The Trouble With Libertarians

[Betruger]

Which is great in a perfect world, but isn't feasible in the USA unless you somehow effect a massive shift in common sense/state of mind for most of its population, overnight. Or consider something like secession.

The most feasible implementation seems to be the Free State initiative in NH.

[bcglorf]

A government should provide no more or less then the above three things with the exact nuts and bolts being debatable and subject to disagreement.

Those 3 things being External,Internal and Economic Security. Thanks for the post palladin9479, that is generally what I want to think Libertarians believe, while the neo-anarchists are just an extremist fringe.

External Security => Security from foreign invaders, a Military is required for this and should be of sufficient strength to deter foreign aggression or interference.

In many ways, I see this as already much the way America tries to work, in theory. In practice the debate and disagreement over the nuts and bolts shift things, but the general public tends to push for defensive, not offensive capability and usage, and the government is forced to respect that more than most.

Internal Security => Security from theft / assault / vandalism. A law enforcement and judicial system is required for this. Fire departments and disaster response units can fall into here.

In many ways, I see this as already much the way America tries to work, in theory. In practice the debate and disagreement over the nuts and bolts shift things, but the general public tends to push for individual freedoms as supreme. It's also the one area I'd say America has been willing to sacrifice the most freedom for security, and it's dissapointing to me to see it.

Economic Security => Security that business dealings will be honest and transparent, ensure open free-trade is maintained. Without economic security a people would be incapable of trading or creating enterprise. A government regulatory system is required to ensure people are being fair.

In many ways, I see this as already much the way America tries to work, in theory. In practice the debate and disagreement over the nuts and bolts shift things, but the general public tends to push for minimal government intervention in the economy. Again things like managing monopolies and core industries like power and transportation are subject to much debate, but the theory seems to be there.


I guess what I see overall is that America on the whole is a lot closer to what I would think of as a Libertarian ideal than most other nations, and far and away closer than open anarchy. Or put another way, America's governmental structures as a whole are more easily fixed than thrown out and rebuilt from the ground up. Though I'd be open to recommending fixing specific pieces from the ground up.

[Diogenes]

People have a right to be immoral, unethical bastards, you can not legislate morality.

Nonsense. ALL Laws are legislated Morality. This ought to be self evident, but judging by how many people keep repeating the "You can't legislate Morality" mantra, perhaps if I make it more noticeable maybe it will sink in?


ALL LAWS ARE LEGISLATED MORALITY.

People have a right to say what they want to say, you can not legislate silence. People have a right to express themselves anyway they wish, you can not legislate expressions.

Are you arguing a natural right or a legislated right? If you are arguing that we have that right because of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, then you are proving my point that This law is legislating THAT morality.

If you are arguing a natural right, I will point out that This right does not exist in Canada or England, where you may NOT say anything you please, and THAT proves my point as well. The Morality of Free Speech is LEGISLATED by our Government.

[Diogenes]

Anarchy is the transitional period between one form of government and a Dictatorship. Libertarian ideas devolve into anarchy.


That is exactly what happened in China.


Libertarian --->> Anarchy --->> Dictatorship.
(Legal Drugs) (Social collapse) (Mao Tse Tung)

[KitemanSA]

Wow. That looks fun. Let me try one.

Republican ---------->> Facism----->> Dictatorship.
(Legal Business) (Social Constraint) (B. Musselini)

I was right. It was fun. Like the prior example, it was nonsense, but fun!

[IntLibber]

A government should provide no more or less then the above three things with the exact nuts and bolts being debatable and subject to disagreement.

Those 3 things being External,Internal and Economic Security. Thanks for the post palladin9479, that is generally what I want to think Libertarians believe, while the neo-anarchists are just an extremist fringe.

External Security => Security from foreign invaders, a Military is required for this and should be of sufficient strength to deter foreign aggression or interference.

In many ways, I see this as already much the way America tries to work, in theory. In practice the debate and disagreement over the nuts and bolts shift things, but the general public tends to push for defensive, not offensive capability and usage, and the government is forced to respect that more than most.

