How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[rightwinger]

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

Initiate aggression

Rinse/Repeat

 

[dblack]

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

Now government is the coach.

 

[Centinel]

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

Initiate aggression

Rinse/Repeat

What?

 

[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.

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.

I know many libertarians that would disagree.

What you're describing in an anarchist.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Food. Gasoline. Clothing. Bread. Cars. Buses.

Not luxury items, but items vital to daily life.

 

[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.

No such thing ever existed.

No monopoly has ever existed? Really?

 

[Centinel]

Food. Gasoline. Clothing. Bread. Cars. Buses.

Not luxury items, but items vital to daily life.

There are alternatives to all goods, including the ones you listed.

 

[Centinel]

Still waiting for an answer to this one:

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

 

[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.

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."

No. It doesn't. As you wouldn't be able to maintain such a system. Anarchy as a form of government collapse quite rapidly. Either internally, or from external forces.

There's a reason why what you've described is practiced....no where. Why even the founders wouldn't touch it: its can't survive.

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for an answer to this one:

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

Because of the inevitable consequences of your interpretation of 'aggression' when put into practice. And the horrendous abuses and exploitation that you would sanction and protect as part of your interpretation of 'aggression'.

Anarchy sounds great.....until you get into the specifics. And then it just falls apart. With a far greater negative impact on the practical exercise of freedom than most government systems we have now.

Its one of the many reasons why your system just doesn't exist. it can't compete with existing systems and produces far inferior results.

 

[Skylar]

Food. Gasoline. Clothing. Bread. Cars. Buses.

Not luxury items, but items vital to daily life.

There are alternatives to all goods, including the ones you listed.

What would be the alternative to food?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Absolutely. Government excercising the power of the people as a check to the accumulation of personal power. Laws against say, anti-competative practices. Or discrimination. Or preventing gross exploitation.

Power balances with power. Power unchecked and unbalanced will inevitably be abused. And there are virtually no checks on personal power in libertarianism. And none in anarchy.

 

[Centinel]

Because of the inevitable consequences of your interpretation of 'aggression' when put into practice. And the horrendous abuses and exploitation that you would sanction and protect as part of your interpretation of 'aggression'.

I wouldn't sanction any abuses or exploitation. I think you're mistaken.

 

[Skylar]

Because of the inevitable consequences of your interpretation of 'aggression' when put into practice. And the horrendous abuses and exploitation that you would sanction and protect as part of your interpretation of 'aggression'.

I wouldn't sanction any abuses or exploitation. I think you're mistaken.

More accurately, you'd refuse to recognize abuse or exploitation. And then refusing to recognize it, pretend it doesn't exist.

The reason the Anarchy you propose lacks persuasive power is that most people would recognize the abuses and exploitation that you ignore.

Again, these are among the many reasons why no one institutes the Anarchy you demand.

 

[Centinel]

Food. Gasoline. Clothing. Bread. Cars. Buses.

Not luxury items, but items vital to daily life.

There are alternatives to all goods, including the ones you listed.

What would be the alternative to food?

Your saying that someone could sustain a monopoly on every food item known to man?

 

[Skylar]

Food. Gasoline. Clothing. Bread. Cars. Buses.

Not luxury items, but items vital to daily life.

There are alternatives to all goods, including the ones you listed.

What would be the alternative to food?

Your saying that someone could sustain a monopoly on every food item known to man?

In a particular area, sure.

A town people not allowing blacks to use the roads would be perfectly legitimate under your conception of 'aggression'...if the roads were privately owned. Which in your system, all of them would be.

But just because you ignore this abuse and exploitation doesn't mean we can't see it. And there is where your argument breaks. As it lacks persuasive power.

 

[Centinel]

In a particular area, sure.

A town people not allowing blacks to use the roads would be perfectly legitimate under your conception of 'aggression'...if the roads were privately owned. Which in your system, all of them would be.

But just because you ignore this abuse and exploitation doesn't mean we can't see it. And there is where your argument breaks. As it lacks persuasive power.

You know that I can grow food in my backyard, right?

 

[Centinel]

A town people not allowing blacks to use the roads would be perfectly legitimate under your conception of 'aggression'...if the roads were privately owned. Which in your system, all of them would be.

And the state could forbid blacks from using the roads, and that would be perfectly legitimate to you.

 

[Skylar]

A town people not allowing blacks to use the roads would be perfectly legitimate under your conception of 'aggression'...if the roads were privately owned. Which in your system, all of them would be.

And the state could forbid blacks from using the roads, and that would be perfectly legitimate to you.

With the Supreme Court shutting that down. As there is a constitutinoal right to travel and right to eavesment rights recognized under the law.

Under your system...there are no such rights. Nor is there a Supreme Court to stop it. As there are no checks on personal power under Anarchy.

I can offer dozens of such examples. And you will ignore them all. A rational person won't. Which is why your proposed Anarchy doesn't sit well with most rational people.

 

[Centinel]

More accurately, you'd refuse to recognize abuse or exploitation. And then refusing to recognize it, pretend it doesn't exist.

The state commits acts of abuse and exploitation now.