An Honest libertarian Discussion Thread

Which ones, exactly?

It doesn't deny any fact of human nature, it is the only system that allows protection while at the same time destroying any power structures that would allow mass scale domination of man against man. Statism will always destroy freedom.

 

Easy enough in an uninhabited world but the application of the principle becomes somewhat fraught when placed up against the myriad of other principles used to establish prior appropriation to the extent that there is no property left upon the entire planet to which it is applicable, or even relevant.

It is all well and good to describe the government as a tyrant and transgressor of individual property ownership but that denies the fact that it was government that granted the privilege of individual private property ownership in the first place and has exerted enormous effort and expenditures to defend this privilege ever since. In fact, there is no right to the individual ownership of property and the alleged conflation of this privilege into some sort of right is nothing but a baldfaced attempt by property owners to remove the public and the government from any say in their management.

It is the government that establishes private property ownership and it can do so on whatever conditions it chooses. To claim that the government has no right to regulate or tax private property requires arguments that I am unable to supply. Perhaps someone here could do so.

 

If what you say is true, how was government legitimately established? If rights don't exist without government, then those who form them have no right to do so. The only principle by which you can claim that it is legitimate is that might is right. That would not change after government is established, so can we assume that all government action, until such time as a larger power puts a stop to that action, is rightful?

 

I like SOME Libertarians yet I find Libertarian more of a goal than an actual party. All parties should focus on Liberty as a goal. But when you stop paying attention to other Americans and only fixate on yourself you are not talking about Liberty anymore.....You are talking Liberbarian. "I'm a perfect person and I have the right to do or own anything I want...I have no ability to think beyond myself"

 

No, you are just talking made-up nonsense. That is not "libertarian" at all.

 

Anarchy is not the absence or abandonment of "government" but of rulers. There can be government without rulers.

 

Wrong.

Anarchy is the absence of government.

Just in case you missed it, there's never been a government on the planet without someone in charge. It's why people go into government as a career...so they can get a shot at driving the bus.

 

That's an overly simplistic definition that the opponents of anarchy (people like you) have fabricated out of nothing. If you actually read anarchist philosophers and the like, you will see they all advocate some form of "government", mostly self-government. Anarchy literally translates to "without rulers" not "without government", so clearly it is YOU who is in the wrong.

Irrelevant to my point. There can be a government without rulers. It just requires the development of proper values in the people. Without values, without morality, no form of government will succeed in the long-run.

Individuals have to drive their own bus or a given civilization will decay and collapse.

 

Miami and Los Angeles are your examples of places that "abandoned government"? My God, you really are clueless. What's the point of debating someone so willfully ignorant, or are you just being obtuse? Neither of those cities "abandoned government" at any point in your lifetime. You would have to be out of your mind to argue otherwise.

 

Not particularly. This is the same basic principal of ownership we use now, with the exception of government enforced theft.

Not at all- government never granted the the privilege of private ownership to the individual. It was inherent in the individual to begin with, as BHK pointed out. Rothbard best illustrate this in various works, and an excellent summery of this axiom is given in the introduction of "The Ethics of Liberty" by Hoppe:

In other words, if you are not the owner of the goods you produce, then you are not the owner of your body. This means that government has the right to not only take your income, but your property, enslave your sons and daughter and yourself as well.

 

The Mayor's been wondering that with every post you made.

Just in case you missed the memo your RAT masters didn't send to you, your RAT masters created a brief period of anarchy in Los Angeles in a fit of spite because no, those cops really didn't commit "attempted murder" of that slimy thug Rodney King.

Fifty three people were murdered because people of the political persuasion you admired asked for a riot and got one.

And before that, there were those riots in Miami. As far as the Mayor could tell, that was more of a spontaneous party, he just happened to be in town visiting friends. Again, anarchy leads to destruction. It ALWAYS does.

Then there was city and state screw-ups with Katrina. Even the cops were caught on tape looting. The love-fest in the Astro-dome was typical of anarchy. Gangs took over and controlled access to resources, in this case the heads.

And we can't forget teensy-weensy hurricane Sandy, a mere Cat 1 (most bodaciously NOT a "superstorm", just a baby hurricane), and the anarchy following that, with the looting and all, following.

History's full of examples of anarchy. Look towards Somalia, where the Marxist government successfully used their control of food as a weapon and did what socialists usually do, and crashed the government completely, leading to anarchy....and ultimately, of course, the rise of gang lords that preyed on the weak.

Anarchy is a valuable tool for totalitarians.

You know what happens when Mayor Tommy Bradley calls for a riot? It means the city has abandoned government.

Just because it was temporary doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Just because you want to pretend it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Just because the facts don't agree with your world view doesn't mean the people correctly interpreting those facts is wrong and you're right.

 

I think the legalization of marijuana is the main reason many call themselves Libertarian.

 

I think this image is funny. Surely it is made by a Liberal. They try and try to make Jackson a Republican and Jefferson a Democrat. Jefferson was not a Democrat and Jackson was the first Democrat. Then on top of for the all the former Presidents shown in the center of the chart, none of them are a Republican. Wilson is of a completely different era than the other three so why not use say Reagan as the conservative President example instead?

 

"Non-Aggression Principal" I've never known a non-aggressive Libertarian. Every one I've ever met has thought they have all the answers because "the other two parties can't get it right"....and because they have never been given the power to be President..

