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.
You're actually wrong. White people have no natural desire to lynch black people. The government and private industries fostered an environment where it could happen; racism was a great deterrent for them against an anti-capitalist movement.
You didn't pay attention to my post.
Please read it in its entirety.
I didn't say the bold. I said that whites had a discriminatory view of blacks (they felt they were subhuman) in the past. That they felt they had a right to redress the "wrongs" they felt blacks committed outside the confines of government/law.
I'd dare say that 100% of whites in America felt in the 19th and a majority of the 20th century, that blacks were inferior to whites.
Due to that, they didn't feel that blacks deserved any rights.
How will you address the fact that the discriminatory views of majority of the population will be put in action against the minority?
How will you address the fact that people place other people in "subhuman" castes?
How will you address the fact that the majority, discriminatory views are always dominant in a society and so will be used as a means to recruit others to the same mindset (and their children raised with this mindset) and they will not see the subhuman minority as people worthy of having any rights associated with your principles in an anarcho-libertarian society?
Note my responses are predicated on my belief that Libetarianism is dependent upon a naive view of humans - the idea that we do not see each other as different - the idea that we as a species will not deny people rights based on our discriminatory views.
I think many of you don't understand this because you don't feel you have any discriminatory views and if you do, you don't think you (personally) would actively discriminate against other people. So again, I think maybe you are just nice, kind-hearted people and want other people to be the same.
I read a lot of history. I have a special knowledge of the history of blacks in America in particular, much more in depth than the average American. And because of my knowledge of history and how people use both free markets and governments to discriminate against people - I know that discriminatory acts are native to the human species and that if left unchecked people will be harmed including being killed and their property stolen from them and/or their heirs.
I think it is interesting that all of you overlooked the fact that the majority (i.e. the collective) historically discriminates en masse against the minority.
How is a minority to shoot dead someone when they are mobbed in an anarcho-libertarian society? They will be overwhelmed and killed.
Again, to me this is your naivete. We have historic reference for this here in America.
If you support the idea that people can be deemed subhuman, and a majority of people believe a minority are subhuman and should be discriminated against - because they reason that they are not included in the principle of non-aggression, then there is no way for that minority to do anything to right the wrongs committed against them.
You've done it again. You've built a collectivist straw man in order to attack individualist philosophy. There is no central state that gives a majority power over a minority, because libertarianism/individualism advocates protecting, securing and defending the natural rights of he smallest minority - the individual.
Nobody ever gains the right to subjugate, oppress or otherwise harm anyone else. The central argument libertarianism has with the state is that the state exercises powers that no individual possesses and would be a crime if an individual committed the same act. This should be done away with entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Libertarianism in this manner is basically mob rule. T1030E actually alluded to a mob rule scenario in his/her response to my comments initially about the fact that you get together a group to "defend" what you see is your right. If you view your right to discriminate, humans will and have historically gotten others to go along with them, which has historically occurred in this country outside the confines of government - they are just be a mob out lynching people and not respecting their rights.
Again with the collectivist straw man. You have decided that given freedom, mob rule is a necessary result, therefore freedom must be limited by a central power who possesses a monopoly on force and violence. You see mob rule around every corner, under every rock, etc. You accuse everyone of being barbaric, if only they were free to act that way. Meanwhile, in the places where the market is free, bad actors are both rare and swiftly dealt with, showing conclusively that left to their own devices, most people choose to get along because it's easier ad more beneficial than not getting along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I think often that many Libertarians view the role of government outside the influence of human.
Your version of human nature is that we are all savages who need a strong central power oppressing us, else we will be ripping out each other's throats within seconds. Every time you argue against freedom, you do it from the standpoint that given freedom, the savages will be out looting and pillaging, since what they really want is to kill their fellow man, not trade/associate with them. Interestingly, you always bring up past events where the strong central government was sponsor and chief architect of such violence and oppression, and use that as your basis for what happens in the absence of strong central government?
Or are you implicitly referring to white people? Is this the long and indirect path to a claim where given the freedom of association, the white devil will go back to oppressing the black? Are we doing a passive aggressive slow walk to what you really think? If that is the case, I'd like to refer you to the origins of the Davis-Bacon Act. Read up on the how and why the strong central government decided they needed a law that priced black workers and business out of the market. White people voluntarily choosing the newer/cheaper/just_as_good products and services being offered (the taxi/bus services in the southeast, for example) by the newly freed and quite entrepreneurial blacks started hurting white owned businesses. Voluntary association ad liberty existed prior to the Davis-Bacon Act, and white people, like all rational humans, were choosing the best value for their dollar, and they didn't care about skin color. The white business owners then petitioned the strong central government to oppress the black owned business, the black worker and the white consumer...all in the name of proper order and good behavior.
Every fear you project about more freedom and less government is based on prior events where the government was stronger, more intrusive and was usurping freedom. Essentially, you've been programmed to think that all prior sins of government were really the fault of people not adhering to what government was demanding, and that is the opposite of the truth. Whenever you see freedom being usurped and rights being violated, there is almost always a strong government sponsor/actor/architect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Government/state is not a living, breathing beast - it is made up of the people who create it and who work within it to get what they want.
Government is monopoly power on force and violence. Give anyone a monopoly on anything, expect them to be a bad actor in any market. Libertarianism seeks to take away the government monopoly on force and violence and never allow anyone to possess such a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
A free market system is the same - it is made up of the people who create it and who work within it to get what they want.
And left to their own devices, people voluntarily associate with each other for the purpose of mutually beneficial trade.You and I could exchange goods/services voluntarily, peacefully and agreeably without government rules, taxes, etc. All the government does is create barriers to you and I trading that neither of us needs. Let's say you're a highly skilled craftsman and I need your services. I should be able to contract with you, and you with me, under terms we both agree to. If any exterior force/pressure is applied to our voluntary trade, where do you think it will come from? A bunch of individuals with freedom, or from government, meddling, racketeering, sticking their snout where it doesn't belong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
People are the key, which is why I stated that you are overlooking human nature. "Government/state" by itself does nothing to no one because it is not a living, breathing, thing. It is a concept, an idea, and a process put in place by us living, breathing beings.
Government is a monopoly on force and violence. That is tangible. Government is taking your straight 'A' high school student, that proverbial good person, and giving them a set of car keys, half a gallon of vodka, a loaded pistol, $10k in cash, a signed agreement that they now above and beyond any law whatsoever. and our encouragement to do whatever they want. Unlimited, unaccountable, unrestrained power, and a monopoly on force and violence. That is government. That it corrupts even the most righteous and virtuous among us is a feature, not a bug. This philosophy you oppose seeks to do away with that monopoly and unrestrained power by eliminating the concept. If people are corruptible, and they are, why give them unrestrained power and monopoly on force and violence? If bad actors are a fact of life, why give bad actors loaded guns, hired thugs, massive bank accounts and unlimited power?
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
All people have discriminatory views BTW. I only speak of this nation because I am more aware of this nation's history than others. However the Rwanda genocide also comes to mind in that there were two tribes - Tutsis and Hutus. Their government did not tell them to go out and kill each other. They did because of their discriminatory views and because of the influence of media. The Hutus got a group together to defend what they felt was their rights to their country and they ended up causing nearly half a million people to be killed. This is human nature to an extreme, but it is human nature and these things occur because, as I noted, people are not apt to think all the time. They hear some spiel and 1/16th of that spiel sounds good so they go along with it and they have the potential to wreck havoc on their society and government is usually not involved nor does it sanction or make these people go out and wreck their havoc.
As someone who is descended from people who were historically oppressed for no reason other than the majority deciding that they were subhuman, and then said majority creating a government to codify their beliefs - I know for a fact that government doesn't make people discriminate. It is the fact that all people have discriminatory views. I can accept that they do, but I cannot accept them having a "right" to discriminate against other people based on an arbitrary reason because those actions can cause a loss of life and property.
In regards to "shooting dead" someone who tries to take your property. You'd be hard pressed to survive when a mob of people come to take your property and there is little old you with a shot gun. You'd be dead and they'd have your property and your surviving friends/family members would have no recourse. Note this sort of scenario has been repeated multiple times in our own country's history in regards to the black population.
Again, you take collectivist ills and build a straw man to attack individualism. Makes no sense. You also keep confusing voluntary association, as in each person being allowed to choose who they will associate with under their own self-interests, with initiations of force. Nowhere in libertarian thinking are initiations of force ever acceptable or defensible. Ever. Discrimination happens for you, me and everyone else countless times per day. When you choose your friends, you discriminate. When you choose your wardrobe fr the day, you discriminate. You discriminate constantly. It's a perfectly natural and necessary human thought process. But making choices is not initiation of force. If you choose not to associate with me, no matter what your reason, you have performed a discrimination, and that's fine. I have not been harmed in any way if you choose to not associate with me. You have to initiate force upon me to harm me, and that is not discrimination, it's just plain violence.
