[MMX2010]

(04-29-2016 02:32 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

You'd be surprised how corporations and the government actually interact:

It is irrelevant the degree to which corporations and government interact.

It is relevant that, when corporations fuck up and many people get hurt, no people say, "You know what? Let's fix this once and for all by getting rid of the government."

Quote:

Unsafe food is ultimately a contract violation and doesn't need an FDA. Competing standards bureaus would be superior to one government bureau because of simple logic -- if you have one car company will cars be better or worse than multiple competing car companies? Same applies for standards rating agencies who can publicly attack each others records in the marketplace.

Competing standards rating agencies isn't an argument for no government, but rather for more government. The majority of people who heard your argument would think you want a large number of competing government agencies, rather than one large, colluding government agency.

Quote:

Child 'exploitation' is vague. As the do-gooders who actually go into 3rd world countries and shut down sweatshops will know -- it's awful effective at making child prostitutes.

Discussing child prostitution in third world countries is a horribly ineffective way of convincing American people to get rid of their government.

You need to focus. A lot.

[Phoenix]

(04-29-2016 02:29 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

2. Complaining about the current system isn't the same thing as providing a new, better one.

Sure, but it is the first step in getting there. Democracy is a big part of the problem. Under monarchy there's only one ruler versus the whole country -- and they got killed when they overstepped the line. In democracy everyone thinks they can impose their will on others. I'm having a terrible time trying to extract research from the internet, but I'd like to see tax percentages now versus in the past.

[Phoenix]

(04-29-2016 02:39 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 02:32 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

You'd be surprised how corporations and the government actually interact:

It is irrelevant the degree to which corporations and government interact.

It is relevant that, when corporations fuck up and many people get hurt, no people say, "You know what? Let's fix this once and for all by getting rid of the government."

Quote:

Unsafe food is ultimately a contract violation and doesn't need an FDA. Competing standards bureaus would be superior to one government bureau because of simple logic -- if you have one car company will cars be better or worse than multiple competing car companies? Same applies for standards rating agencies who can publicly attack each others records in the marketplace.

Competing standards rating agencies isn't an argument for no government, but rather for more government. The majority of people who heard your argument would think you want a large number of competing government agencies, rather than one large, colluding government agency.

Quote:

Child 'exploitation' is vague. As the do-gooders who actually go into 3rd world countries and shut down sweatshops will know -- it's awful effective at making child prostitutes.

Discussing child prostitution in third world countries is a horribly ineffective way of convincing American people to get rid of their government.

You need to focus. A lot.

I'm sorry but none of this makes any connective sense. Simply none of it makes any sense at all. I'm not even sure if this is a disagreement.

[MMX2010]

(04-29-2016 02:50 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Sure, but it is the first step in getting there.

Not true.

"First step in getting there" arguments work best in things that have already happened repeatedly.

What's the first step in learning to ride a bike? I don't know, but the question itself is sensible, and most people will give you honest answers.

What's the first step in getting a child to grow to a height of thirteen feet? I've no idea, but since no one has ever seen a thirteen foot tall person, the question seems stupid.

Given that no modern society has ever been libertarian in the way you define it, your argument sounds like you're trying to create a thirteen foot tall human being.

-------------

EDantes, one of the prevailing personality flaws among libertarians is their contempt for the average person. This contempt means they don't hang out with average people often enough to know how they come across to average people.

I'm lucky that my job requires me to provide educational services to average people. Not only does this make me appreciate how hard it is to do so, but it also gives me an affinity for them.

[hydrogonian]

I don't subscribe to the view that political orientation is defined through economic philosophy. I believe that it is wholly defined through social philosophy.

This view has the potential to open a can of worms that will derail the thread. So, at this point I'm going to state that I won't engage in a further discussion beyond what I write here to avoid that. I invite anyone to pm me if they want to discuss further.

In short:

I believe that economic policy is a flexible and easily adjustable tool that does not work to consolidate political power in a long term meaningful manner for a specific cohesive group, as a primary mechanism. It follows that neither does it create meaningful cohesion. Thus, it can not define political orientation. It is used as a flexible tool toward achieving the interests of the political group that is joined together through stronger political ties than economic class provides.

