Is libertarianism too rational?

[BoberFett]

Ohhh bullshit. The same moronic thinking that Jefferson had (the slave owners would just stop doing it) is the same thinking libertopian leaning morons like Rand Paul adopt, that we should overturn discrimination laws and let the "free market" do what they want.

Stop moving the goalposts. You talked about slavery before, now you're talking about discrimination.

Edit: Besides, slavery is coercion, but so is telling an individual that they MUST do business with another individual.

 

[acriticalcookie]

Let me know when you set that up. I'll be there ten minutes later to steal all your belongings.

Stealing is a violation of the NAP.
Google "Voluntaryism" and "Non aggression principle"
Anarchism=no rulers.
Statism=rulers that violate you through initiation of force.
Anarchism DOES NOT=no rules.

 

[nehalem256]

Ohhh bullshit. The same moronic thinking that Jefferson had (the slave owners would just stop doing it) is the same thinking libertopian leaning morons like Rand Paul adopt, that we should overturn discrimination laws and let the "free market" do what they want.

Well you could try applying the liberal solution to rape.

Just tell slave owners not to slave own

 

[acriticalcookie]

Ohhh bullshit. The same moronic thinking that Jefferson had (the slave owners would just stop doing it) is the same thinking libertopian leaning morons like Rand Paul adopt, that we should overturn discrimination laws and let the "free market" do what they want.

Racism is collectivism.
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."
-Ayn Rand

 

[kia75]

Stealing is a violation of the NAP.
Google "Voluntaryism" and "Non aggression principle"
Anarchism=no rulers.
Statism=rulers that violate you through initiation of force.
Anarchism DOES NOT=no rules.

I never agreed to no NAP (non-aggression principle). Why can't I just get 10 of my friends to protect me from your gangs. I think that stuff you have was originally mine. Why can't me and 10 of my friends come and get our stuff back?

 

[acriticalcookie]

I never agreed to no NAP (non-aggression principle). Why can't I just get 10 of my friends to protect me from your gangs. I think that stuff you have was originally mine. Why can't me and 10 of my friends come and get our stuff back?

That's fine, you don't have to live in my NAP based society.
The problem is that you want me to live in yours.

 

[werepossum]

Buy that man a beer. A libertarian who wants to re-write the corporate charter laws.

Its like seeing an albino deer in the wild.

I actually don't think this view is outside of the norm of small "L" libertarian thought. Freedom as defined in libertarianism or classical liberalism does not mean freedom from liability.

The US was built on Classical Liberal values, not Libertarian. There is a difference.

A difference, sure, but today's libertarian movement is arguably much closer to classical liberalism than is either major party.

but moderation never stays moderate. it almost always gets worse because compomises (i.e., moderation) are broken because no one remains satisfied with 50% forever.

the constitution was a pure compomise between two elite classes while leaving the vast libertarian majority out... things went the way of the planter elite at first, but then that violently came to an end and things went sharply far-right mercantilist. since the progressive era, the elite have been fighting each other and few other people are happy. the only two things that 2 large factions of americans have been slightly happy with overall since 12/7/41 are :
1. the warfare State... uniting against an enemy appointed by the American State.
2. the welfare state

With the first part, I'd agree. Eternal vigilance remains the price of freedom. With the second, I'd agree to a limited degree. Certainly our Constitution is the result of a compromise between two elite classes, but the nation so formed was very libertarian. Arguably more libertarian than classical liberalism, which agitated for state assistance and state interference (albeit nothing like today's level) in ancient and medieval times and very strongly in renaissance and Industrial Revolution times. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the prohibition against the federal government supporting even widows and orphans (except of war veterans) lasted until mid-nineteenth century. That's pretty freakin' libertarian if you won't even support widows and orphans.

 

[khon]

I wouldn't call it rational, more like naive.

Misguided libertarian policies allow companies to externalize their costs (pollution), which is in direct violation of the harm principle, but libertarians still support it because it means the government will be smaller.

 

[fskimospy]

Stealing is a violation of the NAP.
Google "Voluntaryism" and "Non aggression principle"
Anarchism=no rulers.
Statism=rulers that violate you through initiation of force.
Anarchism DOES NOT=no rules.

I know what it means, and of course stealing is a violation of the non-aggression principle. It will happen anyway. Principally, someone else who decides to organize and isn't simply basing it on voluntary cooperation will come in, kill or conquer all of you, and take whatever it is that you have.

Humanity started off in a state of anarchism. Every last society did. There's a reason why no such society exists now, and it's because anarchism competed in the marketplace and lost.

 

[fskimospy]

I wouldn't call it rational, more like naive.

Misguided libertarian policies allow companies to externalize their costs (pollution), which is in direct violation of the harm principle, but libertarians still support it because it means the government will be smaller.