Stop conflating freedom to choose things with a mandate to harm people. They ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
On property rights and self defense - since I understand my natural rights and also the various tactical scenarios that could possibly occur where I would need to exercise the right of self-defense, I have much more effective tools than just my shotgun to fend off initiations of force, and can do so from long ranges, against multiple aggressors, with reliably lethal capability. More than that, my understanding of natural rights, the non-aggression principle, etc gives me the clear conscience to reply to initiations of force with the proper vigor. That's no threat, just a simple reality for someone who understands natural law, property rights, etc. Nobody has a right to harm me, and anyone trying to will be voluntarily forfeiting their rights, up to and including their own right to life. All I will ever do is defend myself, but I will never do so timidly.
I didn't say the bold. I said that whites had a discriminatory view of blacks (they felt they were subhuman) in the past. That they felt they had a right to redress the "wrongs" they felt blacks committed outside the confines of government/law.
I'd dare say that 100% of whites in America felt in the 19th and a majority of the 20th century, that blacks were inferior to whites.
Due to that, they didn't feel that blacks deserved any rights.
How will you address the fact that the discriminatory views of majority of the population will be put in action against the minority?
How will you address the fact that people place other people in "subhuman" castes?
How will you address the fact that the majority, discriminatory views are always dominant in a society and so will be used as a means to recruit others to the same mindset (and their children raised with this mindset) and they will not see the subhuman minority as people worthy of having any rights associated with your principles in an anarcho-libertarian society?
Neither is any form of discrimination a natural form of human life. It is a justification for violence created in the age of intellectualism.
If you look at why racism was created (to help justify slavery in the Roman empire, help unite people under the state via nationalism) you will quite clearly see an exterior force creating these factors.
Racism is still to this day artificial and manufactured by the state in defense of capitalism. If you remove the fuel that keeps such thoughts turning it will eventually be removed from society. Simply remove the exterior factor (state/private enterprise) and build a society off of a want for stability rather than growth and people will naturally become less aggressive.
Again it is our environment that builds us. You don't have to be anarcho-libertarian to understand this (which I'm not).
You've done it again. You've built a collectivist straw man in order to attack individualist philosophy. There is no central state that gives a majority power over a minority, because libertarianism/individualism advocates protecting, securing and defending the natural rights of he smallest minority - the individual.
Nobody ever gains the right to subjugate, oppress or otherwise harm anyone else. The central argument libertarianism has with the state is that the state exercises powers that no individual possesses and would be a crime if an individual committed the same act. This should be done away with entirely.
Sigh....I mentioned nothing about a collectivist/central state and I didn't attack an individualist philosophy. I asked how you align your ideas with the fact that people, by nature are discriminatory. And that historically majorities will oppress a minority by deeming them not human/subhuman and therefore the "rights" seen as applicable to everyone else, will not be applicable to them. How would you address this with your philosophy.
Quote:
Again with the collectivist straw man. You have decided that given freedom, mob rule is a necessary result, therefore freedom must be limited by a central power who possesses a monopoly on force and violence. You see mob rule around every corner, under every rock, etc. You accuse everyone of being barbaric, if only they were free to act that way. Meanwhile, in the places where the market is free, bad actors are both rare and swiftly dealt with, showing conclusively that left to their own devices, most people choose to get along because it's easier ad more beneficial than not getting along.
I didn't say that mob rule was necessary. I also mentioned nothing in regards to a central power. I said mobs operate outside the confines of government because government is only a process/procedure and is not a living/breathing individual capable of doing anything to another human being. Just like guns don't kill people because they are not capable of making themselves kill - neither do governments because a government is just codes, processes and procedures - not a living breathing, thing. People kill people.
Quote:
Your version of human nature is that we are all savages who need a strong central power oppressing us, else we will be ripping out each other's throats within seconds. Every time you argue against freedom, you do it from the standpoint that given freedom, the savages will be out looting and pillaging, since what they really want is to kill their fellow man, not trade/associate with them. Interestingly, you always bring up past events where the strong central government was sponsor and chief architect of such violence and oppression, and use that as your basis for what happens in the absence of strong central government?
My version of human nature is the fact that all people are discriminatory and will act upon their discriminatory leanings. I don't believe we are saints or savages. Just people capable of both good and bad.
I also mentioned nothing about freedom. I'm speaking about the way people behave and am basing my posts/questions on the fact that you believe people should be able to have discriminatory views (I agree with you). How will a Libertarian society deal with people who have majority held discriminatory views against a minority? This is the main reason why I find fault with Libertarianism BTW, which is why I am asking.
