Libertarian Anarchist

[Paulie]

That depends though, if a business decided to do this in a bigger city like Chicago or Philedelphia, it would obviously fail. However if someone decided to do this in the sticks in Arkansas or Idaho where there are hardly any black people, it might succeed who knows, depends on the attitudes of the people in the local area.

I considered that already. I don't think the few local black people patronize those establishments anyway, because policy or not, they already know it's unfriendly to minorities.

Racism can not be legislated away. It's embedded within the human mind. Look around you. For the most part, on a macro level, nationalities and races tend to stick to their own groups. Society is integrated to an extent, but overall we do tend to group up.

I notice that, I don't like it personally but that is the way it is. Be that as it may, its not unreasonable for us to at leas get along.

Most of us get along fine. We get along at work, when we're out in public shopping, when we play sports, when we go to church, when we're at a ballgame...But at home, and in close circles of friends, and even neighborhoods we choose to live in...it's pretty obvious we're not as integrated as we'd like to think we are.

There's no law that can change that either.

 

[sakinago]

How do we know?

Can you point to a Libertarian society that is not anarchist?

Your a fucking idiot dumbass, and obviously do not know what libertarians believe, but make it out to be what you want it to be.

Do strict Kantiest have good ideals, yes, do they work in every situation, no. Which is why you see so many neo-kantiest out there. You act like your so progressive but you look at things through black and white goggles.

The libertarian structure basically says that the government should only do what it needs to survive, how is that anarchy, and how does that come even close to Somalia?

 

[High_Gravity]

I considered that already. I don't think the few local black people patronize those establishments anyway, because policy or not, they already know it's unfriendly to minorities.

Racism can not be legislated away. It's embedded within the human mind. Look around you. For the most part, on a macro level, nationalities and races tend to stick to their own groups. Society is integrated to an extent, but overall we do tend to group up.

I notice that, I don't like it personally but that is the way it is. Be that as it may, its not unreasonable for us to at leas get along.

Most of us get along fine. We get along at work, when we're out in public shopping, when we play sports, when we go to church, when we're at a ballgame...But at home, and in close circles of friends, and even neighborhoods we choose to live in...it's pretty obvious we're not as integrated as we'd like to think we are.

There's no law that can change that either.

I agree completely, the only thing we can really do is try to make sure everyones treated the same and given the same chances in life, thats all we can really do. Me personally I half black half white and I could live with anyone, I have lived in black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, even Hispanic ones in California, I don't really care.

 

[Paulie]

I notice that, I don't like it personally but that is the way it is. Be that as it may, its not unreasonable for us to at leas get along.

Most of us get along fine. We get along at work, when we're out in public shopping, when we play sports, when we go to church, when we're at a ballgame...But at home, and in close circles of friends, and even neighborhoods we choose to live in...it's pretty obvious we're not as integrated as we'd like to think we are.

There's no law that can change that either.

I agree completely, the only thing we can really do is try to make sure everyones treated the same and given the same chances in life, thats all we can really do. Me personally I half black half white and I could live with anyone, I have lived in black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, even Hispanic ones in California, I don't really care.

To put it into perspective, I'm totally against employers excluding based on race. That's a little different than a store owner not wanting to serve black people. But lets be honest, the employer doesn't ever have to admit it's because you're black. The store owner has to clearly announce it.

 

[occupied]

With the exception of the question as to when life begins, this has not been my experience, for whatever that's worth. In fact, I have found libertarians, be they from the Chicago or Austrian school, to be incredibly consistent in their positions on economic and social issues.



Universally? I'll only speak for myself, but I do not consider libertarians to be generally angry or rude. As far as being hostile to compromise, that's not been my experience either unless your idea of compromise involves theft. That, we are universally opposed to. Virgins? Really? Now you're just making yourself look silly.

So, why don't we focus on the topic at hand, the premise that libertarians are the same thing as anarchists. Do you agree with this or not?

I have no idea, by classical definition libertarianism is rooted in anarchist movements in Europe. But as I said, when the discussion turns to what a particular libertarian believes they really don't say much concrete or specific on particular issues, usually just a rant that the government is evil and extreme statements that regulation needs to be gutted and regulatory agencies destroyed altogether and things along those lines. You guys are forever telling me I just don't understand but it is not for lack of effort it is because you guys are terrible at selling your ideology as a good idea to the skeptical taking my frankly curious skepticism as an attack on your beliefs.

No ranting here. No personal attacks. I would argue you're incorrect that libertarianism is rooted in "anarchist movements in Europe". Libertarianism is rooted in the idea of liberty and non aggression. Anarchy, which is commonly seen as violence and destruction of property is the opposite of Libertarianism. Classical Liberalism/libertarianism is rooted in the idea of maximizing the tremendous benefits the division of labor brought to mankind. It is rooted in the notion of avoiding the central planning of past societies that never seemed to work out for the common man. We called ourselves Liberals long before any organized anarchy movement and before the Progressives obfuscated the name.

But to your point...You stated libertarians "don't say much concrete or specific on particular issues". Let's put that theory to the test. Give us an issue important to you and let's see if we respond with specificity, logic and reason.

First of all when you just google the word and then go to Wikipedia you get a history of thought that seems to be populated mostly by leftist types in France and in fact the word is synonymous with anarchism in Europe. but you say that's wrong, I can't read what those people wrote and get an idea so I go to some American website. It gives very general outlines of high sounding ideals involving the constitution and freedom and responsibility and the supreme importance of private property. So with that I have specific questions such as:

How do you intend to keep ruthless opportunists from exploiting all these regulatory holes and power vacuums you would create?
or
How can workers protect themselves from exploitation and abuse when you would strip labor organization of government protection and instead protect management's right to do as they please?

Usually these questions provoke a very ideological response that is more an attack on my beliefs on labor rights or regulation than an explanation of how it could actually work. That's about as plain as I can put it, maybe you can be different.

 

[Paulie]

Wait you guys need to come to a consensus here...The others are saying libertarianism has never been practiced, but here you are saying that it has been and it lead to anarchy.

You guys go huddle up, get your stories straight, and come back when you have something

Many ideas have been implemented as libertarian ideas, especially some of the anti-socialist economic policies in South America, but the problem always occurs because the people who move into a sudden power vacuum are by definition opportunists and rarely care one bit about undue exploitation, the environment or anyone's freedom, economic or otherwise. They never end up as a benefit to all, instead they turn out to be opening the door to ruthlessness and plutocratic corruption.

It's unfair to use an example from a third world country where the social system is already primitive, there's no media watchdogs, there's no immediate information sharing, etc.

 

[rightwinger]

How do we know?

Can you point to a Libertarian society that is not anarchist?

Your a fucking idiot dumbass, and obviously do not know what libertarians believe, but make it out to be what you want it to be.

Do strict Kantiest have good ideals, yes, do they work in every situation, no. Which is why you see so many neo-kantiest out there. You act like your so progressive but you look at things through black and white goggles.

The libertarian structure basically says that the government should only do what it needs to survive, how is that anarchy, and how does that come even close to Somalia?

Unrestricted access to guns
No taxes
no rules
no regulation

Libertarian dream

 

[occupied]

Wait you guys need to come to a consensus here...The others are saying libertarianism has never been practiced, but here you are saying that it has been and it lead to anarchy.

You guys go huddle up, get your stories straight, and come back when you have something

Many ideas have been implemented as libertarian ideas, especially some of the anti-socialist economic policies in South America, but the problem always occurs because the people who move into a sudden power vacuum are by definition opportunists and rarely care one bit about undue exploitation, the environment or anyone's freedom, economic or otherwise. They never end up as a benefit to all, instead they turn out to be opening the door to ruthlessness and plutocratic corruption.

It's unfair to use an example from a third world country where the social system is already primitive, there's no media watchdogs, there's no immediate information sharing, etc.

I don't think so, a power vacuum works the same everywhere, people are just as easy to bribe and coerce and the press is just as oblivious or complicit anywhere large sums of cash wielded by powerful special interests exist.