Internal Security => Security from theft / assault / vandalism. A law enforcement and judicial system is required for this. Fire departments and disaster response units can fall into here.

In many ways, I see this as already much the way America tries to work, in theory. In practice the debate and disagreement over the nuts and bolts shift things, but the general public tends to push for individual freedoms as supreme. It's also the one area I'd say America has been willing to sacrifice the most freedom for security, and it's dissapointing to me to see it.

The problem here is that petty fascists convince people they need *police* to provide them personally with security against crime, when in fact, no police agency has ever been held liable for crimes perpetrated upon people that they failed to protect. Police are not a bodyguard service. Their job is ONLY to investigate after crimes are committed and bring those responsible to justice.

Responsibility for security falls to the individual, exercising their 2nd amendment power to keep and bear arms, to protect and defend themselves, their families, their communities and the state against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which includes petty criminals, violent criminals, criminal government bureaucrats, treasonous government officials, usurpurous military members or units, invasive or terroristic foreign nationals and powers.

Economic Security => Security that business dealings will be honest and transparent, ensure open free-trade is maintained. Without economic security a people would be incapable of trading or creating enterprise. A government regulatory system is required to ensure people are being fair.

In many ways, I see this as already much the way America tries to work, in theory. In practice the debate and disagreement over the nuts and bolts shift things, but the general public tends to push for minimal government intervention in the economy. Again things like managing monopolies and core industries like power and transportation are subject to much debate, but the theory seems to be there.


I guess what I see overall is that America on the whole is a lot closer to what I would think of as a Libertarian ideal than most other nations, and far and away closer than open anarchy. Or put another way, America's governmental structures as a whole are more easily fixed than thrown out and rebuilt from the ground up. Though I'd be open to recommending fixing specific pieces from the ground up.

Once again, treating anarchy as equivalent to chaos is a big-government perpetrated lie. Free markets are anarchies.

[KitemanSA]

People have a right to be immoral, unethical bastards, you can not legislate morality.

Nonsense. ALL Laws are legislated Morality. This ought to be self evident, but judging by how many people keep repeating the "You can't legislate Morality" mantra, perhaps if I make it more noticeable maybe it will sink in?
ALL LAWS ARE LEGISLATED MORALITY.

Actually, most laws are legislated ethics. They attempt to dictate what is GOOD for you (or against what is bad), not what is right/wrong It is however true that those who wish to control you (many lawyers among that group) work assiduously to confuse the two. After all, if you don't have clear language, you can't think clearly. And if you can't think clearly, you are easy to own.

But you are correct. It is nonsense to say you have the right to be immoral. Righteousness and morallity are inextricably linked. Morality IS "right and wrong" just as ethics IS "good and bad".

[IntLibber]

Anarchy is the transitional period between one form of government and a Dictatorship. Libertarian ideas devolve into anarchy.


That is exactly what happened in China.


Libertarian --->> Anarchy --->> Dictatorship.
(Legal Drugs) (Social collapse) (Mao Tse Tung)

Absolutely false. Its laughably absurd to claim that Mao was an inevitable result of the legalized opium trade that western countries forced on China. The two events were more than 50 years apart, and in between you had the Boxer Rebellion, the Republic run by Sun Yat Sen which removed the Emperor from power, which transitioned into the Nationalist Republic, and only then did the communist insurgency arise, funded by the Soviets as well as by the same US east coast elitists who profited off the opium trade (the Bush family in particular, Prescott Bush was known by his Skull and Bones buddies as "Poppy" Bush), and used those ill gotten gains to fund the Yale in China program and during WWII manned the OSS that helped the Maoists gain dominance over the Nationalists in the post war period.

[IntLibber]

People have a right to be immoral, unethical bastards, you can not legislate morality.

Nonsense. ALL Laws are legislated Morality. This ought to be self evident, but judging by how many people keep repeating the "You can't legislate Morality" mantra, perhaps if I make it more noticeable maybe it will sink in?
ALL LAWS ARE LEGISLATED MORALITY.

