And so, this is what would eventually (more sooner than later) be the demise of the imaginary land of Libertaria.
Once collectives are founded it is just a matter of time until the organizations get bigger and bigger and some people are no longer volunteers . Yes, soon enough people will be paid to administrate the affairs of others. And most of us would LIKE it that way.
You see, humans prefer organization over chaos-- it wouldn’t be long until folks would have had their fill of anarchy and they would long to be rid of it.
Easiest way to get rid of the anarchy? Form a state.
Oh, no! Surely, not every person is completely like-minded with respect to how he would like to be governed. The notion of nanny government is so entrenched that it is difficult for some people at first to conceptualize that they were not born as property of The State.
People who suffer mental retardation are, like children, incapable of giving meaningful consent. Their parents or guardians are responsible for securing their rights either themselves or through government.
I once was asked if I could explain libertarianism to a five-year-old. My response was, “Never start a fight, but you may defend yourself. Never tell a lie, except to protect yourself.”
Well, I don’t advocate anarchy. However, I certainly agree that corruption is always waiting in the wings. But those who stand the best chance to delay corruption are those who are vigilant, who jealously guard their right to consent, and whose government is limited in scope to defending their rights.
OK now we’re talking! What you say above sounds more like harm reduction-- vigilance against corruption, protecting the right to consent-- I’m all for these things!!! I just don’t think we can take these things all the way to a absolute libertarian society. (if it did somehow happen, I think there would be anarchy-- which is why I substituted anarchy for “libertarianism” previously)
Lib-I once was asked if I could explain libertarianism to a five-year-old. My response was, “Never start a fight, but you may defend yourself. Never tell a lie, except to protect yourself.”
If you don’t mind giving the 5-yr old carte blanche on lying.
Oblivion-And, what upsets me most is that it is coming from people whom seem intelligent enough to understand the difference between a form of government, like a constututional democracy, and the philosophy driving it, like Republican Conservatism or Democrat Liberalism.
So are you of the opinion that no political philosophy should be criticised on practical grounds? Hard to get anything up and running that way (though in this case that is probably for the best).
Of course there are people rooting for Libertarian. I’ve always enjoyed the spectacle of an underdog struggling uphill from an indefensible position and giving a good fight.
The problem with the Libertarian platform, IMHO, is the same as that of a women “just a little bit pregnant.” Libertarians want to strengthen the rights of individuals while weakening the self-righteous powers of governments–and I’m all for that–but there is no such thing as a little government. Government, by its nature, is a power-driven coercion mechanism and a small. limited government is just as bad, in principle, as a big one.
The only government of any kind that really works at all is the internal self-government practised by most people; the shape of the national government is irrelevent except as a malicious force. I love the line from Weiss’ “Marat/Sade” where one of the characters (played by Glenda Jackson in the movie) sings of her ideal government: “A society in which every man is trusted with the right of governing himself…himself.”
If, in the course of time, we could see “most people” replaced by “all people” I would be ecstatic to live in what others above have called an anarchy. Except the proper term is “autarchy.” An autarchy is an anarchy inhabited by people who have no legal, external restraints on them but who who are aware that their own best self-interest requires cooperation and, moreover, politeness.
This term, BTW, was coined and advocated by Diogenes of Sinope. Diogene the Cynic, are you here?
Good luck in your efforts, Libertarian and perhaps I can take some of the lightning bolts off your head as I expect to be rather bored this weekend.
Anarchy - 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature – Israel Shenker>
Liberatrianism - 1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
libertarian adjective
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun
Hmmmm? Goofy, which of these are different? Hey, I will give you a clue, neither are the same.
Though, I do concede Webster’s definition of Libertarian is more than a little lacking, but it does effectively show that these are different beasts all together.
Just so you don’t have to think, Goofy, Anarchy could be considered a form of non-government libertarianism, for the un-educated. However, one of the basic drives of Libertarianism is to have sustainable personal Liberty. Anarchy, as you have so rightly pointed out, will not support this desire. People would imediately start coercing the weak in Anarchy, so to avoid that you would need Gevernment to uphold, protect and enforce our rights. Hmmm? Sounds a lot like what Thomas Jefferson was going for isn’t it? The problem, the reason I hate Government, is that IT is its own beast, and IT hates personal Liberty. Which is why Jefferson’s dream, the Constitution, has been effectively destroyed by the same Government it created. It is a testament to Jefferson that his brilliance was able to hold off the Beast as long as it did.
Libertarians with any inteligence do not support Anarchy.
The problem I was talking about was a few people were saying Libertarianism is wrong because of this or that when this or that is not something Libertarianism, or any philosophy for that matter, is capable of doing. The example that comes to mind is Nog wondering about who would build the roads in a Libertarian society? And he said Libertarianism isn’t capable of doing it. A little tautalogical at best.
My point is, Nog wasn’t debating the points of Libertarianism becasue he doesn’t seem to understand the framework of what Government and Philosophy are to humans.
The saddest part is, I think, almost everyone is a Libertarian at heart. The debate should be about how we enforce Libertarianism without losing Liberty.
Ok, masochistic people with slave fantasies may not be Libertarians, but without Liberty they wouldn’t be able to decide to do that, so I guess they are too.
But, with all ideals, it is impossible to accomplish.
However, we live with these problems everyday.
There seems to be millions of people supporting Republican Conservatism and Democratic Liberalism in this country. What are the odds that the exact goals defined by these philosophies are ever going to be accomplished? Never. But, that doesn’t seem to make these philosophies invalid just because everyting It wants won’t happen.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that does seem to be one of the arguments here about Libertarianism.
I have to go catch a commuter train at the moment but, later this evening, I expect to make a major statement regarding these issues which will, perhaps, eradicate whatever small reputation for sanity I have on this board.
Perhaps it’s just as well we’re starting out in the Pit.
A. Don’t read threads in the pit if you don’t want to read flames.
B. Don’t read threads involving a self-righteous, hypocritical prick like Libertarian if you don’t want to see people calling him on it. I tried debating reasonably with Libertarian, but he’s made it clear that he much prefers his little catchphrases to actual debate.
Hmm… you’re either a complete gibbering idiot, or have no problem with spewing forth lies by the truckload. What’s ‘flat wrong’ about anything I said about Lib - is it just that you’re a whiny little bitch who can’t deal with somoen poking holes in absurd positions like Lib’s and so resorts to the 'ol fingers in the ears trick, or do you think that stating your lies loudly makes them true through the magic of repition?
We’ve listened to Libertarian go on ad nauseum with his smarmy little ‘ohh, you’re so Evil, not like me, I’m so much better’ quips, tried to find out what the basis of his belief is, and seen that it’s just posturing. What more is there? Lib can’t answer the basic problem of how his society can function without violating the noncoercion principle, yet his whole basis for those prepetually repeated catechisms is that other societies violate the noncoercion principle. Looks like he doesn’t have any room for self-righteousness to me.
I’ve explicitly pointed out Lib’s inconcistencies time and time again, but I’m not suprised that your only way to deal with them is to lie and claim that they don’t exist. Either Libertaria does nothing when I shoot the kid in response to his initiation of force by trespassing, or it violates what Lib has claimed for it
You’re wrong, maybe you should read the linked threads to get an idea of the history of Libertarian’s Libertarianism, Libertaria, and all of the fun that follows him around. Or maybe you can just keep repeating that you’re right and everyone else needs to listen to you, since it appears highly unlikely that you’re going to come up with answers to basic questions.
