An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

Ideally, philosophy. It was Plato and Socrates who argued that politics is philosophy, and the Philosophical State is the one that can assure us of our freedoms. That's why the Enlightenment led to the United States. Our framers were philosophical(not only in the creation of Congress, though I disagree now with a SCOTUS) but more importantly: In denying political parties.

It was Martin Van Buren, who formally endorsed two parties who led the US to its decline. If not for Van Buren, a conscious and whole political state would still exist.

 

Authoritarians dream endlessly of getting in just the right system of authority so they can tell everyone else what to do and expect to be obeyed.

 

A bullet to the back of the head is too good for you, but it's a sacrifice that he is willing to make.

 

People tend to obey their own natural tendencies, which betray them at times. And democracies are chaotic and destructive to their own ends. Anarchy/Libertarianism places the ideal faith in man, but man has not proven worthy of this faith. I do not 'expect' to be obeyed, I expect the system and the results of the system to be so self-evident that you'll have faith in the system, rather than blind faith in man.

I centralize because man is inefficient, greedy and corrupt. The fewer of us making decisions, the better.

 

I very much don't appreciate by the way, the dishonesty with which you've represented my position. Where you make me out to be Adolf Hitler 2.0 Where have I called for the loss of the sanctity of life? Or that life's value(and humanism's value) is less than sacred? You won't find a quote anywhere, on any post on PF that suggests this.

I do happen to agree with Thomas Jefferson that when times of crisis are heavy, there may be a need to fertilize the tree of liberty with tragic bloodshed. But such a scenario hadn't taken place since the Civil War(and no I don't believe even if Trump's a criminal it should go that far.) nor do I want to fertilize the tree of liberty with blood. I want to fertilize it with intelligence.

If I were to be such a leader, could I accept my own assassination? Actually, yeah. Sure, I might try to persuade the people otherwise. But I've come to believe a quote from a fictional character.

"The only ones who have the right to kill, are those prepared to be killed."-Lelouch Vi Britannia.

I'm prepared for death in the name of the nation. I'm prepared for death to defend my homeland if need be. If I had a militarily-able body, I would serve. I'm not someone selfish who would send others to the battlefield without putting myself at risk. I admire the conquerers who rode the horses with their soldiers.

 

Who says that violation of others rights is not punishable in a libertarian society?

 

No one really, but it would be increasingly hypocritical in the eyes of some in the Libertarian society and thus undermining it. At least in my Fascist-Technocracy, I leave no illusions about society's role, government's role and the individual's capacity for growth within the system.

 

Libertarians are very clear that your freedom ends at the violation of my rights

 

I've always found it rather ironic that libertarians are constantly made to justify individual liberty as a political organizing principle, yet the opponents of libertarianism never feel obligated to justify the existence of the state, which is unarguably the most dysfunctional, violent, and corrupt institution in the history of the world. I also find it ironic that the opponents of libertarianism often cite the hypothetical dangers of liberty in the form of rogue corporations, yet completely ignore the real dangers of rogue states who commit all sorts of atrocities on a regular basis. To me, this is a clear indication of the religious nature of the state. Indeed, the prototypical state began as a literal religion, with Egyptian pharaohs ruling as gods. Everything that defines a state - taxation, bureaucracy, standing armies - was invented by ancient dictators who were clearly insane to some degree. Yet the violent, insane statist religion persists despite its manifest and repeated failures.

 

There is nothing about libertarian philosophy that precludes punishing violations of other individual's rights.

 

And you would enforce that with....*drumroll* force. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong. I'm not even going to say it's hypocritical. I'm going to say that we human beings(regardless of philosophy) have so few means at our disposal to regulate order. Not so much because of a philosophical need to regulate it, but a survival need to regulate it.

Because there are monsters, because not everyone will be a Libertarian and so the right of common defense is for personhood as it is for Statehood.

 

yes.
You are violating someone else rights.

 

States are not defensive. They rule through coercion and fraud.

 

EDIT: Thank you for responding so politely.

I agree wiith most of what you said up to this point.

...and this is where it all goes sideways.

There is an old saying: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". I think that is wrong headed. I think that the people who seek power like this are inherently sociopaths. This is the intrinsic flaw of your reasoning.

The purpose of (in my opinion, an anarchist or stateless society) is to dilute power as much as humanly possible. Understand that the state, no matter it's form, concentrates power in the hands of the few (or in your example, one). It provides a monopoly of violence to the ruling class and their actors- the police, the courts, the military and in the case of business corporations and their heads (this is precisely how pay for CEO got so out of hand and why the cost of college, heath care, etc has sky rocketed) The Milgrim experiment demonstrates that no matter the ruler, people will blindly follow and thus enforce their ruler's desires. This is accomplished by being "with out rulers" (which is exactly the definition of anarchy).

Also, understand that anarchist do not claim that this is a utopian solution- we don't believe in that at all. However, given the human condition it is the best possible solution.

 

I too would like to thank you for your reply. I mean, from the start the existence of the polar opposite philosophy meant that it would be flawed in your eyes(and well, I cannot call anarchy flawed. I called it in the post you quoted: Wishful thinking. An ideal state of Human relations, that simply isn't right now.). Now, I do have to address your greater overall view that I'm a sociopath.

In all of my years of life, bullying and torment I'd never been called a sociopath. No person that's mentally ill of course would accept such a diagnosis, and whether you're a mental doctor or not, I'm unaware. Putting my own bias in its perspective, I can only respond by logically justifying my political/philosophical position and hopefully clearing myself of that.

