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

[Darth Xena]

I am going to run now... slammed with work.

Live free.

[Carrikature]

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.

It's admittedly easier for some of us to sleep at night where legitimizing force and rights violations are concerned when we don't accept rights as things. And you thought you were in a minority!

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.

Sure. I took it as fun and not as something super serious. It was an interesting quiz, and there are a few questions I'd have to revisit and delve into more deeply.

[Truthseeker]

I <snip> still not be convinced that unregulated humans are any better.

By "unregulated humans" you mean, I think, people who are not subjects of any state. But I am not sure what you would think about people who uphold the NAP. Some of the people who govern themselves.

Certainly if the world is full of people who only live for No. 1--themselves--then life may indeed be hellish or desperate. Hmm. . . there are states just about all around the world, yet millions endure desperate lives.

[Carrikature]

By "unregulated humans" you mean, I think, people who are not subjects of any state. But I am not sure what you would think about people who uphold the NAP. Some of the people who govern themselves.

Certainly if the world is full of people who only live for No. 1--themselves--then life may indeed be hellish or desperate. Hmm. . . there are states just about all around the world, yet millions endure desperate lives.

It's more than not being a subject of a state. It's a question of limitations placed on what claims can be made. Minarchism, so far as I understand it, at least calls for government to prevent things like fraud, theft, or force (to name a few) and also to enforce contracts. Perhaps somewhat ironically, I think this is exactly what our government does (though certainly not all it does). More to the point, I don't think people realize just how big of a system it takes to actually do that. How does one expect to prevent force without a military, or prevent theft without a crime prevention system? How does one expect to enforce contracts without a system to determine the specifics of contracts or to exact penalties for breaching those specifics? How does one expect to pay for any of those things without a system to collect and allocate funds?

I think that's ultimately how the State came to exist in the first place. Even a tyrannical ruler considered by all to be morally bankrupt still provides such things as protection from outside force and arbitration of conflicts (or contracts). I'm pretty sympathetic to arguments about restructuring or minimizing the State where it makes sense to do so, but I find the conclusions espoused to be naive at best. Full anarchism would usher in the very things its supporters wish to abolish. I don't worry in the least about a group of people who mostly want to be left alone and believe everyone should be left alone whenever possible. I worry about all the other people that have no such qualms or who can find a justification for whatever course of action they desire. Humans are really good at rationalization. I don't have to say that everyone lives only for themselves, nor do I think that to be true. I just have to point to obvious historical examples of people who already try to bend the rules however they can and then hypothesize how things will look if there's nothing to stop them. Might doesn't make right, but it gets its way all the same.

[Bill the Cat]

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.

It seems to me to be basic human response. A "state" to me is the inevitable result of any attempt to coexist. Differences of opinion need to be addressed in many cases, and equal say simply doesn't work. Someone has to be the final word. And human nature will always violate something, whether it be rights or privileges, because not everyone thinks or prioritizes alike.

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

But the problem comes in when a larger or stronger group who does not share that idealism, and wants what you have. Do you just roll over and let them take it? How do you defend what is yours when cooperation is not an agreed upon concept between two conflicting entities of dissimilar power? In other words, how do you defend your lack of state from being overrun? Without someone ultimately making decisions for the group, how do you solve impasses?

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.

I'm sure. And there are so many angles with which to probe them too, as my reply above minimally demonstrated.

But if violating rights is not an option, the state is not an option.

But how do you determine when one right is more important than another? Is there a right to privacy in your view?

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).

Best? No, I don't think it is. Most practical for the vast differences in attitudes and priorities? Absolutely.

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.

And I don't have a problem with that. See my sig block below on the necessity of strictly defining sin.

Once you accept the state, you really have zero grounds to object to the progressive agenda.

Depends on which part of their agenda you are referring to.

(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)

I try not to narrowly label myself like that. Life is far more nuanced than a simple "conservative" or "liberal" tag can convey. Like I said on the questionnaire, I hate binary thinking. I'm more for practical solutions than theoretical (or partisan for that matter) pipe dreams. As Hugh McKay said "life is messy... people are irrational".

