Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchism and Libertarianism

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 12:29:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What's the difference? And don't rip this apart, I simply don't understand and am loking for clarification.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 12:35:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 12:29:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
What's the difference? And don't rip this apart, I simply don't understand and am loking for clarification.

I depending on the branch of libertarianism (and anarchism for that matter). Libertarians view government as a nessicary evil (which should be kept extremely small, but still there), while anarchists view government as an unnessicary evil.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:18:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 12:35:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/28/2011 12:29:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
What's the difference? And don't rip this apart, I simply don't understand and am loking for clarification.

I depending on the branch of libertarianism (and anarchism for that matter). Libertarians view government as a nessicary evil (which should be kept extremely small, but still there), while anarchists view government as an unnessicary evil.

No. Some libertarians think that government is a necessary evil, but that's not part of the definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism just means the support of non-aggression against persons and property--anarcho-capitalism is just the logical conclusion of that. So some libertarians are ancaps, and all ancaps are libertarians.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:34:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:18:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
No. Some libertarians think that government is a necessary evil, but that's not part of the definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism just means the support of non-aggression against persons and property--anarcho-capitalism is just the logical conclusion of that. So some libertarians are ancaps, and all ancaps are libertarians.

Like some socialists are communists, and all communists are socialists?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:37:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Why would an an-cap use bombs?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:38:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Nailed it
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:52:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:34:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:18:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
No. Some libertarians think that government is a necessary evil, but that's not part of the definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism just means the support of non-aggression against persons and property--anarcho-capitalism is just the logical conclusion of that. So some libertarians are ancaps, and all ancaps are libertarians.

Like some socialists are communists, and all communists are socialists?

Are you joking here?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:58:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:34:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:18:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
No. Some libertarians think that government is a necessary evil, but that's not part of the definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism just means the support of non-aggression against persons and property--anarcho-capitalism is just the logical conclusion of that. So some libertarians are ancaps, and all ancaps are libertarians.

Like some socialists are communists, and all communists are socialists?

Not all communists are socialists. Actually, now-a-days, most aren't. Back in the late 19th century and 20th century, communists only saw socialism as a way to achieve communism (as a transistional state to wash away capitalism and create a fertile environment for communism). Many now, see alternative ways of achieving a communist goal, without the socialist transistion.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:59:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As said earlier, an ancap is a type of libertarian.

Someone who views government as a "necessary evil" is A. inconsistent and B. classically liberal. A libertarian who is not an ancap is one who believes there is a way for a government to exist without initiating force. In my case by way of jurisidictional property and user fees.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:01:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Contradiction. Libertarians and Anarchists can't initiate violence towards others because that violates the non-aggression principle.

Any of those gun-toting people or bomb-throwing people you met are not true Anarchists and Libertarians.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:03:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Contradiction. Libertarians and Anarchists can't initiate violence towards others because that violates the non-aggression principle.
Irrelevant, there's plenty of folks to retaliate against.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:09:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:03:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Contradiction. Libertarians and Anarchists can't initiate violence towards others because that violates the non-aggression principle.
Irrelevant, there's plenty of folks to retaliate against.

Violent retaliation violates the non-aggression principle as well. The only time violence is permissible in Libertarianism is if it is done directly in a mode of defense. Retaliation is basically initiating force on those you think have wronged you. But if they didn't directly attack you, you're the one initiating force.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:11:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Self described libertarian in favor of a strong government here. Let me explain:

Both anarchists and libertarians base their idelogy on the insight that any government power is necessarily that of physical force, and only physical force. Government can pass laws all day, but at the end of the day, it can only enforce them by physically restraining (before the fact) or punishing me (after the fact).
Furthermore, both anarchists and libertarians believe that force should be banished from the realm of human interaction.

Based on these two principles, anarchists believe there should be no government. Because if there is, then there is necessarily force, and thus force has not been truly abolished. (Any anarchist is welcome to set me straight if I'm misrepresenting them.)

Libertarians, on the other hand (my kind of libertarians anyway) believe that there is a legitimate purpose for a government: that of regulating force, of having the monopoly on coercive force. (I'm saying coercive because otherwise I'd have to include self-defense.)

At face value this may seem to contradict my stated belief that "force should be banished". This is where anarchism reveals its own contradiction, though: force cannot truly be "banished", unless there is someone to banish it, and to enforce that rule. Thought completely through, anarchism is in fact nothing else than rule by force, because whoever decides to use force first gets to make the rules for everyone else - unless and until someone else can mount a greater attack.

So this is why I advocate a strong government - stong as in "able to mount the greatest attack" in order to enforce the law within the limits of its proper purpose. (and, necessarily, accountable to the people through free and well organized elections, for otherwise we'd create a monarchy.)

I don't like the word "minarchist" either, because it implies to me a weak government. That is not what I want. What I want is neither "bigger government" nor smaller government", but proper government.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:21:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:59:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As said earlier, an ancap is a type of libertarian.

Someone who views government as a "necessary evil" is A. inconsistent and B. classically liberal. A libertarian who is not an ancap is one who believes there is a way for a government to exist without initiating force. In my case by way of jurisidictional property and user fees.

Excellent post btw.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:58:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:09:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:03:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Contradiction. Libertarians and Anarchists can't initiate violence towards others because that violates the non-aggression principle.
Irrelevant, there's plenty of folks to retaliate against.

Violent retaliation violates the non-aggression principle as well.
No it doesn't. It violates a very different principle. Certainly, there are people with a prohibition on retaliation and not immediate defense, but the non-aggression principle was not formulated by them.

The only time violence is permissible in Libertarianism is if it is done directly in a mode of defense. Retaliation is basically initiating force on those you think have wronged you. But if they didn't directly attack you, you're the one initiating force.
Retaliation is using force against those who HAVE initated force, which is by definition not initiation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:59:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you look "libertarianism" up in Wikipedia, you will see:

"The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."

So in essence I, as an AnCom/LibSoc, am a 'libertarian.' "Libertarianism" is used to describe liberation; however for modern U.S. Libertarians this is only relevant in terms of the public sector. For the private sector, these people are quite the opposite of libertarian; they are completely authoritarian. Everything is still owned and controlled and dictated, but instead of the gov't doing it it's the corporations.
kfc
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:13:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:59:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
If you look "libertarianism" up in Wikipedia, you will see:

"The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."

So in essence I, as an AnCom/LibSoc, am a 'libertarian.' "Libertarianism" is used to describe liberation; however for modern U.S. Libertarians this is only relevant in terms of the public sector. For the private sector, these people are quite the opposite of libertarian; they are completely authoritarian. Everything is still owned and controlled and dictated, but instead of the gov't doing it it's the corporations.

How do you wish to "liberate" the private sector?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:27:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:37:35 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Why would an an-cap use bombs?

Why asks for reason, which I do not find in avid readers of books like "The Anarchist's Cookbook."

Escalating or attempting to escalate otherwise peaceful marches and protests against, say, the WTO to outright riots to me is the very definition of terrorism -- using violence or fear of violence to attempt to force one's political beliefs.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:33:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Contradiction. Libertarians and Anarchists can't initiate violence towards others because that violates the non-aggression principle.

Any of those gun-toting people or bomb-throwing people you met are not true Anarchists and Libertarians.

Wrong on all counst, Geo.

First, you presume that someone who calls themselves a 'xian' actually believes in x in any and all circumstances. Just take the two big parties: "Democrats" often fight for civil rights legislated and enforced by a representative republic whilst "Republicans" often fight for the right of popular majorities to tyrannize minorities through a more direct democracy. Similarly, it is not reasonable to expect someone who calls themselves a Libertarian to actually persue liberty. Anarchists ... well, frankly, they are probably one of the few who actually believe in what they preach: absolute lawlessness. Anarchy is nationlessness and lack of governance; inherently it is rule by the biggest stick. Peace requires diplomacy and politics, which are inherently non-existant beyond Mutual Assured Distruction (M.A.D.), in an anarchy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:37:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchy is nationlessness and lack of governance; inherently it is rule by the biggest stick
REALITY is rule by the biggest stick. An ideology is a prescription of a certain type of rule, the advocates of which will seek to get the biggest stick for, or it is nothing of consequence at all.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:39:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:13:20 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:59:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
If you look "libertarianism" up in Wikipedia, you will see:

"The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."

So in essence I, as an AnCom/LibSoc, am a 'libertarian.' "Libertarianism" is used to describe liberation; however for modern U.S. Libertarians this is only relevant in terms of the public sector. For the private sector, these people are quite the opposite of libertarian; they are completely authoritarian. Everything is still owned and controlled and dictated, but instead of the gov't doing it it's the corporations.

How do you wish to "liberate" the private sector?

Anihilation.
kfc
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:39:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:09:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:03:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Contradiction. Libertarians and Anarchists can't initiate violence towards others because that violates the non-aggression principle.
Irrelevant, there's plenty of folks to retaliate against.

Violent retaliation violates the non-aggression principle as well. The only time violence is permissible in Libertarianism is if it is done directly in a mode of defense. Retaliation is basically initiating force on those you think have wronged you. But if they didn't directly attack you, you're the one initiating force.

