Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:27 AM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 398

Do libertarians realize private citizens are just as oppressive as the government?


So it seems many libertarians just hate the government because it takes away their freedom. It sounds like they want to go back to the 1920s or 30s with a laissez faire method of governing. But, my issue with that is fairly obvious. If it's not the government taking away your freedom, then it's going to be the robber baron who owns the factory you work and live in. So is this what libertarians want? Would they rather have their freedom trampled on by those more powerful than them with 0 influence, and no checks and balances on them? In a libertarian society, I would just trample all over my neighbors because I have more money, and firepower than them. Maybe I'm just naive and humans actually aren't greedy. It's probably all just a fabrication or over exaggeration right? No way someone is going to take away my freedom if theres no government, right?
  #2  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:39 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
How about we start with the basics. Don’t steal. Don’t deny other’s freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
  #3  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:45 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
The 1930s was not a period for the laissez-faire method of governing. Your history needs revision. Now that you know the Great Depression occured under the unprecedentedly interventionist Hoover and Roosevelt administrations, have you changed your mind?

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-04-2019 at 11:47 AM.
  #4  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:53 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.
But you don't believe in those basics. You've said previously that you would have preferred if slavery in the US had just taken its own course and hope it petered out on its own. ie you don't even think it's the government's place to enforce freedom.
  #5  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:05 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
But you don't believe in those basics. You've said previously that you would have preferred if slavery in the US had just taken its own course and hope it petered out on its own. ie you don't even think it's the government's place to enforce freedom.
“Enforce freedom” by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
I bet you believe the invasion of Iraq was simple enforcement of freedom.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-04-2019 at 12:07 PM.
  #6  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:15 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
ďEnforce freedomĒ by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
The way you describe the Civil War, it's like Lincoln invaded the South to start the war; as opposed to the South firing the first shots because it got afraid that its racism may someday be not as welcome.

OP, you see what you're dealing with? The type of libertarians you're talking about care about facts as much as young earth creationists. The total commitment to the cause is what's important, not reality.
  #7  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:17 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
Of course it does. We have a functioning government that acts against crimes like private theft and private imprisonment. Eliminate that government oversight and there will be plenty of individuals willing to step into the void and start stealing and enslaving.
  #8  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:21 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
No, it didn't. Slavery was never given up voluntarily by the slave owners. It was always ended by some authority telling the slave owners they had to give up slavery. And if it was peaceful it was only because the slave owners backed down in the face of threatened force.
  #9  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:28 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
ďEnforce freedomĒ by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
I bet you believe the invasion of Iraq was simple enforcement of freedom.
That's a bad bet, you lose. But you've shown your hand by including "increased taxation" in your list of unacceptable costs of enforcing freedom.

And a history lesson: the invasion of Iraq was not total war, didn't rely on conscription nor increased taxes. Sounds like your kind of war.
  #10  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:10 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,278
Of course Libertarians know that oppression by individuals is about the same as oppression by individuals...but they assume/hope that in a Libertarian society they have a decent chance of being the individuals that oppress.
  #11  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:32 PM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,232
Assuming you don't work for Microsoft and don't use their products, Bill Gates has almost no power over you. Compare this to power potentially exercised by the lowest GS-5 employee of the IRS if they choose to do so.


Individuals can certainly oppress - but they have less opportunity to do so.
  #12  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:35 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
Assuming you don't work for Microsoft and don't use their products, Bill Gates has almost no power over you. Compare this to power potentially exercised by the lowest GS-5 employee of the IRS if they choose to do so.


Individuals can certainly oppress - but they have less opportunity to do so.
If libertarians had their way and government regulation was abolished, that opportunity for individuals to oppress would increase greatly.
  #13  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:43 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,716
Indeed.

Without federal regulations, Microsoft would own the entire operating system market now. Lest we forget, MSFT bailed out Apple back in the 90s as part of a defense against the anti-trust suit they were facing.

Without regulation, either Apple would have failed or MSFT would have simply absorbed it. Then, with 100% (effectively) of the PC operating system and application system they would have been in the position to enforce their will on every computer user in the world.
  #14  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:58 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,479
In Jared Diamond's "the World Before Yesterday" he makes a cogent case (based on interviews with tribesmen in Papua New Guinea, mainly), that the earliest and most basic need for government is to stop males from killing each other and raping women. Which is accomplished by establishing "justice" aka the rule of law maintained by threat of force. When this level of government is achieved, it is an enormous and deeply appreciated improvement in the life of every community touched by it.

Another example would be medieval Iceland.

The trouble with libertarians is that they imagine civilization exists independent of threat of force from above. Apparently it really doesn't.
  #15  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:06 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Of course it does. We have a functioning government that acts against crimes like private theft and private imprisonment. Eliminate that government oversight and there will be plenty of individuals willing to step into the void and start stealing and enslaving.
Hmm. Two power centers in society broadly speaking, capital and government. You believe the one who currently imprisons and steals the most protects us from the other. You know the one who clothes and feeds billions for less and less inputs every year, while government does less and less with more and more.

Yes it takes some ideological gymnastics to pull off something like that.
  #16  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:11 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, it didn't. Slavery was never given up voluntarily by the slave owners. It was always ended by some authority telling the slave owners they had to give up slavery. And if it was peaceful it was only because the slave owners backed down in the face of threatened force.
Oh you misread. I said it was ended peacefully. It was. Especially compared to the carnage you think was necessary for some deeply ideological or psychological reason.
  #17  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:16 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Indeed.

Without federal regulations, Microsoft would own the entire operating system market now. Lest we forget, MSFT bailed out Apple back in the 90s as part of a defense against the anti-trust suit they were facing.

Without regulation, either Apple would have failed or MSFT would have simply absorbed it. Then, with 100% (effectively) of the PC operating system and application system they would have been in the position to enforce their will on every computer user in the world.
Yes a lot of fact-free tech-geek pablum. The same type of nonsense was believed when they took down Standard Oil years after it reached its peak. I think it had like a 6% market share.
  #18  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:19 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,234
No deeply ideological or psychological reasons behind slavery then?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #19  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:19 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's a bad bet, you lose. But you've shown your hand by including "increased taxation" in your list of unacceptable costs of enforcing freedom.

And a history lesson: the invasion of Iraq was not total war, didn't rely on conscription nor increased taxes. Sounds like your kind of war.
“Enforcing freedom”. Lol sounds like a jailer’s term. If the shoe fits.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-04-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #20  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:20 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
No deeply ideological or psychological reasons behind slavery then?
Awesome non sequiter. Letís see if it will be topped.
  #21  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:21 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Oh you misread. I said it was ended peacefully. It was. Especially compared to the carnage you think was necessary for some deeply ideological or psychological reason.
Ended peacefully because of slavers resisted giving up slaves they would have faced the armed might of the government - exactly the stuff you rail about.
  #22  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:23 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If libertarians had their way and government regulation was abolished, that opportunity for individuals to oppress would increase greatly.
If authoritarians had their way, they would confiscate 18% of societyís loot and build prisons and war machines.
  #23  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:24 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Ended peacefully because of slavers resisted giving up slaves they would have faced the armed might of the government - exactly the stuff you rail about.
That happened literally nowhere, but cool story.
  #24  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:24 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
Assuming you don't work for Microsoft and don't use their products, Bill Gates has almost no power over you. Compare this to power potentially exercised by the lowest GS-5 employee of the IRS if they choose to do so.


