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.


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

chaospump wrote:

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

That's because the term minarchist is a general term, not a specific one.

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

Because we believe your interpretations of history are incorrect. I have dozens of arguements I've never had rebutted which are clear as day a reason why the State is a stupid idea. But by default, I am on the defensive, where I cannot possibly gain ground, because you refuse to defend yourself, where I can be on the offensive. A short example is:

1. It is wrong for people to hurt each other.

2. Government is made of people.

3. Therefore it is wrong for government to hurt people.

This kind of thing is never rebutted because it would seem to be the implicit understanding that until I can adequately defend against every single concievable objection to anarchism, irrational foundation or not, my attacks on the current system are not worth even adknowledging.

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

Power does not come from the market. Power comes from government.

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

A short time spent reading material from the Mises Institute would substantiate it ad nauseum. It is easily understood reason if you are open minded.

1. If someone gets fucked over, they don't go back to get fucked over again.

2. Competition, stifled by government, ensures that a harmful monopoly is impossible.

3. Violence is responded to with violence. Initiation of force is responded to with defensive force.

Exactly what market power you are talking about, I am unsure of. But these are rebuttals to the three most common objections to the market.

Quote:
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.

No it wasn't. It was a cleverly devised attempt to increase the power of the state to abuse power. Reading a disagreeing analysis of the Consitution would reveal a lot which you likely don't know.

The Consitutional Convention was called together for the purpose of seeing if the Articles of Confederation could be improved upon. Many of the State delegates who were sent soon discovered that they were not even considering a change to the Articles of Confederation and so immediately left. How many of the signers of the Constitution were from New York and Rhode Island? I'm not saying the Articles of Confederation were perfect. They did need to improve the Articles. But your assertion that the Constitution was supposed to preserve freedom is what is being discussed, so it's not much relevant.

Thomas Jefferson was sent to France as a delegate while the Constitution was considered. If he had been kept in America during this time, he would have made sure the Constitution was never ratified. Benjamin Franklin was holding the position at the time, and upon finding Jefferson was given that position, Franklin returned to the united States and found the Convention underway. When he read the Constitution, he didn't like it.

The legislatures and the People of the States never even voted on the Constitution. The Constitution would never have been accepted if it had. The Federalists understood this. So they added Article 7, allowing them to circumvent the Legislatures and the People, and stack the Constitutional Conventions in favor of the Constitution. Even then, the Constitution had to be amended to pass in some States, with a Bill of Rights, which wasn't originally there.

Then there's Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority". Spooner was a Constitutional lawyer. As he put it, in general principles of law and reason, a written document has no inherent authority except as a contract, and the Constitution was never signed as a contract. Even if it was, it was only signed by representatives, and could only have been made binding upon voters, who at the time, consisted of only wealthier white male adults of 21 and up. And if it were made binding upon everyone else anyways, it could only have been binding upon those who had come to disretion, it wouldn't be binding upon 9 year olds, for instance. It could not be said that the phraseing "We The People" formed the residents of America into a permanant corporation because a corporation does not refer to itself as "We", nor does a corporation have any "Posterity" to secure the blessings of liberty to. The only way a corporation can continue to exist is by voluntary cession of new members as the old ones die off, and there were only two possible ways the people could have joined such a corporation. By voting and paying taxes. Because taxes are compulsory upon all, taxes are not a show of support or cession. And because a man votes does not mean he chooses to support the government either. Even if it did, it couldn't be said that he supports the government for any term of years beyond that for which he votes. That a man is forced to pay taxes and sees that others have control over him by a the ballot, and then chooses to defend himself from these tyrants via ballot, does not show consent anymore than that a drafted soldier kills his enemies to prevent them from killing him is evidence that it is a battle of his own choosing. The whole idea is absurd.

So no. The Constitution was not written to prevent people from coming to power. It was written to expand government power over things it previously did not.

This is why I can't stand Consitutionalists.

Quote:
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 emphasis is on it's failures, not it's successes.

