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.
Who were a significant majority of the population, not a small minority as you originally stated.
True, but without taking anything away from the importance of the right to vote, this is not codified in the Bill of Rights, and I don't consider it a fundamental human right. In fact, I might make the argument that a fundamental human right is the right to live without a government since millennia of history shows a poor record of governments avoiding becoming tyrannical in one form or another. Enough about anarchy though, this is a discussion about libertarianism ...
This was true for a time, but by the early 1800's states began eliminating this requirement.
This indicates a significant lack of understanding of key libertarian principles. First, it's not anarchy, so there are laws that are enforced. Second, the fundamental principle underlying libertarian thought is non-aggression towards other humans, so it is completely antithetical to slavery or any form of oppression of some humans by others.
Dave
If you have to hinge your argument on the word "small" (white male landowners were DEFINITELY a minority... we can quibble about how 'small' it was but that misses the point) and then invent your own definitions of 'fundamental human rights'... well I don't see the point in having a discussion with you.
Well if they got out of the states that thought it was right to keep slavery entact, yes. If they didn't they would be returned to the state.
I agree but the issue remains that there would make it much more easier for people to do things. Think about it, getting caught, is a deterrent from many crimes. People don't drink and drive for instance because of fear of DWI.
Yep, that's why there would need to be other deterrents in place. Anarchist libertarians are against any initiation of force, meaning nobody gets a free pass to use force unless they're protecting themselves or others. That rules out government law enforcement, so people would need to find alternatives.
You could decide to protect yourself if you thought you could do it, you could organize with neighbors or your community, you could hire security, you could have competing defense organizations that work like insurance (Dispute Resolution Organizations), or if people in a community all want and voluntarily consent to it, a private police force. Nobody would be forced into any of those, of course...you could protect yourself however you see fit.
I think people's ingenuity would really come out if they didn't have government force to fall back on. It's like evolutionary pressure...people might not have the full motivation to come up with new methods unless they had to, so who knows what options there might be. It's hard to predict in the same way that it was impossible to predict how the cotton would be picked if slavery was abolished.
From your view then, Libertarianism is more of a philosophy, rather than a political system.
I agree. Conservatism is not a political system, either.
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.
That's pure libertarian philosophy. Minarchists make an exception for limited government because they believe that a very small amount of things need to be funded by force. I was a Ron Paul libertarian, so I see that as a good step in the right direction.
Oh I am well aware, they seem to both be very similar in the sense that libertarians want a country to be all about individualism, but still want to be protected by the collectivism of a government to protect them from those that would want anarchy and would use no government to take advantage of those libertarians.
If you have to hinge your argument on the word "small" (white male landowners were DEFINITELY a minority... we can quibble about how 'small' it was but that misses the point) and then invent your own definitions of 'fundamental human rights'... well I don't see the point in having a discussion with you.
Enjoy your bubble.
Fundamental rights is actually a legal term, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that ...
Yep, that's why there would need to be other deterrents in place. Anarchist libertarians are against any initiation of force, meaning nobody gets a free pass to use force unless they're protecting themselves or others. That rules out government law enforcement, so people would need to find alternatives.
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.
Quote:
You could decide to protect yourself if you thought you could do it, you could organize with neighbors or your community, you could hire security, you could have competing defense organizations that work like insurance (Dispute Resolution Organizations), or if people in a community all want and voluntarily consent to it, a private police force. Nobody would be forced into any of those, of course...you could protect yourself however you see fit.
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.
Quote:
I think people's ingenuity would really come out if they didn't have government force to fall back on. It's like evolutionary pressure...people might not have the full motivation to come up with new methods unless they had to, so who knows what options there might be. It's hard to predict in the same way that it was impossible to predict how the cotton would be picked if slavery was abolished.
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?
The libertarian movement is undeniably influential, especially in the US, but also worldwide. Milton Friedman, who self-identified as libertarian, was perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th century. The libertarian Cato institute has been ranked as one of the top 10 most influential US think tanks.
Yet despite the popularity and influence, I think it's safe to say that not one of 196 nations in existence is remotely close to being libertarian. From what I've read, Hong Kong may have been closest until it was ceded back to Red China by the Brits. The US in the 19th century had a lot of libertarian aspects, albeit for white males only.
We've had nations governed by strange and radical ideologies from communism to fascism to Islamism, to "l'etat, c'est moi." Yet never so far in the history of the world has there been even one libertarian-based nation
Here is a pretty interesting article.
5 Most Libertarian Countries – What is the most libertarian country?
What’s the most important freedom for you? That’s really what it comes down to. If you’re socially conservative then perhaps Hong Kong may be your most libertarian country in the world. That’s the place that I’ll put on the top of the economic freedom list. For social freedoms, that’s a lot more difficult to find the most libertarian countries. Every country on this list provides social freedoms that are as up to date as we understand. Who do you think is most socially free?
Yep, that's why there would need to be other deterrents in place. Anarchist libertarians are against any initiation of force, meaning nobody gets a free pass to use force unless they're protecting themselves or others. That rules out government law enforcement, so people would need to find alternatives.
You could decide to protect yourself if you thought you could do it, you could organize with neighbors or your community, you could hire security, you could have competing defense organizations that work like insurance (Dispute Resolution Organizations), or if people in a community all want and voluntarily consent to it, a private police force. Nobody would be forced into any of those, of course...you could protect yourself however you see fit.
I think people's ingenuity would really come out if they didn't have government force to fall back on. It's like evolutionary pressure...people might not have the full motivation to come up with new methods unless they had to, so who knows what options there might be. It's hard to predict in the same way that it was impossible to predict how the cotton would be picked if slavery was abolished.
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.
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.
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. One can be moral without one, even two but take away law and the deterrent to many actions and more will be likely to be acting less moral. How many, well as I mentioned earlier is not quite sure.
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.
