Lib, I’m not trying to argue right or wrong here, I’m just trying to understand. I’ve read the link to the noncoercion principle in the thread about the NP, but I’m having this problem. You need military, police, and courts to enforce the NP; otherwise no matter how much almost everybody believes in the NP, there will be a lot of coercion going on. What’s more, the military and/or police need to be strong enough to prevent invasions, deter gangsters, prevent warlords from rising up within a country.
(If you believe in having a country, that is; in the flat-tax thread, you stated that individuals should be able to secede from a country without moving out of it. The difference between that and anarchy - in practice, at least - still eludes me.)
So how do libertarians believe in financing all this? I hate to get all realpoliticky, but we’re talking about a system of government that you believe would work IRL. In these discussions, you put forth libertarian ideals, but they seemed to be defined by the absence of various aspects of government. I’m never clear as to what, if anything, is present in such a system.
Libertarianism is utopian - because it has never been tried in real life. Libertarian believes that it is possible to get a couple hundred million people who will voluntarily support those government functions that they deem necessary.
I respect you, Spiritus. Nobel laureat F. A. Hayek, whom I also respect, disagrees with you. Are you familiar with his Theory of Spontaneous Order? You can find plenty on it at Free Market
RT:
Hopefully, if I answer this question, it will answer what is at the root of your other questions as well.
What is present is a community, of any arbitrary size, of people who have decided that they value their freedom enough to hire a government to defend them from bullies and con men so they can go about their daily commerce and personal pursuits.
What is present is a government that secures the rights of its citizens, including their right to be free of its interference so long as they are peaceful and honest.
And that’s the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. Libertarianism accomodates all systems. It lets you be an anarchist if you want to. But you can also join a totalitarian collective if that’s what tickles your fancy. And anything else in between.
Do you know of any other political philosophy that tolerates all others? Marxism would not tolerate any free-market commerce, but libertarianism will allow people to own property collectively if they want to — if they all want to.
RT, I hope you and I, even if we can’t come to agree, can at least come to understand one another. Are you any closer at all to understanding my politics? I just see them as very Christian, that’s all. I mean, look at Jesus. He was the consumate Libertarian. He never initiated force, but when vandals trespassed in His Father’s house, He evicted them with all necessary force.
(And RT, please don’t start the render-unto-Caesar thing. You cannot possibly believe that I — and countless others — have never thought that through.)
Lib:
I am not familiar with Hayek’s work, though I recognized his name. I browsed through a few of the links from that site, but I found nothing that really illuminated the questions regarding the consequences of an unfettered market devoid of social constraint. I did find some interesting quotes like:
But I rather doubt that was the information to which you were trying to lead me. Perhaps you could provide a link more focused to the information you would like to convey.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
You are right. I admit my postings over the last couple of days have not been well thought out and in some cases not clear.
What I do believe is, that it would take time to get to the point of no taxes. It would be nearly impossible to shut down the government and change everything overnight.
Now, to those that doubt the fact that people would see to it that the nation is properly armed. As my father said (with regards to his church which is voluntary) 20 percent of the people pay 80 percent of the revenue. This is a reality, but in his eyes he’s willing to donate money to his church to keep it strong and help get the word out about his religion.
The advantage to this is, he sees some people could afford it but gives them no ill will because of it. But, he gladly donates to his church because it’s something he believes in.
Sorry about the later reply, Lib; too damned many libertarian threads at once here!
I’m a bit closer to understanding your beliefs, thanks. I doubt that I’ll ever agree with them, but that’s another story. And while I haven’t tried to lay out an entire political philosophy here (other than a bit here, a bit there), I hope you’ll come to understand mine, even though I don’t expect to persuade you, either.
I’d have to disagree with you on the issue of libertarianism being Christian. I find a strong streak of economic populism in the Bible; maybe we should discuss that on another thread. Maybe I’ll start one!