Individuals can certainly oppress - but they have less opportunity to do so.
You really think that any IRS employee can launch a vendetta against someone without fear of firing or worse?
Hell, if that were true we'd have Trump's tax returns by now.
Individuals are limited in their oppression by the very government you hate.
  #25  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:25 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
If authoritarians had their way, they would confiscate 18% of societyís loot and build prisons and war machines.
That's a peculiarly precise figure-where did you get it from?
  #26  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:26 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
That happened literally nowhere, but cool story.
It didn't happen because the slavers knew the consequences.
  #27  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:26 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Of course Libertarians know that oppression by individuals is about the same as oppression by individuals...but they assume/hope that in a Libertarian society they have a decent chance of being the individuals that oppress.
If they wanted to oppress theyíd become a statist. Much easier than wage an educational campaign to turn people into Libertarians.
  #28  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:27 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
It didn't happen because the slavers knew the consequences.
Yes Iím waiting on your graphic novel for the details of this tale.
  #29  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:28 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
That happened literally nowhere, but cool story.
Really? So, when England banned slavery in 1833, why do you think none of the English people who owned slaves at the time said, "Fuck that, I'm keeping mine?"
  #30  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:29 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes a lot of fact-free tech-geek pablum. The same type of nonsense was believed when they took down Standard Oil years after it reached its peak. I think it had like a 6% market share.
IOW, I understood nothing of what you said.
  #31  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes Iím waiting on your graphic novel for the details of this tale.
History books too complicated for you?
  #32  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:31 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes Iím waiting on your graphic novel for the details of this tale.
So, no person drives the speed limit for fear of the cops, no person doesn't commit a crime because they suspect armed police will catch them, no business operates ethically because the legal penalty for not doing so is too high?

You truly live in Lib-Lib Land.
  #33  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:35 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
You really think that any IRS employee can launch a vendetta against someone without fear of firing or worse?
Hell, if that were true we'd have Trump's tax returns by now.
Individuals are limited in their oppression by the very government you hate.
No. People form political parties to oppress. Republicans form to oppress immigrants and drug users. Democrats form to oppress productive individuals and drug sellers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That's a peculiarly precise figure-where did you get it from?
Taxes have beboped around that figure since WWII.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

Though his law says 19.5%.
  #34  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:36 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
So, no person drives the speed limit for fear of the cops, no person doesn't commit a crime because they suspect armed police will catch them, no business operates ethically because the legal penalty for not doing so is too high?

You truly live in Lib-Lib Land.
Your claim was that the slaverís gave up slavery under threat from govt arms. What are you going on about now?
  #35  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:38 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
IOW, I understood nothing of what you said.
Iíve heard the same tech-geek nonsense from all-knowing neckbeards for years.
  #36  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:39 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Really? So, when England banned slavery in 1833, why do you think none of the English people who owned slaves at the time said, "Fuck that, I'm keeping mine?"
Make your claim. Thatís how this works.
  #37  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:41 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
No. People form political parties to oppress. Republicans form to oppress immigrants and drug users. Democrats form to oppress productive individuals and drug sellers.



Taxes have beboped around that figure since WWII.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

Though his law says 19.5%.
And how much of that is used to build prisons and "war machines"?
  #38  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:45 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Iíve heard the same tech-geek nonsense from all-knowing neckbeards for years.
"tech-geek nonsense"
"all-knowing neckbeards"

With debating like this, it's no wonder the Libertarian Movement is growing by the millions every year.
  #39  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:48 PM
neutro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 77
There is an awful lot of room between what we have and some kind of ideal pipedream libertarian society. The gulf between reality and almost any -ism is rather large.

Realistically I think government has gotten too large, that doesn't mean it has to be completely torn down to nothing. It's like trimming the bushes in your hard, they will get out of hand if you don't trim them back every once in a while. We haven't had a trimming in a long time
  #40  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:55 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.
Yes, let's start with the basics.

Who, exactly, is going to make this happen?
  #41  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:15 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Libertarians vary by degree. Some are moderates, albeit firm supporters of Reagan's "Starve the Beast" approach of building up debt so that Ds, when back in control, cannot afford major investments. But some libertarians are quite extreme: perhaps even akin to the shrieking SovCit driving her RV without a license we saw on YouTube recently.

By now, plain "conservatives" are rather right-wing. Anyone still adhering to a "libertarian" label ó unless it's just because they like to smoke dope ó are surely pretty radical.

