The question libertarians just can’t answer

[FA_Q2]

A private police force would be better because it would have the profit motive to incentivize it to do a good job. Public police forces have no such incentive, and thus can essentially get away with doing whatever they want. That's why there is so much police abuse.

I'm not referring to volunteer fire departments, I'm referring to actual private for profit fire departments.



https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/

Thank you for the link to the fire department. I can see that as working somewhat though there might still need to be a communal funding element in order for that business to fight a fire on land that is not owned. Essentially, what is the motive for them to put out a fire that is raging across a forest that no one owns/upkeeps or cares about? Eventually it could threaten a thousand homes but once it does, then it is too late. Even in the link, that company is paid by the government for those cases. I will have to think on that further. Thank you for giving me something to chew on.

As for the police, profit motive is not the best way of going about this though. I agree that in any voluntary exchange of goods, profit motive is not only strong but the best way of offering a variety of service with the best efficiency. We are not talking about a good here though. Instead we are talking about your freedom and rights. That is what the police do; they enforce those rights through law. When the police (and all this is equally applicable to courts) are for sale than your rights are also for sale. What makes you think that the police will not simply look away when their best customer decides to take a few slaves or murder an enemy? Sure, you can buy off the cops now as well but that is not easy or reasonable on a mass scale. When you privatize the protection of rights you remove that protection altogether in my eyes. Those rights are non-negotiable and the ONE charge that government has is to protect them. If you are going to remove that duty then just remove government, it will not have a purpose after that.

There would be competing security agencies, however. If one won't do their job, or is corrupt or what have you, then another will come along and put the first out of business.

Competing agencies do not solve the basic problem that I pointed out through – the ability for one who has the money to simply buy them off. The profit motive, if anything, increases this danger. As I stated, I am not ready to accept that my liberties are at the whims of a paid off cop. There is stock in the free market but it DOES NOT extend to the protection of rights.

If you are willing to leave the protection, enforcement and in general your liberty to a paid company, why have government at all? What purpose does that government even serve now?

 

[FA_Q2]

But you see--and I am drawing subjective and personal assumptions here so please forgive me for that--I hear you say that and it says to me that you are refusing the see the larger picture or any concept other than your absolute position on this.

That Mexican flag might cause some potential buyers to look elsewhere but that would be due to individual prejudice and could jut as easily attract other buyers. But if all your neighbors keep up their property and maintain the aesthetic beauty of the area, and your property, in plain sight of everybody else has the junked cars on blocks in the front yard, is in disrepair, weeds growing up everywhere, and is an enormous eyesore, that can affect everybody's property values. But you would not agree to a social contract that would set some standards that would protect everybody's property values, including yours?

I would not agree to a "social contract" per se that implicitly forces people to conform their property to a certain degree whether they agree to it or not, but I would certainly agree to an explicit contract, such as exist in gated communities, that forces people to maintain a certain standard and enforces certain explicitly agreed upon rules. Absent such an explicit, voluntary contract that is signed before a person takes possession of their property then no. If no such actual physical contract exists then I see no basis for anybody to complain about anybody else's property on the basis of subjective values.

Well each to their own. But I sure hope I never buy into a neighborhood with people who think like you do.

Why? An explicit contract seems to be exactly what you are looking for. A homeowners association if you will.

 

[kaz]

Thank you for the link to the fire department. I can see that as working somewhat though there might still need to be a communal funding element in order for that business to fight a fire on land that is not owned. Essentially, what is the motive for them to put out a fire that is raging across a forest that no one owns/upkeeps or cares about? Eventually it could threaten a thousand homes but once it does, then it is too late. Even in the link, that company is paid by the government for those cases. I will have to think on that further. Thank you for giving me something to chew on.

As for the police, profit motive is not the best way of going about this though. I agree that in any voluntary exchange of goods, profit motive is not only strong but the best way of offering a variety of service with the best efficiency. We are not talking about a good here though. Instead we are talking about your freedom and rights. That is what the police do; they enforce those rights through law. When the police (and all this is equally applicable to courts) are for sale than your rights are also for sale. What makes you think that the police will not simply look away when their best customer decides to take a few slaves or murder an enemy? Sure, you can buy off the cops now as well but that is not easy or reasonable on a mass scale. When you privatize the protection of rights you remove that protection altogether in my eyes. Those rights are non-negotiable and the ONE charge that government has is to protect them. If you are going to remove that duty then just remove government, it will not have a purpose after that.

