arguments against libertarianism?

[rocksteady]

Lately I find myself more and more identifying with this political movement. However, I am not to type to blindly accept without first listening to criticisms.

What are the potential problems with this philosophy?

The one thing that seems to concern most Americans is the potential of corporations running raping and pillaging in a laizze faire environment. I feel this would be easily taken care of by getting rid of corporate person hood, and increasing personal liability for the actions of corporations.

anything else?

[Oversphere]

My biggest objection to libertarianism is their quasi-religious belief in the ability of the free market to fix everything. The goal of a corporation is to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. Microsoft is a great example. If you make enough money quickly enough, you can dominate the competition. The goals of society only coincide with the goals of a corporation to the extent that a corporation can make money meeting those goals. I cannot imagine a plausible way that the goal of making as much money as possible as quickly as possible can CONSISTENTLY coincide with social goals like educating every single individual, or providing a medical/financial "safety net" for every single individual, or ensuring "fair" treatment of each individual regarding things like cronyism and discrimination, or discouraging various self-destructive behaviors, or using natural resources in a responsible and sustainable way. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with all of these social goals, but it seems that society in generally wants these and other goals met. As much as I dislike the idea, the only way to accomplish a lot of these goals is to coerce people by implicit threat of force (that's what govt does best!).

I would like to see lots of libertarians elected, for my own personal reasons, even though I don't completely agree with their political philosphy. It's a pipe dream, though. When somebody figures out how to get most people to stop taking everything at face value, and honestly question the status quo, the libertarian party might have a chance. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

[prometheus]

The bad aspects of corporatism would be eliminated by the removal of corporate handouts and corporate welfare and pork projects .


Having argued the pros of libertarianism for so long, I'll tell you the most common agruments against.

1) All our children would be on drugs if they were legal.

2)Live donkey sex shows on everycorner.

3) what about welfare for the poor and crippled?

4)Why would anyone want an M16, grenades, rocket launcher, unless they were a terrorist

Part II when I get the time will be the answers to these questions. Unless someone beats me to it.

[Lights]

Whenever I hear anyone argue for individual liberty I wonder if they think the will of every person will coincide with theirs. ;)

Every political ideology eventually becomes a living hypocrisy. Liberalism emphasizes equality but eventually some people become "more equal" than others. Conservatism emphasizes gradual change and smaller government, but it eventually leads to an expansion of security forces.

Libertarianism is no different. It argues that each person is the master over their own life, but the reality is that people will inevitably come together and sacrifice some of their freedom in order to better compete. If that wasn't the reality and humans weren't social animals, then humans could naturally exist in anarchy, each individual looking out for him or herself. But as a result of the reality, groupthink evolves and people will no longer criticize or analyze ideas for fear of going against the consensus that allows them the security of belonging to a group. If this sounds familiar, then you have probably made the connection to high school, where little social groups form and a social hierarchy develops. Once a natural social hierarchy forms, the top will have some power over the bottom and libertarianism becomes just another unfulfilled pipe dream.

[Aestheticbend]

Whenever I hear anyone argue for individual liberty I wonder if they think the will of every person will coincide with theirs. ;)

Every political ideology eventually becomes a living hypocrisy. Liberalism emphasizes equality but eventually some people become "more equal" than others. Conservatism emphasizes gradual change and smaller government, but it eventually leads to an expansion of security forces.

Libertarianism is no different. It argues that each person is the master over their own life, but the reality is that people will inevitably come together and sacrifice some of their freedom in order to better compete. If that wasn't the reality and humans weren't social animals, then humans could naturally exist in anarchy, each individual looking out for him or herself. But as a result of the reality, groupthink evolves and people will no longer criticize or analyze ideas for fear of going against the consensus that allows them the security of belonging to a group. If this sounds familiar, then you have probably made the connection to high school, where little social groups form and a social hierarchy develops. Once a natural social hierarchy forms, the top will have some power over the bottom and libertarianism becomes just another unfulfilled pipe dream.


This is a strawman, if I have ever saw one.

Your initial premise of libertarianism, "that each person is the master of their own life" distorts the true nature of libertarianism. Yes, many libertarians are for a strong sense of individual responsibility, but the real issue is non-aggression and thus voluntarism. This logically implies pluralism in terms of forms of communities. The initial premise is not individual responsibility, but an opposition to the initiation of force, while the two are related the latter precedes the former.

Yes, people will come together and sacrifice some of their freedoms. But this is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. As if such a sacrifice comes about through voluntary relations it would not be viewed as immoral in any regard. A communitarian attitude can flourish in libertarianism, but individualism cannot under a state. In this sense libertarianism is a beginning not an end. It is a framework from which people can freely associate and associate into the form of social life that best suits their interests. These interests don't have to be simply individual material interests, they could be towards a sense of community and purposiveness within such a context.

The remark about social hierarchy is ultimately misguided as libertarianism gets rid of involuntary hierarchy. Hierarchy will still exist, but it is not maintained through force, but rather through people's choice. When i go to work as a labourer, I am choosing to be a low man in the social hierarchy. Also, if you oppose social hierarchy why support the state? The greatest inequality in power that exists is between the ruling class and its subjects.

Libertarianism is not singular, that is why I see it as superior as a framework from which other forms of political association can flourish. For example, i am a market anarchist, but I have many leanings towards an Aristotleian notion of civic republicanism, but such is not conducive to large cities and could only function in small communities with people who are also dedicated towards that idea. So thus, to force it is to ignore the idea of virtue through the public sphere in terms of what Arendt called action. But to force this form of association is to presuppose that the individual is but a part of the community and owes his community service.

[rocksteady]

/\ great response!

I actually think the adoption of libertarian philosophies is absolutely essential to the future of our country. Not in an immediate sense, but in an eventual sense, because the rapid progression of technology is giving individuals more and more power, and personal accountability needs to be practiced and learned, otherwise we could be facing some sort of Orwellian nightmare or complete chaos. I am actually considering writing a paper on this subject and submitting it to some magazines or something.

[Lights]

This is a strawman, if I have ever saw one.

Your initial premise of libertarianism, "that each person is the master of their own life" distorts the true nature of libertarianism. Yes, many libertarians are for a strong sense of individual responsibility, but the real issue is non-aggression and thus voluntarism. This logically implies pluralism in terms of forms of communities. The initial premise is not individual responsibility, but an opposition to the initiation of force, while the two are related the latter precedes the former.

Yes, people will come together and sacrifice some of their freedoms. But this is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. As if such a sacrifice comes about through voluntary relations it would not be viewed as immoral in any regard. A communitarian attitude can flourish in libertarianism, but individualism cannot under a state. In this sense libertarianism is a beginning not an end. It is a framework from which people can freely associate and associate into the form of social life that best suits their interests. These interests don't have to be simply individual material interests, they could be towards a sense of community and purposiveness within such a context.

The remark about social hierarchy is ultimately misguided as libertarianism gets rid of involuntary hierarchy. Hierarchy will still exist, but it is not maintained through force, but rather through people's choice. When i go to work as a labourer, I am choosing to be a low man in the social hierarchy. Also, if you oppose social hierarchy why support the state? The greatest inequality in power that exists is between the ruling class and its subjects.

Libertarianism is not singular, that is why I see it as superior as a framework from which other forms of political association can flourish. For example, i am a market anarchist, but I have many leanings towards an Aristotleian notion of civic republicanism, but such is not conducive to large cities and could only function in small communities with people who are also dedicated towards that idea. So thus, to force it is to ignore the idea of virtue through the public sphere in terms of what Arendt called action. But to force this form of association is to presuppose that the individual is but a part of the community and owes his community service.

I stand refuted. However, this still rings of the old "Everyone will take care of their own" ideology that sounds good on paper, but doesn't pan out so well in reality. I was also not aware that people got to choose where they stood in the social hierarchy, but I suppose if that is your personal belief then it is irrefutable.

[rocksteady]

I stand refuted. However, this still rings of the old "Everyone will take care of their own" ideology that sounds good on paper, but doesn't pan out so well in reality. I was also not aware that people got to choose where they stood in the social hierarchy, but I suppose if that is your personal belief then it is irrefutable.

libertarianism is all about letting the individual choose what's best for him

[Lights]

libertarianism is all about letting the individual choose what's best for him

So what happens when an individual's choice of what is best for him is harmful to everyone else?

[rocksteady]

Rights theorists (some of whom may be deontologists) assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property—with force meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone—who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle

WIKI

[Lights]

WIKI

That doesn't really answer my question. What would libertarians do once someone has violated the principles of libertarianism by doing something harmful to others?

[Kaiser]

I think probably the worst problems could arise from trying to implement a high degree of libertarianism in a society that's not ready to embrace it yet. I believe a society must be mature enough to take advantage of a libertarian way of life.

[prometheus]

I think probably the worst problems could arise from trying to implement a high degree of libertarianism in a society that's not ready to embrace it yet. I believe a society must be mature enough to take advantage of a libertarian way of life.


One of the best examples of anarchy/libertarianism societies was in the areas of early american expansion, ie the "wild" west. These communities were far from mature. In fact the curtailment of individual rights came as they matured and the god fearing, church going settlers wanted to foist their moral code on the existing citizens. Who had done fine without temperance leagues and "gun control". If through a total economic collapse, or whatever, american towns once again found themselves without the services of the courts and police, I would guess there would be a bloody but short transition period where the naturally dishonest would take advantage of the situation by stealing etc. but would fairly quickly and violently be solved by honest people defending themselves. Then again, I live in rural montana where to a lesser extent this still happens.

[OneBadMother]

So what happens when an individual's choice of what is best for him is harmful to everyone else?

That is a valid point, and one that I think needs to be properly addressed by someone who knows more about libertarianism than I. I think that libertarianism is in some ways too idealistic to have a practical application in anything other than a specially-selected group of cooperative, intelligent people, like with anarchy and communism.

[prometheus]

That is a valid point, and one that I think needs to be properly addressed by someone who knows more about libertarianism than I. I think that libertarianism is in some ways too idealistic to have a practical application in anything other than a specially-selected group of cooperative, intelligent people, like with anarchy and communism.

Lights, I might have to take you off ignore but provide an example of this.

[Lights]

That is a valid point, and one that I think needs to be properly addressed by someone who knows more about libertarianism than I. I think that libertarianism is in some ways too idealistic to have a practical application in anything other than a specially-selected group of cooperative, intelligent people, like with anarchy and communism.

:thumbsup: That is really what I wanted to know. When I hear about libertarianism, the image that pops to mind is lynch mobs and vigilantes. That is probably a misconception, but I've never heard what the alternative to a state ran legal system would be.

[prometheus]

That doesn't really answer my question. What would libertarians do once someone has violated the principles of libertarianism by doing something harmful to others?


This one is easy. I will use any force I deem necessary to defend my life, family, property, and rights. Up to and including lethal force. For example, if someone is physically assaulting me I will kill or maim them.

[OneBadMother]

And what do you consider "the force necessary", and at what point do you consider the need to resort to force? Might the other person just be acting as their moral/ethical compass deems is necessary?

Also, would you consider some kind of diplomacy before said killing/maiming? I think that's the key issue.

[Lights]

This one is easy. I will use any force I deem necessary to defend my life, family, property, and rights. Up to and including lethal force. For example, if someone is physically assaulting me I will kill or maim them.

How is that different than how each American lives under the current government? If it's truly self defense then it is completely protected under law.

Unless of course you are demanding the right to shoot people for stealing your VCR or to hang someone for sleeping with your daughter.

[Lucid]

That doesn't really answer my question. What would libertarians do once someone has violated the principles of libertarianism by doing something harmful to others?

My understanding of libertarianism is that it's different from anarchy. And what you seem to be describing is anarchy. I think that the practical answer, that most libertarians would give in response to your question, is that if a person violates the ideology of libertarianism by doing something which is harmful to others, that person would be punished similar to the way they are now.

From Wikipedia:
"Some make an exception when the infringement [of personal freedoms by the government] is a result of due process to establish or punish criminal behavior."

To learn more about libertarianism, so that you may argue for or against it from an informed perspective, you may visit the wikipedia page here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), or the Libertarian Party's website, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Having said all that, libertarianism is a flawed political ideology, just like any other (although in my opinion, it has less flaws than most). I also see a need for some amount of regulation of business, especially of large businesses. And the need to have programs to help those less fortunate, such as welfare, etc. Whether these programs are better run by the government or by privatized organizations is a subject for debate.

[prometheus]

And what do you consider "the force necessary", and at what point do you consider the need to resort to force? Might the other person just be acting as their moral/ethical compass deems is necessary?

Also, would you consider some kind of diplomacy before said killing/maiming? I think that's the key issue.

Most of your questions are situation specific, I can't give a blanket answer of when I would use force, or when I would use diplomacy. Provide a situation and I'll tell you what my response would be. But, I will address the nanny issue below.


Their moral/ethical compass has nothing to do with me if I'm not instigating force/fraud against them or anybody else. They aren't my mommy or daddy, and I'm not their child.

I don't usually post large sections of text, but lights has a history of just breezing by supporting links.........so here is what I follow:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (consequentialist libertarians do not base their ethics on it[1]). It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense against aggression.

The non-aggression principle typically includes property as a part of the owner; to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. Thus, the principle leads to the rejection of theft, murder and fraud. When applied to governments, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation and the military draft. When taken to the extreme, individualist anarchists argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself and protecting individuals from aggression through voluntary payments rather than taxation.

The United States Libertarian Party and others view it as an essential tenet of all libertarian thought, though not all libertarians agree. The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including natural law, utilitarianism, contractarianism, egoism, and Objectivism. Murray Rothbard derived the principle from self-ownership. Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life. However, some espouse the principle as a simple matter of personal preference.

prometheus added, 15 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...

How is that different than how each American lives under the current government? If it's truly self defense then it is completely protected under law. So the eighty year old grandma living in DC is able to protect herself from an armed rapist breaking into her home.........how. [sorry about the second amendment jack]

Unless of course you are demanding the right to shoot people for stealing your VCR or to hang someone for sleeping with your daughter.

Someone steals my VCR and I see them, I'd probably order them to stop, pull my weapon. If they didn't stop I'd pursue them and detain them until (through the courts:yuck:) I received restitution. Now, if during the detainment process I had reason to believe they were reaching for a weapon, there would be no trial. Theft is wrong, are you arguing a polite society should embrace it?

As for my daughter, since she isn't even a teenager yet, yes the undertaker would probably be getting a little business. But generally that would depend on the age of the daughter and if there was consent by both parties.

[Kaiser]

Most of your questions are situation specific, I can't give a blanket answer of when I would use force, or when I would use diplomacy. Provide a situation and I'll tell you what my response would be. But, I will address the nanny issue below.


Their moral/ethical compass has nothing to do with me if I'm not instigating force/fraud against them or anybody else. They aren't my mommy or daddy, and I'm not their child.

I don't usually post large sections of text, but lights has a history of just breezing by supporting links.........so here is what I follow:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (consequentialist libertarians do not base their ethics on it[1]). It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense against aggression.

The non-aggression principle typically includes property as a part of the owner; to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. Thus, the principle leads to the rejection of theft, murder and fraud. When applied to governments, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation and the military draft. When taken to the extreme, individualist anarchists argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself and protecting individuals from aggression through voluntary payments rather than taxation.

The United States Libertarian Party and others view it as an essential tenet of all libertarian thought, though not all libertarians agree. The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including natural law, utilitarianism, contractarianism, egoism, and Objectivism. Murray Rothbard derived the principle from self-ownership. Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life. However, some espouse the principle as a simple matter of personal preference.

prometheus added, 15 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...

So the eighty year old grandma living in DC is able to protect herself from an armed rapist breaking into her home.........how. [sorry about the second amendment jack]

Someone steals my VCR and I see them, I'd probably order them to stop, pull my weapon. If they didn't stop I'd pursue them and detain them until (through the courts:yuck:) I received restitution. Now, if during the detainment process I had reason to believe they were reaching for a weapon, there would be no trial. Theft is wrong, are you arguing a polite society should embrace it?

As for my daughter, since she isn't even a teenager yet, yes the undertaker would probably be getting a little business. But generally that would depend on the age of the daughter and if there was consent by both parties.

Who would protect granny in that theoretical anarchist society we are talking about?

[Lights]

My understanding of libertarianism is that it's different from anarchy. And what you seem to be describing is anarchy. I think that the practical answer, that most libertarians would give in response to your question, is that if a person violates the ideology of libertarianism by doing something which is harmful to others, that person would be punished similar to the way they are now.

From Wikipedia:
"Some make an exception when the infringement [of personal freedoms by the government] is a result of due process to establish or punish criminal behavior."

To learn more about libertarianism, so that you may argue for or against it from an informed perspective, you may visit the wikipedia page here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), or the Libertarian Party's website, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Having said all that, libertarianism is a flawed political ideology, just like any other (although in my opinion, it has less flaws than most). I also see a need for some amount of regulation of business, especially of large businesses. And the need to have programs to help those less fortunate, such as welfare, etc. Whether these programs are better run by the government or by privatized organizations is a subject for debate.

I can agree with this. After reading the wiki I do have some misgivings. It seems this ideology assumes that individuals will make the best choices for themselves and those under their care or it doesn't care if they don't. People will make bad choices due to ignorance or superstition and if it was just them then I wouldn't care so much, but those that they take care of such as children or the elderly, could suffer a great deal because of it.

Also, I don't know how likely it is that people would provide enough charity to ensure decent education, roads, health care, etc. The way I see it, it puts much more emphasis on religious institutions and I would hate to have to send my kid to a Catholic or LDS school so they could get and education despite my not believing in the tenets of those respected faiths.

Although I do love the individual freedom that the ideology is based on, I would say that taking it beyond limiting government control is just asking for trouble.

[OneBadMother]

So the eighty year old grandma living in DC is able to protect herself from an armed rapist breaking into her home.........how. [sorry about the second amendment jack]

By owning a gun through legal means and knowing how to shoot to debilitate? I think that's already counted as self-defense under current law, if she shoots said guy. :P After that she can call an emergency number and he'll get taken away and locked up. You don't need libertarianism to cover that scenario.

[prometheus]

Who would protect granny in that theoretical anarchist society we are talking about?

Well, Messrs Smith and Wesson. Perhaps Samual Colt, Mr Browning or Heir Heckler or Koch. Because she lives in DC she has been deprived of her right to the best equalizer in society.

prometheus added, 6 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...

By owning a gun through legal means and knowing how to shoot to debilitate? I think that's already counted as self-defense under current law, if she shoots said guy. :P After that she can call an emergency number and he'll get taken away and locked up. You don't need libertarianism to cover that scenario.

