Otherwise, utopia
Whats wrong with the Libertarians?
- Thread starter Shogun
- Start date
David_TheMan
Banned
The heirachy is in place to prevent corruption? Whhy hasn't it.
Stateless society doesn't seek to prevent dishonesty, not even an objective. It seems you think the purpose of government is to improve the morality or increase the value of humanity, most libertarians don't view it that way. Government simply formalizes our interactions with each other to enable us to peacefully resolve areas of disagreement. That is it.
Now you to your question preventing dishonesty, it doesn't, neither does any form of government because they can't, but it disincentivizes dishonesty by having an immediate check on it in the form of removing the dishonest actor from power via changing provider (anacap view) or other alternatives depending on the role of the provider, so that you will not have to be subject to the dishonest actor. It does this in a manner not lending towards violence as well, which has the added benefit of keeping society generally stable and peaceful.
TheDarceKnight
Veteran
Genuine question. Is there currently, or has there ever been a libertarian society that functioned smoothly?
This may seem like a smart ass question too, but I also mean it genuinely. If the free market decides the best system, and if Libertarianism is such an amazing system, then wouldn't Libertarianism be more prominent by now?
This may seem like a smart ass question too, but I also mean it genuinely. If the free market decides the best system, and if Libertarianism is such an amazing system, then wouldn't Libertarianism be more prominent by now?
Last edited:
Trajan
Veteran
That is the problem. It only sounds good in theory.
The solution to everything is ''privatise it'' ''the market will solve it''
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
No. Pinochet made the trains run on time though.
David_TheMan
Banned
No there has never been a pure libertarian society, much like there has never been a pure communist society.
The argument that if it was good it would have been done, falls apart on its face if you apply the logic consistantly. Lets say those arguing to end slavery in the 1800s were countered with why should we end slavery, if freedom and equality for all men is such good concept it would have been done in the past, ergo it isn't neccessary to free slaves. What would your response to that be?
You would say , appealing to tradition is a logic fallacy first of all, then you would say the merit of what you are arguing should be evaluated on the merit of the actual argument, not on whether it was done before. Society doesn't advance by simply doing what was always done, if that was the case we wouldn't have advanced to were we are now, right?
David_TheMan
Banned
That is the problem. It only sounds good in theory.
The solution to everything is ''privatise it'' ''the market will solve it''
If it sounds good in theory but isn't applicable in life it should sound terrible in theory, right?
Nice strawman about the solution though, guess its easier to dismiss than to address actual arguments.
Libertarianism doesnt claim this.
But here is what you are asking: If animals are so much better off being free outside of the zoo, why haven't any zoo owners let them out of the zoo?
and why do zoos keep popping up?
The USA is one of the most un-corrupt places in the world.
Put that in perspective.
Now, are there problems? Yes.
But to apply kindergartener thinking the best of everyone else and assuming that everyone else has your morality isn't going to lead to a lot of success. Be prepared for a lot of disappointment and failure.
Theres no laws in your world because you assume the very things you benefit right now in a lawful society will be protected. They aren't and they won't. And this IN ITSELF neglects the long and winding history that led to the very things you claim to benefit from.
f
And being privatized doesn't address who has the monopolization of force or who is the ultimate authority when it comes to law enforcement
And being privatized doesn't address who is responsible for preventing the abuse of these security forces.
This is just more pie in the sky bullshyt that seeks to avoid reforming the current system because its too hard in lieu of making up shyt thats easier for you to imagine.
I'm not ignoring you. I'm disputing how legitimate it is.
Just admit you want a mixed society of freedoms, not absolute libertarianism.
Self interest means, in many cases, not fulfilling your debt to other members of society.
Self interest means being selfish. And societies dont work that way.
A new process of norms? Such as what? Decriminalization of puritan drug and sex practices? And? Thats it? and what about the rest of us?
The law doesn't stop law breakers, but its a hell of a disincentive to those on the fence.
And poor people get what?
Yes there is. Calling things corrupt doesn't fix anything. FIXING things changes them. The USA is one of the most lawful and uncorrupt places on earth, for a country our size and influence. And the presence of corruption doesn't change the fact that the system to expose and correct for that corrupt is in place and is used.
Privatized security is paid for...how?
And being privatized doesn't address who has the monopolization of force or who is the ultimate authority when it comes to law enforcement
And being privatized doesn't address who is responsible for preventing the abuse of these security forces.
This is just more pie in the sky bullshyt that seeks to avoid reforming the current system because its too hard in lieu of making up shyt thats easier for you to imagine.
Private police systems have never existed in an environment without a public one. In conjunction? Maybe. Not in the absence of.
We can go back to bartering all you want, but there has to be a formalized system to resolve disputes.Who said there will not be law, who said there will not be compensation, who said there will not be enforcement. You literally ignored everything I typed and what you bolded to say this.
I'm not ignoring you. I'm disputing how legitimate it is.
Just admit you want a mixed society of freedoms, not absolute libertarianism.
You know the US Marshal Service, and Bailiffs and Sheriff departments ultimately enforce those contracts, right?
Self interest means, in many cases, not fulfilling your debt to other members of society.
Self interest means being selfish. And societies dont work that way.
You can make "the state" as small as you want, except you all can't agree on what size that would be. And that, itself, exposes the extremist views of hardcore libertarians.
A new process of norms? Such as what? Decriminalization of puritan drug and sex practices? And? Thats it? and what about the rest of us?
The law doesn't stop law breakers, but its a hell of a disincentive to those on the fence.
And poor people get what?
Libertarianism empowers bigots through their neglect towards minorities under the guise of "freedom"
Its the same "well theres no one stopping you" bullshyt which ignores the fact that under the same notion people can "do what they want" to infringe ever so slightly upon others.
