How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Skylar]

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.

Not true. In the first place. civilization existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. The formal state first came on the scene about 3000 BC. There are numerous settlements, towns and villages for thousands of years prior to this date.

If you think that humans existed in a state non-aggression before the formal state, you're deluding yourself. Over half of the corpses that we've found from prehistory were killed via violence.

Humans killed each other, warred against each other, raided each other, took each other's territory, robbed each other, murdered each other, raped each other......all before the State.

The noble savage fantasy is the purest bullshit.

The Irish resisted the British for 800 years even though they had no formal government. The Scots have a similar history. A society with no formal government is actually quite difficult to take over since there is no effective means for the invaders to control the population. A formal state is a mechanism for control, and all an invader has to do is knock off the current rulers and then take over the controls.

They didn't exist in a state of 'non-aggression'. Which is the standard of Anarchy that is being discussed in the in the post you're jumping into.

 

[bripat9643]

If they disagree, they are wrong. The man who founded libertarianism based it on the non-initiation of force principle. Many people who call themselves libertarian don't really know what it means.

Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The non-aggression principle has existed in various forms. Although the principle has been traced back as far as antiquity, it was first formally described by this name by the Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, and then further popularized by libertarian thinkers.[6][7]

Natural law theorist Murray Rothbard traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist St. Thomas Aquinas and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school.[8] Proverbs 3:30 records it succinctly, "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."[citation needed] Variations of the non-aggression principle can also be found in Taoism.[9]​

So all of these people opposed taxation....and any mandatory law?

If yes, can you prove that?

"Any mandatory law?" What kind of law is that? They support laws that say "you can't kill someone who is minding his own business," or take his stuff. They oppose laws that say "you have to buy this insurance product from one of these approved providers.

Then how about proving that all libertarians oppose mandatory taxation. Or at least the people you just cited.

There are people who call themselves libertarian but also support taxation. Their position is a contradiction.

So can you demonstrate that the people you just cited, including the 'founder of libertarianism' opposed any mandatory taxation?

I don't care if you believe it or not. It's not worth the time it would take to prove it to you.

 

[Skylar]

No monopoly has ever existed? Really?

No so-called "natural monopoly" has ever existed. Only government enforced monopolies have existed.

Prove it.

Name one.

You'll need to define your terms first. With evidence.

With evidence? A natural monopoly is one that exists without any legal assistance from the government.

That's not evidence. Show us a credible source that backs up your definition of 'natural monopolies'.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not true. In the first place. civilization existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. The formal state first came on the scene about 3000 BC. There are numerous settlements, towns and villages for thousands of years prior to this date.

If you think that humans existed in a state non-aggression before the formal state, you're deluding yourself. Over half of the corpses that we've found from prehistory were killed via violence.

Humans killed each other, warred against each other, raided each other, took each other's territory, robbed each other, murdered each other, raped each other......all before the State.

The noble savage fantasy is the purest bullshit.

The Irish resisted the British for 800 years even though they had no formal government. The Scots have a similar history. A society with no formal government is actually quite difficult to take over since there is no effective means for the invaders to control the population. A formal state is a mechanism for control, and all an invader has to do is knock off the current rulers and then take over the controls.

They didn't exist in a state of 'non-aggression'. Which is the standard of Anarchy that is being discussed in the in the post you're jumping into.

Now you're trying to move the goal posts. I never claimed the lived in a "state of non-aggression." I said they had no formal government. The state is the monopoly on the use of force. There is all manor of aggression that doesn't include state aggression.

 

[Skylar]

So all of these people opposed taxation....and any mandatory law?

If yes, can you prove that?

"Any mandatory law?" What kind of law is that? They support laws that say "you can't kill someone who is minding his own business," or take his stuff. They oppose laws that say "you have to buy this insurance product from one of these approved providers.

Then how about proving that all libertarians oppose mandatory taxation. Or at least the people you just cited.

There are people who call themselves libertarian but also support taxation. Their position is a contradiction.

So can you demonstrate that the people you just cited, including the 'founder of libertarianism' opposed any mandatory taxation?

I don't care if you believe it or not. It's not worth the time it would take to prove it to you.

Its not a matter of 'belief'. Either you can demonstrate that the libertarians you cited opposed any mandatory taxation, or you can't.

You can't. Which makes your citation of these individuals all the more bizarre.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Not true. In the first place. civilization existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. The formal state first came on the scene about 3000 BC. There are numerous settlements, towns and villages for thousands of years prior to this date.

If you think that humans existed in a state non-aggression before the formal state, you're deluding yourself. Over half of the corpses that we've found from prehistory were killed via violence.