Libertarians all have a good perspective but don't notice the shut-off switch when personal Liberty starts affecting others. Let me ask the Libertarians some questions;

A)Should you be forced to wear a seatbelt
B)Should we be allowed to smoke in all restaurants
C)Should we be allowed to carry guns in bars
D)Should we be allowed to own a tank
E)Should we be allowed to own a drone armed with a weapon

I've had extensive discussions with Libertarians who actually know what the party stands for and any advanced Libertarian will answer YES to all of those.

They have a strong fixation on themselves. "I'm a good person so why can't I" attitude. They absolutely never take into account the crazy person that lives near them and their kids that isn't a good person. They never think about the family they will devastate when they die in a car accident with no seat belt.

I agree, I can put a seat belt on myself because I have a family and I'm a good person. But it's not going to do me any good if someone shreads me with a tank because they "had a bad day" Of course that could only happen if America was full of random acts of violence...........(it does if you needed a clue)​

 

Agreed. Even though the Left has been moving towards it for a while.

I met a Libertarian on a Disc Golf Course. He was so high he was leaving his bag at every hole and had to run back to get it every time I wasn't paying attention. He gave me the speech to "run for mayor and stop all taxes......mannnn" It turns out he was a top runner in the Libertarian party in the City who is world recognized.

I told him his party had issues too and I ruined his buzz (not his discraft midrange, his highness)

I wanted to ask him why he plays Disc Golf which is paid for by the tax payers to promote exercise and is free to play, while bashing taxation. We all know how much golf costs when it's privatized..

 

By "aggression" the principle refers to the use of it against peaceful people for political purposes.

I know of no libertarians who claim to have all the answers. What we do know is that the answer to issues where there is no force or fraud does not include government force.

It's not a question of whether you "should be allowed." That is the perspective of a slave. It's a question of whether anyone has the right to restrict you from doing so. Should you, by doing any of these things, be threatening others with force or fraud, then it is their right to stop you.

I don't have a fixation on myself. I just don't believe that I have a right to control others and tell them how to live their lives or follow their conscience. Do you believe that you have that right?

If you really cared about the families devastated by car accidents and believe that government has a moral imperative to eliminate risk, you would outlaw all unnecessary driving. Why stop at seatbelts? You must not care about the families who die in car accidents while going out for a picnic!

 

What's his name?

 

When exactly did these cities disband their governments for an anarchistic system, exactly?

You're joking, right? I've displayed previously that you have absolutely no idea what anarchist political theory actually is, something that you never refuted and is exemplified by the above section. The fact that you're actually so ill read on the theory of anarchism that you would make the above statement is not only sad, but is also incredibly disingenuous.

There is a reasonable discussion about anarchism and the provision of security, but it's not what you have levied.

 

This is the most retarded nonsense I've ever read.

Yes, because "rioting = anarchy" in the mind of a lying fraud.

 

Whoa-Whoa-Whoa ...

It may be more conducive to a productive discussion if you add any of the plethora of different philosophies surrounding a sustainable anarchy you may actually support.
Your continued abuse of others, who are in no way obliged to agree with any assertion you may have regarding the multitude of premises associated with anarchy, doesn't aid anyone in understanding.
Perhaps you should do him the favor of identifying what you think it means, and what it may have to offer that contradicts what he is expressing.

You stated that there is a "reasonable discussion about anarchism and the provision of security" ... So why don't you start discussing it?

 

BlackSand,

I believe that you are ignorant of the discourse Snorkum and I are having (perhaps I am wrong?). What we are truly engaged in at the moment is a discussion surrounding Snorkum's understanding of the term "anarchism" and the coherence of his own worldview, the exact nature of anarchism is irrelevant until Snorkum is either willing to accept that there is a definition of anarchism that is not his own, something that he is obviously unwilling to accept by his insistence on a system that necessitates no laws, no order, and chaos despite having been shown that anarchism has a very broad and deep theoretical history. Note that he is not saying that anarchism will start as one of the political theories discussed and then devolve into "anarchy", or that the systems are impossible to establish in the first place. Instead he is arguing that they aren't theoretical systems of anarchism. Until he is willing to accept that there are other definitions of anarchism and a state of "anarchy", there is no point in discussing further.

Because he's unwilling to accept that the real discussion exists. If you think that the only type of government is communism, and you refuse to acknowledge that other forms of government exist, then how can we have a discussion on whether or not democracy is the best form of government?

I also do not believe that I have "abused" anyone else on this forum as such. I attempt to respond in the same tone that others address me with. Perhaps I have failed in achieving this goal, but if I haven't then any abuse is entirely due to the initial "abuse" of others.

If you would like to have a discuss anarchism with me then I would be happy to do so, but until Snorkum accepts that his definition of anarchism is incomplete, I cannot do the same with him.

 

Listen ... I am no expert on anarchy, but I understand quite a bit more about it than most people do.
My suggestion was that you explain what you think it is instead of telling people what it isn't.

Trust Me ... I know what you are talking about ... and I am quite a bit more interested in watching you try to nail down a few specifics.
You can sit there and tell people they are wrong all day ... but anyone who knows anything about the anarchy movement knows it is a lot easier to say what it isn't ... than what it is.

Now step up to the plate and start putting your neck on the line ... Or assume I am stupid and don't know what I am talking about.

 

Well okay, but what exactly do you want me to write about?

 

That will work ... And is on topic with what you were trying to say ... Well heck, you did say it.