In 1976, D.C.’s City Council thumbed its nose at Congress, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws,” and the rest of the U.S., and began conducting a social experiment of its own design against the city’s law-abiding residents. The experiment, unlike anything known elsewhere in America, took the form of the Firearms Control Regulations Act, which required that firearms kept at home be rendered useless for protection by being “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” It required that all privately owned firearms be registered, and prohibited possession of a handgun not registered with city police prior to Sept. 24, 1976, and re-registered by Feb. 5, 1977.

[OneBadMother]

In that case, if guns aren't legal in DC, the fact that the rapist has a gun in the first place wouldn't change under libertarianism. :P The fact of the rapist having a gun is what laws are supposed to prevent.

[Lights]

I don't think that is applicable.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Kaiser]

Now, let's suppose that an act of aggression against you is initiated by a guy in full class III body armor armed with a M249 and who happens to be well trained in hand to hand and close quarters combat. Who will defend you then?

[Lights]

Now, let's suppose that an act of aggression against you is initiated by a guy in full class III body armor armed with a M249 and who happens to be well trained in hand to hand and close quarters combat. Who will defend you then?

Natural law. Survival of the fittest. :thumbsup:

[Lucid]

I can agree with this. After reading the wiki I do have some misgivings. It seems this ideology assumes that individuals will make the best choices for themselves and those under their care or it doesn't care if they don't. People will make bad choices due to ignorance or superstition and if it was just them then I wouldn't care so much, but those that they take care of such as children or the elderly, could suffer a great deal because of it.

Also, I don't know how likely it is that people would provide enough charity to ensure decent education, roads, health care, etc. The way I see it, it puts much more emphasis on religious institutions and I would hate to have to send my kid to a Catholic or LDS school so they could get and education despite my not believing in the tenets of those respected faiths.

Although I do love the individual freedom that the ideology is based on, I would say that taking it beyond limiting government control is just asking for trouble.

I understand your misgivings and would respond by saying that there are different extremes to libertarianism, just like any other political philosophy. I believe in moderate libertarianism.
In addition, I would say that you place far too much trust in the government and too easily give over your rights in the name of security and comfort. However, it is certainly your prerogative to believe as you do and I won't fault you for it. I just won't agree. :)

[prometheus]

I can agree with this. After reading the wiki I do have some misgivings. It seems this ideology assumes that individuals will make the best choices for themselves and those under their care or it doesn't care if they don't. People will make bad choices due to ignorance or superstition and if it was just them then I wouldn't care so much, but those that they take care of such as children or the elderly, could suffer a great deal because of it.

Also, I don't know how likely it is that people would provide enough charity to ensure decent education, roads, health care, etc. The way I see it, it puts much more emphasis on religious institutions and I would hate to have to send my kid to a Catholic or LDS school so they could get and education despite my not believing in the tenets of those respected faiths.

Although I do love the individual freedom that the ideology is based on, I would say that taking it beyond limiting government control is just asking for trouble.

If you weren't giving up 50% of your income through taxes. You could afford a private non-religious school, (or god forbid homeschool) Poll roads would be ran more efficiently than what we see today (cue mental picture of one public works guy shoveling as six watch), health care we covered last time, (national) socialized medicine is not the answer leave it to the free market.

prometheus added, 4 Minutes and 46 Seconds later...

In that case, if guns aren't legal in DC, the fact that the rapist has a gun in the first place wouldn't change under libertarianism. :P The fact of the rapist having a gun is what laws are supposed to prevent.


Exactly! Gun laws don't work. Because criminals are criminals and will break the law. The only effect of gun laws are to disarm honest citizens and make it easier for the criminals to victimize them. What would change with a libertarian platform is that after Joe "rape yo ass" Smith breaks the window Granny Woodward tuns him into a piece of swiss cheese.

[OneBadMother]

Now, let's suppose that an act of aggression against you is initiated by a guy in full class III body armor armed with a M249 and who happens to be well trained in hand to hand and close quarters combat. Who will defend you then?

In a libertarian society, will everybody get access to full class III body armor with a M249 and become well trained in hand-to-hand and close quarters combat? :P If not, then someone's still going to get the short end of the stick. A lot of people, actually.

[Lights]

I understand your misgivings and would respond by saying that there are different extremes to libertarianism, just like any other political philosophy. I believe in moderate libertarianism.
In addition, I would say that you place far too much trust in the government and too easily give over your rights in the name of security and comfort. However, it is certainly your prerogative to believe as you do and I won't fault you for it. I just won't agree. :)

Not at all. I could believe in a moderate form of libertarianism. I can even agree that one day it will probably be necessary. It's just I don't trust the judgment of the individual as much as you folks seem to. As a bisexual man from Wyoming, I've learned that individuals often believe that persecuting people with a different lifestyle is the only way to protect their family and own way of life. I just think American thinking has long, long way to evolve before every individual is ready for that kind of freedom.

[prometheus]

I don't think that is applicable.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

City attorneys said that it would take at least 30 days for the court's decision to go into effect, during which time the District probably will file its appeal. During an appeal, which could last more than a year, the current law would remain in effect, the lawyers said.

[Lights]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sounds like the system is working to me.

[prometheus]

Now, let's suppose that an act of aggression against you is initiated by a guy in full class III body armor armed with a M249 and who happens to be well trained in hand to hand and close quarters combat. Who will defend you then?


Well considering that equipment is what a lot of swat teams use now days, is there a defense? How about an assault wheelbarrow [/bad gunkid joke] Need to brush up on the anatomical placement of the femoral artery I guess.

prometheus added, 6 Minutes and 23 Seconds later...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sounds like the system is working to me.

Tell that to the people who are the statistics here. No I guess you will just have to tell it to the families.

The results have been catastrophic. Since D.C. imposed its 1976 laws, it has earned the unfortunate distinction, “murder capital of the United States.” D.C.’s murder rate had been declining before 1976, but it increased thereafter. Between 1976-1991, it rose 200%, while the U.S. murder rate rose only 9%. (FBI, D.C. Police)

[Lights]

During the violent crime wave of the early 1990s, Washington, D.C. was known as the "murder capital" of the United States,[51] and often rivaled New Orleans in the high number of homicides. Homicides peaked in 1991 at 482, but the level of violence declined drastically in the 1990s. In 2006, the annual murder count in the city had declined to 169.[52] Once plagued with violent crime, many D.C. neighborhoods, such as Columbia Heights, are becoming safe and vibrant areas as a result of gentrification. While not as intensely violent, crime hotspots have since displaced farther into the eastern sections of Washington, D.C. and across the border into Maryland. Although the southeastern side of the city has developed a reputation for being unsafe, these crime hotspots are generally concentrated in very specific areas that are associated with drugs and gangs.[3] Other areas east of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the city's wealthier Northwest neighborhoods west of Rock Creek Park, experience low levels of crime. Despite the declining trends, Washington D.C. crime rates (2005) remain among the highest of U.S. cities, and it was most recently ranked as the 13th most dangerous city in the nation (2005). Washington, D.C.'s crime rate surpasses the rates of Los Angeles and New York.[53]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Safe? Obviously not. But it doesn't sound like its the least safe because of its gun laws. Not that I'm advocating gun control. It just seems that if it was the 13th most dangerous city in 2005, then there is a good chance that 12 other cities that probably allowed guns were more dangerous.

Of course I could be wrong, but I would love to see some statistical evidence that clearly correlates that gun control increases violent crime.

[Kaiser]

If this anarchical society ever becomes a reality, I'd consider setting up a corporation to provide private police services to it's citizens. Once I'm well established taking over the world would be child's play...oops, forget the last part :D

[prometheus]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Safe? Obviously not. But it doesn't sound like its the least safe because of its gun laws. Not that I'm advocating gun control. It just seems that if it was the 13th most dangerous city in 2005, then there is a good chance that 12 other cities that probably allowed guns were more dangerous.

Of course I could be wrong, but I would love to see some statistical evidence that clearly correlates that gun control increases violent crime.

Massive social-science research shows the ineffectiveness of gun control in reducing crime. It is a source of continuous amazement that gun control advocates ignore the results of criminological, historical and econometric studies by reputed scholars like (among others) John Lott, Bill Landes, Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi, Taylor Buckner, David Kopel, Don Kates, Gary Mauser, Colin Greenwood, and Joyce Malcolm.

In the United States, ordinary citizens shoot three times as many criminals in selfdefense as do the police, and recent work by Prof. John R. Lott, Jr., at the University of Chicago has shown that allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime-without any apparent increase in accidental death or suicide. While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cuts death rates from multiple shootings such as those in Littleton, Colorado, this year in the United States or in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996.

Prof. Lott found that when concealedcarry laws went into effect in a given county murders fell by 8%, rapes by 5%, and aggravated assaults by 7%. For each additional year concealed-carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3%, robberies by more than 2%, and rape by 1%.

prometheus added, 5 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...

If this anarchical society ever becomes a reality, I'd consider setting up a corporation to provide private police services to it's citizens. Once I'm well established taking over the world would be child's play...oops, forget the last part :D

That line of thought might actually work in sheeple states like DC, California, Massachusetts. Good luck with that up here in MT. We have the highest per capita firearm ownership in the states.