Humans killed each other, warred against each other, raided each other, took each other's territory, robbed each other, murdered each other, raped each other......all before the State.

The noble savage fantasy is the purest bullshit.

The Irish resisted the British for 800 years even though they had no formal government. The Scots have a similar history. A society with no formal government is actually quite difficult to take over since there is no effective means for the invaders to control the population. A formal state is a mechanism for control, and all an invader has to do is knock off the current rulers and then take over the controls.

They didn't exist in a state of 'non-aggression'. Which is the standard of Anarchy that is being discussed in the in the post you're jumping into.

Now you're trying to move the goal posts. I never claimed the lived in a "state of non-aggression."

I wasn't talking to you in the post you're replied to. I was talking with Centenial. And we were discussing his conceptions of anarchy. Which involve a complete lack of 'aggression'. Without taxes or mandatory laws

And such a system is utterly unsustainable. Its also too weak to withstand external forces. Which is why it exists.....no where.

That you want to jump in and move the goal posts of the conversation you're replying to is quite irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

No so-called "natural monopoly" has ever existed. Only government enforced monopolies have existed.

Prove it.

Name one.

You'll need to define your terms first. With evidence.

With evidence? A natural monopoly is one that exists without any legal assistance from the government.

That's not evidence. Show us a credible source that backs up your definition of 'natural monopolies'.

I didn't say it was evidence.

The Myth of Natural Monopoly

Put simply, a natural monopoly is said to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers, thereby creating a "natural" monopoly. Higher prices will result if more than one producer supplies the market.​

 

[bripat9643]

"Any mandatory law?" What kind of law is that? They support laws that say "you can't kill someone who is minding his own business," or take his stuff. They oppose laws that say "you have to buy this insurance product from one of these approved providers.

Then how about proving that all libertarians oppose mandatory taxation. Or at least the people you just cited.

There are people who call themselves libertarian but also support taxation. Their position is a contradiction.

So can you demonstrate that the people you just cited, including the 'founder of libertarianism' opposed any mandatory taxation?

I don't care if you believe it or not. It's not worth the time it would take to prove it to you.

Its not a matter of 'belief'. Either you can demonstrate that the libertarians you cited opposed any mandatory taxation, or you can't.

You can't. Which makes your citation of these individuals all the more bizarre.

I can demonstrate it, but that's more work than I care to expend educating you.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not true. In the first place. civilization existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. The formal state first came on the scene about 3000 BC. There are numerous settlements, towns and villages for thousands of years prior to this date.

If you think that humans existed in a state non-aggression before the formal state, you're deluding yourself. Over half of the corpses that we've found from prehistory were killed via violence.

Humans killed each other, warred against each other, raided each other, took each other's territory, robbed each other, murdered each other, raped each other......all before the State.

The noble savage fantasy is the purest bullshit.

The Irish resisted the British for 800 years even though they had no formal government. The Scots have a similar history. A society with no formal government is actually quite difficult to take over since there is no effective means for the invaders to control the population. A formal state is a mechanism for control, and all an invader has to do is knock off the current rulers and then take over the controls.

They didn't exist in a state of 'non-aggression'. Which is the standard of Anarchy that is being discussed in the in the post you're jumping into.

Now you're trying to move the goal posts. I never claimed the lived in a "state of non-aggression."

I wasn't talking to you in the post you're replied to. I was talking with Centenial. And we were discussing his conceptions of anarchy. Which involve a complete lack of 'aggression'. Without taxes or mandatory laws

And such a system is utterly unsustainable. Its also too weak to withstand external forces. Which is why it exists.....no where.

That you want to jump in and move the goal posts of the conversation you're replying to is quite irrelevant.

He never claimed they lived in a "state of non-aggression" either. You're trying to move the goal posts. Stick to what has actually been proposed or said rather than positions that you invent for your critics.

 

[Skylar]

Prove it.

Name one.

You'll need to define your terms first. With evidence.

With evidence? A natural monopoly is one that exists without any legal assistance from the government.

That's not evidence. Show us a credible source that backs up your definition of 'natural monopolies'.

I didn't say it was evidence.

The Myth of Natural Monopoly

Put simply, a natural monopoly is said to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers, thereby creating a "natural" monopoly. Higher prices will result if more than one producer supplies the market.​

That definition doesn't match your own.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Not true. In the first place. civilization existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. The formal state first came on the scene about 3000 BC. There are numerous settlements, towns and villages for thousands of years prior to this date.

If you think that humans existed in a state non-aggression before the formal state, you're deluding yourself. Over half of the corpses that we've found from prehistory were killed via violence.

