|
Anonymous
|
 foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy 
#3244497 - 10/11/04 06:42 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
all governments initiate force, even a libertarian one. no government can maintain its monopoly on the non-emergency use of force without doing so.
aside from practical problems like deriving funding, there is a contradiction in the theoretical aspects.
the logical conclusion of the natural-rights foundation of libertarianism is that agents of the state have no special rights which citizens do not. there is no government that can make this a reality. private citizens cannot make arrests, hold trials, and carry out sentences. private citizens cannot have ownership over any and all weapons of modern warfare. even libertarians recognize this.
based on the natural-rights foundation, all government is illegitimate.
now, i understand that anarchy cannot work, and that libertarianism seeks to limit the state as much as possible, and i feel this is a worthy goal, but i can no longer argue with those who point out its contradictions. the only perfect situation is anarchy... there is no perfect situation.
call me a reluctant libertarian.
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's true logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: ]
#3244549 - 10/11/04 06:55 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
all governments initiate force, even a libertarian one.
Not all use of force is intitiation of force.
Quote:
no government can maintain its monopoly on the non-emergency use of force without doing so.
Who said they have to have a monopoly on force? Libertarians support the right to bear arms precisely so that people won't have to rely on the government to protect them.
Quote:
aside from practical problems like deriving funding, there is a contradiction in the theoretical aspects.
the logical conclusion of the natural-rights foundation of libertarianism is that agents of the state have no special rights which citizens do not. there is no government that can make this a reality. private citizens cannot make arrests, hold trials, and carry out sentences. private citizens cannot have ownership over any and all weapons of modern warfare. even libertarians recognize this.
Last I checked, it was legal to make a citizen's arrest, even under our current non-libertarian government. The part about holding trials and carrying out sentences is a bit more tricky. As for ownership of WMD's, check out the article I posted about that.
Quote:
based on the natural-rights foundation, all government is illegitimate.
Even if it only uses force as a response to the initiation of force?
Quote:
now, i understand that anarchy cannot work, and that libertarianism seeks to limit the state as much as possible, and i feel this is a worthy goal, but i can no longer argue with those who point out its contradictions. the only perfect situation is anarchy... there is no perfect situation.
call me a reluctant libertarian.
I understand, and have come to the conclusion that the one thing we truly need government for is to enforce contracts(though I am skeptical even of this). Pretty much everything else can be done by private businesses.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
 allmakescombined
Boss Man
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: ]
#3244603 - 10/11/04 07:08 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Libertarianism is an immature philosophy for granola kids and bearded weirdos - it will never take in the real world as its very foundation has no structure to establish basic order needed in a particular land.
--------------------
Get back to work.
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: ]
#3244613 - 10/11/04 07:12 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
This is exactly what's holding me back from voting libertarian.
There seem to be many extremists in the party. And I truely don't think a relevant nation can function in this world based on idealogy alone. You need comprimise. As long as the Green Party can stay outside the fringe of fullblown socialism, that's where my vote's going.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: Gijith]
#3244634 - 10/11/04 07:16 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think the ideological aspect of libertarianism is given too much focus in this forum. There is also a pragmatic aspect: the fact that government does not work, or more accurately, that just about anything the government can do can be done cheaper and more efficiently by the free market. I would not be a libertarian if it relied on ideology alone.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
allmakescombined
Boss Man
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: Gijith]
#3244679 - 10/11/04 07:28 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Libertarians and Extremism go hand-in-hand.. heck, look at ss7's posts.
--------------------
Get back to work.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: allmakescombined]
#3244683 - 10/11/04 07:29 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
allmakescombined said:
Libertarians and Extremism go hand-in-hand.. heck, look at ss7's posts.
Whatever you say, Mr. "9/11 was justified." 
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: silversoul7]
#3244700 - 10/11/04 07:35 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The government needs a MASSIVE overhaul. And I think it can be and should be significantly reduced in size (which is why I'm still hesitant to vote Green). But too many libertarians turn a blind eye to reality. In 1787, there was no need for the FDA or the EPA or antitrust laws. But this isn't 1787 and nothing I've read - and I've been looking for a while now - has convinced me that free trade can do as good a job at keeping the public as safe as these regulations can.
The bottom line is I trust most politicians more than I trust most CEOs (though I think they're all capable of evil).
I really wish there was some sort of toned down libertarian party. Or a party that attmpted to combine libertarian and Green ideals.
