The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Kevin only rejects nonsensical implied contracts that don't actually exist and that nobody actually agreed to. I fully support explicit contracts.

 

[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.

So you're saying that my property isn't really my property.

No, I'm saying your choices are your choices.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

Have you also noticed that literally every conspiracy theorist is a Ron Paul supporter? Libertarians are simply a collection of weirdos and fools.

I feel it necessary to direct you to TASB and his wonderful directions that he gave synth, they seem to apply to you as well:

You're in the wrong wing of the ward, synth. This one is for people looking to discuss the topic of personal responsibility, private property and self ownership. Down the hall to the left, is the room for immature grown ups that need daddy govt. to take care of them.


Down the hall to the left.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 but what really is your point? That all government degrades? That has been acknowledged. The reality that I would point out is that anarchism degrades a LOT faster and a LOT bloodier. I don’t see how the abuse of our government to turn it into this behemoth has any real validity in trying to set up a libertarian government once again.

In this response you sound like you are advocating what Kennedy is – anarchy but in others you say that is not what you advocate for. Please clarify for me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well since you asked your question in response to my question, I'm not sure how you figure that you asked your question first.

The reason I rarely refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist is because it's never been relevant. Libertarian perfectly describes my political beliefs, and so that's what I go with. Though in my signature it does say "Voluntaryist," so it's not like I was hiding this fact.

Now, are you really trying to excommunicate three of the most important libertarian thinkers in the history of the movement?

If you disagree with what I said, address it and say what your follow on from what I said would be. Don't ignore it and ask the question again.

Well as you haven't addressed the question at all, it's hard to respond to your answer. You said that I cannot be both a libertarian and an anarchist, so that would imply that Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe also cannot be both libertarians and anarchists. That you would seemingly excommunicate these three tells us that we should not take your opinion on libertarianism very seriously.

Weather you can or can’t really is not the point. What is to be gained by calling yourself both?

Libertarianism AND anarchy are supposed to be forms of government (or the absence of it in anarchies case). Anarchy would explain your position rather well IMHO so what is libertarian adding to it? How is that making things more clear?

Ultimately, we use terms like this to communicate our base beliefs quickly and efficiently. If you use a term that is generally accepted as meaning small government as Fox has pulled the current definition states and then ascribe to another that means no government that does not facilitate communication at all. It harms it. You might be technically correct but demonstrably have gained nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I don’t think so. It lost its way far too quickly. The intention behind that framework might have been but there need to be changes, clarifications and most importantly MORE limitation on what government is authorized. The vague language in what government can and cannot do needs to be eliminated.

There are places where the document needs to be vague BUT the enumerated powers are not one of them. The ‘general welfare’ type statements need to go.

 

[editec]

The social contract is our collective laws.

One might reasonable include in that the customs that are also in place in society as part of the social contract.

I note that we are still debating the issue of what the world LIBERTARIANISM really means.

Until we can COLLECTIVELY agree on a clear and precise meaning, this debate will continue to be contentious and pointless.

Contentious and pointless debates seem to be the favorite kinds of debates we have here.

We USMBers just seem to love WEASEL WORDS like libertarian, liberal, and conservative because we can use them knowing perfectly well they have no commonly accepted meanings.

WEASEL WORDS --propagandists and partisans absolutely LOVE em!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

So you're saying that my property isn't really my property.

No, I'm saying your choices are your choices.

And yet you're saying that a choice that I never made, to be bound by some supposedly implicit rules, trumps the fact that I own my property. You're saying that this "choice" that I never made forces me to either comply, or leave my property.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you disagree with what I said, address it and say what your follow on from what I said would be. Don't ignore it and ask the question again.

Well as you haven't addressed the question at all, it's hard to respond to your answer. You said that I cannot be both a libertarian and an anarchist, so that would imply that Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe also cannot be both libertarians and anarchists. That you would seemingly excommunicate these three tells us that we should not take your opinion on libertarianism very seriously.

Weather you can or can’t really is not the point. What is to be gained by calling yourself both?

Libertarianism AND anarchy are supposed to be forms of government (or the absence of it in anarchies case). Anarchy would explain your position rather well IMHO so what is libertarian adding to it? How is that making things more clear?

Ultimately, we use terms like this to communicate our base beliefs quickly and efficiently. If you use a term that is generally accepted as meaning small government as Fox has pulled the current definition states and then ascribe to another that means no government that does not facilitate communication at all. It harms it. You might be technically correct but demonstrably have gained nothing.

Again, I use any word that conveys my belief. Libertarian, to varying degrees, is what I've been since I became interested in politics. It describes what I believe perfectly. That some people don't fully grasp that libertarian could very well mean anarchist is not really my fault, especially since I have taken great pains to point out for many years now that one can be an anarchist and a libertarian.

 

[kaz]

Again, I use any word that conveys my belief

Nobody said you don't have the right to do it, stop whining. No one is infringing on your rights by telling you we have a different opinion then you do.

Second, the point is that if you say you're an anarchist, everyone knows what you mean. If you say libertarian, most people don't know what you mean. Even the ones who think you could be an anarchist have to ask to clarify. So it doesn't convey what you mean.

So our opinion is it would make more sense to just say what you are so people understand it. So stop coming back with a point not in contention as to whether you have a right to call yourself a libertarian or not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, I use any word that conveys my belief

Nobody said you don't have the right to do it, stop whining. No one is infringing on your rights by telling you we have a different opinion then you do.

Second, the point is that if you say you're an anarchist, everyone knows what you mean. If you say libertarian, most people don't know what you mean. Even the ones who think you could be an anarchist have to ask to clarify. So it doesn't convey what you mean.

So our opinion is it would make more sense to just say what you are so people understand it. So stop coming back with a point not in contention as to whether you have a right to call yourself a libertarian or not.

Yes, except for the fact that you did say that I'm not a libertarian, so it was a point in contention. My reply to FA_Q2, however, was neither contentious or whining, it was merely a reply. I see, however, that you seem to have repudiated your implication that anarchists cannot be libertarians, which is smart. Though if you would make this plain, rather than avoiding the subject and pretending it never happened, it would clarify the issue a great deal.

 

[RKMBrown]

I can't rep you, but ok. Then we're basically saying the same thing. As long as it is voluntary. What about Tom though?

Most contracts associated with property carry the rider that the owner cannot hand the land over to someone through sales or gift unless the receiver also agrees to the contract. Your assumption is that the act of inheritance voids the liability of taking ownership of land that is bound by a contract. Typically, to void a contract the person holding the contract needs to be compensated. For example, if someone owns mineral rights to the land you own you can't just sell the land to a 3rd party and give away the mineral rights that you don't own. The person taking receivership has to accept the fact that the guy who owns the mineral rights still owns the mineral rights. Tom would typically have the choice of accepting his inheritance along with the contract, by signing the contract himself, or he would typically have the option of selling the land to someone else who agrees with the contract. Or maybe he could negotiate with the POA to get out of the contract. Unless of course Tom's father made sure the contract became void upon his death, thus freeing the land from the lien.

 

[kaz]

Yes, except for the fact that you did say that I'm not a libertarian, so it was a point in contention. My reply to FA_Q2, however, was neither contentious or whining, it was merely a reply.

It was a reply which did not address the question asked, why you call yourself something which is unclear when there is a clear way to describe yourself. It did address a question not asked, the defensive one as to whether you "can" call yourself a libertarian or not. No one said you can't. The defensiveness of your answer is what I was referring to.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, except for the fact that you did say that I'm not a libertarian, so it was a point in contention. My reply to FA_Q2, however, was neither contentious or whining, it was merely a reply.

It was a reply which did not address the question asked, why you call yourself something which is unclear when there is a clear way to describe yourself. It did address a question not asked, the defensive one as to whether you "can" call yourself a libertarian or not. No one said you can't. The defensiveness of your answer is what I was referring to.

Actually you said that I can't.

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of not answering questions when you refuse to even acknowledge this statement, let alone defend it.

 

[Ravi]

So you're saying that my property isn't really my property.

No, I'm saying your choices are your choices.

And yet you're saying that a choice that I never made, to be bound by some supposedly implicit rules, trumps the fact that I own my property. You're saying that this "choice" that I never made forces me to either comply, or leave my property.

Before you purchase you should read the city charter and discuss the norms and standards of the area with local residents. It's pretty simple. It sure beats moving into a community and expecting THEM to bend to your will.

That's what you really seem to be advocating for KK. Everyone must kowtow to you because by golly you're a libertarian.

 

[krych3k]

The implication from Salon (a socialist/communist website, for those not in the know) is that the success of an ideology is measured by the popularity of its implementation. If we remain logically consistent, the inverse must be true - which means that communist and Islamist dictatorships should be viewed as successful given their popular representation at the UNGA. It's an absurd question not worthy of serious consideration, and better suited for the high school playground than among serious, honest, and reasonably intelligent and educated adults. Alas, the former group composes the loyal readership of Salon.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, except for the fact that you did say that I'm not a libertarian, so it was a point in contention. My reply to FA_Q2, however, was neither contentious or whining, it was merely a reply.

It was a reply which did not address the question asked, why you call yourself something which is unclear when there is a clear way to describe yourself. It did address a question not asked, the defensive one as to whether you "can" call yourself a libertarian or not. No one said you can't. The defensiveness of your answer is what I was referring to.

Actually you said that I can't.

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of not answering questions when you refuse to even acknowledge this statement, let alone defend it.

How can you quote his reply that not only acknowledged the comment but also explained it in gross detail what he meant, and then say, he's the one with nerve for not acknowledging the comment that he just acknowledged in your citation?

That's like telling the president I hear you say that you are a socialist but I don't believe you, please explain why you won't acknowledge that you are a socialist.

 

[kaz]

Yes, except for the fact that you did say that I'm not a libertarian, so it was a point in contention. My reply to FA_Q2, however, was neither contentious or whining, it was merely a reply.

It was a reply which did not address the question asked, why you call yourself something which is unclear when there is a clear way to describe yourself. It did address a question not asked, the defensive one as to whether you "can" call yourself a libertarian or not. No one said you can't. The defensiveness of your answer is what I was referring to.

Actually you said that I can't.

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of not answering questions when you refuse to even acknowledge this statement, let alone defend it.

On point #1) Welcome to message boards. You can and will get opinions. But how you translate my opinion that you're not a libertarian into a belief that means I'm saying you are not allowed to call yourself a libertarian is beyond my comprehension. Explain.

On point #2) Twice you've failed to find my posts on subjects and asked me to do it for you. The first time I did, the second time I passed. But dude, I wrote an op and started an entire THREAD answering your question. I actually wrote it for the purpose of this discussion so we stop doing it in every libertarian thread. Alas, you're going to have to find the thread yourself. Good look with your quest, young man.

 

[RKMBrown]

The implication from Salon (a socialist/communist website, for those not in the know) is that the success of an ideology is measured by the popularity of its implementation. If we remain logically consistent, the inverse must be true - which means that communist and Islamist dictatorships should be viewed as successful given their popular representation at the UNGA. It's an absurd question not worthy of serious consideration, and better suited for the high school playground than among serious, honest, and reasonably intelligent and educated adults. Alas, the former group composes the loyal readership of Salon.

Heh... death and taxes are real popular.

 

[RKMBrown]

It was a reply which did not address the question asked, why you call yourself something which is unclear when there is a clear way to describe yourself. It did address a question not asked, the defensive one as to whether you "can" call yourself a libertarian or not. No one said you can't. The defensiveness of your answer is what I was referring to.

Actually you said that I can't.

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of not answering questions when you refuse to even acknowledge this statement, let alone defend it.

On point #1) Welcome to message boards. You can and will get opinions. But how you translate my opinion that you're not a libertarian into a belief that means I'm saying you are not allowed to call yourself a libertarian is beyond my comprehension. Explain.

On point #2) Twice you've failed to find my posts on subjects and asked me to do it for you. The first time I did, the second time I passed. But dude, I wrote an op and started an entire THREAD answering your question. I actually wrote it for the purpose of this discussion so we stop doing it in every libertarian thread. Alas, you're going to have to find the thread yourself. Good look with your quest, young man.

Oh god, please tell me this isn't one of those boards where everyone is expected to read and remember every previous thread ever discussed on the board before actively participating and/or do a search for every topic before mentioning it to make sure you are in the right thread.