Quote:
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.

They can exist elsewhere too, if they were permitted to. No government is stupid enough to allow one to. Governments are not in the business of selling sovereignty, they are in the business of stealing it. No government nor anyone in government willingly parts with power.

Quote:
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."

Of course, the writing of such people as David Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist is ignored by you in a similar way, so it's only perfectly fair.

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

America had two sets of founding fathers. The Declaration signers and the Constitution signers. Only six names from the Declaration appear also on the Constiution. The signers were almost entirely different groups of people with very little overlap between them. The goals of these two distinct sets cannot be said to be identical unless you can prove that they are, and you cannot prove that.

Quote:
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.

Incorrect. When the state seeks to legislate at all, or tax at all, then I think we need to push back. That you approve of the particular law or the end that the taxes are paid toward does not make them moral, just, necessary, or even practical. Taxation is still theft, legislation is still slavery, war is still murder.

Quote:
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.

Interestingly it is not equally your job to defend the inherent absurdities involved in a government in a first place, but it is the task of political theorists to provide real world models with perfectly emulate their theories. Government doesn't even stand up to the test of reason, it's successes in practice are testament to people's ability to thrive despite imposition of stupidity.

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

What I see from you is a lot of self-righteousness.


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:
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.

Well, not that I'm an anarchist, but you've really done very little to argue against the actual anarchist position other than strawman it. Honestly, anarchism is the ideal - a sitiuation where people have provided for themselves and integrated themselves to the point where they need no external support as any support which would be required is already in place. Like I said, it's an ideal, I'm still willing to settle for a middle ground. You do need to stop equating anarchism with lawlessness and chaos though - that is quite simply not how the more erudite of the advocates present it or envision things like anachro-capitalism or anachro-communism.


Quote:
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.

I rarely, yet occasionally do lose my temper. If I did so with you and you feel you need an apolgy, I offer it.

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.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
It's safe to compare

It's safe to compare libertarianism to anarchism, they are close.

Under libertarianism, if you take away a governing body's ability to protect the innocent and sovereignty you are left with anarchy.

 If you're curious and haven't done this already...

Visit theadvocates.org, take the very basic quiz, it's a good quiz because it's small. But it's bad because it's small, if that makes any sense. It's great for a quick idea. But it's a big world out there and more details would be good.

Then there's okcupid.com. It's a dating site, but they have these compatibility tests, one being political. (and why not try the gay-dar test too, it's probably more difficult than you think)

Of course neither of these proves anything. But it is a curious thing to look at, and can make one think.

I've seen similar bible quizes on the net, those are a blast too. 

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.


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

Eric Ferguson wrote:

It's safe to compare libertarianism to anarchism, they are close.

Under libertarianism, if you take away a governing body's ability to protect the innocent and sovereignty you are left with anarchy.

One way to think of anarchocapitalism is to think of competition in the field of government. A "free market government" if the contradiction in terms doesn't bug you too much. No geographic monopolies on it. But there would still be people doing many of the same things. There would still be protection similar to police, because people want it. There would still be courts, because people want them. It's just that they'd be provided by the market and not a geographic monopoly.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
In a way it is the how the

In a way it is the how the United States was intended to be.

The government is supposed to be by, of, and for the people. The minimalist government would be involved in so few things that the rest would be driven by a truly free market. Specific authority is granted to government and the people would retain the right and ability to replace or repeal that authority is they so choose, almost your free market government as you put it.

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.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: In a

Eric Ferguson wrote:

In a way it is the how the United States was intended to be.

The government is supposed to be by, of, and for the people. The minimalist government would be involved in so few things that the rest would be driven by a truly free market. Specific authority is granted to government and the people would retain the right and ability to replace or repeal that authority is they so choose, almost your free market government as you put it.

I can think of one small change from the original United States that would have made it a free market government. If the right to secession was available not only to States, but to the people individually (while not explicitly denied either, and thus presumed under 9th and 10th Amendments, it wasn't granted by the States), then it could be considered a free-market government because all government interaction would be purely by choice. But as I've already refuted the authority of the Constitution to form a country in the first place, it's not really that relevant.

