervention, the choice is clear for me.

A libertarian voting Republican is like an atheist going to church.

In my experience about 1/3 of those voting their first time for a Libertarian are former Democrats, 1/3 former Republicans, and 1/3 previous non-voters.

It's unlikely we'll see many Libertarian successes. This isn't due to the positions or candidates. It's mainly due to the difficulty in running for office and the expense involved. The Republicrats have made it virtually impossible to even get on the ballot as anything other than one of them. Until you've stood at a store front or post office collecting thousands of signatures, only to have the election board attempt to throw them all out, having attorneys battle to get you back on the ballot, you have no idea. Then there's no money left for campaigning. I collected 5007 signatures when I ran for State Rep., you cannot imagine how much work that is. I will never do that again.

 I generally agree with this post, and I usually don't debate with minarchist, as they usually hold many of the same views that I do, so I feel more content around them.  But I want to clear up a misconception here.  

Anarchism is not a absence of morals.  It is an absence of authority.  You can still have morals in a free society.  Anarchism just defines the society, not the morals on the people within the society.  In fact, anarchism just provides the opportunity to have whatever morals you want to have, so long as they don't get forced on others. 

 


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
chaospump wrote:
Kalnik wrote:
Libertarianism differs from anarchism in the fact that Libertarianism generally calls for government to exist for only three reasons: the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Anarchism is statelessness, pure and absolute. From the particular anarcho-capitalist point of view. Government shouldn't exist at all, because even in its desired Libertarian model in which the Anti-Federalist founding fathers were advocating, history since that time has proven that government is not able to do even that, protect life, liberty, and property. Ultimately what it does is it results with the violation of these three things, by government. Government by its very nature isn't designed to protect anyone, fund anyone, or provide for anyone, but itself. Any efforts by government to help the poor or regulate an economy have ended with perverse results of what were originally intended.

Government needs money to surivive. If government tried to ask people for money by voluntary mutual consent, it would not get its desired result; the result being it getting money from everyone. So since it knows it won't be able to achieve its desired goal, it forcefully coerces money from people through a process called "taxation." Taxes are involuntary. If you don't pay them, you are threatened with jail and possibly, if you resist long enough, you risk getting shot.

Libertarianism does differ from anarchism. Both of these worldviews are very close to eachother. Each of them recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society.

I'd like to see the distinction clarified by YN5, but let's examine your response.

I do not disagree with Kalnik. Not sure why you need so much to argue with me, but I'll weigh in. I've been acquainted with the term "minarchist" and I kind of like it. I'm for only the goverment that is necessary - which IMO, isn't much government at all. Most things can be handled at the community or private enterprise level, I see little point for a federal government. I do however still support some governmental institutions like the courts - which should be supported by fines paid by transgressors whenever possible. 

 

Quote:
If Libertarians believe that a government is necessary to protect "life, liberty and property" then it cannot be true that they "recognize the State as the biggest threat to a society." Clearly they recognize some other threat or threats so dire that some type of government is required to protect society from them.

No, it means we understand the PURPOSE of the state and the government, and that we RECOGNIZE how it utterly FAILS to fullfill said purpose in most cases. Plain and simple.

The rest of your post was a rant and strawman I don't feel the need to comment on. 

I have no need at all to argue with you. I was interested in trying to determine if there was something important and positive for me to learn about Libertarianism, and whether I was in fact identifying it too closely with Anarchism, and wanted to clear up the distinction between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

You are the one who said:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

How can you say that when you are so clearly clueless on what the position actually is? For fucks sake, you equate the position with anarchy - you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

You are as consistent as you are gracious.

The rest of that post was directed at the anarchist contingent, not at you.

I followed some of the links offered.

What I found was about what Eric said - minarchists generally can't agree even amongst themselves what they are really advocating.

Small wonder others have a difficult time understanding it.

I'm still waiting for any rational answer to why we should ignore the clear lessons of history.

People who have power tend to abuse it, whether that power comes from the state or the market or the church or wherever.

The claim that the free market itself controls abuses of power has been repeated ad nauseum, but never substantiated.

The constitution was a carefully considered attempt to (among other things) establish controls over those abuses of power deriving from the state, while keeping the state in place to control other possible abuses of power deriving from other sources.

It's not perfect, but I think it (and other similar constitutional democratic arrangements) works pretty well - in fact very well, compared to any other societal system that has managed any kind of sustained existence.

The two examples offered in the wiki entry on anarcho-capitalism - Medieval Iceland and, to a lesser degree the American Old West, are data points that fit perfectly on the curve predicted by Jared Diamond - stateless societies can exist insofar as they are sparsely populated and geographically inaccessible.

Of course, this kind of confirmation, and Diamond's painstaking research and Pulitzer-prize-winning writing can hold little weight against the thoughtful and well-supported rebuttals by minarchists here:

"...I could give a fuck what Diamond asserts.."

and

"Jared Diamond doesn't have a clue."

Liberty was what the American founders had most on their minds, and I include federalists like Madison and Hamilton in that category.

When the state seeks to legislate morality (prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc.), as it certainly does, or when the state abuses its power to tax and spend, as it certainly does, then I think we need to try to push back against those tendencies, as they run counter to the principles.

Insofar as the wildly varying minarchist viewpoints go, it is you making extraordinary claims - not about the abuses of the state , but about the viability of systems (or lack thereof) which have never been successfully sustained except in the rare (if not now totally nonexistent) conditions mentioned above - sparse population and geographic inaccessibility - and therefore it is you who need to provide extraordinary evidence that your claims are true or even reasonable.

What I see instead is a lot of unfounded assertions, and a lot of bile flung at anyone who dares to disagree with you.

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman