Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

[Kevin_Kennedy]

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies..." How are people now respected before they call the police? As for them not having an explanation, apparently you've never read Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Murray Rothbard.

Murray N. Rothbard :: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

That book goes into great detail regarding nearly every aspect of the anarcho-capitalist idea of how society would function.

As non-libertarians would be held to the same standards as libertarians, it's still an irrelevant point.

I'm not going to read a whole book. If you have a citation to make, go for it. The fact remains that you're being an elitist over affordability. People cannot afford private security agencies or polycentric law by default from being born unless they inherited some estate.

You haven't proven how non-libertarians would be held to standards either. That's literally my point here. Without taxes and police, there is no guaranteed holding of standards. You're forcing people to assume the risk.

I didn't expect you to read a whole book. I was merely showing that you were in fact wrong when you said there wasn't an explanation for such things. There are whole books on the subject, and that is one of them. As for the rest, nobody can afford anything by default from being born. That's an illogical argument. Should we provide everybody's food and shelter to them on the basis that they can't afford these things by default from being born? Obviously not. That's why we have a market economy which creates the most wealth for the most number of people. That way society could then cooperatively come together to provide these things on the market, be it shelter, food, clothing, or security.

 

[Daktoria]

I'm not sure what you mean by "how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies..." How are people now respected before they call the police? As for them not having an explanation, apparently you've never read Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Murray Rothbard.

Murray N. Rothbard :: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

That book goes into great detail regarding nearly every aspect of the anarcho-capitalist idea of how society would function.

As non-libertarians would be held to the same standards as libertarians, it's still an irrelevant point.

I'm not going to read a whole book. If you have a citation to make, go for it. The fact remains that you're being an elitist over affordability. People cannot afford private security agencies or polycentric law by default from being born unless they inherited some estate.

You haven't proven how non-libertarians would be held to standards either. That's literally my point here. Without taxes and police, there is no guaranteed holding of standards. You're forcing people to assume the risk.

I didn't expect you to read a whole book. I was merely showing that you were in fact wrong when you said there wasn't an explanation for such things. There are whole books on the subject, and that is one of them.

There's no proof until you cite it.

As for the rest, nobody can afford anything by default from being born. That's an illogical argument. Should we provide everybody's food and shelter to them on the basis that they can't afford these things by default from being born? Obviously not. That's why we have a market economy which creates the most wealth for the most number of people. That way society could then cooperatively come together to provide these things on the market, be it shelter, food, clothing, or security.

No. That's why we demand family values (and used to expect people to go to Church) in order to avoid child abuse (and have a backup plan). Children aren't hostage-slaves.

That's another problem with libertarianism - it doesn't answer the question of maturity.

 

[squeeze berry]

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies..." How are people now respected before they call the police? As for them not having an explanation, apparently you've never read Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Murray Rothbard.

Murray N. Rothbard :: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

That book goes into great detail regarding nearly every aspect of the anarcho-capitalist idea of how society would function.

As non-libertarians would be held to the same standards as libertarians, it's still an irrelevant point.

I'm not going to read a whole book. If you have a citation to make, go for it. The fact remains that you're being an elitist over affordability. People cannot afford private security agencies or polycentric law by default from being born unless they inherited some estate.

You haven't proven how non-libertarians would be held to standards either. That's literally my point here. Without taxes and police, there is no guaranteed holding of standards. You're forcing people to assume the risk.

assumed risk is mitigated by firearms and stand your ground laws.

 

[Votto]

What in the world are you talking about?

He is talking about how liberals believe no one should work, everyone should have at least 1 abortion and Government should run everything. Also that Conservatives want no regulations on markets, everyone should be required to buy a gun and everyone who does not accept God should be stoned to death.

Libertarianism has more in common with liberalism than conservatism. Just because a bunch of necons and other nitwits didn't want to be viewed as conservatives and decided to hide behind a misuse of Federalism and Libertarianism doesn't make them Federalists or Libertarians in nature or in reality.

It may be easier for fiscal conservatives who are uncomfortable with the conservative movement to rebrand themselves with the great masses, but I for one never bought into the bullshit.

Now we have social conservative running away from the conservative label and insisting they are libertarian as if that means NOT liberal.

wtf?

We even have Randian Nitwits, followers of Ayn fucking-nuts Rand claiming to be libertarian.

Everyone wants to be the cool guy on the block leaning towards libertarianism, but it is just not worth the price of abject power over the entire world.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Theoretical Libertarianism falls down for exactlty the same reason theoretical Communism does.

Both theories are based on the theory that human nature will change to fit into the needs of that system.

If you think, as one example, that the regulated will hire regulators who will play the game of regulating honestly?

then perhaps you truly do NOT understand what happened when the BANKS hired their own regulators MOODYS and STARDARD AND POOR to evaluate the RISK associated with derivatives.

THAT complete failure to regulate (assess risk) was a perfect example of why libertarianism will FAIL to serve a society well.

There is no connection whatever between libertarianism and the crash of ReagaNUTism in 2008.

The last people to base an important political theory on human nature died 200 years ago or more. Modern libertarianism before religious nutballs got involved was akin to Jeffersonian liberalism and the rights of the individual vis a vis the rights of the community.

The easiest elimination tests are these: if you believe zoning is good, then you cannot be a libertarian. If you believe government has a role in family planning, then you cannot be a libertarian. If you believe zoning breaches your property rights and you don't believe government has a legitimate role in your family's reproductive habits, then maybe you might be a libertarian.

SJ just negged me for this post and the stupid motherfucker editorialized this monster howler:

"ingorance"
​

Another proud moment in nutballsim.

 

[Oddball]

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

Fake ex-libertarian collectivist authoritarians don't have an explanation for how waving a gun in someone's face demanding respect is respectful.

the convoluted world of an Oddball Dude

The only thing convoluted here is how thug looters like you try to conflate coercion with respect.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You have to understand, to combat the ideology of libertarianism that promotes freedom the only way it can be done it to take it to the extreme of anarchy. Expect more of the same.

Well there are libertarians who are anarchists.

Then they're not libertarians.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.
Respectfully, Supposn

That is the stupidest analogy ever.

Why is driving prudently against Libertarian tenets?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

swoosh!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fake ex-libertarian collectivist authoritarians don't have an explanation for how waving a gun in someone's face demanding respect is respectful.

the convoluted world of an Oddball Dude

The only thing convoluted here is how thug looters like you try to conflate coercion with respect.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor OBD -- -- Oddball Dude at his best

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not going to read a whole book. If you have a citation to make, go for it. The fact remains that you're being an elitist over affordability. People cannot afford private security agencies or polycentric law by default from being born unless they inherited some estate.

You haven't proven how non-libertarians would be held to standards either. That's literally my point here. Without taxes and police, there is no guaranteed holding of standards. You're forcing people to assume the risk.

I didn't expect you to read a whole book. I was merely showing that you were in fact wrong when you said there wasn't an explanation for such things. There are whole books on the subject, and that is one of them.

There's no proof until you cite it.

As for the rest, nobody can afford anything by default from being born. That's an illogical argument. Should we provide everybody's food and shelter to them on the basis that they can't afford these things by default from being born? Obviously not. That's why we have a market economy which creates the most wealth for the most number of people. That way society could then cooperatively come together to provide these things on the market, be it shelter, food, clothing, or security.

No. That's why we demand family values (and used to expect people to go to Church) in order to avoid child abuse (and have a backup plan). Children aren't hostage-slaves.

That's another problem with libertarianism - it doesn't answer the question of maturity.

What does maturity have to do with libertarianism, given that libertarianism is a political ideology?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

A traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted “take me to the airport as fast as you can”!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated. The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
“I’m in a hurry but don’t get us killed”!!!

The drive casually answered “relax; I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler’s cries, the driver’s answer was always the same; “I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab’s floor and screamed, “You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you’re doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light! WHY!!

The driver answered “We must stop here at this intersection. My brother drives on that other road”.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

You are not a Libertarian because you made up a stupid story?

 

[Daktoria]

I didn't expect you to read a whole book. I was merely showing that you were in fact wrong when you said there wasn't an explanation for such things. There are whole books on the subject, and that is one of them.

There's no proof until you cite it.

As for the rest, nobody can afford anything by default from being born. That's an illogical argument. Should we provide everybody's food and shelter to them on the basis that they can't afford these things by default from being born? Obviously not. That's why we have a market economy which creates the most wealth for the most number of people. That way society could then cooperatively come together to provide these things on the market, be it shelter, food, clothing, or security.

No. That's why we demand family values (and used to expect people to go to Church) in order to avoid child abuse (and have a backup plan). Children aren't hostage-slaves.

That's another problem with libertarianism - it doesn't answer the question of maturity.

What does maturity have to do with libertarianism, given that libertarianism is a political ideology?

The definition of how and when children graduate into adulthood (from dependence to independence) is an issue. What must parents do? What are children entitled to?

It can also overlap with issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, school curriculum and taxes, whether the social contract is implicit or explicit, free labor, free trade, multiculturalism, and localism versus globalism.

It's a gray area between mandatory and voluntary relationships and libertarians don't deal with. When it's not dealt with, it forces children to assume the risk of being violated without recourse, even by the very people who bring them into the world. We can't simply expect children to speak up about child abuse and neglect either. When they're abused, they're abused. They literally can't speak up. A responsible policy has to imagine things and look ahead.

