Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's an idea for you then - DON'T BE A LIBERTARIAN. You clearly cannot imagine, function in, or mentally digest a world in which Leviathan does not wind your clock, tell you what to do and tuck you in at night. GREAT, FINE, WONDERFUL. Be a thrall to your master, enjoy your comfy life of perpetual indentured servitude...just stay out of my life, tyvm.
That's pretty much all most libertarians are about. Have your views, beliefs, etc....just don't ask government to jam them down my throat, regardless of whether that coercion happens via "duly elected, according to proper blah blah." I am not trying to make you believe, say or do anything, so why do you care what I or any other libertarian thinks? We clearly are a tiny minority, we keep to ourselves, and by and large present the least burden on society of any ideological subgroup in the nation. In other words, we are at the very bottom of any list of stuff that should concern you.
I have this theory that our way (well, our similar way of thinking) requires a "switch" in the brain to "click". I don't know any other way to describe it.
There's another thread on here arguing over Iraq/Syria etc. Comparing Bush and Obama. There was literally a p*ssing match on which is worse: Bush killing X number of folks thru Y means or Obama killing A number of folks thru B means.
The dependency is so entrenched. The acceptance of force so readily apparent.
It's scary. They accept force at the drop of a hat. The first sign of "trouble" whether it's a foot in front of them or a million feet and they turn to government to "fix it".
How did people get like this? I ask myself how I got like that before I realized libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism) was for me. I don't know the answer.
That's not a moral responsibility in your example. It's a societal account of favors, as in "don't dare make a withdrawal if you haven't made a deposit"
I donate to charity, but I do not expect anything in return for it. By your above quote, you clearly favor the "we owe society our lives and everything we do" mindset. If I want a thing, I am more than willing to engage in voluntary trade for it. Voluntary trade is not a gift from society, it's an inherent natural activity. I can have my beliefs about less government but still voluntarily participate in society, and it isn't even contradictory.
I do not expect that which I do not earn and can trade for. Buying health care from a doctor is not a gift from society. I trade a thing (money) for a thing (their health care service), and we do so voluntarily. Witch doctors in the Amazon rainforest trade for medical services, and they seem to manage without the Mediwelfare/ObamaCare bureaucracy.
I know you may be thinking "yeah, but who protects you from malpractice, fraud and all that?" To which I would say "uhm, the market?" In the world of voluntary trade, people who cheat, swindle or harm those they trade with quickly find themselves with nobody willing to trade with them anymore. Ever heard of Angie's List? The Internet is far more powerful for the market self-policing than any government nonsense.
My moral responsibility in the voluntary world is then to treat those as I would like to be treated, and accept the consequences of when I don't. But I was not born enslaved to those less fortunate than me, and any future success does not add links to those imaginary chains.
Well lets not go into all those aspects of health care which would not be here if it were not for government and without which you'd not really want to bother trading with the local doctor for health care as it wouldn't go beyond the basics which you could probably do yourself.
As regards to the market, in a truely competitive market you are correct, people would not trade, if they can avoid doing so, trade with those with a bad reputation (if that reputation is spread well enough) but how do you prevent monopolies forming? Once you have monopolies you have no choice and are forced to trade with people no matter how much they cheat and swindle you. That said, that's not so well defended against by certain governments either.
That is the first and foremost moral responsibility but I still believe we, as a society as well as individuals, have a responsibility towards the weak, and that's what makes us civilised. Could you walk past someone being attacked and do nothing and still sleep well that night?
I can't post it from my phone but there's a video called the Jones Plantation that sums up government rule pretty well. Maybe when I get home I'll post it but it's on youtube if you search.
The folks in those places don't adhere to the NAP (non-aggression principle). Government isn't the only immoral form of force on this earth. You think government needs to be abolished for anarchy to take place. Anarchy is the natural state of an individual before they join a voluntary association (if they do so).
Nobody has "taken over" the Amish.
I assure you, their lifestyle does impact non-Amish locals. Again, I'm from eastern Ohio so I've interacted with them all my life. Here's the kicker: while they are involved in the outside community from time to time 99.9% of what they do isn't A-Holish behavior (for lack of a better word).
