The Libertarian Philosophy

[Kyle M]

You can pay taxes to a government, and they'll let you live on their land. You choose a nation in this way, and if you feel that you are expected to pay too much for the privilege of living in that country, you can find a different country.

You're saying that all land in a giving nation is property of the government?

 

[Kyle M]

@Drareg I don't see any point or argument to respond to. You keep going on about what would happen in "my system" without any evidence or logic.

As far as a restauranteur not being able to afford to outsource a road, of course they can't by themselves, they also can't afford to outsource the several farms and shipping companies and everything else needed to supply their restaurant with what they need. However, a violent central authority is not able to organize see, it is organized on the market. An apple farm, for example, is crowd sourced by selling its apples to hundreds or even thousands of consumers, from individuals to restaurants or food processing companies that make apple sauce. In the same way, roads could be funded, through advertising or simply a bunch of companies like Walmart and the local restaurants or whatever that want to build locations in an area paying to build the road. There are many different ways roads, postal service, security etc. can be funded voluntarily, and in some cases these are even happening, but the state has always attempted to monopolize these services using violence and then claim that they are necessary because without them you wouldn't have these services. Even Lysander Spooner in the 1800s was arrested for delivering First Class mail as a private service. It's ridiculous.

 

[Kyle M]

I think Drareg is correct on the first part of his initial response, as in the first line.

What was that?

 

[DaveFoster]

Panarchism is interesting but my guess is no government will allow you to live under North Korean rule or Saudi Arabian rule in USA for example,somebody somewhere will milk this,living in USA but under the rule of a place that allows you to walk around balls naked could be an issue when taking the kids to school for example.

I do see places attempting to be like Monaco appearing in the future,obviously they will want less rules in these places than what Monaco has,the problem is when these places get set up it will require companies like Google,Apple and the big money groups to do it, relatively wealthy folk attempting to be sovereign individuals of sort will be blocked from the global economy as much as possible,look at what they are doing/can do to the uk,it's not all market reaction,it's hands directly attempting to screw them.
The big money corporate groups will be essentially with time just as corrupt and full of cronyism as the current state imo.

I do think countries will begin to compete for people in the next 20 years as many veer toward Asia ,Australia is kind of doing this already with lowering the 5 years work for residency,Australia are currently closing doors to chineses companies in what will potentially be the most stupid move in its history,these standards will get lower with time,any countries with population decreasing and aging will lower taxes and loosen the straight jacket of what is present now.
Aging populations require the young to stay and take care of them,the young are leaving and those staying are not having kids,mainly western countries.

Interesting thoughts; you give quite a bit of credit to millennials, but I think it's certainly plausible that a brain drain will occur.

 

[DaveFoster]

What was that?

"The entire idea is based on the interpretation of non aggression principle and violence.
How do you interpret violence toward other creatures?"

Basically, in democracy, everyone loses. Some lose more than others, but everyone loses something. A better system would be direct scaling of interpretation and preferability with the law. People who are socialist can live in a socialist utopia, and people who are communist, fascist, republicans, and rastafarians can go do their thing elsewhere. We generally have that, but the problem is an ever-growing centralization of power, where you either agree or agree.

Some don't respect the wishes of others.

 

[Luann]

@Kyle M: spreading of misinformation is not violent

 

[Kyle M]

@Kyle M: spreading of misinformation is not violent

Are you saying the greatest wrongs ever committed in society were the spread of misinformation? What kind of misinformation, and was it the spreading of the information that was the problem or violence occurring because of it?

 

[Kyle M]

"The entire idea is based on the interpretation of non aggression principle and violence.
How do you interpret violence toward other creatures?"

Other creatures do not have rights, if they did then our existence would be illegal since we need to exploit them. If the deer had rights, the wolf would be a natural born criminal. Furthermore, animals don't *do* anything with property rights, they don't progress. That's kind of what the green sustainable movement wants, a static, animal life for humans. But humans do progress, because they use their reasoning mind to transform property for their wants. A beaver making a dam makes the same dam that their beaver ancestors have been making for millennia. I human building a dam doesn't even build it the same way as other humans did ten years ago.

Was that the question? Not in an insulting way, I just want to be sure we are addressing the same issue here.

 

[Kyle M]

Basically, in democracy, everyone loses. Some lose more than others, but everyone loses something. A better system would be direct scaling of interpretation and preferability with the law. People who are socialist can live in a socialist utopia, and people who are communist, fascist, republicans, and rastafarians can go do their thing elsewhere. We generally have that, but the problem is an ever-growing centralization of power, where you either agree or agree.

Here's another area where libertarianism/anarchy has benefits over the other systems. Within a libertarian world, or nation, a group of individuals is free to establish a socialist/communist/collectivist enclave. They can buy houses near each other, invest in a factory or a farm, elect leaders etc. The only thing they can't do, which is the problem in today's system, is they can't force others to pay for it or be subject to its rules if those others do not wish to do so.

All of the other political systems, including the dominant ones of today, would not tolerate a libertarian enclave within them, not contributing to their socialist programs or armed forces or following their regulations about whom can sell or buy what to whom for what price etc. Therefore in this metric, the only relevant one really, libertarianism as a system is tolerant, and all others are not.

 

[Drareg]

Here's another area where libertarianism/anarchy has benefits over the other systems. Within a libertarian world, or nation, a group of individuals is free to establish a socialist/communist/collectivist enclave. They can buy houses near each other, invest in a factory or a farm, elect leaders etc. The only thing they can't do, which is the problem in today's system, is they can't force others to pay for it or be subject to its rules if those others do not wish to do so.

All of the other political systems, including the dominant ones of today, would not tolerate a libertarian enclave within them, not contributing to their socialist programs or armed forces or following their regulations about whom can sell or buy what to whom for what price etc. Therefore in this metric, the only relevant one really, libertarianism as a system is tolerant, and all others are not.

But not tolerant of other creatures and willing to exploit them.

Human progress is an interesting topic ,if we compare humans to an Orca or dolphin for example.
Orca have five senses,they communicate,eat,mate,socialise etc with the senses.
What is it humans do that go beyond this?

Keep in mind some creatures may potentially have more than 5 senses.

Your free to go and set up the libertarian world,why do it within to communists,capitalists or others regimes?
Many different political systems exist next to each other,Russia and USA for example,the earth is also one place, within it many different political ideals.
If you want to be within their regime you violate the libertarian values as you would have to fight them for your place,just go where they are not.

You don't have to be subject to the rules of your country or pay them taxes,just leave,many will follow suit if taxes keep going the way they are going.

 

[Kyle M]

But not tolerant of other creatures and willing to exploit them.

Human progress is an interesting topic ,if we compare humans to an Orca or dolphin for example.
Orca have five senses,they communicate,eat,mate,socialise etc with the senses.
What is it humans do that go beyond this?

Abstract thought and the ability to transcend the coincidence of being into technological, moral and philosophical progress.

You don't have to be subject to the rules of your country or pay them taxes,just leave,many will follow suit if taxes keep going the way they are going.

Are you intentionally skirting the point? Libertarianism would tolerate these other forms of social organization inside of them, and wouldn't force people who legally bought land and wanted to live in whatever way they saw fit from doing so, provided they didn't force outsiders to do the same. The argument that you can "love it or leave it" could be used to apologize for any evil system, the Jews should have left Nazi Germany if they didn't want to get gassed, Armenians should have existed pre-Armenian genocide if they didn't like that outcome. Slaves should leave the plantation if they don't like being slaves. But why, if a system is immoral, should the oppressed have to leave? Where does the moral authority of the state come from in the first place? If you had bothered to read "Anatomy of the State" or any libertarian literature for that matter, you would see what glaring questions these are.

To obviate the criticism you make over and over, that if libertarianism is so great I shouldn't need to suggest literature, my response is this: you simply deny the validity of point and make up content free statements like what about the rights of trees, you can leave if you don't like it, etc. It's like having a debate with a climate scientist as a climate change skeptic, and saying they should read an article about your point of view with evidence, and them saying they don't need to read anything you should be able to convince them, then they just refuse to accept evidence for your arguments within your arguments. I could just say you have no evidence for anything you say, and leave it at that, but it's an underhanded trick.

 

[Drareg]

@Drareg I don't see any point or argument to respond to. You keep going on about what would happen in "my system" without any evidence or logic.

As far as a restauranteur not being able to afford to outsource a road, of course they can't by themselves, they also can't afford to outsource the several farms and shipping companies and everything else needed to supply their restaurant with what they need. However, a violent central authority is not able to organize see, it is organized on the market. An apple farm, for example, is crowd sourced by selling its apples to hundreds or even thousands of consumers, from individuals to restaurants or food processing companies that make apple sauce. In the same way, roads could be funded, through advertising or simply a bunch of companies like Walmart and the local restaurants or whatever that want to build locations in an area paying to build the road. There are many different ways roads, postal service, security etc. can be funded voluntarily, and in some cases these are even happening, but the state has always attempted to monopolize these services using violence and then claim that they are necessary because without them you wouldn't have these services. Even Lysander Spooner in the 1800s was arrested for delivering First Class mail as a private service. It's ridiculous.

They are hypothetical questions,situations that will arise or situations similar to those.
You don't understand logic very well,you get irrate when confronted with it,you are rigid and want things your way,your full of hubris IMO.
You are ignoring obvious contradictions,your hubris blinds you,when this happens you respond with more threats of not responding,go read this or that as you are below my intelligence level,all the while you are dodging the points put to your authoritarian system you call libertarianism.

An example of your hubris- you ask me for evidence on my questions about your libertarianism system yet it's never existed and been tested.

-libertarianism allows the use of force.
-libertarianism allows central authority's.
You want to use semantics to dodge the above.
Your response above admits to this central authority,you believe none of the central authority's will get enough power to maintain a monopoly and everyone will be nice.

Apples farms don't need to crowdsourced,one man can gather seeds and plant an orchard in a day.
Vegetable farms don't need to be crowdsourced,on man again can manage a small farm and create an abundance,the restaurant comes from the farmer offering the abundance to the public,he decides to cook it and create more value for himself.
You don't need neccessarily shipping company for a small restaurant,just a source of heat and refrigerators don't need to be put on ships,possibly on a road though,but nobody will build it cause it costs a lot of currency(time and energy)

You claim it can all be funded voluntarily,these funds would have to organised as you say by advertising,you need a central unit to do this,makes sense as everything will be under one roof so to speak or one Dropbox conscripting currency(time and energy).
So with the above your saying you will advertise for taxes but won't use force,so in a city like London/Chicago where certain areas have socials issues and even in you libertarian regime they will potentially still work in low paid jobs,you will then expect them to pay for a road because restaurants they can't afford to eat in want a road to go through their area,the rest of a City the size of London/Chicago won't care much as they never went to that side of town and have lived there 30+ years,a common occurrence in city life.

What was put to you before,most people currently pay taxes voluntarily,if people don't want excessive tax they will revolt,this is what we are seeing now,revolt because of excessive tax,a few years prior nobody revolted when they felt the taxes were OK, this is an example of how people don't have to pay if they choose not to.
Just because you don't agree with being taxed doesn't mean others are not willing to pay tax.
Your constant use of the word violence and tax is hyperbole, the majority of people paying taxes have never experienced violence,they happily pay and don't feel threatened,they feel protected,the reverse is happening now.
The above are facts,doesn't matter what I think.

Your hubris leads you to believe that everyone who pays taxes are naive and wouldn't want to pay a penny if they knew they did not have to,not the case,ask around.

 

[Kyle M]

Modern farming is not a man planting apple seeds, have you ever been on a farm? They have equipment, equipment that uses petroleum and is made of steel and plastics. The investments for those materials were made decades ago, and thousands of forces worked together voluntarily trading to end up with the result of a functioning, efficient, modern apple farm. If this was attempted to be done through central planning, well you would end up like the USSR and North Korea.

No one would pay tax if there wasn't a punishment waiting for them. This is evidenced by people not sending in any extra tax, and taking every break they can. If they like paying tax so much why is the exact, to the penny amount they are charged, the amount they pay? Why not a penny more? The obvious answer is because they are doing it to avoid the punishment, not because they want to.

 

[DaveFoster]

Other creatures do not have rights, if they did then our existence would be illegal since we need to exploit them. If the deer had rights, the wolf would be a natural born criminal. Furthermore, animals don't *do* anything with property rights, they don't progress. That's kind of what the green sustainable movement wants, a static, animal life for humans. But humans do progress, because they use their reasoning mind to transform property for their wants. A beaver making a dam makes the same dam that their beaver ancestors have been making for millennia. I human building a dam doesn't even build it the same way as other humans did ten years ago.

Was that the question? Not in an insulting way, I just want to be sure we are addressing the same issue here.

Yes; we are. I agree with you, but not all people believe that animals should be exploited.

Here's another area where libertarianism/anarchy has benefits over the other systems. Within a libertarian world, or nation, a group of individuals is free to establish a socialist/communist/collectivist enclave. They can buy houses near each other, invest in a factory or a farm, elect leaders etc. The only thing they can't do, which is the problem in today's system, is they can't force others to pay for it or be subject to its rules if those others do not wish to do so.

All of the other political systems, including the dominant ones of today, would not tolerate a libertarian enclave within them, not contributing to their socialist programs or armed forces or following their regulations about whom can sell or buy what to whom for what price etc. Therefore in this metric, the only relevant one really, libertarianism as a system is tolerant, and all others are not.

Functionally, libertarianism/anarchy is the only free system, by its definition. Under anarchy, or the absence of hierarchical practice, people may do what they prefer. We're saying the same thing.

Panarchism can be applied to the individual or societal level; in the former, people voluntarily set up their preferred systems, and in the latter, a coercive system prevails. An example of the latter definition of panarchism is the model of the nation-states of Europe. Each has different laws; this goes away once you collectivize into organizations such as the UN, or particularly EU. Another example is the state governments here in the US, without the interference from the Fed.

The creation of states' rights fundamentally resembled panarchism; the libertarian Founding Fathers (Jeffersonians withstanding) wanted to create a series of individual governing bodies with variation, not homogeneity. Homogeneity lacks diversity; lacking diversity leads to death due to poor adaptability and lack of innovation.

By "diversity" I don't mean the modern use of the term, which refers to the inclusion of minorities in majority activity. I mean a series of separate entities with independent forms of government.

 

[Drareg]

Abstract thought and the ability to transcend the coincidence of being into technological, moral and philosophical progress.




Are you intentionally skirting the point? Libertarianism would tolerate these other forms of social organization inside of them, and wouldn't force people who legally bought land and wanted to live in whatever way they saw fit from doing so, provided they didn't force outsiders to do the same. The argument that you can "love it or leave it" could be used to apologize for any evil system, the Jews should have left Nazi Germany if they didn't want to get gassed, Armenians should have existed pre-Armenian genocide if they didn't like that outcome. Slaves should leave the plantation if they don't like being slaves. But why, if a system is immoral, should the oppressed have to leave? Where does the moral authority of the state come from in the first place? If you had bothered to read "Anatomy of the State" or any libertarian literature for that matter, you would see what glaring questions these are.

To obviate the criticism you make over and over, that if libertarianism is so great I shouldn't need to suggest literature, my response is this: you simply deny the validity of point and make up content free statements like what about the rights of trees, you can leave if you don't like it, etc. It's like having a debate with a climate scientist as a climate change skeptic, and saying they should read an article about your point of view with evidence, and them saying they don't need to read anything you should be able to convince them, then they just refuse to accept evidence for your arguments within your arguments. I could just say you have no evidence for anything you say, and leave it at that, but it's an underhanded trick.

Your first paragraph is mainly human communication,a dog barking is communication.
A monkey using a tool,is technological progress. A smart phone in humans hands is still communication,the dog barking is still doing the same thing.
These creatures are intelligent and conscious and libertarianism wants to exploit them. They all build nests as a natural instinct,it's a pattern present in reality these nests ,do they not have nests rights?
If with this in mind a more intelligent race descend upon us it's ok according to libertarian values for said higher intelligence to exploit us?

Libertarians will tolerate hitler then,rising up within its ranks,claiming Jewish are all evil,at what point will libertarians step in to stop up him ,once he has amassed the support of your entire libertarian society with propaganda and decides to invade property rights?

I offer you more criticism than your book suggestions,you are blind to this and have refuted nothing.
A content free statement is an oxymoron just like libertarianism.
Read a book on libertarianism? I may as well read Star Wars or Alice in wonderland,fictional places that never really existed just like libertarianism.
How can you have evidence for a system you have not tested in the real world yet your asking for evidence of said system from me,your confused. Your book is a theory just like ensteins relativity that can unfold into the world but will fail,it has no roots to source.

You were asked to provide the main points for libertarianism,you said non aggression principle,no violence based on libertarians definition,the fact remain libertarianism uses violence based on its own interpretations.

Overall my points you can't see are the system fails because it has no clue how to address human perceptions,it's claim is it gets humans desires,it has no clue of the underlying workings of reality therefore it will fail.
It's an antiquated ideal just like the rest of them,communism,capitalism,it's an alternative intellectual theory.

The real problem is a lack of ideas,stuck in the past looking at systems that never worked or a system that if Inacted will initially cause chaos and panic with many people hurt because they have no energy to deal with freedom defined by libertarians/humans.

 

[DaveFoster]

Your first paragraph is mainly human communication,a dog barking is communication.
A monkey using a tool,is technological progress. A smart phone in humans hands is still communication,the dog barking is still doing the same thing.
These creatures are intelligent and conscious and libertarianism wants to exploit them. They all build nests as a natural instinct,it's a pattern present in reality these nests ,do they not have nests rights?
If with this in mind a more intelligent race descend upon us it's ok according to libertarian values for said higher intelligence to exploit us?

Libertarians will tolerate hitler then,rising up within its ranks,claiming Jewish are all evil,at what point will libertarians step in to stop up him ,once he has amassed the support of your entire libertarian society with propaganda and decides to invade property rights?

