The question libertarians just can’t answer

[kaz]

[

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian.

In 1789 , the US Constitution created a limited federal government where its powers were specifically enumerated .

In 2013 we have a behemoth welfare/warfare state where the government routinely ignores our rights.

Versus

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[1] market anarchism,[2] private-property anarchism,[3] libertarian anarchism,[4]) is a libertarian political philosophy that advocates anarchy in the sense of the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[5][6] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics."

.

At least in terms of the role of the Federal government, the founding fathers of the 1700s were very similar to libertarians of today. That would be except for anarchno-clueless libertarians...

 

[Foxfyre]

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know you mean no government?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian. They all to my understanding all went through the path of little government to get to no government. To my knowledge, they were all also Austrian economists who focused on lack of government control in the economy.

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Definition: Anarcho-capitalism is the polar opposite of pure socialism. Instead of having everything under collective ownership, anarcho-capitalism as a system would have everything under private ownership. All military, law enforcement, and social services organizations would be privately owned and operated, and could compete with one another for customers.

Founder: The argument could be made that anarcho-capitalism is the default form of government, arising in any situation where despotism has not arisen or has not yet arisen. The first so-documented historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society might be that of ancient Israel in the years leading up to the monarchy ("In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." -- Judges 21:25), other examples being medieval Iceland and the American Old West. But the first person to formulate anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy was the 20th-century Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, who found his inspiration in the pre-Revolutionary but semi-postcolonial, trade-oriented governments of 18th-century North America.
Anarcho-Capitalism - Definition of Anarcho-Capitalism

Or, libertarians think that all government is immoral and reject it completely.

If you can find a credible authority who will define libertarianism that way, go for it.

From the same site where I got the definition for anarcho-captalism:

Definition: Libertarian

One who believes that the only legitimate purpose of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

Anyone who supports civil liberties to a greater-than-average degree.

Anyone who believes in minimal, decentralized government.

When the word "Libertarian" is capitalized, it generally refers to a member of the Libertarian Party.

For purposes of our discussion, we'll focus on the first definition.

Etymology:
The word comes from the French libertaire, meaning "anarchist." (But it is not itself anarchy)

History:

Libertarian philosophy as we know it today has its roots in the classical liberalism of European political philosophers whose writings inspired the post-revolutionary governments of the United States and France during the latter years of the 18th century. The basic tenets of this classical liberalism are very simple:

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

People have a right to be left alone and live their own lives as long as they do not do so in a way that infringes on others' right to do the same.

Political Orientation:

Because libertarians tend to favor privatization and small government, libertarianism is often thought of as a right-wing movement more in keeping with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. But changes in the Republican Party over the past 40 years, most notably with respect to social issues such as abortion and gay rights, have essentially marginalized the libertarian movement from both parties. Today it is arguably represented by the Libertarian Party, though the Libertarian Party's own record on civil liberties issues is far from perfect.

Also Known As: classical liberalism, laissez-faire government
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/g/libertarian.htm

 

[Contumacious]

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Or, libertarians think that all government is immoral and reject it completely.

I'm a Libertarian, but I am no anarchist. There must be government of some sort, because nature abhors a vacuum.

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians. They created a minimalist government.

We now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which routinely ignores our rights.

Have you had enough?

.

 

[Contumacious]

[

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian.

In 1789 , the US Constitution created a limited federal government where its powers were specifically enumerated .

In 2013 we have a behemoth welfare/warfare state where the government routinely ignores our rights.

Versus

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[1] market anarchism,[2] private-property anarchism,[3] libertarian anarchism,[4]) is a libertarian political philosophy that advocates anarchy in the sense of the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[5][6] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics."

.

At least in terms of the role of the Federal government, the founding fathers of the 1700s were very similar to libertarians of today. That would be except for anarchno-clueless libertarians...

See post #743.

.

 

[kaz]

In 1789 , the US Constitution created a limited federal government where its powers were specifically enumerated .

In 2013 we have a behemoth welfare/warfare state where the government routinely ignores our rights.

Versus

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[1] market anarchism,[2] private-property anarchism,[3] libertarian anarchism,[4]) is a libertarian political philosophy that advocates anarchy in the sense of the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[5][6] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics."

.

At least in terms of the role of the Federal government, the founding fathers of the 1700s were very similar to libertarians of today. That would be except for anarchno-clueless libertarians...

See post #743.

.

Yes, I meant I was agreeing with you

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, they all had no issue referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but they still referred to themselves as libertarian as well. That people have a mixed up view of what being a libertarian is is not really my issue. The fact is that one can be a minarchist libertarian, or an anarchist libertarian.

But you're ducking the question. You said I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist, so is it your contention that three of the most important libertarian thinkers in history, that I've already named, aren't actually libertarians?

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know you mean no government?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian. They all to my understanding all went through the path of little government to get to no government. To my knowledge, they were all also Austrian economists who focused on lack of government control in the economy.

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Definition: Anarcho-capitalism is the polar opposite of pure socialism. Instead of having everything under collective ownership, anarcho-capitalism as a system would have everything under private ownership. All military, law enforcement, and social services organizations would be privately owned and operated, and could compete with one another for customers.

