This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What Libertarianism Is Not
Submitted by Logn Albright of the Mises Canada blog,
As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from certain strains of the movement to attempt to modify the theory and transform it into something that it is not.
To begin with, let us examine what is meant by the term “libertarian,” what its limits are, and what it attempts to explain. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society. It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor. This is where the philosophy begins and ends, and although some libertarians dispute the circumstances under which force is acceptable (the Night Watchman state versus no state at all), it still has the legitimate use of force as its core.
It is not an economic philosophy, although its conclusion tends to support free market capitalism due to the lack of coercion inherent in such a system. Still, there is no dictum against collective ownership so long as it is voluntary. This is what anarcho-communism is all about.
Similarly, libertarianism has little to say about politics except for what follows directly from its central precept. Taxes are immoral because they involve coercion. Democracy is no better than dictatorship if it imposes the will of the many onto the few by force. And so on.
But because libertarianism has become fashionable among a certain segment of the population, and because we wish to expand the movement and convert others to it, there has been a push to expand this simple definition into a more holistic ethical code encompassing every aspect of life, almost akin to a religion. We are told that non-discrimination based on superficial characteristics like race and sex is an inherently libertarian position. It is not. So long as discrimination does not violate anyone’s rights of self-ownership, the theory simply has nothing to say about it (although we can observe that a capitalistic system is unlikely to encourage such behavior due to the way it tends to impact profits.)
Where these well-meaning meddlers go wrong is in assuming that just because libertarianism per se doesn’t have a position on racism, that libertarians qua human beings do not have such a position either. This is absurd. Libertarianism is by its nature a narrow philosophy, with plenty of room to coexist along with other philosophies as well. Just as being a vegetarian does not exclude one from being Jewish, so does being a libertarian not exclude one from being a humanitarian.
We are more than a simple political philosophy, and while this defines the moral lens through which we see much of the world, it is not the totality of our being. For example, libertarianism has nothing to say on the subject of suicide. If we own ourselves, we have the right to terminate ourselves. Period. However, no libertarian I have ever met would encourage such an activity, and most would find it utterly reprehensible. The point is that you can hold a belief that something is wrong without having to fold it into a specific political philosophy where it has no business being.
Granted, certain ethical outlooks fit nicely within libertarianism while others do not. Kant’s categorical imperative that we treat humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end works well, as does the Biblical Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. They are not explicitly part of libertarian theory, but they are compatible with it.On the other hand, one would be hard pressed to combine a restrictive set of laws, such as Sharia, with the non-aggression principle.
The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice – like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means – we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be “libertarian,” we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.
Let’s leave the philosophy of non-aggression where it belongs, and feel free to supplement it with any other moral or ethical codes we also hold. It is a mistake, however, to try to combine all our views about life into one amorphous blob of watered-down libertarianism.
»
- 28016 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Is it too much to ask for the right to grow weed, let folks marry freely and protect that shit with an AK47?
If you aren't an Anarchist it's way to much to ask. Libertarians believe in government. Government by nature has a monopoly on the use of force. When government is inevitably corrupted that force will deprive some, most likely most of freedom. In short, libertarianisim is bullshit. There have been documented anarchist societies. In all of human history there has NEVER been a libertarian government, and there never will be.
Mandate service in the state militia. Give em howitzers.
Nailguns? ;p
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”
“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.”
**Not to be confused with the (actual historical) definition of libertarianism outside of north america.
Libertarianism is by its nature a narrow philosophy, with plenty of room to coexist along with other philosophies as well.
Does Tyler no longer look over any of these articles or what? What is this nonsense..
JC, apparently you missed where I posted this before. I needed to respond, in a manner which would be received by decidedly liberal recipients, to a post from my little sister, who has moved to SFO and turned into a liberal crank. I found the thoughts I needed in the writings of Noam Chomsky, and discovered, at that point, that the political spectrum is more circular than linear. Right meets left on the back side of said circle, and Chomsky's work more closely resembles the Libertarian philosophy than anything found in the center. I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but you are not liberal enough.
I always thought that Libertarianism was best summed up by the line from the Philosopher's Song by Monty Python:
John stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
I have always viewed Libertarianism loosely as everyone's right to go to hell in his own manner as long is it doesn't infringe on me.
What happens, these guys just get up and take the ball home cause they don't like the game.
As predicted this quickly spiralled into juvenile "I'm more libertarian than you" penis waving, even punctuated by self-described anarchists claiming they'll address society's woes with their own brutal enforcement of their own arbitrary moral code! Ah, the irony. It's like being in a freshman philosophically class listening to Joe Radical after he just smoked his first joint before coming inside.
For grown ups, the realization finally occurs that regardless of what any one person's ideal is, realistic or not, it is completely meaningless if it paralyzes one from acting in any practical way to address the actual world we live in. We live in a world that is rushing toward totalitarianism as quickly as it ever has. Eventually it will end in slavery to one degree or another. So let's cut the shit that if we just wax poetic about a magical anarchistic existence that some day we'll "win the argument" and everyone will come around. Not gonna happen. Instead I'd rather focus on what causes I can to slow the plunge into a police state so that my kids and grandkids have a prayer of a reasonable life before the lights go out on this game.
Tylers, gold is not a tool of Libertarianism, crypto is. It's a worthless metal owned and manipulated, by force, by banks. Oh, the irony.
RE: RedPill I disagree that these musings aren't applicable to the real world. Look at how quickly Kosovo descended into anarchy. Who knows what will happen tomorrow? A s for my advocation of "brutal enforcement" if your neighborhood turned into a lawless place would you not use any means necessary to defend your family and loved ones? Would you not be willing to kill a rapist or murderer who terrorized your community? Far from philosophy class ramblings i am asking "What are you prepared to do?" The police state you fear may be the ultimate perpetrators of these crimes.
Temporary political anarchy often ends in even more strict of a police state, what you describe is not a stable or deliberate choice, but rather temporary chaos. But, that is how most people view anarchy and why they fear the concept. One could argue that the state of anarchy itself is not sustainable perpetually anyway; that in the developed world the desire for protection of life and property naturally push humans toward establishing a government as soon as possible. Usually, as we've seen in situations like Egypt, the military itself becomes the de facto ruler until something else comes along. In such a world, the Cliven Bundys don't get peaceful withdrawals, they get shot. Regardless whether you are shot by a jackboot statist following his marching orders or a trigger happy anarchist who decides he doesn't like you, you're still shot and likely dead. Point being, even if one is advocating anarcho-capitalism in some respect, having it happen suddenly and violently will be the farthest thing from the utopia sought. For such a reality to become possible, positive, and accepted, it would have to be gradual. Unfortunately gradualism works in the other way. The tyrants always become more tyrannical, not less. The leviathan only grows. Therefore from a practical context, discussing a state-less society is either a matter of death & chaos as the military struggles to regain control, or a moot point from the standpoint of sustainability.
@ NihilistZero,
just wanted to thank you for the late-night thought provocations. . .
as I was preparing specific tinctures this morning (new moon resonates with me), I again pondered all the posters who weighed in on the subject, and realised,
those who desire a degree of control over Others, any degree of control, will always be drawn to governments, to voting their opinions into enForcements via uni-formed law-makers, even though it always ends up removing their own rights, as history proves.
I still eschew all labels, prefering to BE the human I desire to attract, and acting appropriately to my nature towards all those who I do not desire in my proximity.
here's to each finding their own "level" in the world.
Thank you for the thoughtful compliment :-)
It is interesting to discuss philosophy as it applies to the real world. Though I am an anti-authoritarian anarchist, i support government programs that alleviate the raping of the working class. I find a tax pre-bate to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour one of those. It would answer the most glaring problem facing our economy which is production over capacity everywhere. That doesn't make me less anti-authoritarian.
just because a prisoner lobbies for better food and conditions through the legal avenues offered does not mean he supports the corrupt system itself.
ah no, I don't think agitating where you are drawn to is ever supportive of the system!
the system does exist, there is no ignoring it - we put our energies into the actions we most believe in, and outcomes do take place.
I am drawn to ever decreasing circles of action/support as I age, preferring my familiars to head-butting - I wish you well in your endeavors!
Democracy is no better than dictatorship if it imposes the will of the many onto the few by force.
If the few are imposing their will on the many, it is NOT a true Democracy. This is the same logic our dear leader and cronies use.
Right meets left on the back side of said circle, and Chomsky's work more closely resembles the Libertarian philosophy than anything found in the center.
Chomsky is a self-described libertarian, on a political chart him and I meet at pretty well the same point.
Chomsky is a giant, and you are a douchebag.
Chomsky is not a libertarian as you would define it. Libertarianism throughout history has always meant socialist anarchist, not "I'ts wrong to make me pay any taxes but I still get to drive on the roads." like it does in the U.S.
Bullshit. Income and property taxes are immoral. Use taxes and import duties are not.
Bullshit. Income and property taxes are immoral.
ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY. When you can steal my property because I haven't submitted to paying a rent/tax on it, then it's clear I own nothing, and the State owns all.
This is cartoon Libertarianism -- the TV tells you this is heart of the philosophy.
But I can't ever find these people who supposedly think this way. And I ask frequently.
Rank these (before the /) from one to six and you will find out if you are libertarian or not.
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
We think there are several other very good candidates for "foundationhood," especially:
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.
http://www.moralfoundations.org/
Libertarian is a fancy term for "selfish asshole."
I thought it was a fancy word for 'rugged individualist'.
e.g. the Koch Bros. So rugged they inherited all their wealth from their Daddy. Buying the Republican Party so that they can make laws that make them richer.
Like self-described conservatives, you have to judge Libertarians by what they do when they actually have power. David Koch is a former Libertarian Party candidate for vice-President. And even though the Libertarian Party has never won a national office, the Koch Bros. have power. Considered together, they are richer than Bill Gates, and so they have power. But they're dicks, pure and simple.
totally. They should be more altruistic and kind to their fellow man, like george soros and warren buffet. THE KOCK BROTHERS ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS
A good megalomaniac will buy whomever can get the job done. All fucking politians can be bought.
So taking the fruit of a man's labors at gunpoint in order to give it to the non-productive is unselfish and moral? Fuck you.
@James Cole. Thank you for the concise description.
After reading quite a bit about Anarchism and similar true freedom philosophies over the years, I've found the American concept of Libertarianism espoused on these message boards and by Tea Party types as rather lame. I think this comes from the wilderness mindset that is still so prevalent in the US. For example, we have militia dudes showing up to help some welfare rancher in Nevada, yet where are they when banks foreclose on a family's home and kick them to the street on a regular basis? It's because they can play range wars like the old days like John Wayne did in his movies. Have they ever stood up to any corporation, or just the gubmint? They are useful tools for the owners.
North American libertarianism these days tends to be aspects of objectivism fused with religion.
Links?
Corporations are the spawn of government.
So that makes you a tool for attacking the effect and not the cause.
Here's a clue: the world is totally fucked up because it is organized and run by the control freaks for their benefit and they can't do that without this mechanism - government.
True about corporations, but they exist beyond the reach of any one government these days. They also own the governments of the world, who do their bidding for them.
If the US government collapsed tomorrow would ExxonMobile still exist? My guess is they would. They would also find a way to still get what they want out of the peons. It's not as cut and dry as the modern libertarians paint the picture.
Would ExxonMobile still have "rights" to foreign oil wells without the backing of force by the US gov? My guess is that without the threat of having a democracy enema via a C130 foreign operations of most oil companies would come to a close. Is that not how this last half century of american imperialism has worked? Allow our companies to move in or suffer economic/military consequences.
In my mind its not an either/or. The gov is coporations and corporations are the gov.
The church had a similar control over government before.
Now .gov has a symbiotic relationship with corporations.
JC, let me get this straight. From what you are saying, libertarians are selfish for wanting to keep what they earn. But liberals like yourself are totally selfless, for wanting to steal anothers property and give it to yourself and others, using the force of govt, at gunpoint, to do so? got it...
Nice, I can come up with straw men too.
Discussing your behavior is not a straw man argument.
Mo tzu said something like: If you think that something that is wrong for an individual to do is okay for a group to do, you have a problem with your concept of right and wrong.
Are there any examples of societies with total freedom and no responsibility that includes private property? I am curious how this concept might work in reality rather than in utopian thinking.
Here's what Ferris Bueller has to say about any of the "isms".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq65tZJkhQQ
love that clip.
i have a question for the Liberitarian World Order, do libertarians support my right to hate? for example, am i, under the auspices of libertarianism, allowed to continue hating all isms, coalitions, movements, campaigns, crusades, inquests, programs, initiatives, measures, mandates...as i always have?
and, although i suppose i favor the libertarian flavor over all others, what happens if i decide to start detesting it...will they, too, start acting like fascists...fascist libertarians -- now you've got something! if you libertarians ever learned to start thinking like fascists, you'd finally stop spinning your wheels and get somewhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXnDbOpxU4
you do your thing/
and i'll do my thing,
janus
That doesn't really make sense.
You can do what you want, when you want. Hate whatever, and as much as you want; just don't infringe on anyone else.
Comprende?
@ Janus
"i have a question for the Liberitarian World Order, do libertarians support my right to hate? for example, am i, under the auspices of libertarianism, allowed to continue hating all isms, coalitions, movements, campaigns, crusades, inquests, programs, initiatives, measures, mandates...as i always have? "
You need to hit the books again. Or perhaps read the first part of the article again which is a pretty decent definition of libertarianism.