Very much so. Libertarianism is actually one of the least rational political philosophies as it is reliant on unsound principles that have no bearing on reality in order to work.

 

[acriticalcookie]

I know what it means, and of course stealing is a violation of the non-aggression principle. It will happen anyway. Principally, someone else who decides to organize and isn't simply basing it on voluntary cooperation will come in, kill or conquer all of you, and take whatever it is that you have.

Humanity started off in a state of anarchism. Every last society did. There's a reason why no such society exists now, and it's because anarchism competed in the marketplace and lost.

Ha, silly statists! They believe that the state can protect and fix everything.
Let me ask you one thing: Who killed more people in the 20th century, anarchists, or governments?

 

[Incorruptible]

Very much so. Libertarianism is actually one of the least rational political philosophies as it is reliant on unsound principles that have no bearing on reality in order to work.

The US was built on Libertarian policies and not socialism. It is far more rational than socialism.

 

[fskimospy]

Ha, silly statists! They believe that the state can protect and fix everything.
Let me ask you one thing: Who killed more people in the 20th century, anarchists, or governments?

What a transparently silly question; how many anarchist societies were there in the 20th century? None of any consequence.

You fail to understand my very simple point. Even if anarchism was a preferable form of governance (and it isn't), it wouldn't matter. You should feel free to set up your anarchist utopia whenever you want but it will be taken from you the second someone feels like it and there's nothing you can do about it.

States are brutally effective at the application of violence, that's why they won. You can try and wish away inconvenient truths but that doesn't make them any less true. Your concept of society relies upon the rest of humanity giving you a pass and that won't ever happen in a million years.

 

[fskimospy]

The US was built on Libertarian policies and not socialism. It is far more rational than socialism.

The US was not built on libertarian policies. As has already been mentioned, it was built on classical liberal policies, which are very different. Remember, the Constitution was created for the express purpose of expanding the power and scope of government. That was its entire point.

Not to mention the fact that libertarianism is a political philosophy while socialism is an economic philosophy. They are not directly comparable.

 

[brycejones]

Ha, silly statists! They believe that the state can protect and fix everything.
Let me ask you one thing: Who killed more people in the 20th century, anarchists, or governments?

If your ideal is the most rational and effective way to organize a society can you point to a single example of it happening on anything larger than a tribal scale of a few hundred individuals?

We get it, you dislike "rules" and "government". Make a cogent argument and cite real world examples where how you think society should be set up has worked. I'm not even asking you to cite modern examples.

 

[acriticalcookie]

What a transparently silly question; how many anarchist societies were there in the 20th century? None of any consequence.

You fail to understand my very simple point. Even if anarchism was a preferable form of governance (and it isn't), it wouldn't matter. You should feel free to set up your anarchist utopia whenever you want but it will be taken from you the second someone feels like it and there's nothing you can do about it.

States are brutally effective at the application of violence, that's why they won. You can try and wish away inconvenient truths but that doesn't make them any less true. Your concept of society relies upon the rest of humanity giving you a pass and that won't ever happen in a million years.

Do you really think that evolution was just a physical thing?
Eventually humanity will shrug off the idea of a state. We are slowly becoming peaceful, thoughtful creatures who are capable of so much more.

I dream that one day you'll join me. A world without collectivism, a world without religion (collectivism, but whatever), a world without the state, a world with voluntary interactions.

When you find an alternative to coercion I'll agree with you.

 

[acriticalcookie]

If your ideal is the most rational and effective way to organize a society can you point to a single example of it happening on anything larger than a tribal scale of a few hundred individuals?

We get it, you dislike "rules" and "government". Make a cogent argument and cite real world examples where how you think society should be set up has worked. I'm not even asking you to cite modern examples.

Can you point to a single society in which the state has protected the people and NOT hampered progress? Can you name a society with a state that has existed without history?

States are not stable. They collapse, they are overthrown (violation of the NAP, as well), and they are changed constantly.

Give anarchism a chance. Anarchism has not been seriously tried. Statism, on the other hand, has, and it fails every time.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you really think that evolution was just a physical thing?
Eventually humanity will shrug off the idea of a state. We are slowly becoming peaceful, thoughtful creatures who are capable of so much more.

I dream that one day you'll join me. A world without collectivism, a world without religion (collectivism, but whatever), a world without the state, a world with voluntary interactions.

When you find an alternative to coercion I'll agree with you.

I dream that one day you'll look at the world for how it actually is and then try to make it better today instead of wishing for a world that has never existed and probably will never exist. The nation-state may not always exist but it will not be replaced with anarchism, simply some other agent of directed violence. Of that you can be sure.

So will you come and join humanity in trying to make the world the best place it can possibly be or will you continue to sit with your head in the sand?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you point to a single society in which the state has protected the people and NOT hampered progress? Can you name a society with a state that has existed without history?

States are not stable. They collapse, they are overthrown (violation of the NAP, as well), and they are changed constantly.

Give anarchism a chance. Anarchism has not been seriously tried. Statism, on the other hand, has, and it fails every time.

Every society started in anarchism and they are all gone. Every. Single. One.

There is literally no bigger marker for failure than the complete extinction of something. Anarchism is the biggest failure of a governing philosophy that has ever existed.

 

[acriticalcookie]

I dream that one day you'll look at the world for how it actually is and then try to make it better today instead of wishing for a world that has never existed and probably will never exist. The nation-state may not always exist but it will not be replaced with anarchism, simply some other agent of directed violence. Of that you can be sure.

So will you come and join humanity in trying to make the world the best place it can possibly be or will you continue to sit with your head in the sand?

Typical collectivist, statist nonsense.

Individuals in history were constantly bullied by collectivists.

Giordano Bruno, for example, was executed for his heliocentric ideals.

Every horror that exists in society results from collectivism, and a state is just another form of collectivism.

 

[acriticalcookie]

Every society started in anarchism and they are all gone. Every. Single. One.

There is literally no bigger marker for failure than the complete extinction of something. Anarchism is the biggest failure of a governing philosophy that has ever existed.

Every state that has existed up until this point has fallen, as well.

I'll propose an idea for you. Voluntary interactions can also allow states, as well.
If you want to live under a state, you can, but it has to be voluntary. Everyone who wants to live in a state can live under a state.

I personally don't want to. Stop trying to force your collectivist ideology on me, I don't want to live under it, and you don't have to live in my idea of a society either.

 

[fskimospy]

Typical collectivist, statist nonsense.

Individuals in history were constantly bullied by collectivists.

Giordano Bruno, for example, was executed for his heliocentric ideals.

Every horror that exists in society results from collectivism, and a state is just another form of collectivism.

Just in case you are wondering I've noticed your complete inability to address my argument. You can't because you don't have any answer to it.

What don't you get about this? Whether or not anarchism is better is irrelevant. The fundamental structure of such a society guarantees that it will be taken over by the first opposing society that doesn't care to play by those rules. A society that can only exist by the grace of other societies is one that is not long for this earth. History shows this convincingly by the complete lack of any anarchist society of any consequence despite all societies fundamentally beginning in a state of anarchy.

I will admit that I appreciate the irony of someone advocating such an incoherent political philosophy while telling other people their thoughts are nonsense though. That's kind of fun.

 

[fskimospy]

Every state that has existed up until this point has fallen, as well.

Uhmm, except for all the states currently in existence. Did you think this through?

I'll propose an idea for you. Voluntary interactions can also allow states, as well.
If you want to live under a state, you can, but it has to be voluntary. Everyone who wants to live in a state can live under a state.

I personally don't want to. Stop trying to force your collectivist ideology on me, I don't want to live under it, and you don't have to live in my idea of a society either.

You are free to go live outside of a state right now if you want. There are many areas of the world that may be claimed by states but that they exert no effective control over. All of those are available to live out your anarchist ideal in. Now you're probably thinking that none of those places are somewhere you want to live, which might then send you back to why states are a good thing.

As far as states and anarchists living together, this is continuing to illustrate your fundamental lack of understanding of how the world works and the reasons for anarchism's continual failure. States exist precisely because other people don't play by the non-aggression principle or only voluntary association. I'm sure that being able to just wave away the primary failure of your political philosophy sounds nice to you, but that's the only way this could work and sadly the world doesn't work that way.

 

[OverVolt]

Libertarians are ill adapted to the world or something. I don't know very many wealthy libertarians.

Some of their ideas are correct and useful and much needed in modern society but man are they bad at persuading people.

You have to admit Ron Pauls portfolio is laugh worthy. Gold and Cash. If he actually wanted to be president shit... the mans gonna need to actually make money instead of losing 30% of his wealth while wall street gains 30%.

 

[Anarchist420]

Ohhh bullshit. The same moronic thinking that Jefferson had (the slave owners would just stop doing it) is the same thinking libertopian leaning morons like Rand Paul adopt, that we should overturn discrimination laws and let the "free market" do what they want.

rand paul is a lot more popular than you'd like to think and he will be the next person to win the popular vote for president... but the elite will block him by giving the electoral vote to H. Clinton who is totally unpopular and will become even more so over time as more anti-State, anti-war, and pro-market truth comes out against her.

and VA now has the most corrupt governor ever (didnt think that would be possible after the last one, but i was wrong) and he admits he loves the State because it gets him business connections... he has already acted on that several times in the first two weeks. and if robert sarvis did take votes from him, then it goes to show how incompetent the most centralist, anti-market, pro-war, and pro-state governor is.