Pseudo-libertarianism comes in two basic types. Here's an example of one type

[Seymour Flops]

I'm going to use one poster, Curried Goats as an example. I hope you won't consider it a "call out" thread. I'm making a thread to debate something he said that I thought would take a post about trannies getting drafted off of that important topic.

Having been challenged by another poster to defend his claim of being libertarian and not anarchist he said:

Nope. It's pretty much in line with libertarian philosophy. Bastiat said of the Law that it was the "collective organization of the individual right to self defense" and that if any collective law strayed beyond that which an individual had a right to do then the Law exceeded its purpose.

Asked if he supported "enFORCEing" laws (since libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle) he answered

I do. Laws that are consistent with the use of force for self defense.

Ok, that is the liberatarian take. Police can arrest murderers and robbers and burglars, because, absent police, we could kill those bad actors in self-defense. Arresting them on our behalf is a lessor action we can legitimately authorized police to do.

Good, so far.

Challenged again, he said:

Yep. To put it more clearly I believe that force is only justified, even collectively, when it is a collective organization of what would be an individual right to self defense.

My libertarian heart sang. Then it sank.

Because asked about taxation, regulation of labor, regulation of food and water standards, mandatory public education, personal, physical, or real property, marriage or adoption, or discrimination based on race or religion or gender, his answer was:

The force doesn't come into play in negotiating how to run a society, it comes in when you break the laws. You're not forced to pay taxes unless you choose to own property or engage in commerce, rather than barter, regulation of food and water, i.e. protecting it from contamination falls under defense, as does labor, denying your children education is harmful, I'm not sure what force you're implying with marriage laws other than holding you to a contract you willingly entered into, zoning and traffic laws also ensure safety. What else am I missing?

What he missed was libertarianism.

This supposed loophole that government can be libertarian and yet regulate every aspect of your life that deals with commerce, protection, education, and all the other aspects of civilization because you choose to engage in those things, makes any idea of non-aggression a farce. What it says is that you can be libertarian and not be aggressed upon by government as long as you are willing to move far away from people and live like an animal.

But libertarianism is for humans, not animals. Bands of monkeys are not free, because freedom implies options and monkeys don't know that they have options.

Government is not a necessry ingredient for human activity and interacton. In North America we saw that time and again in our history until our frontiers were finally "closed," meaning completely under control of government.

When the Pilgrims came to America, they brought farm tools and personal weapons, not stacks of law books, an army, and a well staffed bureaucracy. Some thrived, some did not, but government did not take any interest in America until she started to turn a profit. Then as usual, government arrived to cash in.

Taking taxes by force is no part of self-defense. Forcing parents to send their children to school or to gender reassignment therapy is nothing to do with self-defense. Neither would forcing parents to send their children to gay conversion therapy, not matter how important that particular community thought it would be to help kids stop being gay. The idea that parents harm their children by not sending them to government schools has to be the least libertarian idea I read today.

There is an argument to be made that a government funded by taxes collected at gunpoint is a net benefit to humanity, with the real benefit of the protection and regulation it provides outweighing the less tangible and more theoretical benefit of freedom. Make that argument and I'll be happy to debate it with anyone.

But don't say that arguement is a libertarian argument in line with the non-aggression principle, because that is objectively incorrect.

 

[pknopp]

Libertarians are not anti-government. They just believe in a government no bigger than it needs to be. Libertarians still understand that has to be paid for.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I'm going to use one poster, Curried Goats as an example. I hope you won't consider it a "call out" thread. I'm making a thread to debate something he said that I thought would take a post about trannies getting drafted off of that important topic.

Having been challenged by another poster to defend his claim of being libertarian and not anarchist he said:


Asked if he supported "enFORCEing" laws (since libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle) he answered

Ok, that is the liberatarian take. Police can arrest murderers and robbers and burglars, because, absent police, we could kill those bad actors in self-defense. Arresting them on our behalf is a lessor action we can legitimately authorized police to do.

Good, so far.

Challenged again, he said:



My libertarian heart sang. Then it sank.

Because asked about taxation, regulation of labor, regulation of food and water standards, mandatory public education, personal, physical, or real property, marriage or adoption, or discrimination based on race or religion or gender, his answer was:


What he missed was libertarianism.