An atomized individual is not a political group, nor does he have significant political power that only comes when two or more people cooperate, and thus he can not defend himself against legitimately powerful political groups (everything from exploitation to death).

Furthermore, observationally, it's the rare few individuals that are more economically and politically powerful than significant groups. The Warren Buffets of the world do not politically justify libertarianism.

Communism is socially individualistic
*the eradication of cultural and familial ties with a fake front of politically ineffectual economic ties to replace this cultural and ethnic political instinct.

Libertarianism is socially individualistic.
Liberalism is socially individualistic.

These political positions are all in the same political category insofar as practical politics is concerned. They all have similar social policy, and they are all equally politically ineffectual by design.

Last, libertarianism's ideal that you will be an atomized individual without State competition (everything from a militia acting as the State to a large government) is as fantasy oriented as communism's ideal that the State will dissolve in the future. See the common theme? In the instance of libertarianism, groups of people will always form coalitions to exploit, control, or destroy the libertarian. The only way he can block it is to create a political group (with an army) of his own, and give up his social atomization. Similarly, the State in communist theory will always exist to prevent the formation of stronger and more politically legitimate competing groups that would form to take the resources of the politically weaker workers collective (because, remember, economic ties do not create significant political power).

[armenia4ever]

I'm still somewhat of a libertarian, but I moved more toward the alt-right these days, because of one simple fact; you can't have freedom without stopping those who want to restrict your freedoms. If your opponents use mustard gas, and you don't, they will be left and you will be gone. You need mutually assured destruction when dealing with people who won't fight fair.

Libertarianism offers some good options, but I think it may fail to account for human nature and how purposeful it is when it needs to be. I'm all for the privatization of quite a few things, but lets not pretend like those who do the privatization are monks forming child hunger charities. Imagine private roads. They do exist in some places. But who controls them? Eventually, a collective has to be formed, and there is where the tribalism begins.

What forces a group of people - once they have quite a bit of collective power - to allow anyone else access to that power?

Principles go out the window once push comes to shove. If your statist opponents are shoving you, its best to shove back and shove back hard. We do need a push back against the growing police state and a government which has become too powerful, but lets not forget who makes up that government - humans. This is where libertarians are too idealistic. Not everyone will play by the rules, in fact a good majority wont, and that majority will seize power, doing away with the earlier freedoms that would have existed in a libertarian system. Essentially, it falls prey to deliberate exploitation from nefarious individuals that will form their own collectives.

If you put down your flame thrower because you don't want to enforce your moral code are the neighboring village, they will not hesitate to jump on your lowered weapons. Human nature, I say.

[captain_shane]

Quote:

No, because your post isn't well-constructed.

1. Your position is the extreme minority political opinion. Thus, in order to get what you want, politically, you have to convince a lot of people who disagree with you, to agree with you. Laughing snarkily at someone who disagrees with you is effective when you're in the majority, or when you've already won, or when you know you're going to win tomorrow. Otherwise, laughing snarkily is ineffective and childish.

No, I'm laughing at your child like naivety.

Quote:

2. Complaining about the current system isn't the same thing as providing a new, better one.

I'm talking about removing the system. I don't want a new one.

Quote:

3. Complaining about the system is irrelevant to my argument that the system itself, (indeed, any form of government), is inevitable. Complaining about something that exists, which I believe to be inevitable, validates my argument.

How does complaining about something that you see as inevitable validate your argument? This makes zero sense.

Quote:

4. Lastly, and most importantly, libertarianism rests entirely upon the guiding hand of "the free market". The majority of people define "the free market" as "a force which exists to maximize profits". The majority of people are quite unintelligent, but they already know that corporate crime exists, and that the major motivation to commit corporate crime was "to maximize profits".

What? No, the free market is the free exchange of goods and services between entities. Not a force to maximize profits. I don't know where you got that.

Quote:

NO ONE witnesses major corporate crime and thinks, "You know what? Let's eliminate corporate crime by getting rid of the government."

Of course you wouldn't say that, you would say we need more government control to make sure the government is acting in our interests.

