Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

What every Libertarian should know...

augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2016 8:56:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
As a statist, my most common argument to Libertarians was that their idea of society free from a centralized state was not possible, because civilizations (by which I mean the traditional meaning of civilization: i.e. complex societies, etc. BTW I don't mean to discriminate against other civilizations; I'm just not sure what to refer to societies that have had writing, division of labour, etc. other than as 'complex civilizations...') throughout history have never been without a centralized state, and that therefore if one could not find a historical precedent, then it was impossible to practically implement the type of society that Libertarians envision.

Then, there were the Ancient Greeks. Of course, we all know about them; but what surprised me was that I recently learnt (after reading a book about them) that they actually refused to unite into one political entity (united politeia) because they considered it a form of tyranny. The Greek city-states shared common values, religion, language, etc.; there was a sense of local independence, and the idea of a unified Greek political entity wasn't alien (look at Alexander the Great, although he was Macedonian; and even then the Greek city-states rebelled upon hearing of his death).

In this way, the Ancient Greeks represent the type of society and civilization that Libertarians want (except for the enslavement of Helots, and the disenfranchisement of women, both of which are products of ancient societies in general).

This revelation (although, I conceded it was quite obvious) has made me think of the Libertarian movement in a different light. I wouldn't say that I'm converted, but there has been one example (and perhaps the Mesoamerican states count as well) where there has been 'complex civilizations' WITHOUT necessarily having a centralized political entity.

So, there you are, Libertarians: this one's for free...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2016 12:39:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I stopped reading once you made the assertions that Libertarians are against a centralized state. We are not, but yes. Decentralized societies have existed just fine in the past and have been studied by Libertarian scholars.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2016 12:44:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Libertarians aren't against a centralized state. See the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights has an example of a libertarian document.
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2016 9:22:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
There have been stateless societies throughout history. After all, the state is probably a product of human society not a result. Having said that, the notion of a stateless society working today seems pretty far fetched. But, hey, I've been wrong before..
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 11:12:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/19/2016 12:44:20 PM, Rukado wrote:
Libertarians aren't against a centralized state. See the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights has an example of a libertarian document.

Except for the part where only land owning white men had rights. Slavery isn't libertarian.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 1:06:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 11:12:36 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
Except for the part where only land owning white men had rights. Slavery isn't libertarian.

The Constitution says nothing about only white men having rights.

The Constitution allowed slavery exactly because it was a libertarian document that didn't intrude on state sovereignty. Besides, your solution to "slavery" is just a different kind of slavery.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 4:42:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 1:06:52 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/20/2016 11:12:36 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
Except for the part where only land owning white men had rights. Slavery isn't libertarian.

The Constitution says nothing about only white men having rights.

The Constitution allowed slavery exactly because it was a libertarian document that didn't intrude on state sovereignty. Besides, your solution to "slavery" is just a different kind of slavery.

Well, 3/5ths isn't exactly fair....
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 7:20:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 11:12:36 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/19/2016 12:44:20 PM, Rukado wrote:
Libertarians aren't against a centralized state. See the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights has an example of a libertarian document.

Except for the part where only land owning white men had rights. Slavery isn't libertarian.

On paper, women and other minorities were equal to white men. The founding fathers generally did not want to discriminate against groups of people. It was mainly the states that would loophole through national law and make it harder for minorities. Also do keep in mind that many blacks and women actually had the right to vote, own land, etc. Cultural bias may have also enforced gender roles without law enforcement. In addition, women and minorities in the US were better off for the most part, than anywhere else in the world. The founding fathers if anything, have helped women to fight on the path to equality.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 7:24:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 4:42:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/20/2016 1:06:52 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/20/2016 11:12:36 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
Except for the part where only land owning white men had rights. Slavery isn't libertarian.

The Constitution says nothing about only white men having rights.

The Constitution allowed slavery exactly because it was a libertarian document that didn't intrude on state sovereignty. Besides, your solution to "slavery" is just a different kind of slavery.

