REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The question libertarians just can’t answer

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 16:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3901
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:17 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?


Quote:

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.


While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.

But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.




http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_an
swer
/






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Interesting question; it never occurred to me before. I wonder what their answer would be?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:13 AM

BYTEMITE


Classical Liberalism --> America --> Individual Anarchism --> Mutualism --> Georgism --> Left-wing Libertarianism --> Right-wing Libertarianism

First have to ask which kind you mean. Second have to express surprise that a political ideology that tends towards reactionary dislike towards existing government forms that believes that rights exist before the government and that a government that does not protect rights should be abolished might be under represented in the modern span of states and the political climate. How can this be? :o

It's like asking why cats don't band together and take over the world. There is just so much string over here you guys, look at all this wiggly happy string.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


In other words, libertarians are so wrapped up in doing ONLY what benefits them directly and immediately, that they are incapable of banding together long-term for the greater good of all.

Got it.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:41 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, libertarians are so wrapped up in doing ONLY what benefits them directly and immediately, that they are incapable of banding together long-term for the greater good of all.

Got it.






Basically, but I liked my cat analogy better. It made anarchist types like me look slightly more adorable, and slightly less selfish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:47 AM

BYTEMITE


In short,



Meow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?



Probably for the same reason the people in a lot of countries haven't tried an actual democratic republic form of government. The folks in power have the money, guns, military and law enforcement to stay in power. Can you imagine anything more frightening to a politician, of any stripe, than the idea that people don't need them, and their government?




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


BTW.

I sent an email to the local elections commission last year asking what would happen if I wrote in "none of the above" instead of voting for a candidate. I was told it wouldn't count. If you're stuck with pretty much the same choices, from a Libertarian view, and there's no Libertarian running to protest vote for, what you gonna do?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 11:20 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


It's an interesting question, Kwicko, one that i posed in other threads a long time ago. The best that anyone could do was point to a few communities living within normal democracies.

Yes, I wonder how ideologues can speak with such confidence about what would happen if all public funding was cut to all services and all laws removed. I mean there have been times where I have seen some logic to the arguments of libertarianism, but it would be so risky to actually implement it. You have to have such hope that human nature would organise itself organically into something decent. I dunno, I see that power abuse is so entirely likely.

Countries with Universal health care (in green)




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 11:25 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?



Probably for the same reason the people in a lot of countries haven't tried an actual democratic republic form of government. The folks in power have the money, guns, military and law enforcement to stay in power. Can you imagine anything more frightening to a politician, of any stripe, than the idea that people don't need them, and their government?




You didn't address the question; the question is "If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?" The question was not "Why haven't the people in *a lot of countries* tried it?", but rather, why hasn't any country ever tried it?

Democratic republics have been tried, and have existed. You're living in one. Communism has been tried, and socialism, and they've been made to work to varying degrees of success. But never libertarianism. Libertarianism actually has a worse track record in practice than communism, socialism, democracy, republicanism, or even fascism. It seems that if it were really as good as so-called libertarians claim it is, then it would have risen to the top as the ideal form of government in at least one or two locations, and yet it hasn't.

Quote:

I sent an email to the local elections commission last year asking what would happen if I wrote in "none of the above" instead of voting for a candidate. I was told it wouldn't count. If you're stuck with pretty much the same choices, from a Libertarian view, and there's no Libertarian running to protest vote for, what you gonna do?



I did giggle at the idea of you, a pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps/I-don't-need-no-stinking-gubmint kind of guy, basically arguing that your preferred form of government would be great, but you've all been kept down by The Man.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:20 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



A person is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky animals.

And Libertarians will gladly do for others , out of a sense of charity. They just don't feel their lives belong to any govt. YOU own yourself. That's probably too new a concept for the vast herds of sheeple out there.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


very noble.

what about everyone else? how are they going to function?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:46 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
very noble.

what about everyone else? how are they going to function?




Learn to do for themselves ?

Crazy idea, huh ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Hive minds. Because... That's where it's going?

I'unno

They could just plaster posters with blatantly obvious instructions all over everything if the scary mind meld thing turns people off. The only way to survive a horrible dystopia is to make it funny. Or at least the only way to enjoy it before imminent death.

Like this:

To open door, turn handle

This handle

-->

Turn it LEFT

No the OTHER left

Now pull

Pull the door WHILE turning the handle

You just pushed

Helpful representatives of your government will arrive shortly to assist you with your crappy door opening skill needs

You might want to run away instead

Heaven help you if you need instructions in the bathroom

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:26 PM

BYTEMITE


Occurs to me that might have come out the wrong way. Didn't mean to imply people who like government help might need inane stupid directions. More just imaging the smartasses who would put up those directions and amusing unnecessary explanations.

Plus theoretically wasn't this supposed to be happening in a government vacuum? There wouldn't be any government officials to show up to help.

As a side note/interesting thought. Is having a government the same thing as believing there is a government?

In other words does government really exist, and if it didn't, would we know?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 3:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

As a side note/interesting thought. Is having a government the same thing as believing there is a government?

In other words does government really exists, and if it didn't, would we know?



Well, clearly Obama thinks it exits , and should be more and more a part of everyone's lives ( Julia )

Remember all the chaos and dire predictions Obama gave us , if just a tiny fraction of govt wasn't allowed to grow, due to sequestration ?

Pretty sure he believes in govt. Or , at the very least, in getting everyone else to believe, and that he's the one who should be in charge of it ( and us ) .

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 7:06 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURAPTOR:
Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
very noble.

what about everyone else? how are they going to function?




Learn to do for themselves ?

Crazy idea, huh ?




Or become war lords. Or bully people weaker than themselves? Or behave in non altruistic manner that doesn't seem to feature on the libertarian radars.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Or become war lords. Or bully people weaker than themselves? Or behave in non altruistic manner that doesn't seem to feature on the libertarian radars.




Oh, we have that going on already. But those would be counter to what Libertarians believe, about how Rights of one only extend so far as not to impede onto another's. That includes both rights of the individuals and of govts.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURAPTOR:
Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
very noble.

what about everyone else? how are they going to function?




Learn to do for themselves ?

Crazy idea, huh ?




Or become war lords. Or bully people weaker than themselves? Or behave in non altruistic manner that doesn't seem to feature on the libertarian radars.




You're confusing Libertarians with someone else.

Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar. "Violence" is generally expanded to include physical, financial, or political coercion. Self-defense, BTW, is not considered aggression.

This is probably one reason there are no Libertarian countries. The existing governments can use anything, up to and including physical violence, to make sure they stay in power. All Libertarians can do is try to persuade folks to change.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:36 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Oh I get what they say they believe in, I just foresee the result of abandonment of all centralised authorities where it comes to laws and law enforcement.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:39 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Two recent studies in evolutionary biology (discussed in Scientific American) concern the problem of why not all individuals cheat: “A key problem when trying to understand the evolution of cooperation has been the issue of cheaters.”In other words: cheating helps the cheater, so why doesn’t everyone cheat?

One finding (“Generalized Reciprocity”) has been that to the extent that individuals in a culture trust and help strangers, the culture itself thrives, but that to the opposite extent, in which it’s common to take from strangers without giving proportionally in return, the culture suffers and declines.

This means that cultures in which cheating is prevalent decline; that’s one reason not everyone cheats – the more cheating there is, the weaker the culture is.

Another finding is that “cooperation could be a viable evolutionary strategy when individuals within the group collectively punish cheaters who don’t pull their weight.”

In other words: The only type of culture that can thrive is one in which there is prevalent trust, and in which there is also prevalent contempt and rejection of cheaters.

But what happens when the person who is held in contempt is not the cheater, but the cheater is instead more often admired because cheaters (by definition) avoid the barrier, to their personal success, of adhering to the rules of decency and fairness – the rules against frauds and against all other types of theft from others? It’s by avoiding those barriers that cheaters win.

When success itself is admired, regardless of how it is won, then the result becomes what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes called “the state of nature,” in which there is “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

This is what results when everyone places success above fairness or any other ethical objective. Some people call this “state of nature” “libertarianism,” or “anarchy,” and they think that this might-makes-right society is the ideal form of “government” (no government at all), towards which the world should strive.

However, the recent studies in evolutionary biology show that there is actually evolutionary benefit in “the state of nature” only if the culture happens to be one of trust of strangers, and of contempt for cheaters. But how can there continue to exist trust of strangers, and contempt for cheaters, in any “state of nature”?

It’s too dangerous to trust strangers in such a society. Furthermore, contempt for cheaters imposes ethical rules that remove the state of nature, and that replace it with the imposed ethical order.

This is the problem that libertarian believers must wrestle with, if they are at all serious, instead of just ideological kooks.

So, rejecting government solves nothing. It’s like rejecting food: The real issue isn’t to reject food, it’s to eat healthful food, and to avoid poisonous food. Similarly, the real issue isn’t to reject government, it’s to support good government, and to oppose bad government.

And so, too, the issue isn’t whether government should be “small,” or “big,” but rather that it should be the best size to serve the public, who must bear its costs.

In other words: Libertarianism entirely avoids the real question, which is: What type of government is good? As an “ideology,” libertarianism doesn’t even make it to first base: it’s fake, from the get-go. That’s why libertarianism fails.

http://au.businessinsider.com/why-libertarianism-fails-2012-12

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:39 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Two recent studies in evolutionary biology (discussed in Scientific American) concern the problem of why not all individuals cheat: “A key problem when trying to understand the evolution of cooperation has been the issue of cheaters.”In other words: cheating helps the cheater, so why doesn’t everyone cheat?

One finding (“Generalized Reciprocity”) has been that to the extent that individuals in a culture trust and help strangers, the culture itself thrives, but that to the opposite extent, in which it’s common to take from strangers without giving proportionally in return, the culture suffers and declines.

This means that cultures in which cheating is prevalent decline; that’s one reason not everyone cheats – the more cheating there is, the weaker the culture is.

Another finding is that “cooperation could be a viable evolutionary strategy when individuals within the group collectively punish cheaters who don’t pull their weight.”