What separates a government from a business is it's geographical monopoly, and it's supposed right to use force to have it's way. These two are interdependant. Stripped of either one of these, you have a business.

The original US government still had a geographic monopoly because it still had the "right" to use force to have it's way. As these violate libertarian principles of nonaggression, a consistent libertarian can't support them. Individual right to secession would eliminate the geographic monopoly and remove oneself from the region in which the government could "rightfully" use force.

 So unless tolerance of the individual right to secession was originally intended to be part of the United States policy, it would be incorrect to say that that's how it was intended to be.

Markets operate individualistically. A collective right to alter or abolish or replace the government would do little good for the individual, and would not make it a free market government.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
As laid out in the

As laid out in the Constitution the right of the government to use force is only against a foreign foe. That is not contrary to libertarianism. Police powers were specifically reserved for States to decide upon. Most State Constitutions do not have a provision for a State police force. Policing should actually be private. States have no right of secession. The people alone retain the right to replace the government. Replacing the government, not only those in position but the entire structure is available to the people.

What has happened is the government created a class of people titled United States Citizens. We the people establish the government, that is government under the people. The government in turn established citizens, that is people under the government. No one is supposed to be a U.S. Citizen. Residents of the U.S. are supposed to be U.S. Nationals. Citizens have no rights.

A free market is any in which it may operate without any government interference. Government's existence does not make the market not free. Constitutionally government cannot interfere with the market in any way.

We have government instead of anarchy for some basic reasons, there's things government can do for us. A black market is a true free market. The only way to settle disputes in a black market is through violence. Disputes in a free market need a vehicle for resolution if we're to avoid violence. This is where government can be beneficial. It's things like this that make libertarians different than anarchists.

Have you ever attended or listened to a Badnarik Constitution class? They're very informative.

Constitutional law is a unique thing. Federal laws are statutes, they must be within the boundaries of the Constitution. And due process of law says that a statute means only and exactly what it says. If it doesn't say something it doesn't mean or imply it in any way, the opposite can be assumed to be true. Unless government is specifically awarded some power it does not have it. The war on drugs is a prime example. Alcohol prohibition required an amendment to enact and one to repeal, the drug war just “happened.” This also means that since the Constitution is a minimalist document there are few rights guaranteed in it. For example, nobody has the right to vote. Nowhere will you find a right to vote awarded in the Constitution. It says that any right to vote you may have cannot be forbidden by certain circumstances. The right to vote begins at the State level and moves down. That might frighten some people at first, but it's by design. The Constitution's authors specifically wanted as little involvement in people's lives as possible. No FCC, DEA, EPA, USDA, Homeland Stupidity, FBI, HUD, Social Insecurity, and so on.

The postal system actually predates the Constitution, which doesn't forbid it. But it's not supposed be part of the government, accounting for 12% of the GNP.

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.


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

Eric Ferguson wrote:

As laid out in the Constitution the right of the government to use force is only against a foreign foe. That is not contrary to libertarianism.

The Consitution doesn't speak of government having "rights", it speaks of government having "powers". The only time the word "Right" appears in the main body of the Consitution is in A1S8, where it uses the word in the context, "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

And the only methods available for a government to use force against a foreign foe are drafting, which is slavery, taxation, which is theft, or voluntary combatants, in which case government is unnecessary and redundant. 

Quote:
States have no right of secession.

Yes they do. Under the Articles of Confederation they didn't, it was explicitly forbidden. Under the Constitution, it isn't forbidden, and under the 9th and 10th Amendments it must be assumed that they have that right. 

Quote:

What has happened is the government created a class of people titled United States Citizens.

I've heard this routine before. My objection is that the Constitution was powerless to stop it from doing this, and today, I can't (to my knowledge) renounce my US Citizen status without them expecting me to leave their claimed territory. 