 

[Paulie]

Many ideas have been implemented as libertarian ideas, especially some of the anti-socialist economic policies in South America, but the problem always occurs because the people who move into a sudden power vacuum are by definition opportunists and rarely care one bit about undue exploitation, the environment or anyone's freedom, economic or otherwise. They never end up as a benefit to all, instead they turn out to be opening the door to ruthlessness and plutocratic corruption.

It's unfair to use an example from a third world country where the social system is already primitive, there's no media watchdogs, there's no immediate information sharing, etc.

I don't think so, a power vacuum works the same everywhere, people are just as easy to bribe and coerce and the press is just as oblivious or complicit anywhere large sums of cash wielded by powerful special interests exist.

You can't possibly say a power vacuum would work exactly the same anywhere. Information availability and dissemination is crucial. Without it, the consumer really is at a disadvantage. We have a wealth of information available in this country and most people use almost none of it because they don't think they have to with the government "taking care of it all for them".

 

[occupied]

It's unfair to use an example from a third world country where the social system is already primitive, there's no media watchdogs, there's no immediate information sharing, etc.

I don't think so, a power vacuum works the same everywhere, people are just as easy to bribe and coerce and the press is just as oblivious or complicit anywhere large sums of cash wielded by powerful special interests exist.

You can't possibly say a power vacuum would work exactly the same anywhere. Information availability and dissemination is crucial. Without it, the consumer really is at a disadvantage. We have a wealth of information available in this country and most people use almost none of it because they don't think they have to with the government "taking care of it all for them".

You cannot look at the phenomena of the secret donor super-pac and not say that ruthless opportunists would not or could not exploit power vacuums here in America, it's the clearest example of that phenomena I can think of when the SC removed laws preventing that kind of unlimited, shadowy spending. We may never know who funds large portions of our elections again.

 

[eflatminor]

How do you intend to keep ruthless opportunists from exploiting all these regulatory holes and power vacuums you would create?

Through EQUAL justice...by ensuring everyone, be they 'ruthless' or not, be required to comply with the same, easy to understand laws. If exploiting involves taking what doesn't belong to the exploiter, it should be illegal. Any other voluntary activity between adults should not be the government's concern. If you want me to get more specific than that, pose a specific scenario you fear would come to be in a libertarian society.

How can workers protect themselves from exploitation and abuse when you would strip labor organization of government protection and instead protect management's right to do as they please?

False premise. In a libertarian society, workers would still be free to organize in the private sector, just like today. Involuntary exploitation would still be illegal, as would abuse. Further, no "management" would get any rights not afforded to everyone else. Meaning, nobody, manager or not, would be free to "do as they please" if it involved trampling on the rights of another.

Usually these questions provoke a very ideological response that is more an attack on my beliefs on labor rights or regulation than an explanation of how it could actually work.

I do not pretend to know your beliefs but how it would work in a libertarian society is pretty simple. Don't take what doesn't belong to you. Don't hurt another unnecessarily. Respect private property and the individual rights we're all born with. If other people are involved in consensual activity between adults, it's not your business nor that of any government. That's about it.

To be specific as I can, a worker would have the right to labor for whomever he could at whatever compensation he demanded, just as employers could pay labor whatever they like and hire who they want. Each would be free to disengage if not satisfied with the arrangement.

Well intended regulations meant to prevent problems would be replaced with actual punishment for causing problems. That punishment can take the form of criminal or civil findings, just like today. What we have today however are regulations that protect the interests of the well entrenched while preventing nothing. That cronyism has no place in a libertarian world.

That's about as plain as I can put it, maybe you can be different.

Ditto!

 

[eflatminor]

I don't think so, a power vacuum works the same everywhere, people are just as easy to bribe and coerce and the press is just as oblivious or complicit anywhere large sums of cash wielded by powerful special interests exist.

You can't possibly say a power vacuum would work exactly the same anywhere. Information availability and dissemination is crucial. Without it, the consumer really is at a disadvantage. We have a wealth of information available in this country and most people use almost none of it because they don't think they have to with the government "taking care of it all for them".

You cannot look at the phenomena of the secret donor...