Let's first ask
(1) Was it proper and intelligent to coerce the population into smallpox vaccines? (Some Libs answer: Coercion is despicable. Liberty encompasses the Liberty to not have a jackbooted statist stick needles into my child. Sure, the bug might have been eradicated. So what?)

(2) Is it right and proper for a country dependent on a large rice-growing basin to tax citizens (perhaps at gunpoint) and build a system of dams and reservoirs for flood control? (Some Libs answer: There are so many alternatives preferable to seizing private wealth for Stalin-style central planning. Villagers could build levees on their own land when adjacent to the River. Chicago BOE will trade rainfall futures that can be used to hedge against floods. Why haven't these squatting farmers moved to the hills, anyway?))

(3) Which came first historically, property rights or coercive governance? (One Libertarian chose Medieval Ireland as his best example of ideal governance. I mentioned that payment of a tithe to the church was almost mandatory. "I wouldn't pay", he sniffed.)
Some libertarian(s) here have given wrong answers to all three questions, IIRC> I think we first need to move past that.

Libertarians have been discussed before, e.g. in this short Pit thread. Mods: Please delete the link if linking to a Pit thread violates a rule.

I would also like to ask Libertarians who profess to admire the elegance of free market solutions:
What do you think of ideas like Carbon Tax, which improve free market economics by assessing otherwise unafforded external costs?
  #42  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:28 PM
DrCube is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,414
I'm not a libertarian and have significant differences with most people who call themselves libertarian. I call myself an anarchist, and think libertarians are basically wishy-washy wannabe anarchists.

Anyway, if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, I'm willing to call it a duck, and oppose it with my anti-duck friends. If you steal, imprison people, and make war, then you're a government, and I'm against you. "Private citizen" or no.

That said, why would you oppose private individuals who oppress, while defending the public institutions that oppress on a far greater scale? "We can't eliminate governments, because rich guys would just become governments in all but name". To that I say, "anti-government" doesn't mean "pro government in all but name". I oppose rich, strong guys acting like governments just as much as I oppose the currently fashionable bureaucratic style of government. I also say, rich guys with company scrip and goon squads are far easier to fight (and avoid, and stymie) than the leviathan governments we currently have, with enormous tax bureaucracies and million-strong professional militaries with fighter jets and nukes. And a free populace gives a further edge to the masses in that fight.

You know that seat belt use rose and was over 50% before a law was ever passed mandating them? You know that smoking is down from 50% to 14%, and it's still not banned? Laws tend to reflect existing societal mores rather than push new rules on an unwilling populace. It's possible to change society and culture without using violence to force it. Anarchy, or even just minimalist government, is possible without violent revolt. It's possible without private warlords stepping in to fill the "power vacuum". It may take awhile, but the non-violent or minimally violent approach is my preferred way of getting there.
  #43  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:41 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Hmm. Two power centers in society broadly speaking, capital and government. You believe the one who currently imprisons and steals the most protects us from the other.
Capital controls the vast, vast majority of economic activity, and the result is a nearly permanent underclass with the top 1% owning half of everything. I guess we should give capital even more power, eh?
  #44  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:45 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Don’t steal. Don’t deny other’s freedom.
That's not very basic, and presupposes a framework of ownership. Who determines the proper ownership of property, and the time at which it's established and where changing ownership by taking becomes 'stealing'? Most of the land in the US was seized by force from its original inhabitants and a large portion of it worked by slave labor. For that that wasn't worked by slave labor, the majority of it was worked by using seized wealth and the threat of either direct government violence or government approved violence. The story is similar in Europe, though the history of seizure runs back longer. I've never heard a good libertarian explanation of why people who own huge amounts of land seized from it's original owners, money made by forcing people to work at gun/sword point, and the like should be considered legitimate property owners, but the 'don't steal' admonition seems to apply to them. That means that what Libertarians are saying is "The stuff I stole is mine now, but don't do any further stealing, and that includes taking back what I stole from you, or things that I bought with money I stole in the first place."