I offer you more criticism than your book suggestions,you are blind to this and have refuted nothing.
A content free statement is an oxymoron just like libertarianism.
Read a book on libertarianism? I may as well read Star Wars or Alice in wonderland,fictional places that never really existed just like libertarianism.
How can you have evidence for a system you have not tested in the real world yet your asking for evidence of said system from me,your confused. Your book is a theory just like ensteins relativity that can unfold into the world but will fail,it has no roots to source.

You were asked to provide the main points for libertarianism,you said non aggression principle,no violence based on libertarians definition,the fact remain libertarianism uses violence based on its own interpretations.

Overall my points you can't see are the system fails because it has no clue how to address human perceptions,it's claim is it gets humans desires,it has no clue of the underlying workings of reality therefore it will fail.
It's an antiquated ideal just like the rest of them,communism,capitalism,it's an alternative intellectual theory.

The real problem is a lack of ideas,stuck in the past looking at systems that never worked or a system that if Inacted will initially cause chaos and panic with many people hurt because they have no energy to deal with freedom defined by libertarians/humans.

You're technically correct, Drareg, but wouldn't you say that coercion is embedded in human existence? Humans must destroy in order to survive, in the same way that the lion must destroy the gazelle, or bison must destroy the grass?

 

[Drareg]

Modern farming is not a man planting apple seeds, have you ever been on a farm? They have equipment, equipment that uses petroleum and is made of steel and plastics. The investments for those materials were made decades ago, and thousands of forces worked together voluntarily trading to end up with the result of a functioning, efficient, modern apple farm. If this was attempted to be done through central planning, well you would end up like the USSR and North Korea.

No one would pay tax if there wasn't a punishment waiting for them. This is evidenced by people not sending in any extra tax, and taking every break they can. If they like paying tax so much why is the exact, to the penny amount they are charged, the amount they pay? Why not a penny more? The obvious answer is because they are doing it to avoid the punishment, not because they want to.

I said nothing about modern farming,this your strawman,you can't refute points so your making them up.

Your second paragraph is your opinion,it's the rantings of a fanatic,you have no evidence for people not wanting to pay toward a central until organising facilities agreed upon, libertarians use semantics to deny their system needs this.
Your hyperbole is adding the word violence,it doesn't have to be violent,the systems is currently toxic because of human behaviour,libertarians will have humans within it. People don't have to pay the taxes austerity and this is why we see revolts,it's excessive taxation,mainly for corrupt banks or royal families,people deal with this.
People don't send in extra tax because they are being taxed too much.

libertarianism is authoritarianism when you don't agree with the definition of violence the libertarians use.

 

[Kyle M]

Yes; we are. I agree with you, but not all people believe that animals should be exploited.

That's different than saying they have "rights." I don't think dogs should be beaten by humans, but that doesn't mean I think dogs have rights. If animals had rights, how would a wolf make a living? Does the wolf and other obligate carnivores have "rights?"

Contrast this with humans having rights, I don't think children should be exploited (raped, abused) and therefore, since they have rights, that activity should be prevented from happening if you are a witness, and redress can be pursued after it happens.

 

[Kyle M]

libertarianism is authoritarianism when you don't agree with the definition of violence the libertarians use.

You can't tell the different between defense and offensive force? Positive vs. negative rights?

 

[Drareg]

Other creatures do not have rights, if they did then our existence would be illegal since we need to exploit them. If the deer had rights, the wolf would be a natural born criminal. Furthermore, animals don't *do* anything with property rights, they don't progress. That's kind of what the green sustainable movement wants, a static, animal life for humans. But humans do progress, because they use their reasoning mind to transform property for their wants. A beaver making a dam makes the same dam that their beaver ancestors have been making for millennia. I human building a dam doesn't even build it the same way as other humans did ten years ago.

Was that the question? Not in an insulting way, I just want to be sure we are addressing the same issue here.

A dam is blocking water from a river essentially,all rivers have different shapes and flow,it requires the beaver to be creative to stem the flow.
Humans build dams that block the flow of water just like the beaver,slightly more creative but still blocking water.

Creature have rights,the right libertarianism is blinded to and that's the workings of nature,nature gives them rights,nature allows them to kill.
you claim the wolf would be natural born criminal ,why use the word criminal? It's a killer,libertarian ideals gone wrong again,natural systems allow the kill.

What we know about reality tells us there is potential for a higher energy more intelligent organism than humans,you ignored this point I put to you,is it OK by libertarians for potential said race to exploit us?