Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[RKMBrown]

You want your private security firm to get to your house? No problem better give your private security firm enough money to cross my land to get to your house. PS: the price goes up when I see you have a dire need.

 

[bripat9643]

You want your private security firm to get to your house? No problem better give your private security firm enough money to cross my land to get to your house. PS: the price goes up when I see you have a dire need.

Like now, most people would live in large housing developments. The roads would be common property owned by the development. There would probably also be parks owned by the development. No one would have to drive across your property to get to theirs. Your assumption that there's no alternative to the government-owned model is false.

 

[RKMBrown]

You want your private security firm to get to your house? No problem better give your private security firm enough money to cross my land to get to your house. PS: the price goes up when I see you have a dire need.

Like now, most people would live in large housing developments. The roads would be common property owned by the development. No one would have to drive across your property to get to theirs.

Yes common property and services funded for by the property owners of the housing development. Just like the common property and services funded for by the property owners of a city.

You think you don't have to pay for the common areas and services of a housing development? You think you can live under a homeowner's association without paying? You think a home owner's association is not a government? The only difference is scale.

 

[Oddball]

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is what is wrong with people agreeing it is a good idea to not cut down all the trees of a region by creating a law that requires 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, while still allowing people to cut them all down if they want to pay extra for the privilege of using 100% of their land any way they want?

You're missing the point. I'm not debating the merits of this particular law. I'm saying that such a law would be much harder to pass if it went through the proper legislative process. Not only would it have to stand up to any Constitutional challenge, it would be much less popular with voters; even though the difference is, as I mentioned, purely psychological, people tend to balk at being told what to do.

Framing such mandates as tax incentives lets government radically expand it's ability to coerce the citizenry.

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

That's all I need to see here.

 

[bripat9643]

You want your private security firm to get to your house? No problem better give your private security firm enough money to cross my land to get to your house. PS: the price goes up when I see you have a dire need.

Like now, most people would live in large housing developments. The roads would be common property owned by the development. No one would have to drive across your property to get to theirs.

Yes common property and services funded for by the property owners of the housing development. Just like the common property and services funded for by the property owners of a city.

Nope. the difference is that the developer had to buy all the property before setting aside part of it as common property. All transactions in this arrangement are entirely voluntary.

You think you don't have to pay for the common areas and services of a housing development? You think you can live under a homeowner's association without paying? You think a home owner's association is not a government? The only difference is scale.

Yes, you do have to pay for that, but the terms of the deal are entirely between you and the developer. There are no uninvited third parties imposing their own terms. The developer owned everything you are being asked to pay for before the contract was drawn up. The city never owned any of the property it imposes taxes on. The difference is between voluntary and coercion.

 

[dblack]

You're missing the point. I'm not debating the merits of this particular law. I'm saying that such a law would be much harder to pass if it went through the proper legislative process. Not only would it have to stand up to any Constitutional challenge, it would be much less popular with voters; even though the difference is, as I mentioned, purely psychological, people tend to balk at being told what to do.

Framing such mandates as tax incentives lets government radically expand it's ability to coerce the citizenry.

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

Is that what RKM was suggesting? I see it just the opposite. The entire point of civilization (and government) is to minimize coercion.

 

[RKMBrown]

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

Is that what RKM was suggesting? I see it just the opposite. The entire point of civilization (and government) is to minimize coercion.

Bingo.

As with anything.. no two humans are going to agree on everything. So we need some rules some framework. I like the Constitution as it was originally intended. No surprise that many disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

You're missing the point. I'm not debating the merits of this particular law. I'm saying that such a law would be much harder to pass if it went through the proper legislative process. Not only would it have to stand up to any Constitutional challenge, it would be much less popular with voters; even though the difference is, as I mentioned, purely psychological, people tend to balk at being told what to do.

Framing such mandates as tax incentives lets government radically expand it's ability to coerce the citizenry.

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

That's all I need to see here.

That is uncannily accurate:

Franz Oppenheimer: The State (0) table of contents & introduction

What, then, is the State [civilization] as a sociological concept? The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.

