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.
Honestly, I'm sure there are people like that who use libertarianism as a cover, but that's not what actual libertarianism is about.
It's been said many times, but libertarians don't believe that the ends justify the means. Even if the goal is worthy or the intentions are good, it's not okay to use violence except defensively.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand our mentality. That's why people's idea of statism vs. libertarianism boils down to...
"We're the good guys trying to solve problems, even if it requires us to do things that would normally be wrong for us to do, and those libertarians are just getting in our way, which makes them the bad guys."
or the more dishonest one...
"Those libertarians are just selfish and have bad motives, because only a selfish and greedy person could be against (insert your cause here)."
Imagine we're on an island and we all absolutely need food. One guy has fished all day and has more fish than he possibly needs. If your solution was "let's take that guy's fish because he doesn't need them as much as we do", I would be against that. Not because I'm against us having food, but because I don't accept the means you have of getting that food.
We are not talking about fish, we are talking about land, which is probably the most devisive part of libratarianism because land issues can be very complex as I showed in the article I posted where land owners strategicly buy land in order to restrict access to other lands/waters they dont own and cause other people harm.
Feelings aren't derived logically from first principles. We came to the conclusion using rational thought. You simply "feel" that it's okay to hold the government to different moral standards than everyone else. It's not a conclusion you came to by starting with a principle and extending logically from that principle.
I already told you that the first step is to change people's minds. I want the bullies to stop bullying, or at least get enough people to stop allowing them to bully on their behalf. You do that by spreading ideas and talking to people. I do it all the time, although I'd like to find a way to have a bigger influence. That's the action...to try and change something, and that is only done by changing minds.
Know why I use moral condemnation? Because most people "think" with their emotions, and laying out the logic doesn't always work. They'll find a way to contort things to rationalize their current views because they don't like thinking about the logical conclusions. "If it's wrong for you to initiate force against your neighbor, how does it become okay when you have the state do it for you?" "Well you have no realistic alternatives" Avoid, deflect, shift the burden of proof, change the subject, anything to not have to answer it, because you know you can't.
And really, I would have left this conversation a long time ago if I wasn't in the mood to discuss it. I knew I wouldn't make any progress with a few of you from the very start, but hopefully someone reading out there understands the flaws in your arguments and can think objectively. That's how I changed my mind on it.
But libratarians do bully, they do it through strategic land ownership to cause hardship to others. They fight right of ways, beach access, river access, lake access, etc. They want to be able to lock down the nice parts of american for themselves and restrict access to the rest. Most people dont agree with this.
It's why every time a statist says "what about roads?" or anything else I ask them what they would do about it.
I know what I would do about it but in a free society that has no bearing on them. Unless they were interested in me joining an association they feel is important to work on the roads.
We aren't trying to formulate a utopia. That's what statism tries to do. Just want the NAP, respect for private property rights and let the chips fall where they may.
I dont want to respect your private property rights if you are strategicly buying up property that restricts people from enjoying water ways and national parks or other right of way issues. Too many libritarians fight against right of ways and use political influance to win said law suits agaisnt the feds (see the article).
Living in a land of one little legacy right of way (that was begrudgingly allowed) lined with no tresspassing signs sounds like a nightmare.
We aren't trying to formulate a utopia. That's what statism tries to do. Just want the NAP, respect for private property rights and let the chips fall where they may.
I think the NAP is also utopian. Even Robert Nozick understood that inequality and scarcity would perpetually be an obstacle to liberty.
How can a man be free, if he is not independent? To be both dependent and free? That is impossible.
Thus, a man without property sufficient enough for him to be independent, cannot be free.
Living in a land of one little legacy right of way (that was begrudgingly allowed) lined with no tresspassing signs sounds like a nightmare.
It would never actually happen so you can scratch that worry off your list. People, if they were completely free, will always segregate themselves into semi-autonomous communities. Only a government can hold a "society" together.
The moment society falls apart, there is no law, and there is no property.
When is it okay for someone to take your car when you don't want them to take it?
A life or death situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
True, having rights doesn't guarantee anything.
I still don't understand how ants have rights though if they can't form contractual agreements with humans or other species.
Can you elaborate on this?
