Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism can't go with liberalism.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 2:47:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think absolute libertarianism as in the case of statelessness with liberal economy is in fact, impossible.

I draw this conclusion from the fact that libertarianism existed on the basic of non-aggression, that people will only engage in voluntary exchange without resorting to force or violence. However the only thing that stand between this act of aggression and the right to private property is the state. Human demand is unlimited, this fact ensure that, if given the chance, human will eventually use force against one another to satisfy their demand if it proved best alternative.

Non-aggression principle can't be existed without a forces from the government. In fact the more the authoritarian government, the better it is for the liberal economy. This is because when some people create wealth from free economy, there will be someone who didn't. Even if no body has actually lost anything, the gap of income will still be larger. The expansion of gap will put pressure on those who have lesser wealth to resort to aggression, prompting a state to improve its measure of security which can only be so at the expense of liberty.

Therefore libertarian can't exist with liberal government, even if it is, it should still function mush better in authoritarian government.

That is my view any way. Don't laugh if I said my favourite type of government is tyranny :D
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 3:00:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So you came to the conclusion that anarchy is incompatible with state socialism?

Wow... you're a genius.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:28:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libertarianism isn't pacifism, it only prohibits INITIAL force.
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.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:30:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Private property proceeds states. At the least fully developed states. U need a food surplus in order to have full-time enforcement agencies and politicians. You get the food surplus from agriculture. And you need private property for agricultural to form.

Although, there can be part-time politicians or part-time enforcers for these roles, however this really isn't like a state as thought of as in modern days.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 8:44:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Private property proceeds states. At the least fully developed states. U need a food surplus in order to have full-time enforcement agencies and politicians. You get the food surplus from agriculture. And you need private property for agricultural to form.

Although, there can be part-time politicians or part-time enforcers for these roles, however this really isn't like a state as thought of as in modern days.

Actually, I think the people will eventually build up their own force to protect their property. Psychologically, I think it will be like a scale down version of the Great War era, no general police so the only way to protect their property is shut off their door and gather as many gun as possible.

In the end, when the forces are contested, it will just be reverse to dukedom, principality etc. in the pre-nation state era.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:38:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 2:47:11 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I think absolute libertarianism as in the case of statelessness with liberal economy is in fact, impossible.

I can' stand the misuse of the term "liberalism", especially "economic liberalism". Economic Liberalism is another word for Laissez-faire, which is a free market system where the government does not intervene in the market.

Liberalism =/= Progressivism. Progressivism is reformist, liberalism is individualist aka libertarian. Social liberals are individualist progressives, liberal-conservatives are individualist conservatives, and classic liberals are traditionalist libertarians.

If you are referring to progressive/reformist economics, specifically populist economics, than I agree; but please stop perpetuating the misuse of that term.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:13:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 10:38:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:47:11 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I think absolute libertarianism as in the case of statelessness with liberal economy is in fact, impossible.

I can' stand the misuse of the term "liberalism", especially "economic liberalism". Economic Liberalism is another word for Laissez-faire, which is a free market system where the government does not intervene in the market.

Liberalism =/= Progressivism. Progressivism is reformist, liberalism is individualist aka libertarian. Social liberals are individualist progressives, liberal-conservatives are individualist conservatives, and classic liberals are traditionalist libertarians.

If you are referring to progressive/reformist economics, specifically populist economics, than I agree; but please stop perpetuating the misuse of that term.

I know that it is a little unclear. Just there is a word limited for headline so it's the best I can came up.

I did refer to Laissez-faire economy though. I believe the more political repression, the better for Laissez-faire to function. Noted that government is to intervene politically but leave economy untouched. Singapore is an example.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:22:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 8:44:39 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/6/2013 5:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Private property proceeds states. At the least fully developed states. U need a food surplus in order to have full-time enforcement agencies and politicians. You get the food surplus from agriculture. And you need private property for agricultural to form.

Although, there can be part-time politicians or part-time enforcers for these roles, however this really isn't like a state as thought of as in modern days.

Actually, I think the people will eventually build up their own force to protect their property. Psychologically, I think it will be like a scale down version of the Great War era, no general police so the only way to protect their property is shut off their door and gather as many gun as possible.

In the end, when the forces are contested, it will just be reverse to dukedom, principality etc. in the pre-nation state era.

Explain.

I actually, didn't fully read the opening post. I didn't realize u were against statism, at least as its practiced today in liberal democracies.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 2:25:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:22:59 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/6/2013 8:44:39 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/6/2013 5:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Private property proceeds states. At the least fully developed states. U need a food surplus in order to have full-time enforcement agencies and politicians. You get the food surplus from agriculture. And you need private property for agricultural to form.

Although, there can be part-time politicians or part-time enforcers for these roles, however this really isn't like a state as thought of as in modern days.

Actually, I think the people will eventually build up their own force to protect their property. Psychologically, I think it will be like a scale down version of the Great War era, no general police so the only way to protect their property is shut off their door and gather as many gun as possible.

In the end, when the forces are contested, it will just be reverse to dukedom, principality etc. in the pre-nation state era.

Explain.

I actually, didn't fully read the opening post. I didn't realize u were against statism, at least as its practiced today in liberal democracies.

I didn't include statism in this scenario. It's perfectly make sense to me for a nation to have strong centralised government with free economy, what I found in conflict is the form of anarcho-capitalist that call for a complete dissolution of the state because the state is needed to enforce principle of non-aggression.

As for the why I think the absent of the state will lead to the reintroduction of dukedom, principality, kingdom etc. Is because this ancient regime is also existed in a condition that strong centralised power is absent. If there is no state to suppress individual exercise of power, I believed in the end everyone will use whatever wealth they have to establish as their own sovereignty as strong as possible. So basically whosoever with enough wealth will attempt to make their own nation, those without will rely on those with one for security and protection, there will be a small godfather-like ruler pop up all over the world.

You said in your own case that you will rely on enforcement agency to enforce security, I said you simply shift your ruler from whosoever now to the owner of that agency. Just like the kingdom of old, people rely on king mainly for his military protection and you can't use agriculture product to negotiate with security force, at least not effectively.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Recently, we wanted some decorative wrought iron, so I did a web search. I found fifteen vendors producing wrought iron just on the east half of the city of Stockton. So why is wrought iron so popular in that city? I think it's because the city is bankrupt and the police force has been cut to the point where they only respond to felonies in progress. You see iron bars installed on windows and doors throughout the city.

Stockton city politicians signed up to absurd government employee pension. Working for the city for one month earned lifetime health benefits. California state law requires that state employee benefits be provided before anything else. That's going to be tested in Court, but the premise now is that city government will all but cease.

This is a wonderful test case for the theory of anarchy and extreme libertarianism. It's not going well so far.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:22:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:19:23 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Recently, we wanted some decorative wrought iron, so I did a web search. I found fifteen vendors producing wrought iron just on the east half of the city of Stockton. So why is wrought iron so popular in that city? I think it's because the city is bankrupt and the police force has been cut to the point where they only respond to felonies in progress. You see iron bars installed on windows and doors throughout the city.

Stockton city politicians signed up to absurd government employee pension. Working for the city for one month earned lifetime health benefits. California state law requires that state employee benefits be provided before anything else. That's going to be tested in Court, but the premise now is that city government will all but cease.

This is a wonderful test case for the theory of anarchy and extreme libertarianism. It's not going well so far.

Only because there is still the state (or in your case, the United States) to enforce the basic law and order, imagine if all the Italian, Asian, African Mafia are left unrestrained. In fact your federal government is not exactly free either, I think that reinforced the fact that free economy goes best with authoritative government.