How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Skylar]

The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains.

Libertarianism is based upon the stance that it's wrong to initiation aggression against one's fellow man. How exactly is this stance "exploitative"?

Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.

You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.

And how is the moral stance that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man exploitative?

Its your argument. You tell me.

My argument is that libertarianism has few and feeble checks for the concentration of personal power.Especially the radical 'no taxation' anarcho-libertarianism that you favor.

Monopolies, exploitation, environmental damage, anti-competative business practices, intimidation, rampant nepotism, propaganda, racial discrimination, harassment.....just to start. As any concentration of power, unchecked, will eventually be abused. Libertarianism has no checks for these wild abuses.

I'm not sure how these result from people thinking that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

That's because you don't take into consideration the consequences of say....no mandatory taxation. Absolute property rights. The ability of any property owner to be able to 'secede from the nation' at their whim. Or a nation with no laws.

In the real world, we have to take these consequences into consideration. Which is why a philosophy which ignores them is so practically worthless.

And that's just what is allowed within the law.

The idea that with vast personal power, wealth, influence and resources that this power won't be used to influence the laws to their benefit or to circumvent the laws is ludicrious. Of course it will. Its inevitable. And as the laws are changed to favor those with unchecked power.....libertarianism dies. And oligarchy takes its place.

Your philosophy is too weak to stand in the form you imagine. Which is why it doesn't exist in practice.

My philosophy doesn't exist?

"Which is why it doesn't exist in practice."

Try again. This time reading for comprehension.

And the OP still hasn't explained how it is evil to consider it wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

Ask the OP. Its not my argument.

 

[Centinel]

Libertarianism is based upon the stance that it's wrong to initiation aggression against one's fellow man. How exactly is this stance "exploitative"?

Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.

You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.

And how is the moral stance that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man exploitative?

Its your argument. You tell me.

My argument is that libertarianism has few and feeble checks for the concentration of personal power.Especially the radical 'no taxation' anarcho-libertarianism that you favor.

Monopolies, exploitation, environmental damage, anti-competative business practices, intimidation, rampant nepotism, propaganda, racial discrimination, harassment.....just to start. As any concentration of power, unchecked, will eventually be abused. Libertarianism has no checks for these wild abuses.

I'm not sure how these result from people thinking that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

That's because you don't take into consideration the consequences of say....no mandatory taxation. Absolute property rights. The ability of any property owner to be able to 'secede from the nation' at their whim. Or a nation with no laws.

In the real world, we have to take these consequences into consideration. Which is why a philosophy which ignores them is so practically worthless.

And that's just what is allowed within the law.

The idea that with vast personal power, wealth, influence and resources that this power won't be used to influence the laws to their benefit or to circumvent the laws is ludicrious. Of course it will. Its inevitable. And as the laws are changed to favor those with unchecked power.....libertarianism dies. And oligarchy takes its place.

Your philosophy is too weak to stand in the form you imagine. Which is why it doesn't exist in practice.

My philosophy doesn't exist?

"Which is why it doesn't exist in practice."

Try again. This time reading for comprehension.

And the OP still hasn't explained how it is evil to consider it wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

Ask the OP. Its not my argument.

Oh, so you are not arguing that libertarianism is evil? I thought that was your stance.

 

[Skylar]

The consequences of no mandatory taxation, few and feeble checks on personal power, and few and feeble checks on abuses of that power.....is exploitation and the end of libertarianism.

There's a reason why we're discussing your philosophy hypothetically. It doesn't last long in the real world. Its inherently unsustainable in practice. And isn't being practiced.....anywhere. For that exact reason.

Its like anarchy or communism. Its an ivory tower ideal that like a hot house orchid, wilts and dies when exposed to the non-ivory tower real world.

Libertarians oppose the initiation of aggression. So personal power and abuses of power and exploitation would rightly be condemned by libertarians when they violate people's person or property.

Would denying someone access to a road that you own that they need to travel be an 'act of aggression'? Would offering a wage below what is necessary to survive be an act of aggression? Would refusing to hire black people be an act of aggression? Would regional monopolies be an act of aggression? Would paying people in 'company money' so they only make purchases at the 'company store' that you own be an 'act of aggression'?Would firing someone who said anything you disagreed with be an 'act of aggression'?

