For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[poptab]

Anyone who believes a libertarian society can exist is dreaming of that long lost place over the rainbow.

Anyone who believes the constitution can limit the power of the government is dreaming of that long lost place over the rainbow.

 

[steveh_131]

How does one use a tool that one has defined as one big giant act of aggression?

It's not aggression when it is in response to an act of aggression. An act of aggression is, by definition (in this context), unprovoked.

If someone robs my house, that is an act of aggression. Defending my house by force, or retrieving restitution for the items that are stolen, is a response to that act of aggression. It is, therefore, not an act of aggression.

Anyone who believes a libertarian society can exist is dreaming of that long lost place over the rainbow.

Probably true. There aren't many people in this world brave enough to live in a world of true personal responsibility, and humble enough to stay out of other peoples' business.

I still think it's a valid goal to work towards. The more of its principles that we adopt the better off we will be.

 

[octalman]

Admittedly, I have difficulty understanding how a Libertarian society would function. What parts of current society would be eliminated and what retained? Serious question.

Please clarify how a Libertarian would respond to a physical attack?

 

[poptab]

 

[poptab]

Seriously, though, I give up.

 

[steveh_131]

Admittedly, I have difficulty understanding how a Libertarian society would function. What parts of current society would be eliminated and what retained? Serious question.

Answers will certainly vary, but in my opinion the list of what to retain is much shorter.

Law enforcement should exist to protect property rights and to prevent acts of aggression. Civil courts should exist for the same reasons. National defense, also for the same reasons. I'm on the fence about roads

ETA: Very little of even this short list needs to exist on a federal level.

Please clarify how a Libertarian would respond to a physical attack?

Defend yourself and your property. Same as pretty much anyone else.

 

[Liberty1911]

I've had this debate with him before, and I think I understand where he's coming from.

His point is that libertarians want to implement liberty, but there is still a safety net in place that is paid for by the tax payers. So the only path to liberty, in his opinion, is to remove the safety net first and then offer more liberty. It's more about the path than the end goal.

He is not saying the government should enforce personal responsibility, he's saying the government should remove itself as the safety net that prevents any consequences for our actions.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, just trying to clarify.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Thanks for getting it. I'm not sure why others want to be purposely obtuse about the issue. It's no more complicated than what you just said.

 

[octalman]

Admittedly, I have difficulty understanding how a Libertarian society would function. What parts of current society would be eliminated and what retained? Serious question.

Please clarify how a Libertarian would respond to a physical attack?

 

[Liberty1911]

And please name a Libertarian that wants open borders?

It's item 3.4 in the Libertarian Party platform.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

It's not aggression when it is in response to an act of aggression. An act of aggression is, by definition (in this context), unprovoked...

"Zero Aggression Principle":
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

Using the courts as enforcment is OK? Would it be OK to hunt them down yourself and use zero aggression to obtain justice?

 

[hornadylnl]

I've had this debate with him before, and I think I understand where he's coming from.

His point is that libertarians want to implement liberty, but there is still a safety net in place that is paid for by the tax payers. So the only path to liberty, in his opinion, is to remove the safety net first and then offer more liberty. It's more about the path than the end goal.

He is not saying the government should enforce personal responsibility, he's saying the government should remove itself as the safety net that prevents any consequences for our actions.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, just trying to clarify.

That, or he doesn't want those things legalized and the whole "personal responsibility" schtick is his out. The question he asked of me was a trap. Legalizing something and taking away the social safety net are 2 different arguments. It's like saying the slaves can't be freed until they have paying jobs and a place to live. There is no more personal responsibility for things currently legal than illegal right now. How many on welfare are on drugs? How many CEO's are making millons while being bailed out by tax dollars for their failed leadership? Where's the UAW's personal responsibility for their role in the destruction of Chrysler and GM? Oh, it's the tax payer's responsibility.

 

[steveh_131]

Using the courts as enforcment is OK? Would it be OK to hunt them down yourself and use zero aggression to obtain justice?

Please refer to this post (in its entirety):

It's not aggression when it is in response to an act of aggression. An act of aggression is, by definition (in this context), unprovoked.

If someone robs my house, that is an act of aggression. Defending my house by force, or retrieving restitution for the items that are stolen, is a response to that act of aggression. It is, therefore, not an act of aggression.

Protecting your property, using the courts to retrieve your property, or retrieving it yourself are not acts of aggression. They are provoked by the initial act of aggression (the theft/attempted theft of your property).

 

[steveh_131]

That, or he doesn't want those things legalized and the whole "personal responsibility" schtick is his out. The question he asked of me was a trap. Legalizing something and taking away the social safety net are 2 different arguments. It's like saying the slaves can't be freed until they have paying jobs and a place to live. There is no more personal responsibility for things currently legal than illegal right now. How many on welfare are on drugs? How many CEO's are making millons while being bailed out by tax dollars for their failed leadership? Where's the UAW's personal responsibility for their role in the destruction of Chrysler and GM? Oh, it's the tax payer's responsibility.

His argument relies on the assumption that people will act more responsibility in the presence of laws that require them to do so.

Like you, I don't agree with this assumption and that is why I don't agree with him.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Please refer to this post:



Protecting your property, using the courts to retrieve your property, or retrieving it yourself are not acts of aggression. They are provoked by the initial act of aggression (the theft/attempted theft of your property).

These things you say we will have, we already have...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=014dA1choUE

 

[steveh_131]

These things you say we will have, we already have...

What did I say 'we will have'?

 

[Liberty1911]

That, or he doesn't want those things legalized and the whole "personal responsibility" schtick is his out. The question he asked of me was a trap. Legalizing something and taking away the social safety net are 2 different arguments. It's like saying the slaves can't be freed until they have paying jobs and a place to live. There is no more personal responsibility for things currently legal than illegal right now. How many on welfare are on drugs? How many CEO's are making millons while being bailed out by tax dollars for their failed leadership? Where's the UAW's personal responsibility for their role in the destruction of Chrysler and GM? Oh, it's the tax payer's responsibility.

For whatever reason, you and a couple of others just don't want to get it.

It's not like freeing the slaves until they get jobs. It's like freeing the slaves and then forcing others to take care of them, with no effort to make them find jobs.

If you legalize drugs, then more people will be on "disability" etc. If you legalize homosexual marriage, then you automatically create yet another protected class that gets to clog up the system with law suits whenever they come across someone who doesn't agree with their "freedom". If you open the borders, then you get even more immigrants on the dole.

In the current system, every time you create a new "right", it is offset by the further trampling of rights of fellow taxpayers and property owners.

Now why would anyone want to do that unless as you say, you don't really care about personal responsibility and the whole "freedom" thing is just Libertarian schtick.

You rightly point out the lack of personal responsibility with corporations and unions, so why would any reasonable person want to pile on additional irresponsible classes of people, unless you're advocating, as I've pointed out, freedom without responsibility.

I'm starting to agree with those who think Libertarians are just a bunch of kooks.

 

[hornadylnl]

For whatever reason, you and a couple of others just don't want to get it.

It's not like freeing the slaves until they get jobs. It's like freeing the slaves and then forcing others to take care of them, with no effort to make them find jobs.

If you legalize drugs, then more people will be on "disability" etc. If you legalize homosexual marriage, then you automatically create yet another protected class that gets to clog up the system with law suits whenever they come across someone who doesn't agree with their "freedom". If you open the borders, then you get even more immigrants on the dole.

In the current system, every time you create a new "right", it is offset by the further trampling of rights of fellow taxpayers and property owners.

Now why would anyone want to do that unless as you say, you don't really care about personal responsibility and the whole "freedom" thing is just Libertarian schtick.

You rightly point out the lack of personal responsibility with corporations and unions, so why would any reasonable person want to pile on additional irresponsible classes of people, unless you're advocating, as I've pointed out, freedom without responsibility.

I'm starting to agree with those who think Libertarians are just a bunch of kooks.

So what are those that lifted up Mitt Romney as the bastion of liberty?

 

[Classic]

After reading this entire thread I am wondering if there is any country on the planet where a Libertarian philosophy is actually working.

 

[level.eleven]

Answers will certainly vary, but in my opinion the list of what to retain is much shorter.

Law enforcement should exist to protect property rights and to prevent acts of aggression. Civil courts should exist for the same reasons. National defense, also for the same reasons. I'm on the fence about roads

ETA: Very little of even this short list needs to exist on a federal level.



Defend yourself and your property. Same as pretty much anyone else.

So then you don't prescribe to the NAP. That money has to come from somewhere. Face it, NAP, as written, is anarchy.

 

[hornadylnl]

After reading this entire thread I am wondering if there is any country on the planet where a Libertarian philosophy is actually working.

No, the majority of people the world over are statists. They can't live and let live. Especially here. Why do you think HOA's are so popular?