Similarly, does it count as 'stealing' if I operate a factory and use your land to dispose of my waste by polluting it? But how does one address this stealing without things like broad anti-pollution laws, as the harm from pollution tends to involve an accumulation of small, distributed, long-term damage, not something easily addressed by an individual within their lifetime. (And especially by an individual before irreprable harm happens). I've never seen a good Libertarian solution to this issue, and the general comments from Libertarians on issues like secondhand smoke run contrary to their being one.

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-04-2019 at 03:48 PM.
  #45  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:48 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
That happened literally nowhere, but cool story.
That is what happened though.

Slavery was abolished in a lot of states and nations before the civil war, usually via passing a law in the legislature, a court decision or the drafting of a new constitution.

In each situation slave owners were given a choice after the law was changed. Let your slaves go, or we will send people with guns to take your slaves.

Granted it wasn't nearly as violent as the civil war, but it worked.

And the south in the US is so morally backwards that they never would've voluntarily abolished slavery, at least not until the 20th century. Relying on them to do what the rest of the civilized world did and abolish slavery via a new constitution, or a legislative act, or a supreme court as wasn't going to happen.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #46  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:52 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Hmm. Two power centers in society broadly speaking, capital and government. You believe the one who currently imprisons and steals the most protects us from the other. You know the one who clothes and feeds billions for less and less inputs every year, while government does less and less with more and more.

Yes it takes some ideological gymnastics to pull off something like that.
No, it just takes an awareness of reality.

Our society functions because we have a balance between two power centers. They each keep the other in check. An absolute government, unchecked by any private enterprise, would be terrible. And absolute capitalism, unchecked by any government, would be just as terrible.
  #47  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:03 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.
I think we may have the root of the problem here. If libertarians could indeed make people not steal, kill and rape, but instead respect each others freedoms, it could work quite well. Much like communism, or a host of other utopian movements.

I suspect it starts with debates in a circle of like-minded people, and never actually incorporates the fact that in a real-world situation, the "people" would be made up of just as many individuals from the more unsavory biker gangs as individuals from the debates. (Actually the relative percentage of the biker-archetypes would probably be rising quickly). And with the greatest number of people somewhere in-between and looking out for number one.
  #48  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:03 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
You know that seat belt use rose and was over 50% before a law was ever passed mandating them?
Well, the CDC says that seat belt laws accelerated seat belt use.

Quote:
You know that smoking is down from 50% to 14%, and it's still not banned?
I don't know what you think you're proving with this statement. That society will accommodate 14% of its people acting completely recklessly? Well, sure. But the CDC also says that smoking bans reduce smoking rates.

Quote:
Laws tend to reflect existing societal mores rather than push new rules on an unwilling populace.
I welcome your cites that contradict the CDC.
  #49  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:06 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,995
I don't know why a millionaire would bother settling a dispute with a poor person in whatever kind of court might exist in Libertopia when having him killed with impunity would be a lot cheaper.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #50  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:18 PM
DrCube is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Well, the CDC says that seat belt laws accelerated seat belt use.

I don't know what you think you're proving with this statement. That society will accommodate 14% of its people acting completely recklessly? Well, sure. But the CDC also says that smoking bans reduce smoking rates.

I welcome your cites that contradict the CDC.
Most statists assume that force must be used to compel widespread behavior changes. My point is that people will change behaviors all by themselves if they're convinced to do so through valid reason and evidence. My cite is most of human history. Laws, where they exist, are lagging indicators of social change, not leading. Most people change their minds and behaviors first, and then pass laws to mandate those changes to the remaining stragglers.

If you can't convince people to change, it's probably not the best idea after all, and you should reexamine the logic and evidence used. If you can convince most people, but a few stubborn holdouts refuse to change for their own good, that's their business, not yours.

Governments and their goon squads are not required for social progress. Yes, they might accelerate it in some instances. So what? That doesn't outweigh the downsides.

Last edited by DrCube; 06-04-2019 at 04:19 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017