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.
In a libertarian society, a corporation or an individual could easily buy say, Yellowstone park, and make a rule that says: no firearm in the park and only certain speech is allowed.
Large corporations do that already.
So does government, and the only difference is that corporations do not have a monopoly on force and violence, nor do they control every lever of the law making/enforcement/adjudication apparatus, unlike the government.
The government owns Yellowstone right now, and while firearms are allowed to be carried through the park, firing them for any reason is illegal, including self-defense against large predators. But that's OK because the government says so, right?
As Patricius Maximus points out in another post, the government already does all of these things that you people seem to fear being done by individuals, except the government has unlimited power, a monopoly on force and violence, total control of the law making/enforcement/adjudication machinery, and the most well armed military on Earth to back them up.
No individual in a libertarian society could ever possibly rise to such heights of power, since they could only acquire their land and property via trade instead of force ad they would be required to adhere to the non-aggression principle in their dealings, else forfeit their own rights of their own volition.
So does government, and the only difference is that corporations do not have a monopoly on force and violence, nor do they control every lever of the law making/enforcement/adjudication apparatus, unlike the government.
The bolded in particular is more of a function of the level of power possessed by a particular entity, than the entity's classification. A "government" with little to no power does not hold a monopoly of force, and likewise, if Google had more power in American society than any other entity they would have the capacity to create a monopoly of force. There is nothing stopping a powerful enough business, or corporation, or self organized group of concerned citizens from establishing a monopoly on force if they have enough power to do so as well as the will to carry it out. And at that point, they would be a defacto government. Thus, the worry about power vacuums, and the reason we attempt to fill them with some known quantity rather than just crash it all down and see what comes out on top.
In effect, "the government" is just a label representing whatever entity or organization in a society that holds the MOST power. It could be a king, dictator, company, book club, home owners association, rich guy, mercenary group, etc etc etc... It should be self apparent that there will never be a situation where such an entity does not exist, the only way for it not to exist would be a completely 100% uniform power distribution between all members of a society, which would be a Utopian ideal as naive as pure communism.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 10-26-2017 at 12:28 PM..
In a libertarian society, a corporation or an individual could easily buy say, Yellowstone park, and make a rule that says: no firearm in the park and only certain speech is allowed.
Large corporations do that already.
According to the platform of the Libertarian Party in 2016 it says:
Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others.
So I would take that a property owner restricting ones first or second amendment rights by limiting speech or banning firearms would not be acceptable in a libertarian society.
No individual in a libertarian society could ever possibly rise to such heights of power, since they could only acquire their land and property via trade instead of force ad they would be required to adhere to the non-aggression principle in their dealings, else forfeit their own rights of their own volition.
Who's going to enforce the non-aggression principle?
Who's going to enforce the non-aggression principle?
It isn't "enforced".
Again, years of brainwashing have led most folks to believe that there are set entities (namely the government) that have special powers over others.
Larken Rose, well-known anarchist, talks about this all the time. I'm paraphrasing (as well as adding in my own thoughts) but what he basically says is that statists are like 2nd graders when the teacher suddenly steps out of the room without warning.
Some kids look around in bewilderment not knowing what to think/do. They quietly panic on the inside.
Other kids start to act up because they've been trained to only say/do things for "authority". Yelling/screaming/throwing stuff.
And yet other kids simply sit there, don't act up or panic on the inside, waiting for the teacher to return to tell them what to do next. If he/she never returns they would sit there until they eventually died.
*****
Point is, there is no inherent authority that rules over a collective. You only rule over yourself.
My hope is, if the teacher ever leaves the room for good on us (State dissolves), the majority of folks will realize that they are responsible for themselves and make their own decisions in the spirit of what is best for themselves (which is where we derive the NAP and private property rights from).
Right now most if not nearly all folks are in one of those first 3 groups of kids.
Again, years of brainwashing have led most folks to believe that there are set entities (namely the government) that have special powers over others.
Larken Rose, well-known anarchist, talks about this all the time. I'm paraphrasing (as well as adding in my own thoughts) but what he basically says is that statists are like 2nd graders when the teacher suddenly steps out of the room without warning.
Some kids look around in bewilderment not knowing what to think/do. They quietly panic on the inside.
Other kids start to act up because they've been trained to only say/do things for "authority". Yelling/screaming/throwing stuff.
And yet other kids simply sit there, don't act up or panic on the inside, waiting for the teacher to return to tell them what to do next. If he/she never returns they would sit there until they eventually died.
*****
Point is, there is no inherent authority that rules over a collective. You only rule over yourself.
My hope is, if the teacher ever leaves the room for good on us (State dissolves), the majority of folks will realize that they are responsible for themselves and make their own decisions in the spirit of what is best for themselves (which is where we derive the NAP and private property rights from).
Right now most if not nearly all folks are in one of those first 3 groups of kids.
Lately I've been thinking of it as offensive vs. defensive enforcement. I actually haven't heard anyone else describe it that way, but it makes sense to me. *shrugs*
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.