[Darth Xena]

[Truthseeker]

It's more than not being a subject of a state. It's a question of limitations placed on what claims can be made. <snip> More to the point, I don't think people realize just how big of a system it takes to actually do that. How does one expect to prevent force without a military, or prevent theft without a crime prevention system? How does one expect to enforce contracts without a system to determine the specifics of contracts or to exact penalties for breaching those specifics? How does one expect to pay for any of those things without a system to collect and allocate funds?

Have you not observed that there are many volunteer firemen in the United States? Many arbitrators and mediators do work outside the State to resolve contract disputes. Maybe you never heard of Dog the Bounty Hunter, which ran on TV for years as a reality show. Private eyes? Why do you [I]assume[/] that national defense or the like is impossible without the State? To be consistent you would have to claim that the American Revolution and the French Revolution were failures, the State trounced the rebels both times. To be sure, most revolutions need leaders; here a question comes up: What precise definition of the State can we agree on? Should we count rebel leaders as parts of some state?

I'm pretty sympathetic to arguments about restructuring or minimizing the State where it makes sense to do so, but I find the conclusions espoused to be naive at best. Full anarchism would usher in the very things its supporters wish to abolish. I don't worry in the least about a group of people who mostly want to be left alone and believe everyone should be left alone whenever possible. I worry about all the other people that have no such qualms or who can find a justification for whatever course of action they desire. Humans are really good at rationalization. I don't have to say that everyone lives only for themselves, nor do I think that to be true. I just have to point to obvious historical examples of people who already try to bend the rules however they can and then hypothesize how things will look if there's nothing to stop them. Might doesn't make right, but it gets its way all the same.

What about the Holocaust? And after Russia turned the tide around against the Nazi forces (some time after the Battle of Stalingrad), it seemed to be Russian government policy for their armed forces to rape women all the way to Berlin. Won't you please pick out any state in the world and show

[Bill the Cat]

Awesome! I do pray for you frequently.

So you give one group the power to violently oppress another. There will always be conflict, the question is if (on many grounds) the state is best way to do it. Since I believe in the inviolability of individual rights, I do not. As mentioned in the earlier comment, a strictly utilitarian argument can be made as well.

The way I see it, either we give power or power is taken. I'd rather have SOME say on who has it.

Possible solutions were discussed in the links.

I will watch them when I get some spare time. Like you, real life is pretty hectic.

Right now we have just agreed to let a state violently oppress us.

I don't think "violently" is a good term to use. I've been to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Now THOSE are some violent states.

It's the level of stealing (I don't think that term is helpful either, but ) that I am concerned with. I'd again rather have minimal say in where my money goes than none. And our current state is honestly the only thing keeping us from having everything taken.

Rights do not conflict so there is no need to do that, unless you are speaking of proportional response. But since only negative rights are enforceable, there is no conflict. Is there a right to privacy? Strictly speaking no. There is a right to property which carries with it the right to control your property which could entail privacy. And since part of your property is your body etc I would say it is a property right.

So, is it wrong to protect those who wish to harm themselves? Is there a "for their own good" type of idea?

I am thinking of things like surveillance. If someone is a suspect, I think that it is well within the state's right to investigate them, regardless of their right to privacy.

It's about having hard and fast definitions, so that it doesn't become about preferences. Because then, it becomes a matter of whose preference wins out.

Most of what gets argued about here. Socialized medicine would be one I suppose.

I don't have a problem with minimal socialization of medicine, like Medicaid, as long as we can pay for it, and it isn't being abused. My dad is on it, and my mom was too before she passed this last February. I have no issue with them getting government insurance because they both worked and paid into the system. I have no issue with the VA for our veterans. I do have an issue with forced across the board socialization of medicine.

You have 999 posts. You can make one more!!

[Darth Xena]

You talked me into making one more.

Awesome! I do pray for you frequently.

gracias



==The way I see it, either we give power or power is taken. I'd rather have SOME say on who has it.===

At the expense of those who don't agree.... and I would say our "say" is an illusion but that is a different topic.