The State, by Franz Oppenheimer

 

[RKMBrown]

Like now, most people would live in large housing developments. The roads would be common property owned by the development. No one would have to drive across your property to get to theirs.

Yes common property and services funded for by the property owners of the housing development. Just like the common property and services funded for by the property owners of a city.

Nope. the difference is that the developer had to buy all the property before setting aside part of it as common property. All transactions in this arrangement are entirely voluntary.

You think you don't have to pay for the common areas and services of a housing development? You think you can live under a homeowner's association without paying? You think a home owner's association is not a government? The only difference is scale.

Yes, you do have to pay for that, but the terms of the deal are entirely between you and the developer. There are no uninvited third parties imposing their own terms. The developer owned everything you are being asked to pay for before the contract was drawn up. The city never owned any of the property it imposes taxes on. The difference is between voluntary and coercion.

Buy from whom? A "developer" buying property is no different than a person who is buying property. If you agree developers are under a voluntary system then you also have to agree people who are not developers are under a voluntary system. You think your developer is "shielding" you from your accused coercion? You think paying your developer to pay the tax, proxies your payments into something that is then voluntary?

 

[bripat9643]

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

Is that what RKM was suggesting? I see it just the opposite. The entire point of civilization (and government) is to minimize coercion.

In a sense. It minimizes the amount of overt coercion needed by one class of people to mulct another class of people.

 

[dblack]

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

Is that what RKM was suggesting? I see it just the opposite. The entire point of civilization (and government) is to minimize coercion.

Bingo.

As with anything.. no two humans are going to agree on everything. So we need some rules some framework. I like the Constitution as it was originally intended. No surprise that many disagree.

Hmm. OK. I'm still not sure you ever 'got' my point.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes common property and services funded for by the property owners of the housing development. Just like the common property and services funded for by the property owners of a city.

Nope. the difference is that the developer had to buy all the property before setting aside part of it as common property. All transactions in this arrangement are entirely voluntary.

You think you don't have to pay for the common areas and services of a housing development? You think you can live under a homeowner's association without paying? You think a home owner's association is not a government? The only difference is scale.

Yes, you do have to pay for that, but the terms of the deal are entirely between you and the developer. There are no uninvited third parties imposing their own terms. The developer owned everything you are being asked to pay for before the contract was drawn up. The city never owned any of the property it imposes taxes on. The difference is between voluntary and coercion.

Buy from whom? A "developer" buying property is no different than a person who is buying property. If you agree developers are under a voluntary system then you also have to agree people who are not developers are under a voluntary system.

Huh? "Voluntary" means voluntary. If no third parties imposes their own terms on the transaction, then it's voluntary. There is no third party involved in the transaction I described. The city is a third party when it comes to paying property taxes.

 

[RKMBrown]

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

That's all I need to see here.

That is uncannily accurate:

Franz Oppenheimer: The State (0) table of contents & introduction

What, then, is the State [civilization] as a sociological concept? The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.

The State, by Franz Oppenheimer

If you believe all forms of civilization are coercion, then you are an anarchist not a libertarian.

 

[Oddball]

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

Is that what RKM was suggesting? I see it just the opposite. The entire point of civilization (and government) is to minimize coercion.

Then he makes arguments in favor of using coercion to create "civilization" (every bit as mythical as "society) in his image.

 

[bripat9643]

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

That's all I need to see here.

That is uncannily accurate:

Franz Oppenheimer: The State (0) table of contents & introduction

What, then, is the State [civilization] as a sociological concept? The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.

The State, by Franz Oppenheimer

If you believe all forms of civilization are coercion, then you are an anarchist not a libertarian.

Anarchism is one segment of libertarianism. However, it can't be denied that all forms of civilization are founded on, not only coercion, but conquest and enslavement. That is the history of every civilization that has ever existed.

 

[g5000]

Pretty good.


Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous - YouTube!

Opening lines:

"Hi. My name is Brett, and I'm currently recovering from a dangerous and extreme belief system. A belief system that if I had not taken action, most likely would have landed me in jail or mental institution."


I'll take Hilarious Hyperbole for $200, Alex.

Care to name anyone jailed or placed in a mental institution just for being a Libertarian?