Actually, most laws are legislated ethics. They attempt to dictate what is GOOD for you (or against what is bad), not what is right/wrong It is however true that those who wish to control you (many lawyers among that group) work assiduously to confuse the two. After all, if you don't have clear language, you can't think clearly. And if you can't think clearly, you are easy to own.

But you are correct. It is nonsense to say you have the right to be immoral. Righteousness and morallity are inextricably linked. Morality IS "right and wrong" just as ethics IS "good and bad".

Absolutely wrong. Blackstone defined the law as defining the Rights and Wrongs of Commoners, of Aristocrats, and of Kings. A wrong is an act that causes harm to another individual in some way. With our revolution, we decided there was no distinction between the commoners, aristocrats, or kings, that no person had a divine right to rule over others, but we retained the principles of common law as defined by Blackstone.

Attempts to go beyond prohibitions against acts that harm others constitute unconstitutional legislation of morality.

[KitemanSA]

It is however true that those who wish to control you (many lawyers among that group) work assiduously to confuse the two. After all, if you don't have clear language, you can't think clearly. And if you can't think clearly, you are easy to own.

Absolutely wrong. Blackstone defined the law as defining the Rights and Wrongs of Commoners, of Aristocrats, and of Kings.

Gee, let me see. Blackstone's Commentaries... a.k.a. "Blackstone Legal Dictionary", the basis of the legal profession in America. Might he be one of those who want the legal profession to be preemminent, to hold sway over others, to control the social interaction, to own you? Nawww, can't be. We all know those British knights would NEVER be like that!

[IntLibber]

It is however true that those who wish to control you (many lawyers among that group) work assiduously to confuse the two. After all, if you don't have clear language, you can't think clearly. And if you can't think clearly, you are easy to own.

Absolutely wrong. Blackstone defined the law as defining the Rights and Wrongs of Commoners, of Aristocrats, and of Kings.

Gee, let me see. Blackstone's Commentaries... a.k.a. "Blackstone Legal Dictionary", the basis of the legal profession in America. Might he be one of those who want the legal profession to be preemminent, to hold sway over others, to control the social interaction, to own you? Nawww, can't be. We all know those British knights would NEVER be like that!

Actually he was not. While he was considered a royalist, he also held the rulers to much higher standards as well. He was a supporter of the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and felt that a king that failed to recognise the rights of his subjects was committing treason and deserved to be hanged.

[palladin9479]

In a perfect ultra-humane society you wouldn't need any laws as everyone would respect the wish's of each other and never try to inflict any sort of injury onto another. You wouldn't need a government and the world would be full of these ultra-peaceful lifeforms. Of course you'd be living in a fcking sci-fi book instead of reality.

In the real world we have many humans each with their own wants and desires. You need a common set of rules to sort things out and allow multiple sentient peoples to live together without killing each other. That is all a law should be, a rule designed to allow people to live together without incurring unnecessary conflict. Law enforcement are people set aside with the task not of preventing crime but of removing from society those individuals who intend to cause injury onto others. The purpose of a law should be to maintain peace and provide security with respect to each individuals own privacy.

What this all requires is a basic understanding that people are individuals and not tools. Someone who views people as just a number would come to the conclusion that "all laws are legislated morality" because they themselves lack the ability to differentiate between self subscribed morality, enforced morality and ethics. It is the basic distinction between "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". Is it "bad" to kill someone? I think we can all say yes to that. But is it "bad" because the law says its bad, or because killing another sentient being is innately wrong? Somone using Diogenes's reasoning would conclude that the killing is only wrong because the law says so, otherwise killing would not be bad (the all laws are legislated morality reasoning).

One must also realize the innate property of ownership. Does someone "own" something because the law says so or because there is an innate ownership property to an object. If we use the legislated morality argument then if the law doesn't define "ownership" then it would be "good" to take something from someone else? Thus we end up serving the law and allowing the law to rule our actions rather then the law serving us and the law changing according to our needs / desires.

If we recognize people as individuals with the innate ability to possess ownership of physical property, the we must have a mutually agreed upon system of laws. The purpose of the laws is not to govern the individuals but to allow the individuals to have an agreed upon set of rules for interactions. It is through these interactions that we generate trade and progress as a species. Remove the laws and we remove the ability to interact securely, in which case natures laws take over, the laws of the jungle, namely "if your smaller then me then you must do what I say" and we become litter more then animals.


Do not confuse "morality" with "ethics". Both of those words can have multiple meanings depending on the context their used in and the desires of the person using them. If a group of people decide that masturbating and sex-before-marriage is "immoral", an individual of another group has a right to be "immoral" in the eyes of the first group. Morals are very subjective and prone to irrational thought and justification. They are the personal beliefs and rules a person enforces upon themselves. Ethics are rules used to govern interactions between sentient beings to ensure security of each party. Is it immoral to be homosexual? According to some it is. Is it unethical to be homosexual? Not at all. Many problems occur the moment someone attempts (usually in a ruse designed to bend people to their agendas) to confuse the two and remove the line between them. My making morals into ethics we can make laws that enforce one persons morals onto another. Thus we can justify taking someone's life or their property by saying they are immoral. History is replete with examples of this happening and the worst offenders are always the ones proposed to have the most "morals".

So I say again, you can not legislate morality. Any attempt to do so will ultimately interfere with a persons individuality. Those who propose to do so only intend to take your individual freedoms and bend you to their own agenda. Otherwise we'd be seeing those Muslim insurgent "leaders" blowing themselves up instead of always using some underling (pawn).

[KitemanSA]

..., and felt that a king that failed to recognise the rights of his subjects was committing treason and deserved to be hanged.

Rights as HE says are defined by "LAW"? Sorry. There is one and only one "right" and a bunch of approximations. All laws are codifications EITHER of said approximations OR of ethical statements. MOST are approximations of ethical statements, not "right".

Morality deals with right vs. wrong. There is one right. Sapient beings have the right to voluntary action. (Its converse is that it is wrong to involve someone in an action involuntarily.)
Ethics deals with good vs. bad. Things can be good or bad dependant on the situation. Killing is good or bad dependant on the situation, despite your so called "right to life". You have no "right to life". But it is wrong for someone to end your life involuntarily.

Just trying to be clear!

[Diogenes]

Wow. That looks fun. Let me try one.

Republican ---------->> Facism----->> Dictatorship.
(Legal Business) (Social Constraint) (B. Musselini)

I was right. It was fun. Like the prior example, it was nonsense, but fun!

Nonsense can be fun, but that's the only useful thing you get from it. My example had the advantage of being true.

[Diogenes]

Anarchy is the transitional period between one form of government and a Dictatorship. Libertarian ideas devolve into anarchy.


That is exactly what happened in China.


Libertarian --->> Anarchy --->> Dictatorship.
(Legal Drugs) (Social collapse) (Mao Tse Tung)

Absolutely false. Its laughably absurd to claim that Mao was an inevitable result of the legalized opium trade that western countries forced on China. The two events were more than 50 years apart, and in between you had the Boxer Rebellion, the Republic run by Sun Yat Sen which removed the Emperor from power, which transitioned into the Nationalist Republic, and only then did the communist insurgency arise, funded by the Soviets as well as by the same US east coast elitists who profited off the opium trade (the Bush family in particular, Prescott Bush was known by his Skull and Bones buddies as "Poppy" Bush), and used those ill gotten gains to fund the Yale in China program and during WWII manned the OSS that helped the Maoists gain dominance over the Nationalists in the post war period.

I will concede that the notion that drugs led to Dictatorship (by way of anarchy) is a theory, but it seems like a pretty safe bet.

Why don't we look at it one point at a time. First, lets take the point of Anarchy leading to dictatorship. Does Anarchy ever lead to any other form of government?