In other words: The only type of culture that can thrive is one in which there is prevalent trust, and in which there is also prevalent contempt and rejection of cheaters.

But what happens when the person who is held in contempt is not the cheater, but the cheater is instead more often admired because cheaters (by definition) avoid the barrier, to their personal success, of adhering to the rules of decency and fairness – the rules against frauds and against all other types of theft from others? It’s by avoiding those barriers that cheaters win.

When success itself is admired, regardless of how it is won, then the result becomes what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes called “the state of nature,” in which there is “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

This is what results when everyone places success above fairness or any other ethical objective. Some people call this “state of nature” “libertarianism,” or “anarchy,” and they think that this might-makes-right society is the ideal form of “government” (no government at all), towards which the world should strive.

However, the recent studies in evolutionary biology show that there is actually evolutionary benefit in “the state of nature” only if the culture happens to be one of trust of strangers, and of contempt for cheaters. But how can there continue to exist trust of strangers, and contempt for cheaters, in any “state of nature”?

It’s too dangerous to trust strangers in such a society. Furthermore, contempt for cheaters imposes ethical rules that remove the state of nature, and that replace it with the imposed ethical order.

This is the problem that libertarian believers must wrestle with, if they are at all serious, instead of just ideological kooks.

So, rejecting government solves nothing. It’s like rejecting food: The real issue isn’t to reject food, it’s to eat healthful food, and to avoid poisonous food. Similarly, the real issue isn’t to reject government, it’s to support good government, and to oppose bad government.

And so, too, the issue isn’t whether government should be “small,” or “big,” but rather that it should be the best size to serve the public, who must bear its costs.

In other words: Libertarianism entirely avoids the real question, which is: What type of government is good? As an “ideology,” libertarianism doesn’t even make it to first base: it’s fake, from the get-go. That’s why libertarianism fails.

http://au.businessinsider.com/why-libertarianism-fails-2012-12

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This is what results when everyone places success above fairness or any other ethical objective. Some people call this “state of nature” “libertarianism,” or “anarchy,” and they think that this might-makes-right society is the ideal form of “government” (no government at all), towards which the world should strive.




Well, there's your problem understanding Libertarians right there.

As noted above, most Libertarians follow the non-aggression principle, which is pretty much the antithesis of "might-makes-right". If I had to say, I'd describe Libertarianism as more of "Consensus makes right, as long as no consensus practices aggression on anyone."

However, many current governments, including some notional democracies, do follow the "might-makes-right" rule.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 11:40 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


In a Libertarian society, not everyone will automatically follow libertarian philosophy. There will still be people who want power, but not the checks and balances to contain them.

I note that there are different philosophical strains of libertarianism which range from small government - let private enterpise do its magic, to no government and no laws.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:49 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In a Libertarian society, not everyone will automatically follow libertarian philosophy. There will still be people who want power, but not the checks and balances to contain them.



You mean like with what we're seeing now, with the IRS and the Democrats ? Oh, wait..., that's not a Libertarian philosophy in action, now is it ?

Quote:



I note that there are different philosophical strains of libertarianism which range from small government - let private enterpise do its magic, to no government and no laws.



Don't know where you're getting the latter from. IMO, that'd be anarchy, not Libertrainism.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:00 PM

BYTEMITE


*dull face*

Anarchy has laws. And organization. I thought we were past the propaganda of the turn of last century.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*dull face*

Anarchy has laws. And organization. I thought we were past the propaganda of the turn of last century.



Propaganda? Really? What you're talking about has been tried, over and over, and only really works in theory.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:30 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar.



So who gets to decide the "provided that" part? What if you and I disagree as to whether you crossed that "provided that" line? How do we come to terms?

This is where libertarians are out of it. Their system requires a decider, though they DESPISE the very idea. They live in this la-la land where they think there is some universal truth that everyone will just automatically agree on. Even though, as was posted above, it is well known that people in groups are idiots. Somehow it occurs to none of the libertarians that their ideal world is full of mobs of idiots with guns and every reason to use those guns to define their own "provided that", or to shut up anyone who brings up the "provided that" clause.

This plan includes handing such power off to dark people and people of other religions, another complication many of the frightened white USA libertarian faction would certainly change their song about if it ever came to pass.

I have yet to see any real plan as to how to deal with the inevitable disagreements of a libertarian utopia. Oh, the family will back their side up. Oh, if there's injustice it will be remembered and the do-bad-ers will pay.

That's just mob rule. Yeah, this system has been tried, more or less. It was called the Dark Ages for a reason.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:35 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*dull face*

Anarchy has laws. And organization. I thought we were past the propaganda of the turn of last century.



Propaganda? Really? What you're talking about has been tried, over and over, and only really works in theory.



Except certain businesses and areas in Catalonia/Barcelona, which I note wants to break away from the Madrid government again and Madrid will probably let them.

Seriously I feel like a broken record here. The stuff works fine so long as you can defend it from the powerhungry conqueror types.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:46 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Mal4Prez - the rule of law, not some dictatorial 'decider'. Big difference.