How a person spends their money is nobody's business but theirs. You cannot restrict how wealth is spent and call it a free society.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well put, eflat.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

With the exception of the question as to when life begins, this has not been my experience, for whatever that's worth. In fact, I have found libertarians, be they from the Chicago or Austrian school, to be incredibly consistent in their positions on economic and social issues.



Universally? I'll only speak for myself, but I do not consider libertarians to be generally angry or rude. As far as being hostile to compromise, that's not been my experience either unless your idea of compromise involves theft. That, we are universally opposed to. Virgins? Really? Now you're just making yourself look silly.

So, why don't we focus on the topic at hand, the premise that libertarians are the same thing as anarchists. Do you agree with this or not?

I have no idea, by classical definition libertarianism is rooted in anarchist movements in Europe. But as I said, when the discussion turns to what a particular libertarian believes they really don't say much concrete or specific on particular issues, usually just a rant that the government is evil and extreme statements that regulation needs to be gutted and regulatory agencies destroyed altogether and things along those lines. You guys are forever telling me I just don't understand but it is not for lack of effort it is because you guys are terrible at selling your ideology as a good idea to the skeptical taking my frankly curious skepticism as an attack on your beliefs.

No ranting here. No personal attacks. I would argue you're incorrect that libertarianism is rooted in "anarchist movements in Europe". Libertarianism is rooted in the idea of liberty and non aggression. Anarchy, which is commonly seen as violence and destruction of property is the opposite of Libertarianism. Classical Liberalism/libertarianism is rooted in the idea of maximizing the tremendous benefits the division of labor brought to mankind. It is rooted in the notion of avoiding the central planning of past societies that never seemed to work out for the common man. We called ourselves Liberals long before any organized anarchy movement and before the Progressives obfuscated the name.

But to your point...You stated libertarians "don't say much concrete or specific on particular issues". Let's put that theory to the test. Give us an issue important to you and let's see if we respond with specificity, logic and reason.

Let's hold the phone here for just a minute. I agree that anarchy is common seen as violence and destruction, but that's a made up paradigm. In early colonial times, religious persecution was a huge problem. A problem that led to many people being banished from the colonies. These folks, and their "followers", started new settlements free of any governance except common law and peaceful, voluntary exchange. However, the governance of the day saw it fit to exact judgement on these people. Take Roger Williams (early times) and Anne Hutchinson for instance.

In other words, no crown. Which is what anarchy stands for. As opposed to monarchy which translates one crown. Anarchy can very well be peaceful.

 

[OKTexas]

What's your Definition of a Libertarian and if we had a Libertarian Government what would it look like in America as opposed to what it is now?



peace...

^y0!...

When you get a second.



peace...

The government intended by the founders via the constitution is the best answer I can give you. When you read their writings along with it, it's clear they didn't intend for the enumerated powers to be interpreted as carte blanche to regulate infinitely.

Agreed, and if you doubt that see the 10th admendment.

 

[eflatminor]

Wait you guys need to come to a consensus here...The others are saying libertarianism has never been practiced, but here you are saying that it has been and it lead to anarchy.

You guys go huddle up, get your stories straight, and come back when you have something

Many ideas have been implemented as libertarian ideas, especially some of the anti-socialist economic policies in South America, but the problem always occurs because the people who move into a sudden power vacuum are by definition opportunists and rarely care one bit about undue exploitation, the environment or anyone's freedom, economic or otherwise. They never end up as a benefit to all, instead they turn out to be opening the door to ruthlessness and plutocratic corruption.

To be fair, those countries do NOT have a limited and enumerated set of powers as the law of the land. In other words, the only way there can be a "power vacuum" is if the power existed in the first place. In a limited government, the power is, well, limited. Therefore, it matters not who steps into the leadership position, only that he restrict himself to the powers granted in the law of the land. This is the way our libertarian influenced American experiment was supposed to work...and did until the progressives came along and decided government powers should not be limited, or at least should be greatly expanded. Only then was there the real chance of plutocratic corruption.

 

[occupied]

How do you intend to keep ruthless opportunists from exploiting all these regulatory holes and power vacuums you would create?

Through EQUAL justice...by ensuring everyone, be they 'ruthless' or not, be required to comply with the same, easy to understand laws. If exploiting involves taking what doesn't belong to the exploiter, it should be illegal. Any other voluntary activity between adults should not be the government's concern. If you want me to get more specific than that, pose a specific scenario you fear would come to be in a libertarian society.

How can workers protect themselves from exploitation and abuse when you would strip labor organization of government protection and instead protect management's right to do as they please?

False premise. In a libertarian society, workers would still be free to organize in the private sector, just like today. Involuntary exploitation would still be illegal, as would abuse. Further, no "management" would get any rights not afforded to everyone else. Meaning, nobody, manager or not, would be free to "do as they please" if it involved trampling on the rights of another.

Usually these questions provoke a very ideological response that is more an attack on my beliefs on labor rights or regulation than an explanation of how it could actually work.

I do not pretend to know your beliefs but how it would work in a libertarian society is pretty simple. Don't take what doesn't belong to you. Don't hurt another unnecessarily. Respect private property and the individual rights we're all born with. If other people are involved in consensual activity between adults, it's not your business nor that of any government. That's about it.

To be specific as I can, a worker would have the right to labor for whomever he could at whatever compensation he demanded, just as employers could pay labor whatever they like and hire who they want. Each would be free to disengage if not satisfied with the arrangement.

Well intended regulations meant to prevent problems would be replaced with actual punishment for causing problems. That punishment can take the form of criminal or civil findings, just like today. What we have today however are regulations that protect the interests of the well entrenched while preventing nothing. That cronyism has no place in a libertarian world.

That's about as plain as I can put it, maybe you can be different.

Ditto!

Fair enough but that raises another question. How is after-the-fact enforcement of fraud, abuse, dangerous or exploitative workplaces and especially toxic pollution better than preventive regulation and what do you think would be an acceptable method of policing and charging penalties in a court of law where a good lawyer would still be able to tie things up in court for eternity and continually set precedent for minimal and insufficient penalties? I know it's a complicated question but it's the way my mind works. This is the point where the government meets the people, if a factory dumps a ton of eternally toxic sludge in the woods, who eventually cleans up the sludge and how long will it take given the glacial pace of any court of law? Do you see my point? It seems under your system that harm can be done all too easily but justice will be slow as Christmas and depend entirely on lawyers in what would essentially be a civil court.

 

[mal]

What's your Definition of a Libertarian and if we had a Libertarian Government what would it look like in America as opposed to what it is now?



peace...

^y0!...

When you get a second.



peace...

The government intended by the founders via the constitution is the best answer I can give you. When you read their writings along with it, it's clear they didn't intend for the enumerated powers to be interpreted as carte blanche to regulate infinitely.

I've read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers... True Story.

Did the Founders Practice what you Beleive they Intended?...

And I'm Relatively Certain that they didn't Agree with one another on many Issues...

Correct?



peace...

 

[Paulie]

I don't think so, a power vacuum works the same everywhere, people are just as easy to bribe and coerce and the press is just as oblivious or complicit anywhere large sums of cash wielded by powerful special interests exist.

You can't possibly say a power vacuum would work exactly the same anywhere. Information availability and dissemination is crucial. Without it, the consumer really is at a disadvantage. We have a wealth of information available in this country and most people use almost none of it because they don't think they have to with the government "taking care of it all for them".

You cannot look at the phenomena of the secret donor super-pac and not say that ruthless opportunists would not or could not exploit power vacuums here in America, it's the clearest example of that phenomena I can think of when the SC removed laws preventing that kind of unlimited, shadowy spending. We may never know who funds large portions of our elections again.

I didn't say they wouldn't exist. I said it's not fair to compare it to a third world country.

I'm torn on super pacs. On one hand, they are simply people freely contributing their money to a politician that has their interest at heart. On the other hand, the limitless contribution does put the little guy at a disadvantage on the playing field.

BUT...

The little guy can organize and create the "little guy super pac" and as we've seen with both Paul and Obama, small donations can amount to a lot when enough people care to contribute.

 

[Paulie]

The problem is that the "little guy" doesn't care enough. He feels already beaten without having even made an attempt in most cases, and prefers to look to the government to save him from having to.

We were given freedom of speech in this country for a reason.