Perhaps slightly off-track but there was an absolutely fascinating editorial in my local paper about an early-twentieth century writer named Hilaire Belloc, who wrote a book called “The Servile State” which presciently anticipated much of our current debate on progresssivism, government regulation, the free market and the prospects of personal freedom.
Links go to subscription archives after about a week so I would urge to read it soon:
In the theories of anarchism I read, the general idea was that freely formed communities would draw agreements with other similar communities. So, an anarchist country would look like, say, a collection of kibutzim tied by a variety of agreements.
Of course, the artificial concept of private property would essentially be non-existant since any rational individual would have understood that it’s only a tool of oppression. Slight difference with the libertarians 
And what happens with the bigots are in the majority, as in California’s Prop. 8, and all the states that voted to prevent SS-marriage? Look around you, at all the idiots you encounter every day. Do you want them deciding what your rights are?
In a true libertarian society (as opposed to anarchy), there is only one basic law: Don’t hurt anyone, except in self-defense. All other laws are derived from that.
Not off-track at all. Belloc points out that extreme capitalism needs big government; a point made in several ways in this thread, but which “libertarians” do not seem to comprehend:
Libertarians seem to think there are shortcuts and prophylactics to avoid social and political struggle. There aren’t. There is no system that you can set up that will allow Libertarian A to live under exactly the political system he wants to without ever having to try to persuade the rest of the polity that things should be a particular way.
Sometimes the bigots do win. And then you have to fight them and win next time. I’m sorry, but life is just like that and there is no system that you can set up that will prevent it.
Some versions of capitalism do require big government but libertarianism and capitalism are not synonymous. They tend to go together but they don’t have to. Libertarianism is an ideal unto itself and not just a mechanism for allowing capitalism to work in the best way possible.
Then you’re fucked. I’ve said majority rule isn’t perfect. But it’s better than libertarism because you have to have 51% of the population to oppress people in a majority rule system but you only need 1% of the population to oppress people in a libertarian system.
But you’re still avoiding the central question. Why won’t gay people being oppressed in a libertarian society? There’s nothing in your theory that prevents it.
You can argue that in a true libertarian society, gay marriage would be legal even if the majority wants it to be illegal because true libertarian principles overrule the majority opinion. But it’s equally true that in a true libertarian society, gay marriage could be illegal even if the majority wants it to be legal because true libertarian principles overrule that majority opinion. Once you give some special elite the power to overrule the majority, you have no idea where that elite will go with it.
On a new topic…
I Joe Blow voter believe that the drug war is one of the most destructive things in American society, it has tendrils and roots that extend to all sorts of rotten areas like the obscene prison population and private prisons and judicial corruption and institutionalized racism.
Of all the domestic issues I feel this is one of the most important to do something, anything about at all. I know if I vote libertarian the candidate won’t win, but they are the only party even addressing the damn issue! Do I spend my whole life voting the lessor of two evils, or actually vote with the platform I agree with?
Because it is against the hypothetical constitution, or the hypothetical bill of rights includes equal protection and rights for gay people. Now you will ask who decides that and then I say because it is one of the cornerstones of a libertarian society, if it wasn’t then this hypothetical society isn’t libertarian at all. Libertarian is a descriptor, if it doesn’t match then you don’t have a libertarian society simple as that.
If you are saying there is nothing stopping private individuals from oppressing gay people openly or on the sly, you got me there. Libertarian societies offer no explicit protection from private oppression as long as laws aren’t being broken, it is a known weakness.
A difficult question. There are two strategies.
The first is to vote for the party whose current platform you agree with even if this party has no chance of winning any elections. The second is to vote for the electable party that’s closest to the platform you want and try to nudge them in a better direction.
Which plan is better? Who knows? Neither is going to get drugs legalized in the short-term. And it’s impossible to predict which will be more likely to get drugs legalized in the long-term.
If both parties realize they are losing voters it will probably be the only way to wake them up.
Re. gay marriage being “legal” or “illegal”: the thing is, when you’re talking about legalizing gay marriage, you’re not saying that gays will no longer face the sanction of the law for wedding- no one cares if they consider themselves wedded or not. What you’re saying is that the law will force other people to respect their matrimony, under penalty. In most versions of libertarianism I’ve heard of, there are no nanny-state laws guaranteeing that life will be fair. If someone wants to be a bigoted asshole, as long as s/he doesn’t resort to force, they’re free to do with their own what they will. And other people in turn are free to shun the bigoted asshole.