My favorite:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[feralfae]

What I find interesting in this thread are some unsupportable assumptions:
Government is the only deterrent to crime;
Humans require government to protect them from their own choices and actions, although governments are responsible for more deaths, genocide and pillage than any other identifiable group or individual;
That government is necessary for a polite, free-market, non-coercive society;
That government is necessary for society, rather than government being a deterrent to a society capable of change, flux, and accommodation of all types of individuals;
That humans would lack sufficient charity, generosity and concern to care for the less fortunate without having government rob us of our individual production and distribute a small portion of the booty to the less fortunate - but most to their political cronies - as a justification for the armed robbery;
That humans in a social culture could not abide by ZAP voluntarily;
That humans are inherently violent, stupid and unable to govern themselves, which of course is exactly the cant fed to and swallowed by most humans from the authoritarian statists who believe they are somehow better qualified to run my life than I am.

feralfae, otherwise known as little bunny foofoo

[Lights]

What I find interesting in this thread are some unsupportable assumptions:
Government is the only deterrent to crime;
Humans require government to protect them from their own choices and actions, although governments are responsible for more deaths, genocide and pillage than any other identifiable group or individual;
That government is necessary for a polite, free-market, non-coercive society;
That government is necessary for society, rather than government being a deterrent to a society capable of change, flux, and accommodation of all types of individuals;
That humans would lack sufficient charity, generosity and concern to care for the less fortunate without having government rob us of our individual production and distribute a small portion of the booty to the less fortunate - but most to their political cronies - as a justification for the armed robbery;
That humans in a social culture could not abide by ZAP voluntarily;
That humans are inherently violent, stupid and unable to govern themselves, which of course is exactly the cant fed to and swallowed by most humans from the authoritarian statists who believe they are somehow better qualified to run my life than I am.

feralfae, otherwise known as little bunny foofoo

Eh? I didn't see anyone make those assumptions. Are we in the same thread?

[feralfae]

Oh, whew, then if everyone here is in agreement that all of the assumptions I stated above are false assumptions, we have no reason to be concerned about government protection and loss of individual self-government, do we. Whew!

And about that private protection agency: without government-licensed monopolies, aren't you forgetting about myriad forms of free-market competition?

[prometheus]

Oh, whew, then if everyone here is in agreement that all of the assumptions I stated above are false assumptions, we have no reason to be concerned about government protection and loss of individual self-government, do we. Whew!

And about that private protection agency: without government-licensed monopolies, aren't you forgetting about myriad forms of free-market competition?

Nice tag Bunny Foo Foo, let me know if you need a folding chair.

[Lights]

Oh, whew, then if everyone here is in agreement that all of the assumptions I stated above are false assumptions, we have no reason to be concerned about government protection and loss of individual self-government, do we. Whew!

And about that private protection agency: without government-licensed monopolies, aren't you forgetting about myriad forms of free-market competition?

And now you are assuming that if we don't agree with those assumptions, then we agree with yours. :laugh:

[feralfae]

Oh, no, I am not assuming that you will agree with anything I think. But if I know you do not support any of the stated (false) assumptions, then I know we have a basis for some productive, mutually-beneficial discussions.
It is, for me, a process not unlike everyone agreeing to lay aside arms and hold a discussion without threats of force.
I am looking forward to discussing mutually-beneficial concepts with anyone who does not hold any of those stated assumptions.

Thank you for helping me to clarify that point. Very Much!

[Lights]

Oh, no, I am not assuming that you will agree with anything I think. But if I know you do not support any of the stated (false) assumptions, then I know we have a basis for some productive, mutually-beneficial discussions.
It is, for me, a process not unlike everyone agreeing to lay aside arms and hold a discussion without threats of force.
I am looking forward to discussing mutually-beneficial concepts with anyone who does not hold any of those stated assumptions. Thank you for helping me to clarify that point.

It isn't exactly like you posted those assumptions without clear bias.

That humans would lack sufficient charity, generosity and concern to care for the less fortunate without having government rob us of our individual production and distribute a small portion of the booty to the less fortunate - but most to their political cronies - as a justification for the armed robbery;

Do I know whether humans could provide sufficient charity to care for the less fortunate? Nope. Does anyone? Nope. I prefer to assume nothing until there is clear evidence that supports that people are willing to give without receiving anything in return. I do so all the time, but I seldom see others do so. And I don't particualary trust private charities much more than the government. Anyone remember the Red Cross fiasco after 9-11? But of course, I would love to see you provide evidence to support your position.

[feralfae]

Lights, we can go back into human history very far and find beautiful examples of humans caring for other humans. Do I know if they got anything more in return that the good feelings of helping others? Nope. But, look around you at Physicians without Borders, Mother Teresa, Helping Hands, volunteers in many institutions and in so many shelters and animal shelters, too, at all of us who help each other. How could you doubt the goodness that is inherent in individuals? Okay, not in everyone, but in enough of us that I don't think we need government robbing us to take care of us. I know how caring and generous I am, and I am a little fish in the sea of helpful humanity.
If you need proof, you can find it by doing some research: Can you provide evidence that people are not willing to be charitable and caring? I think not. But if you can provide that evidence to support your position, I'd appreciate seeing it.

And I hope some of my bias is clear: I am not trying to hide how I think or what I believe in any way. There could be no productive give and take if I were not truthful about what I think. Don't you agree with that?

[Lights]

Lights, we can go back into human history very far and find beautiful examples of humans caring for other humans. Do I know if they got anything more in return that the good feelings of helping others? Nope. But, look around you at Physicians without Borders, Mother Teresa, Helping Hands, volunteers in many institutions and in so many shelters and animal shelters, too, at all of us who help each other. How could you doubt the goodness that is inherent in individuals? Okay, not in everyone, but in enough of us that I don't think we need government robbing us to take care of us. I know how caring and generous I am, and I am a little fish in the sea of helpful humanity.
If you need proof, you can find it by doing some research: Can you provide evidence that people are not willing to be charitable and caring? I think not. But if you can provide that evidence to support your position, I'd appreciate seeing it.

And I hope some of my bias is clear: I am not trying to hide how I think or what I believe in any way. There could be no productive give and take if I were not truthful about what I think. Don't you agree with that?

Corporations give the most money to charities and they get tax breaks in exchange. Private individuals contribute mostly to religious institutions, primarily because their faith requires them too. I'm just far from convinced about the innate goodness of human kind. I look back to the times when America got much of its workforce right of the boat and remember how the business owners treated those immigrants as disposable. If any of them got hurt, then they were out of job, and left to possibly starve. History shows both tremendous kindness, and horrific indifference. I choose to consider both as the reality of human nature, and thank God that no single ideology is allowed to rule for long.

[Kaiser]

Lights, we can go back into human history very far and find beautiful examples of humans caring for other humans. Do I know if they got anything more in return that the good feelings of helping others? Nope. But, look around you at Physicians without Borders, Mother Teresa, Helping Hands, volunteers in many institutions and in so many shelters and animal shelters, too, at all of us who help each other. How could you doubt the goodness that is inherent in individuals? Okay, not in everyone, but in enough of us that I don't think we need government robbing us to take care of us. I know how caring and generous I am, and I am a little fish in the sea of helpful humanity.
If you need proof, you can find it by doing some research: Can you provide evidence that people are not willing to be charitable and caring? I think not. But if you can provide that evidence to support your position, I'd appreciate seeing it.

And I hope some of my bias is clear: I am not trying to hide how I think or what I believe in any way. There could be no productive give and take if I were not truthful about what I think. Don't you agree with that?

feralfae, I think that the way you think is indeed very good and seems like you are a very good person, but going back in history I can see a lot more examples of human atrocities than anything else. I don't think that's because humans are inherently bad, but I don't think they're inherently good either. Most people are practical individualists, they praise Mother Theresa but don't follow her example; they scandalize at the sight of an act of injustice but don't do anything to prevent it.

[prometheus]

Corporations give the most money to charities and they get tax breaks in exchange. Private individuals contribute mostly to religious institutions, primarily because their faith requires them too. I'm just far from convinced about the innate goodness of human kind. I look back to the times when America got much of its workforce right of the boat and remember how the business owners treated those immigrants as disposable. If any of them got hurt, then they were out of job, and left to possibly starve. History shows both tremendous kindness, and horrific indifference. I choose to consider both as the reality of human nature, and thank God that no single ideology is allowed to rule for long.


You are 1 nanometer from ignore status, again. I told you how I volunteered Thousands of hours in the past as an EMT (looking back seems like most were at 2:30AM) and here you are saying people are naturally selfish (maybe so), and evil (not at all) stop ignoring facts that don't fit your little system of evilness.

[feralfae]

feralfae, I think that the way you think is indeed very good and seems like you are a very good person, but going back in history I can see a lot more examples of human atrocities than anything else. I don't think that's because humans are inherently bad, but I don't think they're inherently good either. Most people are practical individualists, they praise Mother Theresa but don't follow her example; they scandalize at the sight of an act of injustice but don't do anything to prevent it.

Were most of these human atrocities committed by individual humans or by humans inculcated to act on behalf of institutions such as governments and religions? Were these atrocities initiated by individual humans acting as individual humans, or by humans who were power-damaged and used their institutional identity to initiate violence against other humans, often, but not always, also identified with an institution?

How many of these atrocities were endorsed and initiated by government leaders? How many by religious leaders? How many individual humans have actually declared war, bombed a city or murdered entire villages of humans? On the other hand, how much of this has been done under the organized, officially sanctioned approval and protection and support of some government's aegis?

[Lucid]

Were most of these human atrocities committed by individual humans or by humans inculcated to act on behalf of institutions such as governments and religions? Were these atrocities initiated by individual humans acting as individual humans, or by humans who were power-damaged and used their institutional identity to initiate violence against other humans, often, but not always, also identified with an institution?

How many of these atrocities were endorsed and initiated by government leaders? How many by religious leaders? How many individual humans have actually declared war, bombed a city or murdered entire villages of humans? On the other hand, how much of this has been done under the organized, officially sanctioned approval and protection and support of some government's aegis?

Well I think it's clear that humans don't need government to be horrible to one another any more than we need governments to make us be nice to one another.

