Do you support a Libertarian Utopia?

[amadeus]

Unfortunately, there is a greater number of people living in an area who don't want your Orwellian ideas of liberty forced upon them.

Except libertarians don't do that and don't hold Orwellian ideas. Try again.

If someone were to come up to me and say "I'm going to make you more free by imposing my ideology on you without your consent" I would tell them to sod off.

The use of force against peaceful people is a statist position, not a libertarian position. Try again.

 

[Cutlass]

I voted 'in a heart beat' and here's why: I'm not asking you to do as I say. I'm not trying to force my 'utopia' on you. I'm asking to be left alone. You won't leave me alone. You won't allow me to secede. You won't allow me to band with 10,000 other people and create our own anti-coercive society, in our territory. You prevent me from doing this. You make it illegal. You force me to be in your system.


All we ask is for you to leave us alone. We do not need your government 'services'. If I pay a visit to your state or city, I'll spend money at your city's businesses and cafes who pay for the streets and sidewalks I used to get there . But when I'm home, please leave me alone. We'll be neutral, like Switzerland, which by the way hasn't had a war in 200 years.


The question is, if myself and a few thousand others voluntarily come together to live under an agreement or arrangement that we would like, why would you prevent me from doing this? Why do you feel it is necessary for you to impose your way of life on us?

If it were believable that you would leave other people alone, you would have a point. Since it is not believable, you do not.

 

[Ajidica]

Except libertarians don't do that and don't hold Orwellian ideas. Try again.

So you protect my freedom and liberty by emasculating one of the few organizations (and arguably the most effective) able to protect it?
Slavery is Freedom I suppose.

The use of force against peaceful people is a statist position, not a libertarian position. Try again.

Then why are you trying to impose your ideas on people who clearly find them misguided, and naive at best? Looking solely at the government for now, the moment you would legislate (or not legislate) a course of action is imposing your will upon me.

 

[amadeus]

Then why are you trying to impose your ideas on people who clearly find them misguided, and naive at best?

You have it backwards: your belief system is imposed on me. If you want to surrender your rights to an authority that claims to be looking out for your best interests, I won't stop you. The minute I try to assert my rights, however, agents of your system come and oppress me.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess your problem is that you don't own sufficient property to become independent.

 

[amadeus]

I guess your problem is that you don't own sufficient property to become independent.

That would be a terrific option, but owning property does not mean getting the same recognition of independence states enjoy.

 

[Ajidica]

You have it backwards: your belief system is imposed on me.

So your solution is to impose your belief system on me?
Yes, my political ideology does involve imposing my beliefs on someone else, but what of it? At least I am honest enough to admit it does instead of living in some moral and ethical netherworld where taking systemic steps to destroy liberty and freedom is construed as protecting liberty and freedom.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

If it were believable that you would leave other people alone, you would have a point. Since it is not believable, you do not.

It's not a matter of believability. It's a matter of simple logic. If -> Then.

If we leave other people alone then will you leave us alone? This is the condition. Not whether it is 'believable' or not. If your answer is yes, then welcome to voluntaryism.

 

[El_Machinae]

That would be a terrific option, but owning property does not mean getting the same recognition of independence states enjoy.

That's just a function of scale. It seems that you're currently dissatisfied with your ability to impose your pollution onto our property. You're quite welcome to use your own property to do whatever you want, as long as there's zero spillover.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The thread title put me on the wrong foot there.

My first reaction was: of course I do. I have a lot of sympathy for a self-regulating society. I don't think it's a possibility in the self-centred one we live in today. A utopian libertarian society would mean that people would be rational, unemotional and first and foremost unselfish for it to work. If I regard the emotion based arguments that always spring up in these libertarian debates, it's clear to me we're a far cry away from such a society, but I do feel it's a lofty goal.

The example in the OP is set in today's environment with today's politicians and today's attitude and will not work as a result of that.

 

[Cutlass]

It's not a matter of believability. It's a matter of simple logic. If -> Then.

If we leave other people alone then will you leave us alone? This is the condition. Not whether it is 'believable' or not. If your answer is yes, then welcome to voluntaryism.

If you want to put it as an If -> Then statement than it becomes even easier.
If you don't regulate banks, Then banks will crash and burn and the property of innocent people will be destroyed in the process.
If you don't regulate polluters, Then they will poison the environment and innocent people will sicken and die the property of many innocent people will be damaged or destroyed.
If you don't regulate employers, Then the employees will be harmed and killed by the unsafe working conditions they are compelled to work in.
If you don't regulate manufacturers, Then then they will produce unsafe products that sicken, injure, and kill, innocent customers.

Deregulation is, in and of itself, an act of aggression with either the intent to harm or best case the reckless disregard of harm to innocent people.

And so you make it clear that doing harm is either your intent, or something you completely disregard in your designs. But you don't have the right to harm people by intent, and you don't have the right to harm people through reckless disregard for their safety.

