The Libertarian Philosophy

[Drareg]

You don't think a culture that respects individual rights would be less likely to commit mass murder? Haven't the largest body counts come from collectivist societies like Stalinist USSR and Maoist China? Is there no room for hierarchical thinking here, ie if we attempt to adopt these principles as best we can we may have a murder or two, but avoid millions murdered, and therefore the attempt at adoption is good? Should be throw our hands up because nothing on this earth is perfect, or should we try to forward the best system currently conceived?



This is a common argument that is kind of an inside joke in libertarian circles. To say that a nation whose government was violently overthrown and then entered a failed state situation is a libertarian one is incorrect. The United States pre-1913 would be a much closer example of the principles of self-ownership, property rights and laissez-faire being implemented than tribal lands whose cultures (African and Middle Eastern) have never held the ideal of individual rights.

Also, interestingly, there is literature on Somalia and how when the government fell, it was a net benefit for Somalians. It is a poor comparison to say Somalia is less good than America, therefore anarchy is bad, rather one should compare Somalia itself pre and post government fall, and/or compare it to the relevant African nations surrounding it. Please read this article for a more fleshed out version of this point: Anarchy in Somalia

No Kyle your system has not been conceived in the real world and worked,it doesn't work.

Any system which is ok with child sex abuse is not ok.

 

[Kyle M]

1) Intelligence
2) Altruism (rather charity, as criminality is penalized by the system in most functioning cases)
3) Self-sufficiency (which is linked to intelligence)

In that same essay I quoted previous, Rand makes a crushing argument against altruism, claiming it is the evil of the modern age. Altruism -/-=-/- charity or generosity, but rather a selflessness, an idea that the human is an animal to be used for the benefit of others, as opposed to an end unto itself.

I think charity should allow for this as well; selfishness is assumed on the part of the collectivist. We need to have a greater measure of charity, which means a higher-developed consciousness through a proper environment.

If more people could give, then we wouldn't need authoritarian structures to enforce giving. Molyneux touches on this heavily; it can be accomplished within the span of a generation, but it will likely take longer.

Charity did allow for this, any old measure of American charity before the welfare state really got going in the 1960s and 70s bears this out. People are very charitable, and the more freedom their are allowed and more choice they have in the matter, the more charitable they will be. Freedom of choice in charity also puts competitive pressure on charitable entities to actually use the funds and resources for their charitable works and not just for limos for their board members. The welfare state did not come about because there was a lack of charity in America, far from it, it was a total power grab for bureaucratic jobs, and Johnson famously said "I'll have these ******* voting Democratic for 200 years" about the so-called Great Society.

At the base, a collectivist assumes people are evil, because he or she has been exposed to scarcity and high amounts of psychological stress for extended periods of time. It's not the fault of the person to assume other people are evil; they've experienced this part of humanity. Individuals need to experience abundance and enrichment to practice generosity.

Maybe? There are plenty of poor **** immigrants from Africa that flock to laissez-faire ideas, and plenty of hipster, trust fund, Eastern establishment private college kids who flock towards collectivism. The ideas are what are important, and the values of the individual.

Back to your points, these universal principles do carry more weight than reactionary identity politics (the norm at present.) I like to think of libertarians as Vulcans, but of course I don't mean to think of libertarians as lacking compassion.

Libertarians are the only group with true compassion as they are the only ones who see the individual as an ends unto itself, not a means for something else. Libertarians get a bad rap because a bunch of basement dweller neck beards who are unhappy with their lives identify on the internet as libertarians and muck up the situation, making poor arguments and being jerks. Most of those people probably haven't read the foundational literature. I can't stress enough the difference between seeing the individual as an end unto itself, vs. not seeing it that way, and how that is the only way to have true charity and compassion.

 

[Kyle M]

That would be interesting. I didn't mean to imply any racial or ethnic bias though, maybe there is some, but my experience speaking to people about non-contradiction was almost entirely with Europeans.

Do you think not using the Trivium in pedagogy could be a source of this problem?

 

[Sucrates]

Do you think not using the Trivium in pedagogy could be a source of this problem?

I'd need to speak to more children to have an opinion on that to be honest, assuming there's some age related factor because the Trivium seems to have little impact on most people exposed to it. It seems like some sort of psychological defence mechanism imprinted from childhood trauma more than anything. I hate to play the old marxist "everyone who doesn't agree with me is crazy" card, but there you go.

 

[Drareg]

I am sympathetic to the racial realist or ethnic basis ideas, but am hopeful that a true libertarian beacon could light the way for even lower intelligence cultures. One of the dangers of modern opinion moulding is giving credence to ideas based on the relative intersectional status of the speaker rather than the merit of the ideas themselves. If this one trend could be reversed, it would make a huge difference in the ideas being showered on less critically thinking people.

If I had my druthers I would love to do brain activity experiments of libertarians and various statists when confronted with political assertions or questions, and see what kind of differences there are. I believe it would be similar to a religious vs. non-religious person when asked morality questions.

The opinion moulding is still present in your free market libertarian regime,you don't reverse it,the potential stays with more potential for corruption.
What your trying to say here is - agree with the libertarian point of view or you are less intelligent,it's a form of ad hominem because you lack a coherent argument.

Your Brain activity experiments for intelligence testing are hugely flawed, reality is been shown to be holographic in nature. If the structural aspect of this is relevant it still means the majority of brain activity experiments for intelligence testing are flawed.
This would explain you're racial intelligence beliefs. Your hubris here is incredible.
Keep in mind the experiment is based on the paradigm/projections of a libertarian which renders the outcome one way.
The entire experiment highlights your black and white thinking capacity. The guy who had no brain left but could still access memories and function relatively well was probably libertarian!

Your severely lacking in critical thinking capacity with the above spiel ,black and white-regurgitate.

 

[Drareg]

Rape Epidemic.
"Nadifa, a widowed mother of four, left her hut near Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, to search for food. When she returned home hours later, she found a man raping her 11-year-old daughter. Nadifa tried to defend her daughter but was torn away by armed men as she screamed. The neighborhood watched helplessly as the men abducted Nadifa. She was pistol-whipped, kicked, punched, and scorched with burning plastic. "

Below is the entire article on the sexual abuse women and children put up with it in Somalia.
Keep in mind Somalia is Kyle M example of libertarianism and anarchy.

'Living Hell': Somalia's Hidden Rape Epidemic | World Policy Institute

 

[luke gadget]

You don't think a culture that respects individual rights would be less likely to commit mass murder? Haven't the largest body counts come from collectivist societies like Stalinist USSR and Maoist China? Is there no room for hierarchical thinking here, ie if we attempt to adopt these principles as best we can we may have a murder or two, but avoid millions murdered, and therefore the attempt at adoption is good? Should be throw our hands up because nothing on this earth is perfect, or should we try to forward the best system currently conceived?

But that doesn't say anything about Libertarianism at all. A culture that respects individual rights sounds nice - but HOW to make it happen in a fair way that balances other individuals' rights? And what ARE individual rights anyway - it's a pretty fluid concept and not a concrete Thing (e.g., one can't remove it surgically), so there's a lot of a priori defining going on there. What's your example of "best" - as far as I can tell it's entirely theoretical. It's like "pure" capitalism or "pure" communism - ah if ONLY people would shape up and form the perfect society along x lines, then we'd have a utopia, right?

You say pre 1913 US - pre income tax? That's the ideal?? There are many societies that respect and foster individual rights beautifully - much of Scandinavia for example, and they have much higher income tax than we have in the US now (and, generally, more progressive and higher taxation has resulted in a better society). Or is the idea that people can't accept help from society, either, to keep it "pure"? But that sounds too much like "keep your government hands off my Medicare!!" - i.e., the philosophy where people just want what they want and screw everybody else - but let's give it a multi-syllabic name so it sounds Meaningful. And pre-1913 - wasn't that the era of the Robber Barons? Sorry - my history gets fuzzy there.

If I had to pick a social philosophy that worked or informed better outcomes, I'll call it pragmatism - one finds solutions that fix problems. Yes it may result in complex systems - but so what? The most successful biological systems are VERY complex. Trying to simplify them to an abstract ideal just doesn't reflect how the real world actually works.

 

[Kyle M]

But that doesn't say anything about Libertarianism at all. A culture that respects individual rights sounds nice - but HOW to make it happen in a fair way that balances other individuals' rights? And what ARE individual rights anyway - it's a pretty fluid concept and not a concrete Thing (e.g., one can't remove it surgically), so there's a lot of a priori defining going on there. What's your example of "best" - as far as I can tell it's entirely theoretical. It's like "pure" capitalism or "pure" communism - ah if ONLY people would shape up and form the perfect society along x lines, then we'd have a utopia, right?

There is no balancing, all individuals have their negative rights respected. Do you know what negative and positive rights are?

