[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Why does the title say “Libertarian” and then you reference mostly “Anarchy.”
[/quote]
A couple of reasons. Firstly, the libertarian right today is mostly grounded upon the political ideology of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard - essentially anarchists. Secondly, conservatives, minarchists and anarchists today all equate “freedom” with “freedom from the state” - so even if they’re not actually anarchists they all see anarchism as a kind of theoretical ideal to some extent. Albeit, traditional conservatives generally understand the concept of “freedom from the mob” as well.
[/quote]
Human beings are social creatures who live on a planet with limited resources. There is no way to get away from some system of group decision making and some system that provides for dispute resolution that provides outcomes that are acceptable. Total anarchy–at least in a populated world with limited resources–does not provide any level of acceptable outcomes and does not represent some sort of utopia. And there is no such thing as complete freedom in a populated world with limited resources. [/quote]
I agree entirely. Anarchism is an infantile political ideology. Although a dictator approaches the ideal of individual liberty. A dictator is an anarch - the dictator is concerned with his own liberty and not the liberty of others.
[/quote]
Maybe off the main track, but: would it not be possible for a dictator to be concerned with the liberty of his citizens from foreigners; as well as from each other, to some extent? Or should that only be understood as the dictator’s liberty to shape the world more to his liking?
[/quote]
Good points. Liberty is the ability to exert one’s will - whether on the environment or on other men. Therefore, if one desires to extend liberty to others then one is exerting one’s will and is therefore free. That is within the concept of the “benevolent dictator” - Washington was a benevolent dictator in that he voluntarily ceded his sovereignty. The benevolent dictator may also take away liberty from others for their own good. Although it becomes more abstract here as one has to articulate what the “common good” is. But as a rudimentary example, think of Egypt electing the Muslim Brotherhood and el-Sisi throwing them out for the common good.
[quote]Albeit, traditional conservatives generally understand the concept of “freedom from the mob” as well.
[/quote]
-No, not really. Libertarians are the only ones who truly understand that concept. The idea that allowing the mob to appoint representatives, to hire enforcers to do its will, is protecting anyone from the mob is ridiculous. Libertarians recognize that there is no freedom from the mob. Others are able to convince themselves that calling the mob by another name is all the protection they need from it.
[quote]Albeit, traditional conservatives generally understand the concept of “freedom from the mob” as well.
[/quote]
-No, not really. Libertarians are the only ones who truly understand that concept. The idea that allowing the mob to appoint representatives, to hire enforcers to do its will, is protecting anyone from the mob is ridiculous. Libertarians recognize that there is no freedom from the mob. Others are able to convince themselves that calling the mob by another name is all the protection they need from it.[/quote]
Okay, do you understand the concept of “sovereignty?” Under a republican system the people are not supposed to be sovereign, the constitution is supposed to be sovereign. Who is sovereign under a libertarian system?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Okay, do you understand the concept of “sovereignty?” Under a republican system the people are not supposed to be sovereign, the constitution is supposed to be sovereign. Who is sovereign under a libertarian system?
[/quote]
I don’t really understand how this is related to my post…? I do understand the concept of sovereignty. A constitution is not a requirement in a republican system. There is no “libertarian system.” In the libertarian IDEAL, each individual is sovereign.
*I’m sure you will attempt to criticize the fact that there is no libertarian system at this time, and you may have a good point. However, I would like for you to point out any governmental system that does not exist in name only-absolute power corrupts absolutely.
**With no defense in place, Man A will victimize Man B. Man B will combine with Man C, to defend himself from Man A. Men B and C will then victimize Man D, because they are the superior force. This will continue for many years, until society reaches the near-total state. Is it in individuals’ best interests to take the society back to man vs. man, or is it better for the individual to plead with Dominant Gang A to allow him to do X, in exchange for giving Dominant Gang A the power to H, I, J, K, L, and M to him?
I don’t really understand how this is related to my post…?
[/quote]
We were discussing mobocracy. In a “direct democracy” the people are sovereign - that’s mobocracy. Under a republican system the people are not supposed to be sovereign; the constitution is.
