[quote]kamui wrote:
No state in existence, no state in history has ever dream to achieve such a regulation or to enforce such a simple rule.
[/quote]
That’s because a state cannot do it efficiently.
It can only be done on an extremely local level.
[/quote]
It could.
Barely.
Ten millenia ago.
But, for some reasons, i don’t see many tribalistic libertarians out there.
[/quote]
By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.
Freedom of association and whatnot.
This is not just an inalienable right, it is a positive must for a strong civil society that takes over the functions that the state has usurped to the detriment of all.
[quote]By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.[/quote]
That’s the problem : this non violence is only possible because the state does the dirty job for you.
The day the state disappears, you will have to become violent again. The paleolithic way.
Or, more probably, you will pay someone else to do the job. And then, a few weeks later, you will have a brand new (and presumably worst) state.
[quote]By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.[/quote]
That’s the problem : this non violence is only possible because the state does the dirty job for you.
The day the state disappears, you will have to become violent again. The paleolithic way.
Or, more probably, you will pay someone else to do the job. And then, a few weeks later, you will have a brand new (and presumably worst) state.
[/quote]
So?
Take that up with an anarchist if you can find one.
[quote]kamui wrote:
No state in existence, no state in history has ever dream to achieve such a regulation or to enforce such a simple rule.
[/quote]
That’s because a state cannot do it efficiently.
It can only be done on an extremely local level.
[/quote]
It could.
Barely.
Ten millenia ago.
But, for some reasons, i don’t see many tribalistic libertarians out there.
[/quote]
Would not a family be a sufficient analog for the tribe?
[/quote]
No.
Our way of life now requires complex infrastructures and complex interactions. There is no way to manage them at such an extremely local level.
The very idea is laughable. As laughable as the idea that the “invisible hand of the market” will peacefully take care of that.
Now, there may be some way to manage them “from the bottom up”.
But that’s not the same thing, and that’s not what libertarianism usually advocates.
This kind of direct, local and “federal” democracy is what Proudhon’s or Kropotkine’s anarchism advocates.
And, as surprising as it may sound, i actually approves this idea.
[quote]By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.[/quote]
That’s the problem : this non violence is only possible because the state does the dirty job for you.
The day the state disappears, you will have to become violent again. The paleolithic way.
Or, more probably, you will pay someone else to do the job. And then, a few weeks later, you will have a brand new (and presumably worst) state.
[/quote]
So?
Take that up with an anarchist if you can find one.
[/quote]
[quote]By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.[/quote]
That’s the problem : this non violence is only possible because the state does the dirty job for you.
The day the state disappears, you will have to become violent again. The paleolithic way.
Or, more probably, you will pay someone else to do the job. And then, a few weeks later, you will have a brand new (and presumably worst) state.
[/quote]
So?
Take that up with an anarchist if you can find one.
[/quote]
Lifty doesn’t qualify ?[/quote]
I guess he does, but if push came to shove I think he could be convinced to only rant occasionally about the evils of government if he never had to see a federal employee his whole life if he did not want to and if they did not take more than, say, 10% of his income.
[quote]By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.[/quote]
That’s the problem : this non violence is only possible because the state does the dirty job for you.
The day the state disappears, you will have to become violent again. The paleolithic way.
Or, more probably, you will pay someone else to do the job. And then, a few weeks later, you will have a brand new (and presumably worst) state.
[/quote]
So?
Take that up with an anarchist if you can find one.
[/quote]
Lifty doesn’t qualify ?[/quote]
I guess he does, but if push came to shove I think he could be convinced to only rant occasionally about the evils of government if he never had to see a federal employee his whole life if he did not want to and if they did not take more than, say, 10% of his income.
All of them, Feds included.
[/quote]
Oh, i have nothing against ranting about the evils of government.
My father do that each time he turn his TV one.
As a french, i do prefer an occasional riot. But rants are ok.
[quote]By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.[/quote]
That’s the problem : this non violence is only possible because the state does the dirty job for you.
The day the state disappears, you will have to become violent again. The paleolithic way.
Or, more probably, you will pay someone else to do the job. And then, a few weeks later, you will have a brand new (and presumably worst) state.
[/quote]
This is incorrect - all based on false assumptions.
The State is VIOLENCE and it uses violence to enforce a monopoly on that use of violence.
That does not happen in a market when competition is open and free to all.
One person’s greed is checked by an other person’s greed. One person’s ability to use force is checked by an other person’s ability to use force (which also true of a state using force against an other state).
[quote]kamui wrote:
No state in existence, no state in history has ever dream to achieve such a regulation or to enforce such a simple rule.
[/quote]
That’s because a state cannot do it efficiently.
It can only be done on an extremely local level.
[/quote]
It could.
Barely.
Ten millenia ago.
But, for some reasons, i don’t see many tribalistic libertarians out there.
[/quote]
Would not a family be a sufficient analog for the tribe?
[/quote]
No.
Our way of life now requires complex infrastructures and complex interactions. There is no way to manage them at such an extremely local level.
The very idea is laughable. As laughable as the idea that the “invisible hand of the market” will peacefully take care of that.
Now, there may be some way to manage them “from the bottom up”.
But that’s not the same thing, and that’s not what libertarianism usually advocates.
This kind of direct, local and “federal” democracy is what Proudhon’s or Kropotkine’s anarchism advocates.
And, as surprising as it may sound, i actually approves this idea.
[/quote]
You have provided no evidence to any of your arguments.
[quote]By implication, every libertarian has a tribal streak.
Just a non violent one.[/quote]
That’s the problem : this non violence is only possible because the state does the dirty job for you.
The day the state disappears, you will have to become violent again. The paleolithic way.
Or, more probably, you will pay someone else to do the job. And then, a few weeks later, you will have a brand new (and presumably worst) state.
[/quote]
So?
Take that up with an anarchist if you can find one.
[/quote]
Lifty doesn’t qualify ?[/quote]
I guess he does, but if push came to shove I think he could be convinced to only rant occasionally about the evils of government if he never had to see a federal employee his whole life if he did not want to and if they did not take more than, say, 10% of his income.
All of them, Feds included.
[/quote]
Oh, i have nothing against ranting about the evils of government.
My father do that each time he turn his TV one.
As a french, i do prefer an occasional riot. But rants are ok.
[/quote]
Ah, tax riots.
If I live to see one of those I will die a happy man.
[quote]
and it uses violence to enforce a monopoly on that use of violence.[/quote]
Yes. And if this monopoly end, you will have a competition on violence.
ie : cheaper violence.
more violence produced.
more violence supplied.
more violence available.
[quote]
One person’s ability to use force is checked by an other person’s ability to use force[/quote]
[quote]
and it uses violence to enforce a monopoly on that use of violence.[/quote]
Yes. And if this monopoly end, you will have a competition on violence.
ie : cheaper violence.
more violence produced.
more violence supplied.
more violence available.
See, there is an argument for an anarchist for at least a small state.
A monopoly on violence leads to a higher price of violence, therefore there will be less of it.
Unless of course it grows like a cancer, which it will.
[quote]
See, there is an argument for an anarchist for at least a small state.
A monopoly on violence leads to a higher price of violence, therefore there will be less of it.
Unless of course it grows like a cancer, which it will.[/quote]
True.
It has grown like a cancer, since neolithic time, and it will continue to do so.
That’s why i was an anarchist at some point in my life (and in a way, i could still self identify as such).
But the state itself is not the only thing that grow like this.
It’s just a symptom of a bigger demographic, economic, technologic cancer.
And no one want to cure this one. Especially not libertarians.
[quote]LaPointe wrote:
definitely the most overrated writer ever. no talent whatsoever. poetic is the antithesis of an accurate description of her style.
I have not read Atlas Shrugged yet. I have not watched the movie yet either. One of these days I’ll be able to do so, but at this point haven’t been able to.
Did see libertarian and Ayn Ryand Jonn Stossel has a new book coming out. Form what he wrote of it, looked interesting. Was thinking I’ll pick up a copy in the future.
“My new book is out this week! It?s been eight years since my last one.
In this week?s syndicated
column, I explain why I call the book: No, They Can?t.
I?m suspicious of superstitions, like astrology or the
belief that ?green jobs will fix the environment and the economy.? I understand
the appeal of such beliefs. People crave simple answers and want to believe
that some higher power determines our fates.
The most socially destructive superstition of all is the
intuitively appealing belief that problems are best solved by government.
Opinion polls suggest that Americans are dissatisfied
with government. Yet whenever another crisis hits, the natural human instinct
is to say, ?Why doesn?t the government do something??
And politicians appear to be problem-solvers. We believe
them when they say, ?Yes, we can!?
In 2008, when Barack Obama?s supporters shouted, ?Yes,
we can!? they expressed faith in the power of government to solve problems.
Some acted as if Obama were a magical politician whose election would end
poverty and inequality and bring us to ?the moment when the rise of the oceans
began to slow and our planet began to heal.?
At least now people have come to understand that
presidents – including this president – can?t perform miracles.
In other words: No, they can?t!
Buy the book here or here to see hundreds of examples of how government CAN?T. But there is also good news, examples of private individuals succeed while government fails (hence the subtitle). Please buy the book for all your friends so I can join Rachel Maddow on the best-seller list!”