Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 142 of 142

Thread: Why are many libertarians against all government?

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    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?
    Depends, at least in substantial part, on why they are revolting, does it not?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  4. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul in 2008 View Post
    My definition of the people is a collective of individuals.
    No, I get it. That's just the thing. "A collective of individuals" isn't a thing. That "collective of individuals" doesn't have a consciousness; it doesn't have a will. It is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

  5. #124
    "There is no collective of individuals with shared beliefs. There is no collective of individuals acting in a concerted manner. It is all a figment of your imagination. Only an individual has consciousness and a will, therefore it is the only thing that is real."

    Rank idiocy.

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post

    Rank idiocy.
    Please do expound.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Please do expound.
    I would explain, but I'm busy assembling a small army so that they can sack your property.

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul in 2008 View Post
    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. Why do these libertarians believe its wrong if we elect a government to restrict immigration coming here if that is what we wish? Or why is it wrong if a state government puts regulation on big business in some circumstances? Why is there a philosophy that all government is evil?

    There is no such thing as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And people who claim such as usually just tinpot tyrants looking to manipulate the public for power, like the originator of that phrase Abraham Lincoln.

    In a society that believes in individual inalienable rights no one else has a right to govern you. You govern yourself. Property rights prevent the government form justly regulating businesses (because the government doesn't own them) and immigration (because you have no right to regulate and control property you do not own).

    Any violation of human rights is unjust.

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post
    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.
    And the biggest, most violent, most brutal aggressor is the government. It strips you of your rights as a matter of course, to merely exist.

    But your definition of sovereignty is wrong. It isn't who has the power, it is who has the rightful power. And the individual is the only being in existence that has rightful sovereign power.

    To pretend that just because you and your friends can rape and murder someone else that makes you the rightful ruler is the most ridiculous and evil claim there is.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.
    Those stipulations amount to abolishing the state, i.e. are impossible to realize.

    It's impossible to provide security on a non-territorial basis due to the free rider problem.

    It's impossible to not have a security monopoly.

    ...not quite sure you mean in your third point.

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    And the biggest, most violent, most brutal aggressor is the government. It strips you of your rights as a matter of course, to merely exist.

    But your definition of sovereignty is wrong. It isn't who has the power, it is who has the rightful power. And the individual is the only being in existence that has rightful sovereign power.

    To pretend that just because you and your friends can rape and murder someone else that makes you the rightful ruler is the most ridiculous and evil claim there is.
    Spare me the sanctimonious claptrap. History is rife with rightful rulers that were tyrants. What made them rightful? Their ability to hold power. That is the long and the short of it, and always will be. Whether they were good and just or evil and rapacious mattered not at all, they were sovereign all the same. They are sovereign until another force overrules them, whether it be by man's hand or the whims of nature.

    Telling slaves they are rightful sovereigns is pointless absent any action that gives force to the notion. Even if, by your logic, they are sovereign, the effective value of that observation is... Nothing. Their condition does not change and the sovereign holding sway over those lives is unmoved.

    The only individual that is sovereign is that which will use their force to defend themselves against the claims of others. That person is exceedingly rare, and it does not come about by the simple fact of their existence. It applies to those that actively resist the force of others, not those fancying themselves free without having done a damn thing to make themselves free.

    To be sovereign one must have power. If you do not have power, then you are subject to the whims of those that have power. Claiming that their power is not rightful is stupid and useless.
    Last edited by BSWPaulsen; 03-03-2017 at 06:09 PM.

  13. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Those stipulations amount to abolishing the state, i.e. are impossible to realize.

    It's impossible to provide security on a non-territorial basis due to the free rider problem.

    It's impossible to not have a security monopoly.

    ...not quite sure you mean in your third point.
    Nothing impossible about stateless societies. They have existed through much of history. They were simply small and local. There is nothing suggesting that you couldn't have a large stateless society though, especially today.

    Your second and third points are flawed too. We provide security on a non-territorial basis all the time. Cities will have five or six different security companies working in the same areas. Private armed security companies interact all the times, especially at high profile events with celebrities and the wealthy. The only think standing in teh way is the state monopoly, not reality.

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    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.
    The standard libertarian response would be that the nobles, having originally acquired the land by conquest, did not genuinely own it.

    That's largely true, but it doesn't explain the practical problems of feudalism.

    Those problems are explained by the lack of respect for property rights inherent to feudalism.

    Some examples:

    (1) land was often inalienable, passed down the family line according to fixed rules
    (2) debts (including those constituting serfdom) were often hereditary

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post
    I would explain, but I'm busy assembling a small army so that they can sack your property.
    So much fuss over lil' ol' me? How flattering!

  16. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    So much fuss over lil' ol' me? How flattering!
    Armies are imaginary. No fuss at all!

  17. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Nothing impossible about stateless societies. They have existed through much of history. They were simply small and local. There is nothing suggesting that you couldn't have a large stateless society though, especially today.
    I assumed we were speaking of civilized societies.

    Sure, statelessness is possible (indeed, mandatory) when there is not enough taxable surplus to feed a state.

    Your second and third points are flawed too. We provide security on a non-territorial basis all the time. Cities will have five or six different security companies working in the same areas. Private armed security companies interact all the times, especially at high profile events with celebrities and the wealthy. The only think standing in teh way is the state monopoly, not reality.
    I'm talking about military-scale security.

    Suppose we're neighbors. You pay DefendCo for their services. I don't

    It would be impossible for DefendCo to protect your house from, say, strategic bombing without protecting mine in the process.

    Hence I can freeride. Indeed, everyone in the area can freeride. Which means security will be underproduced.

    The area trying to muddle through with private security will be conquered by a state, able to overcome the freerider problem by taxation.

  18. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    I assumed we were speaking of civilized societies. ... I'm talking about military-scale security.
    Are you speaking of civilized societies or military-scale security. They are contradictory. Big military and government is a symptom of uncivilized societies.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    No, I get it. That's just the thing. "A collective of individuals" isn't a thing. That "collective of individuals" doesn't have a consciousness; it doesn't have a will. It is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
    +rep

  21. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post
    Armies are imaginary. No fuss at all!
    Armies are nothing other than the individuals who comprise them.

  22. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Armies are nothing other than the individuals who comprise them.
    Superfluous Man comes through with a thoroughly superfluous statement.

    If any human is so stupid as to fail to recognize a group of humans with a common purpose, then they deserve what is coming to them. The word "army" has a clear meaning, is pretty well understood by all, and yet we've got people like you that would reduce it to individuals for no purpose.
    Last edited by BSWPaulsen; 03-24-2017 at 04:55 PM.

  23. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post
    Superfluous Man comes through with a thoroughly superfluous statement. Is there some kind of quota on superfluity you're striving to fulfill?
    You're right. I was beating a dead horse.

    But don't look now, that horse was you.

  24. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    You're right. I was beating a dead horse.

    But don't look now, that horse was you.
    If you felt intelligent when you wrote that, then your screen name is very apt.

  25. #142
    //
    Last edited by Origanalist; 03-24-2017 at 08:04 PM.
    "The Patriarch"

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345


Similar Threads

  1. Big Government Libertarians by Murray Rothbard
    By Sola_Fide in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-17-2015, 02:44 PM
  2. Replies: 144
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 06:22 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-05-2013, 01:31 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 02:32 AM
  5. Einstein, Libertarians, and the battle against growing Government
    By RileyE104 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-2010, 11:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •