Page 1 of 12 1211 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 166

Thread: Libertarianism

  1. #1
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    621

    Default Libertarianism

    Most of the libertarians here are paradoxically also nationalists and are dead set on minarchism or some other bullshit. I'm here to tell you to start thinking rationally and see that no oppression, even minimal, is acceptable.
    If you're interested in the history of the libertarian movement, here's an enlightening interview with Samuel Edward Konkin III:
    http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individuali...interview.html

    And here's a text thoroughly(as thoroughly as it's small size allows) explaining what sort of society you should aim towards, why it is the best for you and everyone else and why it is the only rational option currently presented to us:
    http://agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

    I'll quote the practical example here if you're in too much of a hurry(I seriously doubt you are) to read all of it(but do read all of it because most of the so called problems you will no doubtedly be bringing up are addressed in the text already):
    A finds property missing and reports it to the insurance company IA. IA either
    through another division or through another division or through a separate detective
    agency (D) investigates. IA promptly replaces the object to A so that loss of use of
    good is minimized. [6] D Now may fail to discover the missing property. In that case,
    the loss to IA is covered by the premiums paid for the insurance. Note well that in
    order to keep premiums low and competitive, IA has a strong incentive to maximize
    retrieval of stolen or lost goods. (One could wax eloquent for volumes on the lack of
    such incentive for monopoly detection systems such as State police forces, and their
    horrendous social cost.)
    IF D does discover the goods, say in B's possession, and B freely returns them
    (perhaps induced by reward), the case is closed. Only if B claims property right in the
    object also claimed by A does conflict arise.
    B has insurance company IB which may perform its own independent investigation
    and convince IA that D erred. Failing that, IA and IB are now in conflict. At this point,
    the standard objections to market anarchy have been brought up that the "war"
    between A and B has been enlarged to include large insurance companies which may
    have sizeable protection divisions or contracts with protection companies (PA and
    PB). But wherein lies the incentive for IA and IB to use violence and destroy not only
    its competitor's assets but surely at least some of its own? They have even less
    incentive in a market society long established; the companies have specialists and
    capital tied up in defense. Any company investigating in offense would become highly
    suspect and surely lose customers in a predominantly Libertarian society (which is
    what is under discussion).
    Very cheaply and profitably, IA and IB can simply pay and arbitration company to
    settle the dispute, presenting their respective claims and evidence. If B has rightful
    claim, IA drops the case, taking its small lose (compared to war!) and has excellent
    incentive to improve its investigation. If A has rightful claim, the reverse is now true
    for IB.
    Only at this point, when the matter has been fully contested, investigated and judged,
    and still B refuses to relinquish the stolen property, would violence occur. (B may
    have only been bothered so far as being notified of IB's defense on B's behalf, and B
    may have chosen to ignore it; no subpoena could be issued until after conviction.) But
    PB and IB step aside and B must now face a competent, efficient team of specialists in
    recovery of stolen property. Even if B is near-mad in his resistance at this point, he
    would probably be neutralized with minimum fuss by a market agency eager for a
    good public image and more customers - including B himself some day. Above all, PA
    must act so as not to invoke anyone else or harm other's property.
    B or IB is now liable for restoration. This can be divided into three parts: restitution,
    time preference, and apprehension.
    Restitution is the return of the original good or its market equivalent. This could be
    applied even to parts of the human body or the value set on one's life.
    Time preference is the restitution of the time-use lose and is easily determined by the
    market rate of interest which IA had to pay to immediately restore A's property.
    Apprehension is the sum of the cost of investigation, detection, arbitration and
    enforcement. Note how well the market works to give B a high incentive to restore
    the loot quickly to minimize apprehension cost (exactly the opposite to most statist
    systems) and to minimize interest accrued.
    Something for the commies, fascists and other statists lurking these forums to ponder on.

    Flame on.
    Deus Factus Sum.

  2. #2
    2000+
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    tl;dr;dc

  3. #3

    Default

    Oh for the love! Somebody please throw in a chipmunk.

    Can't this liberty, liberal and libertarianism stuff be contained into one big stickied thread?
    Wisdom Of Bots
    1, then tired, do not forget to smile; be anxious, but also pay attention to tone; no matter how tough, do not forget to adhere to; No matter how tired, but also love yourself.
    But we are jet modified and not faint-hearted of difficulties

  4. #4
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dinkfall View Post
    Most of the libertarians here are paradoxically also nationalists and are dead set on minarchism or some other bullshit.
    First, support your premise w/ a rational and logical argument and evidence. If you can't demonstrate the veracity of your premise, the rest of your post is moot.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    510

    Default

    If your point is that all government is immoral, I wholeheartedly agree.

    Anarcho-capitalism is the only moral way to run a society.

    However, anarcho-capitalism is not workable in practice and would eventually lead to one group of people grabbing all the power and shaping society into whatever they wish it to be. Anarcho-capitalism would've ended in Somalia had Ethiopia not stepped in.

    Inevitably, one side must win.

    Therefore I'm a libertarian minarchist and not an anarcho-capitalism. I believe a weak government is a necessary evil.
    Last edited by JUAN_LOVE; 06-04-2009 at 15:09.

  6. #6
    3000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    south philly, usa
    Posts
    3,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dinkfall View Post
    Most of the libertarians here are paradoxically also nationalists and are dead set on minarchism or some other bullshit. I'm here to tell you to start thinking rationally and see that no oppression, even minimal, is acceptable.
    If you're interested in the history of the libertarian movement, here's an enlightening interview with Samuel Edward Konkin III:
    http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individuali...interview.html

    And here's a text thoroughly(as thoroughly as it's small size allows) explaining what sort of society you should aim towards, why it is the best for you and everyone else and why it is the only rational option currently presented to us:
    http://agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

    I'll quote the practical example here if you're in too much of a hurry(I seriously doubt you are) to read all of it(but do read all of it because most of the so called problems you will no doubtedly be bringing up are addressed in the text already):


    Something for the commies, fascists and other statists lurking these forums to ponder on.