Humans killed each other, warred against each other, raided each other, took each other's territory, robbed each other, murdered each other, raped each other......all before the State.

The noble savage fantasy is the purest bullshit.

The Irish resisted the British for 800 years even though they had no formal government. The Scots have a similar history. A society with no formal government is actually quite difficult to take over since there is no effective means for the invaders to control the population. A formal state is a mechanism for control, and all an invader has to do is knock off the current rulers and then take over the controls.

They didn't exist in a state of 'non-aggression'. Which is the standard of Anarchy that is being discussed in the in the post you're jumping into.

Now you're trying to move the goal posts. I never claimed the lived in a "state of non-aggression."

I wasn't talking to you in the post you're replied to. I was talking with Centenial. And we were discussing his conceptions of anarchy. Which involve a complete lack of 'aggression'. Without taxes or mandatory laws

And such a system is utterly unsustainable. Its also too weak to withstand external forces. Which is why it exists.....no where.

That you want to jump in and move the goal posts of the conversation you're replying to is quite irrelevant.

He never claimed they lived in a "state of non-aggression" either. You're trying to move the goal posts. Stick to what has actually been proposed or said rather than positions that you invent for your critics.

He never mentioned them at all. It was your awkward example.....where you ignored the standard of the conversation you pushed your way into. And then tried to move the goal posts.

Um, no. The standards of the Anarchy proposed in the discussion we were having was non-aggression. Which includes no taxation and no mandatory laws.

Nothing you've described meets those standards. As pre-state man most definitely didn't exist in a state of non-aggression.

As I've said, his Anarchy is utterly unsustainable. It collapses from the inside when laws are imposed. Or from the outside when a foreign force imposes them.

You and your neighbors might agree that you shouldn't have mandatory taxation. But the guys in the next neighbhood could disagree. And use mandatory taxation to form a professional army with conscripts, central projects like roads, bridges and dams. And build a military force sufficient to knock you over.

That's assuming that your own people don't impose laws and mandatory contribution to collective porjects that everyone will enjoy....based on simple games theory.

 

[Centinel]

We generaqlly don't allow monopolies in our system. In yours they are entirely possible. As there is nothing to prevent them.

Now you're insisting that monopolies aren't even possible. Which most rational people would disagree with. Which again is why your argument lacks persuasive power. And why no one uses your flavor of Anarchy.

Please go ahead and try to explain how one producer could monopolize the production of a particular class of goods. And maybe when this has ever actually happened in the real world.

 

[bripat9643]

Not true. In the first place. civilization existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. The formal state first came on the scene about 3000 BC. There are numerous settlements, towns and villages for thousands of years prior to this date.

If you think that humans existed in a state non-aggression before the formal state, you're deluding yourself. Over half of the corpses that we've found from prehistory were killed via violence.

Humans killed each other, warred against each other, raided each other, took each other's territory, robbed each other, murdered each other, raped each other......all before the State.

The noble savage fantasy is the purest bullshit.

The Irish resisted the British for 800 years even though they had no formal government. The Scots have a similar history. A society with no formal government is actually quite difficult to take over since there is no effective means for the invaders to control the population. A formal state is a mechanism for control, and all an invader has to do is knock off the current rulers and then take over the controls.

They didn't exist in a state of 'non-aggression'. Which is the standard of Anarchy that is being discussed in the in the post you're jumping into.

Now you're trying to move the goal posts. I never claimed the lived in a "state of non-aggression."

I wasn't talking to you in the post you're replied to. I was talking with Centenial. And we were discussing his conceptions of anarchy. Which involve a complete lack of 'aggression'. Without taxes or mandatory laws

And such a system is utterly unsustainable. Its also too weak to withstand external forces. Which is why it exists.....no where.

That you want to jump in and move the goal posts of the conversation you're replying to is quite irrelevant.

He never claimed they lived in a "state of non-aggression" either. You're trying to move the goal posts. Stick to what has actually been proposed or said rather than positions that you invent for your critics.

He never mentioned them at all. It was your awkward example.....where you ignored the standard of the conversation you pushed your way into. And then tried to move the goal posts.

Um, no. The standards of the Anarchy proposed in the discussion we were having was non-aggression. Which includes no taxation and no mandatory laws.

Nothing you've described meets those standards. As pre-state man most definitely didn't exist in a state of non-aggression.

Non aggression by the state is the only issue under dispute since even someone as clueless as you admits that aggression by your neighbors is wrong.

BTW, the phrase "mandatory laws" is nonsensical because by definition laws are all mandatory.

 

[Centinel]

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.

I can offer dozens of examples of the state initiating aggression.

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

As you believe in absolute property rights.....there would be no such checks. Nor any for the abuses that can and often do arise under Anarchy. Private power can be abused with no legal repercussions.

Anarchy is not a functional system. Its too fragile, too corruptible, and too injust in practice.

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

 

[Skylar]

If you think that humans existed in a state non-aggression before the formal state, you're deluding yourself. Over half of the corpses that we've found from prehistory were killed via violence.

Humans killed each other, warred against each other, raided each other, took each other's territory, robbed each other, murdered each other, raped each other......all before the State.

The noble savage fantasy is the purest bullshit.

They didn't exist in a state of 'non-aggression'. Which is the standard of Anarchy that is being discussed in the in the post you're jumping into.

Now you're trying to move the goal posts. I never claimed the lived in a "state of non-aggression."

I wasn't talking to you in the post you're replied to. I was talking with Centenial. And we were discussing his conceptions of anarchy. Which involve a complete lack of 'aggression'. Without taxes or mandatory laws

And such a system is utterly unsustainable. Its also too weak to withstand external forces. Which is why it exists.....no where.

That you want to jump in and move the goal posts of the conversation you're replying to is quite irrelevant.

He never claimed they lived in a "state of non-aggression" either. You're trying to move the goal posts. Stick to what has actually been proposed or said rather than positions that you invent for your critics.

He never mentioned them at all. It was your awkward example.....where you ignored the standard of the conversation you pushed your way into. And then tried to move the goal posts.

Um, no. The standards of the Anarchy proposed in the discussion we were having was non-aggression. Which includes no taxation and no mandatory laws.

Nothing you've described meets those standards. As pre-state man most definitely didn't exist in a state of non-aggression.

Non aggression by the state is the only issue under dispute since even someone as clueless as you admits that aggression by your neighbors is wrong.

\

Non aggression by 'the state' wasn't the standard. Non-aggresssion.....by anyone was the standard.

You're again trying to move the goal posts.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I can offer dozens of examples of the state initiating aggression.

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

As you believe in absolute property rights.....there would be no such checks. Nor any for the abuses that can and often do arise under Anarchy. Private power can be abused with no legal repercussions.

Anarchy is not a functional system. Its too fragile, too corruptible, and too injust in practice.

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Centinel]

No monopoly has ever existed? Really?

You need to define your terms first. With evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you're trying to move the goal posts. I never claimed the lived in a "state of non-aggression."

I wasn't talking to you in the post you're replied to. I was talking with Centenial. And we were discussing his conceptions of anarchy. Which involve a complete lack of 'aggression'. Without taxes or mandatory laws

And such a system is utterly unsustainable. Its also too weak to withstand external forces. Which is why it exists.....no where.

That you want to jump in and move the goal posts of the conversation you're replying to is quite irrelevant.

He never claimed they lived in a "state of non-aggression" either. You're trying to move the goal posts. Stick to what has actually been proposed or said rather than positions that you invent for your critics.

He never mentioned them at all. It was your awkward example.....where you ignored the standard of the conversation you pushed your way into. And then tried to move the goal posts.

Um, no. The standards of the Anarchy proposed in the discussion we were having was non-aggression. Which includes no taxation and no mandatory laws.

Nothing you've described meets those standards. As pre-state man most definitely didn't exist in a state of non-aggression.

Non aggression by the state is the only issue under dispute since even someone as clueless as you admits that aggression by your neighbors is wrong.

\

Non aggression by 'the state' wasn't the standard. Non-aggresssion.....by anyone was the standard.

You're again trying to move the goal posts.

Are you saying you think it's OK for your neighbors to commit aggression against you?

 

[Skylar]

We generaqlly don't allow monopolies in our system. In yours they are entirely possible. As there is nothing to prevent them.

Now you're insisting that monopolies aren't even possible. Which most rational people would disagree with. Which again is why your argument lacks persuasive power. And why no one uses your flavor of Anarchy.

Please go ahead and try to explain how one producer could monopolize the production of a particular class of goods. And maybe when this has ever actually happened in the real world.

Being the only one with the access to the raw materials necessary.....or with control over the means of distribution to a particular area. The roads or rail roads for example. If the only goods you'll allow to enter a given area are the goods you own.....you have a monopoly.

Anti-competative practices would run rampant in your system. And in fact be encouraged and protected.

As would abuse and exploitation.

 

[Centinel]

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.

I can offer dozens of examples of the state initiating aggression.

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

As you believe in absolute property rights.....there would be no such checks. Nor any for the abuses that can and often do arise under Anarchy. Private power can be abused with no legal repercussions.

Anarchy is not a functional system. Its too fragile, too corruptible, and too injust in practice.

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.