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.
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.
Well it isn't utopian insofar as it doesn't desire a "perfect world". But it is utopian in the sense that, it could only exist in a perfect world.
While I understand and respect what you wish you accomplish. You need to accept one fundamental truth, "Men have never come together except by force or necessity". The libertarian notion that a society can be built purely off self-interest alone seems to be a fiction. And I know of no historical place or time where large numbers of men have come together without a state.
Thus, without the yoke of the state, there is no society, there is no civilization. At least not beyond the local tribe.
If you left people completely alone, the first thing they would do is begin to "self-segregate". Large cities require a large government, which can provide the institutions to hold it together. Without a large government, New York City cannot exist.
The moment you let anyone "opt-out" of society(such as what anarchy advocates), you end up with smaller and smaller units, as people run away from society, building a wall around whatever they have, and trying to keep everyone else away.
If you look at the historical record, this is what you see play-out, over and over and over again.
And even worse, those who do come into contact with one-another, will often disagree with each other, violently. And once any violence ensues, it potentially becomes an endless cycle. What you might claim to be self-defense, someone else might claim to be murder. And without some common judge, accepted as legitimate by both parties, then no justice can exist, except that which comes from the barrel of the bigger gun.
The idea that humanity is able to live in a society such as ours, without the monopolization of force by some entity, is a delusion. Anarchy would lead to dissolution and tribalism.
Now, I don't really mind this devolution from centralized-power to localism, I actually welcome it. But unless the entire world embraced it all at once, all that would actually happen, is that we could become weak, and incapable of defending ourselves from other states.
We would become the Native-Americans, who were conquered by people with superior social-organization and technology. We would be the Vietnamese, or the Arabs, caught in the middle of proxy wars between other greater powers, who will turn us against each other for their own gain.
If this problem could be solved, than I would AGAIN advocate for anarchy. But unfortunately, it is a problem which has no solution.
In fact, the world is going in exactly the opposite direction for the reasons I stated. They are trying to create a Hobbesian "Leviathan". What Thomas Hobbes advocated was basically a power so strong that nothing could resist it. This power would be able to prevent people from fighting with each other, thus it could prevent war. But to do so, it would require a Leviathan which spanned the entire world. A "One-world government", or that "New World Order" that George H.W. Bush discussed.
It has been my position for quite a while now that, a one-world government is inevitable. And upon achieving it, the entire political dynamic of the world changes. In a sense, there will cease to exist a foreign-policy, there will cease to exist competition between nations. No more lust for hegemony and dominance, no more war.
The problem is that, such a social-organization would be completely artificial, and it could only be held together through the most-blatant propaganda, manipulation, and limits on freedom of speech(among other things). But without other states to "check" this corruption, it will become inevitable, and permanent.
If anarchy is the nightmare that I presented it to be, then the one-world government is hell on Earth. And the saddest thing is, the people themselves won't even understand. They'll be blinded by ignorance.
Or as Noam Chomsky said... "People not only don't know what's happening to them, they don't even know that they don't know."
If you know the answer to this problem, please tell me. Flailing around in anger while calling people statists, so far hasn't yielded any results.
People are private property. You own yourself (self-ownership). You can also sell yourself via contractual agreement.
A corporation is not a person. It could conceivably have contractual rights if the involved parties wished to set up their association in that manner. A corporation is an extension of individuals voluntarily forming a collective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
How do you begin the indoctrination of children? Do you begin with teaching the 'Three-Fifths Compromise' for illustrative purposes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
You disagree in self-ownership of your body?
You believe that if I consent to being a sex slave to someone that an involuntary 3rd party should be able to void the agreement backed by gunpoint?
What I disagree with is beginning with a false premise, or in more accurate historical & reality-based verbiage, dealing in legal fictions. It's faulty deductive reasoning, a syllogism where the major premise is not only inaccurate but ridiculous.
Also a form of totalitarianism. In order for it to work, everyone is required to be 'tuned in' to the same delusion.
Any child can see through it. People are not property, it's problematic, & with US history, the natural consequences of that belief system is apparent.
Additionally, in your belief system, some 'collectives' are more legitimate than others. Explain why this is so.
Also, enough with the lame analogies, not only are they lame, most are essentially based on sophistries. When what is needed most is courage.
What I disagree with is beginning with a false premise, or in more accurate historical & reality-based verbiage, dealing in legal fictions. It's faulty deductive reasoning, a syllogism where the major premise is not only inaccurate but ridiculous.
Also a form of totalitarianism. In order for it to work, everyone is required to be 'tuned in' to the same delusion.
Any child can see through it. People are not property, it's problematic, & with US history, the natural consequences of that belief system is apparent.
Additionally, in your belief system, some 'collectives' are more legitimate than others. Explain why this is so.
Also, enough with the lame analogies, not only are they lame, most are essentially based on sophistries. When what is needed most is courage.
Its property rights and non-aggression,people would be free to conduct themselves and have any beliefs they want outside of those two simple tenets, and here you are with its a totalitarian collective.
How does it contrast with what we have today?
Its property rights and non-aggression,people would be free to conduct themselves and have any beliefs they want outside of those two simple tenets, and here you are with its a totalitarian collective.
How does it contrast with what we have today?
What you fail to realize is private property rights can also cause misery and despair. The vast amount of power you want to give to the wealthy will further disenfranchise the working class. This is why I advocate for a middle ground keep the free market with generous social services.
What you fail to realize is private property rights can also cause misery and despair. The vast amount of power you want to give to the wealthy will further disenfranchise the working class. This is why I advocate for a middle ground keep the free market with generous social services.
It's mostly the wealthy that abuses private property rights now. It's a total red herring to think that the Libertarian approach would cede all property to the wealthy especially when it is the Libertarians that are against the idea of the wealthy just being able to take what property they want.
It's mostly the wealthy that abuses private property rights now. It's a total red herring to think that the Libertarian approach would cede all property to the wealthy especially when it is the Libertarians that are against the idea of the wealthy just being able to take what property they want.
Libertarians are against interference in the free market. If a businessman buys up the important land libertarians understand that the holy free market must be respected. Libertarians would do nothing and watch the shadows of plutocracy fall across the land because interfering in the market must never be done.
What you fail to realize is private property rights can also cause misery and despair. The vast amount of power you want to give to the wealthy will further disenfranchise the working class. This is why I advocate for a middle ground keep the free market with generous social services.
You're jousting windmills again. Who are these wealthy who will own everything and force you to live within their realm?
And social services are nothing more than rob and redistribute and its redistributed only after the state mafia takes its generous cut.
Who are these wealthy who will own everything and force you to live within their realm?
Same wealthy that exist now. Sure maybe a couple people will go live in the woods in some isolated region but for the vast majority of people that simply isn't an option. The same for the argument you guys make about just up and quitting your job its not so simple. What I am saying is the power imbalance would lead to a tyranny of the oligarchs. Libertarian philosophy is freedom for the wealthy and destitution for the poor.
Libertarians are against interference in the free market. If a businessman buys up the important land libertarians understand that the holy free market must be respected. Libertarians would do nothing and watch the shadows of plutocracy fall across the land because interfering in the market must never be done.
There is NOTHING that stops a businessman from buying property now.
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.