Quote:

This plan includes handing such power off to dark people and people of other religions, another complication many of the frightened white USA libertarian faction would certainly change their song about if it ever came to pass.


Wow... you're just not getting it , are you ? Is this for real, or are you intentionally being this dense ?

Handing off power ? From where does that power come, do you think? And under whose authority is it ' handed off ' ?

It comes down to personal responsibility. To whom do you belong ? The govt, or yourself ? And if you violate someone's rights, YOU are going to have to be responsible. You're not going to be able to blame it on your mother , or being bullied as a child, or some such b.s.

Tough for some to take, I understand.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar.



So who gets to decide the "provided that" part? What if you and I disagree as to whether you crossed that "provided that" line? How do we come to terms?



The process generally described to resolve such differences is for both parties to hire a disinterested arbiter to make such a decision, one that they both agree to abide by.

Quote:

This plan includes handing such power off to dark people and people of other religions, another complication many of the frightened white USA libertarian faction would certainly change their song about if it ever came to pass.


Okay. So you conflate Libertarian with Tea Party. Nope. Lots of brands of Libertarian, and very few, I'd guess, agree with much of the Tea Party line...except less government.

Quote:

I have yet to see any real plan as to how to deal with the inevitable disagreements of a libertarian utopia. Oh, the family will back their side up. Oh, if there's injustice it will be remembered and the do-bad-ers will pay.


Ever read Murray Rothbard or Bill Bradford?

Or you could read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" or L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 5:21 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
The process generally described to resolve such differences is for both parties to hire a disinterested arbiter to make such a decision, one that they both agree to abide by.



So where exactly did you dream up that third party that's so ideally perfectly neutral and fair and balanced? Is it whatever random passer by happens along? What if you discover after the fact that they are someone connected to the other party and that may have influenced the decision against you? What redress do you have, if you agreed beforehand to abide by the decision of the brother-in-law of the party you offended? Are you just up shit creek?

Perhaps there should be a process to choose that third party. Perhaps you shouldn't be on your own, but should have help from someone who is an expert in selecting the third party. But the wealthy will have access to top level experts, and that's certainly not fair. So perhaps there should be some panel of experts readily available to those at an economic disadvantage, to ensure fairness.

And what exactly is the definition of "legally allowed" and "provided that...". How fair is it that someone in the next town got punished for doing something that I got away with, simply because the "third party" that I found to decide my case was in a better mood. (Or I offered to buy them lots of free beers.) Shouldn't there be standards?

And what is the "punishment" exactly? Should I lose a hand for stealing, or wash dishes for a week to make up the cost of what I stole? How fair is it to allow punishment one for one person, punishment two for another?

Should I be pushed out an airlock for making a pass at a woman simply because women are scarce and must not be offended? (Yes, I've read the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Super fun book but NOT reality in any way. Funny that the only examples of "successful" libertarian states you can find are in works of fiction... You do know what fiction means, right?)



See, reality is complicated. Dealing with those complications leads to something a lot like the systems that actually exists in reality. We have laws. We have people who spend their lives pondering the fairness and applicability of these laws. We have lawyers and DAs. Sure, it's not perfect, but you are blind as a dead bat to think that your dream system wouldn't lead right back to what actually exists.

I would guess that a large portion of libertarians have never tried to make their system work on real people in the real world. Which is kind of the point of the thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:30 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*dull face*

Anarchy has laws. And organization. I thought we were past the propaganda of the turn of last century.



Propaganda? Really? What you're talking about has been tried, over and over, and only really works in theory.



Except certain businesses and areas in Catalonia/Barcelona, which I note wants to break away from the Madrid government again and Madrid will probably let them.

Seriously I feel like a broken record here. The stuff works fine so long as you can defend it from the powerhungry conqueror types.




Funny thing, isn't it? Anarchy has a better track record of working than libertarianism does. And Rappy extrapolates that to insist that anarchism "only really works in theory."


So tell us, Rappy, where does libertarianism work? Not even in theory? Nowhere?


And Geezer says libertarianism's ideal would be "consensus makes right", so long as it isn't aggressive. So if, say, 91% of the people wanted something like universal background checks for gun purchases, how is that not consensus, and how does that aggress upon you?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Mal4Prez - the rule of law, not some dictatorial 'decider'. Big difference.




The "rule of law" - under what government? As we've discussed before, every law on the books is a threat of force, a promise to be backed up with an armed response if compliance isn't forthcoming.

How does that square with Geezer's "non-aggression" idea of libertarianism?

Once again, you sound far more like a right-wing authoritarian than a libertarian. Small wonder you wouldn't take KPO's challenge!

Quote:


Quote:

This plan includes handing such power off to dark people and people of other religions, another complication many of the frightened white USA libertarian faction would certainly change their song about if it ever came to pass.


Wow... you're just not getting it , are you ? Is this for real, or are you intentionally being this dense ?

Handing off power ? From where does that power come, do you think? And under whose authority is it ' handed off ' ?

It comes down to personal responsibility. To whom do you belong ? The govt, or yourself ? And if you violate someone's rights, YOU are going to have to be responsible. You're not going to be able to blame it on your mother , or being bullied as a child, or some such b.s.