Quote:
Or are you implicitly referring to white people? Is this the long and indirect path to a claim where given the freedom of association, the white devil will go back to oppressing the black? Are we doing a passive aggressive slow walk to what you really think? If that is the case, I'd like to refer you to the origins of the Davis-Bacon Act. Read up on the how and why the strong central government decided they needed a law that priced black workers and business out of the market. White people voluntarily choosing the newer/cheaper/just_as_good products and services being offered (the taxi/bus services in the southeast, for example) by the newly freed and quite entrepreneurial blacks started hurting white owned businesses. Voluntary association ad liberty existed prior to the Davis-Bacon Act, and white people, like all rational humans, were choosing the best value for their dollar, and they didn't care about skin color. The white business owners then petitioned the strong central government to oppress the black owned business, the black worker and the white consumer...all in the name of proper order and good behavior.
I'm talking about human experiences in regards to humans holding discriminatory views and acting upon those views. Note, one of my first jobs in was related to Davis Bacon compliance so I am very familiar with the DBA.
I'm not going to go off on a tangent in regards to DBA. I mentioned the bold above and would like a response.ETA: I also don't believe white people are devils lol. I believe we are one race of people and one species of human beings and that individuals all have positive and negative characteristics; also that all humans have basic needs. I adhere to a humanist philosophy but don't go out of my way to try to persuade others to be how I am as I understand that socially everyone is different and unique but biologically we are nearly all the same.
Quote:
Every fear you project about more freedom and less government is based on prior events where the government was stronger, more intrusive and was usurping freedom. Essentially, you've been programmed to think that all prior sins of government were really the fault of people not adhering to what government was demanding, and that is the opposite of the truth. Whenever you see freedom being usurped and rights being violated, there is almost always a strong government sponsor/actor/architect.
Government is monopoly power on force and violence. Give anyone a monopoly on anything, expect them to be a bad actor in any market. Libertarianism seeks to take away the government monopoly on force and violence and never allow anyone to possess such a thing.
None of this has anything to do with discriminatory views turning into discriminatory acts by a majority of the populace outside the confines of government.
Quote:
And left to their own devices, people voluntarily associate with each other for the purpose of mutually beneficial trade.You and I could exchange goods/services voluntarily, peacefully and agreeably without government rules, taxes, etc. All the government does is create barriers to you and I trading that neither of us needs. Let's say you're a highly skilled craftsman and I need your services. I should be able to contract with you, and you with me, under terms we both agree to. If any exterior force/pressure is applied to our voluntary trade, where do you think it will come from? A bunch of individuals with freedom, or from government, meddling, racketeering, sticking their snout where it doesn't belong?
I agree people voluntarily associate with each other and oftentimes (more often than not) they also share the same discriminatory views of other humans. I did not mention government. I am speaking of human nature/behavior, something I mentioned I feel Libertarians are naive about.
Quote:
Government is a monopoly on force and violence. That is tangible. Government is taking your straight 'A' high school student, that proverbial good person, and giving them a set of car keys, half a gallon of vodka, a loaded pistol, $10k in cash, a signed agreement that they now above and beyond any law whatsoever. and our encouragement to do whatever they want. Unlimited, unaccountable, unrestrained power, and a monopoly on force and violence. That is government. That it corrupts even the most righteous and virtuous among us is a feature, not a bug. This philosophy you oppose seeks to do away with that monopoly and unrestrained power by eliminating the concept. If people are corruptible, and they are, why give them unrestrained power and monopoly on force and violence? If bad actors are a fact of life, why give bad actors loaded guns, hired thugs, massive bank accounts and unlimited power?
Again, you take collectivist ills and build a straw man to attack individualism. Makes no sense. You also keep confusing voluntary association, as in each person being allowed to choose who they will associate with under their own self-interests, with initiations of force. Nowhere in libertarian thinking are initiations of force ever acceptable or defensible. Ever. Discrimination happens for you, me and everyone else countless times per day. When you choose your friends, you discriminate. When you choose your wardrobe fr the day, you discriminate. You discriminate constantly. It's a perfectly natural and necessary human thought process. But making choices is not initiation of force. If you choose not to associate with me, no matter what your reason, you have performed a discrimination, and that's fine. I have not been harmed in any way if you choose to not associate with me. You have to initiate force upon me to harm me, and that is not discrimination, it's just plain violence.
Stop conflating freedom to choose things with a mandate to harm people. They ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Again, I spoke nothing of government.
How do Libertarians define who is and who is not human or subhuman or a citizen of their community? Is there a consensus on the fact that "race" as a biological factor doesn't exist in the human species?
I agree that discrimination is human nature - however without defining who and who does not have rights and who is and who is not considered a part of a society as a citizen, how can you protect the rights of others not to have discriminatory acts committed against them by the masses of people who associate with peers who share their views/ideals/behaviors?