You say pre 1913 US - pre income tax? That's the ideal?? There are many societies that respect and foster individual rights beautifully - much of Scandinavia for example, and they have much higher income tax than we have in the US now (and, generally, more progressive and higher taxation has resulted in a better society). Or is the idea that people can't accept help from society, either, to keep it "pure"? But that sounds too much like "keep your government hands off my Medicare!!" - i.e., the philosophy where people just want what they want and screw everybody else - but let's give it a multi-syllabic name so it sounds Meaningful. And pre-1913 - wasn't that the era of the Robber Barons? Sorry - my history gets fuzzy there.

Scandinavia became rich under American style laissez-faire and only switched to the welfare state as we did in the 1970s. Since then, their national wealth has decreased in rankings, and people are trying to push back. I have many family members in Sweden and none of the adults like where the government welfare state has taken them. See this article for an explanation of Sweden's economic regime that made them wealthy, which was not high taxes and regulations: How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich

If I had to pick a social philosophy that worked or informed better outcomes, I'll call it pragmatism - one finds solutions that fix problems. Yes it may result in complex systems - but so what? The most successful biological systems are VERY complex. Trying to simplify them to an abstract ideal just doesn't reflect how the real world actually works.

What problem would you solve by infringing on individuals negative rights? I've said this before, but to repeat, a healthy adult can save 5+ people by donating all of their organs. Does that mean it would be morally correct for me to give you an anesthesia injection and remove your organs, since your one death is less than the deaths that would occur without your organs? If not, why, and how is that forced organ donation system any different than any other forced property seizure and redistribution?

 

[DaveFoster]

The question no libertarian answers,give us real world example of a fully functional libertarian society? They give examples of some Nordic pieces of legislation as examples at best. They word it to not mention legislation obviously.

Remember they do however want real world examples from you.

Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia

Who makes the logical extrapolated decisions from the NAP ?
This makes it sound like the airy fairy version of capitalism.
Logic is open to interpretation ,makes things very difficult.

Who for example is the "authority" who makes a decision on a 6 year old claiming they are ok with a 46 year old parent sexually abusing them? This is what you are getting at? Somebody will step in here? If so is your definition different?

I think these kind of arguments underscore a grey area in any culture's moral system. Obviously, the parents would be in control, but what if the kid's any orphan? The community then, but what if they're in a rural area and the child has run away from home to get away from their abusive parents?

It's much better to address the cause; why does the 46-year old want to have sexual relations with a minor; I think the answer to that lies in problems in the psyche of the former individual.

Heraclitus is attributed the Law of Non-Contradictory Identification, about 2500 years ago, the vast majority of people cannot internalise it and it's so simple that cannot be attributed to intellectual deficiency. I think understanding the psychological(environmental) or hereditary reasons for that should be what Libertarians focus on, because you I can guarantee you that reason and evidence will make no difference to the vast majority.

I agree; I think not only hereidtary (although that certainly could contribute,) but epigenetically, people exposed to authoritarians tend to mimic their surroundings, else they face an identity crisis; they must admit that the people with whom they've interacted with their entire life have been harmful, immoral agents: an incredibly isolating feeling.

It's the same logic where parents who have been spanked justify not just the spanking of their own kids, but the violence of their parents; else they would have to reason the reality of abuse. Once again, it's isolating and traumatizing to one's psyche to admit that his or her parent practiced the antithesis and love and acted abusively on a regular occasion.

"Stress begets greater tolerance to stress," as Peat would say. The damaged pathways will continue until the social dynamic changes.

 

[DaveFoster]

I've said this before, but to repeat, a healthy adult can save 5+ people by donating all of their organs. Does that mean it would be morally correct for me to give you an anesthesia injection and remove your organs, since your one death is less than the deaths that would occur without your organs? If not, why, and how is that forced organ donation system any different than any other forced property seizure and redistribution?

Very interesting rebuttal to utilitarianism.

 

[aquaman]

Well they're certainly free to be wrong, but do you think they can get to a conclusion where I or anyone else should be forced to live according to their ideas? Do you really think the logical chain can link all the way to that? It seems to me that people will argue about this or that perception of reality, but very rarely take that to its conclusion, which imo is an admission of incorrectness. Libertarians/anarchists are the only philosophers that take their basic premises to their logical conclusions, would you agree? What even would be the logical conclusion of Kantian philosophy, slavery of all to all? What would that even mean?