    Flame on.
    WOW tl;dr

    From the first line, though, you're wrong. A lot of people here are ancap. That's cool-speak for anarcho-capitalist, aka Rothbardians.
    www.alltimed.org/l33t

    Thunder Scott//Justinian//Crucifixion//Amalek

  7. #7
    1000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dinkfall View Post
    Most of the libertarians here are paradoxically also nationalists and are dead set on minarchism or some other bullshit. I'm here to tell you to start thinking rationally and see that no oppression, even minimal, is acceptable.
    If you're interested in the history of the libertarian movement, here's an enlightening interview with Samuel Edward Konkin III:
    http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individuali...interview.html

    And here's a text thoroughly(as thoroughly as it's small size allows) explaining what sort of society you should aim towards, why it is the best for you and everyone else and why it is the only rational option currently presented to us:
    http://agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

    I'll quote the practical example here if you're in too much of a hurry(I seriously doubt you are) to read all of it(but do read all of it because most of the so called problems you will no doubtedly be bringing up are addressed in the text already):


    Something for the commies, fascists and other statists lurking these forums to ponder on.

    Flame on.
    tl;dr

  8. #8
    9000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dallas - 127.0.0.1
    Posts
    9,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JUAN_LOVE View Post
    However, anarcho-capitalism is not workable in practice and would eventually lead to one group of people grabbing all the power and shaping society into whatever they wish it to be. Anarcho-capitalism would've ended in Somalia had Ethiopia not stepped in.

    Inevitably, one side must win.
    Actually that doesn't have to be the case, it's the most likely outcome true, but it doesn't have to be inevitable. What we learned from Somalia is that as long as balance of power is maintained among factions no side will be able to win. While such balance is fragile and only last for about a decade in Somalia it would be more easily achieved in 1st world country than in 3rd world countries as resources are plentiful and power is divided through out a greater number of individuals.

    Therefore I'm a libertarian minarchist and not an anarcho-capitalism. I believe a weak government is a necessary evil.
    I used to be a miniarchist but I ran out of excuses...
    What is best in life?

    To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

    -Conan

    Disclaimer: This post is not a bomb.

  9. #9
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sqarak View Post
    Oh for the love! Somebody please throw in a chipmunk.

    Can't this liberty, liberal and libertarianism stuff be contained into one big stickied thread?
    Liberal and libertarianism have nothing to do with each other.

  10. #10
    3000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    south philly, usa
    Posts
    3,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrikkyMakk View Post
    Liberal and libertarianism have nothing to do with each other.
    not the modern definition of liberal. otherwise it has everything to do with it.
    www.alltimed.org/l33t

    Thunder Scott//Justinian//Crucifixion//Amalek

  11. #11
    6000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,650

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    First, support your premise w/ a rational and logical argument and evidence. If you can't demonstrate the veracity of your premise, the rest of your post is moot.
    as usual, Slippery Jim sees past the bullshit...
    QFT -- survived JTT -- "little less hostile please" - Viranth -- Doc's radio

    "I can't say what I want to, even if I'm not serious..." - TooL

  12. #12
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    I agree with this analysis. If it was up to me I would live like an anarchist. Meaning that I would not submit to any state.

    However the problem here is the reality we live in. Many well intentioned people will never see it our way. There must be made a compromise. Our job is to go back to drawing board and think of a minarchist government that will attain all the goals an anarchist has. In essence phasing out government. I don't think this can be done without changing the society in whole. Big long fight that will be won some time in the future by generations that come after us. The only way they can win is if we lay down the ground work.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  13. #13
    1000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    Even though I have, just recently, been weened off the teet, I agree with this analysis. If it was up to me I would live like a squater. Meaning that I would not pay my parents rent or submit to their rules.

    However the problem here is the reality I live in. My well intentioned parents will never see it my way. They must be made to compromise. My job is to sit on my ass, sponge off my parents, and whine about all the worlds problems for which I haven't the slightest idea how to solve nor really care enough to think deeply about. In essence, I must find away to maintain my parasitic life style while phasing out my parents rules. I don't think this can be done without changing the parent/child paradigm as a whole. It will be a big long fight that will be won some time in the future perhaps when my children's children perfect the ignorant and slothful lifestyle I have started. Only then can we consider there to be a new class in America that all at once leeches off the system and complains about others doing the same.

    I am willing to do my part. Who will join me in stomping their feet and gnashing their teeth!!
    Fix'd

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jezrith View Post
    Actually that doesn't have to be the case, it's the most likely outcome true, but it doesn't have to be inevitable. What we learned from Somalia is that as long as balance of power is maintained among factions no side will be able to win. While such balance is fragile and only last for about a decade in Somalia it would be more easily achieved in 1st world country than in 3rd world countries as resources are plentiful and power is divided through out a greater number of individuals.



    I used to be a miniarchist but I ran out of excuses...
    I don't feel like laying out a proper argument as to why the balance of power would eventually shift in one faction's favor. You yourself admit that the status quo in an anarcho-capitalist society would be fragile. Suffice it to say that I agree with you in principle but I believe the society you advocate is, sadly, an
    impossible utopia.

  15. #15
    1000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JUAN_LOVE View Post
    Anarcho-capitalism is the only moral way to run a society.
    No, the only moral form of governence is to entrust ourselves to a single, enlightened monarch, who is able to take any steps to insure that the greater good is upheld.

    People need more than pretty words for them to be content. They also need a figure to focus their loyalty on, a monarch is the only being capable of such.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •