How Libertarian Are You?

[Lord of Elves]

Businessmen do not generally force people to work for them or buy their products if they don't want to.

How nice of them. Clearly they're the good guys.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm making no moral judgment here. All I'm saying is that business practices generally do not require brutal force. Everything the government does does. Granted, I understand that government force can't be eliminated, but its still force.

I thought you were supposed to be a Republican? Because you're the most socialist Republican I've seen yet

 

[Lord of Elves]

I thought you were supposed to be a Republican? Because you're the most socialist Republican I've seen yet

Actual republicanism, by which I mean the democratic rule of the people by popular mandate, is not only compatible with the principles of socialism but actively requires it in order to function correctly and effectively.

 

[Lone Wolf]

<Traitorfish>Business practices require brutal force in order to protect the property of the businessmen</Traitorfish>

 

[galdre]

I'm making no moral judgment here. All I'm saying is that business practices generally do not require brutal force. Everything the government does does. Granted, I understand that government force can't be eliminated, but its still force.

depends on how you define 'brutal'. They use violence regularly; they have routinely exploited labor throughout history and do to this day

 

[GhostWriter16]

Actual republicanism, by which I mean the democratic rule of the people by popular mandate, is not only compatible with the principles of socialism but actively requires it in order to function correctly and effectively.

I meant the Republican Party

republicanism and democratic rule of the people are very different. The former is far more liberating than the inevitable tyranny of the latter.

 

[Crezth]

All I'm saying is that business practices generally do not require brutal force.

If they involve private property, they absolutely do require brutal force (or, at the very least, the constant threat of brutal force).

 

[Borachio]

<nvm - I give up>

 

[Lord of Elves]

I meant the Republican Party

republicanism and democratic rule of the people are very different. The former is far more liberating than the inevitable tyranny of the latter.

At least you're avoiding partisan name-calling.

No, he wants no consensus on anything. He thinks people should adhere to libertarian principles (whether they like it or not), and to ensure that they do, advocates an autocracy run by an unflinching libertarian (he actually said this, I'm not exaggerating). He doesn't believe any unjust coercion can occur in such a society because he does not believe capitalism can create oppressive conditions. He rationalizes this by saying that every arrangement in a free market is fundamentally consensual, and thus no coercion can occur.

You know, this sounds suspiciously like revolutionary communism.

 

[WindFish]

<nvm>

I thought Republic meant Rule of law?

 

[Borachio]

Res publica is latin for "thing/matter" of the "people". But yes, the rule of law, rather than the abitrary whim of a dictator, was/is important.

 

[Truronian]

Who on earth is threatening anyone with 'brutal force'? I've gone my entire life without being threatened wit 'brutal force', as have everyone I know.

 

[dutchfire]

Never visited Glasgow* then?

* Replace by other city known for violence as appropriate

 

[Leoreth]

I thought Republic meant Rule of law?

Only in America. Absurdly, if I may add.

 

[Traitorfish]

<Traitorfish>Business practices require brutal force in order to protect the property of the businessmen</Traitorfish>

I'm Traitorfish, and I approve this message.

Who on earth is threatening anyone with 'brutal force'? I've gone my entire life without being threatened wit 'brutal force', as have everyone I know.

Most people in a dictatorship can go their own life without being threatened; nevertheless, we say that the dictatorship is maintained through the ability of the state to marshal extreme violence against the population. The question is not whether such a threat exists on an individual level, but whether it exists on a structural level.

 

[WindFish]

Only in America. Absurdly, if I may add.

What do you mean?

 

[Leoreth]

There is no historical or etymological reason to associate the term republic with rule of law. It just ended up being associated with it in America, I assume because the establishment of a republic coincided with introduction of rule of law.

 

[Antilogic]

Who on earth is threatening anyone with 'brutal force'? I've gone my entire life without being threatened wit 'brutal force', as have everyone I know.

You see, any dictate, command, request, or polite inquiry made by a gubbamint could possibly be backed by brutacious force. For example, if the gubbamint can collect taxes from you and threaten to throw you in jail if you don't, then the taxes themselves constitute a brutacious force via the Lolbertarian Transitive Property of Brutaciousness.

Except for protecting private property, especially that of rich people. That's called the Von Mises-Hayek Exception.

 

[Traitorfish]

There is no historical or etymological reason to associate the term republic with rule of law. It just ended up being associated with it in America, I assume because the establishment of a republic coincided with introduction of rule of law.

There are any number of dates in English history to which you could attach the label "introduction of the rule of war", but the latest of them is 1688, a good ninety years before the United States came into being.

 

[Borachio]

CFC is the first place I've ever really encountered the notion of libertarianism, so I'm comparatively new to it.

But it's rubbish, isn't it? Or am I being hasty?