 

[RKMBrown]

If no third parties imposes their own terms on the transaction, then it's voluntary. There is no third party involved in the transaction I described. The city is a third party when it comes to paying property taxes.

ROFL...
What is the difference between:
1) a fee from a first party that is required property tax to pay for police in which the third party is the city funding the 2nd party which is the police and
2) a fee from a first party that is required homeowner's fee to pay for private police in which the third party is the property owner/property owner's association funding the 2nd party which is the private police

Both are voluntary only at the point of purchase. Both involve at least three parties. Both are required to have the service. Both are required for the sale.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Like now, most people would live in large housing developments. The roads would be common property owned by the development. No one would have to drive across your property to get to theirs.

Yes common property and services funded for by the property owners of the housing development. Just like the common property and services funded for by the property owners of a city.

Nope. the difference is that the developer had to buy all the property before setting aside part of it as common property. All transactions in this arrangement are entirely voluntary.

You think you don't have to pay for the common areas and services of a housing development? You think you can live under a homeowner's association without paying? You think a home owner's association is not a government? The only difference is scale.

Yes, you do have to pay for that, but the terms of the deal are entirely between you and the developer. There are no uninvited third parties imposing their own terms. The developer owned everything you are being asked to pay for before the contract was drawn up. The city never owned any of the property it imposes taxes on. The difference is between voluntary and coercion.

As many pages that go by explaining this, we're still stuck in the hampster wheel. I don't think the poster here has any interest in understanding it.

 

[RKMBrown]

There you have it....Coercion = civilization.

Is that what RKM was suggesting? I see it just the opposite. The entire point of civilization (and government) is to minimize coercion.

Then he makes arguments in favor of using coercion to create "civilization" (every bit as mythical as "society) in his image.

How is the statement... " you say that like civilization is a bad thing..." an argument in favor of using force to create civilization? Quite the opposite, my arguments are for forming structures and services for civilization only through voluntary agreement of and by the citizens.

 

[g5000]

Pretty good.


Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous - YouTube!

As usual, another Libertarian video so chock full of logical fallacies it could be used as an exam in a Logic 101 course.

I guess what we are supposed to take away from that video is that if we don't subscribe to the Libertarian platform, we are a bunch of police and nanny state lovers who hate 'Merka.


If you don't feel like watching a 13 minute video which the topic starter couldn't even bother to write a few lines about, I will take the trouble he failed to.

Here are some key Libertarian beliefs:

We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

Source: https://www.lp.org/files/LP Platform 2012.pdf

We support repeal of laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called “protective” labor legislation for women and children, & governmental restrictions on the establishment of private day-care centers. We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work. We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and “aid to the poor” programs.

No labor laws, no Social Security, no Medicare, no food stamps, etc.

Source: Libertarian Party on Jobs

We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives.

Source: Healthcare | Libertarian Party

If the US were to pursue a policy of defending its own borders while avoiding foreign intervention, we could realistically reduce our defense budget to as little as $125 billion over the next five years.

Shrink our military to one eighth its current size.

Source: Libertarian Party on Defense

We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

Source: Platform | Libertarian Party



Eliminate the Federal Reserve: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/End-The-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/B006J3V150/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342640332&sr=8-1]End the Fed[/ame]

Pollution of other people’s property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.

No environmental regulations. Source: Libertarian Party on Environment

We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This law denies the right to liberty and property to both employer and employee, and it interferes in their private contractual relations.

Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party

We oppose all so-called "consumer protection" legislation which infringes upon voluntary trade, and call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Source: 1972 Libertarian Party Platform - LPedia

We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has jeopardized safety by arrogating to itself a monopoly of safety regulation and enforcement. We call for privatizing the air traffic control system and transferring the FAA's other functions to private agencies.

Source: 1992 National Platform of the Libertarian Party - Critiques Of Libertarianism

We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and particularly its policies of mandating specific nutritional requirements and denying the right of manufacturers to make non-fraudulent claims concerning their products.

Source: 1992 National Platform of the Libertarian Party - Critiques Of Libertarianism[/QUOTE]