That’s what I thought too, but our Libertarian is no fool, so maybe there is a good reason for it.
picmr
Picmr
I don’t think Rand was confused, per se, although she wiggled an awful lot.
The economic theory most compatible with libertarianism, in my opinion, is that of the Austrian School, particularly well articulated by Ludwig von Mises in his masterwork, Human Action. Hayek, of course, was a student of Mises.
That said, a society may be communist in a libertarian context, so long as all are volunteers, though implementation might be problematic.
Because of the philosophy’s metaphysic, objective reality.
Well, that’s putting the cart before the horse, otherwise known as a wrong direction fallacy.
What’s important, of course, is God’s perspective, or frame of reference. It behooves us to coincide ours with His. Ours is indeed subjective. But His is Absolutely Objective. Knowledge, per se, is irrelevant in matters of the Spirit.
God cannot be “known” by the brain, but only by the heart.
By the way, the word “system” makes me cringe a bit. Libertarianism is not a system, but a context in which any arbitrary system composed of volunteers can work.
I oppose taking chocolate by force.
But seriously, you said you oppose the Initiation of force. So what if force has already been started? Do you then agree to its use if you weren’t the one who “inititated” it?
Are Libertarians pacifists?
Can they be atheists?
I will go check out a link to get more information and will be back with more questions. This is interesting.
Can one be a libertarian and not know it?
Thanks, you have answered my question. Rather elegantly.
Perhaps “philosophical schema” would have been better than “system” in my question.
My question should then be directed to athiest Objectivists, who do not have recourse to your answer. (Note, not atheist libertarians in general)
Mind you, from my point of view calling something “obective” based on invisible means of support is really putting the cart before the horse.
picmr
Tymp
I do not vote for the “next best thing”, nor do I support any particular political party, including the Libertarian Party. Statists and tyrants can and do rear their ugly heads from practically everywhere.
I cannot. That’s one of the reasons I don’t like majoritarianism. I prefer a monarchy, operating in a libertarian context, of course.
Kimstu
Let A be a libertarian. Let B be a person who opposes the initiation of force. Let A1 be a Doper. Let B1 be a person with purple feet.
Libertarian asserts: A <==> B.
Vanilla asserts: B =/=> A.
You assert: (A1 <==> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)
I’m afraid there’s no analogy here.
Vanilla
Unless, of course, it is yours and has been stolen.
Yes.
As Will Smith’s character said to the giant cockroach in Men in Black, “Don’t staht nuttin’, won’t be nuttin’”
Some are. Some aren’t.
See the excellent brief essay, Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy where you’ll find this:
"Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force.
Some Libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force.
Some Libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of force.
Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of the libertarian philosophy."
As you can see. initiation is a key term.
Yes.
After Joseph Knight’s essay, you might take a look at Free-Market from which you can find thousands of articles, books, publications, essays, reports, and links.
Yes, of course, just as one can be a solipsist and not realize it until he stumbles across a definition of solipsism.
Wow!
You mean you’re really a Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist? How many people are there who share with you this very specific social philosophy? I’m just wondering if there is a LOCM Movement and what their conventions are like.
Kimstu
ERRATUM
You assert: (A1 <==> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)
ought to have read
You assert: (A1 <==> B1) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)
Tymp
Sometimes, our convention is in the same city with the Black Jewish Lesbian Republicans. You can imagine the chaos.
But honestly, I am not a Monarchist in the sense that I am a Libertarian Objectivist Christian. I simply prefer a monarchy over other government forms with some reluctance.
My Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist,
How would a ruling body be established in a libertarian monarchy? How would the authority of that monarch be maintained?
You may safely consider my mind thoroughly boggled as I attempt to imagine this scenario.
Tymp
Ruling body?! How delightful!
Libertarian governments do not “rule” in the sense that word might easily imply. They merely secure the rights of their citizens.
The authority for any legitimate government is derived solely from the consent of those it governs. If you have contracted with a libertairan government of any form to secure your rights, you may, upon completion of your contractual obligations, withdraw your consent.
I understand. Sometimes, a prerequisite to learning new things is to cast off a priori assumptions. Just because a governor is descended from some other governor does not necessarily imply that you must bow or scrape. In a libertarian monarchy, the king or queen is your servant.
Remember, any government form can operate in a libertarian context, so long as what it is doing is securing rights, that is, protecting its citizens from initiated force and fraud (heretofore to be called “coercion”).
Libertarian:
I think you’re wrong in the last conclusion (and I assume your “B2” is an error for “B1” and your last “A” is an error for “A1”). I do not make the second assertion you ascribe to me, I postulate someone else asserting that being a Doper does not necessarily imply having purple feet. In other words, I assert (A1 <==> B1) and the anonymous Doper asserts (A1 =/=> B1).
But here’s a better analogy: I state that “Kimstu-worshippers are, by definition, those who post to the SDMB.” Let K be a Kimstu-worshipper and D be a Doper: I have asserted that (K <==> D). Another SDMB poster might object that he or she is a Doper but doesn’t worship Kimstu: (D =/=> K), making the analogy between your and vanilla’s exchange exact.
Now I can respond that it’s permissible to define “Kimstu-worshipper” by (K <==> D) and that most Dopers simply don’t realize that they’re Kimstu-worshippers because they haven’t seen the definition. But most Dopers will resist this line of argument because they suspect, very reasonably, that I would like to use this identification to deduce other characteristics as well, i.e., worshipping Kimstu (which most Dopers don’t, alas :)). Similarly, most people who oppose initiation of force are suspicious of the term “libertarian” because it also implies a lot of other positions that they don’t consider valid.