==I will watch them when I get some spare time. Like you, real life is pretty hectic.===

Understandable.



==I don't think "violently" is a good term to use. I've been to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Now THOSE are some violent states. ===

Just because there are more and less violent ones doesn't make violence not violent. If you don't submit to the state here, you will see its naked power.


==
It's the level of stealing (I don't think that term is helpful either, but ) that I am concerned with. I'd again rather have minimal say in where my money goes than none. And our current state is honestly the only thing keeping us from having everything taken. ===

At the expense of those who do not wish to have their money taken. Or used certain ways. Such as funding Planned Parenthood and aggressive wars.

==So, is it wrong to protect those who wish to harm themselves? Is there a "for their own good" type of idea?==

For a competent person? No. I have every right to harm myself.

==I am thinking of things like surveillance. If someone is a suspect, I think that it is well within the state's right to investigate them, regardless of their right to privacy.==

With the potential for abuse, as we have seen, depending on what kind of surveillance you are talking about I disagree. I don't sacrifice freedom.


==
It's about having hard and fast definitions, so that it doesn't become about preferences. Because then, it becomes a matter of whose preference wins out.==

Still not about "sin" though. But okay... rabbit trail.


==
I don't have a problem with minimal socialization of medicine, like Medicaid, as long as we can pay for it===

Who is this "we" you speak of? Not everyone agrees and forcibly taking the fruits of the labour of others is wrong, no matter how noble the purpose.

==
, and it isn't being abused. My dad is on it, and my mom was too before she passed this last February. I have no issue with them getting government insurance because they both worked and paid into the system. I have no issue with the VA for our veterans. I do have an issue with forced across the board socialization of medicine.==


I think once you accept it partially, you have no grounds to reject the entire cow.

I made the 1000 now. Happy:)

[Carrikature]

Have you not observed that there are many volunteer firemen in the United States? Many arbitrators and mediators do work outside the State to resolve contract disputes. Maybe you never heard of Dog the Bounty Hunter, which ran on TV for years as a reality show. Private eyes?

Many members of my wife's family have been volunteer firemen. You don't grow up in the country and not know about volunteer firemen. Do arbitrators and mediators work outside the State? Of course they do. The question is whether or not the terms they're debating can be enforced in any meaningful way. I maintain they cannot under the paradigm presented. (It's worth noting, though, that I don't speak of the State as only government employees. Private citizens providing services still do so under terms enforced by government standards.)

Why do you assume that national defense or the like is impossible without the State?

Because of the amount of power and level of organization required to be effective. We have some good present day and recent history examples of places that don't have enough power or organization. There's a country currently split into pieces thanks to no one having enough power. On top of that, too little power pushes you into being a proxy (which would just be a veiled violation of rights).

To be consistent you would have to claim that the American Revolution and the French Revolution were failures, the State trounced the rebels both times.

Which French revolution? There were several. Most of them failed. It's arguable whether or not the last one was terribly effective given that it ended up in a dictatorship. The American Revolution held in part because of foreign aid and the fact that other countries jumped into the fight. Then we had another war shortly after that which we also won (nearly lost) thanks in part to the UK fighting in other areas. Do you think that a nation with one of (if not THE) the largest empires in history would have a problem putting down the thirteen colonies if they didn't have bigger fish to fry a lot closer to home?

To be sure, most revolutions need leaders; here a question comes up: What precise definition of the State can we agree on? Should we count rebel leaders as parts of some state?

"A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government." Thank you Oxford. Simple stuff. I definitely think rebel leaders qualify, for all that their sovereignty is seldom officially recognized by other governments.

What about the Holocaust? And after Russia turned the tide around against the Nazi forces (some time after the Battle of Stalingrad), it seemed to be Russian government policy for their armed forces to rape women all the way to Berlin.

What about them? Nothing about a state guarantees good behavior. There can be good states and bad states, but the existence of a bad state doesn't have to lead to "no state" as a response.

Won't you please pick out any state in the world and show

At no point have I made a claim that governments are necessarily good. There are good pieces and there are bad pieces. The US government doesn't smell of roses, but I can generally count on having a home tomorrow and food that hasn't been stolen by the military. I'm healthy, my family is healthy, and if we get sick I know where to go to get better and I can expect them to have the materials to help. The power stays on 99.9% of the time, and I can freely argue about whether or not the government is a menace without fear of disappearing with a black hood over my face. That's a darn sight better than a lot of people have it today.

[Carrikature]

==So, is it wrong to protect those who wish to harm themselves? Is there a "for their own good" type of idea?==

For a competent person? No. I have every right to harm myself.

I wonder if a person who wishes to harm themselves can truly be considered competent.

[Truthseeker]

At no point have I made a claim that governments are necessarily good. There are good pieces and there are bad pieces. The US government doesn't smell of roses, but I can generally count on having a home tomorrow and food that hasn't been stolen by the military. I'm healthy, my family is healthy, and if we get sick I know where to go to get better and I can expect them to have the materials to help. The power stays on 99.9% of the time, and I can freely argue about whether or not the government is a menace without fear of disappearing with a black hood over my face. That's a darn sight better than a lot of people have it today.

Kudos for acknowledging that every state in the world today have bad "parts." Now, can you argue the "good parts" and then the bad side? Finally show that one side is greater than the other. Probably the USFG killed many innocent people. What worth are all those lives compared to the "good parts"? Less or greater? Why?

[Carrikature]

Kudos for acknowledging that every state in the world today have bad "parts." Now, can you argue the "good parts" and then the bad side? Finally show that one side is greater than the other. Probably the USFG killed many innocent people. What worth are all those lives compared to the "good parts"? Less or greater? Why?

You crack me up. You're not a professor that gets to assign me homework. I'm not going to waste my time on a pointless endeavor. Good and bad are dependent on values and goals. There are broad similarities across most people, but there's enough variance that different people will weigh the same aspect differently. My argument is not dependent on good or bad. My argument is that the proposed mechanism (no government) is less effective at achieving the stated goals (primarily, eliminating rights violations) than the current state of affairs. I have no contention with proposals of minarchy except to point out that a minimal government is in truth much larger than people are wont to believe.

[Truthseeker]

You crack me up. You're not a professor that gets to assign me homework. I'm not going to waste my time on a pointless endeavor. Good and bad are dependent on values and goals. There are broad similarities across most people, but there's enough variance that different people will weigh the same aspect differently. My argument is not dependent on good or bad. My argument is that the proposed mechanism (no government) is less effective at achieving the stated goals (primarily, eliminating rights violations) than the current state of affairs. I have no contention with proposals of minarchy except to point out that a minimal government is in truth much larger than people are wont to believe.

You seem confused. Is it not good that the State refrain from violating the rights of its subjects? And can you name any national government in the world that does not frequently violate the rights of its subjects? I still think State violations as above should be considered bad.

[Carrikature]

You seem confused. Is it not good that the State refrain from violating the rights of its subjects? And can you name any national government in the world that does not frequently violate the rights of its subjects? I still think State violations as above should be considered bad.

'Good' is dependent on values and goals, as I said. Someone that highly values rights would consider violation of them to be bad. That same someone could place a higher value on security and consider rights violations in favor of security to be less than ideal but still an overall good. Someone else, like Darth Xena or you, might value human rights more than any other thing, in which case there is no sense in which a rights violation could be considered good.

In the context of "nothing which violates human rights can be considered good", the alternative presented is the abolishment of the state. My claim is that the abolishment of the state necessarily entails a higher number of rights violations than what the state itself performs. Jumping out of the frying pan sounds like a good idea until you realize that the only place to go is directly into the fire. At no point am I required to claim that the state never violates human rights or that violating those rights is a good thing.

So, is it good that the State refrain from violating the rights of its subjects? Most people would say yes. That doesn't prevent them from believing that sometimes it is a necessary evil to achieve other goals. When or if it's necessary is specific to a person. Personally, I have my own view on rights that I've touched on previously. I'm not going to get very far into them until the rest of this is understood, though. Not much point.