Libertarians and the Witch Problem

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
22

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFT, you continue to mistakenly and implicitly claim that your brand of libertarianism, i.e., anarchism, is the only one. This is just another form of elitism which collides with basic premises of libertarianism. The net effect is you are self-contradictory.[/quote]

There is only one kind of libertarianism…[/quote]

Thanks. That worked out rather well for me.[/quote]

Wow, outdoing yourself with the same non arguments, once again.

Why don’t you explain your definition of libertarianism so that you can be properly refuted? Or perhaps you don’t really know what it is. At least I have never seen you give one tangible argument that shows you do.

Thanks for proving me right, in advance.[/quote]

Why should I reward you with an explanation when you have clearly insisted that only anarchists need apply to the libertarian “club”? You will refute anything I say (or attempt to), but from an anarchist point of view. That’s all fine and good as you’re obviously entitled to your own opinion but as we have discussed on several occasions you clearly operate in an utopian mindset (a questionable one) that is void of any pragmatism whatsoever.

You are, in my opinion, so detached from reality in this regard that you refuse to accept the idea that libertarianism can be anything other than what you define it as, hence the elitist charge.
[/quote]
Come on…you take your time to write the above diatribe yet still haven’t said why my definition is wrong and yours is right.

And no, I don’t always refute you; just when you are wrong and think it’s worth discussing. There are some times I agree with you I just don’t usually feel the need to interwebz fellate you upon that occasion.

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Why should I reward you with an explanation when you have clearly insisted that only anarchists need apply to the libertarian “club”?
[/quote]

No, I merely argue that libertarianism acted out by every individual to its logical conclusion would end up in a naturally ordered society. If you agree that a naturally ordered society is anarchic by nature then what is the problem?

We came into existence in a state of anarchy and we will eventually find our way back to that most blessed and enlightened state of existence.

25

Push is right. Anarchism and Libertarianism are antithetical contrasts. Capitalism is integral to Libertarianism, whereas Capitalism is anathema to the Anarchist.

edit: I’m not sure if that makes push right in this instance, but it certainly means Lift is wrong in calling for anarchy. this assumes, of course, that he is being rigorous ;).

27

Anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism. One is government (or lack of), the other is economy. But yeah, under anarchy, pure capitalism would be the only existing economy possible. There would be no organization to collect taxes, distribute wealth, set barter work credits, whatnot.
Somolia is probably the closest thing in the world right now to a pure capitalist system. Which is probably a great argument against capitalism-as-the-end-all.

The difference between anarchists, and libertarians? Libertarians realize government is a necessary evil. They simply want it as minimal as possible.

Weirdly, you can be libertarian and socialist. Which hurts my head.

28

[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
Anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism. One is government (or lack of), the other is economy. But yeah, under anarchy, pure capitalism would be the only existing economy possible. There would be no organization to collect taxes, distribute wealth, set barter work credits, whatnot.
Somolia is probably the closest thing in the world right now to a pure capitalist system. Which is probably a great argument against capitalism-as-the-end-all.

The difference between anarchists, and libertarians? Libertarians realize government is a necessary evil. They simply want it as minimal as possible.

Weirdly, you can be libertarian and socialist. Which hurts my head.[/quote]

None of what you said is accurate. Emma Goldman wrote extensively about the evils of Capitalism. If you haven’t read some of her work you shouldn’t claim to define Anarchism authoritatively.

29

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
Anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism. One is government (or lack of), the other is economy. But yeah, under anarchy, pure capitalism would be the only existing economy possible. There would be no organization to collect taxes, distribute wealth, set barter work credits, whatnot.
Somolia is probably the closest thing in the world right now to a pure capitalist system. Which is probably a great argument against capitalism-as-the-end-all.

The difference between anarchists, and libertarians? Libertarians realize government is a necessary evil. They simply want it as minimal as possible.

Weirdly, you can be libertarian and socialist. Which hurts my head.[/quote]

None of what you said is accurate. Emma Goldman wrote extensively about the evils of Capitalism. If you haven’t read some of her work you shouldn’t claim to define Anarchism authoritatively.
[/quote]

I started to write up a rant on how anarchy with oxymoron adjectives attached isn’t anarchy, and how only capitalism could exist without a centralized government, but decided, screw it. I deal with enough anarchists in Eugene, in person, to start arguing with them online too.

Emma Goldman was a twat, who thought extreme views by a minority justified terrorist violence. That view is used by anarchists now to co-opt legitimate protests by other groups. Alot of people with a legitimate concerns assemble to peacefully protest, and a couple of anarchist blackshirts show up, break shit, get the tear-gas thrown, and then claim the resulting riot was in support of their policies.

Yes, I am still bitter of how the local dick anarchist black bloc made a mockery of the WTO protests.

And that’s all I plan to say on the matter on this thread.

Back to the subject of the thread.

I seem to recall a news story a few years ago, there are 4000 army personel who list themselves as wiccan, and it is the fastest growing percentage of troops. I’ve mixed feelings on if this justifies the resources to support them. Then again, perhaps they’re assuming the religion will continue to grow this quickly among the recruits.

In all, I agree with the above posters. Is this really a problem?

30

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Push is right. Anarchism and Libertarianism are antithetical contrasts. Capitalism is integral to Libertarianism, whereas Capitalism is anathema to the Anarchist.

edit: I’m not sure if that makes push right in this instance, but it certainly means Lift is wrong in calling for anarchy. this assumes, of course, that he is being rigorous ;). [/quote]

Read some Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, David Gordon, etc. They all come to the same conclusion about the impossibility of limited government especially since it implies a large and centralized state to enforce.