There would be competing security agencies, however. If one won't do their job, or is corrupt or what have you, then another will come along and put the first out of business.

Competing agencies do not solve the basic problem that I pointed out through – the ability for one who has the money to simply buy them off. The profit motive, if anything, increases this danger. As I stated, I am not ready to accept that my liberties are at the whims of a paid off cop. There is stock in the free market but it DOES NOT extend to the protection of rights.

If you are willing to leave the protection, enforcement and in general your liberty to a paid company, why have government at all? What purpose does that government even serve now?

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

 

[FA_Q2]

Inner city ghettos are a result of government interference in the first place. Allow these people to contract for real jobs without punishing them with minimum wage laws, or drug laws, and suddenly they have no reason to resort to violence. That said, there's no reason private security agencies, who have a profit motive to keep you and your property safe, would do any worse than police departments now, who don't have such a motive. Other than your little "Bonanza" quip, of course.

Here we go again. "Private fire departments aren't realistic in big cities." Why?

When there's a disagreement about property rights you go to the courts. Obviously.

It would be in everybody's interest to defend themselves in legitimate, reputable courts, lest they be branded criminals. Courts wouldn't require that you show up and defend yourself, but not doing so seems particularly foolhardy.

Responsible bounty hunters would only go through reputable bounty agencies. Otherwise they risk becoming criminals themselves.

No, you merely shoot down any explanation as not being "realistic" or as being "Bonanza" without explaining why they wouldn't work.

I don’t see where a private police force would be any better than the existing one. That type of service, the enforcement of the law, is right up the governments ally. It is exactly why the government exists. Same goes with private courts. That is a terrible example by the way as arbitration is corrupt as hell. Many companies require arbitration in their contracts because they KNOW that arbitration will go their way. That is not because they are in the right but because they have bought that service. A private police and court system would be no different than that with the biggest payer calling the shots. When it comes to the law, we must try as hard as possible to make it as blind as we can. That essentially requires a public system. One that is ran at the local lever preferably. I also do not see how they would perform any better. I don’t find that communal things like police are any violation of libertarian principals anyway. There is no reason that they are not run by the local governments as well.

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

As a side note: volunteer fire departments are a misnomer AFAIK. They are STILL publically funded. The fireman might not be paid but they still need to okay for the building, the trucks, maintenance and a host of equipment. There is no example of an actual fire department that is not currently dependent on government funds. If that is not the case, please link to one that has all volunteer force AND all donated equipment. The pay after model is also untenable. It is one of the problems that is faced in the medical world. If you do not turn people away, they are going to use the service and not pay for it. What do you do then? Go out of business.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

It is amazing how much these libertarians sound like conservatives. They are NOT classical liberals. And conservatism is all about creating an aristocracy. A hierarchy of some form. Today it would be a plutocracy. A return to the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the Pinkertons, the hired thugs.

Nothing about libertarianism is about creating aristocracy. Where are you getting this. Nothing in your little story has anything to do with libertarianism at all. It does not advocate violence or abandon collective bargaining. It embraces that actually. You are free to do as you wish and that includes working with your coworkers to gain an advantage if you so choose.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thank you for the link to the fire department. I can see that as working somewhat though there might still need to be a communal funding element in order for that business to fight a fire on land that is not owned. Essentially, what is the motive for them to put out a fire that is raging across a forest that no one owns/upkeeps or cares about? Eventually it could threaten a thousand homes but once it does, then it is too late. Even in the link, that company is paid by the government for those cases. I will have to think on that further. Thank you for giving me something to chew on.

As for the police, profit motive is not the best way of going about this though. I agree that in any voluntary exchange of goods, profit motive is not only strong but the best way of offering a variety of service with the best efficiency. We are not talking about a good here though. Instead we are talking about your freedom and rights. That is what the police do; they enforce those rights through law. When the police (and all this is equally applicable to courts) are for sale than your rights are also for sale. What makes you think that the police will not simply look away when their best customer decides to take a few slaves or murder an enemy? Sure, you can buy off the cops now as well but that is not easy or reasonable on a mass scale. When you privatize the protection of rights you remove that protection altogether in my eyes. Those rights are non-negotiable and the ONE charge that government has is to protect them. If you are going to remove that duty then just remove government, it will not have a purpose after that.