[Kaiser]

Were most of these human atrocities committed by individual humans or by humans inculcated to act on behalf of institutions such as governments and religions? Were these atrocities initiated by individual humans acting as individual humans, or by humans who were power-damaged and used their institutional identity to initiate violence against other humans, often, but not always, also identified with an institution?

How many of these atrocities were endorsed and initiated by government leaders? How many by religious leaders? How many individual humans have actually declared war, bombed a city or murdered entire villages of humans? On the other hand, how much of this has been done under the organized, officially sanctioned approval and protection and support of some government's aegis?

It is fairly obvious that all large scale atrocities are carried out by political/religious organizations but that doesn't mean they weren't endorsed by the individuals participating in such groups. On the other hand, I can assume from what you say, that you considerer governments and religious organizations to have the capability to commit atrocities and we also know that organizations are run by individuals and thus every possible atrocity must first be conceived by a single mind; therefore, atrocities are planned and executed by individuals, whether or not they belong to an organization and whether or not they reflect official or unofficial doctrines or beliefs sanctioned by the organization.

[feralfae]

Kaiser, you grasped a part of my post:

I used the word power-damaged to reference those individual humans who have placed themselves in positions to initiate violence against other humans. I, as an individual, have very little incentive or resources to initiate violence against a village or group of humans. Were I power-damaged and had secured a position of power within an institution, I could use that to force other humans to kill other humans, is this not so?

Basically, I wish to point out that institutional power corrupts, and that a sanction, once granted or assumed, to initiate violence against other humans, no matter how benign the reason (to collect through force funds to feed the starving children), that sanction of the initiation of violence against other humans - perhaps only select other humans, but still, the initiation of violence where no threat is present, is accepted by other humans who may see a benefit to sanctioning this violence: if not to themselves, then to others (those starving children).

Once there has been a sanction of the initiation of violence against other humans for any reason whatsoever, the human principle of ZAP is obscured and/or ignored.

It is toward this line of thinking that I hope to direct this discussion.

Is there ever any legitimate reason to initiate the use of force, or the use of violence, against any other human?

If you think it is okay for individual humans acting from the power of positions within institutions to initiate force, when do you think it is ethically acceptable, and why?

How does this differ or not differ from that same action and reasoning being used by an individual human not hiding behind an institutional title?

[Lights]

You are 1 nanometer from ignore status, again. I told you how I volunteered Thousands of hours in the past as an EMT (looking back seems like most were at 2:30AM) and here you are saying people are naturally selfish (maybe so), and evil (not at all) stop ignoring facts that don't fit your little system of evilness.

I said human history shows both tremendous kindness and horrible indifference. Libertarianism puts a lot of faith in the human kindness but tends to ignore the indifference. I'm happy you are a good person, but there are many, many people who aren't. Things like greed are powerful motivators to take advantage of the system, whether it be government or private. I'm not ignoring any facts, only suggesting that you are presenting only one side of the equation because you are judging all people as good natured, because you deem yourself to be.

[Kaiser]

feralfae, I've never said that to initiate an aggression whether by an individual or an organization is acceptable. What I'm saying is that we must keep in mind the possibility of violent individuals or groups initiating aggression against other people. My belief is that trying to push too far an utopia, such as anarchy, could potentially bite back. I'm not saying I don't endorse liberalism or anything remotely similar, I dislike everything that acts as a limit to individual freedom, but being practical, I cannot totally dismiss it without first analyzing if its really necessary or not.

[Lights]

Well I think it's clear that humans don't need government to be horrible to one another any more than we need governments to make us be nice to one another.

I think that is well put.

Private institutions are certainly no better off than government ones when it comes to initiation of force. Blackwater may be an example of that. You give anyone enough power and somebody will use it, one way or another, to hurt other humans.

[feralfae]

feralfae, I've never said that to initiate an aggression whether by an individual or an organization is acceptable. What I'm saying is that we must keep in mind the possibility of violent individuals or groups initiating aggression against other people. My belief is that trying to push too far an utopia, such as anarchy, could potentially bite back. I'm not saying I don't endorse liberalism or anything remotely similar, I dislike everything that acts as a limit to individual freedom, but being practical, I cannot totally dismiss it without first analyzing if its really necessary or not.

Kaiser, I agree with much of this, which is why I always endorse militias and individual self-responsibility for self-defense, preferably with selections of weapons, and being well-trained in their use and functions, as well as being trained in other forms of self-defense which involve peaceful discussions prior to gathering up arms.

Thus this discussion. :thumbsup:

I see no dichotomy between myriad voluntary militias and anarchy, actually. I see myself as a militia of one, and a voluntary member of other militias as well. None of this involves any initiation of force against any other human.

feralfae added, 3 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

I think that is well put.

Private institutions are certainly no better off than government ones when it comes to initiation of force. Blackwater may be an example of that. You give anyone enough power and somebody will use it, one way or another, to hurt other humans.

Is not Blackwater acting under a license from a government? Are they not government's hired thugs? Do they not have the sanction of the power-damaged humans who are presently holding the ability to direct the initiation of violence due to the institutional titles they claim?

[Lights]

Is not Blackwater acting under a license from a government? Are they not government's hired thugs? Do they not have the sanction of the power-damaged humans who are presently holding the ability to direct the initiation of violence due to the institutional titles they claim?

Nonetheless, they are a private institution. If you want to go back to the days when private institutions weren't government controlled at all, say during the industrial period of American, then you get into Blacklisting and the using of the military to bring down worker strikes. A good time for families like the Rockefeller's.

[prometheus]

I said human history shows both tremendous kindness and horrible indifference. Libertarianism puts a lot of faith in the human kindness but tends to ignore the indifference. I'm happy you are a good person, but there are many, many people who aren't. Things like greed are powerful motivators to take advantage of the system, whether it be government or private. I'm not ignoring any facts, only suggesting that you are presenting only one side of the equation because you are judging all people as good natured, because you deem yourself to be.

Actually what I was saying (but with a little wobble last night) is I have yet to meet a libertarian or market anarchist who was not a nice person and most I've met donate a lot of their time to charities/causes. I think it was a reasonable argument that a follower of the NAP is required to be a good person.

[Lights]

Actually what I was saying (but with a little wobble last night) is I have yet to meet a libertarian or market anarchist who was not a nice person and most I've met donate a lot of their time to charities/causes. I think it was a reasonable argument that a follower of the NAP is required to be a good person.

Just because you believe you haven't met one doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that a person can't become indifferent to the suffering of others as time goes on. I understand you value your experience, but your logic is the same as a Christian saying they have never met a bad Christian, so they must not exist.

[rocksteady]

I think in order to be able to embrace the ideals of libertarianism, some decent level of atheism has to be established in the country. Religion is killing peoples judgment and holding back positive social change. People are basing much of their judgment on a false set of values, and proper logic and rationale needs to be reestablished before people let go of the idea of the "nanny state".

look at this
Papal encyclical attacks atheism, promises hope (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

this could get ugly....

[prometheus]

Just because you believe you haven't met one doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that a person can't become indifferent to the suffering of others as time goes on. I understand you value your experience, but your logic is the same as a Christian saying they have never met a bad Christian, so they must not exist.

Yes it was a generalization. But, as far as your argument that we need the state to enforce your idea of charity, I'll take the anarchists version. Why can you not understand taxes are theft and theft is wrong even if it is done for good reasons. Are you an the ends justify the means kind of guy? Or, people are too stupid to take care of themselves kind of guy? Or both?

[OneBadMother]

I think my main problem with libertarianism as you've described it is that someone's still going to get screwed over. Instead of the person who doesn't know how to schmooze properly, it will be the person who can't defend themself. Maybe because they don't have high-enough caliber guns or enough martial arts training or fast enough reflexes, maybe because they're small children or elderly. You say that this society is ideal because people are innately good, and then you proceed to talk about various types of guns and body armor needed to uphold said society. Please explain this contradiction.

[feralfae]

Nonetheless, they are a private institution. If you want to go back to the days when private institutions weren't government controlled at all, say during the industrial period of American, then you get into Blacklisting and the using of the military to bring down worker strikes. A good time for families like the Rockefeller's.

Lights, if you would take the time to read my posts, rather than knee-jerk reactions, you would see I paint ALL institutions with the same brush: institutional power of any kind always corrupts: government and religion being the worst two I have encountered. That does not negate the corruption and horrors of other types of institutions, by any means. Thus my use of the word "institutions" rather than government or religion in the questions posed.

So, my original questions remain to be answered:

Is there ever any legitimate reason to initiate the use of force, or the use of violence, against any other human?

If you think it is okay for individual humans acting from the power of positions within institutions to initiate force, when do you think it is ethically acceptable, and why?

How does this differ or not differ from that same action and reasoning being used by an individual human not hiding behind an institutional title?

[prometheus]

I think my main problem with libertarianism as you've described it is that someone's still going to get screwed over. Instead of the person who doesn't know how to schmooze properly, it will be the person who can't defend themself. Maybe because they don't have high-enough caliber guns or enough martial arts training or fast enough reflexes, maybe because they're small children or elderly. You say that this society is ideal because people are innately good, and then you proceed to talk about various types of guns and body armor needed to uphold said society. Please explain this contradiction.


What is the typical police response time where you live? Do you really think they will save you, their only job is to provide income to the beast, and keep the peons from getting too uppity. Defending you life and property are your responsibility no one else can do it for you. Do you realize many courts have declared that the police have no duty to protect you, even if they witness force used on you.