Obviously you don’t understand sovereignty or mobocracy. Under a libertarian system the law is supposed to be sovereign same as in a republican system. That’s why you have laws to enforce contracts. Get it? Okay, once you understand that then the question becomes how do you maintain the sovereignty of the law? republicanism attempts to do so via a separation of powers and independent oversight. Libertarians have no such comparable system so they rely upon infantile systems like Molyneux’s Dispute Resolution Organisations and so on.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m actually criticising parliamentary democracy too - but from the far right of the far right. Since 1789 there have been three main forces opposing parliamentary democracy - monarchists, the radical left(Communists) and the radical right(revolutionary conservatives). I’m critiquing parliamentary democracy from the position of the latter.
[quote]
*I’m sure you will attempt to criticize the fact that there is no libertarian system at this time, and you may have a good point. However, I would like for you to point out any governmental system that does not exist in name only-absolute power corrupts absolutely.
**With no defense in place, Man A will victimize Man B. Man B will combine with Man C, to defend himself from Man A. Men B and C will then victimize Man D, because they are the superior force. This will continue for many years, until society reaches the near-total state. Is it in individuals’ best interests to take the society back to man vs. man, or is it better for the individual to plead with Dominant Gang A to allow him to do X, in exchange for giving Dominant Gang A the power to H, I, J, K, L, and M to him?[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
We were discussing mobocracy. In a “direct democracy” the people are sovereign - that’s mobocracy. Under a republican system the people are not supposed to be sovereign; the constitution is.
[/quote]
-In a direct democracy, the collective majority is sovereign. A constitution is not a requirement in a republican system, although many, most, or all now have one. Additionally, no nation has ever(to the best of my knowledge) had a sovereign law. The concept of a sovereign law is silly…words holding supreme power or authority? Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism(he who owns property controls it) is utopian, but the idea of WORDS HOLDING SUPREME POWER is not?
-What brand of libertarianism is that? Heck, for that matter, where did you hear that the law must be sovereign under a republican system?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-In a direct democracy, the collective majority is sovereign.
[/quote]
Correct. The collective majority is synonymous with “the people.”
All republics have a constitution although in some it is not a written constitution - it is an “uncodified” constitution.
Exactly. That’s why I used the word “supposed” - the constitution is “supposed to be” sovereign.
So under a libertarian system the people are not bound by the law? The people are bound by the law of the land are they not? They are bound by contract law yes?
From Polybius; from Cicero; from Machiavelli; from John Locke; from Montesquieu; from the US founding fathers; from Tocqueville - in short, from every republican in history.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Exactly. That’s why I used the word “supposed” - the constitution is “supposed to be” sovereign.[/quote]
-In a libertarian society, people are “supposed” to comply with contracts, more or less voluntarily. Both sound pretty utopian.
[quote]
So under a libertarian system the people are not bound by the law? The people are bound by the law of the land are they not? They are bound by contract law yes?[/quote]
-There would be no “the law.” Each property would be ruled by its owner. There would be no “contract law.” There would most likely be CONTRACTS, which would BE law, arbitrators, etc.
-So…we’re left with taking the word of the long dead, in spite of all evidence pointing to the contrary?
In short, if about a third of Massa’s slaves want freedom:
A. they should enjoy being allowed to go to town to pick up Massa’s Fed-Ex orders, while making sure to always come straight home.
B. they should organize, F-ing prepare to kill Massa, tell him to kiss their asses, and kill him if he gives them shit for leaving.
C. they should tell themselves that they are free and continue doing what they’ve been doing.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-In a libertarian society, people are “supposed” to comply with contracts, more or less voluntarily.
[/quote]
That would be an anarchist system. In all the libertarian models I’ve encountered - Rand, Rothbard, Molyneux there is contract law and criminal law enforced by someone - private security, dispute resolution organisations etc.
Yep.
See above. There would be contract and criminal law enforced by someone. Otherwise it would be a purely anarchist system.
I don’t know what you mean by “evidence to the contrary” - remember I’m talking about what republicanism is supposed to be. Whether or not it is in practice is a different question. Under a republican system the Constitution is supposed to be sovereign.
[quote]
In short, if about a third of Massa’s slaves want freedom:
A. they should enjoy being allowed to go to town to pick up Massa’s Fed-Ex orders, while making sure to always come straight home.
B. they should organize, F-ing prepare to kill Massa, tell him to kiss their asses, and kill him if he gives them shit for leaving.
