Why are many libertarians against all government?

[fisharmor]

Better analogy...

You're stranded on a desert island with nothing but a turd and a hamburger.

The minarchist says, "well, I'd rather have a steak, but I'll settle for the hamburger."

The ancap says, "I want a steak, and if I can't get one, I'd rather starve!"

(...incidentally, the Trumpkin digs into the turd with glee and asks for seconds)

Accurate analogy:
You're on a desert island with a turd and a rancid, moldy hamburger.
The ancap says, "Hey just over that hill is a whole herd of deer and if you help me, we can work this to our mutual advantage."
The minarchist screeches austistically that a herd of deer has never existed in real life and the only reason why one wouldn't eat the moldy hamburger is because you want to starve.

[Brian4Liberty]

Market Borders, not Open Borders

[MallsRGood]

You just said that minarchy is an ideal that you can't ever really have. So minarchy IS the steak.

See my last post.

[MallsRGood]

What is your proposed alternative?
Constitutional republic? Like exactly what we have now?
Monarchy? Like exactly what the founders rebelled against?

Proprietary government, state as enterprise.

It could be something like a joint stock company (oligarchy) or a sole proprietorship (monarchy).

The important thing is that the rulers be effective owners, so as to have the good incentives which owners have.

...contra the terrible incentives which elected politicians have.

What doesn't make any sense is calling out anarchocapitalists for proposing an actual alternative.

But that's just it. It isn't an actual alternative.

It's a beautiful dream, but it isn't possible.

Any minarchy that minarchists want to implement is just going to metastasize into exactly what we have right now.

Even if that were true, there is no alternative.

But it's not true. Government doesn't have to grow.

It hasn't always grown throughout history.

It's grown so much in the last century or so because of the perverse incentives inherent to democracy.

[P3ter_Griffin]

You got it. Number 2 is correct. I made it clear there is a distinction between God-given rights and rule of law. As a human, you have right to strive to live wherever you want. But there is no guarantee of an outcome. You have a right to strive to earn $1 million a year. It's not a right to get $1 million a year. You have a right to try to purchase a house, it is not a right for you to purchase a given house. You have a right to try to obtain healthcare, it is not a right for it to be provided to you.

The state should not be the obstacle for individuals in their pursuits of health, happiness, or better lives though. The state putting themselves in those positions are contrary to free markets and libertarianism.

[fisharmor]

Proprietary government, state as enterprise.

It could be something like a joint stock company (oligarchy) or a sole proprietorship (monarchy).

We're not so far off, you know.
I can get behind this provided there are three stipulations.
First, that the "state" doesn't coincide with a geographic boundary - there is no monopoly based on land mass.
Second, that the "state" doesn't mandate a law monopoly. That there be choices in how to resolve differences between individuals.
Third, that the "state" is never the injured party in these dispute resolutions.

I just take that to its logical conclusion: that the above stipulations are the polar opposite of what defines a state.

[presence]

I see your logic. However, we have a country and rights only extend to American citizens, not the whole world.

I don't like taking in immigrants because I believe they threaten my liberty because most of them are not coming here with the right moral values.

rights are universal; inherent; transcending jurisdictions

when the state does your bidding that is an entitlement; slave privilege; not a right

some people hate mj smokers, gays, text while drivers, immigrants... other "groups" that lack the same moral compass;"the right moral values" as you

until an individual has intentionally harmed you, you have no inherent right to justice

[fisharmor]

rights are universal; inherent; transcending jurisdictions

when the state does your bidding that is an entitlement; slave privilege; not a right

The mod disagrees with you.

[osan]

An example is that many libertarians here literally seem to think its evil if I believe that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration.

Not evil, but simply mistaken. In a very twistedly disingenuous sense, our "government" is by, of, and for the people. But this is such a stretch as to be absurd. The "government" may be by SOME people, and perhaps even OF them. To say it is for the people is to accept a very distorted notion of "for". For what? Not for their edification, to be sure. For their servitude and corralling? OK, I can buy that one, but it is not the "for" to which I subscribe.

And since when is it "government's" place to do anyone's bidding, save that of ensuring the rights of all men?

Why do these libertarians believe its wrong if we elect a government to restrict immigration coming here if that is what we wish?

Why, then, is it wrong to pass Jim Crow laws, keeping them crazy knygggers in their places, if that is what we wish? That cloth polishes both sides of the coin.

Or why is it wrong if a state government puts regulation on big business in some circumstances?

Firstly, there is no such thing as "government". If you feel I am mistaken, then I request you show me "government". I don't care if it is local, state, federal, global... just present it to me such that I may literally put my hands upon it and know that that is exactly what I am touching.

Why is there a philosophy that all government is evil?

Because people in the context of Empire culture are almost invariably evil when graced with political power. This is observable fact spanning some 8,000 years of mostly recorded human history.

Put fifty people into the middle of a vast wilderness and they will almost invariably develop an autodiathist culture, which is your basic garden-variety form of anarchy. There are no bosses, though there may be a chief. All collective action is undertaken voluntarily. Coercion, beyond a very close point, becomes the shortcut to death or exile for those foolish enough to attempt it.