Humans don't need to negotiate rights either - I have the right to do any drug I like, even if it comes with legal consequences. A slave has a right to be free, even if they're in chains.
So you think that even libertarians are smart enough to know that a social welfare system is necessary? So how do people get around and recreate it if literally everything is private property.
You are misunderstanding the problem.
Humans will always desire to help those in need. As Rousseau said, "Man's morality stems from humanity's natural disinclination to witness suffering".
The keyword here is "witness". You have to be able to see it.
If you imagine something like a medieval village, where there might be a couple hundred people at best. Almost all of them knowing each other, going to the same church, working together, and almost all of them being related to each other; Then charity tends to be spontaneous.
It doesn't require a government, or even taxes. People overwhelmingly do it voluntarily, and even justly.
The problem is when you move away from this village model. Suddenly you're dealing with, not just a couple hundred people, but a few million people. And these people don't see each other, they cannot witness each other's suffering.
And because these people are not the same "class" as yourself, it is difficult to sympathize with them. Especially if you have had, or hear, bad stories about "their group".
Maybe they are a different religion than you. Maybe they are a different culture than you, or race, or class. At this point, not only do you not see their suffering, but you often don't even believe it when you do see it. Or in some cases, you might even think that they deserve it.
If you're rich, then they're poor because they are lazy. Or because they are black, or Catholic, or Muslim, or Hispanic, etc. Why should I give THEM anything?
Basically, once the village becomes the city, the functions of private/religious/voluntary charity, must be taken-over by governments, otherwise we cannot live together.
I think the NAP is also utopian. Even Robert Nozick understood that inequality and scarcity would perpetually be an obstacle to liberty.
How can a man be free, if he is not independent? To be both dependent and free? That is impossible.
Thus, a man without property sufficient enough for him to be independent, cannot be free.
The NAP isn't utopian. It just is. Natural rights are just there...in the same vein. People will follow it. People will break it. As long as you have the right to self-defense (which you don't now) it's all you can ask for.
Nozick was a minarchist which is a statist. Perhaps the most fearful statist is one that wants that last line of State defense.
Inequality is a loaded term anyway. It suggests an expectation of a standard which reeks of collectivism. To be inequal suggests a collectively defined threshold.
Scarcity in a truly capitalist society doesn't worry me. Market correction would solve it if it occurred.
A man is free when his actions are not coerced by threat of violence. A man can be totally dependent on a host of contractual agreements to sustain himself from paying someone to wipe his rear to paying another to physically feed him his food.
As long as he is willing to compensate and an employee is willing it's not coercion...and he's free.
Humans don't need to negotiate rights either - I have the right to do any drug I like, even if it comes with legal consequences. A slave has a right to be free, even if they're in chains.
Who determines what a life or death situation is?
I'm not saying humans need to negotiate their rights. They have natural rights.
But humans have the ability to negotiate limits or modifications on their rights. Ants can't do that with humans.
For instance, it's against my rights for you to walk up behind me and beat me nearly to death with a baseball bat.
However, if I choose to be beaten nearly to death with a baseball bat and you are willing to do it we can form a contractual agreement that alters our natural rights and carry out our plan.
If you don't have the cognitive ability and you aren't free from duress it is impossible to negotiate alterations to your rights.
This is why, even in our immoral and illogical statist system, the mentally disabled are either under the legal care of a guardian and/or are decreed to be disabled by the State thus making those folks special wards of the government (via SSI, food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid etc).
I can't form a legally binding contract with a severely mentally disabled person any more than I can an ant.
Last edited by No_Recess; 10-31-2017 at 02:15 AM..
I dont want to respect your private property rights if you are strategicly buying up property that restricts people from enjoying water ways and national parks or other right of way issues. Too many libritarians fight against right of ways and use political influance to win said law suits agaisnt the feds (see the article).
Living in a land of one little legacy right of way (that was begrudgingly allowed) lined with no tresspassing signs sounds like a nightmare.
I'm an anarchist.
Private property rights are paramount. But you must mix your labor with resources to rightfully claim property.
Think the homestead principle.
The problem you are describing is made possible via statism.
The government is not a rightful owner of the land in the first place. It does not mix its labor with it namely because it doesn't even really exist.
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.