This supposed loophole that government can be libertarian and yet regulate every aspect of your life that deals with commerce, protection, education, and all the other aspects of civilization because you choose to engage in those things, makes any idea of non-aggression a farce. What it says is that you can be libertarian and not be aggressed upon by government as long as you are willing to move far away from people and live like an animal.

But libertarianism is for humans, not animals. Bands of monkeys are not free, because freedom implies options and monkeys don't know that they have options.

Government is not a necessry ingredient for human activity and interacton. In North America we saw that time and again in our history until our frontiers were finally "closed," meaning completely under control of government.

When the Pilgrims came to America, they brought farm tools and personal weapons, not stacks of law books, an army, and a well staffed bureaucracy. Some thrived, some did not, but government did not take any interest in America until she started to turn a profit. Then as usual, government arrived to cash in.

Taking taxes by force is no part of self-defense. Forcing parents to send their children to school or to gender reassignment therapy is nothing to do with self-defense. Neither would forcing parents to send their children to gay conversion therapy, not matter how important that particular community thought it would be to help kids stop being gay. The idea that parents harm their children by not sending them to government schools has to be the least libertarian idea I read today.

There is an argument to be made that a government funded by taxes collected at gunpoint is a net benefit to humanity, with the real benefit of the protection and regulation it provides outweighing the less tangible and more theoretical benefit of freedom. Make that argument and I'll be happy to debate it with anyone.

But don't say that arguement is a libertarian argument in line with the non-aggression principle, because that is objectively incorrect.

There are varying degrees of ALL ideologies. The basic definitions of all are essentially the extreme and purist definition. One applies themselves on a continuum based on an issue.

For instance, I'm pro-choice, but this doesn't mean I don't believe there is a point in which a seed is now a human being. Once that point is reached, that child must be defended since it cannot defend itself.

Ditto for taxes. I'm not against taxation or even distrubution of wealth. It has to be reasonable and accountable though. Taxing the middle class to enrich the Donor Class to me is a derilect of duty and should follow with consequences.

 

[fncceo]

Libertarians are not anti-government. They just believe in a government no bigger than it needs to be. Libertarians still understand that has to be paid for.

But, when you keep piling food on my plate that I didn't order ... there's going to be a problem when you give me the check.

 

[pknopp]

But, when you keep piling food on my plate that I didn't order ... there's going to be a problem when you give me the check.

That's where the no larger than absolutely necessary comes in.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Libertarians are not anti-government. They just believe in a government no bigger than it needs to be. Libertarians still understand that has to be paid for.

Any government no bigger than it needs to be can easily be paid for voluntarily, though usage fees, service fees and tolls.

The behemoth government that we now find ourselves with must be paid for at the point of many guns.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There are varying degrees of ALL ideologies. The basic definitions of all are essentially the extreme and purist definition. One the applies themselves on a continuum based on an issue.

For instance, I'm pro-choice, but this doesn't mean I don't believe there is a point in which a seed is now a human being. Once that point is reached, that child must be defended since it cannot defend itself.

Ditto for taxes. I'm not against taxation or even distrubution of wealth. It has to be reasonable and accountable though. Taxing the middle class to enrich the Donor Class to me is a derilect of duty and should follow with consequences.

Yes, there are varying degrees. A person can call himself a libertarian by advocating shrinking government and putting the federal government back in the business of only doing what the constitution authorizes it to do. That would shrink government by about ninety percent, if not far more.

But Curried advocated the more purely libertarian argument of no government force except as an expression of the collective right to self-defense. Then preceded to justify all kinds of government force having nothing to do with self-defense whatsoever.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Any government no bigger than it needs to be can easily be paid for voluntarily, though usage fees, service fees and tolls.

The behemoth government that we now find ourselves with must be paid for at the point of many guns.

Errr, you lost me now. You may have stumbled into the wrong party.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Errr, you lost me now. You may have stumbled into the wrong party.

It's my party, dude. I din't invite any ferners.

 

[pknopp]

Any government no bigger than it needs to be can easily be paid for voluntarily, though usage fees, service fees and tolls.

Probably not. It's also incredibly inefficient. No one wants to stop at every bridge to pay a toll.