Tough for some to take, I understand.




So who is going to punish you if you're responsible? Who is going to make you pay for any damage you've done if you're deemed responsible for it?

Does your libertarian utopia have ANY government officials or law enforcement, at all?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:46 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Should I be pushed out an airlock for making a pass at a woman simply because women are scarce and must not be offended? (Yes, I've read the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Super fun book but NOT reality in any way. Funny that the only examples of "successful" libertarian states you can find are in works of fiction... You do know what fiction means, right?)





You took note of that, too?

In those examples, isn't the author the real "decider", since he holds the power of life or death over every one of his creations, including the whole libertarian world if he so desires?


That definitely makes it sound like you don't own yourself, if you're being written by a fiction author.


And yes, that rather proves the point: libertarianism only works in fiction, not even in theory, and certainly not in reality in any country on Earth. It's a theory chock full of "if" - *IF* people all acted on libertarian principles, *IF* people all took equal responsibility for their actions and reactions, *IF*, IF, IF.

Y'know, *IF* people acted in their enlightened self-interest, capitalism would be a flawless system, too. Of course, if people acted ideally, so would communism or socialism (things that have worked and are working, something that cannot be said of libertarianism). Even an anarchic cooperative has been shown to work. Again, that puts it well ahead of the libertarian ideal.

Seems the big flaw in every system of economy or government is... PEOPLE. People are the bug in the program.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So the two who claim to be ardent proponents are Geezer and lil' rappy.

Lil' rappy doesn't seem to have a clue about even the most rudimentary ways that such a society would function. And Geezer seems to be stuck on citing fiction.

By what both of them say - and most importantly fail to say - I STILL don't have a clue about what they mean.

And it still looks like religion to me. B/c if you can't spell out in specific and concrete detail how your plan will get you to where you claim you want to go - then you're asking for people's faith in your slogans. HALLELUJAH! Pie in the sky, bye and bye. It'll all work out. Trust me.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Kwicko

I wonder if it's the same reason how we have christian churches but no gnostics.

If you don't have the organizational ability to CONTINUE over time - if the mindset must be learned and chosen over and over with each generation and each individual - and there are no formal structures to maintain these beliefs and create a bridge to span time - then the society dissolves as quickly as it forms.

What we have is what remains - what has the best ability to persist.

ETA
"... the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models."

With the exception of Cuba, and possibly Venezuela.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

With the exception of Cuba, and possibly Venezuela.
Oh, don't worry. The USA is still trying to grind down both- especially Venezuela, because that's where the oil is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:18 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


You mean like with what we're seeing now, with the IRS and the Democrats ? Oh, wait..., that's not a Libertarian philosophy in action, now is it ?




No idea of what you are talking about.


Quote:


Don't know where you're getting the latter from. IMO, that'd be anarchy, not Libertrainism.



There have been lioertarians on this board who do not support compulsory laws. Anarchy and libertarianism are often interchangeable in terms of beliefs.

from wiki
Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.[7]


Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should have a role.[7] Anarchist schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept government assistance for the poor.[12] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (Libertarian socialism).[13][14][15]

Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with anarchism, and some express disapproval of capitalists calling themselves libertarians.


Just to be clear.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

See, reality is complicated. Dealing with those complications leads to something a lot like the systems that actually exists in reality. We have laws. We have people who spend their lives pondering the fairness and applicability of these laws. We have lawyers and DAs. Sure, it's not perfect, but you are blind as a dead bat to think that your dream system wouldn't lead right back to what actually exists.

I would guess that a large portion of libertarians have never tried to make their system work on real people in the real world. Which is kind of the point of the thread.



Yes to all of your post, Mal4, especially this one.

I love how Rap throws in Rule of Law as a solution. The rule of law generally refers to the "authority and influence of law in society," especially as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.[2] This phrase is also sometimes used in other senses.[3]

That is there is a frame work for laws and for government, rather than making stuff up as you go along or implementing laws in a completely arbitrary way.

Libertarianism would be a disaster. Its a mad ideology.

I like the last paragraph of the article I posted. Why not aim to have the government your society needs, the government you can afford, without being obsessed about pulling it apart, make it the best it can be,


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Somalia has been steadily worn down by decades of conflict and chaos, its cities in ruins and its people starving. Just this year, tens of thousands have died from famine, with countless others cut down in relentless combat. Now Somalis face yet another widespread terror: an alarming increase in rapes and sexual abuse of women and girls.

The Shabab militant group, which presents itself as a morally righteous rebel force and the defender of pure Islam, is seizing women and girls as spoils of war, gang-raping and abusing them as part of its reign of terror in southern Somalia, according to victims, aid workers and United Nations officials. Short of cash and losing ground, the militants are also forcing families to hand over girls for arranged marriages that often last no more than a few weeks and are essentially sexual slavery, a cheap way to bolster their ranks’ flagging morale.