The natural state is that which does not call for organized coercive authority. If libertarianism is a philosophy which rejects any and all aggression (a definition which those scholars I mentioned above also agree with) and in so far that man (with exception to a few outliers) comes to accept and act in accordance with this idea then anarchy – the natural state – is implied.

The truth is that libertarianism does require a bit of an intellectual pedigree to maintain. One cannot call for economic liberty on one hand and then on the other promote an aggressive state that must expropriate from private citizens to pay for its wars. This is inconsistent with libertarianism and it is the job of the intellectual to point this inconsistency out.

31

[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
Anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism.[/quote]

That is why some people label themselves anarcho-capitalists.

One is the ideal of nonagressive society and one is the ideal of private property production.

A purely capitalistic society implies anarchy but the corollary of that is not true. For example there can be communist communities that arise and have anarchic competition with respect to each other in such a state. They would of course have to be voluntary communities to maintain the notion of the natural, anarchic state.

32

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is only one kind of libertarianism. People who claim to be libertarians yet endorse the notion of coercion cannot be called libertarians.
[/quote]
I don’t see how someone seeking office is automatically excluded as a Libertarian. What if they are seeking to reduce gov’t power and restore personal liberty?

This is a virtual impossibility barring a national disaster of epic proportion. I am ok with someone calling themselves a libertarian if they are supportive of a massively smaller federal gov’t. We have to call them something.

It’s all relative.

33

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
Anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism.[/quote]

That is why some people label themselves anarcho-capitalists.

One is the ideal of nonagressive society and one is the ideal of private property production.

A purely capitalistic society implies anarchy but the corollary of that is not true. For example there can be communist communities that arise and have anarchic competition with respect to each other in such a state. They would of course have to be voluntary communities to maintain the notion of the natural, anarchic state.[/quote]

define voluntary? if you break the rules of the voluntary commune, is it allowed under you definition of voluntary that you be punished or asked to leave?

34

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
Anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism.[/quote]

That is why some people label themselves anarcho-capitalists.

One is the ideal of nonagressive society and one is the ideal of private property production.

A purely capitalistic society implies anarchy but the corollary of that is not true. For example there can be communist communities that arise and have anarchic competition with respect to each other in such a state. They would of course have to be voluntary communities to maintain the notion of the natural, anarchic state.[/quote]

define voluntary? if you break the rules of the voluntary commune, is it allowed under you definition of voluntary that you be punished or asked to leave?[/quote]

I guess that would depend on the voluntary rules that all parties would have to agree to.

35

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is only one kind of libertarianism. People who claim to be libertarians yet endorse the notion of coercion cannot be called libertarians.
[/quote]
I don’t see how someone seeking office is automatically excluded as a Libertarian. What if they are seeking to reduce gov’t power and restore personal liberty?

This is a virtual impossibility barring a national disaster of epic proportion. I am ok with someone calling themselves a libertarian if they are supportive of a massively smaller federal gov’t. We have to call them something.
It’s all relative.

[/quote]
Classical liberals are typically those that fall into the “government that governs best governs the least” camp. Whether or not they subscribe to a libertarian ethic is a different matter.

I see those that seek governmental office as being problematic with regard to the libertarian ethic of nonaggression for the simple fact that expropriation is always immoral.

37

[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
In all, I agree with the above posters. Is this really a problem?[/quote]

Nope.

38

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

…I see those that seek governmental office as being problematic with regard to the libertarian ethic of nonaggression for the simple fact that expropriation is always immoral.[/quote]

You unwittingly stumble when you mention immorality. Your utopian society could only tolerate amorality. Immorality carries with it the chains of coercion. If you’ve taught me anything in this esoteric little chat it’s that coercion is a naughty word.[/quote]

How do you know what people will or will not tolerate? That is the point of voluntary society. You are free to decide for yourself.

And since a libertarian society would be based on the idea of a proper ethical framework it seems to me the only morality that matters is with regard to aggression.

Eh, you’re a lightweight, Push.

40

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

…I see those that seek governmental office as being problematic with regard to the libertarian ethic of nonaggression for the simple fact that expropriation is always immoral.[/quote]

You unwittingly stumble when you mention immorality. Your utopian society could only tolerate amorality. Immorality carries with it the chains of coercion. If you’ve taught me anything in this esoteric little chat it’s that coercion is a naughty word.[/quote]

How do you know what people will or will not tolerate? That is the point of voluntary society. You are free to decide for yourself.

And since a libertarian society would be based on the idea of a proper ethical framework it seems to me the only morality that matters is with regard to aggression.

Eh, you’re a lightweight, Push.[/quote]

Maybe but it’s sure easy to dismantle your constructs.

Who are you to decide in libertarian society…errrr…scratch that…an anarchistic society that that the only morality that matters is with regards to aggression? Will you “coercively” enforce that maxim?

My above statement stands. You can have nothing but an amoral society in your pipedream.[/quote]
I am not saying people won’t react to other types of ethically determined principles – for example, Judeo-Christian, 10 Commandments type of stuff.

I am saying with regard to liberty – you know? that which a libertarian society strives for – the only morality that matters is that people are not violent, steal, or commit fraud – in other words, not commit aggression. If people want to be Christians, for example, they cannot force it on those who don’t. Ya know? like separation of Church and state type of shit?

Incidentally, anarchic society implies libertarian society.