This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.
»
- 28017 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Actually by the author's defintion libertarianism is more or less non political. In a sense it is anarchistic by its very nature... I guess. But the devil is in the details. We get so mired down in the debate around absolutes that we forget we do not live in a world of absolutes (death and taxes maybe?). The way the world ought to be is quite different from the way it is and the perfect world that many ZH's debate over - especially whenever we talk about libnertarianism and its relationship to politics - is a fantasy world. A perfectly free utopia. It has never existed and is likely to never exist. This is the nature of being human in this world. Perfection is impossible so our hope is to be able to control (bad word - maybe influence) the pendulem as best as we can as it swings three dimensionally from one imperfection to the next. Seems when I look at things historically the best we can do is shoot for better. Best is an illusion. That is the human condition.
This is the libertarian paradox: You can lead a horse to water but you can't MAKE him drink. Then when he realizes you just showed him the very thing that can save him he kicks you in the head for showing it to him.
The question then becomes for many of us as ZH's - presuming we survive the blow to the head - do we shoot the horse?
Can we just get back to the oiginal constitution and have state sovereignty so that the states will compete for our brain and muscle power?
Think about it. That fed gov. would fit well with the Libertrian principles. (No fed taxes. That's what gives them redistribution power and reward punishment against states)
Just saying!
Dunno. I'm not an American. Just a nearby observer.
Seems reasonable to me... probably not so much to those in your federal gov't though. Or any federal gov't these days.
Society is best when it's small and local. I get what you are saying, but I believe that anarchy could be void of justice in certain instances.there will always be a power hierarchy whether documented or implied. Just conversing here so I welcome your thoughts. Anarchy intrigues me. You're right about it being considered and taught as a negative thing.
Who said it would be just? I never implied that. Besides justice is conpletely relative. What anarchy is, is fair. Do whatever you like but know you can face any possible consequence. Everyone would more seriously consider there actions without the .gov net below. Even the most ruthless tyrant would know his deeds risk him awaking to an axe at his neck. Now the Corzine's of the world are relatively safe. Which society do you think an oligarch would prefer?
@NihilistZero
Wrong!
Libertarians believe in a very small government which is responsible for protecting their rights as a free man.
Your assertion of Libertarianism is bullshit.
When dreaming of exploring the cosmos I "believe" in the greatness of Asgard and enjoying the just rule of Odin. I think I'm more likely to see that heavenly glory than these Libertarians seeing their small and efficient government...
If government is tasked with something so magnificently important as protecting ones rights then isn't it a bit of a of a contradiction that you desire a small government to do that? You either want freedom or you don't.
Any instance of a govt using force to violate a persons rights invalidates your line of thinking, unless for the greater good right? Who decides when a right is being violated and the force needed to stop the violation?
The Constitution is a great idea but it has never been followed (at least at the start they pretended to want to). Ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion, lincolns draft riots?
Anarchy takes away these problems as NZ has clearly stated already. 'Its a small world and very, very bad' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwQEen1oalk
Libertarianism is a product of Murray Rothbard, it is also known as Anarcho-Capitalism by his own words. Considering he was the man that came up with the term in it's current application I think I will trust him over some trolling sock puppet on ZH.
I don't think he is a trolling sock puppet. I think he has a different point of view on libertarianism. His points are well thought out and worth reading.
Edit. I don't know about you, but I'm not here for an echo chamber. I'm here to converse and have my viewpoint challenged. How else do we grow?
An excellent reminder, Dr.
I don't make it a habit of listening to those that obvious haven't a clue what they are talking about. He is one of those people.
but do you not agree that the word itself has been co-opted and does not have a definition beyond what the label-user believes, unstated?
it's a meaningless word, like so many nowadays. until one can get a full definition from each user, which is tedious, how can the word/label continue to be used?
That statists use the manipulation of language as a matter of operation.
You down voters can eat an infinite amount of shit.
Do you know what the difference is between a minarchist and an anarchist?
... about 6 months. :-)
As a quintissential anarcho-capitalist in the Rothbardian tradition, I am perfectly fine if you disagree with me and my beliefs, so long as you do so peacefully and leave me alone. The problem with dumbarses such as yourself is that peacefully disagreeing is not good enough for you. Your kind have no moral qualms with directing immoral, coercive force against peaceful individuals in order to ensure that their behavior conforms to your liking. No thanks. Your nothing but a statist thug, regardless of how many people "vote" for you. Two wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner have nothing to do with justice.
Except of course the US govt when it was founded. Very libertine govt that allowed for the most prosperous country in history to grow.
It is easy to thrive when you have vast amounts of virgin land, tons of slaves, and you're willing to exterminate the local inhabitants.
And of course, the people thrived outside of and long past all that.
To the simple minded, Less Gov't Control = Anarchy.
BUT WHO WOULD BUILD THE ROADS??????!!!!`11
Rhodes scholars??
Stewart?
It's small government. Basic services or handled by free enterprise.
Your sarcasm detector is in need of repair.
Same people that build the parking lots.
Which are almost always in better shape than .gov roads.
Except in federal building lots and near the city halls in most major cities.
+1
The people who decide to band together and build the roads because nobody else is doing it. You might even charge people for the right to drive on them. what a country. you can still all pitch in for projects, just like a company can hire a security guard without having one issued to them by the government.
The people down the street put too much aggregate in their concrete. My car always gets beat to heck on their patch of road.
That's ok, in a free market you can choose which road to take, or you can just make a second road yourself to compete with the existing one.
Oh, alright..... I just draw the line at building my own airport.....
But you can ignore the 10 inch deep suspension damaging potholes in .gov roads.
Troll, idiot, and asshole - a trifecta for you.
BUT UH SOMALIA. AND ALSO ROADS.
Robots
And the aquaducts!
Oh yeah! That's the ticket.
Almost missed this thread -I was out shopping for Clippers' gear.
Not at all, as long as I don't have to pay extra taxes for your new found "spousal benefits" and unlimited spousal deductions.
It was required when the country was founded, i don't know where we went so wrong, but we obviously did.
It is too much to ask the left to leave my AK alone along with my children and my money.
I view libertarianism as a simple non-initiation of violence principle. If that is not the case I am no libertarian. I see a lot of people claiming to be yet making all sorts of exceptions in that regard. Very easy principal. Very hard to stick to.
The key point and measure of libertarianism is "aggression." If it permits aggression absent another's aggression, its wrong. Period.
The flipside is "privileged" aggression where some are permitted to aggress against others. Lots of evidence that that doesn't work, but look no further than your local federalized gun and badge thugs.
If you're not Libertarian, you are Shit. And you eat GMO. Fuck off.
If you're not an Anarchist you're a statist tool and a useful idiot for the establishment.
I would be happy simply watching the NSA's hard drives melting in a pyre.
Oh, getting the cops back to wearing Sam Browne patent leather gear and 8 point hats would be another great step in the right direction. Getting the bastards out of their tacticool finery might dampen their freakshow aggression somewhat.
Oh, getting the cops back to wearing Sam Browne patent leather gear and 8 point hats would be another great step in the right direction. Getting the bastards out of their tacticool finery might dampen their freakshow aggression somewhat.
I would futher suggest that the standard patrol vehicle should be the Toyota Corolla, and the only firearms allowed to patrol officers be a .22 caliber revolver locked in the glove box. If they need more car and more firepower than that, radio for more heavily equipped backup. Not gonna happen, of course.
The problem isnt the police. The problem is who the police are working for. They used to serve the people. Now they serve walmart, kfc, and jpmorgan chase.
not only are your "Toyota Corollas not gonna happen" - the Pentagon is donating their military "surplus" vehicles to middle amrkn policing.
doesn't take a genius to see where this trend is heading. . .
I kinda think that tptb are also terrified of a foriegn invasion. Not to say that they dont want us all in fema camps and shit but...
Think about what happened a the mere mentioning of gun control. Guns and ammo sold off the shelves. Now consider that our military is extremely overstretched being that we have invaded almost every country onthe planet. That leaves extremely vulnerable for attack.
Either way we could debate the motives but we are pretty much looking at a fucked up situation no matter what happens
mmm, define "foreign" invasion for me please.
and while we're here, "domestic terrorist" too, as it's starting to pop up in the newsy stories. and then add in a healthy dose of recent cop-violence stories, what the minimum "requirements" to wear a uni-form and badge have been reduced to, etc.
I think what some folks remember as police is not the package deal we are currently dealing with. . .
Sure i will give it a shot captain sarcasm. I think once USD denominated collateral backed asetts come to maturity, creditors(bond holders) will stake their claim and repo everything from the white house to your grandmothers steel drill-doe. At that point it will be all out war.
I am not arguing that it seems like anyone that differs from te gov narritive is a "domestic terrorsist". I am simply suggesting that the policies as of recent as relate to gun control cod serve a dual purpose. I admit its thin but worth considering imho
apologies if my "tone" came over as "sarcasm" - it wasn't intentional. . . I am drawn to getting definitions here because I often find posts that use words in ways not always as I'd interpret them.
so it seems that "foreign" for you might include those who want to redeem their fiat via seizing goods, like global repo-men? that might prove interesting - hopefully the advance news that amrkns are heavily armed might instill second thoughts - though "they" are welcome to anything they find in the District of Columbia, and Wall Street environs, but that's just my opinion. . .
the "domestic terrorist" label is one a certain Nevada Senator was throwing around lately, and I'd like to think folks are paying attention to wherever it continues to surface - that "trrrrist" meme is so easy, y'know? and I'm guessing the MRAPs might get some exercise down the road if this nonsense continues. . .
take it easy.
No prob thanks for the convo.
As for the mraps, i had seen a vid with some ukrainians immobilizing one with a bunch of molitovs. They made it look quite easy! Cheers
I think your comment is pretty naive when accounting for modern weaponry and intelligence. It wouldn't be possible to bring a large invading force to the US without being noticed. Also, any country which does so would be nuked to oblivion and since any country which thinks they could feasibly invade the US would likely have nukes of their own, well thats the end of the world as we know it. The advent of nuclear weapons changed the entire landscape for military adventures. The nuclear triad ensures that no country is able to get away with a nuclear first strike without sustaining heavy losses and despite the fear that the world as we know it could be completly destroyed in a matter of hours, I think it makes the world a safer place. It definitely makes it harder for groups to remove their entrenched governments if they are a nuclear power which given the rampant corruption across governments of the world is a sad aspect, it definitely makes it so that established nuclear states are unlikely to tangle militarily with one another. I know there are some crazy people out there but I think overall the MAD concept promotes peace (although an uneasy one) between major world powers.
If every country had nuclear weapons and stated that any external attempts to limit their territorial sovereignty would be met by a nuclear strike then the world might be a more peaceful place, although that is really only applicable if the people at the controls of nuclear weapons weren't nihilists without regard for the citizens of their own country's survival and wouldn't make a first strike out of aggression even though it would doom their country as well.
Your dissmissing the possibility that most ofthe gov could be compromised. Thus, inviting an invasion under the guise of "liberty" and "democracy". We could very well at that time be in a full blown civil war ect...
At last I heard, there are 11 million illegal aliens (am I still allowed to call them that?) in the US. Many of them, plus the naturalized Mexican/Americans who live in the border states would vote in a heartbeat to have Mexico retake the Southwest.
The US gave up defendind it's borders years ago. Not unlike Rome.
You honestly think Mexico would have any chance at succeeding in any sort of land grab or that enough of the illegal aliens and extremist naturalized Mexican/Americans would be able to organize and attempt such an undertaking? The Mexican Army is a joke and any attempts of the scenario you are envisaging could probably be put down by the national guard without requiring any actual US military forces. I think you are grossly overestimating the number of illegal aliens and Mexican/Americans that would be interested in any such undertaking. They largely leave Mexico because it is a shithole and they just want to work an honest job (and they generally work very hard) to better their lives and those of their family. I personally wouldn't have any issues with nearly unlimited immigration if the immigrants were allowed under the condition that they and any children born to them in the US would not be eligible for any welfare or social programs. If they were found to commit any serious crimes (anything more significant than a DUI or possession of a small amount of drugs) then they would be permanently deported. While social security and medicare are fucked systems anyway, I think that should they stay in the US and pay into the systems they should be eligible for only what they paid in (essentially giving the US a subsidized loan and helping the insolvent programs rather than draining them). If the US made the process an easy process which requires them to be issued an identification card with biometric data so that the government knows who is in the country and can easily stop the reentry of any who are deported then the US would benefit as intelligent and/or hard working immigrants would come to the country and the thugs would be removed. No welfare or social programs, everything is sink or swim. While some people would make arguments that they wouldn't "assimilate" which would "hurt" the US but I think that wouldn't really be the case for those who would be attracted to the country knowing they couldn't suck off the government teat and were here to work and better their lives.
Your fears are entirely overblown and even in the case that some sort of attempt was made it would be easily crushed.
As far as the cops thing... as someone who identifies as a libertarian... I like to point out the the cops are merely paid to do what any citizen has the right to do already. It works in a voluntary system where there is enough people who can receive and pay for the benefits of such specialization. Ergo by my view any and all laws that exempt the police from... tax stamped post 1984 machines for example.. cannot apply without some tyranny sprinkled in there.
Good point
From an etymological perspective the word "police" derives from policy. i.e., police are charged with enforcing the policies of the PTB. That was then. What we have now is the rise of a new praetorian class - who despise their political masters and make rules for themselves. See Doug Casey's comments here:
https://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/rise-praetorian-class
From an etymological perspective the word "police" derives from policy. i.e., police are charged with enforcing the policies of the PTB. That was then. What we have now is the rise of a new praetorian class - who despise their political masters and make rules for themselves. See Doug Casey's comments here:
https://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/rise-praetorian-class
Anarchist here.
Check out this primer on Libertarian-Anarchy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLgxnFlOxrw
An Anarchist who self-identifies as an Anarchist is an oxymoron. An Anarchist who can't formulate his thoughts without watching somebody else's video is an even better one.
I am a constitutionalist. The pre glass steagal repeal version.
Call me crazy but if they put a cap on campaign donations i think this would solve alot o probs. not all but its a start. A billion dollar presidential campaign!?!?! Sheeeeeit
Your choice, but government is organized crime by it's essential nature, and no document will ever change that fact.
Our founding fathers established something revolutionary when this country ha formed. I believe they had thoughts very similar to yours. Thats why they tried to balance the power with the people. Somewhere along the line that balance has shifted.
You children with your fantasies are cute.
The US Constitution was not a new thing when it was written, it was actually based on a copy of another document that was written in Europe prior.
Fucking retarded. Who gives a shit how old the idea was or where it originated. The fact that it was an idea put into reality speaks for itself does it not?
That is the problem with you kids, you have no sense of integrity or maintaining honesty or any sort of ethical standards. It's all about getting the last word in, and doesn't matter if you sound like an angry chimp doing it.
Right. 1 Billion Chinese at $2 per untraced credit card donation each, and voila. The edge of the weimar republic.
Here's my new constitution: goneYonder shall have the power to "tax" all females of childbearing age from behind.
There, now it's a law, 'cause I wrote it, see? Now, if only I had the guns and goons.
I view libertarianism as, I'll do my thing and you do yours. As long as you're not harming me and my family it's all good. If you fuck with my family then all bets are off. If you fall on hard times then I have the freedom to choose whether or not I will help you out. If you're a decent person the chances are I will, but if you're a shmuck then you're on your own. Gubbermint does not have the right to force me by gun point in this manner. I'm probably more of an anarchist in my beliefs however I don't see that, or a libertarian form of government ever. Gubbermints always want to preserve the status quo.
Gubmint taxes without representation. Sounds Familiar..right?
RIPS
I really wish people would quit assuming that Libertarianism is something other than Anarcho-Capitalism. Both philosophies were written by the same guy. They are both part of the same idea.
ahhh yes, here come the caveats and addendums.
everybody has a particular flavour of "libertarianism" they believe is the ultimate true definition.
I think I'll continue to avoid all labels, and stick with personally accurate descriptions of what I adhere to, thanks.
even "anarchists" seem to have new "versions" these days. . .
Anarchy = No Rulers. Nobody has a legitimized use of force. No one can use force with impunity due to protection of .gov. Everyone is TRULY accountable from peasant to titan. There is no other version of anarchy. The complete absence of actions legitimized or sanctioned by government is anarchy's only trait.
What you get in that situation is Game of Thrones, or the areas in Mexico that are under control of the narcos.
Anarchy may sound good on paper, but eventually it just turns into another scramble to determine which of the most powerful and ruthless people will end up on top of the heap. It was claimed somewhere above that instead of paying for guards, it would be cheaper for those inclined towards tyranny to just deal fairly with others.
But that claim fails to recognize that it costs the rulers nothing when they tax the people they're exploiting to pay for those guards.
And that's how it always turns out in the real world... every single time.
You may want to live in a Hobbesian nightmare of that sort, but most people do not.
Anarcho-capitalism = narco Mexico, so why aren't you living there already if that's the sort of society you desire?
Mexico analogy is complete bullshit. The only reason the Narco Cartels have ANY power is the statist prohibition on drugs. .gov took a low margin, easily produced product and made it illegal. T his created the insane revenue streams the cartels enjoy. Now if you wanted to analogize the Zapatistas of southern Mexico and their anarchist and free society you might have had something. But then you would have invalidated your own narrative...
You're wrong. If you remove government from the equation, you still have cartels competing for market share and people getting killed in the cross-fire.
The only way out of that situation it make drugs LEGAL - but you can't make something legal if there's no government to do that. If there's no means of enforcing contracts, then disputes get settled with violence.
Apparently you haven't thought this through.
So then why did the anarchist societies (some of which were right in the opium production hubs) never break out into narco terror? For that matter since the trade in honey wasn't "legal" by your definition why didn't the nomadic tribes of Asia engage in "honey wars"? Why did these anarchists not slaughter each other in droves? It would seem you are the one who hasn't given much thought to your thesis...
Give specific examples and I'll give you a specific response. Very small societies can operate with informal quasi-governmental institutions or cultural norms that play the same role, but that model doesn't scale to societies with millions of people and huge competitive markets.
Communism also works in small groups. The kibbutzim in Israel worked very well using a communist system - up until the point where the successful ones grew to be so large that everyone didn't really know each other as "family" and resentment creeped in.
When government declares some activity to be "illegal" what they are actually doing is instituting a state of anarchy within that domain. Do you just not understand that?
Because the activity is illegal, there is no access to courts to enforce contracts, so if parties engaging in those activities have a dispute and no way to peacefully arbitrate it, their only recourse is to use force against one another. That's an easy to understand consequence - it's just simple logic.
So when you get rid of government you might think that results in everything now being "legal," but it doesn't. It actually makes everything "illegal," and sets up the conditions for Hobbes "state of nature" to fill the void. That's not how people want to live their lives - always looking over their shoulder worrying that someone is going to steal from them or assault them.
If you want to live that way, there are neighborhoods in Detroit and elsewhere that are effectively that way right now. There's no effective police presence and people know they can take advantage of others or hurt them or burn down their property with very little risk to themselves. That may be the kind of life you want, but it's not for me.
A better solution is to constitutionally restrain government from doing anything other than acting to protect life, liberty, and property, and having a legitimate monopoly on the use of force to do those things - and those things only.
We all have the right to defend our lives and our property, and so it's legitimate that we can outsource those functions to an organization that we pay so that we don't have to sit on our front porch with a shotgun 24/7 to make sure we aren't taken advantage of. At smaller scales you could call that a community watch program, and at larger scales, a militia or an army + a legal system for arbitrating disputes.
We do not have the right to appropriate others' resources or compel them to live their lives in a certain way, so since we individually don't have that right, we can't legitimize those behaviors by outsourcing them to government.
Government is a swamp infested with alligators, but libertarians understand it's better to drain the swamp than to burn it. Anarchists, (much like Communists) seem to me to be a bit naive when it comes to human nature and how their ideas will actually translate from paper to the real world.
Boss, I have got a new plan.
Why not simply label any society that did not go into narco terror, anarchist?
The conclusion would fit the postulate.
Signed: an American.
There will always be Hatfields and McCoys, but they are the exception rather than the rule. In the hills and even more so with the Amish the means of enforcing contracts is shunning - it's hard to survive/thrive when you are truly on your own.
Shunning doesn't work on psychopaths, and any competitive activity that humans engage in will eventually come to be dominated by psychopaths if that activity is not effectively policed.
Intelligent psychopaths have a competitive advantage over other people because they are willing to do things to win that others are not, they tend to have a high tollerance for risk, and they have no sense of shame.
In a small insular society shunning can work, but you can "shun" Corzine, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. all day long and it's not going to change their behavior because there are plenty of people who benefit from their misdeeds who will provide them with all of the hero worship they desire.
Context matters - as we slide down the slope of economically available oil smaller communities will be the norm, and shunning will be harsh. Many shunned will die (starvation, exposure, etc), and if in the US this will likely be even more pronounced as its population is not very durable or adaptable in general.
I'll be sure to take my turn at the perimeter of our community to keep you well shunned, psychopath ;)
Narco Mexico only exists because the US government controls and restricts the flow of a bunch of plants.
The rest of your comment is nothing but a fallacy as a result.
See reply above.
What you expect me to bow to your post here and do your work for you?
Anarchy means not having anyone to report to; not asking for permission from anyone.
The beauty of anarchy is in its being within. You can remove all the rulers, but if you don't remove the concept of a ruler from your head, the spot will be re-occupied.
Anarchy is doing what you think is right, no matter what anyone says or how they call you, or how they treat you.
What prevents you from doing what you think is right - today?
The prospect of doing serious time behind bars.
Fear, in other words. Well, there's you answer. Fear prevents you from living the way you want - not rules, not other people, not the political or economical system. Fear.
Speaking of jail: Did you choose to be born here? To be ruled by gravity and men with guns? To be hungry every 4 hours? To look for the bathroom, too? How free are you, actually?
Also, what kind of desires do you harbor that they warrant serious time behind bars?
If you think you deserve to be punished what you want to do, then no, you can't do what you want.
How does this entire string of comments revolve around YOU and your preoccupation of Anarchy? The article was about what Libertarianism is and is not. I don't care what you claim you would do in different scenarios in your dystopian apocryphal anarchical society. Bla bla bla. You sound like a pissed off 20 year old libera-tard punk skater. Why don't you spray paint a few railrway cars with the Anarchist symbol and get it out of your system?
.
+1 Cathartes Aura. Now THAT'S a sentiment worthy of consideration. Doris Lessing would have approved: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s390537.htm
That article was a nice summary of the basics, with a good analysis of how social movements can be subverted: "We destroy what makes it great."
However, since it was so simple, it also underscored how utterly paradoxical is the "non-aggression" principle, to the point where it falls apart completely. Simple Libertarianism is a nice little jewel of a philosophy, which has no relationship to the real world, except after it has been qualified so much that it no longer means anything, since the whole of militarism could be justified on the basis of self-defense, which then drives a self-fulfilling prophesy in the opposite direction.
In my view, one should operate with totally the opposite attitude to begin with, that human realities are always systems of organized lies, operating robberies, which work out dynamic equilibria amongst themselves. Attempts at "describing the legitimate use of force in society" tend to be systematically presented BACKWARDS within the Libertarian approach. Asking for a society without violence is like asking for physics without force. There is no freedom without a force. Forces are everywhere, always. They may be balanced through their dynamic equilibria.
Force is DE FACTO. "Legitimizing" the DE JURE use of force is always bullshit, which tended to be promoted by the biggest bullies who were able to use their forces. In my view, Libertarians tend to deliberately ignore how human beings operate as general energy systems. They promote backwards and impossible ideals about "freedom" which deliberately pay little attention to the basic energy laws. Of course, when doing that they are assisted by the ways that the biggest bullies' bullshit world view also dominated the philosophy of science, such as by inserting an arbitrary minus sign into the entropy equations, so that measurements of power and information would end up having positive numbers, rather than negative numbers, as the mathematical physics itself stated.
The basic concepts are SUBTRACTION of the part from the whole, and then, across those so defined boundaries of those parts, the flows of energy are taking energy and matter, as ROBBERY. That similarly applies to flows of information, as it does to flows of power, which are on a continuum.
Libertarianism is an idealized moral abstraction, which can not be reconciled with the understanding of general energy systems, and so, even less could it be radicalized by a better understanding of energy systems, which resulted from correcting the profound basic philosophical errors made in formulation of entropy.
Libertarianism is beautiful little self-contained jewel to contemplate. However, it loses all value as soon as it has to be compromised, which it immediately must do. This article was correct that the more Libertarianism is compromised, the worse it becomes. However, like all of the rest of the people who promote the impossible ideals of non-violence, or non-aggression, they always backfire badly in the real world, because they are utterly backwards to the ways that the real world works, as defined energy systems.
Your entire philosophy has developed from your lack of confidence in your fellow man. Not that i blame you. I just think it sounds a little jaded
Well, maskone909, the vast majority of people appear to have some functioning conscience, however, there seems to be a significant minority of psychopathic sociopaths, who tend to control civilization. Therefore, almost all of the nice people end up living within systems based on legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, set up by the people who are not so nice.
My view of the basic human ecology is that there are two groups, the minority, which are the Vicious Wolves, and their Domesticated Dogs, versus the majority of the Zombie Sheeple, and the Black Sheeple. Roughly speaking, the number of ruling class people who act like Vicious Wolves is very small, and even including all the kinds of Domesticated Dogs, that seems to only be a relatively small percentage. However, the vast majority of human beings currently act like political idiots, or Zombie Sheeple, who have become such incompetent citizens that they have lost control over their country, while the small percentage of the Black Sheeple amongst them tends to be too small to do anything significant about that tragedy.
The deeper problems are that there were good reasons WHY such a human ecology, and its related political economy, evolved, which were like why similar things happened in so many other natural ecologies, for literally hundreds of millions of years, over and over and over again. However, the Zombie Sheeple tend to be exhorted by the Black Sheeple that the solutions are that everyone should be better Sheeple, and that nobody should act like Wolves, which deliberately ignores the good reasons why those kinds of ecologies evolved again and again, because there are chronic political problems inherent in the nature of life, which come as a package deal delivered with life.
My recommendation is totally the opposite to that promoted by most Black Sheeple, like most Libertarians. I say that everyone should learn to be better Wolves. I assert that the Zombie Sheeple actually still are Wolves, but they have forgotten that they are, although they actually live within the Wolves' systems. However, at the present time, we appear to be trapped in runaway vicious spirals where the ruling class, relatively more self-aware Vicious Wolves. have gained so much overwhelming advantages, primarily from being able to make the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts, that there is practically nothing left within the established systems to prevent those metaphorically top carnivore-like, or top predator-like, people from continuing to degenerate into parasites that are killing their host.
The problem that I perceive with the ideals of Libertarianism is that it does not provide any realistic ways for people to become better Wolves, by "We the People" becoming more competent citizens. Instead, Libertarianism is based on the old-fashioned notions that everything would be alright if everyone acted like better Sheeple, such as expressed in this paragraph in the article above:
"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."
My view is that all of the attributes of "God," such as the ideals of truth, beauty or justice, come from the principle of the conservation of energy, because Energy IS Spirit. Within that perspective, I regard entropy as not actually existing in itself, like energy exists, but rather, as entropy being the shadow of energy, whenever some relative subtraction is done, to separate some part from the Whole. Within that kind of transcendental poetry perspective, I am NOT "jaded," because from that perspective, entropy is evil, but entropy does not exist, the same as time and space do not exist as independent absolutes, such as Kant and/or the Bible presumed was the case, within their kind of common sense world view.
However, as soon as it comes to perceiving any human realities, by definition I axiomatically insist that those are ALWAYS organized systems of lies, operating robberies, because that was originally built into the perception of those realities, as things which were subtracted, across which defined boundaries, the flow of energy was conserved. In my view, no finite thing can ever have any freedom. However, no finite thing is actually truly finite. Since the subtraction is never absolute, the process of robbery is never finished. That is how and why I recommend the opposite of the view that we should all become better Sheeple, and instead recommend the view that we should all become Wolves, i.e., better robbers. In particular I recommend we embrace the paradox of robbing the robbers back to better balance.
In my view, there is nothing else we could do, within the context of perceiving human realities, than to continue to muddle through the dynamic equilibria amongst different systems of organized lies, operating robberies. I axiomatically assert that governments are necessarily the biggest form or organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. I do NOT recommend that the solutions are to somehow stop that from happening, which I regard as impossible in the real world, (although, that is always TRUE, in the transcendental poetry versions of TRUTH.) Rather, I recommend a better arms race between the different social classes, so that more of the lower classes provide better organized resistance against being robbed by the systems set up by the ruling classes.
I favour a greater use of information, as an operational definition of higher consciousness, so that the social robbery systems are better balanced. I recommend retooling the fascist plutocracy, rather than attempting to arrest it, because retooling it appears possible, while simply stopping it seems impossible, unless human beings become extinct. I would like to see the social pyramid system become perceived as a toroidal vortex instead, with its top and bottom more consciously connected. That is why, when I signed up on Zero Hedge, about a year or so ago, I picked the avatar of a toroidal vortex, as featured in by the Thrive Movement: http://www.thrivemovement.com/
In general, I agree with the ideal goals of Libertarianism, but I think that they have their mechanisms backwards. I generally think that about almost all the other kinds of Black Sheeple, or reactionary revolutionaries. I tend to agree with their ideal goals, but I think that they are looking at everything backwards, and therefore, the ways that they promote their impossible ideals will continue to actually make the opposite happen in the real world. I base my politics upon approaches towards using unitary mechanisms, rather than based upon false fundamental dichotomies, and their related impossible ideals. Therefore, I have similar end goals, but I think that the ways to achieve those are pretty well the reverse of the ways that most of the other Black Sheeple tend to be recommending.
I regard militarism as the supreme ideology, and I think that it deserves to be. I have sympathy for the devil, in the sense that I think that the predators provide a service for their prey. I regard money as being measurement backed by murder. The real problems we face is how to operate better murder systems, in order to back up better money systems. As long as human beings continue to perceive a world full of defined beings, with names and properties, which are assembled into narrative stories, then the central core to that is going to continue to necessarily be the death control functions. From the sublime perspective of the conservation of energy, there is no death. However, the experiences of time and space means that the one thing which is certain is death. Those death controls back up the debt controls, which is why governments are primarily about how to run the death and taxes systems, as the two basic certainties in human lives. The questions are usually ones of sliding scales, along the unitary mechanisms. Will we have better predator functions fulfilled, as better organized crime, or will we continue to have our systems degenerate into being parasitical, inferior forms of organize crime, where the parasites are killing off their hosts, and so, ultimately themselves too, rather than strengthening their prey, and thus the future of those predators too?
I have confidence in human beings being who they are, no more and no less. As you may be able to tell from what I have written above, maskone909, I love paradoxes and political experiments, and I am willing to chase my tail around pursuing those. It is in that context that my main objection to Libertarians is that they tend to refuse to face their own paradoxes.
I am hoping that you have been exposed to a wide demographic to draw such strong conclusions. To paraphrase...
A wise man must first admit that he knows not everything
During my political career, I have talked face to face with tens of thousands of different people in all walks of life about the monetary and taxation systems. Of course, I could not possibly know everything. Indeed, I am certain that my own mind has constructed its own system of lies and illusions, the same as the mind of every other individual has. But nevertheless, I have lived for several decades inside North American civilization, with the leisure to study it in depth, which experiences are the basis for my statements ... I usually tend to WISH that I was wrong, but I have become convinced that I am as right as I can be.
Either you are jessie ventura or my sister inl laws dad! Lol used to be the mayor of a small town in socal. Remind me alot of him.. Sorry just thinking out loud. Cool thought provoking guy. Cheers
excellent points, fit the world I have been experiencing and my studies of history, instead of all the utopias that are talked about
I like your "The problem that I perceive with the ideals of Libertarianism is that it does not provide any realistic ways for people to become better Wolves, by "We the People" becoming more competent citizens. Instead, Libertarianism is based on the old-fashioned notions that everything would be alright if everyone acted like better Sheeple, such as expressed in this paragraph..."
we are all participants of gangs. we are all part of groups who interact with each other. The greatest lie of our times is what can be dubbed as The Glory of Individualism
but hey, it sells, no ad will ever point out that the average consumer spends very little time having any original, individual thought or action
as such, Rothbard's philosophy is commandable, a little gem of decency and ethics indeed. yet with no serious application yet
and for sure not in a world where more and more production is done by cooperation of groups, over several continents, in more and more dense popupulation centers, tendencies that generate moar demand for moar order (and so sometimes even moar state)
be more competent. as a citizen and as an individual. but don't ever believe you can in any way be only an individual. then you are part of a species of incredibly gregarious, communicating, political animals. you generate order around you. always. the question is only how competent you want to be in this
we are all participants of gangs. we are all part of groups who interact with each other. The greatest lie of our times is what can be dubbed as The Glory of Individualism
--------------------------------
Ah, the 'american' taste for equality shows: in crime, everyone is equal.
'Americans' are all members of gangs. Individuality in an 'american' society is for sure an interesting things as individuals related to individedness.
Yet, when looking at 'american' societies, they consider that the group is the undivided thing where as the individual is to the recollection of every bit scattered over several groups.
Naturally, a group is fragmented and the individual individed.
The scam is that 'american' society claim to be a temple for individualism when they support and promote like no other groupism.
'Americans' run a business of extorting the weak, farming the poor and in such business, joining a gang matters most.
It protects from other gangs and more than anything, favours the course of the business.
As 'americans' have made such an intensive use of extortion and farming, indeed, it leaves no room for individuality.
.
Somehow this is differently the same.
Sure, sure, anything 'americanism' takes. Division is indivision.
Unsurprisingly as 'americanism' due to the way it deals with consistency usually brings conclusion like slavery is freedom etc
Which is the only way found by 'americans' to avoid facing the reality of 'americanism'.
.
Such contradictature is only made possible from the degenerescence of punctual alternatives.
That is an 'american' to put things when stating that considering that slavery is slavery is called a punctual alternative.
That punctual alternative ran for much more time than 'americanism'.
But, hey, anything goes when it comes to protect from the reality of 'americanism'.
Thanks, Ghordius.
I agreed with you.
It is very strange to living in ways which require thousands of people, spread out over thousands of miles, to be making the things that I rely upon to live! It is extremely difficult to begin to image how that may become no longer possible in the future, unless there are some series of technological and political miracles, since we appear to be strip-mining a finite planet, while being able to pretty well deliberately ignore thinking about the consequences of continuing to do that. In that context, where, all over the world, people are going to be running into real limits, HOW could principled policies of non-violence have much opportunity to meaningfully manifest?
As you wrote, "in a world where more and more production is done by cooperation of groups, over several continents, in more and more dense population centers," individual freedoms to be left alone are going to difficult to maintain. While I would love to live in a more Libertarian kind of world, with more individual freedom, I can not imagine how human beings, in civilizations that are based on strip-mining the planet, in ways that are enabled by most people having attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance towards the longer term consequences of behaving like that, could possibly allow more freedom in the future.
it's not impossible to envision a future where individual freedom in the libertarian vision sense could come back. the question is where
all in all, the very tendency we are seeing of congregating into more and more dense cities and megacities is one huge energy and resource-saving exercise for itself. yesterday's dumps are already becoming the new recycling mines. cities constantly improve their efficiency, starting from their density
seen from space, humanity is not only a very successful (predator) species, it's also a kind of highly adaptable... coral reef. a glowing one, with different forms, from the solid "stone" coral to the flimsy-looking "branch" ones
the fun part: previously sparsely populated countrysides are having a tendency of becoming even more sparsely populated
and less energy... means less travel opportunities for order-enforcing busybodies... outside of the cities
the fact that piracy is increasing might be a telling sign, btw, though those things have their ebbs and flows, too
imho - leaning out of the window here:
in the US context, the real big problem that is "solving itself" is suburbia. mainly because it was built in a blink during very special times with sheer unlimited-looking resources and energy
and there I see what really generates the demand for Libertarianism as a new ethics code: suburbia gave the feeling of freedom from the order generated by the city without the problems of being too far away from civilization
another real problem is overconsumption. we europeans are following suit, slowly, yet we all in the first world consume more than it's healthy for us... in average, mind you
the average First Worlder, for example, eats up to 10 times more meat than what would be healthy. it's unbelievable how much more humans could live on this planet if meat would be consumed the way our bodies are really built for
how this is going to "solve itself" I don't know. not by authority, I think, then the Church tried it with restrictions in the religious calendar yet it failed. btw Nassim Taleb took the Orthodox Church's calendar and built a diet out of it. I think he is right, there, this is wisdom we dumped away and have to recycle back to life
mining is similar to scavenging, after all
Without abundant energy, I suspect the suburbs have a better chance of adapting to growing at least half of their own food, and having a cottage industry; cities will be interesting indeed.
As for the meat issue, I'm sure at some point rising prices will resolve overconsumption soon enough.
.
Bin fucking go.
I up arrowed your comment, as it is clean and eloquent.
The ideal of Libertarianism without forceful enforcement of property rights is a fantasy. And you are correct that it gets perverted when you outsource the protection of that right to a centralized state tool such as a police force.
However, a society based solely on that rule must have a community supported centralized enforcement option or we end up with those with the most personal (or commercial) force rule the others, which is completely antithetical to the philosophy.
The catch 22 in this is that democracy is the definition of mob rule.
Still looking for answers...
Catch 22 indeed. Great contribution +1
Yeah, fasTTcar, the original definition of Catch 22 in the novel of that name was, more or less: "They assert that they have to power to do anything that you can not stop them from doing."
That there is is no right without a remedy is a corollary of that there is no freedom without a force. As you pointed out, there is a PARADOX OF ENFORCEMENT within the ideal of the "rule of law," which is that only those who are the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, can enforce their rule of law against others. However, as soon as one has that PARADOX, then one runs into another paradox, which Plato described, more or less, as: "Nobody guards the guardians." As far as I know people have been looking for a solution to that problem for thousands of years, and none has yet been found. I believe that it is impossible in principle to resolve the infinitely self-referential paradox that "Nobody guards the guardians."
The theory of a democratic republic is as good as it gets, where We the People are supposed to be the guardians of the guardians. However, after the already accomplished runaway triumphs of the international banksters to apply the methods of organized crime through the political processes, to be able to take control of the public "money" supply, and almost 99% privatize and pervert that (and then be able to amplify that fraud up through ratcheting leverage, to fund the school systems, and control the mass media, etc.), the American democratic republic has already been about 99% destroyed.
In that way, the USA has become a runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut, which has been building a fascist police state to protect itself and advance its agenda, which was debt slavery, backed by wars based on deceits. Since NOBODY GUARDS THE GUARDIANS, after "We the People" fail to, the situation that the American people face has become extremely dire, which is probably why the pleasant ideals of Libertarianism are appealing to way more people than ever before!
With mob rule we end up with something most people hate but see as inevitable.
Libertarianism is supposed to be a simple meritocracy with the individual as leader and with no outside forces that can infringe on his/her property.
That circle can not be squared.
Fuck libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism or bust.
They are the same thing idiot. Both were created by the same man.
and both appear to have been co-opted by many other men.
definitions are important going forward, for ALL labels used, assigned, and desired.
Look at all of the mingling of definitions that goes on on this site daily.
aye, co-opting "cool slogans" is a particular monkey-mind trait, and repetition is endemic here.
any given day, the same posts, echo'd over 'n' over. makes some happy though, hmm.
if we could each claim royalties for certain words, I know which I'd chose. I'm betting your choices would be similar.
Created? lol
Dilution is always the solution.
/sarc
Calling All Spokesmen
We Need a New Spokesman!
All too often big wheels are just spokemen.
The trick has allway been keeping the guardians on a short leash. Fiat makes for a longer and longer leash. Take away the fiat and the leash guts pulled back fast. To a measured length?
Good point, VWAndy!
Yeah, great point.
This includes the guardian within us.
Or as you describe it dr. Ganja, the wolf.
Still think about that vimeo on Yellowstone.
There is a deeper intelligence at work here, methinks.
Much deeper than our silly words can describe with any amount of accuracy.
I too believe that there IS "deeper intelligence at work here ... than our silly words can describe with any amount of accuracy."
RE VWAndy I think the trick is people keeping themselves on a short leash. As my avatar said Introduce a little anarchy, and everything becomes chaos... And there's one thing about Chaos... It's fair.
Looking back fiat has been the driving force of how the world is run for a very long time. The catch is how to bring this era to an end. It must be stopped on a global basis. Because you cannot compete with a counterfitter for a stick of gum. Let alone on a military basis. We can only have liberty if we can get our price for the friuts of our own labor. Control of the medum of exchange by those that actually produce. Control that and we can make the leash as long or short as needed.
So that brings up the big question. What do we use as a medium of exchange? Something everyone can have some control over would seem to be the best choice.
Chaos is really just nature, it is survival of the fittest.
'Fair' is relative, Hitler had his own sense of 'fair'.
I would define fair as equality under law. Since in Anarchy the only law is, there is no law, I can't imagina a fairer system than that.
Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: I think either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean toward unlimited rights - I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please. But, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where you gonna find a fairer fucking deal than that? - George Carlin
It is the good horse that draws its own cart.
It is the good horse that draws its own cart... after being whipped into submission.
Accountability. Its a good thing.
I've gone from full on anarchocap to minarchist to something else that I can't quite define, all in the span of a few years.
I do not believe that America as presently constituted has a future at all. Homogeneity must first be restored as there is absolutely no way to right this sinking ship with the ballast of a permanently dependant, weaponzied racial underclass and millions of newly empowered interlopers, poor and steeped in catholic liberation theology, both of whom are enabled by the true destroyers, multiculturalists.
I've concluded that anarchocap is nothing but a thought experiment until American Balkanization provides Western Civ an opportunity to make a comeback. Until then, decline, as I see no evidence whatsoever that the increasingly dominant inferior subcultures are tolerant/capable enough of the existential thought required to untwist problem-reaction-solution.
Quite natural indeed for 'americans' to try to remove the symptom rather than the cause.
Since the cause is 'americanism'...
Chinese citizenism, I've missed you. Thank you for taking the time to add perspective, brevity & reason to this discussion.
Symptom? Cause? Two things, culture is a stubborn thing and second I would invite you to spend a weekend with me in Chicago to learn all about victimology and Americanism. I would especially reccommend that you seek out the perspective of those around Cermak Rd & Archer, should be enlightening for a great firewall citzenism as yourself.
If you'd like to discuss a specific cause and effect than I am happy to engage otherwise, enjoy shouting in Pidgin.
As 'americanism' has been going global for some time now, the thing is that nobody needs to move somewhere to see it at work, 'americanism' moves to people.
The US is the eye of the storm in the 'american' world. The only thing that one might see by going there is how people there are the most protected from 'americanism' detrimental consequences.
Since everyone else in the rest of the world is destined to be pushed under the 'american' train before it comes to US citizenry.
Ah... you mean communism.
0bama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. - they are communists who wear smiling masks of greed.
The Founding Fathers were also communist as Obama, Reid,Pelosi (and the rest) behave just as the Founding Fathers did.
Thanks for that. But as the fish in the plastic bag at the end of Finding Nemo says: Now what?
Libertarianism is gaining the heart and minds of the 'american' middle class youth? No, the 'american' youth simply want to remain 'american'. Period.
___________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________
As an evidence, that 'american' world is already a libertarian world.
As a matter of fact, 'americans' are always aggressed and never the aggressor. This is what is happening right now. Taking the past ten years or so, Iraq, Syria, Libya, afghanistan etc...
In all these scenarios, 'americans' depicted themselves as the aggressed, therefore the use of force was legitimate.
This has been happening from the beginning. As such, use of force against the Indians was legitimate as 'americans' were aggressed.
There is nothing new here. What is called libertarianism is already in application in an 'american' world.
What is the beef with 'american' youth?
Simple, young 'americans' know that their system was built out of theft, that there is less and less to thieve around because they will inherit a thieved world.
Nothing left to thieve because they own it all through theft.
What consequence? As 'americanism' keeps spreading, and that 'americanism' calls for theft, every 'american' look around where to thieve.
And where to thieve? In the thieved world. Because only there, things are left to be thieved.
Libertarianism is just a pathetic effort of consolidation of theft by thefts who inherit of past thefts.
When a thief is that successful in thievery he manages to own it all and that this thief has been laudating theft as the way to go, an issue rises.
From whom the other wannabee thieves are going to thieve when they want to emulate the master thief?
The master thief is the only person left to thieve from since he owns it all.
That is the predicament of part of the 'american' youth.
They will gladly inherit a world that was thieved for them. But in the meantime, they must also make sure that the rest of the 'american' youth cant thieve their way up as it would mean thieving from the 'american' youth.
As usual, 'americans' do not oppose theft, they oppose being thieving.
And when you own it all, the consequence is that you are the only person left on the block that can be thieved.
That's is libertarianism for duplicitous 'americans'.
Ah, yes, a word on the 'american' self ownership scam.
Self ownership was unknow to people before 'americanism'. It was an unrequired concept.
'Americans' introduced it to meet one contingency in their line of thought. 'Americans' like to think of themselves as able to make capital thrive, flourish. But there was a flaw in that: what about people who start with no capital? So what?
Since capital is what can be owned, simply attribute ownership to people. Self ownership was introduced: when everyone owns oneself, everyone start with a capital, themselves. Mere 'american' trick.
The best thing: 'americans' and their libertarian sub branch, love to depict their system as freedom compatible. It is so freedom compatible that by declining the self ownership concept, libertarian minds reach the logical conclusion that slavery is the epitome of a free society. In a free society,people can sell or buy ownership, as people own themselves, no society can be free if people can not sell themselves into slavery.
Which is not surprising since libertarianism is nothing else than redressed 'americanism' 'Americanism' started by declaring freedom a human right while maintaining and expanding slavery. The natural consequence is that deriving from that state, leads to the result that slavery is freedom.
This is what you get in an 'american' world.
Your hammer of truth applies to fruit vendors and children selling undergarments without a permit.
'Americans' can not focus and always try to sidetrack, to find a diversion.
This trait is most obvious in people like 'american' politicians as they are constantly in the limelight.
It is an 'american' thing though and there is no discontinuity between an 'american' base and its elite, only a magnitude in exposure.
Here, congrats because this side tracking is so topical it turns jaw dropping...
Fruit vendors, children selling undergarment without a permit is so connected... Bewildering.
Today's 'American' and the associated controlling politics have no resemblance to what America was founded upon. Today's America is a shit hole of communists, corruption, the stink of the likes of Pelosi and Reid with an occasional oasis of freedom.
When do we get to the hanging part?