Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by AlpsStranger, May 29, 2017.
What was the obvious libertarian solution? I'm not seeing the obviousness here.
Limited government can't infringe on the freedom of the ill, so they have to just be allowed to wander freely about. Eventually the outbreak self contains.
Libertarians act like they're unlike every political ideology in that they don't tolerate violence. Except that libertarians do tolerate violence to enforce property rights. They're no different in that respect.
I was comparing robbery to slavery
The non-aggression principle rejects the initiation of violence, there's a difference you're ignoring.
They dont want to pay for my health care on top of their own, that doesn't make them human garbage
Very few things are 'market driven', politicians take money from people to do their bidding and rarely do those people pay the bribes to allow the market to function. So this is about the 'redistribution' of other people's wealth... I can understand why you've rejected the non-aggression principle, its incompatible with your ideology.
So you agree then that government taxation shouldn't be compared with slavery?
I believe I covered that whine in post #4 of this thread.
Why are you changing the subject? Would you like some whine with that hypocrisy?
I don't believe I'm changing the subject. Please enlighten me.
I was comparing robbery to slavery... you jumped to taxation and slavery
Because in Libertarian utopia, all the corporations are saints due to the lack of regulations just like they were in the old days
With rivers that set themselves on fire, disposable workforce with high death and injury rates, and corporations issued their own currency. You had the freedom to be surround by barbwire and machine guns with searchlights.
Why are you wanting to compare robbery to slavery?
I'm not pro robbery or slavery.
...and scrip enough to buy the company store.
So when someone dosnt pay hes taxes for the police, courts and military the State, government, or Libertarian council will not initiate any violence then ?
How soon before the entire Libertarian government is 1 person, and then Libertarians find out what happens when there is a power vacuum
If Libertarians think a Non-aggression principle is going to stop [censored] they should put some lube in there behinds and prepare for to enjoy the Libertarian Utopia good and hard
Moderator Action: This forum strives for a 'family-friendly' atmosphere. This final sentence is not that. FP
Well I tend to claim the mantle of non-aggression through my opposition to such coercive institutions as private property and wage labor. I also tend to laugh when US right-wingers call themselves libertarians.
US libertarians are, pretty much without exception, crypto-fascists. You may think that this is a contradiction in terms, that people who are anti-state can't possibly be fascists, but the anti-state thing is a mere pose, an aesthetic simply because the state we have now actually does a few things to safeguard public welfare at the expense of profits for the Strong and Worthy. Ask a US libertarian whether he supports democracy or property rights, and he (almost always a he) will tell you that property rights win every time. Ask him whether the state should take strong action to defend property rights and they will answer yes.
And generally, the similarities with fascism are numerous: US libertarians tend to be immersed in hypermasculine fantasies, they (more or less openly) believe in a society where the strong rule and the weak fail, and they believe in using state violence against anyone who threatens property rights (which, by default, essentially means anyone who threatens the existing social order/hierarchy). The one area where they differ with fascists is their obsession with the individual (while fascists are obsessed with the racial, national, and/or ethnic collective), but since humans are social creatures and not individualists that difference is pretty irrelevant in practice.
The real libertarians are on the left. Only those who uphold liberty even where it conflicts with waged labor and profit-extraction have the right to call themselves libertarians. It's just unfortunate that people profoundly opposed to human liberty have managed to usurp that title for themselves.
Not quite, not that it makes it much better though: Libertarians (and fiscal conservatives) basically advocate a welfare state decentralised to the family level. If you have rich parents and get along with them fine, that's great. Not so much if they are poor or maltreat you.
You mean, the patriarchal family?
Not necessarily. Libertarianism is primarily a legal and economic ideology that can be mixed and matched with nearly everything: Feminism, Alt-Right, Identity Politics, Neo-Confederatism, Monarchism, U.S. Constutionalism and the New Left. And then you even have Arizona Libertarians who believe that free market policies will lead to more optimal wealth redistribution than state intervention, and advocate it on the ground of economic equality. That's why libertarians won't have a shot at power, because the divergence among libertarians on cultural matters is simply too great to ever form a coherent political coalition anyway.
Those with lots of property (and thus benefit from strict enforcement property rights) often benefit from government policies as well (tax breaks, government subsidies for businesses) and those with little property also benefit from government policies to offset their lack of property. There certainly isn't much political fertile soil for libertarian tendencies overall.
The aggressor is the robber, he is enslaving the victim by stealing their labor and wealth. But you think its an act of aggression to thwart the robber's theft. The non-aggression principle doesn't preclude violence, it precludes the initiation of violence or force. For some reason you think libertarians are hypocritical when they support violence to deter robbery. Then you changed the subject.
The non-aggression principle doesn't mean rape victims cant defend themselves, it means rapists are violating it. As for taxes, depends on the tax. Some are justified, some are not... Many taxes favored by the left and right are not justifiable, thats why they reject the non-aggression principle.
Oh your are one of those libertarians, where its ok for a central Federal government, with a monopoly on force and the rights to use "force" to collect taxes. How "far" back in time Libertarian are you ?
1920s lasisse fair Libertarian ? 1910 Miner wars Libertarian ? 1870s Slave era Libertarian ?
Are you also ok for Federal government to suppress "rebellions" using force for example lets say your libertarian friends of the 1700s kind want to declare independence and form a new state
Dose the so called "Non aggression" principle side are you on
Are you also for Federal government to suppress "Opium" using so called "force" ?
Which kind of free market libertarian for or against free trade in drugs and other vices ?
Libertarian-ism can only exist in a Utopian society but Libertarian ism will never be produce such a society. Most likely something like an AI Polity will create a near Utopeian society, but then why would you want to switch to Libertarianism when it is the AI Polity that created said utopia in the first place ?
Let's say that the ownership of the item is disputed. The so-called robber could be reclaiming what is rightfully his only to be threatened by an illegitimate possessor. (We could think of a case where someone is trying to retrieve property bought with counterfeit currency)
So what we now we have two claims, that of the taker, vs. that of the possessor. To figure out who it really belongs to we need to assess the validity of both claims. As I see it the non-aggression principle doesn't help resolve the dispute. We just slap the label of aggressor on whoever we feel happens to have the less legitimate claim.
My claim isn't that the non-aggression principle is wrong per se, but that it's not a particularly useful means of determining who gets what, and that it's liable for abuse.
The problem with property rights is that, at an individual level, it's really this all the way down - just an endless recursion of disputes which have traditionally been resolved in favor of the party with the most weapons. This is why I don't find property fundamentalism in general to be particularly useful - if private property is to exist at all it needs to be in service of social aims. There is no moral reason to allow people to accumulate property until they endanger the social fabric simply by existing.
Separate names with a comma.