As for firearms, I love them, they will equalize an eighty pound grandmother and a 220 pound x-con. But, more importantly they are the last check and balance over a corrupt government, just as our founding fathers meant them to be.

[feralfae]

I think my main problem with libertarianism as you've described it is that someone's still going to get screwed over. Instead of the person who doesn't know how to schmooze properly, it will be the person who can't defend themself. Maybe because they don't have high-enough caliber guns or enough martial arts training or fast enough reflexes, maybe because they're small children or elderly. You say that this society is ideal because people are innately good, and then you proceed to talk about various types of guns and body armor needed to uphold said society. Please explain this contradiction.

OBM, as we have seen from this discussion, merely because I have adopted ZAP does not mean that all humans will do so.

I have not stated that humans are innately good (however, I do believe humans to be innately capable of entertaining and synthesizing new concepts into their existing paradigms, thus altering those paradigms, through the process of asking and answering questions, otherwise known as thinking) or that an anarchist society is the ideal: I may posit this concept on occasion to illuminate a point, but not to the exclusion of the recognition of the possibility of any human initiating violence: to refuse to recognize that the initiation of violence exists as the operative paradigm for many humans, at this time, especially those power-damaged humans with any institutional title, would be to exist in denial of reality.

I do believe that as we humans evolve, from being the young species that we are, we will embrace new concepts much as we embraced language, fire, bronze, and the internet, to name a few. Species tend toward individuation, both on a specific and a species level.

To the extent that we humans possess self-awareness and can thus direct our actions and thinking, I consider it imperative to offer up for discussion such concepts as ZAP and self-governance. As well, I think that the concept of the use of institutionally-sanctioned coercion through the initiation or threat of initiation of violence is worth recognizing and discussing.

To refuse to acknowledge that our government and many private institutions and individuals resolve conflicts through the initiation of force would be to deny reality.

Thus, I also believe that it is incumbent upon each individual human to be allowed to, prepared to, and ready to defend life and liberty, of themselves, their children and others they love against whom violence may be initiated.
What I do not endorse is any initiation of violence or force.

Perhaps we need to more clearly define our use of the term "initiation of force" and our use of the term "institution"

I would appreciate your definitions of those terms so that we may hold discourse with agreed use of language.

[Lights]

Yes it was a generalization. But, as far as your argument that we need the state to enforce your idea of charity, I'll take the anarchists version. Why can you not understand taxes are theft and theft is wrong even if it is done for good reasons. Are you an the ends justify the means kind of guy? Or, people are too stupid to take care of themselves kind of guy? Or both?

I never made the argument in this thread that we need state to enforce anything. I've only said that I didn't see any evidence that the majority of humans are innately good enough to provide enough charity to provide for the needy and suffering. Why you have to limit it to state and charity is beyond me.

As far as taxes, I willfully pay them so I don't see them as theft. I choose who to elect, and I support the laws passed down in this country as long as they contribute to the general welfare of its populace. I'm neither of the choices you have provided. I'm a "no ideology is perfect, and no human is perfect so we go with what works best at the time" kind of guy.

Is there ever any legitimate reason to initiate the use of force, or the use of violence, against any other human?

I don't particularly care for the way you seem to be defining "initiation of force". If a policemen were to subdue you on the streets for running around shooting a gun and potentially endangering others, then that could fall under your definition. Do I believe that physical aggression is sometimes warranted against another human? Of course, there is contact sports. Very legitimate reason to initiate force. :p But seriously, is there any reason why one person should aim to cause harm to another when the other poses no threat or has not initiated force of their own? No, I can't think of any. The problem lies in the "threat" part of my explanation. Clearly, I don't want somebody going around threatening people, regardless of whether they have initiated force. So what does Libertarianism hold for those types?


Ultimately this whole argument comes down to the reality. Libertarianism in theory is sound, but in practicality, human beings have a long way to go before they can embrace it. That is true of any ideology, regardless of intentions or beliefs.

[feralfae]

I don't particularly care for the way you seem to be defining "initiation of force". If a policemen were to subdue you on the streets for running around shooting a gun and potentially endangering others, then that could fall under your definition.

No, obviously that is defense against the initiation of force, please, do not put words into my keyboard, Lights.

But seriously, is there any reason why one person should aim to cause harm to another when the other poses no threat or has not initiated force of their own? No, I can't think of any. The problem lies in the "threat" part of my explanation.

If they are not initiating force, or threatening to, both of which I covered in an earlier response, then there is no need for defensive action, is there?

Clearly, I don't want somebody going around threatening people, regardless of whether they have initiated force. So what does Libertarianism hold for those types?

I have no idea: I am not a libertarian in any sense of the word.


Ultimately this whole argument comes down to the reality. Libertarianism in theory is sound, but in practicality, human beings have a long way to go before they can embrace it. That is true of any ideology, regardless of intentions or beliefs.

True, in many ways. The questions remain. Mostly, the questions are for each person to answer honestly for self. For instance, I think you believe that government is justified in using force to collect taxes from people who do not want to pay taxes because government needs the money to do good or to perform services or some such, which therefore means you sanction the initiation of violence against individual humans in this case. But I could be mistaken. :)

[Lights]

True, in many ways. The questions remain. Mostly, the questions are for each person to answer honestly for self. For instance, I think you believe that government is justified in using force to collect taxes from people who do not want to pay taxes because government needs the money to do good or to perform services or some such, which therefore means you sanction the initiation of violence against individual humans in this case. But I could be mistaken. :)

You are quite mistaken. Since I'm not openly supporting all libertarian beliefs in a thread entitled "arguments against libertarianism" you are assuming that I don't embrace some aspects of its ideology, and in fact, must be embracing all the opposite beliefs. I'm merely openly questioning the merit of following libertarianism to the letter, and I have found many faults in the ideology, just as I have found many faults in all the others. That isn't to say it doesn't have it's benefits, but if it isn't open to compromise or collaboration to any degree, then it is useless.

Now I never in principle said that the government is justified in forcing people to pay taxes who don't want to. I would say that if people don't partake in the benefits of that government, then they should not have to pay taxes to it. Which means if anyone wants to abandon their public education, health care, police protection, etc. then they don't have to contribute anything. But in practicality, I don't think anyone should be allowed to continue to live in this country, at this time, if they don't pay taxes. If you don't want to do it, then go somewhere else. Go start your own country and show us all how effective an anarchist society really is. What's stopping you?

[feralfae]

You are quite mistaken. Since I'm not openly supporting all libertarian beliefs in a thread entitled "arguments against libertarianism" you are assuming that I don't embrace some aspects of its ideology, and in fact, must be embracing all the opposite beliefs. I'm merely openly questioning the merit of following libertarianism to the letter, and I have found many faults in the ideology, just as I have found many faults in all the others. That isn't to say it doesn't have it's benefits, but if it isn't open to compromise or collaboration to any degree, then it is useless.

Now I never in principle said that the government is justified in forcing people to pay taxes who don't want to. I would say that if people don't partake in the benefits of that government, then they should not have to pay taxes to it. Which means if anyone wants to abandon their public education, health care, police protection, etc. then they don't have to contribute anything. But in practicality, I don't think anyone should be allowed to continue to live in this country, at this time, if they don't pay taxes. If you don't want to do it, then go somewhere else. Go start your own country and show us all how effective an anarchist society really is. What's stopping you?

So, Lights, what you are writing is that if I resist the initiation of violence by the present government/king/ruler/dictator who wants to steal what I produce, wants to steal my crops and my home, then I should be forced to leave my land and all I have earned through honest labour and seek sanctuary elsewhere? I don't get education, health care or protection from government now. Yet, I must acquiesce to this armed robbery or leave? I should do this because otherwise, I might accidently benefit, although I try not to, from some handout the ruler offers from the crops and animals he has stolen from me or another individual? Is that what you mean?

[Lights]

So, Lights, what you are writing is that if I resist the initiation of violence by the present government/king/ruler/dictator who wants to steal what I produce, wants to steal my crops and my home, then I should be forced to leave my land and all I have earned through honest labour and seek sanctuary elsewhere? I don't get education, health care or protection from government now. Yet, I must acquiesce to this armed robbery or leave? I should do this because otherwise, I might accidently benefit, although I try not to, from some handout the ruler offers from the crops and animals he has stolen from me or another individual? Is that what you mean?

I never said anything about violence. I said if you don't wish to pay taxes, then sell your property and get out of the country. You can define taxes as robbery if you want. But as long as you profit from the government, you have no right to complain about having to contribute.

[feralfae]

I never said anything about violence. I said if you don't wish to pay taxes, then sell your property and get out of the country. You can define taxes as robbery if you want. But as long as you profit from the government, you have no right to complain about having to contribute.
How do I profit from this government?
That is a serious question
How do I profit in any way I could not otherwise provide for myself and others without threats of violence or imprisonment?

How would I profit from not having this government, or having it much reduced to operating on voluntary contributions?

Would I profit by not being able to have wars?
Not being able to have the largest prison population of any nation on earth?
Not being able to use asset forfeiture to take all the belongings of families because a marijuana joint is found in their son's room?
Not allowing unions to keep inner city kids locked in indifferent and ineffective government schools?
Not being able to make laws or enforce against voluntary association with anyone of any gender?
Would I benefit by not having the Patriot Act?
Would I benefit when government does not have the resources to enforce laws against human rights and body ownership?
Would I benefit when there were no government-run wars?
Would I benefit when I could read, watch, think and speak of anything I wish, and freely criticize the government without fear of being labeled a "domestic terrorist" and locked away without rights to a jury, habeus corpus or my family even knowing where I am?