They're friendly, their goods (food stuffs, furniture) is vastly superior to anything regulated by the government. Amish folks built my brother's entire kitchen from the structure to the furniture. When you buy/trade with them at local farmers markets they are fair and efficient workers in making the transactions.
Their pies are to f'ing die for (just saying).
One "issue" I guess you could have is the horse and buggy. Gotta be on your toes when driving out in the country. I've never felt the need to run them over though even though this is an example of a "weaker" position. I slowly go around in patience as to not spook the horses.
According to you, local non-Amish should have taken the Amish over by now. Make them build stuff and cook. They are so efficient and skilled in those areas it's undeniable.
Unfortunately there are far too many people who, in the absence of a greater force (law, government etc.) will not adhere to the non-aggression principle. You might be that principled, others might be too, but far too many aren't. Do you think the people in those places are just vastly different in essence than the people in your country?
Transfer the Amish to one of those countries with a non-functioning government and see if they cope then. No one has taken them over because they are protected by a greater force.
Well lets not go into all those aspects of health care which would not be here if it were not for government and without which you'd not really want to bother trading with the local doctor for health care as it wouldn't go beyond the basics which you could probably do yourself.
As regards to the market, in a truely competitive market you are correct, people would not trade, if they can avoid doing so, trade with those with a bad reputation (if that reputation is spread well enough) but how do you prevent monopolies forming? Once you have monopolies you have no choice and are forced to trade with people no matter how much they cheat and swindle you. That said, that's not so well defended against by certain governments either.
That is the first and foremost moral responsibility but I still believe we, as a society as well as individuals, have a responsibility towards the weak, and that's what makes us civilised. Could you walk past someone being attacked and do nothing and still sleep well that night?
I'd say that you should help them, but you shouldn't point a gun at other people and force them to also help. You can guilt them into it, reason with them, even bribe them, but not threaten violence against them if they still refuse.
Unfortunately there are far too many people who, in the absence of a greater force (law, government etc.) will not adhere to the non-aggression principle. You might be that principled, others might be too, but far too many aren't. Do you think the people in those places are just vastly different in essence than the people in your country?
Transfer the Amish to one of those countries with a non-functioning government and see if they cope then. No one has taken them over because they are protected by a greater force.
So you're saying the only reason the Amish haven't been "taken over" is the presence of the U.S. Government?
Here's an idea for you then - DON'T BE A LIBERTARIAN. You clearly cannot imagine, function in, or mentally digest a world in which Leviathan does not wind your clock, tell you what to do and tuck you in at night. GREAT, FINE, WONDERFUL. Be a thrall to your master, enjoy your comfy life of perpetual indentured servitude...just stay out of my life, tyvm.
That's pretty much all most libertarians are about. Have your views, beliefs, etc....just don't ask government to jam them down my throat, regardless of whether that coercion happens via "duly elected, according to proper blah blah." I am not trying to make you believe, say or do anything, so why do you care what I or any other libertarian thinks? We clearly are a tiny minority, we keep to ourselves, and by and large present the least burden on society of any ideological subgroup in the nation. In other words, we are at the very bottom of any list of stuff that should concern you.
Don't worry, I won't be one. I'm quite happy to be a member of society and contribute and take according to my situation at the time.
And you don't concern me, I'm quite happy for you to have your beliefs and I find them very interesting. My brother actually is an anarchist (or so he says). I have nothing against yours or his beliefs, I just don't agree with them. But I always appreciate learning something new and having the opportunity and motivation to examine my own beliefs and that often happens in discussions like these.
I'd say that you should help them, but you shouldn't point a gun at other people and force them to also help. You can guilt them into it, reason with them, even bribe them, but not threaten violence against them if they still refuse.
I'd say that you should help them, but you shouldn't point a gun at other people and force them to also help. You can guilt them into it, reason with them, even bribe them, but not threaten violence against them if they still refuse.
Exactly.
If I find out my neighbor, say he's a mechanic, puts crappy breaks on the car of my friend I'm going to make this guy's life as difficult as possible.
Need me to sign for a package? F you.
Need a cup of sugar? F you.
Tree falls on your house and you need a bed to sleep in? F you.
Equally as important, give my buddy a break on quality breaks and this mechanic is going to come home to a mowed yard every so often, an old chair I no longer want is his, need me to wait for the cable guy...no problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
