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 have a particular goal in mind, and I have studied the issue for many years now. And to be quite candid, my goal is the dissolution of the United States. At the current time the dissolution of the United States is impossible because we are far too integrated. There are no lines on which to break the country apart.
My goal then is to create those lines. Libertarianism would create those lines.
As you mentioned, libertarians want to be able to legally discriminate, such as at lunch counters. The more important discrimination would be in housing and hiring. Many libertarians also want to abolish government schools(privatize education), and some even want to privatize roads. If you did all this, you would fracture society.
Moreover, if you get rid of the welfare-state, the poor would have to rely more and more on charities, especially churches. In fact, the church would again become the center of the community. It would be the organization people come to rely on, for education, for assistance/relief, for healthcare, etc. The church would do many/most of the functions the government does today.
Without government education, it would be the church who educated the great bulk of the children. Without public roads people would tend to live more locally. And without anti-discrimination laws there would be far more "nepotism"(community-favoritism). The end result of libertarianism would be the fracturing of society into semi-independent religious communities.
Someone joked that, most segregation occurs on Sunday morning.
The ideologies are absolutist but the people professing them are not. For example, there is something called a "Constitutionalist", who believes we should follow the "original-intent" of the Constitution.
But why does someone become a Constitutionalist? Is it because he has read the Constitution and agrees with every word of it? Or because he hates our government and hopes to use this "interpretation" of the Constitution to get rid of the things he doesn't like?
Moreover, libertarian isn't a single ideology, they disagree with each other on many different things. In fact, the ideology itself is somewhat contradicting. Which is why it is easy to go back and forth between Libertarian, minarchist, and An-Cap.
You are presupposing the Confederate flag is a bad thing. I'm sure you're aware there are "satanists". I used to think they were a bit of a joke, that they were just mocking Christianity. But to some people, Satan represents "free-will", while god is a tyrant. Lucifer was punished because he disobeyed god, he was a rebel.
The attraction to the Confederate Flag is a hatred of the Federal Government. People defend the Confederacy because you can make an argument that the south were rebels fighting against centralized authority. And regardless of slavery, many believe we would be "more free" today had the south won because it would have set a precedence for rebellion. You might be familiar with the "tree of liberty" quote from Thomas Jefferson.
In response to the Civil War Lord Acton wrote to Robert E. Lee... "I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will", to which Lee replied... "I consider (states' rights) as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
There is no such thing as a Republican. Republican is not an ideology. There is no "going back and forth".
I do agree that current society would be fractured, although you can still have many societies allying with each other.
But.. I’m not seeing how libertarianism would necessarily lead to religious communities. In areas with an already religious culture, sure, but are you saying that because churches would likely provide a lot of help for the poor and needy, that would lead to the communities becoming religious? There would also likely be secular organizations and mutual aid societies doing the same as churches.
Also, I’m interested in what contradiction(s) you see in libertarianism. Contradictions in the entire philosophy, or just in minarchist libertarianism?
Are you saying that because churches would likely provide a lot of help for the poor and needy, that would lead to the communities becoming religious?
The more people rely on the church, the more interaction there is with the Church. Think of the Muslim Brotherhood, they're not simply a religious organization, their real strength is community-outreach. They are the ones providing services to local communities because their governments are in disarray. They educate and organize the communities.
I used to call the Church a "primitive-state", because the Church and the state share a lot of things in common. If you strengthen the state you weaken the church, and if you weaken the state you strengthen the church. In the absence of the state the church tends to become the only organizing force that can maintain something like "society".
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Also, I’m interested in what contradiction(s) you see in libertarianism. Contradictions in the entire philosophy, or just in minarchist libertarianism?
I'm more referring to that line between libertarianism, minarchism, and anarcho-capitalism.
"The apology, that is constantly put forth for the injustice of government, viz., that a man must consent to give up some of his rights, in order to have his other rights protected - involves a palpable absurdity, both legally and politically." - Lysander Spooner
It is easy to float back and forth across this line because the line itself isn't a matter of principle, it is a matter of feeling. The only truly principled position is AnCap, but very few people think it would work.
The more people rely on the church, the more interaction there is with the Church. Think of the Muslim Brotherhood, they're not simply a religious organization, their real strength is community-outreach. They are the ones providing services to local communities because their governments are in disarray. They educate and organize the communities.
I used to call the Church a "primitive-state", because the Church and the state share a lot of things in common. If you strengthen the state you weaken the church, and if you weaken the state you strengthen the church. In the absence of the state the church tends to become the only organizing force that can maintain something like "society".
Fair enough. I don’t think it’s that inevitable, but very possible. I do believe it’s possible to have a culture that doesn’t largely believe in the church or the state (I sort of repeat myself ).
Quote:
I'm more referring to that line between libertarianism, minarchism, and anarcho-capitalism.
"The apology, that is constantly put forth for the injustice of government, viz., that a man must consent to give up some of his rights, in order to have his other rights protected - involves a palpable absurdity, both legally and politically." - Lysander Spooner
It is easy to float back and forth across this line because the line itself isn't a matter of principle, it is a matter of feeling. The only truly principled position is AnCap, but very few people think it would work.
Definitely agree with Spooner, and that Ancap/Voluntaryist is the only consistent position...any form of statism is inherently contradictory. As you said, the next question is always “will it actually work?” I’m personally convinced it will, but I understand the vast majority of people being hesitant. I also can’t knowingly accept views that I know are incorrect, so statism is out the window for me.
The question is, how can we have a society free of as much aggression against people and their property as possible? Can society exist and survive without giving anyone an exemption from morality/ethics/whatever term you want to use?
I think it would be a lot easier to come up with non-aggressive solutions to societal problems if more people were on board with the idea. Most people are starting from the foundation that aggression is acceptable if done by way of the state, and only a relative handful of people have spent time imagining a world without it.
It’ll take many many more minds, specialized expertise, and time to come up with solutions...like anything else. Same way new technology starts off clunky, confusing, etc. and improves over time as people improve it.
That’s basically what happened with the development of states/governments, but the problem is that the state is founded on a faulty and irrational premise.
Fair enough. I don’t think it’s that inevitable, but very possible. I do believe it’s possible to have a culture that doesn’t largely believe in the church or the state (I sort of repeat myself ).
Any form of statism is inherently contradictory. As you said, the next question is always “will it actually work?” I’m personally convinced it will.
By what standard does anything work or not work? Couldn't you say that if something can't hold together 320 million people, it doesn't work? And what about the economy, international trade, the military, international peace(Pax-Americana), technological advancement, etc.
As much as I hate our government, it "works" pretty well. If it didn't we wouldn't be a superpower. And our only geopolitical rivals have been far more authoritarian. In fact, the future is almost certainly more authoritarian(think Singapore).
What is a society? Are we a society? What most people call society is really just government. The extent of our society is the extent of government control. Which begs the question, how did this country become a country? How did we get all this land? And what really holds us together?
America has often engaged in "Nation-Building". The first step of Nation-Building is building government schools that bring diverse peoples together and teach them a common language, a common history, and a common culture. If you don't have government schools, you don't have a nation. Germany has long made public education compulsory for everyone. Not long ago a German family wanted to homeschool their children, but the German government said it was illegal, fined them, and required them to send their children to public school. They took the issue to court, and the German court found that private education created a "parallel society". So the German family came to the United States and applied for asylum. The Obama administration denied them and sent them back to Europe, where the German government took custody of their children because they refused to enroll them in government schools.
You and I probably feel much the same way about the issue. But I wish you would focus on the term "parallel society", and think of people who are educated in private schools or are homeschooled. Are they not in a sense members of a separate society? People often say homeschoolers are "weird", or that they aren't "socialized". But what do they mean by socialized? Most homeschoolers are more social than people who go to government schools, have better relationships with their families and communities, and are far more likely to vote. Socialized means to learn "social rules". What is acceptable socially and what isn't.
The Amish aren't socialized because their only interactions are with other Amish. The social rules in the Amish community are different from the rest of society. If they aren't brought around non-Amish children, especially non-white children, they never really learn what the acceptable rules of social behavior are. In that sense the Amish are basically foreigners. Homeschooled children are foreigners. To some extent even privately schooled children are foreigners, although much less so.
The libertarian says AnCap doesn't work because they don't see how the military and police-force can be privatized. Many also believe that roads can't be privatized. Libertarianism is thus the minimum amount of government possible for a country to defend itself and sustain economic-activity. But what libertarians don't consider is "cohesiveness", or the "stability" of society. They reduce society down to millions of individuals, but why should any of those individuals want to share a country with any other? Their only answer is "money". They presuppose everyone puts money before everything. But is that true?
The reason our government was somewhat libertarian in the past was because we were predominantly rural and agricultural, but cities and industry are incompatible with libertarianism. Cities need government. The bigger the city, the more government. The bigger the business, the bigger the government.
Governments need to create stability. This is done mostly through redistribution schemes, especially keeping the masses "dependent" on the government. People who are dependent on the government are less-likely to fight against it. And through redistribution schemes you can give the appearance of fairness and generosity even if it is all fake.
The main difference between the Libertarian and the Conservative is that the Conservative believes that in order to have a "good society" you need "good people". And in order to hold a country together you need something like a common culture, history, language, etc. Without these things society would either fall apart or become tyrannical(held together by force alone).
This is why religion was the precursor to government. It was the moral-instructor and the educator of children. It was what brought people together and gave them something in common. It formed the basis of society, the transition from the tribe to the nation-state. The nation-state has taken over most of the responsibilities of the Church over the last 150+ years, education, moral-instruction, welfare, assimilation, etc. And because the nation-state is secular, it can do so over a much broader swath of humanity. It isn't theologically-rigid so it can reform itself to accommodate changes in society.
Can you have society without religion or the state? Only if you could get the entire world to agree with each other on right and wrong. I don't think the NAP is sufficient. Not only because of things like discrimination and nepotism/favoritism, but because parents with children don't want druggies and prostitutes peddling their wares in their neighborhoods. Or people walking around naked, having sex in public, or countless other things. The moment people disagree with each other morally, the only solution is separation. And the bigger the disagreement, the more separation is necessary.
Religion forms a "moral-consensus". Without that consensus society can only exist through force. Thus the more we abandon religion, the more society tears itself apart, and thus the more you need an authoritarian government to hold it together. Or at the very least dependency and mass-propaganda(bread and circuses?).
With that said, while I prefer "voluntary religion" to government force and I have no interest in holding together 320 million people in the first place, I also realize that anarchism is an impossibility, because China and Russia aren't going to just leave us alone. If we don't stay together, and remain wealthy and thus powerful, we won't become free, we will be conquered and we will end up even more oppressed than we already are.
There is no way out.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother talking about it, it just makes me unhappy. Why worry about something you can't change?
And what is so bad about it anyway? Why do I hate it so much?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 08-03-2020 at 04:27 PM..
I don't care whether you have "sympathy" for anyone, but it's sensible policy and practice to extend a safety net and increase options for people who are not producing enough income to cover fundamental costs of living, temporarily or long-term. It'd be disastrous for the economy, public health, crime rate and political stability for a huge underclass to be left without bread and circuses.
Every dollar that goes into welfare of whatever sort goes right back into economic circulation, anyway, so it's not like it's being thrown in a bonfire. The biggest beneficiary of food stamps, for example, are grocery stores.