Founder: The argument could be made that anarcho-capitalism is the default form of government, arising in any situation where despotism has not arisen or has not yet arisen. The first so-documented historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society might be that of ancient Israel in the years leading up to the monarchy ("In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." -- Judges 21:25), other examples being medieval Iceland and the American Old West. But the first person to formulate anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy was the 20th-century Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, who found his inspiration in the pre-Revolutionary but semi-postcolonial, trade-oriented governments of 18th-century North America.
Anarcho-Capitalism - Definition of Anarcho-Capitalism

Yup. Rothbard also explains through citation, that government is usually the one creating problems in all sectors. One thing left out of that definition is voluntaryism. An essential understanding in the NAP. See, not all anarchists are evil turds that want to run roughshod over people. In fact, more often than not, it's the exact opposite.

Regardless, libertarians of the Rothbardian persuasion, understand that libertarianism is acceptable and even, desirable. That doesn't mean a few trips down the stairs in observational times of constitutional failure aren't warranted, and more so, needed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Or, libertarians think that all government is immoral and reject it completely.

I'm a Libertarian, but I am no anarchist. There must be government of some sort, because nature abhors a vacuum.

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians. They created a minimalist government.

We now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which routinely ignores our rights.

Have you had enough?

.

Yes I've had enough, but I won't sit here and advocate complete abolition of it.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm a Libertarian, but I am no anarchist. There must be government of some sort, because nature abhors a vacuum.

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians. They created a minimalist government.

We now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which routinely ignores our rights.

Have you had enough?

.

Yes I've had enough, but I won't sit here and advocate complete abolition of it.

What would you retain?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians. They created a minimalist government.

We now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which routinely ignores our rights.

Have you had enough?

.

Yes I've had enough, but I won't sit here and advocate complete abolition of it.

What would you retain?

.

I would retain the government we had before Teddy Roosevelt turned it on its head. We could do that and still do the necessary corrections re racial inequality etc., but we wouldn't be 17 trillion in debt with an economy stalled in neutral or shifting into reverse.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians. They created a minimalist government.

We now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which routinely ignores our rights.

Have you had enough?

.

Yes I've had enough, but I won't sit here and advocate complete abolition of it.

What would you retain?

.

Good question! The framework it was originally founded on is sufficient.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes I've had enough, but I won't sit here and advocate complete abolition of it.

What would you retain?

.

Good question! The framework it was originally founded on is sufficient.

Well, I concur.

But that framework will not be restored by using the polls or filing lawsuits where SELF-IMMUNIZED judges will claim you have no standing.

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Good luck!

 

[Ravi]

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

I didn't say you should be forced to vacate. You choose to live in a community therefore you can't pretend the community has no influence on the community as a whole.

I chose to buy my property, and the community may or may not have had some influence on that decision, but it doesn't then follow that simply because I bought property in a given location that my neighbors have the right to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

No, you still have the option to sell and move.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't say you should be forced to vacate. You choose to live in a community therefore you can't pretend the community has no influence on the community as a whole.

I chose to buy my property, and the community may or may not have had some influence on that decision, but it doesn't then follow that simply because I bought property in a given location that my neighbors have the right to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

No, you still have the option to sell and move.

Murrica....Love it or leave it!

 

[Ravi]

Well, shit. I was forced to pos rep Foxfyre.

I must drink some poison hemlock.

 

[Ravi]

I chose to buy my property, and the community may or may not have had some influence on that decision, but it doesn't then follow that simply because I bought property in a given location that my neighbors have the right to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

No, you still have the option to sell and move.

Murrica....Love it or leave it!

That's always your message, Dud.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would not agree to a "social contract" per se that implicitly forces people to conform their property to a certain degree whether they agree to it or not, but I would certainly agree to an explicit contract, such as exist in gated communities, that forces people to maintain a certain standard and enforces certain explicitly agreed upon rules. Absent such an explicit, voluntary contract that is signed before a person takes possession of their property then no. If no such actual physical contract exists then I see no basis for anybody to complain about anybody else's property on the basis of subjective values.

Well each to their own. But I sure hope I never buy into a neighborhood with people who think like you do.

Why? An explicit contract seems to be exactly what you are looking for. A homeowners association if you will.

That is exactly what I am looking at as a solution to that problem. A social contract that will protect everybody's property rights including the one trashy neighbor and will prevent any others from moving in. Kevin rejects that concept and thinks trashy neighbors have the right to destroy our property values.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What would you retain?

.

Good question! The framework it was originally founded on is sufficient.

Well, I concur.

But that framework will not be restored by using the polls or filing lawsuits where SELF-IMMUNIZED judges will claim you have no standing.

.

Well, if you know the law, you can use the law to do your bidding. Judges aren't the only ones.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, you still have the option to sell and move.

Murrica....Love it or leave it!

That's always your message, Dud.

Yours is:

"Lets be more like Europe!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, shit. I was forced to pos rep Foxfyre.

I must drink some poison hemlock.

As tempting as that would seem to make a quip about, perhaps you should switch to decaf for now.