Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Libertarians vs. Libertarians on Government

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:03:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've been finding myself in disagreement with Libertarians I come across on the Interwebs and the public debaters who represent Libertarians.

There is a strain of Libertarians who are essentially Anarchists and say privatize literally everything including the air and rivers. They say no government whatsoever. Even when I went through my Anarchist phase I didn't go along with the privatize everything philosophy.

I agree with the John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison. Are these men not good enough for these people or what? Do they disagree with the Constitution?

The split appears to be between Minarchists and Anarchists, but I think the Anarchists should stop hiding behind the Libertarian label. A Libertarian is a Constitutional Republic and limited government.
"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
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:07:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What don't you think should be privatized?

In reality, most day-to-day items have a degree to privatization to them but aren't fully private, in the sense that one cannot literally do anything they want with his/her property.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:03:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There is a strain of Libertarians who are essentially Anarchists and say privatize literally everything including the air and rivers. They say no government whatsoever. Even when I went through my Anarchist phase I didn't go along with the privatize everything philosophy.

So you were a partial collectivist?

I agree with the John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison. Are these men not good enough for these people or what? Do they disagree with the Constitution?

The United States was founded as essentially a minarchy, the role of government was extremely limited. However, it has expanded into the leviathan it is today with a military-industrial complex, massive state interventions in the economy, a corporatist prison system, etc. Given your preference for minarchy, if the role of government was reset to that position, what makes you think that the end result will be anything different than what we have today?

The split appears to be between Minarchists and Anarchists, but I think the Anarchists should stop hiding behind the Libertarian label. A Libertarian is a Constitutional Republic and limited government.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies which emphasize individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or with no state at all. The all-subsuming principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle; Voluntaryism/AnCap/Libertarian Anarchism just applies the non-aggression principle to all forms of economic and political life. If stealing is wrong, then a guy with a fancy suit extorting isn't moral; if initiatory murder is wrong, then giving someone a medal and a specialized combat uniform doesn't make it okay; if assault is wrong, then giving a guy a badge and a truncheon doesn't make it okay.

Technically you are 90-95% Libertarian, because you still imagine the state to have the illusory right to initiate violence on peaceful people in a limited scope. You believe in monocentric coercive law, instead of market-driven common law; and you believe taxation (extortion) is permissible. This may or may not be attributable to you stolen-loot salary job for the government.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:39:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:15:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:03:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There is a strain of Libertarians who are essentially Anarchists and say privatize literally everything including the air and rivers. They say no government whatsoever. Even when I went through my Anarchist phase I didn't go along with the privatize everything philosophy.

So you were a partial collectivist?

I don't think a corporation should be able buy the Colorado River. That makes me a collectivist how?

I agree with the John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison. Are these men not good enough for these people or what? Do they disagree with the Constitution?

The United States was founded as essentially a minarchy, the role of government was extremely limited.

Why is that bad?

However, it has expanded into the leviathan it is today with a military-industrial complex, massive state interventions in the economy, a corporatist prison system, etc. Given your preference for minarchy, if the role of government was reset to that position, what makes you think that the end result will be anything different than what we have today?

The Illuminati will be abolished. Rockefeller and Rothschild banking dynasties dismantled so that transnational banking and fiat money don't rule nations and disrupt the free market.

I turn the question to you: what stops a mafia from accumulating wealth and buying a court system and police to initiate force on everyone?

The split appears to be between Minarchists and Anarchists, but I think the Anarchists should stop hiding behind the Libertarian label. A Libertarian is a Constitutional Republic and limited government.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies which emphasize individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or with no state at all. The all-subsuming principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle; Voluntaryism/AnCap/Libertarian Anarchism just applies the non-aggression principle to all forms of economic and political life. If stealing is wrong, then a guy with a fancy suit extorting isn't moral; if initiatory murder is wrong, then giving someone a medal and a specialized combat uniform doesn't make it okay; if assault is wrong, then giving a guy a badge and a truncheon doesn't make it okay.

Technically you are 90-95% Libertarian, because you still imagine the state to have the illusory right to initiate violence on peaceful people in a limited scope. You believe in monocentric coercive law, instead of market-driven common law; and you believe taxation (extortion) is permissible.

Consumption Tax is voluntary and sufficient to run a government.
Monopolies on force and initiatory coercion can arise in a market system too.

An Anarcho-Realist would agree with these points.

This may or may not be attributable to you stolen-loot salary job for the government.

My City Councilman is a Libertarian supporter of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, my state has the lowest overall tax rate in the nation, we run on consumption tax, not income tax.
"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
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The same arguments in favour of privatizing the manufacturing of automobiles, textiles etc. apply for privatizing courts and police forces and oceans. Why should we settle for a government monopoly on something as vital as justice if we acknowledge that a grant of monopoly privilege will result in inferior results for (for example) housing?