Well, 3/5ths isn't exactly fair....

It was necessary at the time to cooperate with the South. The founding fathers opposed slavery, but didn't nationally abolish it because of the South.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 7:24:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 5/20/2016 4:42:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Well, 3/5ths isn't exactly fair....

It was necessary at the time to cooperate with the South. The founding fathers opposed slavery, but didn't nationally abolish it because of the South.

You'r right about the compromise, but the stupid people who complain about that Constitution saying "blacks being 3/5ths a person" are ignorant. Or, in words they can understand, "Dat's ignut!"

The Constitution says nothing about blacks being 3/5ths a person. And, that compromise has nothing to do with devaluing slaves as persons, but rather with weakening the representation of slave states. They should be complaining that people denied freedom where allowed at all to add to the representation of the slave states in congress. In fact, That constitutional clause refers to slaves as "persons", 100% persons.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 4:30:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 8:00:32 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 5/20/2016 4:42:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Well, 3/5ths isn't exactly fair....

It was necessary at the time to cooperate with the South. The founding fathers opposed slavery, but didn't nationally abolish it because of the South.

You'r right about the compromise, but the stupid people who complain about that Constitution saying "blacks being 3/5ths a person" are ignorant. Or, in words they can understand, "Dat's ignut!"

The Constitution says nothing about blacks being 3/5ths a person.

Just because the didn't use the word blacks doesn't mean that anyone in the room signing it thought slaves were anything but blacks. De jure racism was put in practice and it makes no real difference on the wordage. Not to mention culturally many Americans thought blacks were no worthy of humane treatment, especially in the South but the North as well.

And, that compromise has nothing to do with devaluing slaves as persons, but rather with weakening the representation of slave states.

They should be complaining that people denied freedom where allowed at all to add to the representation of the slave states in congress.

This is a contradiction. More Representatives means more representation. The slave states most certainly got the better deal on the compromise.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 4:41:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/19/2016 8:56:56 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
As a statist,

This wasn't a surprise.

my most common argument to Libertarians was that their idea of society free from a centralized state was not possible, because civilizations (by which I mean the traditional meaning of civilization: i.e. complex societies, etc. BTW I don't mean to discriminate against other civilizations; I'm just not sure what to refer to societies that have had writing, division of labour, etc. other than as 'complex civilizations...') throughout history have never been without a centralized state, and that therefore if one could not find a historical precedent, then it was impossible to practically implement the type of society that Libertarians envision.

This isn't an argument in the least. This is simply stating what most understand, that the state always finds a way to exist. This is not a quarrel with Libertarians, though I find that you don't understand our arguments and simply pull strawmen. In fact, this is a quarrel with Anarcho Capitalists, but not Libertarians. Those of us who believe in Constitutional Republics that should be reigned in by said Constitution to the point in which the government only acts as a nightwatchman are far different than those who find that there should be no government at all. Come on now, try a little bit harder.


Then, there were the Ancient Greeks. Of course, we all know about them; but what surprised me was that I recently learnt (after reading a book about them) that they actually refused to unite into one political entity (united politeia) because they considered it a form of tyranny. The Greek city-states shared common values, religion, language, etc.; there was a sense of local independence, and the idea of a unified Greek political entity wasn't alien (look at Alexander the Great, although he was Macedonian; and even then the Greek city-states rebelled upon hearing of his death).

This proves absolutely nothing. The Greeks didn't want to unify because they each had their own customs and traditions. Athens was a city of knowledge and wisdom. Sparta was where brave men and women were born and bred for battle.


In this way, the Ancient Greeks represent the type of society and civilization that Libertarians want (except for the enslavement of Helots, and the disenfranchisement of women, both of which are products of ancient societies in general).

No, it most certainly doesn't. The Ancient Greek societies were agrarian societies that lacked some basic freedoms and principles, most importantly being speech and property without state intervention. Once again, a strawman.

