Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are there any true libertarians in here? I would like to debate you.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Darth Xena and Joel, what is exactly "government" and what "state"?
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't have time for detailed explanations, so if you don't care if I give links, here you go

      http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/...nd-government/

      http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/...ts-and-states/

      ==Thus, it is my own description that whereas government is a role in society, the State is an institution that forces itself upon the people. Where there is a State, this State takes up the role of government as part of its activity. Thus, all States necessarily govern, but not all governments are States.==
      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

      sigpic

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
        Darth Xena and Joel, what is exactly "government" and what "state"?
        In most cases I have seen, "government" (in this context) is the protection of rights (life, liberty, and property). In which, force may be used only defensively (restraint and restitution).

        A "state" claims to be a provider of government, and is a monopoly that uses force beyond the limits of legitimate government. But true government is supposed to protect us against such uses of force. And thus such uses of force are contrary to government (and would properly be called crimes). To be pro-government, then, is be to be anti-state.


        To illustrate, under these definitions, the vast majority of what modern states do is criminal/unjust/anti-government.
        "Minarchists" aim for a minimal state which provides government except that it uses force to compel contributions (taxes) and to maintain its monopoly position.

        Some minarchists go further, arguing that it is possible and desirable to eliminate taxation too, so that the only anti-government use of force is in maintaining the state's monopoly.

        So-called libertarian "anarchists" take the final step of arguing that forcing the monopoly is unnecessary and undesirable and unjust, and that government can be provided (and perhaps would be better provided) via voluntary human interaction. It is thought that when the monopoly is no longer forced, that most or all of the functions of government would be available from a multitude of providers, often in a competitive market.

        Comment


        • #19
          Joel nailed it
          The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • #20
            Bravo, Joel! I cannot recall any such praise from Darth Xena of my Tweb posts.

            I have challenged statists to show that indeed the state makes the world better overall, or can. So far no response comes up to the level of Joel's defense of anarchism.

            I would be for a state if we can or should expect it to indeed make the world better than the no-state alternative world (theoretical only--may never actually exist in our lifetimes).

            I recall that some people were advocating for self-governance years ago. Voluntarily follow rules such as the NAP or the Golden Rule. Indeed for anarchism to come about in a great significant way, the world does have to attain a high degree of self-governance. Something wide-world like "love your neighbor as yourself."

            Who could be against that--the Thinker?
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • #21
              Truthseeker - I wasn't a libertarian anarchist when I was here before and thought the idea was (well I don't know if I am allowed to say this word) bat guano crazy.

              I don't care if a state can be shown to make the world better (which by itself is a utilitarian argument which I reject) - I can make my life better right now by all kinds of rights-violating things.

              I hold to Nozickian side constraints and thus rights are absolute boundaries to any potential solutions.
              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

              sigpic

              Comment


              • #22
                all I can say is if Truthseeker is for Libertarianism, then I am agin' it!


                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  all I can say is if Truthseeker is for Libertarianism, then I am agin' it!

                  That is queer. I am for the Golden Rule, therefore Sparko is agin' it! TWeb--phew!
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                    I don't care if a state can be shown to make the world better (which by itself is a utilitarian argument which I reject) - I can make my life better right now by all kinds of rights-violating things.

                    I hold to Nozickian side constraints and thus rights are absolute boundaries to any potential solutions.
                    Actually, it is a challenge to statists to show why we should think their preferred kind of state would do more good than bad. So far nobody has risen to it. Sparko, for one.

                    If the State makes a mistake or does more bad than good, how would we know?
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I am curious about Sparko's preferences. Which would he choose,
                      1) a world in which everyone is a good Christian or behaves like one but no state (purely a human creature) exists anywhere and
                      2) the world in which there is one state and it is essentially the same kind as the best state in today's actual world but many people are not Christian?


                      Is another question OK? Would you, Sparko, agree that the more Christian the people of the world are, it tends to be closer to the Christian ideal?


                      Yet one more question? The more that the people of the world follow the NAP, the better the world becomes? [Note that the question didn't say anything about any state.]
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        I am curious about Sparko's preferences. Which would he choose,
                        1) a world in which everyone is a good Christian or behaves like one but no state (purely a human creature) exists anywhere and
                        2) the world in which there is one state and it is essentially the same kind as the best state in today's actual world but many people are not Christian?


                        Is another question OK? Would you, Sparko, agree that the more Christian the people of the world are, it tends to be closer to the Christian ideal?


                        Yet one more question? The more that the people of the world follow the NAP, the better the world becomes? [Note that the question didn't say anything about any state.]
                        the problem is that #1 ain't gonna happen till Jesus comes back, and then God will be the "state" so still no "libertairian" utopia. sorry

                        #2 cant happen either. but it is closer to reality as it exists now in the USA and western countries.

                        what's the NAP?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          the problem is that #1 ain't gonna happen till Jesus comes back, and then God will be the "state" so still no "libertairian" utopia. sorry

                          #2 cant happen either. but it is closer to reality as it exists now in the USA and western countries.

                          what's the NAP?
                          Non-aggression principle IIRC.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Ah ok
                            The problem I see with libertarianism and the NAP is that it is an ideal that will never happen because if human nature

                            It is a nice dream but will and can never be reality in this current world

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Ah ok
                              The problem I see with libertarianism and the NAP is that it is an ideal that will never happen because if human nature

                              It is a nice dream but will and can never be reality in this current world
                              Pretty much how I see things as well.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                question for truthseeker:

                                assuming we could convince everyone in the USA to become Libertarian, disband the State, and live entirely by Libertarian principals. No state, no taxes, no army, no government. What would happen to the USA in say 10 years?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X