C. they should tell themselves that they are free and continue doing what they’ve been doing.[/quote]
I don’t know what that has to do with anything. What Massa’s slaves should or should not do has no relation to the discussion of the nature of freedom and the political. Although I would point out that the immediate enemy of the one third of Massa’s slaves is not Massa but rather the other two thirds of his slaves. They should kill the other two thirds of Massa’s slaves first.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That would be an anarchist system. In all the libertarian models I’ve encountered - Rand, Rothbard, Molyneux there is contract law and criminal law enforced by someone - private security, dispute resolution organisations etc.[/quote]
Rand WAS NOT A LIBERTARIAN. She despised libertarians. Rothbard believed in private law.
Libertarians believe that the majority of people will either voluntarily honor their contracts, or that people will tend to just exclude those who demonstrate a lack of respect for contracts. Private security/police would have more to do with criminal issues. Private arbitrators would possibly help resolve contract disputes. The fact that everything is private would hopefully help to resolve conflicts-it probably wouldn’t take too long before one is spending more money to recover what is owed than it is worth; however, one could quickly gain a reputation for not honoring contracts and be excluded by the rest of society.
If a “libertarian” doesn’t believe that most people will honor voluntary contracts, he is insane-he must just want a permanent state of war.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Although I would point out that the immediate enemy of the one third of Massa’s slaves is not Massa but rather the other two thirds of his slaves. They should kill the other two thirds of Massa’s slaves first.[/quote]
How are the other two-thirds the enemy? They may just be brainwashed to believe that slavery is preferable to freedom. Until they DO SOMETHING to the third that desires freedom, there is absolutely NO reason to kill them. Should the American colonists have killed those among them that did not care to go to war with the British, before fighting the British?
If a “libertarian” doesn’t believe that most people will honor voluntary contracts, he is insane-he must just want a permanent state of war.
[/quote]
What? Lol! Okay, if the majority of people can be trusted to honour voluntary contracts then the majority of people can also be entrusted to administer affairs of state no? If the majority of people can be trusted then direct democracy is a viable system yes?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What? Lol! Okay, if the majority of people can be trusted to honour voluntary contracts then the majority of people can also be entrusted to administer affairs of state no? If the majority of people can be trusted then direct democracy is a viable system yes?[/quote]
You lost me here…libertarianism precludes the existence of a state, except for a totally voluntary one. Libertarians, however, must believe that property owners can handle the affairs of their property(the closest thing to a “state” in a libertarian system).
Personally, I don’t support any type of democracy. I really can’t see how direct democracy is any worse than any other type of democracy. I’ve heard plenty of arguments for it being so, but I see no evidence. The evidence points to all forms of government becoming tyrannical after a couple hundred years. A monarch governs with the implied consent of the majority of the governed…a democracy functions with the direct consent of the majority of the governed…a republic works through representatives, elected by the majority of those in the areas they represent…etc.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If criminal law exists in a libertarian system then it(the law) is supposed to be sovereign because no person is allowed to transcend(break) the law.[/quote]
Private law. The fact that I don’t allow someone to enter my property and kill my cow does not mean that I am not allowed to kill my cow. In a libertarian system, each property owner would be king of his own property.
You lost me here…libertarianism precludes the existence of a state, except for a totally voluntary one.
[/quote]
It’s pretty simple. I’m questioning the libertarian argument against the state. You said libertarians are against mobocracy - direct democracy. Why are libertarians against direct democracy? Because they believe that the mob cannot be trusted. If the mob cannot be trusted then how can it can be trusted to adhere to the NAP and honour contracts?
Private law. The fact that I don’t allow someone to enter my property and kill my cow does not mean that I am not allowed to kill my cow.
[/quote]
Huh? What are you talking about “private law?” Law by its nature is universal. No one is allowed to enter someone else’s property and kill someone else’s cow. Who ensures that everyone adheres to the law?
You lost me here…libertarianism precludes the existence of a state, except for a totally voluntary one.
[/quote]
It’s pretty simple. I’m questioning the libertarian argument against the state. You said libertarians are against mobocracy - direct democracy. Why are libertarians against direct democracy? Because they believe that the mob cannot be trusted. If the mob cannot be trusted then how can it can be trusted to adhere to the NAP and honour contracts?
[/quote]
LIBERTARIANS ARE AGAINST DIRECT DEMOCRACY BECAUSE DIRECT DEMOCRACY INVOLVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE STATE. LIBERTARIANS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT EITHER 50.1% OR 99.9% OF THE POPULATION CAN BEST DECIDE HOW A PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD USE HIS PROPERTY. IT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOB NOT BEING TRUSTED-IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH A MAN’S PROPERTY BEING NONE OF THE MOB’S BUSINESS.
