Rejecting Libertarianism

[Ender]

Not to mention that he seems to think that the libertarian philosophy of equality under the law means libertarians are trying to find a way to make everyone the same in intellectual capacity and/or the ability to earn. Or his notion that libertarians want to eliminate all hierarchies.

I don't know what he's rejecting. But he should be rejecting his definition of 'libertarianism' as a tissue of misconceptions.

Equality means that we are all equally free.

How you choose to use your freedom is up to you while I can do something completely different- my choice.

The only common denominator is that we respect Common Law so that we can all live in peace to do our own thing.

[Ronin Truth]

Please note: I am mainly playing devil's advocate here. I consider myself somewhere in the spectrum of libertarian/voluntaryist/anarchist, so I'm not arguing for any type of statism. But I think there is some intellectual weakness at the base of libertarian property rights and I find it interesting to think about if there isn't a more fundamental truth that does not require a nebulous, ill defined, and state-enforced concept of "property".

Again I would be appreciative if anyone can point me towards any written works that address the topics I bring up below.

--------



Any argument based on a desired economic outcome is fundamentally a utilitarian/practical argument as opposed to one based on pure ethics/morality/logic. As I stated in my post.


Now, I happen to believe that the most ethically correct and freedom-maximizing society will tend to produce the highest level of economic activity, productivity, technological innovation, etc.

But putting "the economy" before the individual is wrong-headed, in my view.




I think that is an overly-simplistic generalization. Most of them probably lived healthier lives than most of today. Anyway, it is an interesting question why their society did not advance more technologically. Were private property rights the key missing ingredient? maybe, maybe not.



And "property" is a uniquely human concept. An artificial construct. It does not exist in nature, except perhaps that a bear will protect its cave, etc. But the moment the bear is gone, it is finder's keepers. Nature does not need lawyers and judges...

So again, what is the moral/ethical/logical basis for this property? You haven't addressed that.



freedom of movement is clearly a more fundamental (natural) right than property. Every animal in their natural state is free to travel as they please. Libertarians (and I count myself as one) purport to believe in "natural rights".

Freedom of travel/movement is exercised every day by most every organism on the planet. In natural law, the main constraint is physics. No one is arguing against that.

But humans go far beyond the natural constraints of physics and instead add legal/societal barriers based solely on force and fear to keep others out.

Does it have to be that way? no. It's just the way it is. Have you ever really thought about it and questioned it?

Aside: you are correct that the only truly natural law is the law of the jungle. A strong and depressing argument can be made that under natural law (ie any state of anarchy) the strongest rise to the top and this will always be the case. ie, the best we can hope for is new boss same as the old boss. This is exactly what we see today. The very strong, powerful and connected at the apex of society.

Another alternative is to become a peaceful species such that one individual would not even consider harming another.

Too idealistic?

Well recall that my first post posited a free society based on the NAP but without private property rights beyond self-ownership. So in such a scenario, basically anything goes up until the point that someone physically aggresses upon another's body. At that point, it is society's role to protect the "victim" and possibly enforce restitution.


-------------

Final thought: property rights are a slippery slope. Let's see what all this concept has lead to:

    mixing labor with the land.
      homesteading.
        ownership of tangible objects.
          ownership of minerals, waters and things beneath the land
            ownership of lakes and oceans
        ownership of intangible objects.
            ownership of electrical frequencies.  ( a property of nature. )
            ownership of ideas.
              ownership of arbitrary written words by default.  ( copyright )
              ownership of inventions.  ( patents )
              ownership of words and phrases  ( trademarks )
              ownership of business practices  ( biz patents )
              ownership of life processes.   ( genetic patents )
              ownership of chemical formulas  ( eg: big pharma patents )          
          ownership of others  ( slavery! )

And I'm probably leaving out a bunch. Each one of these "properties" is a monopoly held by an individual or corporation to the exclusion of the rest of society by the threat of force.

https://mises.org/library/philosophy-ownership

[Ronin Truth]

The lion does not band together with 1 million other lions and divide up the land into tiny sections, and make up all sorts of other rules that you are just expected to know and haul you away to the lion's cave at night if you happen to violate one of them.



Not really simplistic. If it were, I expect we'd have done it by now.

Haven't you read any sci-fi? As a youngster I read several books with examples of such societies. The first that comes to mind is the very advanced morlock race ( future humans ) that built a ring around the Sun in "The Timeships" by Stephen Baxter. A sequel to "The Time Machine".