Remember....just because you ignore the consequences of your beliefs doesn't mean that there are no consequences.

 

[Skylar]

Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.

You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.

And how is the moral stance that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man exploitative?

Its your argument. You tell me.

My argument is that libertarianism has few and feeble checks for the concentration of personal power.Especially the radical 'no taxation' anarcho-libertarianism that you favor.

Monopolies, exploitation, environmental damage, anti-competative business practices, intimidation, rampant nepotism, propaganda, racial discrimination, harassment.....just to start. As any concentration of power, unchecked, will eventually be abused. Libertarianism has no checks for these wild abuses.

I'm not sure how these result from people thinking that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

That's because you don't take into consideration the consequences of say....no mandatory taxation. Absolute property rights. The ability of any property owner to be able to 'secede from the nation' at their whim. Or a nation with no laws.

In the real world, we have to take these consequences into consideration. Which is why a philosophy which ignores them is so practically worthless.

And that's just what is allowed within the law.

The idea that with vast personal power, wealth, influence and resources that this power won't be used to influence the laws to their benefit or to circumvent the laws is ludicrious. Of course it will. Its inevitable. And as the laws are changed to favor those with unchecked power.....libertarianism dies. And oligarchy takes its place.

Your philosophy is too weak to stand in the form you imagine. Which is why it doesn't exist in practice.

My philosophy doesn't exist?

"Which is why it doesn't exist in practice."

Try again. This time reading for comprehension.

And the OP still hasn't explained how it is evil to consider it wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

Ask the OP. Its not my argument.

Oh, so you are not arguing that libertarianism is evil? I thought that was your stance.

See post 622 for my perspective on the matter.

How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

 

[Skylar]

It doesn't really matter how you feel about government. The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains. And its in this exploitative nature that libertarianism's unsustainability are sown.

I don't want shit from you is "exploitative?" No wonder your legs are spread, panda

Your tell is showing.

I see, you're seeing from my telling you to go fuck yourself that I want shit from you that I want free shit. You see what you want to see, don't you?

I see your tell: as your argument collapses, you lean harder one awkward attempts at insult.

At this point, its all you have left. You're done.

I see your tell: as you ignore all arguments, you lean harder towards being a leech wanting free shit.

At this point, it's all you have left. Dependency. You're done

I wasn't aware 'go fuck yourself' was an argument.

 

[Centinel]

Would denying someone access to a road that you own that they need to travel be an 'act of aggression'?

No. Denying someone access to one's own property is not an act of aggression.

Would offering a wage below what is necessary to survive be an act of aggression?

No.

Would refusing to hire black people be an act of aggression?

No.

Would regional monopolies be an act of aggression?

What's a regional monopoly?

Would paying people in 'company money' so they only make purchases at the 'company store' that you own be an 'act of aggression'?

No.

You asked me what I meant when I used the term "aggression". Didn't you read my reply?

Remember....just because you ignore the consequences of your beliefs doesn't mean that there are no consequences.

Nor does it mean that moral opposition to the initiation of aggression is evil.

 

[Skylar]

Would denying someone access to a road that you own that they need to travel be an 'act of aggression'?

No. Denying someone access to one's own property is not an act of aggression.

So, since there is no mandatory taxation, all roads are toll roads and privately owned. If you're not granted permission to use the roads out of town, nor pass through someone else's property......how do you get out?

How do you get to work?

How do you find work?

How do you eat?

And what kind of control could you exert over someone if you can deny them access to these necessities? if you threatened to deny them access to the roads if they said something you didn't like? If they didn't take a lower wage? If they didn't convert to your religion?

Would that be 'aggression'? Not according to you.

And thus but one of dozens of examples of the child like conception of power and coercion that libertarians have. As that kind of disparity of power, this ludicrious degree of control, gross exploitation and abuse is all perfectly legitimate within libertarianism.

Not just legitimate. Encouraged and carefully protected.

With predictably horrific consequences in terms of the practical exercise of freedom.

 

[Skylar]

What's a regional monopoly?

A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.

 

[bripat9643]

The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains.

Libertarianism is based upon the stance that it's wrong to initiation aggression against one's fellow man. How exactly is this stance "exploitative"?

Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.

You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.

Actually, to be a libertarian, you have to be against taxation because to be a libertarian means you support the non-initiation of force principle.

 

[Centinel]

A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.

I'm not sure what you mean by "given vital product". There are many products from which a consumer may choose. For example, there is only one producer of the product called "The Walking Dead". But then there also is only one producer of the product called "Vikings". Each is a monopolist. You can't prevent monopoly because every single producer produces a distinct and separate product.

 

[bripat9643]

What's a regional monopoly?

A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.

No such thing ever existed.

 

[bripat9643]

You said that slavery is aligned with libertarian values. It's not. Since slavery is aggression, it is antithetical to libertarian values.

I said that slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values. You're quite awful at paraphrasing.

And I offered slavery as something more oppressive than our government. You have yet to disagree.

So if you're saying that slavery is anti-libertarian, I agree.

I'm saying exactly what I said; slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values.

Libertarianism is inherently exploitative. It has few if any checks on concentrations of personal power, leading inevitably to vast inequities in personal power. And vast, unchecked inequities in personal power are all that's necessary for slavery, indentured servitude, and varying degrees of crass exploitation to flourish.

Slavery is an initiation of aggression, so is antithetical to libertarian philosophy.

Which is why libertarianism is so laughably unsustainable. As the seeds of its own destruction are sown within the vast, unchecked concentrations of personal power that libertarianism allows and encourages.

Did you not follow my posts about how obviously unsustainable libertarianism is.....and why?

What "unchecked concentrations of personal power?"

 

[Centinel]

I said that slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values. You're quite awful at paraphrasing.

And I offered slavery as something more oppressive than our government. You have yet to disagree.

So if you're saying that slavery is anti-libertarian, I agree.

I'm saying exactly what I said; slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values.

Libertarianism is inherently exploitative. It has few if any checks on concentrations of personal power, leading inevitably to vast inequities in personal power. And vast, unchecked inequities in personal power are all that's necessary for slavery, indentured servitude, and varying degrees of crass exploitation to flourish.

Slavery is an initiation of aggression, so is antithetical to libertarian philosophy.

Which is why libertarianism is so laughably unsustainable. As the seeds of its own destruction are sown within the vast, unchecked concentrations of personal power that libertarianism allows and encourages.

Did you not follow my posts about how obviously unsustainable libertarianism is.....and why?

What "unchecked concentrations of personal power?"

I think he means government functionaries.

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarianism is based upon the stance that it's wrong to initiation aggression against one's fellow man. How exactly is this stance "exploitative"?

Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.

You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.

And how is the moral stance that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man exploitative?

Its your argument. You tell me.

My argument is that libertarianism has few and feeble checks for the concentration of personal power.Especially the radical 'no taxation' anarcho-libertarianism that you favor.

Monopolies, exploitation, environmental damage, anti-competative business practices, intimidation, rampant nepotism, propaganda, racial discrimination, harassment.....just to start. As any concentration of power, unchecked, will eventually be abused. Libertarianism has no checks for these wild abuses.

I'm not sure how these result from people thinking that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

That's because you don't take into consideration the consequences of say....no mandatory taxation. Absolute property rights. The ability of any property owner to be able to 'secede from the nation' at their whim. Or a nation with no laws.

In the real world, we have to take these consequences into consideration. Which is why a philosophy which ignores them is so practically worthless.

We understand those things perfectly. That would mean all the abuses endemic to government would become impossible. It's you who doesn't understand the consequences of handing over the monopoly on the use of force to a corrupt government. No formal government does not mean "no laws."

 

[bripat9643]

What's a regional monopoly?

A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.

For example? You mean, like, if Walmart is the only merchandise store in town? You mean they don't have the option of driving to the next town? They don't have the option of moving?

 

[kaz]

I don't want shit from you is "exploitative?" No wonder your legs are spread, panda

Your tell is showing.

I see, you're seeing from my telling you to go fuck yourself that I want shit from you that I want free shit. You see what you want to see, don't you?

I see your tell: as your argument collapses, you lean harder one awkward attempts at insult.

At this point, its all you have left. You're done.

I see your tell: as you ignore all arguments, you lean harder towards being a leech wanting free shit.

At this point, it's all you have left. Dependency. You're done

I wasn't aware 'go fuck yourself' was an argument.

It's not. Not sure why you went back like four steps in the conversation, but that wasn't the context of the statement either. It wasn't toward you, it was toward government

 

[rightwinger]

So if you're saying that slavery is anti-libertarian, I agree.

I'm saying exactly what I said; slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values.

Libertarianism is inherently exploitative. It has few if any checks on concentrations of personal power, leading inevitably to vast inequities in personal power. And vast, unchecked inequities in personal power are all that's necessary for slavery, indentured servitude, and varying degrees of crass exploitation to flourish.

Slavery is an initiation of aggression, so is antithetical to libertarian philosophy.

Which is why libertarianism is so laughably unsustainable. As the seeds of its own destruction are sown within the vast, unchecked concentrations of personal power that libertarianism allows and encourages.

Did you not follow my posts about how obviously unsustainable libertarianism is.....and why?

The position that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man isn't unsustainable.

The consequences of no mandatory taxation, few and feeble checks on personal power, and few and feeble checks on abuses of that power.....is exploitation and the end of libertarianism.

There's a reason why we're discussing your philosophy hypothetically. It doesn't last long in the real world. Its inherently unsustainable in practice. And isn't being practiced.....anywhere. For that exact reason.

Its like anarchy or communism. Its an ivory tower ideal that like a hot house orchid, wilts and dies when exposed to the non-ivory tower real world.

We need government to act as a referee in our society

Not to make sure that everyone gets the same score but to ensure everyone has a fair chance of playing the game

 

[Contumacious]

I'm saying exactly what I said; slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values.

Libertarianism is inherently exploitative. It has few if any checks on concentrations of personal power, leading inevitably to vast inequities in personal power. And vast, unchecked inequities in personal power are all that's necessary for slavery, indentured servitude, and varying degrees of crass exploitation to flourish.

Slavery is an initiation of aggression, so is antithetical to libertarian philosophy.

Which is why libertarianism is so laughably unsustainable. As the seeds of its own destruction are sown within the vast, unchecked concentrations of personal power that libertarianism allows and encourages.

Did you not follow my posts about how obviously unsustainable libertarianism is.....and why?

The position that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man isn't unsustainable.

The consequences of no mandatory taxation, few and feeble checks on personal power, and few and feeble checks on abuses of that power.....is exploitation and the end of libertarianism.

There's a reason why we're discussing your philosophy hypothetically. It doesn't last long in the real world. Its inherently unsustainable in practice. And isn't being practiced.....anywhere. For that exact reason.

Its like anarchy or communism. Its an ivory tower ideal that like a hot house orchid, wilts and dies when exposed to the non-ivory tower real world.

We need government to act as a referee in our society

Not to make sure that everyone gets the same score but to ensure everyone has a fair chance of playing the game

True, governments , when present, ought to act as a referee.

But all that ENDED in 1935. Now, we have NO Article III courts. Government bureaucrats are committed to defending and supporting the gargantuan, bankrupt, welfare/warfare police state.


.

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery is an initiation of aggression, so is antithetical to libertarian philosophy.

Which is why libertarianism is so laughably unsustainable. As the seeds of its own destruction are sown within the vast, unchecked concentrations of personal power that libertarianism allows and encourages.

Did you not follow my posts about how obviously unsustainable libertarianism is.....and why?

The position that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man isn't unsustainable.

The consequences of no mandatory taxation, few and feeble checks on personal power, and few and feeble checks on abuses of that power.....is exploitation and the end of libertarianism.

There's a reason why we're discussing your philosophy hypothetically. It doesn't last long in the real world. Its inherently unsustainable in practice. And isn't being practiced.....anywhere. For that exact reason.

Its like anarchy or communism. Its an ivory tower ideal that like a hot house orchid, wilts and dies when exposed to the non-ivory tower real world.

We need government to act as a referee in our society

Not to make sure that everyone gets the same score but to ensure everyone has a fair chance of playing the game

True, governments , when present, ought to act as a referee.

But all that ENDED in 1935. Now, we have NO Article III courts. Government bureaucrats are committed to defending and supporting the gargantuan, bankrupt, welfare/warfare police state.


.

Prior to 1935 government refused to act as a referee

 

[Centinel]

The stance that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man is evil because.....?