In a sense, no one has any “rights” in a libertarian system besides freedom from compulsion. They’re on their own. Or it’s been put another way (Heinlein?): everyone has exactly two rights- to do whatever they choose to, and to accept the consequences.
The ‘Special Elite’ only applies at the beginning of a libertarian society and this is hardly unique to libertarians. It is decided by a small group and put into a Constitution and Bill of Rights and certainly can’t be modified easily after that. Sound familiar? It should. It is the way the U.S. was founded as well as most other 1st World nations. You don’t allow everyone to vote on a constitution or Bill of Rights or you won’t ever have a real one.
Those are considered inalienable rights. The general democratic piece comes afterwards but has to work within that framework and the rules that were originally set up. The main trait that distinguishes the libertarian model is an emphasis on personal rights. Gay equality (from a government standpoint) as well as other behaviors that are personal and don’t directly involve anyone else would certainly be included in that umbrella. There is no special protection for gay people for private matters under libertarian philosophy except for criminal matters that apply to anyone but there isn’t for anyone else either. It is true equality.
How is this restrained anywhere short of total anarchy? I choose to lynch the guy living next door because I don’t like his race/nationality/sexual practices/music/whatever. (Lynch, not compel. I’m not compelling him to anything. I respect his right not to be compelled. I’m just killing him.) I accept the consequences…which are nil, because I have forty big strong friends with shotguns to back me up.
Uh oh, turns out the dead guy had sixty big strong friends with shotguns…
If there is a police/posse/militia/vigilance committee out there to deter such action, then we have a government, and it isn’t anarchy any more…but that also means we have a right not to be killed, so the premise of “no rights” no longer applies.
Hardly. It just means that people can be freely oppressed as long as the government isn’t the one that does it. Libertarians oppose personal rights; the government is the only reason those rights exist, and they want to eviscerate it.
Is the government the only possible instrument for preventing oppression? What happens when the little people all have guns and there isn’t a state with laws and police to defend the tyrants?
Yes.
Whoever is the best at organizing the guys with guns become tyrants themselves; warlords. And people flock to them because they provide a modicum of protection, and the individual gun fetishists won’t be able to stand against them. Guns and numbers are much less important and effective than organization.
I love how you use this fallacious reasoning over and over and over, even when I point out the obvious fallacy to you over and over and over.
Here’s the fallacy:
You never make an argument based on policy considerations, it’s all just railing against libertarians for being poopyheads based on the above fallacious line of reasoning.
You do realize that you are “defending” libertarians by insisting that I should call them morons instead of ill intentioned? “They don’t mean badly! They’re just clueless!”
There seem to be two types of Libertarian. One supports personal freedoms (recreational drugs, gay marriages, etc.); the other is all about the advantages of Adam Smith’s Dog-eat-dog philosophy, and that the government should stop trying to help the Underdog.
You libertarians even confuse each other! It was grude who pointed us ignoramuses to the libertarian platform: I spent 20 seconds skimming that platform, quoted from it in this thread (Libertarian Party wants to abolish Income Tax) and grude himself was surprised to learn that! :smack:
It sounds like you Dog-eat-dog libertarians have recruited grude deceptively 
(but of course deception in U.S. politics is all-pervasive now).
Something else that confuses me (and, I’ll guess, others) about libertarianism is that we have no clear view of the political structure you envision. Can you point to an historic example of a society close to your ideal? Will the needy be tended by relatives, charities, government, or not at all? Will there be universal suffrage? In most societies throughout history, as well as in the libertarian model as often presented, the rich have disproportionate political power (e.g. only land owners can vote); is this the view? You’ll get more respect from an honest answer, than the claim that slaves will be free to vote but enlightened enough to vote for continued servitude.
If no historic example presents, what does your Utopia look like? John Lennon’s featured “Imagine no possessions … I wonder if you can,” but this doesn’t seem to be the libertarian model. :dubious:
Until we get a clear idea of your “Utopia” we’ll just continue to develop caricatures of it.