There is no non-aggression principle in either Libertarian or Anarchist circles. Inhibiting aggression (such as regulations on firearms) is inherently regulatory in opposition to the general consensus among those who call themselves Libertarians or Anarchists.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:39:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you have any interest in actually understanding what it is you're so opposed to? Rather then telling libertarians what they believe (because you seem to think you know better than them) why don't you try to find out so you can make an accurate judgment instead of just running your mouth. I don't randomly insult liberals, communists, conservatives, etc. just because I disagree with them because I am self aware enough to know that not all people who disagree with me are stupid. What's more, I've seriously considered these points of view to some extent and have informed reasons for why I disagree with them while you mindlessly restate basic misconceptions as absolute fact.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:41:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:39:33 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/28/2011 3:13:20 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:59:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
If you look "libertarianism" up in Wikipedia, you will see:

"The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."

So in essence I, as an AnCom/LibSoc, am a 'libertarian.' "Libertarianism" is used to describe liberation; however for modern U.S. Libertarians this is only relevant in terms of the public sector. For the private sector, these people are quite the opposite of libertarian; they are completely authoritarian. Everything is still owned and controlled and dictated, but instead of the gov't doing it it's the corporations.

How do you wish to "liberate" the private sector?

Anihilation.

Care to expand on that?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:41:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:39:33 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/28/2011 3:13:20 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:59:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
If you look "libertarianism" up in Wikipedia, you will see:

"The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."

So in essence I, as an AnCom/LibSoc, am a 'libertarian.' "Libertarianism" is used to describe liberation; however for modern U.S. Libertarians this is only relevant in terms of the public sector. For the private sector, these people are quite the opposite of libertarian; they are completely authoritarian. Everything is still owned and controlled and dictated, but instead of the gov't doing it it's the corporations.

How do you wish to "liberate" the private sector?

Anihilation.

Gee, it's like the whole "liberate the **** out of em with bombs", except it's not a parody.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:41:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:39:53 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:09:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:03:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:01:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/28/2011 1:30:10 PM, PervRat wrote:
On a practical level, they're pretty much the same ... both tend to be gun-toting druggies (most just pot, quite a few more serious) in my experience from the self-described libertarians and anarchists I've met IRL. Anarchists seem to be more likely to go to the next level from guns to bombs.

Contradiction. Libertarians and Anarchists can't initiate violence towards others because that violates the non-aggression principle.
Irrelevant, there's plenty of folks to retaliate against.

Violent retaliation violates the non-aggression principle as well. The only time violence is permissible in Libertarianism is if it is done directly in a mode of defense. Retaliation is basically initiating force on those you think have wronged you. But if they didn't directly attack you, you're the one initiating force.

There is no non-aggression principle in either Libertarian or Anarchist circles. Inhibiting aggression (such as regulations on firearms)
Ownership of firearms is not aggression. Though regulating ownership of firearms is.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:43:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:11:53 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
Self described libertarian in favor of a strong government here. Let me explain:

Both anarchists and libertarians base their idelogy on the insight that any government power is necessarily that of physical force...

I'd just like to highlight your use of lower case: libertarian and anarchist.

I would call myself a 'republican' (with a lowercase 'r') in that I believe a strong, representative republican governance, but were I to describe myself as a 'republican,' most folk would think I am calling myself a 'Republican' (with a capital R) ... in no way, shape nor form do I support the political party called the Republican party.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:43:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:39:53 PM, PervRat wrote:
There is no non-aggression principle in either Libertarian or Anarchist circles. Inhibiting aggression (such as regulations on firearms) is inherently regulatory in opposition to the general consensus among those who call themselves Libertarians or Anarchists.

I can't even respond to this because you literally have no idea what you're talking about. I know that's an argument from authority, but your misunderstanding is so basic that it's obvious you literally have no bothered to study and understand this before you commented on it.

If we locked everyone in separate cages, would that be inhibiting aggression? No. Though people would not be able to hurt each other, we would have to forcefully kidnap them and lock them up. Disarming people is the same.

I don't know why I bother explaining because you probably don't care to learn anything. You are not giving the opposing viewpoint a chance at all and you clearly don't know the first thing about it. You aren't refuting libertarian arguments, you're just stating things to people who don't understand libertarianism typically say as though they're actual rebuttals.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:47:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:41:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ownership of firearms is not aggression. Though regulating ownership of firearms is.

What the hell are you smoking? Firearms are by their very definition aggressive. I've dodged bullets and had ringing in my ears from several firearm discharges from people who bought and owned them legally, and not a single one of those cases was it a valid 'self-defense' unless you count the homophobe shooting at me as "defending" marriage by attempting to exterminate myself as a non-heterosexual.