But it is not just the Shabab. In the past few months, aid workers and victims say there has been a free-for-all of armed men preying upon women and girls displaced by Somalia’s famine, who often trek hundreds of miles searching for food and end up in crowded, lawless refugee camps where Islamist militants, rogue militiamen and even government soldiers rape, rob and kill with impunity.


But there's no tyranny of taxation, regulation or big government deficits. That's the important thing.

This, by the way, is why racism, theocracy and libertarianism go hand in hand, when from a philosophical point of view they should have little to do with one another. The negative effects of the lack of a central government are so obvious in developing countries that wherever the social order fails as in Somalia, it must have been due to bad religion, or the defect of having been born to an inferior race.

Ron Paul fans must reassure themselves that such things would never happen to white, Christian folk. They're immune from the Somali problem by virtue being of different stock and different values, you see.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/somalia-libertarian-paradise
-by.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:59 AM

BYTEMITE


Let's be a little fair. Chaos and faction warfare is also different from anarchy or libertarianism, despite conflation of anarchy with chaos when the term was coined in an effort to discredit anarchists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
So where exactly did you dream up that third party that's so ideally perfectly neutral and fair and balanced? Is it whatever random passer by happens along? What if you discover after the fact that they are someone connected to the other party and that may have influenced the decision against you? What redress do you have, if you agreed beforehand to abide by the decision of the brother-in-law of the party you offended? Are you just up shit creek?



Where do you get them now? Judges appointed by a political party or elected in a partisan election? Yeah. That's much better.

But the design generally suggested is that folks take the time to review arbiters for fairness and honesty. In the Information age, it shouldn't be that difficult to find information on the arbiter's past decisions.

Quote:

And what exactly is the definition of "legally allowed" and "provided that...". How fair is it that someone in the next town got punished for doing something that I got away with, simply because the "third party" that I found to decide my case was in a better mood. (Or I offered to buy them lots of free beers.) Shouldn't there be standards?


You mean like how the county commissioner's daughter gets off a drunk driving charge because he's gonna be important in the judge's upcoming election?

Wouldn't you rather have someone who had a demonstrable record of fairness than someone who'll put an out-of-towner in the tank, but let his buddy's son off with a warning?

Quote:

And what is the "punishment" exactly? Should I lose a hand for stealing, or wash dishes for a week to make up the cost of what I stole? How fair is it to allow punishment one for one person, punishment two for another?


Usually the punishment would be to make the person who claims damages whole again. Fix the fence, return the money stolen, pay for the hospital bills and pain and suffering.

ETA: Quite often now, if you are injured physically or monetarily and the person responsible is caught and convicted, you do not get made whole. He or she goes to jail, or pays the State a fine, and you get nothing.

Quote:

Should I be pushed out an airlock for making a pass at a woman simply because women are scarce and must not be offended?


Stu LaJoie was not nearly eliminated for making a pass at a girl, he was nearly eliminated for touching her without her her permission, which was considered assault on her person.

Quote:

See, reality is complicated. Dealing with those complications leads to something a lot like the systems that actually exists in reality. We have laws. We have people who spend their lives pondering the fairness and applicability of these laws. We have lawyers and DAs. Sure, it's not perfect, but you are blind as a dead bat to think that your dream system wouldn't lead right back to what actually exists.


I doubt that many libertarians expect to get to a no-government end-game. Having less government would suit most.

Also, look at the number of arbitration services available, where people with disagreements settle them without going through the legal system.

Consider the wonderful consequences of the government's drug war.

Consider a school system that teaches kids to pass a test, not learn to think.

Quote:

I would guess that a large portion of libertarians have never tried to make their system work on real people in the real world. Which is kind of the point of the thread.



Kind'a hard to do when the government(s) won't give them a chance.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:10 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
So where exactly did you dream up that third party that's so ideally perfectly neutral and fair and balanced? Is it whatever random passer by happens along? What if you discover after the fact that they are someone connected to the other party and that may have influenced the decision against you? What redress do you have, if you agreed beforehand to abide by the decision of the brother-in-law of the party you offended? Are you just up shit creek?



Where do you get them now? Judges appointed by a political party or elected in a partisan election? Yeah. That's much better.



Appointed by political parties where the other parties have a say and the voters can see the process and decide if they like it or not and there is a price to be paid for abusing the system.

Yes, it's much better than this magical system you have yet to explain. Apparently you believe that removing any central authority from a legal process somehow makes it 100% fair, and somehow you need not make plans to deal with people who abuse the system, as if the current abusers of the system would magically disappear.

Please, answer these questions:

1. Are you arguing that grabbing passersby to serve as impromptu juries ala tMiaHM would yield dependably impartial results?

2. In your world, do these random passersby have no leanings/beliefs which could unfairly influence their decisions?

3. What would you do in your world if your random jurists did act unfairly? What recourse would the inured party have?

Quote:

But the design generally suggested is that folks take the time to review arbiters for fairness and honesty. In the Information age, it shouldn't be that difficult to find information on the arbiter's past decisions.


That would be called jury selection. Perhaps you've heard of it.