Recommended: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is Robert Heinlein's most libertarian book.

[PierzStyx]

I don't know what to call it. I'm not sure it has a name.

But it sure as hell isn't Libertarian.

Inspired by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, G.K Chesterton, JRR Tolkien, CK Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Edmund Burke, The World as it is.

Abandon Utopia with me. Let's fight for Liberty...and Virtue.

Thoughts?

While I disagree with some of your arguments, what you're looking for- a focus on local action and self rule- has a name. It is Anarchy. Pure and simple. And far from being utopian, anarchy acknowledges the nature of man to crave power through violence and does everything that can be done to limit their ability to enact that violent desire by preventing the organization that would allow them to achieve their goals- the government. Where libertarianism is a rejection of the state, anarchy is a rejection of the government altogether. A government will always become a state. The only way to ensure it does not is to ensure there is never a formal government that acts in your name but that you maintain all self rule. Anarchy is what you're looking for.

[Ender]

Recommended: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is Robert Heinlein's most libertarian book.

One of my all time favorites. Heinlein is a master.

[acptulsa]

Anarchy is what you're looking for.

It is?

1.2 Virtue. Virtue must be coupled with Liberty, else you have Tyranny. That doesn't mean paying lip service to Virtue as you decriminalize heroin. It means restoring traditional values, in so that we police ourselves. The choices of your neighbors shape your society. It concerns you. It can hurt you. This is about culture. About religion. About common objective morality. I am not content with policing only myself. We are in a social contract together...

2.2 Hierarchy. Hierarchy is a good thing. It builds order, which fosters liberty and virtue...

Strange sorts of anarchy we're getting these days...

[Ronin Truth]

One of my all time favorites. Heinlein is a master.

Some, such as Brian Doherty, claim that Robert LeFevre's movement was a basis for Robert A. Heinlein's book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, and that LeFevre was the basis for the character Professor Bernardo de la Paz, organizer of the Lunar revolution.^[7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre

FWIW, LeFevre was my original libertarian "Morpheus".

[undergroundrr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre

FWIW, LeFevre was my original libertarian "Morpheus".

That's interesting about LeFevre and Heinlein. I've enjoyed both, but I never connected the two.

[Ronin Truth]

That's interesting about LeFevre and Heinlein. I've enjoyed both, but I never connected the two.

Have you seen this? http://voluntaryist.com/lefevre/index.html#.Vz4vViERESU

[Krugminator2]

Anarchy doesn't work. It is pretty easy to see why. If there is no objective law and agreed on means of enforcement then there is really nothing to stop people from violating the rights of others. If your neighbor shoots you, then there is no objective means of dealing out justice. It becomes the wild west.

No government does not mean freedom. It is the absence of freedom. Society would devolve into small gangs and jungle rule. Look at Somalia. Look at places like Lebanon. Government is essential for freedom. Predictable rules are necessary for production and a high functioning economy.

[Ronin Truth]

Anarchy doesn't work. It is pretty easy to see why. If there is no objective law and agreed on means of enforcement then there is really nothing to stop people from violating the rights of others. If your neighbor shoots you, then there is no objective means of dealing out justice. It becomes the wild west.

No government does not mean freedom. It is the absence of freedom. Society would devolve into small gangs and jungle rule. Look at Somalia. Look at places like Lebanon. Government is essential for freedom. Predictable rules are necessary for production and a high functioning economy.

Since almost everyone, almost everywhere, almost all of the time, for almost forever interacts anarchically (without rulers), why continue to try to drag predatory violence, force and coercion systems into the picture?

It's called hiding in plain sight and is just taken routinely, as a given, and sadly for granted.

How many anarchic interactions have you experienced this month, so far?

[acptulsa]

They have access depending on the state. They will not be listed as such in my state. The first time I voted for Ron Paul he was listed as independent. So were the Socialist, Green, and Constitution candidates.

On the same ballot?

[phill4paul]

Anarchy doesn't work. It is pretty easy to see why. If there is no objective law and agreed on means of enforcement then there is really nothing to stop people from violating the rights of others. If your neighbor shoots you, then there is no objective means of dealing out justice. It becomes the wild west.

No government does not mean freedom. It is the absence of freedom. Society would devolve into small gangs and jungle rule. Look at Somalia. Look at places like Lebanon. Government is essential for freedom. Predictable rules are necessary for production and a high functioning economy.

There was no "Wild West."

Read this primer and then...go forth. What you believe to be true may not be so.

http://www.independent.org/publicati...icle.asp?a=803

Human beings, outside the bounds of the American federated government, and it's laws...keeping peace. Not Somalia. Not Lebanon. America territories. At a time the Fed was wrapped up in a war of aggression against secession.

Land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains. All contracting with each other without government interference.

[acptulsa]

There was no "Wild West."

Sure there was.

It happened in Hollywood in the 1940s and 1950s. And then James Garner and a few other brave actors sued a studio or two, and the moguls had to start treating actors, crews and stuntmen as human beings, not slaves.

[Natural Citizen]

Well. It certainly is true that the greatest and likely most generally unrecognized threat to Individual liberty comes as a result of the constant erosion of virtue. Liberty requires morality.

So, yeah. Excellent observation, Libertas Aut Mortis.

[acptulsa]

[COLOR=#000080]Well. It certainly is true that the greatest and likely most generally unrecognized threat to Individual liberty comes as a result of the constant erosion of virtue. Liberty requires morality.

So, yeah. Excellent observation, Libertas Aut Mortis.

He does have a point. But is the answer to shove morality down the throats of the populace? Political correctness purports to do just that, yet continually makes the problem worse.

Or is the only true solution a libertarian solution? Is the solution not to demand morality of people, or to expect it? Is the solution to force people to do what they should to have a society, or to simply explain to them that they must do it or they won't have a society?

' We need a broader, firmer, deeper faith in the people, a faith that men desire to do right, that the commonwealth is founded upon a righteousness which will endure, a reconstructive faith that the final approval of the people is given not to demagogues slavishly pandering to their selfishness, merchandizing with the clamor of the hour, but to the statesmen ministering to their welfare, representing their deep silent, abiding conviction.'--Calvin Coolidge

We like to say we're libertarians and we don't need leaders. Politicians do not 'make America great'; the only politics that leads to American greatness is the politics that gets the obstacles (like government) out of the way of Americans. But people do need leaders, and they need us for leaders. Because only we can teach them that virtue involves leading from behind.

That's the trick. That's what we have to learn how to get people excited about.

[Natural Citizen]

He does have a point. But is the answer to shove morality down the throats of the populace? Political correctness purports to do just that, yet continually makes the problem worse.

Or is the only true solution a libertarian solution? Is the solution not to demand morality of people, or to expect it? Is the solution to force people to do what they should to have a society, or to simply explain to them that they must do it or they won't have a society?



We like to say we're libertarians and we don't need leaders. Politicians do not 'make America great'; the only politics that leads to American greatness is the politics that gets the obstacles (like government) out of the way of Americans. But people do need leaders, and they need us for leaders. Because only we can teach them that virtue involves leading from behind.

That's the trick. That's what we have to learn how to get people excited about.

This is something that I've really been wanting to bring up in a topic of its own. I just haven't done it. Mainly in terms of what I'd mentioned previously here in the thread with regard to the Man-over-God philosophy that I think is gradually becoming mainstream within the libertarian movement. Even here our own forum I'm seeing it.

You agree that liberty is based upon fundamental principles and not philosophies or policies, I assume. That said, when I think of fundamental, timeless, principles I think of things that are benchmarked on truth. I'm of the view that if we're going to teach anything at all, it needs to be truth. Not morality. Morality is a natural product of having a grasp on the truth. Given the state of public morality, I'm of the personal view that most simply don't have a grasp on truth. So, then, by default, they lack an understanding of its principles. Which, as we know, are the foundation of liberty.

Anyway. There really is a lot I want to say about this. I just want to do it in a seperate topic. When Libertas Aut Mortis mentioned the lack of virtue that really is eroding liberty, I kind of just got to thinking about it. Oddly enough, I was just talking about this with someone today.

[acptulsa]

It's no wonder that these fiends that gain by dividing and conquering and profit by destroying this so they can steal that refuse to allow Calvin Coolidge's name to be mentioned more than once a year in their public indoctrinat--er, I mean schools.

'If we wish to erect new structures, we must have definite knowledge of the old foundations.'--Calvin Coolidge

'Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil. Our great hope lies in developing what is good.'--Calvin Coolidge

'Politics is not an end, but a means. It is not a product, but a process. It is the art of government. Like other values it has its counterfeits. So much emphasis has been placed upon the false that the significance of the true has been obscured and politics has come to convey the meaning of crafty and cunning selfishness, instead of candid and sincere service.'--Calvin Coolidge

I'm squarely with Ron Paul on the subject--Calvin Coolidge is the hot stuff. We really ought to find a way to make a fad of him. I realize that would be a difficult task. But...

'I have found it advisable not to give too much heed to what people say when I am trying to accomplish something of consequence. Invariably they proclaim it can't be done. I deem that the very best time to make the effort.'--Calvin Coolidge

This is the guy who had his hand on the tiller during the greatest period of both economic and technological development in the nation's history--and he paid off the national debt all the while. The history books paint that as an accident.

It was not an accident.

[euphemia]

On the same ballot?

Yes. There were line items for Democrat and Republican. Everyone else was Independent. I was so angry. This is why I think groups that position themselves as thrid parties are tilting at windmills. It makes for a romantic story, but it is a waste of time and money as long as the powerwhores run the show.

I remain hopeful that when Trump takes office, he will call the lot of them into the Oval Office and say, "You're fired."

[acptulsa]

They have access depending on the state. They will not be listed as such in my state. The first time I voted for Ron Paul he was listed as independent. So were the Socialist, Green, and Constitution candidates.

On the same ballot?

Yes. There were line items for Democrat and Republican. Everyone else was Independent. I was so angry.

Well, that's amusing, considering the last time Ron Paul ran as anything but a Republican was 1988, and in 1988 the Green Party was still four years away from getting its act sufficiently together to field its first candidate. And the American Tax Payers' Party, which was the forerunner of the Constitution Party, would not even be founded for three years.

Care to try again? I'm sure you can come up with some libertarian street cred if you keep trying hard enough.

You know, we might be ruthless, unkind, and maybe even occasionally illogical and whatnot. But we do tend toward honesty. You have to admit we're unique in that regard, for better and worse.

I remain hopeful that when Trump takes office, he will call the lot of them into the Oval Office and say, "You're fired."

Of course you do. And of course it's reasonable to assume that Trump, being the biggest power whore of them all, will do the right thing and follow them right out that door.

[euphemia]

I am telling you that state Democrat and Republicans control voting districts, and they control how candidates are listed on the ballot. They will continue to control it this cycle.

[acptulsa]

I am telling you that state Democrat and Republicans control voting districts, and they control how candidates are listed on the ballot. They will continue to control it this cycle.

See? That can be said without a single lie involved.

And this cycle, with a pair of obviously psychopathic criminals occupying the major party slots, it just might turn out to be a huge advantage to have a different letter next to one's name.

Be it an L or an I or a scarlet letter or whatever, this 'round the beleaguered public--rightly sick of hearing those two powermongering whores spammed by every media outlet and every shill under the sun--may just give everyone but the R and the D a big OK.

[LibertyEagle]

You know, we might be ruthless, unkind, and maybe even occasionally illogical and whatnot. But we do tend toward honesty. You have to admit we're unique in that regard, for better and worse.

Nope. Wouldn't say that. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...mptive-nominee

[acptulsa]

This is something that I've really been wanting to bring up in a topic of its own. I just haven't done it. Mainly in terms of what I'd mentioned previously here in the thread with regard to the Man-over-God philosophy that I think is gradually becoming mainstream within the libertarian movement. Even here our own forum I'm seeing it.

There is a cure for that...

'About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.

'No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.'--Calvin Coolidge

If we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that is final. Burnings at the stake is no advance over that, any more than slavery in the name of taking care of those who can't take care of themselves is an advance over that.

[Ronin Truth]

"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; the proper study of mankind is Man."

[Swordsmyth]

This topic is mired in confused subjects.
I will try to help.

Libertarian CULTURE is NOT the same as Libertarian GOVERNMENT.
I am against the first and wish that druggies, adulterers, etc. were shunned and preached against. PC is an important concept but we we live in a dark age when the prevailing PC is heretical to the point of gibbering insanity.

However I find myself a strange bedfellow with the cultural Libertarians when it comes to government. (Not lockstep mind you)
The enforcement of most morality belongs in the hands of God and civil society, NOT the Cops or the Army.

Monarchy is only a great idea If you can avail yourself of direct Theocracy so that God is the Monarch, Evil Kings are just too hard to overthrow. And the people have a right to some say in their government.
The best system would allow the people to choose and fire a dictator through an Electoral College filter. (The dictator must be restricted by a Bill of rights. But otherwise be functionally all powerful so that he can't constantly evade responsibility as our myriad rulers do through the disgusting "Checks and Balances" of the CONstitution.)

Anarchists will always reap tyranny. No other comment is required. And there is no hope of debating them into Sanity.

[undergroundrr]

This topic is mired in confused subjects.
I will try to help.

Libertarian CULTURE is NOT the same as Libertarian GOVERNMENT.
I am against the first and wish that druggies, adulterers, etc. were shunned and preached against. PC is an important concept but we we live in a dark age when the prevailing PC is heretical to the point of gibbering insanity.

However I find myself a strange bedfellow with the cultural Libertarians when it comes to government. (Not lockstep mind you)
The enforcement of most morality belongs in the hands of God and civil society, NOT the Cops or the Army.

Very interesting comments. I think, though that what you're calling "cultural libertarians" are somewhat antithetical to libertarian government. Nihilism and libertinism are much more prevalent among socialists and fascists because there are structures within those systems that can reduce the individual's own liability for unwise or unjust life choices. They can trade their freedom for greater capacity to self-abuse or abuse others.

Monarchy is only a great idea If you can avail yourself of direct Theocracy so that God is the Monarch, Evil Kings are just too hard to overthrow. And the people have a right to some say in their government.
The best system would allow the people to choose and fire a dictator through an Electoral College filter. (The dictator must be restricted by a Bill of rights. But otherwise be functionally all powerful so that he can't constantly evade responsibility as our myriad rulers do through the disgusting "Checks and Balances" of the CONstitution.)

The true divine appointment of a ruler would only be valid if each individual of the entire subject populace (adherent or heretic) receives clear divine revelation confirming it.

Any other consideration is some level of tyranny. What level of control of your life would you be comfortable with your government having, minarchist or otherwise?

Anarchists will always reap tyranny. No other comment is required. And there is no hope of debating them into Sanity.

I wish there was a distinction here between anarchy and anarchists in the same way libertarians and libertarian government were differentiated above.

[Ronin Truth]

Very interesting comments. I think, though that what you're calling "cultural libertarians" are somewhat antithetical to libertarian government. Nihilism and libertinism are much more prevalent among socialists and fascists because there are structures within those systems that can reduce the individual's own liability for unwise or unjust life choices. They can trade their freedom for greater capacity to self-abuse or abuse others.



The true divine appointment of a ruler would only be valid if each individual of the entire subject populace (adherent or heretic) receives clear divine revelation confirming it.

Any other consideration is some level of tyranny. What level of control of your life would you be comfortable with your government having, minarchist or otherwise?



I wish there was a distinction here between anarchy and anarchists in the same way libertarians and libertarian government were differentiated above.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” -- Albert Einstein

[r3volution 3.0]

the people have a right to some say in their government

No, they do not.

They have a right to their life and property.

That government is best which is most likely to secure their life and property.

That government is not democratic.

Monarchy is only a great idea If you can avail yourself of direct Theocracy so that God is the Monarch, Evil Kings are just too hard to overthrow. And the people have a right to some say in their government.

The best system would allow the people to choose and fire a dictator through an Electoral College filter. (The dictator must be restricted by a Bill of rights. But otherwise be functionally all powerful so that he can't constantly evade responsibility as our myriad rulers do through the disgusting "Checks and Balances" of the CONstitution.)

The implicit assumption being that the people would not elect evil officials.

Yet, looking at the empirical evidence, they almost invariably elect evil officials.

Or, at least, coldly self-interested officials who do not care about the welfare of the people.

...which is precisely why monarchy is an ideal form of government.

A coldly self-interested ruler would behave in a libertarian way because it would be in his own interest to do so.

...unlike with an elected official, whose self-interest drives him to do unlibertarian things, to satisfy those whose support he needs.

For democracy to work, the elected officials must be altruistic, risking electoral losses to do the right thing.

For monarchy to work, the monarch need only be greedy, implementing libertarian policies to make the country (and thus himself) rich.

Which is more likely?

Anarchists will always reap tyranny.

True

[r3volution 3.0]

...double post