In short to answer the question-yes. Libertarians have no care what you hate, what you like, or what you do so long as it does not instigate violence, coercion, or fraud upon another. Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. It's all pretty simple. Too many people want to overcomplicate it with arguaments stemming from the current and historical paradigm of statism, totalitarianism, etc. Like the roads argument that every holier than thou jackass-READ JAMES COLE- uses to "debunk" libertarian thought. It is as if roads are so magical and special that nobody but a coercive, all controlling state with a monopoly onviolence can build and maintain them. Somehow it worked with railroads though...hmmmm.
Fucking idiocy.
The problem starts with your statement "Libertrian World Order". That shows me straight away you do not understand and need to go back to class. There is/would be no order much less a world order. Ultimately any Libertarian is truly an anarrchist.They justhaven't finished the journey yet.
As for the do you thing and I'll do mine part. All well and good. But if "your thing" infringes on the property or person of another they might just shoot you in the face. And ANY libertarian would be just fine with that.
They gave my neighbor a howitzer, and he has never went postal with it. Then again I don't have to deal with the lackeys of the Bush Klan or the Obozo Circus in my front yard any more. (now if I could just get the fascists out of my phones, emails, and bank accounts...)
i guess it's time you knew, Urban Redneck...i was that lucky neighbor of yours -- 'they' even threw in several canisters of banded rounds ready for to me to lock & load, execute rapid-fire justice and send some souls to judgment. and the world is a much better place because of it.
no, UR, janus never went postal...he went fed-fuckin-ex -- special delivery, bitchez.
ever heard of a little movie called zero dark thirty? all rubbish. let me tell you all the real story of OBL, janus and his howitzer.
i'll never forget that day, it was a gray october morning...fog everywhere -- as far as the eye could see (which wasn't very far -- it being so foggy and all). as i stood sipping my coffee, surveying the earth before me, i thought to myself, 'you know what, this terrorism stuff has gone WAY too far! i've had just about enough of it; and it's time janus do something about it.'
and so i considered the fate of mankind...and decided it all came down to janus. we, all of humanity, were to either live in terror or me and my howizter would have to fix everything for everyone. fortune favors the bold.
so i hopped a plane to kabul, made my way through the tribal areas, blasting away at everything that moved (or cast a suspicious shadow) as i went; triumphantly issuing justice from atop a rented camel, clothed in the garb of a great and magnificent sultan, making a terrific spectacle and a hellish ruckus as i made my way through the the very worst of savage-country. it was all quite heroic (in all modesty).
no village was spared the scourge of my howitzer. i saw nothing but terrorists everywhere; and i dealt with them accordingly.
finally, after the kyber pass massacre, a detour through pashtunia, a ghastly melee in one of the lesser known 'stans', and a delightful feast prepared by some terrorists who, tragically, forgot to offer janus anything in the way of dessert, i made my way to OBL's hideout.
i had by now worn out the first camel, and was forced to relieve yet another terrorist of his faster camel...this was a two-humper -- perfect for my showdown with OBL, his wife and pesky son.
i wish i could post the video, but mine, just like the seal-team's, was mysteriously lost, along with the audio (that hussien obama and hillary were, if reports at the time are to be believed, watching and listening to in real time -- high-drama, mofos!...and, btw, all the terrorists i turned into martyrs were likewise mercifully dumped at sea (just as muhammed decreed somewhere in the koran -- somewhere in the back, i guess). anyway, like i was saying, i wish you all could see the video. "glorious" is the word that comes to mind.
so i finally make it to the compound, charging ferociously, bouncing between my camel's flabby shanks, howitzer spilling out full-auto-fury.
long story short, i make mince-meat of every terrorist residing in that compound...all in a single day, and without a scratch on me. bunch a seal-team rookies losing a helicopter...and they take all the credit! what a rip-off. it's like i always say, heroic terrorist slaughter is all guts and no glory.
joke was on me, though...i later found out that that wasn't OBL, and that he'd been dead since at least 2003. but it wasn't a total loss, at least i was able to significantly reduce the world's population of terrorists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z4IuxAqpE
janus
Like my pappy used to say, "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story".
Good seein' ya' old boy! Been awhile.
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
US CodeNotesUpdates
prev | NEXT
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guar
Federal law says you, all males ....16-45 years of age ARE in the milita, whether you want in or out.
Where is the post of the SCOTUS judge who wants to change the 2nd amendment to say "the right to bear arms 'when serving in the militia' shall not be infringed"?
http://benswann.com/georgia-expands-gun-rights-but-does-the-bill-go-far-...
Recently, Stevens argued for a 5-word change to the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms – when serving in the Militia – shall not be infringed,” adding the middle section.
"I still believe in government a little" libertarianism is a mid-way point for a lot of people. Jumping from mindless statism to anarchism is a big step.
If they don't get past the barbarity of government within several years, however, they drift right back toward mindless statism.
The path you describe is the one I took. Oddly enough ZeroHedge's comment section is what killed libertarianisim for me. Comment after comment criticizing the FED, and then the same twits support unlimited campaign contributions. Championing free trade and then shitting on the serfs on welfare who are fucked by it. Total libertard cognitive dissonance.
Okay you are losing me with the cognitive dissonance in your argument . If there is no gubbermint then wouldn't people be free to trade with whomever the want in an anarchist society? Or to help whomever they want ? To me the fact that you have a problem with that establishes a grounds for some sort of gubbermint.
Yes there is something fundementaly wrong with the presumtion that free trade caused serfdom and welfare queens. Its the fact that free trade doesnt really exist that provided an envoronment for these things to thrive
Free trade would be augmented by the domestic workers knowing the can rise up and decapitate the merchant if said trade destroys their living conditions. The merchant, in the abscence of .gov enforcers would have to pay a militia handsomely to protect his wealth. Probably more than he'd have to sacrifice to placate the disaffected workers. These checks and balances are far better than the oligarchs using .gov as their personal army and using the serfs to finance said army.
Fair enough. You cleared that up nicely, and we are in agreement on that point. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, that merchant and his militia will end up being the gubbermint.
And I think that what should be added in is that is not an argument that government is good, but rather an argument that, so long as there are enough people in a group, a hierarchy will form. If you really want to put a check or a balance against tyranny, you might want to think about removing a person's right to NOT be armed and try not to choke on the hypocrisy and irony of removing a liberty to preserve liberty.
You are correct. It is hard wired, encoded, in Human DNA. Humans are PACK ANIMALS, HERD ANIMALS and TRIBAL, and there will always be an Alpha which emerges in the pack.
Most humans will choose to follow the Alpha rather than to lead thier own lives in solitude.