The state is frankly criminal. This organization uses violence as a means of obtaining revenue. That is wrong. Abolish the state. The market can provide for any and all consumer demands.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:04:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:05:01 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The same arguments in favour of privatizing the manufacturing of automobiles, textiles etc. apply for privatizing courts and police forces and oceans. Why should we settle for a government monopoly on something as vital as justice if we acknowledge that a grant of monopoly privilege will result in inferior results for (for example) housing?

Monopolies are bad for business because once competition is no longer a factor the result is a lower quality product for a higher cost. Why do you think a crappy hot dog in a baseball stadium costs $8? Because if you want a hot dog you have no where else to go. A monopoly has no effect on the way a government operates because it is not oriented towards earning a profit.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:10:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:05:01 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The same arguments in favour of privatizing the manufacturing of automobiles, textiles etc. apply for privatizing courts and police forces and oceans. Why should we settle for a government monopoly on something as vital as justice if we acknowledge that a grant of monopoly privilege will result in inferior results for (for example) housing?

The courts protect the rights of all citizens because courts are funded by all citizens. Privatized courts will serve the interest of their constituents and shareholders and not the rights of every individual.

Competition works for better goods and services. It doesn't work for protection of Rights.

Government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

The state is frankly criminal. This organization uses violence as a means of obtaining revenue. That is wrong. Abolish the state.

George Washington and John Locke, hardcore criminals right there man. They were tyrants, how dare they create a Constitutional Republic.

I've seen hardcore Voluntaryist AnCaps admit that Consumption Tax is voluntary. I pay even the involuntary income taxes and I've never once come out of the deal with a missing limb and a razor gash across my face.

The market can provide for any and all consumer demands.

True. But not everything is a consumer demand. I don't consume justice and protection of my inherent rights.
"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
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:47:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:10:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:05:01 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The same arguments in favour of privatizing the manufacturing of automobiles, textiles etc. apply for privatizing courts and police forces and oceans. Why should we settle for a government monopoly on something as vital as justice if we acknowledge that a grant of monopoly privilege will result in inferior results for (for example) housing?

The courts protect the rights of all citizens because courts are funded by all citizens. Privatized courts will serve the interest of their constituents and shareholders and not the rights of every individual.

Competition works for better goods and services. It doesn't work for protection of Rights.

Government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit.

The state is frankly criminal. This organization uses violence as a means of obtaining revenue. That is wrong. Abolish the state.

George Washington and John Locke, hardcore criminals right there man. They were tyrants, how dare they create a Constitutional Republic.

I've seen hardcore Voluntaryist AnCaps admit that Consumption Tax is voluntary. I pay even the involuntary income taxes and I've never once come out of the deal with a missing limb and a razor gash across my face.

The market can provide for any and all consumer demands.

True. But not everything is a consumer demand. I don't consume justice and protection of my inherent rights.

I think someone hacked Geo's account. This guy sounds... well... normal.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:40:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:39:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:15:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:03:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There is a strain of Libertarians who are essentially Anarchists and say privatize literally everything including the air and rivers. They say no government whatsoever. Even when I went through my Anarchist phase I didn't go along with the privatize everything philosophy.

So you were a partial collectivist?

I don't think a corporation should be able buy the Colorado River. That makes me a collectivist how?

Well, it wouldn't be a corporation, since those require governments. But, partial ownership of rivers and streams would be a good thing for the environment. The #1 polluters of waters? Municipal sewage and water treatment plants. With strong, and clearly defined property rights, pollution is dealt with through tort law. When you want to become more of a Libertarian, read this and related articles: http://perc.org...

I agree with the John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison. Are these men not good enough for these people or what? Do they disagree with the Constitution?

The United States was founded as essentially a minarchy, the role of government was extremely limited.

Why is that bad?

Because it's initiating violence against peaceful people, which is immoral. It's the 'whole stealing is wrong' thing. Extortion is a sub-set of stealing, and it's what the government does when they threaten you with violence, kidnapping, and caging, so that they can get money from you.

However, it has expanded into the leviathan it is today with a military-industrial complex, massive state interventions in the economy, a corporatist prison system, etc. Given your preference for minarchy, if the role of government was reset to that position, what makes you think that the end result will be anything different than what we have today?

The Illuminati will be abolished. Rockefeller and Rothschild banking dynasties dismantled so that transnational banking and fiat money don't rule nations and disrupt the free market.

Do you have to indulge fantasy, when common-sense answers are readily available? You want to establish a government that, through allowing a relatively free market, will allow a wealthy society to flourish. Then, once it sees the goldmine in front of itself, introduces new taxes, increases the taxes, and will eventually move to fiat currency inflation to fund itself when people dislike their tax rates. Derp.

I turn the question to you: what stops a mafia from accumulating wealth and buying a court system and police to initiate force on everyone?

Why would there be a mafia? There are no prohibitions against alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, or other vices. Let's say they were in the murder and theft business (less likely under anarchy due to general free market prosperity, but your scenario nonetheless...) You would fund a police system and court system that had connections with a gang? Or would you pay another defense agency that had a clean reputation and transparent business practices? Creative destruction, brah.