Your argument, from I can tell (which is difficult) is that the government is there to help people, and it's impossible to remove the government from our lives, it's inevitable.

[MMX2010]

Armenia forever did a nice job of summarizing my argument, even though that isn't what he intended to do.

It only takes one human being to turn a free market business into one that needs government assistance (court system, not welfare) to define its existence.

A business with one cheating asshole and one libertarian is identical to a business with one cheating asshole and two hundred libertarians. Both require the existence of the state to persist, because the cheating asshole tries to steal the business for himself, requiring the courts to respond to the inevitable lawsuit.

[Delta]

Centurion Wrote:

No evidence government courts are superior to non government courts. The "law of the land" would be NAP(and the standard criminals are judged against).

What does NAP stand for?

Centurion Wrote:

Predators don't stop existing in government.

But the power of predatory litigation is limited with government courts, because they are sworn to uphold agreed upon standards known as "laws."

Manufacturing a baseless lawsuit and taking it to a government court will, in all but extreme circumstances, result in you losing.

Manufacturing a baseless dispute in anarchotopia and bringing it to a private "court company" you're in cahoots with would be an incredibly easy way to extort money from people whose private protection force isn't as powerful as your private debt collection force. In fact, you could just skip over the lawsuit part and hire goons to rob people with no repercussions, as long as you get the best goons available.

Centurion Wrote:

Not necessarily no military, just that it would be voluntarily funded.

Are you familiar with the concepts of "public goods" and the "free rider problem"?

Centurion Wrote:

No evidence that charity is less efficient than government, so it becomes a moral argument for/against theft and ends justify the means etc.

Right on the latter point, but I never implied private charity is less efficient, only that it's liable to run out of funding and have people dying in the streets.

[MMX2010]

Shane,

You want everyone to agree that the world would be best if the most intelligent and powerful people could operate without supervision.

My argument is that the people will never go for that.

My other argument is that libertarians don't really want to win, meaning they don't want to try to convince a sufficient number of non-libertarians to become libertarians. If they were committed to this, they would realize how hard that task is, which would make them much more humble.

[captain_shane]

(04-29-2016 07:27 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Shane,

You want everyone to agree that the world would be best if the most intelligent and powerful people could operate without supervision.

My argument is that the people will never go for that.

My other argument is that libertarians don't really want to win, meaning they don't want to try to convince a sufficient number of non-libertarians to become libertarians. If they were committed to this, they would realize how hard that task is, which would make them much more humble.

No, I'm arguing that they already do.

[MMX2010]

No, they don't.

Food safety laws, child safety laws, and laws surrounding what is "science" all exist to curtail the most powerful.

[captain_shane]

There's obviously no arguing with you. Live in fairyland if you wish.

[MMX2010]

I'm not surprised that a libertarian cannot debate, and exits with ad hominem.

[captain_shane]

(04-29-2016 08:53 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

I'm not surprised that a libertarian cannot debate, and exits with ad hominem.

All you keep repeating is child labor laws, food safety laws. Phoenix and I already debunked you on these. I'm not going to waste my time with you when you can't point out how these keep people from gaining power.

[Phoenix]

I think we could make this into a constructive debate, if we can put down the desire to personally 'win' it.

Captain_shane, how can we get rid of the state? Is that not like wanting to get rid of gravity? There is a biological tendency for states to exist. That is: states are the stable state of man. I submit that the primary issue is how to constitute the best state (that which can protect individual rights the most and violate them the least). There is no known instance of an anarchocapitalist non-state surviving simply because it can't: loose commercial agreements cannot resist social hierarchy and command chains.

[Jean Valjean]

(04-29-2016 06:14 PM)Delta Wrote:  

Centurion Wrote:

Not necessarily no military, just that it would be voluntarily funded.

Are you familiar with the concepts of "public goods" and the "free rider problem"?

Those aren't always insurmountable problems. For example, the private sector produces firearms and the LoJack Stolen Vehicle Recovery System, both of which are to some degree public goods. My neighbor may keep a gun next to his bed and equip his car with LoJack so that he'll have some countermeasures in place against people who want to invade his home or steal his car, respectively. But both of these investments also benefit me, the guy who didn't bother to purchase this equipment, because criminals don't know who on this street has guns and LoJack, and who doesn't. My neighbor doesn't advertise that he has that stuff, and I don't advertise that I don't have it.