Put 5,000 people behind the walls of a heretofore abandoned city, and they rapidly lose their minds to the false promises of the Empire lifestyle, further and rapidly losing all respect for their fellows, usually on the flimsy pretense of some bull$#@! about "necessity" and "the greater good". This is what happens. It is what has almost universally happened, and what is most likely to continue.

Being there is no such thing as "government" or "the state", one cannot rightly blame human misery on them. We can, however, blame the truly guilty parties. That would be all of us; those who presume to master his fellows, and the rest who fail to hang the wannabes by their necks until they are cold and stiff.

[presence]

Why, then, is it wrong to pass Jim Crow laws, keeping them crazy knygggers in their places, if that is what we wish?

lol

you're quick to assume the op has the same ethical compass

[A Son of Liberty]

If that is the will of the people, I don't see the problem.

This is it in a nutshell...

There is no "the people". "The people" is a creation of your imagination. "The people" have no will. "The people" have no voice. Only individuals have will, voice, etc.

Any system built upon the wishes of "the people" is built on a foundation of unicorn farts, and it necessarily tramples the rights of individuals. NECESSARILY. As in, it must as a matter of course.

So you must decide if you believe that individuals own their lives, or if "the people" is an actual, tangible and legitimate thing. Once you do that, you have decided upon your basic political philosophy - whether the individual is sovereign, or the collective. Everything follows from that.

[BSWPaulsen]

So you must decide if you believe that individuals own their lives, or if "the people" is an actual, tangible and legitimate thing. Once you do that, you have decided upon your basic political philosophy - whether the individual is sovereign, or the collective. Everything follows from that.

What is sovereign is only that which can be defended. There is no sovereignty for individuals whom have had their rights not just violated, but effectively stripped by an aggressor/oppressor.

Claiming you have rights when they are systematically violated makes little sense.

"The people" would be whatever group makes claims and forcibly defends them. Rare is the individual that can make claims and forcibly defend them, but then I'd posit that truly rare is the sovereign individual. Anything else is categorical nonsense.

[fisharmor]

Any system built upon the wishes of "the people" is built on a foundation of unicorn farts, and it necessarily tramples the rights of individuals. NECESSARILY. As in, it must as a matter of course.

And I would add that statelessness advocates generally admit that a stateless system may trample on preferences of individuals. May.
That's another way I would define a state: an arrangement where preferences are treated with more importance than rights.
Where something vital is sacrificed for something which only promises to be only noble.

[fisharmor]

Claiming you have rights when they are systematically violated makes little sense.

Why do you speak as if we have them, then?
Nobody's standing up for rights in the US, yet you use words like 'violated' and 'effectively stripped'.
Obviously you believe we have these rights irrespective of whether they are defended.

I understand what you are saying, but the point of even discussing this is to try to get to an understanding that governance without initiating force is possible.
When you say "defend", I'm not hearing "defend", I'm hearing "gain control of the state and force everyone to agree".
Do you mean it that way?

[BSWPaulsen]

Why do you speak as if we have them, then?

Typically, each individual has their own understanding of what constitutes the rights they are endowed with. This varies from individual to individual. Rights are referred to as a general concept in this case, not a specific interpretation of what they constitute.

Nobody's standing up for rights in the US, yet you use words like 'violated' and 'effectively stripped'.
Obviously you believe we have these rights irrespective of whether they are defended.

The effective worth of them is approximately zero absent forcibly defending them. Slaves claiming they have rights amounts to... Nothing. Whether they believe they have them or not their predicament does not change.

I understand what you are saying, but the point of even discussing this is to try to get to an understanding that governance without initiating force is possible.
When you say "defend", I'm not hearing "defend", I'm hearing "gain control of the state and force everyone to agree".
Do you mean it that way?

Defend at cost of one's life, by encouraging a mass of people to defend alongside oneself, or by controlling the levers of power that enables a small group to defend against others with a different vision. That could be a state. Defend is meant in a very general way, but is meant to be understood as any means used to uphold one's understanding of rights.

The point is that sovereignty is extraordinarily rare.

[osan]

lol

you're quick to assume the op has the same ethical compass

Perish the thought. I entertain no such assumptions, but only turn their logic back at them in the manner of a kindly trap of sorts to reveal how they respond to truth.

[Dr.No.]

Your rights end at the end of my nose. Or something like that.

But we are so interconnected, that we are always infringing on each other. You eat poorly or smoke heavily and require more healthcare; that strains the healthcare system and increases my costs. Hence, you have committed force against me (on my wallet). So it is a philosophical nicety, but doesn't really work in practice.

In a sense, you could argue that if anarchism was really the best way to run a society, we'd be anarchist. But we aren't; we aren't even close. I think that is because anarchism will cause effects that enough people will find untenable such that some government will arise. People who argue for a Darwinian form of libertarianism where the have-nots can eat their cake forget that those systems end in violent, often communistic, revolutions. The Hamptons aren't a defendable position.

That is why I really like the states's rights, paleoconservative way of thinking. Limit the federal government's power, let states work out their little experiments, and people can vote with their feet (generally). We can already see the paths different states have taken with what limited authority they have, and the benefits and consequences of those actions.