Quote:

You mean like how the county commissioner's daughter gets off a drunk driving charge because he's gonna be important in the judge's upcoming election?
Are you saying that in your dream system there would be no locally powerful people who could unfairly influence results? Again, could you please explain how your rule-less system guarantees that everyone will behave fairly? Could you explain who gets to decide what "fair" means? What if someone disagrees with what you think is obviously fair. Do you win, or them?


Quote:

Wouldn't you rather have someone who had a demonstrable record of fairness than someone who'll put an out-of-towner in the tank, but let his buddy's son off with a warning?
Are you saying that one example of an abuse of the current system means that there are absolutely no instances of fairness in this system?

Quote:

Usually the punishment would be to make the person who claims damages whole again. Fix the fence, return the money stolen, pay for the hospital bills and pain and suffering.
And how do you guarantee this? Would do you do when it's locally powerful guy who demands that your peter get cut off because you and his daughter hit it off too well. Who do you go to to avoid this fate?

Quote:

ETA: Quite often now, if you are injured physically or monetarily and the person responsible is caught and convicted, you do not get made whole. He or she goes to jail, or pays the State a fine, and you get nothing.
And this would magically be fixed... how?

OK, wait. I get it. The problem here (amongst many others) that you see the "power hungry" in the current system as those who disagree with you. In your dream world, the powerful are you and yours and no one who disagrees with you would have the power to be unfair to you. It really is quite magical.

I'm not surprised. This comes down to a frightened person facing a shift of power away from the old power base hoping to find a way to hold that power. You want your way and your opinions to be the law, and dream that your way is so universally true that it's what everyone would naturally do. I don't think you can imagine that other people have different ideas of rules and powers, and without central authority they still would. Your code of ethics would still not be the rule of the land.

I also get wht you say your fantasy can't come alive: because those Other People who aren't you won't let it. The cries of the poor victimized libertarian! Funny, you claim that everyone is responsible for pulling their own selves up by their bootstraps. But when libertarians can't do that, it's not their fault. They shouldn't be expected to, because that's somehow not fair.

And still you can't give a non-fictional situation where your dream system works/worked.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:30 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW.

I sent an email to the local elections commission last year asking what would happen if I wrote in "none of the above" instead of voting for a candidate. I was told it wouldn't count. If you're stuck with pretty much the same choices, from a Libertarian view, and there's no Libertarian running to protest vote for, what you gonna do?



Run for office yourself. If you don't like the choices, throw your hat in the ring.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:40 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Let's be a little fair. Chaos and faction warfare is also different from anarchy or libertarianism, despite conflation of anarchy with chaos when the term was coined in an effort to discredit anarchists.



The author describes a country which sounds like it should be a libertarians wet dream - no tyranny of taxation, regulation or big government deficits.

Mal4prez, once again you say everything I believe, just more eloquently than I could.

The mad assumption of libertarianism is that in a libertarian society everyone would have libertarian ideals, and devotion to fairness and non aggression. Once again, what happens with those who don't.

Another interesting point, in a libertarian society, if the majority of people want some form of centralised government and taxation, then what happens?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:14 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

Anarchy and libertarianism are often interchangeable in terms of beliefs.


I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I believe there is a disconnect here, in what one person is saying and what another is hearing.

When I use speak of Libertarianism, it has zero to do w/ Anarchy. And yet, that's what YOU are hearing.

Thus I believe we're at the root of the confusion.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 4:16 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Where do you get them now? Judges appointed by a political party or elected in a partisan election? Yeah. That's much better.



Appointed by political parties where the other parties have a say and the voters can see the process and decide if they like it or not and there is a price to be paid for abusing the system.



What country do you live in, anyway?

I can look a few miles north of where I live and see the District of Columbia, where the city government has been solely Democratic about as long as there's been a city government. The city government has ethics rules, but no procedures for disciplining elected or appointed officials,so graft and corruption are everyday things. I'd also bet there are places where there are Republicans do the same. Is this your ideal?

Quote:

Yes, it's much better than this magical system you have yet to explain. Apparently you believe that removing any central authority from a legal process somehow makes it 100% fair, and somehow you need not make plans to deal with people who abuse the system, as if the current abusers of the system would magically disappear.


If you'd bother to take some time to read libertarian authors (a web search would find them) you can find details of how a libertarian system might work. I'm not gonna quote entire books here. I suggested Murray Rothbard, I believe.

As for 100% fair, probably not. Maybe fairer than a lot of the governments in the world. Would you prefer, say, Saudi Arabia to a society where folks were determined to not use force to get their way?

Quote:

Please, answer these questions:

1. Are you arguing that grabbing passersby to serve as impromptu juries ala tMiaHM would yield dependably impartial results?



As opposed to summoning random people to serve on juries, and allowing the lawyers involved to reject anyone they think might understand the law enough to rule against their client, or might be prejudiced against their opponent due to race, status, education, etc.? Seems that it'd be at least as impartial to me.

Quote:

2. In your world, do these random passersby have no leanings/beliefs which could unfairly influence their decisions?


You think jurors in our current system don't have prejudices that might unfairly influence their decisions? What fantasyland do you live in? Lawyers look for those prejudices during jury selection.