The same principle applies to other self-defense measures, such as karate; crooks don't know which guy they're planning to try to mug knows karate, and which doesn't. The crook's risk of getting his ass beat operates as a deterrent to trying to mug some random person who may or may not be a karate expert. I'm a free rider on the karate learned by others, but this doesn't deter people from investing in this public good.

Likewise, if private citizens were allowed to possess military-grade hardware without any paperwork, then an invading force could find it hard to predict where sniper fire or other guerrilla attacks might come from next, since there would be no way of knowing which households were in possession of these weapons. Some people buy this type of equipment because they find it fun (thus giving them an incentive to invest in the public good), but it would also come in handy during an attack by a foreign power. The success of John S. Mosby's battalion during the civil war demonstrated the superiority of partisan rangers over standard military forces.

A military is to some extent a public good, but I think if we had an all-volunteer military force, people would join for the same reasons that they join volunteer fire and rescue departments or become reserve deputy sheriffs. Certain people would find it exciting to be a part of a fighting force. If the military were doing good work (as opposed to launching unpopular and unnecessary wars overseas) then it would likely be a popular charity to donate to, and taxes would be unnecessary to support it.

A private military could also be funded using lottery proceeds. Benjamin Franklin notes in his autobiography, "I proposed a Lottery to defray the expense of building a battery below the town, and furnishing it with cannon. It filled expeditiously, and the battery was soon erected."

I think in the U.S., we would see a lot more private funding and volunteer labor going into the organizing of militias if being a member of a militia were looked upon as a matter of civic pride rather than as justifiable cause to put someone on a government watch list. The government needs to maintain its own standing army, though, while simultaneously discouraging the formation of private militias, in order to pursue an interventionist foreign policy and prevent disgruntled portions of the citizenry from seceding. If the U.S. were to adopt a purely defensive military posture and have a laissez-faire attitude toward secessionists, it could probably meet its needs with a much smaller military budget than we have now, as was proven by the fact that historically, federal taxes were much lower than they are now. The union did not break apart, though, as long as the ambitions of the federal government were relatively modest.

[El Chinito loco]

(04-28-2016 01:15 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Every time one of the members says, "All I want is to be left alone by the government!", I reply, "But that's not true. If that's all you wanted, you could have it tomorrow. Just move to the Alaskan wilderness and use your wealth to pay other people to work for you, and buy your food."

It pisses him off, and makes me laugh.

There's already a libertarian wonderland out there. It's called Somalia. Any person or group of people could theoretically move there and set up their own free nation and system within its "national" borders since the central authority is nearly non existant. Somalia is basically a piece of land with armed tribal groups in it surrounded by actual nations. Just be ready to defend your turf and fledgling economy against other armed groups willing to challenge your libertarian haven.

There's another possible "libertarian" haven that I thought of.. you know those mormon communities who live in parts of Mexico with pretty much zero government support and have to defend their turf against cartels and police their own? That too would be a proving ground for libertarian ideals as well. If a group can move down there and set up a side by side community and make it work in the most brutal environment then maybe it has some merit.

The ideas that most modern day libertarians put forth are not only childish but brutally unrealistic. Government is necessary. Most importantly government with checks and balances is what built the U.S.

Who will these libertarian types run to when people with guns are coming to take their shit at the end of the day? because that's the real world. Most libertarians make their arguments from the safety, ongoing protection, and confines of neighborhoods and a society created by people who formed an initial government to make it all happen.

Without these protections their asses would be picked off by any vicious hayseed willing to be more machiavellian than the next man.



By the way when someone outright has the arrogance to say that they are more "cultured" than you the proper response is in the above picture. Then you tell them "nice knowing ya" and walk out then never speak or have any further dealings with some tool like that ever again.

[LEMONed IScream]

The reductio ad Somalium is a pretty ignorant and recurring:

http://governmentdeniesknowledge.com/anarchist-somalia/ Just one article about it might suffice but I could get more....

[El Chinito loco]

(04-30-2016 09:12 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

The reductio ad Somalium is a pretty ignorant and recurring:

http://governmentdeniesknowledge.com/anarchist-somalia/ Just one article about it might suffice but I could get more....

Don't hit and run with articles. Defend assertions or points you want to make or don't even bother.

I read through it and in what way does that piece actually argue against Somalia being a largely stateless territory where people can go to set up their own system? It actually reinforces what I said in many ways.

It's still largely a region divided up with competing "systems." Just because one particular system (or tribe) that dominates one area has more people does not make it an official central authority or actual government over the entire territory when so much of the country is in disarray.

So much silliness in even the beginning paragraphs of that rebuttal.

Quote:

Somalia is one of, if not the most, anarchic regions in the world. Personally, I would argue that there are certain regions in South America, where the weak central government doesn’t hold much sway, that are more anarchic. There are similar regions in Southeast Asia and several other parts of the world. That being said, Somalia is considered the most prominent example.

Which areas in southeast asia are more anarchic? bullshit. Citation needed.

Quote:

Massive amounts of foreign intervention, as well as the ever looming “threat” of a government forming are primary reasons why Somalia cannot be considered truly anarchic. There have been more than a dozen “transitional” governments that have attempted to take control since 1991, but until recently, all had failed spectacularly. All the same, various clans would compete to take the reins of any potential new government. This was the main cause of the warfare and violence that plagued Somalia after the government’s collapse through the mid-90’s.

So..the reason why it can't remain an ideal anarchic territory is because it faces threats from outside intervention? Then wouldn't it by default be necessary for the people who want to live safely there to form a government in order to protect themselves from these threats. If libertarian (especially childish anarcho-capitalist extremes) ideals are so robust then couldn't a group or community survive this onslaught?

Quote:

Actually, conditions in Somalia improved considerably since the fall of the government, both in an absolute sense and relative to other African countries. No, this is not me living in some crazed libertarian fantasy world – Somalia is generally recognized to be in much better shape now than public perception would suggest. Consider this very reserved assessment from the CIA World Fact Book:

Then the article goes on to point out there's successful telecom set up and businesses in Mogadishu. Of course it glosses over going into detail that Mogadishu has all the hallmarks of being a city-state defended and run by its own central government and military. Mogadishu has essentially become a nation (city state) within a lawless territory. It is not proof by any means that anarchic type economic or social ideals can survive on their own.

[LEMONed IScream]

I am merely saying that Somalia has no an-cap nature. It is an anocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy You have the government and you have the warlords. The reductio ad Somalium makes as much sense as me saying to a person who supports the state to move to North Korea.

And you have an incorrect vision on an-cap. I actually prefer voluntaryism. An-cap is not necessarily anarchic, it is based on voluntary agreements. If you had a group of an-caps that wanted to form a "government" they all agreed with and decided to form a militia to defend themselves that would be perfectly legitimate. It is not necessarily an abscence of government itself, but of coercion.

[El Chinito loco]

(04-30-2016 10:27 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

I am merely saying that Somalia has no an-cap nature. It is an anocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy You have the government and you have the warlords. The reductio ad Somalium makes as much sense as me saying to a person who supports the state to move to North Korea.

The defined "government" does not control the territory as a whole. It's largely based in a city state.

Somalia is only considered a nation in the loosest of terms and mostly defined as such by the outside.

Nothing in that article you posted actually goes directly against what i'm saying. However it certainly makes a lot of preposterous conclusions about the validity of libertarian ideals based on cherry picked facts though. People who do want to set up a libertarian haven could indeed theoretically try and do it there. I get the feeling that the reasons why libertarians automatically get butthurt over this is because it is does poke visible holes in the entire ideology right away. None of them even want to try because they know they'd just get their asses handed to them and it wouldn't work to begin with.

You're also splitting hairs with definitions. Just because one group inside that territory controls one patch of land in one particular part doesn't mean the entire territory is suddenly redefined under the rules of that particular group. Whether parts of it are "anarcho capitalist" or a "anocracy" by your definition is irrelevant.