David_TheMan
Banned
To say the USA is one of the most un-corrupt places in the world, when you literally have a presidential candidate that handle top secret information and lost it and recieved no punishment, while the same administration, tried to illegally murder and detain Edward Snowden for doing the same thing is ridiculous.
A nation that attacked multiple nations for business interests since the 1930s up to today, while those in power routinely flout the law murdering and causing chaos around the world with no need to even be held responsible for their actions.
No, its very easy to see the US is one of the most corrupt and dangerous nations on the face of this earth. Its absurd to claim it isn't. You have fukking police departments that drive around with extra guns and drugs in their vehicles to drop on the people they murder to legitimize it. You have a nation that imprisons its people for drug usage, while it aids international drug producers in distributing and producing the same shyt. SMH.
---
You can make your text bold and as big as you would like, it will never change the fact that I have not argued for a world with no law or government.
I feel bad that you knowingly have to lie to argue a strawman to try to make a point, but it is what it is.
I have not once argued for no law or no government.
Snowden is a traitor.
Hillary is the next POTUS.
shyts different.
I know people in government as staffers, trust me. The government ain't THAT corrupt. People are scared to have others pay for their salads and shyt. And people get caught all the time. I reject your specious investigation.
Whats this got to do with libertarianism?
And there are measures in place to fix this.
The system only works if we make it. Coming up with terms and utopia ideas like libertarianism not only doesn't fix things, it avoids having to be responsible for living in that society.
Oh, so you're not an anarchist...yet you keep pushing anarchy.
David_TheMan
Banned
f Yes there is. Calling things corrupt doesn't fix anything. FIXING things changes them. The USA is one of the most lawful and uncorrupt places on earth, for a country our size and influence. And the presence of corruption doesn't change the fact that the system to expose and correct for that corrupt is in place and is used.
Privatized security is paid for...how?
And being privatized doesn't address who has the monopolization of force or who is the ultimate authority when it comes to law enforcement
And being privatized doesn't address who is responsible for preventing the abuse of these security forces.
This is just more pie in the sky bullshyt that seeks to avoid reforming the current system because its too hard in lieu of making up shyt thats easier for you to imagine.
Private police systems have never existed in an environment without a public one. In conjunction? Maybe. Not in the absence of.
We can go back to bartering all you want, but there has to be a formalized system to resolve disputes.
I'm not ignoring you. I'm disputing how legitimate it is.
Just admit you want a mixed society of freedoms, not absolute libertarianism.
You know the US Marshal Service, and Bailiffs and Sheriff departments ultimately enforce those contracts, right?
Self interest means, in many cases, not fulfilling your debt to other members of society.
Self interest means being selfish. And societies dont work that way.
You can make "the state" as small as you want, except you all can't agree on what size that would be. And that, itself, exposes the extremist views of hardcore libertarians.
A new process of norms? Such as what? Decriminalization of puritan drug and sex practices? And? Thats it? and what about the rest of us?
The law doesn't stop law breakers, but its a hell of a disincentive to those on the fence.
And poor people get what?
Calling something corrupt and broken in its very design and saying we need something new and presenting something new is what i've done. So I really don't understand your first paragraph, because that isn't what i've done and you know that, if you've actually read what I posted. Fact of the matter is the system is doing what it is designed to do, you talk about fixing it, it isn't broken so until you come to the realization that the very system you want control of leads to the negative effects you are living through now, nothing will change.
I told you how the security will be paid for, by those who want it with currency. Its very simple.
Privatize security is an answer to monopoly, because you have different vendors to come in the market to compete. That is the point of privatizing and having competition for the anacap.
Nothing prevents abuse, like laws don't prevent crime, the only thing we want is to limit the ability to remedy abuse, and hold those accountable. It is easier to hold private security accountable because they aren't a monopoly, because they don't run every aspect of the process because they don't have full control of investigating their own actions than any other alternative.
Its pie in the sky to say we need to stop doing the same thing with the same results if we want different outcomes, but it isn't when you claim we can fix this with the processes put in place by those in power, which hasn't worked since these processes have been talked about. I think you are projecting.
Yet private policing existed in environments without government policing and its documented in the very link I presented to you, as well as with regard for the wild west and the private security offered there, and in the case of the Wild West, it provided greater security, less violence than the US in the East during teh same period.
Who said anything about bartering, you literally have to pull up things no one said to knock down, because you can't logically construct an actual argument.
Why should i admit someting you want, when i don't believe in that, and i have told you what i'm in favor of? That literally makes no sense. It is if you have given up, but you want me to agree that you are right so you can save face. Very strange.
Self interest is what drives the creation of societal norms and customs, and these have very little to do with an outside body with a monopoly of force imposing them.
What do the US marshalls or sheriffs have to do with what i actually argued? Absolutely nothing.
Self-interest doesn't mean selfish, nice attempt to play on words and by the connotation shift game, but I see through it. If we were to hold your logic constant, you would tell us the "golden rule", do unto others as you would have them do unto, is selfish. No its self-interest of those that follow it.
I have no want to make the state as small as possible, I would like to see the state cease to exist. Again read what i've written instead of arguing with the man inside your head.
I said a new process of enforcing norms, whcih is through more voluntaryist means. Honoring that a person has full control of their property, which means their income, body, land, and etc. Enforcing norms through more ostracization and contract and government via contracting more than monopoly of force through the state.
The law doesn't stop lawbreakers though, and if it had a disincentive effect, it would definitely show up with regard to capital crimes, yet historically studies on the effect of capital crimes show they do not have any disincentivizing effect.
Poor people, rich people, middle class people get nothing but what they work for and buy or what others give them voluntarily.