Quote:
A free market is any in which it may operate without any government interference. Government's existence does not make the market not free.

If the government claims a geographic monopoly and prohibits through violence any competition, then the market is not free. Such competition would be labelled "insurrection", "rebellion", "traitors", et cetera, and would be attacked physically. This is not a free market. 

Quote:
Constitutionally government cannot interfere with the market in any way.

Constitutionally is irrelevant because the only thing we use the Constitution for these days is the system of voting, and that's little more than prolefeed for the United States Citizen class.

Quote:
We have government instead of anarchy for some basic reasons, there's things government can do for us.

There is nothing government can do for us that markets cannot. Governments are nothing more than people, and because they are not magical people, they can only do what anyone else can do.

Quote:
A black market is a true free market. The only way to settle disputes in a black market is through violence. Disputes in a free market need a vehicle for resolution if we're to avoid violence. This is where government can be beneficial. It's things like this that make libertarians different than anarchists.

1. All black markets are free markets. Not all free markets are black markets.

2. Not all black markets are violent.

3. Black markets are created by the government.

4. Because the government has a virtual monopoly on courts, and anyone who attempts to bring suit against anyone else for ripping them off on a deal for cocaine is sent to prison themselves, the government's abuse of it's monopoly status prevents any court system from being used to peacefully settle disputes. 

It's a government-created problem with a government-mandated solution...governments are problems masquerading around as their own solutions. 

Quote:
Have you ever attended or listened to a Badnarik Constitution class? They're very informative.

No, but I've listened and read information on Constitutional law well enough. 

Quote:
Constitutional law is a unique thing. Federal laws are statutes, they must be within the boundaries of the Constitution. And due process of law says that a statute means only and exactly what it says. If it doesn't say something it doesn't mean or imply it in any way, the opposite can be assumed to be true. Unless government is specifically awarded some power it does not have it. The war on drugs is a prime example. Alcohol prohibition required an amendment to enact and one to repeal, the drug war just “happened.” This also means that since the Constitution is a minimalist document there are few rights guaranteed in it. For example, nobody has the right to vote. Nowhere will you find a right to vote awarded in the Constitution. It says that any right to vote you may have cannot be forbidden by certain circumstances. The right to vote begins at the State level and moves down. That might frighten some people at first, but it's by design. The Constitution's authors specifically wanted as little involvement in people's lives as possible. No FCC, DEA, EPA, USDA, Homeland Stupidity, FBI, HUD, Social Insecurity, and so on.

Homeland Stupidity is actually really good. I find "Motherland Security" to show the nature of things better, and to avoid confusion with the Homeland Stupidity website.

And the Constitution was clearly powerless to prevent the big government that we have today. 

Quote:
The postal system actually predates the Constitution, which doesn't forbid it. But it's not supposed be part of the government, accounting for 12% of the GNP.

We could just ditch everything and let Fedex and UPS take over that job anyways. 


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: And the only

Zhwazi wrote:
And the only methods available for a government to use force against a foreign foe are drafting, which is slavery, taxation, which is theft, or voluntary combatants, in which case government is unnecessary and redundant.

That is a curious thing. For one person to declare war on another country is of no value. The people would need a statement by their governing body to make such a declaration. I agree with you but I fear that is oversimplifying.

Quote:
I've heard this routine before. My objection is that the Constitution was powerless to stop it from doing this, and today, I can't (to my knowledge) renounce my US Citizen status without them expecting me to leave their claimed territory.

Franklin stated repeatedly that he feared the Constitution was not strict enough (toward itself) and feared that in time it would be circumvented.

Quote:
There is nothing government can do for us that markets cannot. Governments are nothing more than people, and because they are not magical people, they can only do what anyone else can do.

There I must disagree. I'm all in favor of letting free markets runs things. There are instances when as I suggested disputes, trade between States or Nations, tresspassing beyond the reach of a State authority where a federal government can serve it's residents. I agree with you in that government generally (if not never) does this job properly.

