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.
Perhaps reading your comments the connection will become clearer for wutitiz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I would say that there are a few somewhat libertarian states in Africa and other parts of the third world, but it isn't so much a matter of the government being limited as the government being too poor, unstable or corrupt to do anything... so the people are mostly left to their own devices.
having similarities is like suggesting liberals and conservatives are similar because we're both human.
Well then any political ideology is similar because it is from a human being's thoughts.
The point is there are libertarians out there who do think various forms of anarchy is the key to running a government. It isn't all and many have varying degrees but a good number maybe around half do believe in some amount. Not saying it is government what so ever because there are varying degrees. There are some that want total anarchy, some who want some levels of anarchy (such as anarcho-capitalism or free-market anarchism) and others just want minimal intrusion by government but not to the point of anarchy.
Exactly, these are the ones that think taxes steal, the IRS have you pay taxes or threaten you with jail, laws for noise pollution are wrong, DWI, DUI, cell phone use while driving and distracted driving (when not causing am accident) are wrong, property seizure, etc. are these acts of violence. To have No law an order would not exactly keep order. There are enough nutjobs out there to prevent that whether it is because they are under the influence of drugs, insane or radicalized by religious belief.
Taxes are theft, and if you're too resolute in not paying them, they'll eventually use force against you (resulting in arrest or death). Also, "keeping order" is more of the statist mindset. Instead of coming up with one set of rules that one group violently enforces, the AnCap model would be allowing people to follow their own moral codes and organizing to protect each other if those nutjobs you mentioned decide to do something harmful.
As I said earlier, most people will interact peacefully with others simply based on their own idea of right and wrong, but in addition to that we would need to have the security measures in place (that I mentioned in my post) so that we aren't just relying on the goodness of people. I know that people won't always do the right thing.
Quote:
First off, wouldn't a neighborhood watch whether it is yourself or paid still be a that of violence? I ask not as a believe in the NAP (personally it is most hogwash with the Trolly Car test) but because some who believe in it take it to include threats as well.
Second off, if say you and I live in s community as so does Dave under an anarchistic libertarian idea world, Dave don't agree to a police force because of the NAP and he is accused of vandalizing a property, should he then be subjected to it?
Third off, I agree with a dispute organization but what happens when they have a situation that doesn't go super smooth.
1. You shouldn't initiate force, so you can't be the one attacking someone else or threatening them, but if someone uses force against you first, you have the right to use force in retaliation. An example of why threats are included in that would be someone pointing a gun at your head. They haven't actually attacked you yet, but you should be able to forcefully stop someone who is threatening to hurt you.
2. It's possible that the community would only decide on a private police force if everyone there signed the contract to be part of it, but let's say Dave already owns property there and doesn't enter that agreement. One solution I like is that the community could simply ostracize him and refuse to let him buy food, gas, etc. or use any of their services until he makes up for his crime...he'd have to completely fend for himself or move. That doesn't sound as harsh as violently punishing him, but it would be devastating for Dave, and a good deterrent for others. Ostracism used to be used much more than it is today.
3. There could still be neutral courts to help resolve things. People still believe in the right to a fair trial, having a neutral judge and jury, and they don't actually want to wrongly convict anyone of a crime. If the suspect refuses to go to court, see the ostracism example above.
Quote:
I think it would be interesting. There are people who break laws anyway but how many more people would do something if they knew they could truly get away with it?
That's where my first answer comes in. Having some kind of deterrent is important, but it doesn't have to be a violent threat. Criminals fear being hurt themselves, or having their life impacted negatively. If you have armed people protecting their own property, plus the threat of ostracism if you're caught, that should deter the people who wouldn't normally commit crimes, in addition to the few criminals out there.
This is Latin America, as I said in my earlier post. You guys keep hearkening back to the US revolutionary period or whatever as a libertarian example, but I think one of the best examples of libertarianism in practice is Latin America.
At the poster about how laws shouldn't be needed to enforce morality... While there is a case and point to that argument, it only takes one loser to sour the whole society and if you are a moral person, adhering to moral laws, say domestic abuse laws, shouldn't be a problem.
I did like your post and see some similarities, but I think a key factor in having a libertarian society is actually accepting libertarian principles. It's more about the society accepting that government force isn't the solution. I definitely see your point though, and those examples are probably very unsophisticated solutions that could result in a libertarian society. I think there would be more civil and organized solutions in more developed societies.