First, I would be okay if the centralized leader weren't me. I mean, I'm suffering through this the worst collective government we've ever seen. If I can suffer through this, and despite my extreme anger remain rational and peaceful, I think I can manage if the ideal system were created but I weren't at the head of that organization. I feel the same way if we could restore the Constitutional Republic and thus my dreams of Empire would die, but a stable state would have surfaced in its place.

My main priority isn't my own power. I won't lie, that's an amazing amount of adrenaline and in a world of social status, it's something I want to achieve. But it's not my main priority. My main priority, lies in the protection of the country/state. See, we have our own homes and our own families(irrespective of size) or even living single. We can only go so far to protect our own homes. Our own gates, our own doorbells, etc. We could even hire security. And there's always a risk of danger. In a free society, we have to accept this and I do.

However, I want to minimize those dangers and maximize the opportunities of living prosperously. It's the same reason for an Empire. Empires are not built to subjugate others to their whim, but rather to reflect the richness and the caliber of the society that has formed to be an Empire. That's why every successful emperor had a significant period of peace time where they developed the state.

I want the US to be the most prosperous, most beautiful and most radiant country alive. And in so doing, my own home is the most prosperous, beautiful and radiant. Essentially, I value the State insofar as it is my greater protector. If the State cannot protect its people, and if its economic-state is not to the standards of the people living in it, it cannot be called a State.

As far as the various agents of government, the judiciary and their roles you'll have to forgive my tiredness. It's all for perhaps a few hours after I take a power nap. However, in lieu of the recent developments of the last two years, I've become quite anti-Court(specifically, SCOTUS). The pernamently-selected Judge was not selected by the people, but by Congress and there's no avail for removing him/her. Further, this Judge has the power to make ruling decisions on political factors.

To simply put it: Criminal laws and criminal trials exist for valid reasons, however the political court exists to dilute the voice of the people and thus we already have an authoritarian form of government called the supreme court. However, this court while ruling over the political nation is blissfully ignorant of it and doesn't act with political wisdom but void of any philosophy at all. That's why for example Dred Scott happened.

Is it a popular opinion? Not at all, but give it another 20 years and you'll be nodding with me. The SCOTUS invalidates us as a nation and as people. It was a "check" too far, the Framers should've stopped at the Senate.

 

I didn't call you a sociopath. I said: "I think that the people who seek power like this are inherently sociopaths". That doesn't mean that all people who have such power are sociopaths. There are people of which whom such power are thrust upon them. A good example is George Washington. He was uncomfortable from the get-go, but after some time he abdicated his power.

However, if you are seeking such power, then I would stand by my observation, and would apply it to you. Your lofty aspirations are irrelevant. Almost all men have those type of reasons..."for the greater good".

No I won't. I'm not a young buck- I'm in my 50's. I've held this opinion for decades already.

That said, addressing specifically "Criminal laws and criminal trials exist for valid reasons" is correct. Anarchy literally means "without rules", it doesn't mean "without rules"/. There are a few schools of though of what could supplant the courts and the police. it would have to happen organically, among each community, but my favorite is that of scholar David Friedman who outlines a market based solution here:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

 

I'm trying to figure out how that works. If libertarianism is putting "ideal faith" in "man", then what is it when you demand that someone rule over you and monopolize justice? Is it faith in the state? A state is just a group of individuals with unlimited, arbitrary authority. It truly is faith in man. Libertarians decentralize power, all the way down to the individual. I'd say that it's more like faith in no one, with each individual deciding where to put his faith and not forcing others to conform to that. Why should I have faith in someone like you, who demands that I conform to your values and morals?

I see, so you want to put as many as possible into one place and then have them rule over you. The kind of people who want to rule are the kind of people who crave power, who are inherently corrupt, and who mainly concern themselves with maintaining power. For every Julius Caesar, there are a thousand Neros.

 

You have lots of illusions. Unless you can objectively define "the greater good", then what it is to you is an illusion that appears very differently to every individual. The worst sort of tyrant is the one who believes he holds the objective truth.

 

Libertarians are dreamers. They’re just republicans that like sushi and drive Volvo’s but are too embarrassed to be associated with the Trumps of the GOP.

 

the commoners planted on the commons. it is how their class was named. capitalism, and private ownership of land, did not begin until the enclosures circa 16th century. in feudal societies property is owned by the monarch and parceled out to their lordships, who allowed commoners to farm based on taxation in kind.

 

Wow! Such an original take on libertarians. Seriously, never heard this one before...

 

His response was neither honest nor accurate. It betrays a willful ignorance of the topic.

 

An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

I view myself as libertarian. My views are really simple. I prefer freedom to government intervention in private lives. I believe life will improve for everyone if we have less federal government. Federal government should return to the roles it had when the constitution was written, namely protecting the country, dealing and treating with other countries, maintaining a stable currency and resolving interstate disputes. Everything else belongs in the states, the private sector or the trash can.

Why? Because legislation is always more effective when it is done closer to the people. The states must compete with other states and competition is healthy for any person or any society. If someone doesn't like the way a state is managed, they can choose another state. Competition will result in better laws and better government management. Federal government doesn't offer that option.

Most political issues in America involving federal government revolve around things federal government shouldn't be doing in the first place.

Simple to say but impossible to do thanks to the greed and corruption of the federal government.

 

I was a minarchist at one point, and then I realized that no matter theodel government bwill ALWAY murder, maim and imprison others. Government is to psychopaths like nectar is to bees.