The whole premise of your thinking seems to be if something is ever done, it must naturally tend to the total extreme and therefore reach a "logical conclusion", and that you seem to reduce the world to one variable at a time. If society has a view of 1 out of 100 on a scale of socialism, then that society is defined by you as SOCIALIST, and will move to 100 soon, with no other forces operate in the world. Unfortunately, there are trillions of moving variables at a time when it comes to human life. There will never ever ever be an idea taken to the extreme because of the trillions of other ideas balancing it out. It's extreme reductionism. I've never met, read, heard about someone will such binary reductionist views as yours.

Your "logical conclusions" are neither a conclusion, nor logical.

I can write totally insane "logical conclusions" about Libertarianism that would never manifest in a billion years too, but that doesn't mean those (il)logical conclusions represent Libertarianism.

Looking at your NAP idea. This relies on (a) having a definition of of aggression that everyone agrees on [never going to happen], and (b) being able to measure "aggression" across distances and time (ie into the future).

In your world you need agreement, and since there could never be agreement on the definition or the measurement (particularly cross-generational), that means a Libertarian could never write a law since it would disagree with at least someone, and therefore violate the first principle of Libertarianism in that you are infringing on an individual. Therefore the "logical conclusion" is that there would be no laws, and there would be total chaos and the world would end. I'm only being slightly fatuous here.

In a maniac's view, maybe beating someone up isn't aggression, therefore you can't infringe on his rights to beat someone up. OPPRESSION OF FREE INDIVIDUAL WILL!

I want the world to advance while being more sympathetic to the natural environment and making use of more and more data we get on the effect we are having, most certainly not to go backwards or reduce the number of humans on earth. You are somehow able to define an "environmentalist" as one clear entity, and then forecast back in time and determine how that collective group of environmentalists would have changed the history of earth 1000s of years ago. You are a true sage!

If somehow we were able to get data that would show totally accurately that the world will end in 200 years if we keep on acting like we do, and 20% of the world didn't care, they just wanted to get what they can now, would that mean the other 80% could not enforce some restriction to extend the life of humans on earth? How do you even measure the future rights of trillions of potential humans against our lives today? You can't, therefore you will never be perfect, there must be guesswork based on beliefs.

Your logic seems to be: since a group can't make perfect decisions on behalf of society, no decisions should be taken on behalf of society. There's no sliding scale for you. And yet you think a collective of individuals will take the right/perfect action. Neither will happen anyway, extremes don't exist ever and there are too many balancing forces. There has to be a point in between, and naturally there are people along the curve who will not be perfectly represented.

--

Edit: i've just been reading about murder in America in the 1800s. Some interesting stuff.
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=hsshonors

Eg: "Before the urbanization of America in the mid-1800s, towns were only loosely organized into close-knit communities, and murder was relatively rare. It was much harder for perpetrators to hide or escape the law because there were no cars and towns were spread far apart. Since most people had roots in their area and most murders arose out of local quarrels, institutions of law enforcement were largely underdeveloped as compared to the systems of today.iv People in small towns knew each other well, and it was unlikely that an individual could commit a crime like homicide and not become a suspect. "

On Kyle's logic, the Logical Conclusion is that larger societies lead to more infringement of property rights and therefore small towns should be the limit of a Libertarian society. Therefore Kyle you are anti the development of humanity. See how absolutes, reductionism and logical conclusions don't work?

2nd edit: I've finally realised why I'm so angered and disgusted by your posts. It's your total arrogance that there is one definition of a word, and that you know the meaning of it, and that everyone fits neatly into a category, and you know who they are and can talk on behalf of them. There's such certainty, no wiggle room. Kyle knows it all, knows what is best for humanity, and that's that. There is one absolute answer only, and Kyle and Libertarians know it and it's patently clear that there is one answer. I disagree with plenty of others on this site, but have learnt bits from eg Dave Foster, and you can sense he and others know they don't know everything, and that there is always going to be variances in others thinking. I don't know if this is characteristic of a mental disorder of yours. For example, I'm in favour of libertarian principles within a society, but that's not the same as being 100% in favour, if you could even define and agree on what Libertarianism is.

One last thing: you telling people how things should be is surely breaking some tenet of Libertarianism. Aren't you infringing on my personal rights to my own thoughts by forcing your ideas into my head? :) The logical conclusions is therefore that you should not write anything on this forum, since you are infringing on me and others

 

[Drareg]

There is no balancing, all individuals have their negative rights respected. Do you know what negative and positive rights are?



