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.
I would fully agree, force is the fundamental flaw in everything. But how do you get rid of it?
The truth is, there could be no society without force. Or at least, you could never have anything more-advanced than small agricultural villages without force.
Libertarianism still relies on force. But why should anyone feel compelled to obey it?
The goal of libertarianism is not to eliminate power, but rather to limit it to some arbitrary extent. But not even libertarians can agree on what that extent should be. And from the perspective of an anarchist/voluntaryist, libertarians are statist scum.
Humans are by their nature tribal. And without something to bind them together, society would fall apart into a near-infinite number of communities, all distrusting of each other.
Force will exist. The goal shouldn't be to use force to get rid of force (that's the idea of statism). The goal should be...
1. Don't commit force/aggression
2. When someone commits force/aggression against you let it be an opportunity to expand upon the power of non-aggression/voluntarism.
There could be a society without force in the sense that society becomes a set of individuals bringing their free will to others instead of the hierarchical involuntary society that says here are the rules now navigate as you see fit individuals.
Here we see individuals making up society instead of the preordained society ruling over individuals who enter into it (statism, divinity of kings, social contract nonsense).
True libertarianism is anarchism and that is no force as T0103E and I have argued. We aren't asking you to "obey" the NAP. We are making it as difficult as possible for you to pick force over non-aggression. When this happens, force will not be a prevalent tenet in social interactions.
Sneakily, and much to the chagrin of the statists, non-aggression is practiced everyday by nearly everyone simply because it is the most convenient and logical course of action. This is why the State's whole MO is to create division and regulate voluntary exchanges.
And yes, as an anarchist I see L (see that capital) ibertarians as statists to be dumped in with the Ds and Rs.
Humans are creatures of habit and convenience. Incentivizing the State's wares is how we got into this mess. Deincentivizing the State's shiny "freebies" and incentivizing the right to choose (not necessarily succeed) is a much better idea.
You told me the other day none of this is new and basically I'm not enlightened or anything special. Not only do I agree I believe that is a great point to simply continue on this path.
There have been several well-known anarchists who slipped back into statism. That really baffles me. My mind has clicked over. I couldn't get back thru that door even if I somehow wanted to.
I don't care what label people use, and it's kind of irrelevant to my point. I, along with the people who share my views, are not against all force. We're against the initiation of force.
Democracy solves nothing, and you could is argue the worst form of government because it gives people the illusion of control.
I couldn't agree more, friend.
"Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally — perhaps more than equally, because more boldly — rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of the majority, than of a minority." - Lysander Spooner
But ok, to bring this full circle and go back to my original point, the libertarian philosophy is exactly what you just said you don't disagree with. Don't initiate force. Only use force to protect against the people who do try to initiate force. Correct?
My point was...if you're consistent with that, you'd be against all taxation and "law enforcement" as it exists today. The Libertarian Party believes in those things, making them inconsistent with the libertarian philosophy.
I'm not even saying that in a judgmental way right now. I'm just pointing out that you can't be consistent with the libertarian philosophy and support any central authority, or taxation, etc.
"Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally — perhaps more than equally, because more boldly — rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of the majority, than of a minority." - Lysander Spooner
The more the powers that be screw things up the more I lean that way but unfortunately there isn't enough people to feel that way so being completely non aggressive will not work.
Quote:
But ok, to bring this full circle and go back to my original point, the libertarian philosophy is exactly what you just said you don't disagree with. Don't initiate force. Only use force to protect against the people who do try to initiate force. Correct?
It's probably not that simple.
Quote:
My point was...if you're consistent with that, you'd be against all taxation and "law enforcement" as it exists today. The Libertarian Party believes in those things, making them inconsistent with the libertarian philosophy.
They do not believe those things. They believe those things should be as unobtrusive as possible but there will be laws.
Quote:
I'm not even saying that in a judgmental way right now. I'm just pointing out that you can't be consistent with the libertarian philosophy and support any central authority, or taxation, etc.
No, that would be an Anarchist. Being an Anarchist isn't a bad thing unlike what many try and make it out to be.
Hell, we can't get 5% of the vote when running against Clinton and Trump.
Follow the lead of the "Democratic Socialist" and try to take control of one of the parties. You won't get everything you want at once but you will get something besides a few people adding that they were once a candidate to their wiki page.
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.
