Lol! Okay.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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?[/quote]
Private law is what libertarians support. Real laws(gravitation, etc.) are universal, I suppose, but that is not the kind of law we are talking about here-we are talking about rules. I was under the impression that we were talking about laws in a hypothetical libertarian society. In a libertarian system, each property owner would have his own rules, for his own property, and deal with problems himself(truly by himself, with an arbitrator, through a defense company, etc.-PRIVATELY FUNDED).
If we are no longer talking about a hypothetical libertarian society, then correct me, but I was under the impression that was the topic.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
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.[/quote]
Just to clarify, we’re not talking about principles but rather facts. Libertarians argue that the majority of people will adhere to the NAP and honour contracts. That relies upon an assumption - namely, that the majority of people(the mob) can be trusted. If the majority of people can be trusted then there should be no reason to fear direct democracy.
But there is a reason to fear direct democracy isn’t there? You don’t just oppose it on grounds of principle do you? You oppose direct democracy because the mob cannot be trusted. History is replete with examples of why the mob cannot be trusted which basically demolishes the entire foundation of libertarianism.
Edited
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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?[/quote]
Private law is what libertarians support. Real laws(gravitation, etc.) are universal, I suppose, but that is not the kind of law we are talking about here-we are talking about rules. I was under the impression that we were talking about laws in a hypothetical libertarian society. In a libertarian system, each property owner would have his own rules, for his own property, and deal with problems himself(truly by himself, with an arbitrator, through a defense company, etc.-PRIVATELY FUNDED).
If we are no longer talking about a hypothetical libertarian society, then correct me, but I was under the impression that was the topic. [/quote]
So in a libertarian system law is not universal? Each man makes his own laws? So what the fuck is the NAP then? It’s not universal? Okay, my private law allows me to enter your property and kill your cow. So where does that leave us?
I’ve been looking back through my posts for a claim that libertarians oppose direct democracy. I still can’t find such a claim. Where did I say that? Libertarians oppose the state, no matter the method used to infringe on individuals.
[quote] NickViar wrote:
Libertarians are the only ones who truly understand that concept[freedom from the mob]. 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]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Just to clarify, we’re not talking about principles but rather facts. Libertarians argue that the majority of people will adhere to the NAP and honour contracts. That relies upon an assumption - namely, that the majority of people(the mob) can be trusted. If the majority of people can be trusted then there should be no reason to fear direct democracy.
But there is a reason to fear direct democracy isn’t there? You don’t just oppose it on grounds of principle do you? You oppose direct democracy because the mob cannot be trusted. History is replete with examples of why the mob cannot be trusted which basically demolishes the entire foundation of libertarianism.
Edited[/quote]
First, before we go on, how many times have YOU claimed to BE A LIBERTARIAN? I’ve seen you make the claim a number of times, in just the few years I’ve been participating on this forum.
I fear giving anyone else control of MY property. Given the existence of a socialized state, I don’t have any greater fear of direct democracy than I do of any other method of taking my rights. In other words, I would have no problem making the U.S. a direct democracy. I would also have no problem making Barack Obama(or anyone else) King of the U.S.
I believe that people know when they are wrong, when they act as individuals(e.g. criminal acts). However, when people act in groups(e.g. voting), they tend to not care much about right and wrong. No criminal takes as much property, or as many lives, as a successful state, so asking the state to defend me from criminals seems pretty ridiculous.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] NickViar wrote:
Libertarians are the only ones who truly understand that concept[freedom from the mob]. 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][/quote]
That was more a condemnation of the state, voting, etc. than it was of direct democracy. It doesn’t matter whether the mob presents itself as the mob, elects representatives to represent it, etc. Any method of voting is basically mob rule-mob rule in which 10 professional athletes allow 20 morbidly obese non-contributors to make decisions for them.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
First, before we go on, how many times have YOU claimed to BE A LIBERTARIAN? I’ve seen you make the claim a number of times, in just the few years I’ve been participating on this forum.
[/quote]
Never. I’ve said I have “libertarian leanings” which means that I like the idea of minimum state intervention. However the people have to be worthy of freedom otherwise it doesn’t work. Today, the west is not worthy of liberty. I don’t believe that any political system is the best in all situations. Right now, I advocate an authoritarian regime with “deep state republicanism” as a counterforce. I’ll explain that some other time when I have the time to articulate it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Never. I’ve said I have “libertarian leanings” which means that I like the idea of minimum state intervention. However the people have to be worthy of freedom otherwise it doesn’t work. Today, the west is not worthy of liberty. I don’t believe that any political system is the best in all situations. Right now, I advocate an authoritarian regime with “deep state republicanism” as a counterforce. I’ll explain that some other time when I have the time to articulate it.
[/quote]
Maybe we can come close to agreeing here. I advocate monarchy today.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Never. I’ve said I have “libertarian leanings” which means that I like the idea of minimum state intervention. However the people have to be worthy of freedom otherwise it doesn’t work. Today, the west is not worthy of liberty. I don’t believe that any political system is the best in all situations. Right now, I advocate an authoritarian regime with “deep state republicanism” as a counterforce. I’ll explain that some other time when I have the time to articulate it.
[/quote]
Maybe we can come close to agreeing here. I advocate monarchy today.[/quote]
Interesting. There are different kinds of monarchy of course. A Constitutional monarchy is really republicanism. Absolute monarchy is dictatorship.
My edition to my above post didn’t stick so I’ll repeat it here:
To understand what I mean by authoritarianism and “deep state republicanism” as a counter force I’ll give an historical example:
I would support Mark Anthony but I would not support the killing or exile of Cicero. I would allow him(Cicero) to organise against Mark Anthony. And if Mark Anthony suppressed Cicero and his republican faction I would still support Mark Anthony but I would also support an underground republican movement as a counterforce to Mark Anthony.
^^Cicero took a similar approach as well. He supported another dictator(Octavius/Augustus) against Mark Anthony.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
But then what becomes the best course of action?[/quote]
Concern yourself with your own liberty. Don’t try to assemble some system for universal liberty. Real freedom actually entails not just freedom from but also freedom to - ie, the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others.[/quote]
I’ve been picking on you a little bit about this because of my understanding of Lockean liberty.
The problem with Lockean liberty is that it relies on ownership of various natural resources, and natural resources are finite. The eventual end in this picture is oligarchy, where eventually people who control the majority of resources have all the, “freedom” and ends up being exactly the picture you are trying to critique… IE that people have the right to infringe upon others’ freedoms in pursuit of their own.
It actually seems that you have to define those things yourself, or prove that your view doesn’t somehow attach freedom to a finite resource.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
But then what becomes the best course of action?[/quote]
Concern yourself with your own liberty. Don’t try to assemble some system for universal liberty. Real freedom actually entails not just freedom from but also freedom to - ie, the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others.[/quote]
I’ve been picking on you a little bit about this because of my understanding of Lockean liberty.
The problem with Lockean liberty is that it relies on ownership of various natural resources, and natural resources are finite. The eventual end in this picture is oligarchy, where eventually people who control the majority of resources have all the, “freedom” and ends up being exactly the picture you are trying to critique… IE that people have the right to infringe upon others’ freedoms in pursuit of their own.
It actually seems that you have to define those things yourself, or prove that your view doesn’t somehow attach freedom to a finite resource.
[/quote]
Yes I agree. As natural resources are finite classical liberalism is essentially flawed - as is any political ideology that fails to recognise that the natural condition of man and the state is war. Most people don’t like to recognise this for obvious reasons: it is an extremely dark and pessimistic view of mankind and the world. However, it is nonetheless true.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
But then what becomes the best course of action?[/quote]
Concern yourself with your own liberty. Don’t try to assemble some system for universal liberty. Real freedom actually entails not just freedom from but also freedom to - ie, the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others.[/quote]
I’ve been picking on you a little bit about this because of my understanding of Lockean liberty.
The problem with Lockean liberty is that it relies on ownership of various natural resources, and natural resources are finite. The eventual end in this picture is oligarchy, where eventually people who control the majority of resources have all the, “freedom” and ends up being exactly the picture you are trying to critique… IE that people have the right to infringe upon others’ freedoms in pursuit of their own.
It actually seems that you have to define those things yourself, or prove that your view doesn’t somehow attach freedom to a finite resource.
[/quote]
Yes I agree. As natural resources are finite classical liberalism is essentially flawed - as is any political ideology that fails to recognise that the natural condition of man and the state is war. Most people don’t like to recognise this for obvious reasons: it is an extremely dark and pessimistic view of mankind and the world. However, it is nonetheless true.[/quote]
Depends on how you define war. I think people vary, if our inclination was to always be at war then we are fucked under any ideology of freedom. Your ideology seems to undermine the reasons we came to form societies in the first place. If we were all inclined to be at war then we likely wouldn’t form societies in the first place.
I think we are inclined to seek out certain things that society can bring us, like safe conditions to raise families and to not have to live in fear. But again all these things go away when shit becomes scarce, and others want the shit we have.
The way I see it we need to be aware of our environment and the limits of it’s resources in order to give limits to those who want to ‘freedom’ horde and overpopulate. Maybe we shouldn’t have anymore than two children? I’m not saying I have a good idea to impose such a rule, but it’s going to have to be part of the equation if you want anything sustainable.