Do you want a freer country or do you just want to stroke your own ego?

[r3volution 3.0]

The OP's question is appropriate to ask of anarchist libertarians, some of whom are regrettably non-pragmatic.

But it's rich for the OP to ask this...

...people of his mind are not in fact pragmatists interested in maximizing human liberty.

They have their own sacred cows (e.g. national self-determination), which they aren't willing to slaughter in the interest of liberty.

They're interested in maximizing the liberty of only those persons who happen to live within an arbitrary geographical radius of their own location.

Meanwhile, they claim that anyone who extends pragmatism beyond those arbitrary limits is a tyrant.

...i.e. exactly the same head-in-the-sand idealism as the anarchists (though at least the ideals of the anarchists are libertarian).

The world's not short on irony.

[Swordsmyth]

The OP's question is appropriate to ask of anarchist libertarians, some of whom are regrettably non-pragmatic.

But it's rich for the OP to ask this...

...people of his mind are not in fact pragmatists interested in maximizing human liberty.

They have their own sacred cows (e.g. national self-determination), which they aren't willing to slaughter in the interest of liberty.

They're interested in maximizing the liberty of only those persons who happen to live within an arbitrary geographical radius of their own location.

Meanwhile, they claim that anyone who extends pragmatism beyond those arbitrary limits is a tyrant.

...i.e. exactly the same head-in-the-sand idealism as the anarchists (though at least the ideals of the anarchists are libertarian).

The world's not short on irony.

I believe my right to self defense gives me the right to secure a territory large enough defend my rights and leave others to do as they please, the anarchists believe that I don't have a right to secure my liberty from those who would take it and you believe that you have a right to draft and tax others to allow you to impose your will on foreigners.

[r3volution 3.0]

I believe my right to self defense gives me the right to secure a territory large enough defend my rights and leave others to do as they please, the anarchists believe that I don't have a right to secure my liberty from those who would take it and you believe that you have a right to draft and tax others to allow you to impose your will on foreigners.

You believe that national groups have a right to self-determination; the rest is a (failed) attempt to rationalize that with libertarianism.

In fact, your nationalism, consisting of (a) a rejection of inter-national intervention in the interest of advancing human liberty, and (b) support for domestic policies which benefits domestic residents at the expense of the liberty of human beings in general, runs contrary to the pragmatic argument in favor of the state, on which you hypocritically rely in criticizing anarcho-capitalists (who are indeed mistaken, but you're in no position to criticize them: at least not on those grounds).

By way of illustration:

Pragmatist Libertarian: The state is bad, engages in aggression, but the situation which would exist in the absence of the state (i.e. not a free market in defense as you hope, but choas, tribal warfare) is worse: i.e. entails even more aggression. So, in the interest of maximizing liberty, we ought to support the state, and aim to minimize its aggression as much as possible.

Anarcho-Capitalist: Lalala, I can't hear you... Tyrant!

...

Pragmatist Libertarian: If the goal is to maximize human liberty, it shouldn't matter where these humans happen to live. Granted, most inter-state military interventions go poorly (at least when looking at recent history), but there is no reason to oppose in principle an intervention which would result in a net gain for human liberty, taking into account the costs and benefits of the various parties concerned. More liberty is better than less; this should be non-controversial.

Nationalist "Libertarian": Lalala, I can't hear you... Tyrant!

OR

Nationalist "Libertarian": [insert elaborate rationalization for why more liberty is actually bad]

Pragmatist Libertarian:

[Swordsmyth]

You believe that national groups have a right to self-determination; the rest is a (failed) attempt to rationalize that with libertarianism.

In fact, your nationalism, consisting of (a) a rejection of inter-national intervention in the interest of advancing human liberty, and (b) support for domestic policies which benefits domestic residents at the expense of the liberty of human beings in general, runs contrary to the pragmatic argument in favor of the state, on which you hypocritically rely in criticizing anarcho-capitalists (who are indeed mistaken, but you're in no position to criticize them: at least not on those grounds).

By way of illustratration:

Pragmatist Libertarian: The state is bad, engages in aggression, but the situation which would exist in the absence of the state (i.e. not a free market in defense as you hope, but choas, tribal warfare) is worse: i.e. entails even more aggression. So, in the interest of maximizing liberty, we ought to support the state, and aim to minimize its aggression as much as possible.

Anarcho-Capitalist: Lalala, I can't hear you... Tyrant!

...

Pragmatist Libertarian: If the goal is to maximize human liberty, it shouldn't matter where these humans happen to live. Granted, most inter-state military interventions go poorly (at least when looking at recent history), but there is no reason to oppose in principle an intervention which would result in a net gain for human liberty, taking into account the costs and benefits of the various parties concerned. More liberty is better than less; this should be non-controversial.

Nationalist "Libertarian": Lalala, I can't hear you... Tyrant!

OR

Nationalist "Libertarian": [insert elaborate rationalization]

Pragmatic Libertarian:

You insist on violating the rights of others beyond that which is necessary to protect your own, that make you a tyrant with a god complex.

[r3volution 3.0]

You insist on violating the rights of others beyond that which is necessary to protect your own, that make you a tyrant with a god complex.

I insist that more liberty is better than less.

That makes me a libertarian.

Hence, the hodgepodge of arbitrary claims which constitute your theory of ethics (which you recently invented for the purpose of maintaining the pretense that your nationalism is consistent with libertarianism, after I demonstrated to you that it isn't), I find less than compelling...

[Swordsmyth]

I insist that more liberty is better than less.

But your method is to violate others rights beyond what self defense can justify, that doesn't produce more liberty.

That makes me a libertarian.

That makes you an egomaniac.

Hence, the hodgepodge of arbitrary claims which constitute your theory of ethics (which you recently invented for the purpose of maintaining the pretense that your nationalism is consistent with libertarianism, after I demonstrated to you that it isn't), I find less than compelling...

My theory is entirely consistent.

[r3volution 3.0]

But your method is to violate others rights beyond what self defense can justify, that doesn't produce more liberty.

Your position is not that intervention is bad because it doesn't increase liberty.

Your position is that intervention would be bad even if it did increase liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

Your position is not that intervention is bad because it doesn't increase liberty.

Your position is that intervention would be bad even if it did increase liberty.

My position is that intervention CAN'T increase liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

My position is that intervention CAN'T increase liberty.

No, sigh, it isn't.

We've been over this many times.

You do claim that intervention can't increase liberty (which is preposterous on its face, even on your worldview, since you yourself advocate intervention, so long as it occur within some arbitrary geographical area called the "nation-state"), but you also claim that intervention (outside that arbitrary geographical area) is bad regardless of whether it increases liberty. Don't you recall telling me how the North Koreans have a "right to be enslaved," or something to that effect, such that intervention, even if it could be done successfully and at trivial cost, would be wrong? Don't you recall all your talk about the nation's "collective rights"?

[Swordsmyth]

No, sigh, it isn't.

We've been over this many times.

You do claim that intervention can't increase liberty (which is preposterous on its face, even on your worldview, since you yourself advocate intervention, so long as it occur within some arbitrary geographical area called the "nation-state"), but you also claim that intervention (outside that arbitrary geographical area) is bad regardless of whether it increases liberty. Don't you recall telling me how the North Koreans have a "right to be enslaved," or something to that effect, such that intervention, even if it could be done successfully and at trivial cost, would be wrong? Don't you recall all your talk about the nation's "collective rights"?

I advocate for the establishment of a state in the absence of one to protect my rights and the rights of those who will be part of the state that is established, that is different from advocating the extra violation of my fellow citizens' rights to provide no benefit to them and to force others to arrange their state to my satisfaction.

[r3volution 3.0]

blah blah blah

You oppose intervention in principle, even if it advances liberty, because you put national self-determination above liberty.

You can't even deny this; you just change the subject.

[Swordsmyth]

You oppose intervention in principle, even if it advances liberty, because you put national self-determination above liberty.

You can't even deny this; you just change the subject.

I didn't change the subject, I explained the difference between what I advocate and intervention.
Intervention can't advance liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

I didn't change the subject, I explained the difference between what I advocate and intervention.
Intervention can't advance liberty.

If an intervention would result in a net gain for liberty, would it be justified?

Alternatively, if a domestic policy benefiting natives would result in a net loss for liberty, would it be unjustified?

In other words, is more liberty better than less, or not?

[Swordsmyth]

If an intervention would result in a net gain for liberty, would it be justified?

If 2+2 came out 3 would that be good or bad for liberty?

Alternatively, if a domestic policy benefiting natives would result in a net loss for liberty, would it be unjustified?

No, but I doubt we will agree on whether there is a net loss if you are thinking of any of the policies I think you are thinking of.

In other words, is more liberty better than less, or not?

More is better but the question is what will/can produce more or less.

[r3volution 3.0]

If an intervention would result in a net gain for liberty, would it be justified?

If 2+2 came out 3 would that be good or bad for liberty?

I'm looking for an answer, not an evasion.

Let's try again:

If an intervention would result in a net gain for liberty, would it be justified?

[Swordsmyth]

I'm looking for an answer, not an evasion.

Let's try again:

If an intervention would result in a net gain for liberty, would it be justified?

And I will reply again with an equivalent question:

If killing you would extend your life would it be medically ethical?

Intervention can't result in a net gain for liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

And I will reply again with an equivalent question:

If killing you would extend your life would it be medically ethical?

Intervention can't result in a net gain for liberty.

And this is why I call you intellectually dishonest.

Adios

[Swordsmyth]

And this is why I call you intellectually dishonest.

Adios

You demand an answer to an impossibility and I am the one who is intellectually dishonest?

Via con queso.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

So naturally we need to fight communism with biometric IDs, myriad police checkpoints and a Berlin Wall.

Rah rah.



But, of course, if the result you produce is fascism that does not make you a fascist, right?

Right?



The communists say there can only be communists and fascists, and the fascists say there can only be communists and fascists. And the real, non-troll libertarians still quote the Bard:

Nope, just a few Helicopters. Communists are a threat, threats have no right to do harm to you, your rights, wealth, property, people, nation, etc.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Clearly some do not

[RestorationOfLiberty]

The OP's question is appropriate to ask of anarchist libertarians, some of whom are regrettably non-pragmatic.

But it's rich for the OP to ask this...

...people of his mind are not in fact pragmatists interested in maximizing human liberty.

They have their own sacred cows (e.g. national self-determination), which they aren't willing to slaughter in the interest of liberty.

They're interested in maximizing the liberty of only those persons who happen to live within an arbitrary geographical radius of their own location.

Meanwhile, they claim that anyone who extends pragmatism beyond those arbitrary limits is a tyrant.

...i.e. exactly the same head-in-the-sand idealism as the anarchists (though at least the ideals of the anarchists are libertarian).

The world's not short on irony.

Show me Liberty without a nation of people and the mindset of self preservation, I will wait forever because you will never find it.

[pcosmar]

Show me Liberty without a nation of people and the mindset of self preservation, I will wait forever because you will never find it.

I have Liberty without a Nation..

my liberty is not dependent on any government/State. or any piece of Ground.

You will never find any nation worth preserving,, Judging yes,, Preserving,,No.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

I have Liberty without a Nation..

my liberty is not dependent on any government/State. or any piece of Ground.

You will never find any nation worth preserving,, Judging yes,, Preserving,,No.

No, you dont, because other groups will seek to strip you of it.

Wrong, I found one, mine own. Just because you are too stupid to take our own side, does not mean others have to follow your foolishness.

[pcosmar]

No, you dont, because other groups will seek to strip you of it.

NO,,They won't..
I lived in your Authoritarian Wet Dream.. A secure and controlled society..

I walk through as a Free man. God did that.
I have crossed this country being wanted and considered Dangerous. your petty fears do not even register on my scale of real world threats.

and I have dealt with supremacist punks before..

You are just another ... Grow up and educate yourself..

[RestorationOfLiberty]

NO,,They won't..
I lived in your Authoritarian Wet Dream.. A secure and controlled society..

I walk through as a Free man. God did that.
I have crossed this country being wanted and considered Dangerous. your petty fears do not even register on my scale of real world threats.

and I have dealt with supremacist punks before..

You are just another ... Grow up and educate yourself..

LOL, yeah, I guess all of history HAS to be wrong, right?