For a New Libertarian - Jeff Deist @ Mises U 2017

[Brian4Liberty]

There's no such thing as a right to national self-determination.

No, "universalism" is another word for coherence.

Not everyone agrees with your anarcho-monarchist universalism. That is one of the points of the OP article, which you no doubt disagree with. Fine, disagree with him. You will not be changing his (or other people's) mind by attacking the Mises Institute.

[Brian4Liberty]

War and Socialism come from Nationalism. ... it really is reflective of the Nationalist history and form of planned economies which leads us to to war and Socialism. ...

Is this what you are referring to? I happen to agree with this. I don't see how you get from this to a planned economy, socialism and war.

As far as rev goes the talk of decentralization is what triggered him in my opinion. He despises the idea of smaller, decentralized government.

NC can correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like the slippery slope argument. Any government or nation at all eventually slides into the worse case scenario of totalitarian control and war-mongering.

Perhaps given enough time, and especially power, that tendency does exist. But does the creation of one law automatically equal the worst case scenario? Does making murder illegal lead inevitably to a totalitarian state? People like to organize and make laws, that is inevitable. No changing that. But many states exist that are not totalitarian or overbearing, so that goal is achievable.

[r3volution 3.0]

Which part is an example of socialism?

The part promoting nationalism, as I said. Nationalism is itself a socialistic ideology, sacrificing the rights of individuals for the alleged rights of nationalities. Then there's the pro-Trump statements in general, which, since Trump is highly socialistic, are implicitly pro-socialism. The attitude is that we should overlook Trump's support of socialized medicine, or the Fed, or corporate subsidies, etc, because of his nationalism (which is an odd "trade-off" since the latter too is an anti-liberty position).

@Origanalist

See above

Not everyone agrees with your anarcho-monarchist universalism. That is one of the points of the OP article, which you no doubt disagree with. Fine, disagree with him.

And so I have. But to be clear, this isn't a matter of opinion, where good libertarians can agree to disagree. Either you believe that libertarian principles are just (everywhere) or you don't. To say that they're only just in places where the people (the majority, I suppose...) accept them is to swap out libertarianism for some kind of nation-based democratic socialism: liberty is good --> what the people will is good. Also, anarcho-monarchist...? I'm a monarchist, of course, but I'm not sure what it would mean to be an "anarcho" monarchist. In any event, this issue has nothing to do with monarchy vs. democracy. It's a question of fundamental ethical principles, not political science.

P.S. To clarify something:

There are two kinds of nationalists: those who view nationalism as a means to an end (such as liberty), and those who view it as an end in itself. Likewise with democracy. The former are tolerable (however mistaken they may be), the latter are not. The former have chosen the wrong means to achieve their goal; the latter have abandoned our common goal altogether. The Deist wing of the libertarian movement, if I can call it that, is hovering between the two positions, gradually working their way over to the latter, intolerable one.

[Origanalist]

The part promoting nationalism,

What part was that?

Then there's the pro-Trump statements in general,

Please direct me to the pro-Trump statements.

And so I have. But to be clear, this isn't a matter of opinion, where good libertarians can agree to disagree. Either you believe that libertarian principles are just (everywhere) or you don't.

.

Believing them to be just and enforcing them on people who don't want to live by them in regions that are not in close proximity are two different things.

//

[r3volution 3.0]

And so I have. But to be clear, this isn't a matter of opinion, where good libertarians can agree to disagree. Either you believe that libertarian principles are just (everywhere) or you don't.

Believing them to be just and enforcing them on people who don't want to live by them in regions that are not in close proximity are two different things.

So, whether it's just to force libertarian principles on people depends on their proximity?

e.g. Forcing some guy in your town to not steal is just, yet forcing some guy in another state to not steal is unjust?

[Origanalist]

So, whether it's just to force libertarian principles on people depends on their proximity?

e.g. Forcing some guy in your town to not steal is just, yet forcing some guy in another state to not steal is unjust?

It's simply a matter of whether or not you feel obligated to police the entire world, how you achieve this dubious goal and who would pay for such an endeavor. Whereas you can personally (and comparatively economically) stop aggression against yourself, family, neighbors.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's simply a matter of whether or not you feel obligated to police the entire world, how you achieve this dubious goal and who would pay for such an endeavor. Whereas you can personally (and comparatively economically) stop aggression against yourself, family, neighbors.

