Commentary thread for "You might be a libertarian if�"

[Carrikature]

I just feel that libertarianism is a pipe dream. IF, and that is a big IF, everyone was honest and caring about their neighbors and wanted to contribute to society, it might work. But as human nature truly is, without a government and laws and police, the strong would overtake the weak. You really would end up with a Mad Max type society. Sure the state can take it too far, and become the subjugator themselves and control the people for it's own warped needs. You need something in between, balancing government and personal freedoms. I think overall, the US government is pretty close to that. A bit on the controlling side perhaps. But closer than any other governments out there.

I have to say, we're in complete agreement here. In an earlier time where technology didn't allow proliferation of misinformation nearly beyond the ability for any person or group of people to respond to it, I might be able to get further behind de-regulation. The "robber baron monopoly" that DX dismisses as myth has too many historical examples for me.

My score on the quiz? 26. I personally subscribe to some form of Social Contract Theory, though I readily admit that we don't possess the true freedom of mobility necessary to claim that participation is truly voluntary. Too many of the questions on the quiz come down to an all or nothing option in which case I'll generally fall on the side of "could use fixing but abolition is silly".

[Andius]

122 is pretty high. Higher than most of my LP friends. Higher than I got when I first took it. I was pretty solid around 90

Really? Fascinating. Although I have drifted away from Libertarian orthodoxy, it still plays a key role in my form of thought (which I describe as confederalism).

[Darth Xena]

But how do you stop them if they are stronger than you without a state to assist?

I had a whole draft that got lost. But you are assuming you need a state to stop them and of course who stops the state which consistently and constantly violates rights.

People will form voluntary associations and there will be a market for such services. This already happens now. For good examples of this see:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...3587A8A0D83775

And for possible ways that such a system would work (and I submit there are ways we haven't thought of)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcyY1kCey4I

Now those are lengthy, because this simply isn't an answer to be given by soundbite on a forum. But one that a lot of people have put a lot of thought into. But if violating rights is not an option, the state is not an option. Unless one is utilitarian and believes the state to be the best in that ethical system (though I know many utilitarian anarchists... they believe that the state does the worst possible job anyways).

Which is why I find all of the conservative politicking funny. I read you guys... you are just a bunch of statists disagreeing on the right way to state. Once you accept the state, you really have zero grounds to object to the progressive agenda. (an argument can be made that accepting the minimal state would not do this....I don't have much of an issue with actual minarchists .... modern conservatives are not that)

[Darth Xena]

I have to say, we're in complete agreement here. In an earlier time where technology didn't allow proliferation of misinformation nearly beyond the ability for any person or group of people to respond to it, I might be able to get further behind de-regulation. The "robber baron monopoly" that DX dismisses as myth has too many historical examples for me.

Don't let myths stop you.

My score on the quiz? 26. I personally subscribe to some form of Social Contract Theory, though I readily admit that we don't possess the true freedom of mobility necessary to claim that participation is truly voluntary. Too many of the questions on the quiz come down to an all or nothing option in which case I'll generally fall on the side of "could use fixing but abolition is silly".

Since the presupposition of the quiz is all or nothing, that is just the nature of this particular quiz.

[Darth Xena]

Really? Fascinating. Although I have drifted away from Libertarian orthodoxy, it still plays a key role in my form of thought (which I describe as confederalism).

Yeah, and I was considered a hotheaded radical then. Of course now.... well.

[Darth Xena]

I think "state" should be a bad word.

So why don't you take your anarchy and get the state outta here!

11224062_10156862499095377_2970824785290807438_o.jpg

[Truthseeker]

For some reason, perhaps an overwhelming desire to win the argument, Sparko contrasts the state case with the stateless case in which the people are worse overall than even today's world people.

A fair argument would have the two peoples--today's people versus the NAP crowd--to be somewhat alike except for a crucial difference explained now. I envision that NAP upholders form a "critical mass" in the world people. The "critical mass" would have just enough power to enforce the NAP against the rest of the people (call them the remnant). The remnant would still have the right to form governments that they prefer. The "critical mass" people, on the other hand, would have the NAP upheld so that those governments "leave the critical mass alone" and make the subjects of the respective governments do so likewise when necessary.

Well, sure, that NAP advocates could ever come in the world to wield a critical mass of power is probably far out of reach. However, the closer the world comes to the NAP ideal, the better the world would tend to be.

Another assumption Sparko made is that the state will do more good than bad. Why? Can he look out at the world and decide which of those states there do or does more good than bad? Can he justify his selections?

[Darth Xena]

If I disappear... really really busy and was just checking back in. Not into debate forums any longer. Have a town council meeting to go (like to let the state know we exist) and then an anarchy meeting tomorrow.... and generally just a ton of local stuff. Which is precisely why I left forums... though I thought it would be local ministry. God has a large sense of humour.

[Andius]

Yeah, and I was considered a hotheaded radical then. Of course now.... well.

And thus your dark path to moderatehood commenced.... muarhahhaaaah. (I just made up those words on the fly, heheheheh).

I for one, will always support any propositions that will increase voluntary acts and associations for citizenry though. I likes me a cup of voluntarism and contractualism.