Yes, Lights, there are such benefits to individuals from government that I can see why you think we should all pay taxes or leave and live happily on our islands or boats while the rest of you stay and pay taxes to be oppressed. Sure, that makes a LOT of sense to me. Not.

[Lights]

How do I profit from this government? That is a serious question? How do I profit in any way I could not otherwise provide for myself and others without threats of violence or imprisonment?

You are squirting the issue. I already mentioned ways in which you profit from this government, and regardless of whether you could provide those benefits for yourself, you have yet to answer why you don't just leave. Go start your own damn country without rulers and taxes. Why does it have to be this country when most of the people here are happy to continue amending the current government? Should we all change our way of life just for you?

[feralfae]

You are squirting the issue. I already mentioned ways in which you profit from this government, and regardless of whether you could provide those benefits for yourself, you have yet to answer why you don't just leave. Go start your own damn country without rulers and taxes. Why does it have to be this country when most of the people here are happy to continue amending the current government? Should we all change our way of life just for you?

Do you mean I am skirting the issue?
Why I don't leave is because I think there is still hope to bring this nation back to what it was intended to be: a nation founded on the concept of individual human rights and a government whose job is to protect those rights, period. As long as I think there is an opportunity to make changes for the better, and I am having fun doing it, I will stay and pay taxes as the price of admission to the entertainment. The day I stop having fun working for change and human rights, I will quit and leave.

[Lights]

Do you mean I am skirting the issue?
Why I don't leave is because I think there is still hope to bring this nation back to what it was intended to be: a nation founded on the concept of individual human rights and a government whose job is to protect those rights, period. As long as I think there is an opportunity to make changes for the better, and I am having fun doing it, I will stay and pay taxes as the price of admission to the entertainment. The day I stop having fun working for change and human rights, I will quit and leave.

You are an anarchist. What do you care about a Constitutional republic? There is no "I" in democracy. :p

[feralfae]

You are an anarchist. What do you care about a Constitutional republic? There is no "I" in democracy. :p

Based on what statements have you decided to label me an anarchist?

Obviously, I care a great deal more about a Constitutional Republic that do you. You do not seem to comprehend the distinction between a republic and a democracy.

Obviously.

I care about a Constitutional Republic because on this Earth, it is the best concept for a government yet devised by humans which has been instituted and tried, which has an historical basis of experimentation, even if only for a very short time, and the results of that phase of the experiment enlightened the world. This is the first government ever formed based on the concept, however poorly it was instituted, of individual human rights.

[Lights]

Obviously, I care a great deal more about a Constitutional Republic that do you. You do not seem to comprehend the distinction between a republic and a democracy.
Obviously.
I care about a Constitutional Republic because on this Earth, it is the best concept for a government yet devised by humans which has been instituted and tried, which has an historical basis of experimentation, even if only for a very short time, and the results of that phase of the experiment enlightened the world. This is the first government ever formed based on the concept, however poorly it was instituted, of individual human rights.

Stop insulting me. I'm very aware of the difference between a republic and democracy. I was making a joke you dip. :p Our Constitution was formed because an intelligent group of people were able to set aside their individual ideologies and come up with an agreement that was a collaboration of all of them.

But I'm quite done talking to you about this. It's become clear to me that you have no arguments to debuff the arguments that have been waged against libertarianism. Instead, like blind followers of any ideology, you prefer to overlook it's faults and focus only on its principles. And as I have said too many times to count, principles are good on paper, but we live in a world where not everyone is perfect or follows the same principles. So since you can't acknowledge any fault in your ideology, I have no reason to continue discussing it with you.

[prometheus]

I've always loved the "How dare you address your grievances against unconstitutional laws. If you don't like it get out of our country....America you're with us or you're a terrorist!" argument.

[Lights]

I've always loved the "How dare you address your grievances against unconstitutional laws. If you don't like it get out of our country....America you're with us or you're a terrorist!" argument.

You are very close to being put on "ignore" buddy. I asked why he didn't leave, and his answer was because he wants to make this nation into an anarchy/libertarian state something. Don't ask me why they didn't make it part of the Constitution that the government couldn't tax the populace, or why it authorized the building of military and navy.

[feralfae]

I've always loved the "How dare you address your grievances against unconstitutional laws. If you don't like it get out of our country....America you're with us or you're a terrorist!" argument.
:laugh::laugh:
No, no, that was the Nazis!
They, too, twisted people's words and made up stuff to suit their own purposes.
:cheesy::cheesy:

[feralfae]

I think it is very interesting that someone would have difficulty recognizing a Buddhist who practices ZAP and espouses it to others.

But perhaps my words were less cogent than most readers have led me to believe.

At any rate, I hope that we can continue discussing, perhaps as a sub-topic, alternatives to the initiation of violence against any human for any reason, and the use of violence only for self-defense against the initiation of violence. While the reality of the world in which we live may preclude full adoption of this practice in the view of many, I do think it is worthwhile to explore it as a way of life as we develop other ideas which might assist humans to live in better harmony with one another.

[Lights]

I think it is very interesting that someone would have difficulty recognizing a Buddhist who practices ZAP and espouses it to others.

But perhaps my words were less cogent than most readers have led me to believe.

At any rate, I hope that we can continue discussing, perhaps as a sub-topic, alternatives to the initiation of violence against any human for any reason, and the use of violence only for self-defense against the initiation of violence. While the reality of the world in which we live may preclude full adoption of this practice in the view of many, I do think it is worthwhile to explore it as a way of life as we develop other ideas which might assist humans to live in better harmony with one another.

Ideology - set of beliefs and goals of a social or political group that explain or justify the group's decisions and behavior.

You are convinced as to your position, and seeing as you are an INTJ, I can't imagine what the merit would be in exchanging ideas with you. You already have it all figured out, and nothing anyone can ever say will influence that perception.

But I'll always listen to what you have to say, if for no other reason than to laugh at how apparently oblivious you are.

[feralfae]

/\ great response!

I actually think the adoption of libertarian philosophies is absolutely essential to the future of our country. Not in an immediate sense, but in an eventual sense, because the rapid progression of technology is giving individuals more and more power, and personal accountability needs to be practiced and learned, otherwise we could be facing some sort of Orwellian nightmare or complete chaos. I am actually considering writing a paper on this subject and submitting it to some magazines or something.
rocksteady, if you write this paper, I would certainly appreciate an opportunity to read it.
Thank you!

[Bossy Mom]

My problem with libertarianism is their "total freedom" leads to the moral breakdown of society.

[Lucid]

My problem with libertarianism is their "total freedom" leads to the moral breakdown of society.

I don't need the government to dictate to me what is moral and what isn't. Your argument leads me to conclude that government is the source of morals. I would say that morals are the source of government.

[prometheus]

I don't need the government to dictate to me what is moral and what isn't. Your argument leads me to conclude that government is the source of morals. I would say that morals are the source of government.


I would say government is the tool others use to try to foist their morals off on you. Who enforces the religious morals in Iran, and "blue laws" in the south and Utah?

[Lucid]

I would say government is the tool others use to try to foist their morals off on you. Who enforces the religious morals in Iran, and "blue laws" in the south and Utah?

That's what I'm saying. People say, "We have these morals and we need to develop an institution to force other people to adhere to these morals as well. Lets have some government!"
Smoking bans, blue laws, the war on drugs. These are all someone else's morals that have been elevated to law because of government.

[feralfae]

It had long appeared to me that no individual should tune of any of his or her personal and integral ethical compass settings to anything going on in government.

Few government laws reflect the natural laws which exist between humans.

To set one's moral compass by any such flawed system, rather than relying on one's individual brain/mind for asking and answering the questions which resolve contradictions in one's moral compass and is significantly more effective, is ethically ineffective.

Yet, we see that many individual humans continue to derive the settings for their moral compass largely, or even slightly from, institutional entities, and therefore the inherent institutional thinking, which thinking cannot escape being a flawed structure of human logic, and therefore of no utility.

[brewmaster]

My problem with libertarianism is their "total freedom" leads to the moral breakdown of society.

That argument is paranoia, and totalitarian. People seem to have this desire to push their morals on others, when they should be more concerned with their own self. If you do not agree that something is moral, then don't participate. If you believe that your children/family should not partake in some 'un-moral' act, then teach them. We do not need some kind of nanny-government to tell us what is right and wrong. Society would be just fine with a libertarian establishment.

[Lights]

How responsible is every individual? Some days I really wonder.

[brewmaster]

Does it matter? If they cannot handle their own lives f__k them. Sink or swim, I am tired of people making excuses for their actions, rather than responsiblity.

[feralfae]

Who was it who said "You must world-proof yourself, then your children, because it is impossible to child-proof the world." ?

[Lights]

Does it matter? If they cannot handle their own lives f__k them. Sink or swim, I am tired of people making excuses for their actions, rather than responsiblity.

It's all good until you are the one who is sinking. I wonder what it feels like to drown helplessly as others watch from the banks. I bet it's a unique experience, to become instantly aware of your imperfection and frailty as a human being. It's probably the kind of experience that makes you want to protect others from ever having to feel that way.

[prometheus]

"Those who sell their liberty for security are understandable, if pitiable, creatures. Those who sell the liberty of others for wealth, power, or even a moment's respite, deserve only the end of a rope."- L. NEIL SMITH

[brewmaster]

It's all good until you are the one who is sinking. I wonder what it feels like to drown helplessly as others watch from the banks. I bet it's a unique experience, to become instantly aware of your imperfection and frailty as a human being. It's probably the kind of experience that makes you want to protect others from ever having to feel that way.