You're not really answering my question, which is about principle, not the practical questions of how one might go about enforcing libertarianism (on anyone). As to that matter of principle, I ask again, you're saying that it can be unjust to force libertarianism on someone simply in virtue of their distance from oneself?

[Origanalist]

You're not really answering my question, which is about principle, not the practical questions of how one might go about enforcing libertarianism (on anyone). As to that matter of principle, I ask again, you're saying that it can be unjust to force libertarianism on someone simply in virtue of their distance from oneself?

It's unjust force libertarianism on anybody. Period. Forcing people on the other side of the country not to steal is just a ridiculous proposition requiring a massive central government. Let them deal with their own thieves. You can however force people not to steal from yourself, your family and your immediate neighbors (if you and they so wish) without said massive government.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's unjust force libertarianism on anybody. Period.

So, you believe it is unjust to use force to stop a crime in progress, or punish a criminal after the fact?

Forcing people on the other side of the country not to steal is just a ridiculous proposition requiring a massive central government. Let them deal with their own thieves. You can however force people not to steal from yourself, your family and your immediate neighbors (if you and they so wish) without said massive government.

Well this contradicts what you just said.

"Forcing people not to steal" is what "forcing libertarianism on people" means.

[Origanalist]

So, you believe it is unjust to use force to stop a crime in progress, or punish a criminal after the fact?



Well this contradicts what you just said.

"Forcing people not to steal" is what "forcing libertarianism on people" means.

Lol, if you say so. I notice you skipped right over my other questions and focused entirely on this as is goes against your world government proclivity.

[r3volution 3.0]

Lol, if you say so.

Logic says that "it's unjust [to] force libertarianism on anybody" and "you can however force people not to steal" are contradictory.

[Swordsmyth]

Logic says that "it's unjust [to] force libertarianism on anybody" and "you can however force people not to steal" are contradictory.

We can't force foreigners not to steal either.

[r3volution 3.0]

We can't force foreigners not to steal either.

Do you mean that it is impossible or immoral?

[Swordsmyth]

Do you mean that it is impossible or immoral?

We could conquer them and impose our justice system on them, but it would be wrong.
Their territory, their people = their business not ours.

[r3volution 3.0]

We could conquer them and impose our justice system on them, but it would be wrong.
Their territory, their people = their business not ours.

Are you saying that enforcing libertarianism on foreigners is wrong in itself, regardless of any practical considerations (i.e. even if it could be done as easily as with the domestic population), OR that it is only wrong because of practical problems (attempts would in fact be counterproductive, ala Iraq [pretending for a moment that liberation was what was actually attempted in Iraq])? It sounds like you're taking the first position, but I want to be sure.

[Swordsmyth]

Are you saying that enforcing libertarianism on foreigners is wrong in itself, regardless of any practical considerations (i.e. even if it could be done as easily as with the domestic population), OR that it is only wrong because of practical problems (attempts would in fact be counterproductive, ala Iraq [pretending for a moment that liberation was what was actually attempted in Iraq])? It sounds like you're taking the first position, but I want to be sure.

Wrong in and of itself.

[r3volution 3.0]

Wrong in and of itself.

Got it. Next question: why is it just to enforce libertarianism on the domestic population?

[Swordsmyth]

Got it. Next question: why is it just to enforce libertarianism on the domestic population?

Unless you are going to take the Anarchist position, which would be contrary to your previous positions, this is not a question that I need to answer to you.
You and I differ on the size of the realm that should exist to protect the innocent, administer justice and safeguard liberty, we have had that conversation before and I see no reason to have it again.

[r3volution 3.0]

Unless you are going to take the Anarchist position, which would be contrary to your previous positions, this is not a question that I need to answer to you. You and I differ on the size of the realm that should exist to protect the innocent, administer justice and safeguard liberty, we have had that conversation before and I see no reason to have it again.

No, I'm not going to be deserting to the anarchist camp any time soon. As you know, my view is that a minarchist state (i.e. the means of forcing libertarianism on people) is justified on the principle of aggression-minimization; i.e. that world is best in which occurs the least possible aggression. I was hoping to get your own justification of minarchism in your own words, because, going by mine, your distinction between domestics and foreigners is untenable; i.e. on my principle, foreign intervention that would reduce total aggression would be justified, but you claim it would not be. I'm familiar with your pragmatic argument against foreign intervention/world government, but you've said here that forcing libertarianism on foreigners is unjust in itself, regardless of any practical considerations. So, why is that?

[Swordsmyth]

No, I'm not going to be deserting to the anarchist camp any time soon. As you know, my view is that a minarchist state (i.e. the means of forcing libertarianism on people) is justified on the principle of aggression-minimization; i.e. that world is best in which occurs the least possible aggression. I was hoping to get your own justification of minarchism in your own words, because, going by mine, your distinction between domestics and foreigners is untenable; i.e. on my principle, foreign intervention that would reduce total aggression would be justified, but you claim it would not be. I'm familiar with your pragmatic argument against foreign intervention/world government, but you've said here that forcing libertarianism on foreigners is unjust in itself, regardless of any practical considerations. So, why is that?

In brief: there is a threshold size of society where a group has the right to separate from others and play by their own rules, they may be wrong and unjust but the responsibility is on them as long as they only wrong themselves. People have a right to be wrong as long as they agree with eachother and don't inflict their wrongness on outsiders, their fundamental wrongness is a matter for GOD to punish, the best we can do for them is political "missionary" work and that should be done on a private non-governmental basis.

[r3volution 3.0]

In brief: there is a threshold size of society where a group has the right to separate from others and play by their own rules, they may be wrong and unjust but the responsibility is on them as long as they only wrong themselves. People have a right to be wrong as long as they agree with each other and don't inflict their wrongness on outsiders, their fundamental wrongness is a matter for GOD to punish, the best we can do for them is political "missionary" work and that should be done on a private non-governmental basis.

If the inhabitants of Ruritania all agreed with each other, there would be no aggression by definition, and so the whole point would be moot. The situations in which I would say intervention may be justified are precisely those in which the Ruritanians disagree amongst the themselves, such that one group is oppressing another (as occurs in every real society). By saying that "the Ruritanians have a right to be wrong" aren't you saying that the majority (or the military junta, or whatever group it is which is in power) have the right to oppress the remainder?

[Swordsmyth]

If the inhabitants of Ruritania all agreed with each other, there would be no aggression by definition, and so the whole point would be moot. The situations in which I would say intervention may be justified are precisely those in which the Ruritanians disagree amongst the themselves, such that one group is oppressing another (as occurs in every real society). By saying that "the Ruritanians have a right to be wrong" aren't you saying that the majority (or the military junta, or whatever group it is which is in power) have the right to oppress the remainder?

If the Ruritanians believe that either Anarchy or Tyranny is correct and allow some or all of their people to rob, rape, kill etc. and do not rise up in rebellion to impose order in Ruritania because "INSERT CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS BELIEF" that is their problem and none of our business, GOD is responsible to punish them in this life or the next as he sees fit. In our own society it is our responsibility to "fight the good fight" by one means or another unless our society totally rejects the truth and becomes alien to us, in which case one can live under the tyranny while preaching the truth in an attempt to reclaim society or seek to either emigrate or secede to join/create a society where the right is attainable.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the Ruritanians believe that either Anarchy or Tyranny is correct and allow some or all of their people to rob, rape, kill etc. and do not rise up in rebellion to impose order in Ruritania because "INSERT CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS BELIEF" that is their problem and none of our business, GOD is responsible to punish them in this life or the next as he sees fit.

Are you saying that a state has the right to tyrannize its subjects (which implies that its subjects have no rights), or only that, though a state has no right to tyranize its subjects, you simply don't care if it does so, so long as you aren't one of its subjects?

In our own society it is our responsibility to "fight the good fight" by one means or another unless our society totally rejects the truth and becomes alien to us, in which case one can live under the tyranny while preaching the truth in an attempt to reclaim society or seek to either emigrate or secede to join/create a society where the right is attainable.

How do we determine when our society "becomes alien to us"? Is it a matter of numbers? Or what the state is doing? Or something else?

[Swordsmyth]

Are you saying that a state has the right to tyrannize its subjects (which implies that its subjects have no rights), or only that, though a state has no right to tyranize its subjects, you simply don't care if it does so, so long as you aren't one of its subjects?

I am saying that though a state has no right to tyrannize it's subjects those subjects have a right to submit to tyranny, and that those who are not subject to that tyranny have no right to interfere beyond philosophical "missionary work". There might be an exception for private individuals from outside to come to the aid of the oppressed if the oppressed request it, since in that case the oppressed would not be submitting to the tyranny.

How do we determine when our society "becomes alien to us"? Is it a matter of numbers? Or what the state is doing? Or something else?

When society overwhelmingly accepts and submits to tyranny as a matter of philosophy instead of as a misinterpretation of liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

I am saying that though a state has no right to tyrannize it's subjects those subjects have a right to submit to tyranny, and that those who are not subject to that tyranny have no right to interfere beyond philosophical "missionary work". There might be an exception for private individuals from outside to come to the aid of the oppressed if the oppressed request it, since in that case the oppressed would not be submitting to the tyranny.

So, people have a "right to submit to tyranny," which right we violate by trying to liberate them?

[Swordsmyth]

So, people have a "right to submit to tyranny," which right we violate by trying to liberate them?

Yes, odd as it sounds.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, odd as it sounds.

People obey laws either voluntarily or involuntary (i.e. under coercion). If a person is obeying the laws voluntarily, these aren't really laws in any meaningful sense, and, in any event, there is no aggression and so no need for intervention at all - a hippie commune comes to mind. However, this is never the case in any natural society, e.g. in a N. Korea or a USSR, where people (at least some people) are obeying the laws involuntary. Are those people, the ones obeying the laws only because the state is coercing them, exercising their "right to submit to tyranny", such that by preventing the state from coercing them, we would be violating their rights?

[Swordsmyth]

People obey laws either voluntarily or involuntary (i.e. under coercion). If a person is obeying the laws voluntarily, these aren't really laws in any meaningful sense, and, in any event, there is no aggression and so no need for intervention at all - a hippie commune comes to mind.

What if the "law" says redheads are divine and may rape anyone they please? does that not count as aggression?

However, this is never the case in any natural society, e.g. in a N. Korea or a USSR, where people (at least some people) are obeying the laws involuntary. Are those people, the ones obeying the laws only because the state is coercing them, exercising their "right to submit to tyranny", such that by preventing the state from coercing them, we would be violating their rights?

We have no way to tell for sure, therefore we have no right to interfere, if some NORKs started a rebellion and put out a call for help then individuals might be justified in going to their aid but the nation would not have a right to make that judgement call for all of us.

[r3volution 3.0]

What if the "law" says redheads are divine and may rape anyone they please? does that not count as aggression?

Not if the "victims" also accept the law voluntarily (i.e. then it's not rape).

I was only acknowledging your point that people can voluntarily submit to laws which, if enforced, would be unjust.

..as preface to my point that many people submitting to the laws are doing so involuntarily.

...and that it would be absurd to suggest that saving such people from coercion would violate their rights.

We have no way to tell for sure, therefore we have no right to interfere

If we don't know there's aggression occurring in Ruritania, then we have no right to intervene, of course.

But if we do, we do?

if some NORKs started a rebellion and put out a call for help then individuals might be justified in going to their aid but the nation would not have a right to make that judgement call for all of us.

Why that distinction? It doesn't apply domestically, does it?

[Swordsmyth]

If we don't know there's aggression occurring in Ruritania, then we have no right to intervene, of course.

But if we do, we do?

"WE" can't know if the overwhelming majority are submitting involuntarily or not, if we somehow magically could then it would become a question of whether we should take the risk to intervene, are we our brother's keeper? (GOD did not refute Cain, the question was irrelevant and meant to distract from the fact that both he and GOD knew exactly what had happened to Able) if we have a duty to our fellow man how does it measure up to our other duties such as our duty to support our families? etc.
These are questions that only the individual can answer in relation to foreigners, it might be possible for the nation state to organize those who wished to volunteer but that would be the extent of justifiable collective action, and even that would be debatable since it might invite blow-back against the whole country not just the volunteers.

Why that distinction? It doesn't apply domestically, does it?

Members of the same society are bound by it's rules and are subject to their enforcement, the options available to leave that society are a different subject that we have discussed before.