Well, I could be missing something as well. But I think, rather that he is suggesting that government work in a different way thatn we are used to thinking. Something like a body which interprets the principle of individual freedom for addressing various issues. Rather than a body which addresses issues by applying force in one way or another.
It might, for instance, be in charge of interpreting whether a specific act or even, perhaps, a class of actions constitutes a violation of the individual freedom or non coercion rule. The point of this being that what this “government” does might not, in a certain context, be considered legislating. It would not necessarily be considered “ruling”.
The point I was trying to make was that I don’t think Liberal suggested that such a body (whatever its exact function) would be elected at random or by birth or anything. I assume that such a body (or even several of them) would be elected through the normal means.
But what if the only “rule” is that you cannot impose any rules?
I have to say I am taking up an argument that Liberal began. I am only interpreting his posts from another perspective. In no way am I suggesting that I speak for him or anything even close to that.
BTW, 2sense did I come anywhere close to your objections to the constitution in my last post? I’m just curious if I have understood you from when we’ve talked before.
That would be anarchy. Plus that was not Lib’s formulation. It also included that part about protecting people from deception. How one intends to do this at a practical level seems to be a sticking point.
Enjoy,
Steven
Or even what “protecting people from deception” necessarily entails. “Protecting people from deception” can readily be used as justification for a police state, and yet I don’t think that’s what is intended by most libertarians. Clearly there’s more to it than that.
I’m not so sure. If the law exists which says that no rules can be made, i.e. one person cannot rule another, one group cannot rule another, and even that a large group cannot rule an individual, this is not exactly anarchy. It sounds similar, I agree. But there is a subtle difference.
Well, again I should not speak for him, but I assume that some forms of deception would be considered coercion. That is tricking someone into giving up thier freedom is similar in kind to forcing them to do so.
I agree that in this thread Liberal has not fleshed out his ideals on how a non legislating government would operate. But just because we use laws now to enforce the will of the people, does not mean that this is the only way to organize society. What if a governing body was to simply be in charge of enforcing the one rule that nobody could coerce any other? They might take votes and implimnet policies. But would that really be the exact same thing as legislating?
No, it’s merely illogical. If no individual or group can rule another, then the rule against rules cannot be enforced because the government (being a group) would be disempowered from preventing anyone else from attempting to exercise dominion over another.
A government that is unable to exercise dominion over the citizens is a failed government, and a ‘government’ that is constitutionally forbidden from exercising dominion over the citizens is a sham. Such a system is a true anarchy.
Hmm. Far more lenient than I expected. In fact, no one has ripped it to shreds (yet). Not sure how to respond to that. Maybe I’ll take off my helmet for a few minutes.
I can understand that. I just ask that you not judge libertarianism by a few bad examples.
I also understand this concern, but it’s not something I spend too much time worrying about, since I can’t see anyone creating a “pure” libertarian society any time soon. I WOULD like to see the US move in a more libertarian direction. I think think there is plenty of room for improvement before we run into impracticalities.
Speaking purely for myself, and not for libertarians in general, I would have a lot more sympathy with government approaches to this if I thought they did any good–I’m not really the type of person to stand on a principle of freedom if it is actually causing harm. I remain convinced, though, that efforts to legislate this type of equality do more harm than good. However, I AM in favor of non-governmental approaches.
-VM
I’m pretty sure that I haven’t argued otherwise. This is another thing that people seem to get some sort of strange satisfaction from pointing out to libetertarians.
From what I can tell, the number of libertarians is growing, if not as fast as I would like. I do think it’s interesting that you point out everyone should have a say in what the rules are. Surely, you see individual liberty gives each person more say in what rules they follow than any collection of laws, right?
I think you are talking around the fact that the disagreement between us is not a) that some rules must exist, or b) that people should have a say in what rules they follow. The difference is in your belief that everyone should follow the same rules (e.g. the rule that those with more should share with those who have less, or the rule that gay people should not marry each other). One of the key benefits of libertarianism is that government, as much as possible, is not imposing moral positions on the population.
It’s the insistence that one group sets the agenda for everyone that I have a problem with.
-VM
I would like to say that I don’t. You can understand, though, that it’s hard to believe a call for fewer economic restrictions when it comes from a person who enjoys government protections. I actually started a thread with that idea in mind, but it didn’t get any replies.
I, of course, remain skeptical, but I have to admit that I haven’t seen it work. My concerns are many, though, including education, taxation, market power, and the safety net. I’d be curious about your thoughts, and I’d try to remain open minded, but these are some big hurdles to overcome. But discussing all of that here would likely be a hijack.
Apart from that, you might want to rethink 5 year term-limits. Some economists argue against term limits because of the slow learning curve in public service. You’re shuffling them out before they adequately understand the trade, it’s argued, and that leaves them more susceptible to special-interest influence. I’ve always seen 18 years as a nice, round term limit number. If a new generation can vote, it’s time for you to go.