--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
allmakescombined
Boss Man
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: silversoul7]
#3244707 - 10/11/04 07:38 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yea ok, Mr. I don't know what trolling is.
--------------------
Get back to work.
|
allmakescombined
Boss Man
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: Gijith]
#3244711 - 10/11/04 07:39 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said:
The government needs a MASSIVE overhaul. And I think it can be and should be significantly reduced in size (which is why I'm still hesitant to vote Green). But too many libertarians turn a blind eye to reality. In 1787, there was no need for the FDA or the EPA or antitrust laws. But this isn't 1787 and nothing I've read - and I've been looking for a while now - has convinced me that free trade can do as good a job at keeping the public as safe as these regulations can.
The bottom line is I trust most politicians more than I trust most CEOs (though I think they're all capable of evil).
I really wish there was some sort of toned down libertarian party. Or a party that attmpted to combine libertarian and Green ideals.
You and me should do that.. start a Libertarian and Green party combined. We can call it it the Planetarium Party.. hehe
--------------------
Get back to work.
|
unbeliever
Yo Daddy!
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: allmakescombined]
#3244744 - 10/11/04 07:46 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7:
Last I checked, it was legal to make a citizen's arrest, even under our current non-libertarian government.
Only felonies and only if you're actively witnessing them take place. Just fyi.
--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...
|
unbeliever
Yo Daddy!
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: allmakescombined]
#3244749 - 10/11/04 07:47 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
allmakescombined said:
Quote:
Gijith said:
The government needs a MASSIVE overhaul. And I think it can be and should be significantly reduced in size (which is why I'm still hesitant to vote Green). But too many libertarians turn a blind eye to reality. In 1787, there was no need for the FDA or the EPA or antitrust laws. But this isn't 1787 and nothing I've read - and I've been looking for a while now - has convinced me that free trade can do as good a job at keeping the public as safe as these regulations can.
The bottom line is I trust most politicians more than I trust most CEOs (though I think they're all capable of evil).
I really wish there was some sort of toned down libertarian party. Or a party that attmpted to combine libertarian and Green ideals.
You and me should do that.. start a Libertarian and Green party combined. We can call it it the Planetarium Party.. hehe
The Green Party is just fine the way it is, thanks. 
--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: Gijith]
#3244764 - 10/11/04 07:50 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said:
The government needs a MASSIVE overhaul. And I think it can be and should be significantly reduced in size (which is why I'm still hesitant to vote Green). But too many libertarians turn a blind eye to reality. In 1787, there was no need for the FDA or the EPA or antitrust laws. But this isn't 1787 and nothing I've read - and I've been looking for a while now - has convinced me that free trade can do as good a job at keeping the public as safe as these regulations can.
What exactly has changed since 1787 which makes such regulations necessary now, but not then? I will say that I am not against all regulations, nor are most libertarians. For example, since fraud is yet another means of initiating force, it would make sense to have some standards of truth in advertising.
Quote:
The bottom line is I trust most politicians more than I trust most CEOs (though I think they're all capable of evil).
Do you trust politicians not to work for the CEOs? Corporations would have far less power if they weren't being helped every step of the way by government intervention on their behalf.
Quote:
I really wish there was some sort of toned down libertarian party. Or a party that attmpted to combine libertarian and Green ideals.
Well, there is an ideology called geolibertarianism which attempts to combine libertarian and Green ideals. Unfortunately, they don't have their own political party, so most of its adherents would have to choose whether to vote Libertarian or Green. One thing to keep in mind, though, about Libertarians is that even if a Libertarian took office, he would not be able to create a fully libertarian society in just one term, or even two for that matter. And since neither the Libertarian nor Green Party candidate is likely to actually win the election, your vote is basically about what message you want to send. A vote for a Libertarian sends the message that you want smaller, more responsible government. If you still decide that the Green Party best represents what you believe in, by all means vote for them. I'd rather you do that than vote for either of the two major parties.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
allmakescombined
Boss Man
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: unbeliever]
#3244766 - 10/11/04 07:50 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I'm going to start the Planetarium Party anyway with my own philosophy. I believe Government should be ruled by Scientists.
--------------------
Get back to work.
|
allmakescombined
Boss Man
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: allmakescombined]
#3244781 - 10/11/04 07:52 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I officially declare this philosophy: Planetarianism. I will create the Planetarian Party!
--------------------
Get back to work.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: allmakescombined]
#3244805 - 10/11/04 07:59 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
allmakescombined said:
I'm going to start the Planetarium Party anyway with my own philosophy. I believe Government should be ruled by Scientists.