[Darth Xena]

For some reason, perhaps an overwhelming desire to win the argument, Sparko contrasts the state case with the stateless case in which the people are worse overall than even today's world people.

The Stockholm Syndrome is strong today.

A fair argument would have the two peoples--today's people versus the NAP crowd--to be somewhat alike except for a crucial difference explained now. I envision that NAP upholders form a "critical mass" in the world people. The "critical mass" would have just enough power to enforce the NAP against the rest of the people (call them the remnant). The remnant would still have the right to form governments that they prefer. The "critical mass" people, on the other hand, would have the NAP upheld so that those governments "leave the critical mass alone" and make the subjects of the respective governments do so likewise when necessary.

This idea has been batted around on IPR quite a bit.(www.independentpoliticalreport.com)

Well, sure, that NAP advocates could ever come in the world to wield a critical mass of power is probably far out of reach. However, the more and closer the world comes to the NAP ideal, the better the world would tend to be.

We once thought we couldn't exist without chattel slavery.

Another assumption Sparko made is that the state will do more good than bad. Why? Can he look out at the world and decide which of those states there do or does more good than bad? Can he justify his selections?

That is the biggest fallacy indeed. States have been the worst perpetrators of evil in history.

This is how I feel about that argument..... and the circle... goes round and round

12227709_10156876264380377_615673707470315923_n.jpg

[Darth Xena]

And thus your dark path to moderatehood commenced.... muarhahhaaaah. (I just made up those words on the fly, heheheheh).

I for one, will always support any propositions that will increase voluntary acts and associations for citizenry though. I likes me a cup of voluntarism and contractualism.

Basically that is my political philosophy. Which is why I am politically active. Philosophically anarchist... politically reductionist.

[Carrikature]

Don't let myths stop you.

Perhaps there's some crossed lines regarding what qualifies. The thing that first and foremost comes to mind is the company town. This is what I understood lao to be referencing in the debate thread. I've been through some long abandoned company towns. They're pretty interesting. On a related side note, I've long been convinced that the way humans stay in space is through mining corporations. Weyland-Yutani is a perfect example of the company town on steroids and growth hormones.

I've little doubt that any given company will latch onto whatever subsidies and loopholes it can find to minimize overhead and maximize profits. I've yet to be convinced that eliminating the remaining restrictions would serve to slow those companies down in any meaningful way. "Let market forces prevail!" is the cry, yet supporters run perilously close to No True Scotsman by repeated insistences that we've never seen such a thing whenever criticisms or objections are made. If we've never seen such a thing, how do you know that it works? How many ideals have fallen to reality? All of them. Why should this be any different? Should we risk it? I'll be the first to advocate sawing on the reigns for all we're worth on this stagecoach of a government system, but I'm not willing to abandon ship just yet.

Since the presupposition of the quiz is all or nothing, that is just the nature of this particular quiz.

I recognized it as such and felt the need to clarify my position somewhat. I'm going to look pretty liberal to an all or nothing quiz, but I'm not anywhere close to that.

[Carrikature]

States have been the worst perpetrators of evil in history.

I could get behind this statement 100% and still not be convinced that unregulated humans are any better (in part because the State is made up of people, as your image so accurately shows).

[Darth Xena]

Perhaps there's some crossed lines regarding what qualifies. The thing that first and foremost comes to mind is the company town. This is what I understood lao to be referencing in the debate thread. I've been through some long abandoned company towns. They're pretty interesting. On a related side note, I've long been convinced that the way humans stay in space is through mining corporations. Weyland-Yutani is a perfect example of the company town on steroids and growth hormones.

I've little doubt that any given company will latch onto whatever subsidies and loopholes it can find to minimize overhead and maximize profits. I've yet to be convinced that eliminating the remaining restrictions would serve to slow those companies down in any meaningful way. "Let market forces prevail!" is the cry, yet supporters run perilously close to No True Scotsman by repeated insistences that we've never seen such a thing whenever criticisms or objections are made. If we've never seen such a thing, how do you know that it works? How many ideals have fallen to reality? All of them. Why should this be any different? Should we risk it? I'll be the first to advocate sawing on the reigns for all we're worth on this stagecoach of a government system, but I'm not willing to abandon ship just yet.

The state has utterly failed, so I am willing to try something new. And I don't believe in legitimizing force and rights violations. But I have no issue working with others in a reductionist capacity. Stateless doesn't offer perfection... pointing to potential problems is simply reality. But I know what has failed and that is the state.

I recognized it as such and felt the need to clarify my position somewhat. I'm going to look pretty liberal to an all or nothing quiz, but I'm not anywhere close to that.

I think that is why it also gives pretty solid libertarian cred to fairly low scores. But it is just for fun. It is good at identifying libertarian radicals.. which I think was his primary goal.

[Darth Xena]

I could get behind this statement 100% and still not be convinced that unregulated humans are any better (in part because the State is made up of people, as your image so accurately shows).

The same inherent rights violations would not be there, which already makes it "better." And giving legitimized control over the rights of others is de facto worse from an individual standpoint. You couldn't get behind that 100% because the state is *more* than people. It is people who are given legitimized authority to coercive and with a monopoly on rights enforcement.