 

[Oddball]

It can also overlap with issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, school curriculum and taxes, whether the social contract is implicit or explicit, free labor, free trade, multiculturalism, and localism versus globalism.

Just gave yourself away as the fraud that you are right there.

For the most part, libertarians reject the whole myth of the "social contract" as the straw man rationalization for the authoritarian central planner that it is.

You were never a libertarian.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's no proof until you cite it.



No. That's why we demand family values (and used to expect people to go to Church) in order to avoid child abuse (and have a backup plan). Children aren't hostage-slaves.

That's another problem with libertarianism - it doesn't answer the question of maturity.

What does maturity have to do with libertarianism, given that libertarianism is a political ideology?

The definition of how and when children graduate into adulthood (from dependence to independence) is an issue. What must parents do? What are children entitled to?

It can also overlap with issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, school curriculum and taxes, whether the social contract is implicit or explicit, free labor, free trade, multiculturalism, and localism versus globalism.

It's a gray area between mandatory and voluntary relationships and libertarians don't deal with. When it's not dealt with, it forces children to assume the risk of being violated without recourse, even by the very people who bring them into the world. We can't simply expect children to speak up about child abuse and neglect either. When they're abused, they're abused. They literally can't speak up. A responsible policy has to imagine things and look ahead.

There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.[1] But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?...

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

Children and Rights - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

There you have it, a libertarian addressing precisely this issue.

 

[Daktoria]

What does maturity have to do with libertarianism, given that libertarianism is a political ideology?

The definition of how and when children graduate into adulthood (from dependence to independence) is an issue. What must parents do? What are children entitled to?

It can also overlap with issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, school curriculum and taxes, whether the social contract is implicit or explicit, free labor, free trade, multiculturalism, and localism versus globalism.

It's a gray area between mandatory and voluntary relationships and libertarians don't deal with. When it's not dealt with, it forces children to assume the risk of being violated without recourse, even by the very people who bring them into the world. We can't simply expect children to speak up about child abuse and neglect either. When they're abused, they're abused. They literally can't speak up. A responsible policy has to imagine things and look ahead.

There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.[1] But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?...

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

Children and Rights - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

There you have it, a libertarian addressing precisely this issue.

I've read that before. It's a retarded response. Negligent parents can threaten their children's lives, and those children can run away for their lives. Then, negligent parents can say their children ran away.

Likewise, it doesn't deal with situations of hostage taking when parents inhibit their children from leaving.

Basically, parents get off the hook from having to prepare their children.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Theoretical Libertarianism falls down for exactlty the same reason theoretical Communism does.

Both theories are based on the theory that human nature will change to fit into the needs of that system.

If you think, as one example, that the regulated will hire regulators who will play the game of regulating honestly?

then perhaps you truly do NOT understand what happened when the BANKS hired their own regulators MOODYS and STARDARD AND POOR to evaluate the RISK associated with derivatives.

THAT complete failure to regulate (assess risk) was a perfect example of why libertarianism will FAIL to serve a society well.

Regulation is not risk assessment. Note that your good gubmint friends in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were happily misleading both the public and the press concerning the risk on the loans they were making.

The fault in your thinking is that government is somehow incorruptible. That's a laugher.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The definition of how and when children graduate into adulthood (from dependence to independence) is an issue. What must parents do? What are children entitled to?

It can also overlap with issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, school curriculum and taxes, whether the social contract is implicit or explicit, free labor, free trade, multiculturalism, and localism versus globalism.

It's a gray area between mandatory and voluntary relationships and libertarians don't deal with. When it's not dealt with, it forces children to assume the risk of being violated without recourse, even by the very people who bring them into the world. We can't simply expect children to speak up about child abuse and neglect either. When they're abused, they're abused. They literally can't speak up. A responsible policy has to imagine things and look ahead.

There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.[1] But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?...

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

Children and Rights - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

There you have it, a libertarian addressing precisely this issue.

I've read that before. It's a retarded response. Negligent parents can threaten their children's lives, and those children can run away for their lives. Then, negligent parents can say their children ran away.

Likewise, it doesn't deal with situations of hostage taking when parents inhibit their children from leaving.

Basically, parents get off the hook from having to prepare their children.

That you disagree with the response is different from their not being a response.

Actually, it does deal with situations of hostage taking, since it clearly says that children must have the right to run away.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

libertarians reject the whole myth of the "social contract"

Randian Nitwitticism rears it's f-ugly head again

not true. neo libertarians may, strict libertarianism and libertarians are ALL over the place.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.

Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty.

However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West.

In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others. More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory.

In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.