Talk to DoctorJ. He proposed something similar a while back.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
allmakescombined
Boss Man
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: silversoul7]
#3244814 - 10/11/04 08:02 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting.
--------------------
Get back to work.
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: silversoul7]
#3244871 - 10/11/04 08:15 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
What exactly has changed since 1787 which makes such regulations necessary now, but not then? I will say that I am not against all regulations, nor are most libertarians. For example, since fraud is yet another means of initiating force, it would make sense to have some standards of truth in advertising.
A good question, of course. In regards to the three areas I brought up (they are the especially important to me), I think it has to do with change in technology and general culture. In 1787, there wasn't a good understanding of pollution, nor were their autombiles or companies dumping toxic and biological waste. In 1787 there wasn't a great understanding of health, nor were their companies perfectly willing to put carcinogens in food in order turn a better profit (well, maybe there were...). And in 1787, it would have been difficult for Rupert Murdoch to control every media outlet readily available to the public (which I'm sure he has wet dreams about).
Quote:
Do you trust politicians not to work for the CEOs? Corporations would have far less power if they weren't being helped every step of the way by government intervention on their behalf.
This is one of my highest priorities. And I've been pleased to find that many Greens feel the same way. There needs to be a clear divide between Washington and business. The best way I can see to do this is through more regulations. Sad, I know.
Quote:
Well, there is an ideology called geolibertarianism which attempts to combine libertarian and Green ideals. Unfortunately, they don't have their own political party, so most of its adherents would have to choose whether to vote Libertarian or Green. One thing to keep in mind, though, about Libertarians is that even if a Libertarian took office, he would not be able to create a fully libertarian society in just one term, or even two for that matter. And since neither the Libertarian nor Green Party candidate is likely to actually win the election, your vote is basically about what message you want to send. A vote for a Libertarian sends the message that you want smaller, more responsible government. If you still decide that the Green Party best represents what you believe in, by all means vote for them. I'd rather you do that than vote for either of the two major parties.
An excellent point.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's true logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: silversoul7]
#3244910 - 10/11/04 08:22 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
let me rephrase myself a little.
in the most concise way i can possibly put it:
any state is incompatible with the notion of natural rights.
in the most libertarian minarchist state you can imagine, are agents of the state permitted to do things which citizens are not?
a government is an organization which claims and enforces a monopoly on the non-emergency use of force. all governments meet this criterion, and doing so requires that agents of the state assume priviliges denied to ordinary citizens.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy [Re: Gijith]
#3244951 - 10/11/04 08:34 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
What exactly has changed since 1787 which makes such regulations necessary now, but not then? I will say that I am not against all regulations, nor are most libertarians. For example, since fraud is yet another means of initiating force, it would make sense to have some standards of truth in advertising.
A good question, of course. In regards to the three areas I brought up (they are the especially important to me), I think it has to do with change in technology and general culture. In 1787, there wasn't a good understanding of pollution, nor were their autombiles or companies dumping toxic and biological waste. In 1787 there wasn't a great understanding of health, nor were their companies perfectly willing to put carcinogens in food in order turn a better profit (well, maybe there were...). And in 1787, it would have been difficult for Rupert Murdoch to control every media outlet readily available to the public (which I'm sure he has wet dreams about).
Michael Badnarik has said that he would hold polluters(including the government, which is currently exempt from its own environmental laws) individually accountable and stop issuing EPA permits to pollute. This is not at all inconsistent with libertarian principles. As far as health goes, consider the farm subsidies which hurt small farmers, thus making sure that you're buying the genetically engineered produce of big agribusiness. Consider the fact that unhealthy fast food chains like McDonald's get government subsidies which allow them to grow. Consider the fact that some of the first drug laws(which made prescriptions necessary for certain drugs) were created to stop competition between doctors and pharmacists, at a cost to you, the consumer. As for Rupert Murdoch, I challenge you to find an example of a monopoly which was not created with government assistance.
Quote:
Quote:
Do you trust politicians not to work for the CEOs? Corporations would have far less power if they weren't being helped every step of the way by government intervention on their behalf.
This is one of my highest priorities. And I've been pleased to find that many Greens feel the same way. There needs to be a clear divide between Washington and business. The best way I can see to do this is through more regulations. Sad, I know.
So you create a clear divide between government and business by getting government more involved in business? 
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
1 2 3 4 all )
Ancalagon
DoctorJ
silversoul7
Autonomous