The split appears to be between Minarchists and Anarchists, but I think the Anarchists should stop hiding behind the Libertarian label. A Libertarian is a Constitutional Republic and limited government.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies which emphasize individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or with no state at all. The all-subsuming principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle; Voluntaryism/AnCap/Libertarian Anarchism just applies the non-aggression principle to all forms of economic and political life. If stealing is wrong, then a guy with a fancy suit extorting isn't moral; if initiatory murder is wrong, then giving someone a medal and a specialized combat uniform doesn't make it okay; if assault is wrong, then giving a guy a badge and a truncheon doesn't make it okay.

Technically you are 90-95% Libertarian, because you still imagine the state to have the illusory right to initiate violence on peaceful people in a limited scope. You believe in monocentric coercive law, instead of market-driven common law; and you believe taxation (extortion) is permissible.

Consumption Tax is voluntary and sufficient to run a government.
Monopolies on force and initiatory coercion can arise in a market system too.

You're starting to think well: look for voluntary funding of government. Next step: realize that there is no truly voluntary way to fund government, yet there are meaningful functions that government currently performs. Final step: realize that private agencies function better than violent monopolies, and conclude that voluntaryism is the best way to organize society. Done.

Why would you knowingly fund a violent monopoly, when alternatives are abundant? Can you imagine how quickly people would change defense firms if even one customer of a firm was harmed by that firm? Even rumors greatly affect investment, consumer preferences, and company success.

An Anarcho-Realist would agree with these points.

When you make some strong points, I'll agree with them. I merely agree that several of the functions that government currently performs are useful, and hence will be provided for on the free market (ADT anyone?).

This may or may not be attributable to you stolen-loot salary job for the government.

My City Councilman is a Libertarian supporter of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, my state has the lowest overall tax rate in the nation, we run on consumption tax, not income tax.

Consumption tax is not voluntary. If businesses refuse to pay it, the owners are assaulted, kidnapped, and caged. Less violence is better than more violence, but initiatory violence that is extremely unnecessary is wrong.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:47:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think someone hacked Geo's account. This guy sounds... well... normal.

Read his response to me. He cites an end of the Illuminati as evidence that minarchy won't f*ck up like it has repeatedly throughout history.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:03:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've been finding myself in disagreement with Libertarians I come across on the Interwebs and the public debaters who represent Libertarians.

There is a strain of Libertarians who are essentially Anarchists and say privatize literally everything including the air and rivers. They say no government whatsoever. Even when I went through my Anarchist phase I didn't go along with the privatize everything philosophy.

I agree with the John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison. Are these men not good enough for these people or what? Do they disagree with the Constitution?

The split appears to be between Minarchists and Anarchists, but I think the Anarchists should stop hiding behind the Libertarian label. A Libertarian is a Constitutional Republic and limited government.

Except Jefferson didn't believe in the constitution for you and me. He didn't even believe in it for his children (even the black ones...man, that guy loved brown sugar).

He was of the opinion that no generation had the right to rule the one which came after it. Franklin, and even Adams, his arch-nemesis, agreed.

The US Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten, and since it's already been effectively ripped to shreds, there's no time like the present.

Remember, this is not my opinion. It's the opinion of the people you stated you were a disciple of in the OP.

(It's a fascinating document and I love it for what it was trying to be when it was written, but its value lowers every day it remains as the foundation of law in this country...200 years is a pretty good run, but it's time to retire the old rag)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:26:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:03:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

The split appears to be between Minarchists and Anarchists, but I think the Anarchists should stop hiding behind the Libertarian label. A Libertarian is a Constitutional Republic and limited government.

I think this statement is frankly ironic given that historically speaking, libertarian always meant left-wing anarchist. As someone who professes to like Chomsky I'm surprised you think the label means Constitutional minarchy.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:04:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:05:01 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The same arguments in favour of privatizing the manufacturing of automobiles, textiles etc. apply for privatizing courts and police forces and oceans. Why should we settle for a government monopoly on something as vital as justice if we acknowledge that a grant of monopoly privilege will result in inferior results for (for example) housing?

Monopolies are bad for business because once competition is no longer a factor the result is a lower quality product for a higher cost. Why do you think a crappy hot dog in a baseball stadium costs $8? Because if you want a hot dog you have no where else to go. A monopoly has no effect on the way a government operates because it is not oriented towards earning a profit.

I don't see profit-oriented behavior as what necessarily makes monopolies bad, even if they're a part. There's also the matter of abuse i.e., if I take away most or all of your alternative options but to interact with me I'm mostly free to act like a dink to you if I so choose. There's also the small matter of government being inherently profit-oriented towards those who run it. Public choice shows that governing officials stand to gain big from over-supplying, over-pricing, and the like. Just because the government doesn't de-jure acts towards a profit doesn't mean it's representatives don't do it de-facto.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.