The fact is Somalia is a territory split between many different factions all with different and competing systems.

Quote:

And you have an incorrect vision on an-cap. I actually prefer voluntaryism. An-cap is not necessarily anarchic, it is based on voluntary agreements. If you had a group of an-caps that wanted to form a "government" they all agreed with and decided to form a militia to defend themselves that would be perfectly legitimate. It is not necessarily an abscence of government itself, but of coercion.

Call it what you want but you're really treading into no true scotsman type territory by moving definition goal posts ever so slightly here.

How exactly then would you live or suvive in a society without any type of coercion from or against any of the members who make up that society. It's unrealistic.

What happens then under anarchic capitalism or "voluntaryism" when the representatives in one group form agreements with another but then let's say many of the people in your group decide against it...what then? Do you just split off into smaller and smaller factions until it all falls apart and reforms again under another identity.

How would you realistically defend yourself when a larger group under a different system who doesn't give a flying fuck about your voluntaryism comes to take your shit? What happens if half of your group decides to cut and run and half decides to fight? Do you try and "negotiate" your way out of that then.

Like I said, these ideals are absurd when you start scutinizing it and unworkable in a real world environment where absent government the lawlessness and brutality of human nature is the norm.

It is also not a workable or coherent set of practical ideologies that can make a society function well especially not when it's competing against more organized and practical groups.

Having a life free from coercion from society or actual government is simply not possible under human nature.

[LEMONed IScream]

I've had this discussion so many times I should have a word-doc with ready made copy paste responses for it to be applied. I hold voluntaryism as the principle with most "truth" to it towards myself, which does not mean I would want that the US or anywhere else suddenly turned an-cap. That is not the point and it would be cohercion as well. As for closing the Somali issue, Somalia is not libertarian paradise.

"The Mises article in question, published in February 2006, leads off with a quotation from the CIA Factbook pointing out that despite the semblance of anarchy, Somalia had thriving telecommunications and informal banking sectors, with security provided by militias. In many ways, the article continues, Somalia was faring better than its neighbours, Kenya and Ethiopia, and better than it had before the fall of its central government in 1991. The bulk of the article discusses the systems of local, customary laws that preside over the purportedly lawless country. It concludes with the suggestion that inter-warlord fighting is actually caused by UN-supported efforts to impose a central government on the disparate local clans.

The Reason piece, published in December 2006, quotes from Benjamin Powell's Independent Institute study on Somalia, showing that the country compared quite favourably with 42 other African countries as measured by 13 different variables. It also compared favourably with its own situation prior to 1991. This short piece ends with a link to an earlier World Bank study that comes to similar conclusions.

Those wacky libertarians! Quoting the CIA Factbook and conducting studies that concur with the World Bank. What a lunatic fringe! And clearly, since we point out that relatively stateless Somalia has in many ways done better than its neighbours, and better than it did when it had more government, we must mean to disregard all of the developed world's hard-won victories of modern science, capital accumulation, and human rights. It follows that we should move to (or at least vacation in) a country that is part of a continent rife with superstition, famine, disease, and female genital mutilation. Now that's comparing apples to apples."

Even with its dysmal position and chaotic rating, the "stateless" parts of Somalia have actually done well in some metrics when compared to the corrupt government, keep in mind it's in AFRICA.


The problem is that you act as if an-cap is some sort of proposed Nirvana that will solve each and every problem in the world. It is not. Every single question you raised over there has precedence in statist contexts. The lazy umbrella term of human nature shows this even further. What would be more profitable to attack, an oil rich frail state or a tiny colony of 50-100 an-caps that are living their on their own terms? Whenever the issue arrives, people try to extract every single most "perfect" answer to an-cap, while never asking the same about the state because "that's just the way it is". As for the coercion within societies, there are ideas of security agencies and courts within an-cap context. You need to read a little bit more on what you're criticizing, because you are misrepresenting it.

I do not see an-cap as an idea for "everyone" it is certainly for a tiny fringe of individuals. So do not act as if I am proposing widespread application of such concepts. I would frankly be happy enough if I had the right of "secession" within the system. Simply not paying taxes and not "receiving" anything back from my country would make my "utopia" realized. It's not a messianic ideology, unlike others. You can criticize the system as a whole as much as you like but do not be the serf that criticizes those who do not want to be such.