This revelation (although, I conceded it was quite obvious) has made me think of the Libertarian movement in a different light. I wouldn't say that I'm converted, but there has been one example (and perhaps the Mesoamerican states count as well) where there has been 'complex civilizations' WITHOUT necessarily having a centralized political entity.

So, there you are, Libertarians: this one's for free...

Decentralized political entities are not a quarrel for us. Libertarians simply believe in no authority, being central or not. Currently, what must occur for a practical Libertarian embodiment would be to reign in the federal government using Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Other than that, most libertarians are not Anarcho Capitalists.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:26:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 1:06:52 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/20/2016 11:12:36 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
Except for the part where only land owning white men had rights. Slavery isn't libertarian.

The Constitution says nothing about only white men having rights.

The Constitution allowed slavery exactly because it was a libertarian document that didn't intrude on state sovereignty. Besides, your solution to "slavery" is just a different kind of slavery.

A document that allows slavery or does not explicitly forbid it is not a libertarian document. Also a document that allows only 'males aged 21 or over' the right to vote for representation in the ruling legislative body is not libertarian. I am not denying the importance of the constitution and bill of rights as it was a step in the right direction and it's interpretation has given way to greater equality under the law.
BUT a true libertarian document in my opinion would give perfect equality under the law. That to me is the entire basis of libertarianism. I consider myself a libertarian and an anarchist because anarchy and libertarianism to me is defined as equality of law as there are no 'rulers', or no one 'above the law'.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 5:50:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:26:00 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
A document that allows slavery or does not explicitly forbid it is not a libertarian document.

You're trying to turn libertarianism upside down. Complaining that the Constitution didn't ban slavery within states is like complaining that a state isn't libertarian if it doesn't dictate to the parents how to raise their children. State business is not Federal business. And, my house and children are not state business.

Also a document that allows only 'males aged 21 or over' the right to vote for representation in the ruling legislative body is not libertarian.

What in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights says anything about males age 21?

BUT a true libertarian document in my opinion would give perfect equality under the law.

The mark of libertarianism freedom, not so much equality A government that leaves people alone makes equality under the law a non-issue. I wouldn't really care if the US Constitution said only black, homosexual Jews can serve in Congress, as long as the government left me alone (as if homosexual Jews weren't intrinsically opposed to freedom).
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 9:27:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 5:50:43 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:26:00 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
A document that allows slavery or does not explicitly forbid it is not a libertarian document.

You're trying to turn libertarianism upside down. Complaining that the Constitution didn't ban slavery within states is like complaining that a state isn't libertarian if it doesn't dictate to the parents how to raise their children. State business is not Federal business. And, my house and children are not state business.


I don't see the similarity, if the law does not oppose child slavery or abuse that really isn't a libertarian document either. The state being involved in how you raise your kids is different. Actually I don't believe their should even be a state, so this is getting out of hand here. I'm not turning libertarianism upside down, the founding principle of libertarianism is the non aggression principle. slavery falls under aggression, but so does the state. So the constitution cannot be a libertarian document, but it paved the way for libertarianism. That's all I'm saying here.


Also a document that allows only 'males aged 21 or over' the right to vote for representation in the ruling legislative body is not libertarian.

What in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights says anything about males age 21?


You're right, my bad, neither one defines who can and cannot vote that was left up to the states for some time. But most of the states only allowed land owning white males over 21 to vote.
http://www.kqed.org...
Again I don't believe that any group of people can claim the right to a monopoly on force. If you have a government claiming this omnipotence, that does not assure complete equality under the law, that is not libertarian by any stretch. But neither is claiming this power in the first place.


BUT a true libertarian document in my opinion would give perfect equality under the law.

The mark of libertarianism freedom, not so much equality A government that leaves people alone makes equality under the law a non-issue. I wouldn't really care if the US Constitution said only black, homosexual Jews can serve in Congress, as long as the government left me alone (as if homosexual Jews weren't intrinsically opposed to freedom).


Any document considered to be law without the strict observation of the non aggression principle is not truly libertarian.