[A Son of Liberty]

Typically, each individual has their own understanding of what constitutes the rights they are endowed with. This varies from individual to individual.

This is EXACTLY why political philosophy is actually important...

Each individual has their own understanding of what constitutes everything under the sun. To indulge that fancy is to cede the field, and lose the battle before it's even fought. Somebody must hold the standard, if there is to be any standard at all. Once you give in to the idea that such a foundational principle as rights are fluid and open to argumentation, you're no better than Shaw's lady - haggling over price.

You have to have a foundation worth building on, if you're going to build a lasting house. There's a bible verse along those lines, not coincidentally.

[BSWPaulsen]

This is EXACTLY why political philosophy is actually important...

Each individual has their own understanding of what constitutes everything under the sun. To indulge that fancy is to cede the field, and lose the battle before it's even fought. Somebody must hold the standard, if there is to be any standard at all. Once you give in to the idea that such a foundational principle as rights are fluid and open to argumentation, you're no better than Shaw's lady - haggling over price.

You have to have a foundation worth building on, if you're going to build a lasting house. There's a bible verse along those lines, not coincidentally.

I agree you should have a foundation to argue from, and argue for. That's in your self-interest. It is also in mine.

As for negotiating them? Ha. Human discourse on rights is what we should wish for. It would certainly beat the violence that is the easiest solution in having one's vision reach fruition.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

And since when is it "government's" place to do anyone's bidding, save that of ensuring the rights of all men?

Isn't something a lot of people want based on rights, or what people believe to be a right?

[osan]

Isn't something a lot of people want based on rights, or what people believe to be a right?

Does a people's belief that the moon is made of green cheese make it so?

[Dr.No.]

I was wondering about something; hopefully the question is appropriate for this thread.

Are libertarians/anarchists opposed to the feudal/medieval system? I mean, under that system, the royalty owned the land, and the peasants had to work it. You could argue against the "rules" of the royalty, but if the royalty owns the land, don't they have a right to make rules? In that way, the feudal system was really an application of respect for property rights and contracts.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Does a people's belief that the moon is made of green cheese make it so?

No. But wouldn't it give credibility that a certain right is a natural right if a ton of people believe and want it?

I just don't understand a few things. Libertarians here are arguing for natural rights, but we all cant agree on what a natural right is opposed to the very basics like Life, liberty, property and happiness.

What do you think if someones rights conflicts without another persons rights? Then what?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

This is it in a nutshell...

There is no "the people". "The people" is a creation of your imagination. "The people" have no will. "The people" have no voice. Only individuals have will, voice, etc.

Any system built upon the wishes of "the people" is built on a foundation of unicorn farts, and it necessarily tramples the rights of individuals. NECESSARILY. As in, it must as a matter of course.

So you must decide if you believe that individuals own their lives, or if "the people" is an actual, tangible and legitimate thing. Once you do that, you have decided upon your basic political philosophy - whether the individual is sovereign, or the collective. Everything follows from that.

My definition of the people is a collective of individuals.

[Natural Citizen]

Heaven help us if some of you idiots are ever in charge. Jiminy crickets. Buncha monkeys trynna hump a football...

[Natural Citizen]

And stay away from the king's deer. You ain't that badass to be messing with the kings deer yet.

[otherone]

I was wondering about something; hopefully the question is appropriate for this thread.

Are libertarians/anarchists opposed to the feudal/medieval system? I mean, under that system, the royalty owned the land, and the peasants had to work it. You could argue against the "rules" of the royalty, but if the royalty owns the land, don't they have a right to make rules? In that way, the feudal system was really an application of respect for property rights and contracts.

Google "peasants' revolt".

[osan]

No. But wouldn't it give credibility that a certain right is a natural right if a ton of people believe and want it?

Perhaps, but it makes no difference to its truth value.

The tough bit is getting people to understand, believe, and want it. It seems to be nearly impossible, given current conditions.

What do you think if someones rights conflicts without another persons rights? Then what?

One thing we should be clear on is that conflicts of rights are nowhere near as common as conflicts of interest/desires. People are well fond of conflating the two in grave error. This is common as feathers on a hen.

I would say that the next most common conflict is that where one party's rights conflict with the mere desires of another. In that case, the rights win out, of course, but that doesn't stop folks from making erroneous claims.

The far more rare situation is, naturally, the more problematic and, IMO, the ostensible reason we have courts. A central issue is whether one's claim violates those of another and when it does, what must be done to best preserve the claims of all.

Real cases of conflict of rights between two parties, I suspect, are difficult to find. Off the top of my head, I am not sure they even exist. Honestly, this may be the first I've given it any real thought and as I do so, it seems impossible to come up with an example off the top of me head. Can you?

[heavenlyboy34]

Heaven help us if some of you idiots are ever in charge. Jiminy crickets. Buncha monkeys trynna hump a football...

Indeed. Why do you think I don't trust mortals with power?

[Dr.No.]

Google "peasants' revolt".

What are you trying to say? Wouldn't hard-core libertarians argue that such a revolt was immoral since it involved violence and the violation of the property rights of the royalty?