Quote:
1. All black markets are free markets. Not all free markets are black markets.

2. Not all black markets are violent.

3. Black markets are created by the government.

4. Because the government has a virtual monopoly on courts, and anyone who attempts to bring suit against anyone else for ripping them off on a deal for cocaine is sent to prison themselves, the government's abuse of it's monopoly status prevents any court system from being used to peacefully settle disputes.

It's a government-created problem with a government-mandated solution...governments are problems masquerading around as their own solutions.

No argument there.

Quote:
And the Constitution was clearly powerless to prevent the big government that we have today.

Franklin again.

Quote:
Quote:
The postal system actually predates the Constitution, which doesn't forbid it. But it's not supposed be part of the government, accounting for 12% of the GNP.

We could just ditch everything and let Fedex and UPS take over that job anyways.

We should. One thing people point to is that postage for a letter is less expensive with the USPS than other carriers. But they forget to figure in the subsidies and direct tax money put into the USPS.

I think we're on the same page. Although I don't support anarchy I find it unlikely that the people would ever be assertive enough to keep their government in line. Jefferson said we need an armed revolution every twenty years. We're a little behind schedule.

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.


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

Eric Ferguson wrote:

That is a curious thing. For one person to declare war on another country is of no value. The people would need a statement by their governing body to make such a declaration. I agree with you but I fear that is oversimplifying.

A declaration of war of aggression is wrong in the first place.

A declaration of war of defense is a formality, it doesn't change anything. 

Quote:
Franklin stated repeatedly that he feared the Constitution was not strict enough (toward itself) and feared that in time it would be circumvented.

I'm aware. Too bad the Federalists didn't take his advice, eh?

Quote:
There I must disagree. I'm all in favor of letting free markets runs things. There are instances when as I suggested disputes, trade between States or Nations, tresspassing beyond the reach of a State authority where a federal government can serve it's residents. I agree with you in that government generally (if not never) does this job properly.

Markets do not respect states and nations except as those states and nations force markets to (all they do is get in the way). A market court system wouldn't have international boundaries to respect, because jurisdiction wouldn't be "you're in my territory so you're going to use my courts". It would be "you have brought a suit to me and not to another court, so you've chosen to use my courts". Enforcment wouldn't be "I don't have exclusive jurisdiction there so I can't enforce it, I must work with whoever *does* have exclusive jurisdiction there." Whatever the enforcement is, it wouldn't be restricted by monopoly.

The geographic monopoly is one of the things about governments that the system I advocate would do away with, so a disagreement based on the assumption of geographic monopoly jurisdiction makes no sense applied to anarchy.

Quote:
Jefferson said we need an armed revolution every twenty years. We're a little behind schedule.

An order of magnitude behind schedule.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I think I see where the

I think I see where the difference of opinion lies.

A government such as the United States is supposed to have, a free capalist market, with government existing only to protect the rights of the individual, has never succeeded. The form amd rules always change. 

Zhwazi finds that no government needs to exist because its existence historically has shown them to fail. The failure is the fault of the governed. The people must keep the government in check, and they do not. They actually ask for oppression. I can't find fault with that idea.

I however have more faith in the people. People of the US once fought for personal freedom. But quickly became complacent. I believe that the people could again become empowered. And I feel there must be some level of government, strictly for the protection of the individual's rights and for a justice system. But without a populous active in such government we'd end up where we are today. Maybe I'm foolish.

Either way, it's time for an armed revolution. 

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.


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

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Zhwazi finds that no government needs to exist because its existence historically has shown them to fail.

No. I never said that. Although it's a good point, it's not the reason I think what I do. What I said was that the US failed because of that. I'm not even happy with the minimal government the US was supposed to have.

A state is a coercive geographic monopoly. This is an unaviodable fact of what makes a state a state. If nothing else, to maintain it's status as a state, it must claim exclusive jusridiction or territory, by threatening or destroying anyone who would dare to set up a competing enterprise in that territory. This is aggression which is anti-libertarian. I believe the libertarian principle of not initiating force or fraud is correct and has no exceptions.


