The essence of collectivism is force. The essence of libertarianism is choice.

[peter]

Socialism (or collectivism) was always about it - it forces wealthy minority to give money to the poor.

 

[JBeukema]

So anyone not advocating anarchy is a socialist?

You want libertarianism/anarchy? Go to Somalia.

 

[manifold]

Morons who bitch about limiting liberty for the common good should move to Somalia and leave the civilized world the fuck alone with their idiotic bullshit.

Anarchy doesn't work and people like having laws, educational systems, and a government capable of enforcing such laws as mandatory transparency in economic systems, food and work environment safety regulations, and laws outlawing rape and murder. You want total liberty? Go to Somalia see just how great the libertarian pipedream really is.

Nice red herring.


I don't know anyone advocating anarchy.

The OP and this entire thread- and a number of posts in other threads- is all about attacking all cooperation as tyranny

Methinks you are reading far more into the posts of others than is actually there.

I could be wrong about that I suppose, but I doubt it.

 

[JBeukema]

cooperation =/= force

libertarianism is all about force, as there is only one way for one to thrive in the libertarian fantasy land. One can't even work with others to protect eachother or work together to build shelter or gain food- because that would working collectively for the collective good of those involved. That'd be collectivism- that'd be evil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The OP and this entire thread- and a number of posts in other threads- is all about attacking all cooperation as tyranny

Cooperation is one thing, but constrianing choice by social contract is not cooperation. If I do not personally negotiate and agree to every single term of that contract it is tyranny.

 

[Oddball]

The OP and this entire thread- and a number of posts in other threads- is all about attacking all cooperation as tyranny

Who was advocating anarcy....try quoting the moment they advocated it if you dont mind.

That one of the problems people have with Libertarianism. Many think it's anarchy, which of course is wrong. The whole idea of collectivism sounds great and maybe one day we'll all march in lock-step with one-another and like it, but the loss of individuality that comes with it is just too high a price to pay IMO.

Actually, the "anarchy" charge is the favorite red herring of the committed collectivist authoritarian, like JBolshevik.

Libertarianism recognizes a marginal value and utility to collectivizing actions that wouldn't necessarily be unlawful for the individual to take -- i.e. use of force to protect one's person and property.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Morons who bitch about limiting liberty for the common good should move to Somalia and leave the civilized world the fuck alone with their idiotic bullshit.

Anarchy doesn't work and people like having laws, educational systems, and a government capable of enforcing such laws as mandatory transparency in economic systems, food and work environment safety regulations, and laws outlawing rape and murder. You want total liberty? Go to Somalia see just how great the libertarian pipedream really is.

If you think the common good is more important than liberty why don't you move to China?

Because China is about oligarchy and the supremacy of the Party in power while the common People suffer... any more stupid questions?

How is my question any more stupid than the suggestion that I move to Somalia? Just because other people making my decisions for me does not mean I advocate anarchy.

 

[manifold]

cooperation =/= force

libertarianism is all about force, as there is only one way for one to thrive in the libertarian fantasy land. One can't even work with others to protect eachother or work together to build shelter or gain food- because that would working collectively for the collective good of those involved. That'd be collectivism- that'd be evil.

psst, you're really betraying your ignorance of libertarian philosophy.

Just sayin...

 

[JBeukema]

The OP and this entire thread- and a number of posts in other threads- is all about attacking all cooperation as tyranny

Cooperation is one thing, but constrianing choice by social contract is not cooperation. If I do not personally negotiate and agree to every single term of that contract it is tyranny.

Cooperation is social contract by definition.

You have agreed to the social contract by your willing participation in society. Should you desire to change the terms of the social contract [that is to change the character of society and its laws and customs] there are ways to do it.

You can change society norms and ethics by spreading your views among those around you. You can change its formal nature by changing the law in accordance with the social contract [eg: amending the Constitution to change the form of the common government of the union]. You can choose to associate with those sub-societies with which you please and to not associate with those you want nothing to do with. You can relocate to those areas where your views predominate and change society in a accordance with your views while allowing others to do the same [hence the distinct States]. If you wholly disagree with the nature of society, you are free to leave [eg: become a hermit] and join into a social contract with those who share your views and have formed the system you desire [immigration to another nation] or to a region [Somalia] where you can lie out your libertarian pipedream of no police, no laws, no true infrastructure, and total chaos where you are free to live like an animal, fighting tooth and nail for survival and being left to your own devices when accosted or otherwise wronged.

 

[JBeukema]

Libertarianism recognizes a marginal value and utility to collectivizing actions that wouldn't necessarily be unlawful for the individual to take

Until they pass a law against it. To be Laws, there must be a State to pass and enforce them. Now you're dealing with a collective.


Libertarianism is anarchy and is impossible.

 

[JBeukema]

cooperation =/= force

libertarianism is all about force, as there is only one way for one to thrive in the libertarian fantasy land. One can't even work with others to protect eachother or work together to build shelter or gain food- because that would working collectively for the collective good of those involved. That'd be collectivism- that'd be evil.

psst, you're really betraying your ignorance of libertarian philosophy.

Just sayin...

Boiled down to its true nature, libertarianism is nothing but the infantile screams of a child decrying the idea that he can't write his own rules for himself and that others might seek to hold him to any standard.

The libertarian decries government yet still wants a police force. He demands that he be held to no laws or rules he himself does not right yet seeks to impose his rules on those who file the same objection. He cannot tell us where the roads will come from yet insists that his is the path to the future. He pretends to decry rape and murder yet despises the law and the State necessary for a police force and a just court system to ensure a peacable and just society. He demands that we become a society lacking meaningful government capable of enforcing Law yet refuses to so much as visit a nation where his vision can be seen. He claims that a man's own morality and religion guide him and that he be bound only by the laws to which he has personally agreed yet scoffs at the idea of setting foot near any such area as follows precisely that example.

Somalia is the result of the very principles the libertairan espouses as the basis for his fantasy Utopia, yet he refuses to set foot in the world he would create.

 

[JBeukema]

libertarians are but anarchists in denial and thugs in disguise

 

[Quantum Windbag]

cooperation =/= force

libertarianism is all about force, as there is only one way for one to thrive in the libertarian fantasy land. One can't even work with others to protect eachother or work together to build shelter or gain food- because that would working collectively for the collective good of those involved. That'd be collectivism- that'd be evil.

Ever here of the Nash Equilibrium? Even libertarians understand that cooperating with someone else is generally better than fighting with everyone. we just insist that everyone gets the free choice to cooperate.

 

[JBeukema]

And you have that choice as it is. You can vote to change things, you can go to the mountains, or you can emigrate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cooperation is social contract by definition.

You have agreed to the social contract by your willing participation in society. Should you desire to change the terms of the social contract [that is to change the character of society and its laws and customs] there are ways to do it.

You can change society norms and ethics by spreading your views among those around you. You can change its formal nature by changing the law in accordance with the social contract [eg: amending the Constitution to change the form of the common government of the union]. You can choose to associate with those sub-societies with which you please and to not associate with those you want nothing to do with. You can relocate to those areas where your views predominate and change society in a accordance with your views while allowing others to do the same [hence the distinct States]. If you wholly disagree with the nature of society, you are free to leave [eg: become a hermit] and join into a social contract with those who share your views and have formed the system you desire [immigration to another nation] or to a region [Somalia] where you can lie out your libertarian pipedream of no police, no laws, no true infrastructure, and total chaos where you are free to live like an animal, fighting tooth and nail for survival and being left to your own devices when accosted or otherwise wronged.

When someone starts talking about the greater good they are not talking about cooperation. Slavery was for the greater good, it gave those poor ignorant savages the benefits of civilization, at the expense of their freedom. As I have said before, government is necessary. That does not mean that government is always right, even if most of the people support it. I have another option.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Choice constrained is force. Taking away my choices before I get a chance to make them is no different than telling me what to do.

Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.

We have laws against shoplifting; we have laws against racial discrimination. Shoplifting generally does less harm.

Does that mean laws against shoplifting are less justified than laws against racial discrimination?

 

[The T]

Choice constrained is force. Taking away my choices before I get a chance to make them is no different than telling me what to do.

Agreed. It sets true Liberty on it's 'collective ear'.

 

[ihopehefails]

I'm amazed that people seem to think that the social agreement that they like is so great when it can be used for great evil. The NAZIs socially agreed that Jews had no right to live but did that make it true? According to those who think that our rights come from some kind of social agreement it does.

 

[ihopehefails]

cooperation =/= force

libertarianism is all about force, as there is only one way for one to thrive in the libertarian fantasy land. One can't even work with others to protect eachother or work together to build shelter or gain food- because that would working collectively for the collective good of those involved. That'd be collectivism- that'd be evil.

psst, you're really betraying your ignorance of libertarian philosophy.

Just sayin...

Boiled down to its true nature, libertarianism is nothing but the infantile screams of a child decrying the idea that he can't write his own rules for himself and that others might seek to hold him to any standard.

The libertarian decries government yet still wants a police force. He demands that he be held to no laws or rules he himself does not right yet seeks to impose his rules on those who file the same objection. He cannot tell us where the roads will come from yet insists that his is the path to the future. He pretends to decry rape and murder yet despises the law and the State necessary for a police force and a just court system to ensure a peacable and just society. He demands that we become a society lacking meaningful government capable of enforcing Law yet refuses to so much as visit a nation where his vision can be seen. He claims that a man's own morality and religion guide him and that he be bound only by the laws to which he has personally agreed yet scoffs at the idea of setting foot near any such area as follows precisely that example.

Somalia is the result of the very principles the libertairan espouses as the basis for his fantasy Utopia, yet he refuses to set foot in the world he would create.

If a person can't write their own rules then who is? Other people get to decide what gets done for them which is nothing more than slavery. Why do you support slavery?

 

[ihopehefails]

The OP and this entire thread- and a number of posts in other threads- is all about attacking all cooperation as tyranny

Who was advocating anarcy....try quoting the moment they advocated it if you dont mind.

That one of the problems people have with Libertarianism. Many think it's anarchy, which of course is wrong. The whole idea of collectivism sounds great and maybe one day we'll all march in lock-step with one-another and like it, but the loss of individuality that comes with it is just too high a price to pay IMO.

What people forget is that right of property of every individual establishes a whole list of 'can't dos' such as you can't murder my body, rape it, own it, or decide what I do with it. You can't decide what I do with my land, home, car, and anything else I own. Those 'can't dos' when respected by other people are like laws but laws that exist naturally because they are born out of people's inalienable rights. Human beings can't respect the property of others naturally as is easily observable by so many 'liberal' and thieves that occur in society. Its a moral defect in humanity that prevents us from living in our free state so the government, in order to maintain that free state, has to protect life and property of each person. Since government is formed for this purpose then any government that violates the property of the people aka their rights is a failure.

That is just my two cents....