[Phoenix]

I'd like to reiterate that this thread is focused basically on the central question, including the origin of this very forum, and I'd like to see a more idea-based debate. Everyone seems to be personally attacking the ideas of others. That means we're on to something. Let's dispassionately resolve the central question together: what is the proper form of social organization and why? We are floating around the inflection point here. This forum is, I believe, here to be constructive in this way. Let's do it.

[El Chinito loco]

(04-30-2016 11:38 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

I've had this discussion so many times I should have a word-doc with ready made copy paste responses for it to be applied. I hold voluntaryism as the principle with most "truth" to it towards myself, which does not mean I would want that the US or anywhere else suddenly turned an-cap. That is not the point and it would be cohercion as well. As for closing the Somali issue, Somalia is not libertarian paradise.

By default an ideology such as "voluntaryism" or other libertarian ideals involves other people. So you can't just contain it within your own individualistic belief system and leave it at that. If it doesn't involve other people then it's really not relevant as a broader agent of change in society. It's just a personal belief. I may or may not believe in space aliens too my question is how relevant is that to you or to society?

Somalia is a libertarian paradise in the sense that it's a big giant patch of lawless territory where libertarians can theoretically set up their dream system. The fact that libertarians complain about it not being "ideal" to me is not only humorous but a giant red flag that they have no faith in the actual functional or practical efficacy of their ideologies.

Libertarians may get all pouty when you bring up Somalia but it is a totally legitimate scenario. If your social system and ideology can't survive in brutal frontier like conditions then what is its actual worth?

If your system can't work around basic fundamental issues like "How do we survive as a group when barbarians armed with AK-47s want to take my shit and use my sister, daughter, and wife as a cock socket" then what value is it?

Do you think the people who journeyed into the American frontier and battled off natives, competing european colonials, starvation, the elements, etc.. developed the government and institutions under ideal circumstances? Hell no.

It does not matter that Somalia is in Africa. Somalia could be on the moon. The issue is can your system survive in the frontier and bring people together in a practical method that would be a viable alternative to the political and social systems we have now?

If the answer is no, then it's all childish bullshit.

It's fantasy roleplay with grown men sitting in leather backed chairs talking about their alternate social systems while living under the protection and societies built by the government and society that they scorn.

Turn these men out into the wild frontier and see how they do as a group.

If your system can't survive in less than ideal circumstances then it's absolute dog's balls.

There are some good points that libertarians bring up but most of them seem to want to develop their own alternative political, economy, and social community within an already existing system (which they scorn) as shelter. If their conviction is strong then they need to prove that their fundamental political and social ideology is workable in a real world environment from scratch.

Quote:

The problem is that you act as if an-cap is some sort of proposed Nirvana that will solve each and every problem in the world. It is not. Every single question you raised over there has precedence in statist contexts. The lazy umbrella term of human nature shows this even further. What would be more profitable to attack, an oil rich frail state or a tiny colony of 50-100 an-caps that are living their on their own terms? Whenever the issue arrives, people try to extract every single most "perfect" answer to an-cap, while never asking the same about the state because "that's just the way it is". As for the coercion within societies, there are ideas of security agencies and courts within an-cap context. You need to read a little bit more on what you're criticizing, because you are misrepresenting it.

I'm not saying a system has to be perfect to be valid. I'm saying it has to be practical and workable when compared with existing systems. What is the point of theorycrafting some bullshit that doesn't work or only works under ideal conditions which also include the fantasy assumptions that humans are all nice people who aren't going to shoot you in the back at first opportunity.

If you think a small community of 50-100 "libertarians" in the wild won't be raided I have a bridge in brooklyn and some swampland to sell you. Ask the rural whites in various parts of Africa what they think about that sometime. Oh wait, you can't because they are dead, silenced, or in a hospital somewhere after being gang raped.

The human nature question is not lazy. The fact that you think it is means you haven't really considered it enough or maybe you really don't understand how people really are when basic civility and law and order is stripped away.