Scandinavia became rich under American style laissez-faire and only switched to the welfare state as we did in the 1970s. Since then, their national wealth has decreased in rankings, and people are trying to push back. I have many family members in Sweden and none of the adults like where the government welfare state has taken them. See this article for an explanation of Sweden's economic regime that made them wealthy, which was not high taxes and regulations: How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich



What problem would you solve by infringing on individuals negative rights? I've said this before, but to repeat, a healthy adult can save 5+ people by donating all of their organs. Does that mean it would be morally correct for me to give you an anesthesia injection and remove your organs, since your one death is less than the deaths that would occur without your organs? If not, why, and how is that forced organ donation system any different than any other forced property seizure and redistribution?

Your negative and positive rights are open to interpretation and definitions as the poster put to you.
You again appear condescending with the question does he know negative and positive rights,a subtle attempt to discredit the poster,what you are attempting is to pull him into your definitions/meaning of negative and positive rights. He clarify this with you,re read his post.

Your continually attempting to get everyone to view meaning as libertarians do,this is why you want people to read what you read,no thinking for the yourself aloud.

Your underlying belief is you are intellectually superior to others as is the case with most other libertarians,your belief is you will manipulate people to your views when we have a libertarian society,an example of this manipulation of people is Stefan molyneaux,Kyle m behaves the same way,mocks people who don't agree with his view. You use the mocking as a bully would to make it appear you know,use long winded vocabulary and those who are less articulate fall right in ,authoritarian using the word libertarian as cover.

Your still OK with the mass rape of women and children in Somalia since it has become an anarchist libertarian dream? Libertarians the all caring for humanity types see this ironically as collateral damage in the name of the ideal.
What you can't see in an americanised libertarian society just like now in Somalia the women and children are threatened with death if they speak out,many people don't find out they are threatened with death,the stupidity and hubris of libertarianism allows this to happen,that's life is the libertarian view,you can't see the violation of the one principle of NAP.

 

[Drareg]

Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia

I think these kind of arguments underscore a grey area in any culture's moral system. Obviously, the parents would be in control, but what if the kid's any orphan? The community then, but what if they're in a rural area and the child has run away from home to get away from their abusive parents?

It's much better to address the cause; why does the 46-year old want to have sexual relations with a minor; I think the answer to that lies in problems in the psyche of the former individual.

I agree; I think not only hereidtary (although that certainly could contribute,) but epigenetically, people exposed to authoritarians tend to mimic their surroundings, else they face an identity crisis; they must admit that the people with whom they've interacted with their entire life have been harmful, immoral agents: an incredibly isolating feeling.

It's the same logic where parents who have been spanked justify not just the spanking of their own kids, but the violence of their parents; else they would have to reason the reality of abuse. Once again, it's isolating and traumatizing to one's psyche to admit that his or her parent practiced the antithesis and love and acted abusively on a regular occasion.

"Stress begets greater tolerance to stress," as Peat would say. The damaged pathways will continue until the social dynamic changes.

Dave that's the thing with libertarianism the kids can do what they want,the mother only has rights when the child is in here which again is a grey area,if your Christian you should know the views on this,it's the literal chicken and egg question of sort.
Essentially the kid can leave at 8 years old and the parents can't use force to stop them.
An example- good parents who work hard,kid is an laisse faire airy fairy libertarian society so TVs and "programmes "still OK,kid watches a movie of a ten year old going on an adventure to new york on a magic Carpet,real kid now wants to leave to go to New York on similar adventure,libertarianism says the kid cannot be stopped with force,ask any working parent the difficulty of kids at times.

Addressing the cause of 45 year olds rape a 6 year old is ongoing for centuries,it's psycho pathological, Peat poke about this and it quite pertinent to all who follow him,the development of psychopathology that is,libertarianism allows psychopaths to flourish,it's all mental manipulation with psychopaths,most of them rarely use aggressive force,they are pathological enough to second years scheming before inflicting the violence.
Keep in mind infant children have been rapped by adult males also.

Libertarians don't care about any of the above,ask them,this is the reason they are seen as the most selfish system of all,it's truly the system of no empathy which is a psychopaths paradise.
They will fall over themselves with contradiction by using terms like the kid is within the jurisdiction of the home so home rules apply while out of the same mouth claim the mother is not to agrees against the child as the child has the right to self ownership.

Libertarians believe there is a market for children,they call it a child market,adoption etc. Children should be treated as a market. This laissez faire attitude isn't corruptible with all the pychopaths around now is it?
Parents can sell children,you can also kill the child if it's deformed.
So a deformed child argument is Down's syndrome child,the parent should have the right to abort it but just with the many safe examples they give they ignore that a member of the kardishian pop culture world may feel on a scan that her child's ears and nose are too big so being libertarian you can abort it.
I'm libertarian and I don't care about the above because I'm intellectually superior.