Quote:

3. What would you do in your world if your random jurists did act unfairly? What recourse would the inured party have?


Random jurors, actually. Jurists are judges, lawyers, and legal scholars.

Appeal to another arbitrator? What recourse does a person in the U.S. - or anywhere there is trial by jury - have? Appeal is about it. Then there's the places where there is trial by government court only, or folks just disappear. I'll take the random jurors, please

Quote:

Quote:

But the design generally suggested is that folks take the time to review arbiters for fairness and honesty. In the Information age, it shouldn't be that difficult to find information on the arbiter's past decisions.


That would be called jury selection. Perhaps you've heard of it.



Well, actually it'd be judge selection, but the arbiter would have to be acceptable to all parties. As noted above, I'd as soon have random jurors as those pre-screened for lack of knowledge and presence of prejudice by the lawyers.


Quote:

Quote:

You mean like how the county commissioner's daughter gets off a drunk driving charge because he's gonna be important in the judge's upcoming election?
Are you saying that in your dream system there would be no locally powerful people who could unfairly influence results? Again, could you please explain how your rule-less system guarantees that everyone will behave fairly? Could you explain who gets to decide what "fair" means? What if someone disagrees with what you think is obviously fair. Do you win, or them?



A libertarian "government" (for want of a better term), like all reasonably free governments, depends on the consent of the governed (This excepts places like, say, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Zimbabwe, et al.). It would need to have a pretty substantial percent of the people buy into the idea that neither a person or a group of persons could initiate force - physical, financial, or by intimidation - against any other person or group of persons.


Quote:

Quote:

Wouldn't you rather have someone who had a demonstrable record of fairness than someone who'll put an out-of-towner in the tank, but let his buddy's son off with a warning?
Are you saying that one example of an abuse of the current system means that there are absolutely no instances of fairness in this system?



Oh, come on. I'm saying that the majority if folks in a libertarian society (and you couldn't have a libertarian society without a substantial majority agreeing to it) wouldn't support unfairness because it'd violate the non-aggression principle.

Quote:

Quote:

Usually the punishment would be to make the person who claims damages whole again. Fix the fence, return the money stolen, pay for the hospital bills and pain and suffering.
And how do you guarantee this? Would do you do when it's locally powerful guy who demands that your peter get cut off because you and his daughter hit it off too well. Who do you go to to avoid this fate?

Quote:

ETA: Quite often now, if you are injured physically or monetarily and the person responsible is caught and convicted, you do not get made whole. He or she goes to jail, or pays the State a fine, and you get nothing.


And this would magically be fixed... how?




No magic.

Once again, consent of the governed. Most everyone agrees to play by the rules. Those that don't, and won't pay their debt, get shunned. No one will do business with them. They can't get a job. Folks can refuse to sell to them. Social pressure is applied.

Quote:

OK, wait. I get it. The problem here (amongst many others) that you see the "power hungry" in the current system as those who disagree with you. In your dream world, the powerful are you and yours and no one who disagrees with you would have the power to be unfair to you. It really is quite magical.


Sorry, but you don't have chance at a career as a mind reader. I'm afraid you might be projecting a bit.

Quote:

I'm not surprised. This comes down to a frightened person facing a shift of power away from the old power base hoping to find a way to hold that power. You want your way and your opinions to be the law, and dream that your way is so universally true that it's what everyone would naturally do. I don't think you can imagine that other people have different ideas of rules and powers, and without central authority they still would. Your code of ethics would still not be the rule of the land.

I also get wht you say your fantasy can't come alive: because those Other People who aren't you won't let it. The cries of the poor victimized libertarian! Funny, you claim that everyone is responsible for pulling their own selves up by their bootstraps. But when libertarians can't do that, it's not their fault. They shouldn't be expected to, because that's somehow not fair.



So now it's just insults. Whoopee.

I believe that a society of folks who follow a few basic tenets, such as that all rights are at core property rights, and that you have no right to aggress against anyone else, could very easily work. I'd like to live there.

You apparently believe that if you, as an individual, didn't have laws to constrain you, you'd become a ravening beast, grabbing everything you could for yourself, and to hell with everyone else.

Quote:

And still you can't give a non-fictional situation where your dream system works/worked.


How long did it take in human civilization before democracy worked? What conditions had to be met before it could? Might be that the time just isn't right yet.

Can you really say that you'd prefer, say, Stalinist Russia or North Korea to a society where most everyone thinks that coercion of anyone is wrong, and are willing to resist such coercion with force? If you do, then you're pretty scary.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 6:03 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

Anarchy and libertarianism are often interchangeable in terms of beliefs.


I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I believe there is a disconnect here, in what one person is saying and what another is hearing.

When I use speak of Libertarianism, it has zero to do w/ Anarchy. And yet, that's what YOU are hearing.

Thus I believe we're at the root of the confusion.




Actually, the US is the only place in the world that distinguishes between anarchism and libertarianism. Most places do use them interchangeably.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 6:33 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Right, I did post something from wiki on definitions that explained that point, and that libertariansim has a collection of defintions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:46 - 44 posts
Elon Musk
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:33 - 28 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL