Libertarianism Is A Joke

[NightFox]

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle.

No, that's anarchy

Er..ummm anarchy is the absence of authority, eschewing the initiation of force against other peaceful people (aka the non-aggression principle) is just generally accepted moral behavior; they're two completely independent concepts.

Non-aggression doesn't obviate self defense or the defense of others; which is the whole point of having government, i.e. to protect you from aggressive a-holes that want to violate your life, liberty and/or property, unfortunately what we have invariably ended up with is government that routinely initiates force against the life, liberty and property of peaceful people because as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and people somehow getting convinced that government doesn't have to abide by the same standards of morality that individual citizens do.

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Er...um....call the police and have them arrest you since your actions have made it clear that you are a danger to the life, liberty and property of others, if there is no police force I'd take matters into my own hands for the same reason. You don't appear to understand the non-aggression principle, once again it DOESN'T preclude self defense or the defense of others.

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

LOL, I never claimed to be an anarchist but I do know what anarchism is and why it's an independent concept from the non-aggression principle, nice attempt at straw man construction though.

Exactly, youd ignore NAP

You obviously don't understand the non-aggression principle and seem to have it confused with absolute pacifism ; they're not the same thing.

The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force against another peaceful person(s), force is not limited to physical violence, it can theft, deception, fraud, etc.., any action which imposes your will upon another peaceful person in violation of their life, liberty or property. ONCE AGAIN it doesn't preclude self-defense (of life, liberty or property) or the defense of others and it doesn't preclude using physical violence in such defense.

Absolute pacifism eschews violence under any circumstance.

See the difference?

… and neither of those concepts is a dependent of or dependent on anarchism.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere? If so, where?

Here's a conversation featuring a Libertarian that shows why it's such a failure...



Once you've seen this, let's discuss.

No because most people want a master. I don't, you do.....

 

[kaz]

No, that's anarchy

Er..ummm anarchy is the absence of authority, eschewing the initiation of force against other peaceful people (aka the non-aggression principle) is just generally accepted moral behavior; they're two completely independent concepts.

Non-aggression doesn't obviate self defense or the defense of others; which is the whole point of having government, i.e. to protect you from aggressive a-holes that want to violate your life, liberty and/or property, unfortunately what we have invariably ended up with is government that routinely initiates force against the life, liberty and property of peaceful people because as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and people somehow getting convinced that government doesn't have to abide by the same standards of morality that individual citizens do.

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Er...um....call the police and have them arrest you since your actions have made it clear that you are a danger to the life, liberty and property of others, if there is no police force I'd take matters into my own hands for the same reason. You don't appear to understand the non-aggression principle, once again it DOESN'T preclude self defense or the defense of others.

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

LOL, I never claimed to be an anarchist but I do know what anarchism is and why it's an independent concept from the non-aggression principle, nice attempt at straw man construction though.

Exactly, youd ignore NAP

You obviously don't understand the non-aggression principle and seem to have it confused with absolute pacifism ; they're not the same thing.

The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force against another peaceful person(s), force is not limited to physical violence, it can theft, deception, fraud, etc.., any action which imposes your will upon another peaceful person in violation of their life, liberty or property. ONCE AGAIN it doesn't preclude self-defense (of life, liberty or property) or the defense of others and it doesn't preclude using physical violence in such defense.

Absolute pacifism eschews violence under any circumstance.

See the difference?

… and neither of those concepts is a dependent of or dependent on anarchism.

Swis, swish, swish.

Swish. I know what NAP is, you don't. No, it's not pacifism. I mean duh.

Swish. I said you were at work when I killed your family because had you been home you could have defended them. That sailed right over your head.

What you don't understand is there is no revenge violence in NAP. Anarchists believe people will submit to voluntary arbitration. I killed your family, the community will pressure me to give in to arbitration.

That is naive on so many levels.

That's why I keep saying NAP is anarchy. Small government libertarians would do what you did. Which isn't NAP.

In NAP, you cannot initiate aggression against me or my property. Which means taxes cannot be mandatory, only voluntary. Courts, police, military. They can only be voluntary. And they cannot initiate aggression either.

This is why I keep telling you NAP is practiced by anarchists, not small government libertarians.

We want to minimize aggression, but not eliminate it

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I never understood their anti abortion stance . I thought they were ANYTHING GOES !

I am not against abortion, but I also believe the State should have the right to allow it or not...

It is the people choice and personally it is a damn State issue in my book...

 

[kaz]

I never understood their anti abortion stance . I thought they were ANYTHING GOES !

I am not against abortion, but I also believe the State should have the right to allow it or not...

It is the people choice and personally it is a damn State issue in my book...

So you're against individual choice and in favor of tyranny of the majority, huh?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I used to like having them around as an important and perfectly reasonable reminder that we have to be careful with the size, scope and cost of government.

But then, libertarian fiscal policy essentially took over one of the major parties and created this wave of binary, simplistic, Old West, anti-government, every-man-for-himself thinking that simply ignores the legitimate needs of too many people in the most prosperous country on the planet.

In small doses, it's an interesting study. As a large-scale philosophy for a civilized society, not so much.
.

Nothing wrong with limiting the power and spending power of the Federal Government while requiring States to Tax accordingly to their State Population.

Now this one size fit all nonsense is what cost this Country too much!

What a person earns in California as a RN will not be the same as person in Southern Illinois and the cost of living is massively different from the two regions, so how can you apply the same standards that someone living in California to someone in Southern Illinois?

States need to be more responsible for their residents and have less Federal Government security blankets but society does not want that.

I am not a true Libertarian even if I vote for their Presidential candidates but I can see how they appeal to some.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I never understood their anti abortion stance . I thought they were ANYTHING GOES !

I am not against abortion, but I also believe the State should have the right to allow it or not...

It is the people choice and personally it is a damn State issue in my book...

So you're against individual choice and in favor of tyranny of the majority, huh?

Well let see if a State Population including the women vote against it then it is their choice and not mine.

Society has to make it choices in life and I love it when left and right scream they hate the Federal Government until they want the Federal Government to push their agenda and will onto others.

Also in today society the only reason you should need an abortion is because of the risk against your health, the unborn health or you were raped because any other reason you could have used protection or just said no.

Personally if a State votes yes or no then I support their choice but I disagree with using the USSC to get your social agendas in life to be legal...

 

[kaz]

I never understood their anti abortion stance . I thought they were ANYTHING GOES !

I am not against abortion, but I also believe the State should have the right to allow it or not...

It is the people choice and personally it is a damn State issue in my book...

So you're against individual choice and in favor of tyranny of the majority, huh?

Well let see if a State Population including the women vote against it then it is their choice and not mine.

Society has to make it choices in life and I love it when left and right scream they hate the Federal Government until they want the Federal Government to push their agenda and will onto others.

Also in today society the only reason you should need an abortion is because of the risk against your health, the unborn health or you were raped because any other reason you could have used protection or just said no.

Personally if a State votes yes or no then I support their choice but I disagree with using the USSC to get your social agendas in life to be legal...

Why should one woman have the right to eliminate the individual choice of another woman just because they have the same sex organs?

 

[NightFox]

Er..ummm anarchy is the absence of authority, eschewing the initiation of force against other peaceful people (aka the non-aggression principle) is just generally accepted moral behavior; they're two completely independent concepts.

Non-aggression doesn't obviate self defense or the defense of others; which is the whole point of having government, i.e. to protect you from aggressive a-holes that want to violate your life, liberty and/or property, unfortunately what we have invariably ended up with is government that routinely initiates force against the life, liberty and property of peaceful people because as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and people somehow getting convinced that government doesn't have to abide by the same standards of morality that individual citizens do.

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Er...um....call the police and have them arrest you since your actions have made it clear that you are a danger to the life, liberty and property of others, if there is no police force I'd take matters into my own hands for the same reason. You don't appear to understand the non-aggression principle, once again it DOESN'T preclude self defense or the defense of others.

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

LOL, I never claimed to be an anarchist but I do know what anarchism is and why it's an independent concept from the non-aggression principle, nice attempt at straw man construction though.

Exactly, youd ignore NAP

You obviously don't understand the non-aggression principle and seem to have it confused with absolute pacifism ; they're not the same thing.

The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force against another peaceful person(s), force is not limited to physical violence, it can theft, deception, fraud, etc.., any action which imposes your will upon another peaceful person in violation of their life, liberty or property. ONCE AGAIN it doesn't preclude self-defense (of life, liberty or property) or the defense of others and it doesn't preclude using physical violence in such defense.

Absolute pacifism eschews violence under any circumstance.

See the difference?

… and neither of those concepts is a dependent of or dependent on anarchism.

Swis, swish, swish.

Swish. I know what NAP is, you don't. No, it's not pacifism. I mean duh.

Swish. I said you were at work when I killed your family because had you been home you could have defended them. That sailed right over your head.

What you don't understand is there is no revenge violence in NAP.

What you don't understand is that in your extreme scenario revenge doesn't enter into the equation since by your actions you've proven you're a direct threat to the lives of other peaceful people therefore there is a moral justification for the use of force to remove that threat in the defense of society. The NAP doesn't preclude self-defense or the defense of others and it also doesn't preclude COMMON SENSE.

...and thus once again you demonstrate you don't understand the NAP.

Anarchists believe people will submit to voluntary arbitration. I killed your family, the community will pressure me to give in to arbitration.

That's called absolute pacifist, eschewing violence under any circumstances and no not all flavors of anarchism believe in such an approach.

That's why I keep saying NAP is anarchy.

You keep saying the NAP is anarchy because you clearly don't understand what either concept entails.

We want to minimize aggression, but not eliminate it

Why would any moral person want aggression at all? Do you not understand what aggression in the context of the non-aggression principle means? Even though I've explained it ad nauseum to you?

Perhaps you should take some time to reflect upon what I've said instead of continuing to demonstrate a stubborn insistence on maintaining a shallow understanding of what the concepts actually mean.

In any case, you'll either do some reflection and perhaps some more research and come to a greater understanding or you'll choose to remain willfully ignorant. I've explained the differences to you down to the lowest common denominator and am not willing to spend any additional effort going down lower.

Au revoir

 

[kaz]

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Er...um....call the police and have them arrest you since your actions have made it clear that you are a danger to the life, liberty and property of others, if there is no police force I'd take matters into my own hands for the same reason. You don't appear to understand the non-aggression principle, once again it DOESN'T preclude self defense or the defense of others.

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

LOL, I never claimed to be an anarchist but I do know what anarchism is and why it's an independent concept from the non-aggression principle, nice attempt at straw man construction though.

Exactly, youd ignore NAP

You obviously don't understand the non-aggression principle and seem to have it confused with absolute pacifism ; they're not the same thing.

The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force against another peaceful person(s), force is not limited to physical violence, it can theft, deception, fraud, etc.., any action which imposes your will upon another peaceful person in violation of their life, liberty or property. ONCE AGAIN it doesn't preclude self-defense (of life, liberty or property) or the defense of others and it doesn't preclude using physical violence in such defense.

Absolute pacifism eschews violence under any circumstance.

See the difference?

… and neither of those concepts is a dependent of or dependent on anarchism.

Swis, swish, swish.

Swish. I know what NAP is, you don't. No, it's not pacifism. I mean duh.

Swish. I said you were at work when I killed your family because had you been home you could have defended them. That sailed right over your head.

What you don't understand is there is no revenge violence in NAP.

What you don't understand is that in your extreme scenario revenge doesn't enter into the equation since by your actions you've proven you're a direct threat to the lives of other peaceful people therefore there is a moral justification for the use of force to remove that threat in the defense of society. The NAP doesn't preclude self-defense or the defense of others and it also doesn't preclude COMMON SENSE.

...and thus once again you demonstrate you don't understand the NAP.

Anarchists believe people will submit to voluntary arbitration. I killed your family, the community will pressure me to give in to arbitration.

That's called absolute pacifist, eschewing violence under any circumstances and no not all flavors of anarchism believe in such an approach.

That's why I keep saying NAP is anarchy.

You keep saying the NAP is anarchy because you clearly don't understand what either concept entails.

We want to minimize aggression, but not eliminate it

Why would any moral person want aggression at all? Do you not understand what aggression in the context of the non-aggression principle means? Even though I've explained it ad nauseum to you?

Perhaps you should take some time to reflect upon what I've said instead of continuing to demonstrate a stubborn insistence on maintaining a shallow understanding of what the concepts actually mean.

In any case, you'll either do some reflection and perhaps some more research and come to a greater understanding or you'll choose to remain willfully ignorant. I've explained the differences to you down to the lowest common denominator and am not willing to spend any additional effort going down lower.

Au revoir

If you want to make up your own definitions, thats fine. But make up ypur own terms to go with them so you dont just sound like you dont know what the hell you're talking about like you do now

 

[kaz]

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Er...um....call the police and have them arrest you since your actions have made it clear that you are a danger to the life, liberty and property of others, if there is no police force I'd take matters into my own hands for the same reason. You don't appear to understand the non-aggression principle, once again it DOESN'T preclude self defense or the defense of others.

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

LOL, I never claimed to be an anarchist but I do know what anarchism is and why it's an independent concept from the non-aggression principle, nice attempt at straw man construction though.

Exactly, youd ignore NAP

You obviously don't understand the non-aggression principle and seem to have it confused with absolute pacifism ; they're not the same thing.

The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force against another peaceful person(s), force is not limited to physical violence, it can theft, deception, fraud, etc.., any action which imposes your will upon another peaceful person in violation of their life, liberty or property. ONCE AGAIN it doesn't preclude self-defense (of life, liberty or property) or the defense of others and it doesn't preclude using physical violence in such defense.

Absolute pacifism eschews violence under any circumstance.

See the difference?

… and neither of those concepts is a dependent of or dependent on anarchism.

Swis, swish, swish.

Swish. I know what NAP is, you don't. No, it's not pacifism. I mean duh.

Swish. I said you were at work when I killed your family because had you been home you could have defended them. That sailed right over your head.

What you don't understand is there is no revenge violence in NAP.

What you don't understand is that in your extreme scenario revenge doesn't enter into the equation since by your actions you've proven you're a direct threat to the lives of other peaceful people therefore there is a moral justification for the use of force to remove that threat in the defense of society. The NAP doesn't preclude self-defense or the defense of others and it also doesn't preclude COMMON SENSE.

...and thus once again you demonstrate you don't understand the NAP.

That you think NAP involves common sense proves you don't understand it. Yes, that is common sense, no, it's not NAP.

In NAP, there are no preemptive acts of aggression to prevent aggression. You can only use violence to stop actual aggression. How do you possibly not know that considering how much you talk about NAP?

Anarchists believe people will submit to voluntary arbitration. I killed your family, the community will pressure me to give in to arbitration.

That's called absolute pacifist, eschewing violence under any circumstances and no not all flavors of anarchism believe in such an approach

Wrong again. Again, you can commit violence to stop aggression. Which is for the third time WHY I KILLED YOUR FAMILY WHEN YOU WERE AT WORK. Jesus, here's a dollar. Buy a clue

That's why I keep saying NAP is anarchy.

You keep saying the NAP is anarchy because you clearly don't understand what either concept entails.

You've repeatedly proven that you don't

We want to minimize aggression, but not eliminate it

Why would any moral person want aggression at all? Do you not understand what aggression in the context of the non-aggression principle means? Even though I've explained it ad nauseum to you?

Perhaps you should take some time to reflect upon what I've said instead of continuing to demonstrate a stubborn insistence on maintaining a shallow understanding of what the concepts actually mean.

In any case, you'll either do some reflection and perhaps some more research and come to a greater understanding or you'll choose to remain willfully ignorant. I've explained the differences to you down to the lowest common denominator and am not willing to spend any additional effort going down lower.

Au revoir

You answered that yourself when you admitted that you'd go after me for killing your family