In other words, it’s a dirty rhetorical trick to pretend you have a claim to the support of people who are actually totally opposed to most of your conclusions, and all libertarians should cut it out. (As should architects of the Kimstu cult, and so I hereby renounce my assertion that (K <==> D).) (Trying to intimidate people with unexplained typewriter versions of formal logic notation isn’t very nice either, but fortunately it doesn’t work that well on mathematicians.)
Kimstu
Ah, Lib. So refreshing to see that some things never change.
In the interest of communication, let me propose the idea that Kimsu’s illustration of the arrogance of valuing definition over accuracy can easily be adjusted to “a person with purple feet who is not a Doper.”
I am sure that once you have been informed of this startling breakthrough in logical conjecture you will be able to see the analogy and focus your response ont the principal rather than the particular choice of illustrative example.
I am also sure that you will do so in a loving, Christian manner.
Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist,
All right, I can imagine a scenario wherein the people of a libertarian society would, in essence, hire a monarch who would work to protect and ensure the rights of the people. I’ve got that part down just fine. My problem comes in understanding how the good citizenry would prevent their leader’s authority from expanding beyond the original limitations of his contract. Would that libertarian society have any better luck in doing so than say a democratic society of roughly 270million people in the Western Hemisphere? Really, what keeps your monarch from declaring drug trafficking among individual citizens to be a threat to the assumed rights of the people, thus justifying the introduction of previously illegal searches and seizures of privately held property? Would this libertarian monarchy have any better luck in preventing such things than the United States has? Why? Why would a libertarian monarchy be any better than any other monarchy? What about libertarian democracy or theocracy would be better than their non-libertarian versions? What is it about libertarianism that makes a previously tried social structure suddenly straighten up and fly right?
Thanks, Libertarian. I never would have realized this on my own, being brand new to this whole learning thing and all.
Kimstu
Yes, now you have a properly analogous structure. Nevertheless, your argument is non causa pro causa, since a Kimstu worshipper is not, in fact, someone who posts to the SDMB, but rather, someone who worships Kimstu.
But your red herring seems to be more concerned with what you perceive as audiatur et altera pars. Certainly, you may assert that you’ve made pigs fly by redefining “fly” to mean “wallow in mud”. Just don’t hide your definitions.
How delightfully loaded!
Number one, I am trying to intimidate no one. Number two, the notation is neither formal nor cryptic. Number three, I have no recourse but to use my keyboard. And number four, as a mathematician, you are responsible to construct your own analogies.
And even after all that, libertarianism, as defined by libertarians is what it is, isn’t it? You might not like a particular definition of the word “gay”, for example. But let us pray that you do not assail a peaceful honest a man who calls himself gay, proclaiming yourself as the Keeper of the Language, and screaming at him about his dirty rhetorical trick.
Spiritus
Indeed. Good to hear from you again.
Tymp
Mine, too.
I know of nothing that can guarantee supression of tyranny other than the eternal vigilance of a citizenry.
I apologize for how my advice came across to you. Any implication of your weakness in that regard was unintentional. I am constantly reminding myself of the same advice I gave you, and I offered it with a friendly spirit.
I do realize that some will come in here to nag me with red herrings, spite, and grudges, but I am doing this for the sake of those with sincere inquiries. It is worth it, in my opinion, to wade through a pasture full of cow manure to help someone who is calling to me.
Again, I’m sorry.
Oh, it’s all right, Libertarian. I’m pretty thick skinned. I’d like to point out, though, that not everyone who aggressively questions you is doing so out of spite. There are a lot of strong wills and personalities represented on this board. When they disagree and come to conflict, the fur just starts to fly quite naturally. I know you’re fully aware of this. I just thought I’d mention it in hopes that this delightful thread of yours does not collapse and fall victim to bitter resentment.
Now I’d like to pursue my previous theme. In a completely free society, a man would be free to become a tyrant and rule by force in any society if devices for ensuring security were not established beforehand. A tyrant, bent on coercing the citizenry into doing his bidding, can only be stopped if the people abandon their libertarian ideals and force him to stop. Historically, almost all positions of leadership or power have become corrupted, compelling the people to take actions of violence and coercion, thus limiting each other’s rights. How can a libertarian society succeed and maintain its libertarian characteristics under any form of government or leadership?
Lib, considering what took place a mere page ago concerning what Objectivism is and isn’t, the irony here is somewhat striking. If Objectivism as defined by Objectivists and, indeed, the founder of Objectivism, is in fact atheistic, doesn’t it behoove you to call yourself something else? (Note–I am not an Objectivist and don’t have a vested interest, just like to see people be consistent.)
Tymp
Actually, libertarianism defines freedom as the absence of coercion.
[Note: for the benefit of curious by-standers, philosophy and other disciplines (including mathematics) routinely define common words in a particular way. For example, force in common usage is a very broad term, but in physics it is mass times acceleration.]
Therefore, a society cannot possibly be free, much less completely free if there exists a tyrant who rules by coercion.
As you’ve seen in Knight’s essay, defensive and retaliatory force are not coercive; they are responses to initial force. Libertarians are not necessarily (though they can be) pacifists.
Libertarians do not oppose force. We oppose the initiation of force.
Actually, defensive and retaliatory force secure, not limit, rights.
Nevertheless, your point is taken. I am fond of quoting Franz Kafka on this matter: “Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.”
Who can say? An armed and vigilant populace might help.
But I do not embrace libertarianism based on how I think it might go over in the New Hampshire polls, or how it might work with Janet Waco as the queen. I embrace libertarianism because I love its noncoercion ethic, and because I love the notion of leaving peaceful honest people free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
I frankly never expect to see a libertarian government. At least, not until I fully see God’s kingdom.