You are not going to leave others alone. So you don't have the right to have your potential victims leave others alone.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If we leave other people alone then will you leave us alone? This is the condition. Not whether it is 'believable' or not.

How can you use this to build a society? A society is a construct that relies on persistent human interaction. Living in a society means not leaving people alone by definition.

 

[Traitorfish]

Except libertarians don't do that and don't hold Orwellian ideas. Try again.

They support private property, don't they? Can't imagine how you'd define that as anything other than forcing your beliefs on others.

How can you use this to build a society? A society is a construct that relies on persistent human interaction. Living in a society means not leaving people alone by definition.

+50 points

 

[Tenochtitlan]

How can you use this to build a society? A society is a construct that relies on persistent human interaction. Living in a society means not leaving people alone by definition.

Then it's a semantics problem.

What I meant by left alone is to be left free from aggression. I do not intend to isolate anyone and everyone is free to form unlimited voluntary interaction with everybody else.

To be more accurate: If we do not use force on other people then will you agree not to use force on us?

 

[Tenochtitlan]

If you want to put it as an If -> Then statement than it becomes even easier.
If you don't regulate banks, Then banks will crash and burn and the property of innocent people will be destroyed in the process.

Different banks take different risks. People who want less risk would deposit in banks that do not take much risk with other people's money, and would buy insurance. They would also be free to choose which currency they want, and not be forced into one prone to destructive business cycles such as contemporary fiat currencies.



If you don't regulate polluters, Then they will poison the environment and innocent people will sicken and die the property of many innocent people will be damaged or destroyed.

I agree with this one, since polluting is an act of aggression against others. We do not have the right to pollute the air or water that would result in damaging health of anyone outside the community. Internal pollution regulations that only affect the community are agreed upon within the community.

If you don't regulate employers, Then the employees will be harmed and killed by the unsafe working conditions they are compelled to work in.
Employers do not have the right to force employees into unsafe working conditions


If you don't regulate manufacturers, Then then they will produce unsafe products that sicken, injure, and kill, innocent customers.
Amadeus mentioned earlier an example of market-regulated products. There is no need for a centralized coercive authority for this to work.


Deregulation is, in and of itself, an act of aggression with either the intent to harm or best case the reckless disregard of harm to innocent people.
I'm not even arguing for deregulation, it's just that we do not believe a system of regulation necessitates a centralized coercive authority.



And so you make it clear that doing harm is either your intent, or something you completely disregard in your designs. But you don't have the right to harm people by intent, and you don't have the right to harm people through reckless disregard for their safety.

You are not going to leave others alone. So you don't have the right to have your potential victims leave others alone.

What if we pulled it off and were able to sustain a community that does no harm to outsiders or members?

 

[warpus]

Then it's a semantics problem.

What I meant by left alone is to be left free from aggression. I do not intend to isolate anyone and everyone is free to form unlimited voluntary interaction with everybody else.

To be more accurate: If we do not use force on other people then will you agree not to use force on us?

What sort of aggression that's legal do you face today?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then it's a semantics problem.

What I meant by left alone is to be left free from aggression. I do not intend to isolate anyone and everyone is free to form unlimited voluntary interaction with everybody else.

To be more accurate: If we do not use force on other people then will you agree not to use force on us?

Who is this "we" and who are those "other people" you are talking about?

If you are talking about the sort of Utopia laid out in the OP, it would mean that you would have a society with it's bad apples, it's corruption, it's criminal activities just like any other society. How will you deal with that, not using force? Or do you consider "other people" to mean other people outside your boundries? Does this mean an isolationist utopia? Because if you are going to deal with "other people" you will have to deal with the exact same issues you are facing now. Other people tend not to be totally honest, and tend to break whatever rules (... are there rules in your utopia? edit: read above post, aswer is yes.) you decided upon.

As I said earlier in this thread, I'd love to see a society which you talk about, but that would mean an unselfish not self-centred society where everyone is not only competing to make themselves better, but also, and maybe more so, to make their society better. This kind of mentality is not found homogeneously today amongst humanity.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

What sort of aggression that's legal do you face today?

The government is forcing me to:

1. Pay taxes
2. Use a specific currency

The government is preventing me from:

1. Doing as I please at my own time and place
2. Interacting voluntarily with other people in my community
3. 'Commiting' victimless 'crimes'
4. Seceding and become independent
5. Personal choices and freedom of speech (varies depends on location)
6. Bearing arms and assuming responsibility for defense
7. Competing with it's 'services'

 

[El_Machinae]

Hey, Tenochtitlan might be one of my fellow libertarians! I've often been boggled when people don't think that unconsented pollution is acceptable.

 

[Godwynn]

A "bummed in the gob" a day, keeps the lolbertarians at bay.

I laughed at this for way too long.

A thumbs up for you kind sir!