MCakes32
08-08-2011, 03:54 AM
hey all, I was having a conversation with a buddy about this article that i linked to him (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/mullen-t5.1.1.html) it is definitely on the extreme side on the political spectrum but is essentially what libertarianism is all about right? that government action is only obtainable through use of force, and that it is not right to initiate violence or force on anyone to do anything. Is this correct??
the example used in the article is that you will eventually be killed if you resist government action of any sort even parking tickets. While the point i was trying to make with this article is that govt action is in fact only attainable through violence or force, so therefore a government with less power has less force or violence to use on individuals.
yet my friend is saying that not everything is like this and that the argument in the article is stupid because it will not happen like that( there are steps in between he says)
i have read some articles that make claims along this line as well that there is fallacy in the essential thinking of a libertarian. this is however as hardcore as a libertarian can get (as far as i know). Basically i feel like the argument my friend is making is that the logic presented in the article does not work for everything given that it will take some amount of force via gov. to enforce laws and therefore the constitution, he insists that i am thinking of some sort of utopian society where this is possible. I was just wondering if people have had similar experiences with trying to express the libertarian point of view and if they have a better way of explaining it.
PS. he agrees with several of pauls points but he just doesn't agree with the logic of the libertarian viewpoint as stated in the article that things escalate in that way and that all things related to govt will escalate in that way.
I am very curious to hear any opinions on this matter considering it seems to be pretty fundamental to this way of political thinking.
thanks,
mcakes32
the example used in the article is that you will eventually be killed if you resist government action of any sort even parking tickets. While the point i was trying to make with this article is that govt action is in fact only attainable through violence or force, so therefore a government with less power has less force or violence to use on individuals.
yet my friend is saying that not everything is like this and that the argument in the article is stupid because it will not happen like that( there are steps in between he says)
i have read some articles that make claims along this line as well that there is fallacy in the essential thinking of a libertarian. this is however as hardcore as a libertarian can get (as far as i know). Basically i feel like the argument my friend is making is that the logic presented in the article does not work for everything given that it will take some amount of force via gov. to enforce laws and therefore the constitution, he insists that i am thinking of some sort of utopian society where this is possible. I was just wondering if people have had similar experiences with trying to express the libertarian point of view and if they have a better way of explaining it.
PS. he agrees with several of pauls points but he just doesn't agree with the logic of the libertarian viewpoint as stated in the article that things escalate in that way and that all things related to govt will escalate in that way.
I am very curious to hear any opinions on this matter considering it seems to be pretty fundamental to this way of political thinking.
thanks,
mcakes32