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

Eric Ferguson wrote:

I think I see where the difference of opinion lies.

A government such as the United States is supposed to have, a free capalist market, with government existing only to protect the rights of the individual, has never succeeded. The form amd rules always change.

Zhwazi finds that no government needs to exist because its existence historically has shown them to fail. The failure is the fault of the governed. The people must keep the government in check, and they do not. They actually ask for oppression. I can't find fault with that idea.

I do not disagree in general. I will say though that there have aways been individuals who can see the grim road we are headed down and that there have always been those of us who hope for and think we are capable of something better. 

Quote:
I however have more faith in the people. People of the US once fought for personal freedom. But quickly became complacent. I believe that the people could again become empowered. And I feel there must be some level of government, strictly for the protection of the individual's rights and for a justice system. But without a populous active in such government we'd end up where we are today. Maybe I'm foolish.

I pretty much agree. I'm an optimist, myself. The way I see the world going, the slow, yet sure break down of socio-economic borders, the inevitable spread of a free market; however limited.

I trust in human nature, and human nature is to embrace capitalism and the free market. Human nature is to want MORE than what IS; regardless of what IS. That is a GOOD thing, much more often than not. I think we ARE working toward this, I think we cannot help but move toward this, as much as some try to fight it for whaever reason. Trade destroys borders, fosters peace, brings prosperity to all involved. I said earlier that peace does not come from the barrel of a gun; but from Ipods, denim jeans, and flat screen TVs.

Quote:
Either way, it's time for an armed revolution.

Not yet, we're winning, it just isn't happening in leaps and bounds. It's a long road to hoe, but we will get to a true global free market eventually. To improve an economy one place is to improve it everywhere, I honestly do believe that. What is happening in India and China now will spread to Indonesia and Africa, eventually. Established nations will take a hit in the mean time, but it is a small and unavoidable price to pay for the long term benefit. 

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.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: No. I never

Zhwazi wrote:
No. I never said that. Although it's a good point, it's not the reason I think what I do. What I said was that the US failed because of that.

What I meant.

Quote:
A state is a coercive geographic monopoly. This is an unaviodable fact of what makes a state a state. If nothing else, to maintain it's status as a state, it must claim exclusive jusridiction or territory, by threatening or destroying anyone who would dare to set up a competing enterprise in that territory. This is aggression which is anti-libertarian.

You mean state as in opposite of unclaimed or State as in Illinois?

I don't see the US States fighting over their borders and such. Country to country however that does happen.

Wouldn't claiming jurisdiction and maintaining it as an individual also be a threat of aggression? "no tresspassing" signs on my land? I'm not about to just let anyone move in or take my stuff. Wouldn't that also be anti-libertarian?

The libertarian position on aggression is all about instigation. Libertarians permit or even encourage force when used for defense, against it for offense.

I'd like to think a government could hold to that too. Doubt it. 

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.


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

Eric Ferguson wrote:

You mean state as in opposite of unclaimed or State as in Illinois?

State as in a government of a nation. Vocabulary clarification on another forum is spilling over. Someone said "government != state, a voluntary regulatory board can be governmental, but it's not a state, etc.", so I used State 'cause my mind is still thinking like that. 

Quote:
Wouldn't claiming jurisdiction and maintaining it as an individual also be a threat of aggression? "no tresspassing" signs on my land? I'm not about to just let anyone move in or take my stuff. Wouldn't that also be anti-libertarian?

On your own land? No. It's defense. Defense != aggression. A "No tresspassing" sign is a warning. Now, if you put a "No tresspassing" sign on someone else's land and started shooting tresspassers, then you've got a problem.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Vocabulary

Zhwazi wrote:

Vocabulary clarification ...

I'm not trying to nitpick. But we've gotten into some detailed and deep ideas, so it's important we understand each other clearly. 

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.