The behemoth government that we now find ourselves with must be paid for at the point of many guns.

No argument from me that it is too large.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Probably not. It's also incredibly inefficient. No one wants to stop at every bridge to pay a toll.

That used to be valid argument. But I pay tolls twice a day using my "EZ Tag," which is a Harris County, Texas electronic method of collecting tolls. Goes directly to the government organization that maintains the Beltway 8 bridge over the Ship Channel (also known as "Chip Shannel." Much more efficient than a gas tax requiring each gas station to maintain records, and pay quarterly to various governments.

No argument from me that it is too large.

 

[pknopp]

That used to be valid argument. But I pay tolls twice a day using my "EZ Tag," which is a Harris County, Texas electronic method of collecting tolls. Goes directly to the government organization that maintains the Beltway 8 bridge over the Ship Channel (also known as "Chip Shannel." Much more efficient than a gas tax requiring each gas station to maintain records, and pay quarterly to various governments.

My wife will be pissed when she has to enter a debit every time I cross a bridge.

All the same, it's still a tax. A tax is a tax is a tax regardless how you pay it.

 

[whitehall]

Most libertarians these days are democrats with a conscience.

 

[Seymour Flops]

My wife will be pissed when she has to enter a debit every time I cross a bridge.

They take $40 dollars at a time from my account. I budget $80 per month and it's less trouble to keep track of than my light bill.

All the same, it's still a tax. A tax is a tax is a tax regardless how you pay it.

It isn't a tax. Taxes are taken by force, this is voluntary. I didn't even have to get a tag. I could drive around the bridge on the "free" streets.

The "free" streets could actually be paid for by the tolls on the bridges, and toll roads, but the country skims money from that for other things. That would be a non-regressive tax because poor people don't need to drive to work.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

But, when you keep piling food on my plate that I didn't order ... there's going to be a problem when you give me the check.

Off the People, Buy the People, Force the People

That's the tyranny of a republic. In that elitist scheme, we aren't delegated to order the government to do anything, so you shouldn't complain if this Constitutionalist government doesn't care if you want what they are empowered to give you or don't.

 

[pknopp]

They take $40 dollars at a time from my account. I budget $80 per month and it's less trouble to keep track of than my light bill.

It isn't a tax. Taxes are taken by force, this is voluntary. I didn't even have to get a tag. I could drive around the bridge on the "free" streets.

There is no such thing. They have to be paid for.

The "free" streets could actually be paid for by the tolls on the bridges, and toll roads, but the country skims money from that for other things. That would be a non-regressive tax because poor people don't need to drive to work.

Of course they do.

 

[Curried Goats]

This seems like it's going about as well as in expected for you Seymour Flops.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The behemoth government that we now find ourselves with must be paid for at the point of many guns.

Private-Sector Statism

You don't mean that literally, which leaves me an opening to point out that the Libertarian ideal uses force in the same metaphorical way, through plutocratic control of the options they choose for us out of their own self-interest or what they think is their self-interest in Stalinist complete control.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This seems like it's going about as well as in expected for you Seymour Flops.

For you to hide from it except to make childish comments like that?

Yes, that is how I expected you to react.

I didn't expect a "libertarian defense of mandatory tax-funded education."

 

[Seymour Flops]

Private-Sector Statism

You don't mean that literally,

Literally, guns are not pointed at us every day, but the guns are implied in every act of taxation.

Some grandmotherly CPA at the IRS who sends me a letter telling me that I was seventeen dollars short in my last tax calculation, may not fully understand this, but her letter drips with gun oil, and reeks of potasium nitrate and sulfer.

Sooner or later, they will come for my possessions and if I try to defend them, which would be my right against any other robber, they will not hesitate to shoot me.

IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent

WE’RE HIRING SPECIAL AGENTS NOW! Click here to apply today! Who are we? Criminal Investigation (CI) is the law enforcement branch of the IRS. Our mission is to serve the American public by investigating potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, and related financial crimes, in...

web.archive.org

which leaves me an opening to point out that the Libertarian ideal uses force in the same metaphorical way, through plutocratic control of the options they choose for us out of their own self-interest or what they think is their self-interest in Stalinist complete control.

Examples?