I don't care whether you have "sympathy" for anyone, but it's sensible policy and practice to extend a safety net and increase options for people who are not producing enough income to cover fundamental costs of living, temporarily or long-term. It'd be disastrous for the economy, public health, crime rate and political stability for a huge underclass to be left without bread and circuses.
Every dollar that goes into welfare of whatever sort goes right back into economic circulation, anyway, so it's not like it's being thrown in a bonfire. The biggest beneficiary of food stamps, for example, are grocery stores.
I am fine with all the welfare programs as long as they funded voluntarily.
Second, you are providing some potentially accurate statements, but also some sweeping generalities - they don't take care of their children or care about education? All of them?
Certainly the greatest majority! I agree with Lifeexplorer and also with Rachel976 answer that the poor in the past were totally different from the poor in the present (and I can say the same of immigrants too). My family was extremely poor, 3 small girls, father ill in and out of clinics, etc. but we ALL worked incessantly and practiced thrift so we managed with dignity, until we siblings grew up, went to night school and continued working days and very gradually were successful in having a modest but very nice living. We never ever collected any benefits and didn't ask for them....let alone DEMAND them. I think the poor today are aggressive, demanding rights without obligations and not interested in improving their lot through their own efforts...why should they? Uncle Sam (hated by most of them) gives them plenty to live without work! Yet there are innumerable organizations throughout America, which offer most efficient free services in preparation to study and/or find a proper job.
You certainly must see the numbers in riots? They aren't just a bunch - they are many hundreds if not thousands. And they don't just do it once or twice to leave their demands established. No. They continue with what looks like indefinite times of DESTROYING EVERYTHING THEY FIND IN THEIR WAY! And they continue escalating their demands and their destruction all over the country!
Think what wonderful jobs they could get if they used those destructive time and efforts in studying and/or preparing themselves for good jobs with great future possibilities. What kind of people do you think these individuals will be when they've grown out of their "ideals"??? Why, they will be...the POOR!
Said another way, “don’t stand by any principles”.
The following explanation describes a principled stance:
Quote:
... I. The Case Against the Confederacy.
I have written about the first point at length in the past. To briefly summarize, the Confederacy is indefensible because it was created for the purpose of perpetuating and extending the evil – and manifestly unlibertarian – institution of slavery. Don’t take my word for it. Take that of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Vice President Alexander Stephens, and the southern states’ official statements outlining their reasons for seceding.
It’s also worth remembering that the Confederacy was a brutal and oppressive regime even aside from slavery. I am by no means hostile to all secession movements. But even if you endorse secession in any situation where a majority of the people in a state support it, you should still denounce Confederate secession. I explained why here:
Quote:
As of 1860, African-Americans constituted about 40% of the population of the states that formed the Confederacy. It’s a safe bet that they were overwhelmingly opposed to secession. When you combine this overwhelming black opposition with that of the substantial minority of southern whites who also wanted to stay in the Union, it is highly likely that a majority of southerners in 1861 opposed secession. Once you recognize that blacks count too, it becomes clear that Confederate secession was anti-majoritarian as well as proslavery.
The Confederacy also had a terrible record on civil liberties, significantly worse than that of the Union. The Confederates were not even consistent supporters of “states rights.” For example, Confederate forces sought to coerce the states of Kentucky and Missouri into seceding from the Union even though majority opinion in those states (including majority white opinion) preferred to remain in the United States. ...
Another common sense, non-absolutist libertarian here:
A worthwhile read; here's just a snip:
Quote:
...Put all this together, and two clear rules for proper sequencing emerge:
Rule 1: Don’t reduce government benefits for ordinary people until all subsidies and privileges for the well-to-do have been dismantled.
Rule 2: Don’t reduce government benefits for the poor and disadvantaged until all government policies that harm the poor and disadvantaged have been reformed. ...
Why Libertarians and Conservatives Should Stop Opposing the Welfare State
Not one single libertarian is against welfare as long as it’s funded voluntarily.
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.
).