Quote:
On property rights and self defense - since I understand my natural rights and also the various tactical scenarios that could possibly occur where I would need to exercise the right of self-defense, I have much more effective tools than just my shotgun to fend off initiations of force, and can do so from long ranges, against multiple aggressors, with reliably lethal capability. More than that, my understanding of natural rights, the non-aggression principle, etc gives me the clear conscience to reply to initiations of force with the proper vigor. That's no threat, just a simple reality for someone who understands natural law, property rights, etc. Nobody has a right to harm me, and anyone trying to will be voluntarily forfeiting their rights, up to and including their own right to life. All I will ever do is defend myself, but I will never do so timidly.
So basically if the masses have more firepower than you, they can do what they want to you (kill you) and take your property from your people if they feel they have the right to do so. This would especially be the case if you are deemed a part of a "race" or subhuman species that they feel have no rights as citizens? If the masses who own businesses that produce weapons that have higher fire power won't sell to you based on them having discriminatory views of you, you will be killed and have no way to adequately defend yourself.
Again, I am not speaking of governments. It seems you all get very defensive and like to act like everyone who disagrees with you is taking a "statist" stance when they are not. I am speaking of human nature and discriminatory views being a constant presence upon the masses of a community/society and how those masses can and have historically refused to give rights to people they deem non-citizens based on their discriminatory views.
I personally have no affinity for government and I did entertain aligning myself with a Libertarian ideology; however, as I noted above, and which you admitted earlier - discriminatory views are inherent to humanity. Throughout history the majority of a population usually holds a discriminatory view of a minority (they are the collective - even in a Libertarian community - the majority rules). Those deemed a different "race" or subhuman and not worthy of rights as afforded to those in the masses can and will have discriminatory acts committed upon them - history in every society shows us that this is the case. How is this considered in a Libertarian community or can it be considered/addressed?
Last edited by residinghere2007; 04-18-2018 at 09:24 AM..
Neither is any form of discrimination a natural form of human life. It is a justification for violence created in the age of intellectualism.
If you look at why racism was created (to help justify slavery in the Roman empire, help unite people under the state via nationalism) you will quite clearly see an exterior force creating these factors.
Racism is still to this day artificial and manufactured by the state in defense of capitalism. If you remove the fuel that keeps such thoughts turning it will eventually be removed from society. Simply remove the exterior factor (state/private enterprise) and build a society off of a want for stability rather than growth and people will naturally become less aggressive.
Again it is our environment that builds us. You don't have to be anarcho-libertarian to understand this (which I'm not).
Racism has always existed in humanity. It is predicated upon the inherent nature of humans to hold discriminatory views of other people not of their community/tribe, etc.
Do you feel that discrimination/racism is actually "created" by government or that it is inherent to the human experience?
I believe it is inherent.
ETA: I mentioned earlier WEB DuBois and his argument against black Americans in the past aligning themselves with a communist philosophy based on the fact that government cannot cure a society of its bias and racism. I personally believe that the most strict form of Libertarianism is the direct opposite of communism (anarchy). Just like government cannot cure a society of bias and racism, neither can a society devoid of government. Racism and bias/discrimination is just something that people do. The Romans didn't create it. They used it to their advantage to expand their empire - this is what all people do who have an interest in committing discriminatory acts.
Note, I also don't feel that all people want to commit discriminatory acts against people; however, I do believe a significant percentage of people have a desire to do so for their own benefit.
Racism has always existed in humanity. It is predicated upon the inherent nature of humans to hold discriminatory views of other people not of their community/tribe, etc.
Anthropology backs this up in fact genocide seems to be quite a common way of resolving resource shortages even in hunter gatherer societies. I agree with your assessment that the anarcho-capitalist view is naive with regards to how humans actually behave.
I'll note I find it interesting that Volobjectitarian and Winterfall disagree on the idea that committing discriminatory acts is inherent to human nature (Volobjectitarian said it is - Winterfall mentions discriminatory/racist acts can only be exerted with government influence).
Which one is right?
How would that be decided in a Libertarian society/community?
I'll note I find it interesting that Volobjectitarian and Winterfall disagree on the idea that committing discriminatory acts is inherent to human nature (Volobjectitarian said it is - Winterfall mentions discriminatory/racist acts can only be exerted with government influence).
Which one is right?
How would that be decided in a Libertarian society/community?
They will probably say something about the Non Aggression Principle and that everyone must understand it for it to be effective. I would say that argument is just utopian idealism if only everyone agreed then everything would work.
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.