If I sink, it's because I let it happen. If I found myself in that situation I would ask for no help, I would fight my way back to where I am or beyond. I am lucky, I am a graduate student who makes virtually no money at all. However, I am married to a wonderful woman (an iNtJ), who since we have been together has kept us afloat. Both of us have been dirt a__ poor before we met each other, and know how to operate in that situation. I nor her need to be bailed out by some entity. I have qualified for welfare many times, however I would never take it as it would be a cop out, or a mismanagement on my part.

We live in an era where evolution is stopped. This is probably a topic for another thread. However I firmly believe that through the actions of our government with its vast multitude of laws and programs, we prop up those that are not suited to live. However, we allow them to live and breed and pollute the gene pool. Call me an arrogant elitist, and I will tell you I am a realist. Call me heartless, and I will tell you that I have the best interest of humanity in mind.

$0.02

[rocksteady]

If I sink, it's because I let it happen. If I found myself in that situation I would ask for no help, I would fight my way back to where I am or beyond. I am lucky, I am a graduate student who makes virtually no money at all. However, I am married to a wonderful woman (an iNtJ), who since we have been together has kept us afloat. Both of us have been dirt a__ poor before we met each other, and know how to operate in that situation. I nor her need to be bailed out by some entity. I have qualified for welfare many times, however I would never take it as it would be a cop out, or a mismanagement on my part.

We live in an era where evolution is stopped. This is probably a topic for another thread. However I firmly believe that through the actions of our government with its vast multitude of laws and programs, we prop up those that are not suited to live. However, we allow them to live and breed and pollute the gene pool. Call me an arrogant elitist, and I will tell you I am a realist. Call me heartless, and I will tell you that I have the best interest of humanity in mind.

$0.02

I think people's assumption that they should be saved is directly related to their belief in some god or another. Religion is actually at fault for people not learning to be accountable for their actions, and something needs to be done about it or we are looking at some serious trouble in the future.

[feralfae]

I believe that self-governance and self-responsibility are concepts which are difficult, if not impossible, for those humans to grasp who have been raised and have come to embrace the alternative concepts of external governance and external responsibility. When the prime conditioning of a human is to seek an external means of dependance, it is well-near impossible to retrain that human to look internally for salvation, in any aspect of meaning of that word.

* feralfae added to this post, 6 minutes and 23 seconds later...

PS... this is an excellent thread and I am getting a lot of delicious food for thought, thank you Brewmaster, lucid, rocksteady and prometheus!

[feralfae]

I believe that self-governance and self-responsibility are concepts which are difficult, if not impossible, for those humans to grasp who have been raised and have come to embrace the alternative concepts of external governance and external responsibility. When the prime conditioning of a human is to seek an external means of dependance, it is well-near impossible to retrain that human to look internally for salvation, in any aspect of meaning of that word.

* feralfae added to this post, 6 minutes and 23 seconds later...

PS... this is an excellent thread and I am getting a lot of delicious food for thought, thank you Brewmaster, lucid, rocksteady and prometheus!

[The Many]

And finally, to get back on topic, libertarianism fails for a a number of reasons; some of which are the fact that a laissez-faire markets tend to fail (see for instance Chile under Pinochet, or what has happened in Africa when more pro-capitalistic systems have been used). They tend to end up with a couple of monopolies as well as very poor consumers. This is not to mention inequalities made almost necessary by the system, in that you have to work instead of having the time and money to get an education, not to mention the problems of the unemployed etc etc. Individualism in general needs to grant more individuals than those who want to play the game of the market a chance to live...

Looking at statistics, it's also strange to see that the amount of social mobility is much higher in places such as Scandinavia where the markets don't control as much as in the USA. In fact, when looking at empirical data in general, the best market systems seem to be the mixed economies found here in Scandinavia. The Danish system in particular seems to be very, very good.

[prometheus]

And finally, to get back on topic, libertarianism fails for a a number of reasons; some of which are the fact that a laissez-faire markets tend to fail (see for instance Chile under Pinochet, or what has happened in Africa when more pro-capitalistic systems have been used). They tend to end up with a couple of monopolies as well as very poor consumers. This is not to mention inequalities made almost necessary by the system, in that you have to work instead of having the time and money to get an education, not to mention the problems of the unemployed etc etc. Individualism in general needs to grant more individuals than those who want to play the game of the market a chance to live...

Looking at statistics, it's also strange to see that the amount of social mobility is much higher in places such as Scandinavia where the markets don't control as much as in the USA. In fact, when looking at empirical data in general, the best market systems seem to be the mixed economies found here in Scandinavia. The Danish system in particular seems to be very, very good.

There are two options for markets, laissez-faire, or a controlled e.g. socialist model.

I think I posted elsewhere here the list of hundreds of the socialist countries that were complete utter failures.

As you pointed out in a free market people have to work for a living, how is this a bad thing? Do you really think people can just sit around and have the government support them?

With individualism EVERYONE has an equal chance........Sheesh, what do you think, someone stealing someone else's money to support you is equal?

Scandinavian countries have the highest tax rates in the WORLD. Denmark's tax rate was 49.7% of GDP back in 2005 (the most recent #'s I found) Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I honestly don't know how people manage to survive when nearly half (by now probably more than half) of the GDP is going into bureaucracy.

[Lights]

Steal: Take without owners consent

Considering you are still here and probably paying taxes, I can only assume you are giving your money consentfully. Otherwise, if you really held your ideal of individualism to be so true, you would be revolting or sitting in jail in a sign of civil disobedience to demonstrate your conviction. Since you are doing neither, I can only concede that this is all talk.

[prometheus]

Steal: Take without owners consent

Considering you are still here and probably paying taxes, I can only assume you are giving your money consentfully. Otherwise, if you really held your ideal of individualism to be so true, you would be revolting or sitting in jail in a sign of civil disobedience to demonstrate your conviction. Since you are doing neither, I can only concede that this is all talk.

We covered this before. I actually am shrugging (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I sold my business payed off all my debts and now live without having to pay any taxes except property (which works out to fair market value of the road services I use)

CONSENTFULLY :laugh::laugh: If a person chose to not pay their taxes, the end result would be death, via swat team.

A full and complete discussion on this topic took place on the Think You Know History thread. Can you two find that without government help or shall I cut and paste it here for you?

[The Many]

There are two options for markets, laissez-faire, or a controlled e.g. socialist model.

I think I posted elsewhere here the list of hundreds of the socialist countries that were complete utter failures.

As you pointed out in a free market people have to work for a living, how is this a bad thing? Do you really think people can just sit around and have the government support them?

With individualism EVERYONE has an equal chance........Sheesh, what do you think, someone stealing someone else's money to support you is equal?

Scandinavian countries have the highest tax rates in the WORLD. Denmark's tax rate was 49.7% of GDP back in 2005 (the most recent #'s I found) Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I honestly don't know how people manage to survive when nearly half (by now probably more than half) of the GDP is going into bureaucracy.

Most all markets in the world are mixed markets, even the US market is a mixed one. You can however also go either all laissez-faire or all socialist (that is to say, having all of it controlled by the government, which obviously is not true for any country I was referring to, even the US marked is a mixed one...). This is pretty basic.

You seem to be misinterpreting most of my post though, obviously people should work and obviously everyone should have equal chances. How people have equal chances of getting into, for instance, a university which some can pay for and some cannot pay for is however quite beyond me.

As to taxes, Sweden (where I live) has a tax rate of 60-something percent. That is too high. The Danish system works better though, and especially when considering that you get your schools, healthcare etc etc paid for through this tax system, the real loss isn't that big.

With all this said though, there are definitely problems with these systems as well. I am usually quite right wing in most arguments over here in that I want to privatize quite some of what is currently state controlled, but overall the Scandinavian model is definitely something worth striving for, primarily due to the fact that it WORKS. Laissez-faire markets have, when implemented, very rarely worked.

[prometheus]

By the way, if you Google "active passive nihilism" you get 141 000 hits ... That's quite a lot. "nihilism" gets 285 000 hits ... About half of those pages include the words "passive" and "active" then, so indeed it seems to be quite important terms.



Note these countries are social democratic (mostly anyway), a lot of Western Europe is, like Germany. And has Western Europe failed?

I realise we pay for these services, but so does you, just not through taxes, but other channels. When taxes are paid in Norway, we are more free to use our money the way we want than in the US, where health insurence costs a lot and so on.

I'm not arguing for the American model, nor is this thread for that purpose. We are speaking of the libertarian/ anarcho-capitolist model...for examples of that model that have worked check the previously referenced thread.

More free to use your money? you must not be referring to the half that you have absolutely no control over, eh?

[prometheus]

The whole economic end of this has been hashed and rehashed..............Come on guys you can do better..................I made a nice list at the beginning of this thread.

Here start this way.

But think of the children, under your proposed system they would...............................





prometheus added to this post, 6 minutes and 8 seconds later...

Here, I'll give you guys some time to think. I need to go cool off, I just found several of my more witty posts have been deleted. I'm not use to, nor do I deal well with moderation.

[Splittet]

No, you didn't claim so, you claimed misleading statistics

Well, I can certainly see how these statistics might be misinterpreted, but one should know this kind of Google search gives a lot of hits that are not relevant. I never claimed all of those hits were relevant. Most important to me anyway, is that I did not misinterpret the search results. And you did not either, so it seems we are actually on the same page. These kind of discussions does however have the tendency to bring non-existant differences of opinion to light, partly because things are lost in translation, and because we have the tendency to interpret what others write in a quite paranoid fashion.

[Lights]

"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dict