If one is a Libertarian then is one willing to allow others to choose their own enslavement to a collective? Most will submit. That is EMPIRICALLY EVIDENTIAL.
If most will not choose enslavement then the present systems of Government would not exist. And as for the anarchist societes??? They were overrun and died off.
And when the collective population outgrows the free minded population, then, will that collective population force the free minded population to submit?
As I have stated before...THERE ARE NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS.
Only a movement like that of religious freedom, but for government freedom.
Unlikely. In the abscence of .gov consequences merchant asassinations would check their power. Without the power structures of .gov and the church to lord over the serfs they have the insight to know they're getting fucked and the freedom to do something about it. I'd much rather take chances fighting the oligarchy without the structure of .gov behind them.
We are in agreement there, however I just don't see that ever happening. For some strange reason most people feel the need to be lorded over and there are a handful of people who are willing to accept that 'responsibility'.
This is a direct consequence of rule by fear and intimidation. When people are afraid, they will chose comfort, safety, and convienience. This is not a natural characteristic of "most people". It is however, a result of malevolent conspiracy to lie to citizens to gain control.
When people are empowered, and free press reports what is actually happening, and isnt a propaganda machine, thigs would be much much different!
Existance on Earth by its very definition is not and can not ever be truly free. Sorry to get all existential on you but fighting for freedom on Earth will get you nowhere. Learning what it takes in yourself to move toward freedom and harmony with the universe will get you off the prison planet and on with your spiritual journey through the cosmos.
+1 To paraphrase Bill Cosby "There's ALWAYS room for existentialisim" :-)
For millions of years, our primate ancestors survived because of the tribal social hierarchy. Unfortunately, that means most people are wired for authority. Think of the Milgram experiments.
Now we are trying to survive in spite of the modern manifestation of that authority - the government.
'Americans' and evolution... They usually have it the wrong way.
It is what you get when you push the group before all.
I think you mix up hierarchy with State. State is just little over 5000 years old and is nonhuman by origin. Society is made by the people for the people, the State is not made by the people and is extraterrestrial by origin. The "birthday" of the State was in 3114BC and it's "creator" was Krishna (from the tribe of Yahuda, later known as Hebrews).
Could you provide link to a good article about that (Krishna / Yahuda / Hebrews / Creator)? Very interesting.
The State is the control of the social hierarchy operating through a chain of command system.
Just another of nature's adaptations.
All the Milgram experiment proved is that morality is a human construct we had to be taught and one we can easily unlearn (along with idealism, with absolute idealism in the extreme usually acknowleged as symptomatic of an insane person).
There are no codes of conduct wired into the neocortex. We exist only to survive day-to-day in this claw and tooth world and that goes for every one of us. There is however a back door into the brain nature provided, accessed through our emotions. Emotions can override our common sense and cause us to act irrationally (bravely, cowardly, sacrificially, etc.).
And once the merchant is paying the militia, he has the makings for the beginnings of a dictatorship. Then he can take what he wants from the disaffected workers.
You're not talking about free trade at all then, if it's violations of other peoples' property enabled by government. So you're not against free trade, you're against people disrespecting other people's property, which is the initiation of force against that individual.
Libertarianism IS anarcho-capitalism by defintion, but people assumed a government ontop of it so the masses have redefined it as such. It's like when 60's sci-fi shows try to depict futuristic computers, they get a few details wrong because they can't truly perceive of what it will actually be like when they're filtering it through their present experience.
>> The merchant, in the abscence of .gov enforcers would have to pay a militia handsomely to protect his wealth <<
This is what is happening today. Every mercenary force aspires to become the gov - the strongest mercenary force succeeds.
In short, we ARE living in anarchy today, albeit in an advanced one, where anyone not born in the established family has to be extremely smart or extremely strong to become "successful", aka useful to the management.
And nobody, nowhere, on no level of the pyramid is free - unless he decides he is.
>> domestic workers knowing the can rise up and decapitate the merchant if said trade destroys their living conditions <<
You are free to rise up and do this today. TODAY no one but you decides what you do the next second. There will never be a decree that legalizes disobedience. There is no messiah to wait for. Do what you want now.
oh snap.
so what's your anarchist position on female body sovereignty?
serious question.
There is no anarchist "position" as there is no society sanctioned use of force. Now my PERSONAL position would be life is full of horrors and abortion ain't that high on the list. If however I came into contact with a doctor commiting true infanticide (killing a child that could survive outside the womb) while in an anarchist society, I'd kill him and the enjoy a bowl of corn flakes. I believe we can regulate ourselves without .gov.
You sir, are an inspiration.
thanks for taking a moment to continue to define your use of "anarchist" - as you most likely know, it's a sticking point with me.
"true infanticide" as defined by you is not on my radar, nor do I believe it all that common. were it an agreement between the female and said "doctor" I would not be interested in passing judgement nor opinion there.
all other seemingly "moral" judgements based on unexamined hatred/control dramas rooted in personal life experiences need to be kept out of "rule-making" - again, should an individual make a decision to interfere in other lives, the consequences are theirs to bear. prior to foetal viability outside the womb, it is no ones business save the individual female.
Let me take it a step further in regards to females. I believe the sex trade and the abusing of young women in forced prostitution to be one of the scourges of our world. In an anarchist society I would charitably donate my time to militias dedicated to rooting out the pimps and thugs of this trade, bringing these men to ends so nasty and public that every evil soul on tge planet would think twice before ever abusing another.
I wouldn't stand in your way, and find these predators to indeed be low-life "scourges" that the public would benefit from "rooting out."
I'd add the exploiters of young males, including peodophiles, in the dragnet, might as well be thorough. . .
.. meanwhile those that wish to profit from such activities would be donating their time to militias hunting down whoever is getting in their way ? You'd be fighting on 2 fronts as the doctor who thinks he is doing the world a favour by limiting population growth would also be donating his time to killing those holding opposite views. Where does it end ? The only way it works is for a majority to hold similar moral viewpoints AND remain active in their defense ... if they did that then the American constitutional republic would probably have worked.
I like the theory but we (those who actually give thought to and value our individual freedom) are a very small minority ... the problem ultimately becomes "a majority of people are apathetic, willfully ignorant followers that will always seek out a leader / master".
... which by the way is why I think the most logical account of modern mans origin is that which was carefully inscribed in detail on many thousands of clay tablets a very long time ago ... we were genetically engineered as slaves and largely remain so inclined.
And it all comes back to Orwell. Homage to Catalunia: in the end no-one knows where the anarchy starts or ends & untimately it's all being controlled by a dark force in the background & everyone ends up dead or feeling used. Anarchy & utopia are great in theory & we'd all love such states but they are a dream. Leviathan or something close is the best we can hope for in our lifetimes; surely somewhere in this fucked-up world there is a decent ruler in a decent society where facism is not the norm.
Great discussion by the way.
Chivalry can be irrelevent in an anarchist society. Go to Somalia, which is arguably the best example of modern anarchism today and tell me how they really feel about women and sex trade? What you describe sir is a sort of noble manifesto rooted in deep moral standards to be enforced with nothing more than a personal conviction. Being that this would take place in said anarchist society, you and any followers would probably be shunned from the community as moral vendetta's are incompattable to an anarchist society outside of case to case individual actions, infact I would go further to describe such a society as lacking even the same concepts that make such behaivior inherently bad to begin with. Case in point, voluntary prostitution. The notion of a simple black and white good/evil ideal is muddled and becomes a spectrum in anarchy.
It is also doubtfull that a full on sex trade would even exist in a true anarchist economy where currency most likely does not exist. Rather it is more likely outside civilizations would drive this trade instead which brings me to my last point: Unless all societies abide by a common band of anarchism, then the very concept is rendered useless if outside interference will just pollute the better aspects of such a system.
Only the humble succeed in anarchy, the righteous serve only to bring order to its percieved chaos.
To quickly expand on your point, if I may, if prostitution was legal. (or not made illegal by a state) everywhere the the dark seedy belly of sex slaves would shrink to almost nil. Same as if drugs were legal everywhere the criminal elements would not be able to compete with the free market.
Removing the risk-premium tends to drive the price, and thus the profitability, down.
I would do the same thing to bankers and peddlers of debt -money monetary systems....
We were discussing this topic on another thread last week and someone said Ron Paul, as an intern, was horrified when a living child was delivered during an abortion and left to die in a bucket while another infant of equal gestational age, considered a preterm birth, was treated to the most advanced medical intervention. I question Dr. Paul's recollection. Second trimester and later abortions when Dr. Paul was an intern were performed by saline injection (or sometimes progesterone) into the amniotic sac, which causes fetal demise and induces expulsion of the abortus which is no longer living. While that procedure was generally performed in a hospital, a friend of mine had one done in the early '70s, and she said she was put in a room and left to deliver on her own with no doctor or even a nurse in attendance. I believe that was probably the rule rather than the exception.
Infants born at 22 weeks' gestational age have an 80% mortality rate. Of the 20% who survive, 50% of those have profound deficits. By profound deficits they are talking of little more than brainstem function. They are blind, they are deaf, they have no usable intelligence. Another 25% have moderate to severe deficits. We might argue the morality of supporting a preterm infant with such a poor expected outcome where only 5 out of 100 could be expected to have anything approaching a normal life. The other 15% who survive become a drain on their parents and society.
like you,
always have. it was/is a *dog whistle* to the statists to seek to control other humans, in this case female human sexuality, and works especially well on those who like to ascribe reality to a God-Father style of heirarchy.
which governments excel at, so it's hardly a surprise the Paul family has made a nice nest for themselves within that meme.
Some people have strong views on this subject and they are, of course, welcome to them, but it offends me deeply when they try to cram their beliefs down the throats of others by force of law.
the desire to control the female body, both sexually and via reproduction
is a very strong thread, nay, rope, that weaves its way through all historical narratives.
that FatherGod religions play to this is a tell.
as you say, people are welcome to their strong views, but their desire to enact punitive laws will be met with opposition.
Its hardly a mystery. Men don't care to be spending their resources raising a cuckoo and are strongly motivated to ensure that they have exclusive access to their females, ensuring that it is their genes that are passed onto the next generation. Its probably biological, as strategies have been evolved even in the animal kingdom. In a paternalistic human society that requires control over females - church and state sanctioned, where neither the pussy nor the uterus actually belongs to the woman who inconveniently inhabits the body, but the man to whom she belongs - father or husband.
yeah, this is where I think "evolution" might be directed, less of the ownership model heavily weighted to the phallus-crats, and more re-cognition of the importance of the womb in the grand scheme of All things.
a story might be told of females living in supportive communities, with the males free to go hunt/war/kill/explore/whatever. . . some ceremonial times where agree-able sexual relating could take place, but no enforced or expected "marriage-units" that detracted from the overall health of the community. certainly no fucking rules handed down by chiefs.
I loathe heirarchies of all kinds, no secret, eh.
*
>> I believe we can regulate ourselves without .gov
Absolutely. 2 notes for the opposition:
#1: How many accidents happen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEIn8GJIg0E ?
#2: "There is a country in Libya, and a nation, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which [Carthaginians] are wont to visit, where they no sooner arrive but forthwith they unlade their wares, and, having disposed them after an orderly fashion along the beach, leave them, and, returning aboard their ships, raise a great smoke. The natives, when they see the smoke, come down to the shore, and, laying out to view so much gold as they think the worth of the wares, withdraw to a distance.
The Carthaginians upon this come ashore and look. If they think the gold enough, they take it and go their way; but if it does not seem to them sufficient, they go aboard ship once more, and wait patiently. Then the others approach and add to their gold, till the Carthaginians are content. Neither party deals unfairly by the other: for they themselves never touch the gold till it comes up to the worth of their goods, nor do the natives ever carry off the goods till the gold is taken away." - Herodotus, Melpomene
This is just stupid. I would specialize in killing the likes of you /wink /wink
Humans already spread too much on this planet. Abortion is good, sadly idiots don't use it enough.
There are too many lost lives already because retards who cannot comprehend that they cannot provide for their children (not just monetarily)
Specializing in a killing people like me would likely get you killed as there are more people against infanticide than for it. Call it "Free Market Morality" if you will. The invisible hand would nove swiftly against you. And please not I made a distinction between infanticide and abortion.
Abortion is the collision of two rights. Right to control one's own body, and the right of a potential being to live its life. FInding the "cutoff point" where one stops and the other begins is pretty much impossible, so there is no particularly satisfying solution. It's like imagining what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.
Many people think they've figured out where the "cutoff point" would be, by just saying it's the moment of conception, or by some sort of utilitiarian justification that makes sense to them but has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy or morality, but it's because they're thinking overly simplistically, and totally neglecting how they'd resolve the weird edge cases where that sort of solution might cause people to unwittingly be murderers.
Long story short, wear a fucking condom, and maybe get her to take a pill too, and just forget about it.
My personal opinion is clinical in nature. The woman has the right to remove anything from her body. If it can survive outside the womb so be it. I'm not saying I support the idea ethically, but if you HAVE to have a law, splitting the difference this way seems the most logical thing.
I say keep abortion legal, but it must be self administered.
Here's your coat hanger.
Have at it and live with it.
As fat as a viable anarchist society, stick to the non aggression rule with one important exception.
Anybody that would claim any title of "leader" gets whacked on the spot.
Problem solved.
Otherwise....don't start none, won't be none....and everyone minds their own beezwax.
>> Anybody that would claim any title of "leader" gets whacked on the spot.
By the time he claims the title, he is surrounded by a tight group of those who do the whacking. Everyone else is either too timid or too content.
Look around. Nobody likes their leaders TODAY. Plenty are realizing that it does not matter who occupies the throne - it's the throne itself. So what? We still think there is something to lose.
"As fat as a viable anarchist society, stick to the non aggression rule with one important exception.
Anybody that would claim any title of "leader" gets whacked on the spot.
Problem solved.
Otherwise....don't start none, won't be none....and everyone minds their own beezwax."
This is why true liberty and anarchism are both impossible at any scale beyond a few individuals. Ideologically, I am 100% anarchist. But who does the whacking? There DO exist people who will claim leadership. It is a genetic trait in some. How do you contain those people? It's circular logic. In order to stop some people from abusing the freedoms of others, you have to curtail the freedoms of the ones who want to lead. If not everyone in a society - or at a minimum a significant majority - is an anarchist (or a libertarian for that matter), then the philosophy is tautologically impossible to implement, because it requires enforcement to keep down those who would impose their will. Checkmate.
The best any of us can do is aim for personal independence to the greatest extent possible from whatever system is currently working to compel whatever societal behaviors. Individuals are far more flexible than societies.
.
not really. the viability of a foetus to live outside of a woman's body is a reasonable debate point - and there is a large enough gap in weeks between the average abortion sought and the average "premature" birth with massive billing procedures/profits enacted.
prior to roughly 25 weeks, or 4-5 months, the outcome of survival outside the womb is very low. those Conservatives who are advocating a Constitutional Amendment for foetal personhood are numpties seeking control over female reproduction, and have yet to make a logical argument that doesn't include their personal "god" beliefs.
Anyone who bends over backwards in the rationalization department as far as you do has some serious fucking guilt jammed way down deep.
Just can't wash it away. Scrub hard as you want. It's got you pretty twisted up. Your posts just reek of it. Externalized hatred of men...God...any form of culpability. Because you own your body, you have a right to kill the body in you.
Infanticide.
If I donkey punch a pregnant female and she miscarried...what would I be charged with?
Practicing medicine without a license? I don't think so.
you are exactly the type I reference in a previous post,
your hatred of females is palpable, and no doubt your FatherGod loves you dearly.
the majority of my closest allies in life are male, but they bear no resemblence to you, nor would they tolerate your stink.
If you donkey punch a pregnant female and she miscarries, I think you're going to have a hard time showing mens rea for anything other than simple battery. However, if you belt her in the uterus, that's a different story. And if we, as a society decide that abortion is legal, so long as it is consensual, we can either decide that a forced miscarriage is a crime in and of itself, or we can move from simple battery to aggravated battery:
That's from my state. You'll likely find that there are similar laws around the nation. I would call causing a miscarriage "great bodily harm."
As for the cutoff date, it's simple: At what date would the typical baby be likely to survive without modern medical care? Answer that, knock off a couple of weeks to be sure, and you have your answer for when the cutoff date is.
We may have been born women but having your children isn't our job. It's a decision. When you carry the burden for the survival of another human being 24/7, food, shelter, medical care, education, clothing, sane environment and manage at a time in your life you are unprepared for, due to variety of reasons, including rape, get back to me.
And another thing, it just so happens that I have first hand experience at being the child of a woman who should have never been born, due to rape, and it is documented as only it can be in the 1920s when the catholic church owned the orphanage, asylums and the hospital in small towns and no traffic left gossip the only affordable entertainment, and the mental illness my brother and I were subjected to was far worse than not arriving on this planet through the body of a damaged person. A sad childhood due to neglect and abuse is a life not worth living. Everyday is a struggle, just maneuvering what should be ordinary everyday events, because our foundation was cracked and we always had to be on alert. The children my brother had are the kind you complain about in other threads, banging that keyboard of yours, spitting in the words you despisingly decide are how everyone should feel. Stay out of it.
I say my brother in past tense because he is gone. The brakes went out the day he was born but it took 48 years for him to collide with the realization he did not have the strength to carry on. And ended it. As did my father. Two suicides in one family who were associated with a person who was the product of a rape, her husband and her son. In my travels, those whom I have met who made it to adult hood from a miserable childhood, many were either in the park with a beer in a brown bag or a little green bag in their pocket or had been were it not for intervention professionally, years of it. You feeling better because of some romantic fable of a toys and pale blue lovingly selected baby shower gifts has nothing to do with the truth. Damaged people are the end result and they are a burder to society. Try as they might, when you are in a nonsensical situation at an early age, you shut down and kill the pain somehow, to keep from having to abort yourself with a gun to the head when you cannot even know that it is an alternative yet. Save us the trouble and abort us for god's sake. We'll be here anyway, just not in "her." This is no fairy tale. This life is hard enough without having to deal with a mother who has pangs of regret and sighs rather than celebrates your arrival on earth.
Wow that's a pretty high level of self-pity you've got going there.
Funny how you don't off yourself though - you just prefer to "share" your own fuckeduppedness in spite of taking your own medicine.
it takes a certain kind of monumental inner strength to live with the kind of awareness of "the world" some are born into, the awareness that was described by bunnyswanson above.
it takes no time or thought at all to dash off a few anonymous pixels on a thread surrounded by your similar-thinkers, many who lack empathy, and even more who nurture a pathological hatred of females.
I suggest you think before posting, but I suspect that's not an option for you.
thank you for taking the time to share a truth few here can stomach or acknowledge.
over the years I have worked with many humans who have life histories that echo your story, and helping them to understand the sickness of the culture they exist within does not have to be internalised as their own pain, that they can indeed separate their sense of Self from their perception of who they are within the culture - individuate - and that this can be the path to a much greater awareness of Self, apart from the herd.
you have that available, and I hope you find others around you that support your path to leaving behind a "history" defined by a culture that is so obviously sick, and sickening.
take care of your Self.
Cathartes Aura,
This is the problem with law, we wish to make a rule and thereby act with clear conscious. No one has more of an investment than the parents as it is their chlld and they will bear the consequences. Therefore, no other person has a higher right to judge.
Why this issue is so important, in a world of 6+ billion humans should raise alarms in anyone's mind. Just as laws against suicide and euthanasia actually deny a person liberty over their own lives. We probably should consider why the laws exist in the first place. If we looked at religion and the need for believers, we would probably see the answer.
Societies have a need for survival, just as people do. The whole becomes a bulwark for the individual. However, at some point, a societies' individuals must be allowed to choose when their security is threatened by an increase in the population.
Laws are incompatible with flexibility in decision making, making societies ridgid and eventually lead to their death. This being said, having a child (in a world filled with means to stop conception) and then aborting it is as cruel as killing the child outside the womb. Putting the parents in jail for doing so, merely compounds the problem.
Recognizing that humans are flawed creatures which make mistakes, the need for forgiveness and understanding, would probably go much farther in encouraging a societies' members.
If we are ever to understand true liberty, we must stop using authorities, both earthly and heavenly, to enslave the people.
"laws" are man-made to control and limit actions.
man-made "laws" that pertain to a female body, including enForcing pregnancies in a world that simultaneously demeans both the female AND the child, that refuses to provide for the forced births, that cannot and will not provide health care or decent food, etc. - THIS to me is an obvious flaw in any "logical" argument for laws controling female reproduction.
let me know when Man-Made Laws do anything more than enact the desire for control over female bodies, particularly when they stop using an imaginary FatherGod excuse for said control.
if one has to resort to fairy-stories to make laws, then that "society" is bogus from the beginning.
Libertarians are OK with using force, aggression, exploitation, and coercion, so long as it falls under certain parameters, usually economic. The idea of "self ownership" is also absurd. If the idea is that humans cannot be owned, cannot be property, claiming self ownership runs counter to that concept. It just grants property rights of yourself, to yourself, which is just a hot load of asinine nonsense. You don't own yourself, you just are. You just exist. Claiming self ownership is as silly as claiming self presidency or self CEO. The reason libertarians use this term, is to naturalize the idea of property in general.
Go anarchist or go home. (And anarchists are anti-capitalists because they are against all imposed hierarchies and oppressions, whether via the state, or the owner class who claims the right to make us rent a space to exist on the planent on which we were born, amonngst other exploitations.)
Wow, wrong on every conceivable level. You don't get to claim what all anarchists are, sorry. I'm 100% sure that I:
Own every single aspect of my body and mind - from my big toe to the hair on my head. You want to tell me it's not mine and you have every much a right to it? Come and try to take it.
Own anything I put work and effort into. For example if I build something and I wish to keep it, it is my property. Again, if you want it, I dare you to come and take it.
Ownership implies a distinguishable and defensible right to an object against the claim of another. Anarchy assumes no laws. You appear to be very wrong on this level. While anarchy is defined in many different ways, you want to be able to create property rights, which require a system to defend those rights. Slippery slope.
No dipshit, I didn't claim your body was mine. I claimed that the concept of "owning" yourself is as absurd as the concept of being one's own king. I claimed the phrase "self ownership" is an unnecessary phrase and one of little philosophical value other than as a thin attempt to naturalize the idea of property, which is not a natural, but a man made thing.
And yes, anarchists are anti-capitalist. Look at the entire history of anarchism.
or the owner class who claims the right to make us rent a space to exist on the planent on which we were born, amonngst other exploitations
Just because capitalism evolved within a feudal landowning system doesn't mean the latter is a defining feature of the former.
There's no reason why we can't have commonly-owned land that individuals and organisations pay everyone else for the right to monopolise, and we all practice capitalism - which is, after all, just allowing people to trade freely - on top of that.
Not that any labels mean shit (h/t seer), but what you described is called geolibertarianism.
Henry George had some quite interesting ideas for an American economist, too much and long forgotten in the current battle royale between all the neo- factions dominating the discussion.
But that seems to be the point, doesn't it? --- domination of discussion to hide potential workable solutions
In the end, behind all the fancy terminology and legalese, it always come down to how to deal with the bullies before anything else can be dealt with.
Ever see the movie Christmas Story?
ahh, tip e.
it never ceases to amaze me how enamoured of label-seeking some humans are.
and how contorted the definitions become, how detailed the excuses, how particular the needs to control others while believing a label will somehow free them-Selves.
I'd much rather just drop all labels, and acknowledge those I meet by their actions in the world, avoiding the absolute majority simply because they don't seek a level of self-awareness that respects others as equals.
fuck labels.
I gotta say Nihilist...you are full of shit. While everyone hear recognizes the Fed for what it is- I do not recall us supporting unlimited campaign contribs...or shipping jobs overseas.
You aren't the only one reading comments fucking troll.
"I still believe in government a little" libertarianism is a mid-way point for a lot of people.
For the "I still believe in government a little" crowd that's kind of like a rapist saying "Hey, I'll pull out before I cum." There is no such thing as "a little government" that doesn't grow into a big government. It's as inevitable as sunrise. Given the choice between an (without) archy (goverment) and even limited government I'll take anarchy any day.
As Robert Higgs eloquently noted:
I found this piece by Joseph Sobran several years ago and it's really relevant to this discussion:
http://sobran.com/reluctant.shtml
Sobran was one of the great thinkers of his time. Right up there with Murray Rothbard in my opinion. I read this piece several years ago and recommend it to everyone.
Exactly! A mid-way point. No one is reasonable. We need a social safety net but poeple dont know when to stop and it destroys the system. I think we need unions but then they go too far and drive jobs overseas. At some point capitalism turned to facism. No on knows when to stop to strike the reasonable balance.
It is called being human and there are no "rules" that will prevent what inevitably occurs. All anarchy evolve into something and eventually we end up with a Hitler or Obama. History has shown us that a moral breakdown precedes a societal breakdown, but we never learn. We understand what a moral behavior is and also know it IS the basis for a sustainable world but our rationalization allows us to seek a more personal satisfaction, choosing to ignore the long term damage, because after all, all that is important is our immediate "happiness". We confuse the pursuit of this so revered happiness with freedom AND liberty, only to find ourselves at the bottom of a hole we dug ourselves mining for this "gold". We then proceed to try to create the "rules" that will prevent that from happening again. Rules to protect us from ourselves, only putting a cage door on top of the hole we are already in. The world is what WE make it, individually, as that IS the collective. People acting in concert, voluntarily, in their own best interest.
Anarchy does not evolve into anything, because it is not an organized system, but please feel free to provide an example. Whereas, modern States are the result of law and enslavement evolving from small city states to ultra national confederations.
Please prove that moral behavior is the basis for sustainable society. I do not "know" this nor accept it. The Catholic church was the main organizing moral force for over one thousand years and they are a disaster. Their history is populated with moral horrors as are most "moral" religions.
People, acting in concert, voluntarily is what anarchy "is".
@oldwood & Sean7k. Human nature is the downfall and I dont think laws are the anser. I think we keep having laws piled on top of laws because common sense is dissapearing. I think a better solution is more localization and community. It is easy to subjucate a mass of people on the other side of the world. You get more reasonable interaction and accountability in smaller communities. My mechanic is less likely to screw me if I see him at the grocery store.
We are past this though, the world keeps shrinking.
Human nature is as variable as the universe around us. It is particular types of human nature that appear to be problematic.. When law is used as an organizer, it enhances the ability of the worse kinds of humans to enslave the rest.
Voluntaryism and local ecologies could be the highest form of synergism, whether we will be allowed to test it is the question.
Self interest is a pretty common thread in human nature.
As are charity, magniminity, generousity and acts of kindness. Humans are more than self interest.
Agreed. I probably live too close to DC which shades my view. Self interest here seems a dominant characteristic and frequently dominant among those who aspire to the highest levels of power.
"Anarchy does not evolve into anything, because it is not an organized system, but please feel free to provide an example"
First, what statements such as that show is a lack of conscience toward adhering to what is right, what is moral, and opposing what is wrong, or what is immoral. Statism is immoral. Aggressively monopolizing the production of law and order is wrong. Practical or not, voluntaryism is not immoral.Second, questions such as that beg the question, "can you point to one place in the world where the state was ever established cooperatively, rather than as a matter of conquest, and likewise maintained?" It can't be done. Every state in the history of the world was/is the result of violent conquest and exploitation. Exploitative statism is what we see everywhere, past and present. Non-exploitative statism, or rather, cooperative ("social contract") statism has never existed anywhere on this planet. I consider the idea Utopian, unlike both exploitative statism and voluntaryism.
As far as example of stateless societies goes you can click here
Let me know when you come up with a demonstration of universal morality. It is subjective. My quote has nothing to do with your moral umbrage. Further, the poster whose analogy was challenged stated anarchy evolved into statism. You might want to read up before you throw down the gauntlet.
Next, there are societies that employ various levels of anarchy, 18th century Quaker life in the Pennsylvania colony, the US west in its' early development, Somalian Xeer society, Homo Habilis communities etc. None of these evolved into statist societies, but were coerced into it.
"A lack of conscience toward adhereing to what is right" is liberty and free expression. It is the tyrants that want to tell us what is "right" that are the problem.
Every power aggregating organization claims moral authority and then uses it to bludgeon everyone with church religion or statist religion. We know the basic moral presumptions regarding violence and theft as well as the many sexual morals that threatened sustained family relationships. Morals are the things that are largely agreed upon concepts that have been realized and understood to be beneficial to the survival on man over multi-generational periods. Sure, the catholic church used their moral authority to dominate, suppress and abuse, but not on the basis of morality, but adherence to the worship of their god, and thereby their authority. All power structure want to dominate and they will make laws to do so, to ensure that their minions suffer no illusion about who is in charge. The rule doesn't matter, it is the enforcement of the rule that matters.
As far as anarchy evolving into something else, what more proof do you need other than the lack of any surviving group or society living under it. Those who seek to lead will find a way to do so and once in that position will build a structure to sustain themselves and their power structure. Anarchy is not a system, it is a phase which society goes through to transition from one tyranny to another.
Then name your moral authority. Scared? Basic moral assumptions? Is it immoral to steal food if you are starving or your children are starving? Is self defense violence? The only people with basic assumptions are people who live in protected delusions. Sexual morals is really laughable. Is polygamy immoral? Some of their families are very well adjusted and positive. Homosexuals can't have moral families? Can heterosexual banksters have moral families? Politicians?
The Catholic church is just a great example, Muslims? Protestant churches? Puritans? Voodoo? Shamanism? No abuse of SOMEONE'S morals there?
The rule doesn't matter? Then what are morals?
Reread what you wrote, seriously. You are angry about a challenge that makes you uncomfortable
The word evolution implies a transition from one to another. First, you have to establish it has existed and then SHOW the evolution. Assumption is just being lazy. Perhaps we are evolving TO anarchy? Anarchy is not a system, that is its' strength and genius- it mirrors the world we live on, now, we just have to move in. A very successful world for most species. We seem to be the big problem.
+1000
ancaps do not believe in government and consider themselves libertarian.
libertarians who believe in minimal govenrment or whatever are statists in denial, minarchists, not libertarians.
Isn't Libertarianism seperate from whether one is an anarchist or minarchist?
If you are free to leave "The State", and if you joined by choice, would that not fulfill the requirements to be libertarian, while the State (Government) itself could be totalitarian?
Or does libertarianism mean you do not have the free choice to put yourself under a leader?
To me its about being consistent in the principle.
libertarians say they believe in the principle of NAP which is great, but the very nature of government does not resonate with NAP as for government to survive it needs to aggress against people to finance itself.
so for me i cant see how a libertarian can then argue a need for government, regardless of how small it is.
what you do voluntarily is seperate from this and if people want to voluntarily submit themselves to serfdom then i dont have a problem with that but atm unfortunately the state is not optional.
We have one sheriff on a budget who actually is a decent guy so far. Above that people get confused on unmolested.
Anarcho-capitalism is the libertarian NAP taken to its logical conclusion, hence the joke:
What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarcho-capitalist? ... about 6 months.
The people have been conditioned to associate anarchy with negativity. I think to have people embrace it, there needs to be a new word to take its place.
I think for people to embrace it there needs to be a new world to take this one's place. FIFY :-)
On another forum where I was first exposed to anarchocapitalism they coined/used the term voluntarism as a euphemism for anarchy. As any associations made by people were voluntarily entered rather than coerced. I have actually seen a ZH poster using the V symbol that was used on that forum by people who associated with that mindset.
Its amazing; the psychology behind association.
Congress?
protecting your own shit with whatever automatic weapon you like is perfectly libertarian. the people you're protecting it from are the aggressors. what article are you reading?
If you are in an urban area using an automatic rifle in self-defense against an aggressor, are you not then becoming an aggressor to everyone within a half mile radius?
Can libertarians voluntarily create a geographical region within which they designate it "no firearms"?
Absolutely not, but they should use a semi-automatic 12 ga shotgun, in urban areas. Less collateral damage and you get your point across when needed. No one fucks with you.
Depends if they're all aggressing against you, or if you invaded Somalia I suppose. If you wanted to file a legal claim that they're causing noise pollution on your property by defending themselves, even in a free society there'd be some sort of third party arbitration for that, whose aim would be to ensure there's some semblance of order, as chaos is bad for almost all businesses.
To answer your second question, yes, someone can say what they want the gun policy to be on their property. If where you're going with this is that someone like the Federal government can just click the proverbial Photoshop Fill Tool and just say "all that is mine" as if that is how property ownership works, and then just force everyone in the region to do what they say, it doesn't work like that. In many cases, such as the case with that odd Bundy fellow, it would be like Columbus discovering America, planting a flag in the ground, and telling the indians they're all trespassers. He could say it but that clearly wouldn't make it so.
The fact that one can buy a house but still have it taken away by people you've never met simply by not paying them mafia-style tribute shows that nobody really owns anything, despite being told they do, so long as the government has the capacity to claim everything, and they're not free, despite what they're being told, so long as the government has the capacity to tell them what substances they can and cannot ingest.
If you're interested in an example of how the mechanics of a free society MIGHT operate, check out Stefan Molyneux's free ebook Practical Anarchy (google it).