I think it to some extent. The salient point is that libertarianism is aggressively anti-moral and antisocial. So the criteria that drives virtuous people to see slavery in a negative light doesn't resonate with some libertarians because, from their perspective, at the time the slaves were not God's people with inherent worth and dignity, and the slaveowners were. I suspect, among libertarians, we could find a Latino or an Asian (perhaps even a Black) person who, if they were honest instead of politic for a moment, would also acknowledge some merit in the slaveowners' grievance.
No true Scotsman.
Many of us would, but then they wouldn't be libertarians anymore. They'd be centrists.
The preponderance of those calling themselves libertarian defines the scope of libertarianism.
Not you, alone, by fiat.
And therefore people you don't agree with can move the center of it away from where you want the center to be. Even if you don't like it. If you want to own your own label, you have to create a new one, and aggressively protect it. If your protection efforts fail, you have to relabel yourself, again. What you'll find that by playing this silly game you're playing you'll end up as "an Army of One" and relegated to insignificance because of the unwillingness to consider yourself part of a community, even a community of libertarians. Libertarianism's main failing would thereby become its main driver of its insignificance.
If you claim not to understand how, then no explanation will move you off of such a ridiculous, deliberately-ignorant position.
1. Libertarianism is inherently anti-slavery...that's pretty much the entire point of the philosophy.
2. It's a common straw man to say libertarians want "every man for himself" or that they don't want to be part of a community. You could argue that people would never voluntarily cooperate with each other, but you can't say that libertarians don't advocate working together as a community. They just believe that people have free will and you shouldn't force them into anything unless they agree to it first.
1. Libertarianism is inherently anti-slavery...that's pretty much the entire point of the philosophy.
2. It's a common straw man to say libertarians want "every man for himself" or that they don't want to be part of a community. You could argue that people would never voluntarily cooperate with each other, but you can't say that libertarians don't advocate working together as a community. They just believe that people have free will and you shouldn't force them into anything unless they agree to it first.
Don't care. You WILL pay your taxes. Or else.
And this is one of several reasons why there are states that come anywhere close to the Libertopia ideal. Because humans DO use force. Always have. Always will.
And this is one of several reasons why there are states that come anywhere close to the Libertopia ideal. Because humans DO use force. Always have. Always will.
I submit to your guns...
Do you point a gun at people to get them to do what you want in your everyday life? Would it be okay if they did that to you? I just think that people are conditioned to think that that type of behavior is wrong, but magically is okay when the government does it.
Yes, humans use force (initiating force is the problem, not self-defense...just to be clear), and people most certainly can organize voluntarily to protect themselves from criminals. Why wouldn't they?
If you Utopias were so great, then why aren't there any Utopias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That is why it is laughable when people think we need to be more of a libertarian country because there is no such thing as that.
There's a reason why....and no, I'm not going to waste my time explaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That would require the removal of government and would make that country a hot bed for other groups that could easily take control of the land and the people on it that think that somehow their "individualism" will somehow triumph.
Fail.
You don't understand Entity Theory.
The absence of Government is not Anarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Way back when, they were called the Democratic-Republican Party.
I don't know. I don't find 19th Century America very interesting, except for the development of your Foreign Policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Yes, exactly. It's an anti-political movement. It's really just promoting the idea that the use of force is wrong unless you are defending yourself or others from someone else who is initiating force.
But that is a Conservative value.
It's also a Liberal value.
The difference is in the application. Conservatives will act unilaterally when appropriate, while Liberals insist on Collective Security.
Collective Security does work. I give you Warsaw Pact and NATO. Your officers and senior enlisted are big believers in Collective Security. I was surprised to discover that our Soviet counter-parts held the exact same sentiments.
The problem with Collective Security is the proper balance between democratic ideas and authoritativeness.
Your police force is a form of Collective Security.
It fails because it's too authoritative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Exactly, this is the problem. Morality is shaped by religion (though I am not saying atheists are not moral) and laws as well as upbringing.
No, Morality is Objective. One's acceptance or adherence to Morality is predicated on Subjectivity, largely Life-Experiences.
Objectively...
Mircea
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.