Is it just me or does it start to smell a bit like genetic superiority in libertarianism ?
Notice how it's mainly men supporting libertarianism.

 

[Drareg]

Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia

I think these kind of arguments underscore a grey area in any culture's moral system. Obviously, the parents would be in control, but what if the kid's any orphan? The community then, but what if they're in a rural area and the child has run away from home to get away from their abusive parents?

It's much better to address the cause; why does the 46-year old want to have sexual relations with a minor; I think the answer to that lies in problems in the psyche of the former individual.

I agree; I think not only hereidtary (although that certainly could contribute,) but epigenetically, people exposed to authoritarians tend to mimic their surroundings, else they face an identity crisis; they must admit that the people with whom they've interacted with their entire life have been harmful, immoral agents: an incredibly isolating feeling.

It's the same logic where parents who have been spanked justify not just the spanking of their own kids, but the violence of their parents; else they would have to reason the reality of abuse. Once again, it's isolating and traumatizing to one's psyche to admit that his or her parent practiced the antithesis and love and acted abusively on a regular occasion.

"Stress begets greater tolerance to stress," as Peat would say. The damaged pathways will continue until the social dynamic changes.

Thanks for the link to Catalonia,
"Revolutionary Catalonia (July 21, 1936 – 1939) was the part of Catalonia (a region in northeast Spain) controlled by the anarchist and socialist trade unions, parties, and militias during the Spanish Civil War"

It lasted 3 years according to one truth Wikipedia,the above quote is the reason why I'm guessing,not exactly anarchist either.
Most Humans are social creatures they will form communities as structures of sort.

The same argument is Somalia,it's all small groups against each other,the planet is only so big eventually groups will rub shoulders,the one law of NAP will of course hold steady as none of these groups which are built on hierarchys will fight at all,no really that won't happen,it's governments that encourage you to fight by being aggressive toward you and governments are not humans like, so you know......

 

[Drareg]

The whole premise of your thinking seems to be if something is ever done, it must naturally tend to the total extreme and therefore reach a "logical conclusion", and that you seem to reduce the world to one variable at a time. If society has a view of 1 out of 100 on a scale of socialism, then that society is defined by you as SOCIALIST, and will move to 100 soon, with no other forces operate in the world. Unfortunately, there are trillions of moving variables at a time when it comes to human life. There will never ever ever be an idea taken to the extreme because of the trillions of other ideas balancing it out. It's extreme reductionism. I've never met, read, heard about someone will such binary reductionist views as yours.

Your "logical conclusions" are neither a conclusion, nor logical.

I can write totally insane "logical conclusions" about Libertarianism that would never manifest in a billion years too, but that doesn't mean those (il)logical conclusions represent Libertarianism.

Looking at your NAP idea. This relies on (a) having a definition of of aggression that everyone agrees on [never going to happen], and (b) being able to measure "aggression" across distances and time (ie into the future).

In your world you need agreement, and since there could never be agreement on the definition or the measurement (particularly cross-generational), that means a Libertarian could never write a law since it would disagree with at least someone, and therefore violate the first principle of Libertarianism in that you are infringing on an individual. Therefore the "logical conclusion" is that there would be no laws, and there would be total chaos and the world would end. I'm only being slightly fatuous here.

In a maniac's view, maybe beating someone up isn't aggression, therefore you can't infringe on his rights to beat someone up. OPPRESSION OF FREE INDIVIDUAL WILL!

I want the world to advance while being more sympathetic to the natural environment and making use of more and more data we get on the effect we are having, most certainly not to go backwards or reduce the number of humans on earth. You are somehow able to define an "environmentalist" as one clear entity, and then forecast back in time and determine how that collective group of environmentalists would have changed the history of earth 1000s of years ago. You are a true sage!

If somehow we were able to get data that would show totally accurately that the world will end in 200 years if we keep on acting like we do, and 20% of the world didn't care, they just wanted to get what they can now, would that mean the other 80% could not enforce some restriction to extend the life of humans on earth? How do you even measure the future rights of trillions of potential humans against our lives today? You can't, therefore you will never be perfect, there must be guesswork based on beliefs.

Your logic seems to be: since a group can't make perfect decisions on behalf of society, no decisions should be taken on behalf of society. There's no sliding scale for you. And yet you think a collective of individuals will take the right/perfect action. Neither will happen anyway, extremes don't exist ever and there are too many balancing forces. There has to be a point in between, and naturally there are people along the curve who will not be perfectly represented.

--

Edit: i've just been reading about murder in America in the 1800s. Some interesting stuff.
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=hsshonors

Eg: "Before the urbanization of America in the mid-1800s, towns were only loosely organized into close-knit communities, and murder was relatively rare. It was much harder for perpetrators to hide or escape the law because there were no cars and towns were spread far apart. Since most people had roots in their area and most murders arose out of local quarrels, institutions of law enforcement were largely underdeveloped as compared to the systems of today.iv People in small towns knew each other well, and it was unlikely that an individual could commit a crime like homicide and not become a suspect. "

On Kyle's logic, the Logical Conclusion is that larger societies lead to more infringement of property rights and therefore small towns should be the limit of a Libertarian society. Therefore Kyle you are anti the development of humanity. See how absolutes, reductionism and logical conclusions don't work?

2nd edit: I've finally realised why I'm so angered and disgusted by your posts. It's your total arrogance that there is one definition of a word, and that you know the meaning of it, and that everyone fits neatly into a category, and you know who they are and can talk on behalf of them. There's such certainty, no wiggle room. Kyle knows it all, knows what is best for humanity, and that's that. There is one absolute answer only, and Kyle and Libertarians know it and it's patently clear that there is one answer. I disagree with plenty of others on this site, but have learnt bits from eg Dave Foster, and you can sense he and others know they don't know everything, and that there is always going to be variances in others thinking. I don't know if this is characteristic of a mental disorder of yours. For example, I'm in favour of libertarian principles within a society, but that's not the same as being 100% in favour, if you could even define and agree on what Libertarianism is.

One last thing: you telling people how things should be is surely breaking some tenet of Libertarianism. Aren't you infringing on my personal rights to my own thoughts by forcing your ideas into my head? :) The logical conclusions is therefore that you should not write anything on this forum, since you are infringing on me and others

No he will say ,I'm not infringing as I do not use physical aggression, where his hubris lies deeper as with all libertarians is that thought processes can be said to need physical structure to occur,(not just the brain)thoughts lead to aggressive action,the thoughts came from a physical structure ,aggressive thoughts should count,this then is open to more interpretation,what is an aggressive thought.
Just like interpretation of the bonobos sexual behaviour,after a fight the males rub their anuses and penises together,see what I mean? Now drunk men after a fight may stumble and accidentally do the above but sober? Maybe someone needs to contact Dana White,it could help with bonding,they intellectually do it anyway in MMA.

Your last paragraph is the reason why libertarians attract psychopaths,paedophiles and the outright manipulative,it will in my opinion create the perfect platform for them without repercussions ,mainly men.
Stevan molyneaux is a fine example. The deluded narcissists believe they are superior to others and will thrive in this environmen,what's sad is they won't,true intelligence will see them a mile off,unfortunately kids and those from less fortunate environments fall victim.
They will always say I did not agress and if the victim agrees is what counts,how do you see duress here,you see psychopaths won't see duress,no capacity for empathy,keep in mind I speak of the police/court here judging what's happened,they have the potential to be wrapped by this one rule you can't even call it court or police under the libertarian regime!

 

[Kyle M]

It lasted 3 years according to one truth Wikipedia,the above quote is the reason why I'm guessing,not exactly anarchist either.
Most Humans are social creatures they will form communities as structures of sort.

Be careful not to make the mistake of confusing society with the state. Society happens everywhere, from when kids want to order pizza and pool their money together and jointly decide the toppings, to a corporation pooling money and purchasing property, to a neighborhood association like a condo where people sign a contract to keep up with this and that in their yard. The state does not allow the option to opt out, does not recognize property or individual rights, and always uses violence to force compliance. It's a common mistake that people make, fostered I think by the government educational system.

 

[Kyle M]

One last thing: you telling people how things should be is surely breaking some tenet of Libertarianism. Aren't you infringing on my personal rights to my own thoughts by forcing your ideas into my head? :) The logical conclusions is therefore that you should not write anything on this forum, since you are infringing on me and others

Only a liberal would confuse making an argument on an internet forum with a gun to the head, which is real force. Definitions can be slippery in philosophy, but any reasonable person who's been around the block knows what force is, what voluntary is, and who's doing it. A beggar is asking for money, a mugger demanding it, if the mugger didn't have the use or threat of force he would just be a beggar.

 

[DaveFoster]

Dave that's the thing with libertarianism the kids can do what they want,the mother only has rights when the child is in here which again is a grey area,if your Christian you should know the views on this,it's the literal chicken and egg question of sort.
Essentially the kid can leave at 8 years old and the parents can't use force to stop them.
An example- good parents who work hard,kid is an laisse faire airy fairy libertarian society so TVs and "programmes "still OK,kid watches a movie of a ten year old going on an adventure to new york on a magic Carpet,real kid now wants to leave to go to New York on similar adventure,libertarianism says the kid cannot be stopped with force,ask any working parent the difficulty of kids at times.

I think if your kid runs away, there's a problem prior to the event. Kids just don't run away. I actually ran away from my father once because we had a horrible relationship. It wasn't due to me pursuing the greener grass; it was because the grass at home was brown and charred.

Dave that's the thing with libertarianism the kids can do what they want,the mother only has rights when the child is in here which again is a grey area,if your Christian you should know the views on this,it's the literal chicken and egg question of sort.
Essentially the kid can leave at 8 years old and the parents can't use force to stop them.
An example- good parents who work hard,kid is an laisse faire airy fairy libertarian society so TVs and "programmes "still OK,kid watches a movie of a ten year old going on an adventure to new york on a magic Carpet,real kid now wants to leave to go to New York on similar adventure,libertarianism says the kid cannot be stopped with force,ask any working parent the difficulty of kids at times.

If one advocates abortion for the rights of the mother, then I don't believe a child market is all that controversial, particularly for orphans. Again, you can't have these two concepts; children are either sovereign entities, or they're property (whether of the state, commune, or individual). If the child is sovereign, then he has to agree which parent he likes. If the child is property, then the parent gets to choose, similar to picking a dog in a kennel. Obviously with the latter example, there exists appointed temporary guardians, and this would occur anyway.

Libertarians believe there is a market for children,they call it a child market,adoption etc. Children should be treated as a market. This laissez faire attitude isn't corruptible with all the pychopaths around now is it?
Parents can sell children,you can also kill the child if it's deformed.

Either you advocate an individual's right to abort the child, or you place positive obligations on that individual (or the community, which is made up of other individuals) to raise the child. In the latter case, what if the individual does not comply and refuses to support the child. You're left with options of prison, exile, or death.

Is it just me or does it start to smell a bit like genetic superiority in libertarianism ?
Notice how it's mainly men supporting libertarianism.

That's ad hominem, but regardless, women tend to vote democrat because of their evolved social strategy (more communal), while men tend to vote more republican given the same sample. Certain cultures also vote more communal, as in for larger states, welfare, and authority.

Here's some examples:

Source: economywatch.com

Wages inversely correlate with political affiliation. Groups with lower incomes vote for bigger government and more communalization of wealth, as they benefit from these. The exception lies with the Asian community, which represents an interesting cultural background; they're collectivist, particularly within their own families, but also to the state, and they have high working intelligence. Their culture is quite interesting, for me at least. Despite this, they vote the highest percentage republican out of any minority group. The predominance of whites over Asians who vote republican may represent merely the former's cultural inertia, and would not rather tie directly to income.

 

[Drareg]

Be careful not to make the mistake of confusing society with the state. Society happens everywhere, from when kids want to order pizza and pool their money together and jointly decide the toppings, to a corporation pooling money and purchasing property, to a neighborhood association like a condo where people sign a contract to keep up with this and that in their yard. The state does not allow the option to opt out, does not recognize property or individual rights, and always uses violence to force compliance. It's a common mistake that people make, fostered I think by the government educational system.

Semantics again here with your response,state and community very much comes down to interpretation,your fanaticism only let's you see big evil government.

Libertarianism will never be the rule when people like you support it,people through it,they know in their core it's possibly the worse system of all.
Your a textbook charlatan,the way you are promoting libertarianism shows this clearly,you dodge the majority of points put to you in particular the depraved aspect of society libertarianism will encourage without any accountability ,you speak with authority as if a society has existed with libertarianism,no society has existed.
An example you gave, Somalia but ignored the child rape epidemic there,this is where the depraved nature of libertarianism comes to the light on topics such as those yet all of you dodge them,even on your dogmatic mises website.
You may as well be a priest of libertarianism,your behaviour reflects that yet you mock the religious types on here.

Anyone who looks through this thread can see the flaws have been pointed out to libertarianism yet you are still determined to promote this view,your desperate to manipulate people Kyle,why don't you come out and say it,you want to control others,you have no interest in their desires just yours,libertarianism is an intellectual authoritarians dream.

 

[Sucrates]

Confess your sins @Kyle M ! Why do you hate dogs?!!
@Drareg , you have a real talent for getting to the truth of the situation!