There would be competing security agencies, however. If one won't do their job, or is corrupt or what have you, then another will come along and put the first out of business.

Competing agencies do not solve the basic problem that I pointed out through – the ability for one who has the money to simply buy them off. The profit motive, if anything, increases this danger. As I stated, I am not ready to accept that my liberties are at the whims of a paid off cop. There is stock in the free market but it DOES NOT extend to the protection of rights.

If you are willing to leave the protection, enforcement and in general your liberty to a paid company, why have government at all? What purpose does that government even serve now?

Somebody is going to buy off every single security agency? It seems unlikely. Nor would it be all that profitable, as far as I can tell. If you're willing to sell out and essentially become hired guns for somebody, then you're not going to have any other customers.

This is not to say that there would be no abuse, of course there would. The question, however, is would competition be better than a monopoly? I think it would lead to less abuse and more efficiency, as competition always does. I see no reason why the market for security would have different principles than any other market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There would be competing security agencies, however. If one won't do their job, or is corrupt or what have you, then another will come along and put the first out of business.

Competing agencies do not solve the basic problem that I pointed out through – the ability for one who has the money to simply buy them off. The profit motive, if anything, increases this danger. As I stated, I am not ready to accept that my liberties are at the whims of a paid off cop. There is stock in the free market but it DOES NOT extend to the protection of rights.

If you are willing to leave the protection, enforcement and in general your liberty to a paid company, why have government at all? What purpose does that government even serve now?

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

So I'm not a libertarian, interesting. Are Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe also not libertarians?

 

[kaz]

It is amazing how much these libertarians sound like conservatives. They are NOT classical liberals. And conservatism is all about creating an aristocracy. A hierarchy of some form. Today it would be a plutocracy. A return to the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the Pinkertons, the hired thugs.

Nothing about libertarianism is about creating aristocracy. Where are you getting this. Nothing in your little story has anything to do with libertarianism at all. It does not advocate violence or abandon collective bargaining. It embraces that actually. You are free to do as you wish and that includes working with your coworkers to gain an advantage if you so choose.

He gets it from the Manifesto. You know, you're being oppressed by the Bourgeois, all property is the people's property, blah blah. And of course just like the Bolsheviks and the Democrats, they end up being far greater oppressors than the ones they replaced. In the end it turns out one big reason the Proletariat were the Proletariat is that they were less smart...

 

[FA_Q2]

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

I try not to waste my time telling others what they are or what they believe. I disagree with some of the positions of the libertarians here like this case and TASB on many issues but I am not going to tell them they are not libertarians. If that term does not fit him, as conservative did not fit me though I thought of myself as one for years, he will eventually change it himself. It is no more productive than telling a Christian that they are not really Christian. It does not lead to honest or even rational debate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

I try not to waste my time telling others what they are or what they believe. I disagree with some of the positions of the libertarians here like this case and TASB on many issues but I am not going to tell them they are not libertarians. If that term does not fit him, as conservative did not fit me though I thought of myself as one for years, he will eventually change it himself. It is no more productive than telling a Christian that they are not really Christian. It does not lead to honest or even rational debate.

Libertarian and anarchist are not mutually exclusive, despite whatever kaz thinks.

 

[Foxfyre]

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

Yes it does.

Quality of life is rather vague in that regard. I mean, if you adore willow trees but your neighbor is allergic to them, should you be allowed to plant them? Or is this an infringement on their quality of life?

If you work on cars and have an abundance of junkers and tires, which in turn lowers (even if only from the time of appraisal) the neighbors value, do you have the right to tell them to either clean up, leave or face fines?

If you moved into a neighborhood with the junky neighbor, I would say that legally and ethically you took that on voluntarily and have no complaint. His presence certainly won't affect your property values because they are already compromised by the existing aesthetics.

In a neighborhood where all the neighbors are compatible and all volunarily keep up their properties, there would be no need for any kind of social contract to protect property values. The occasional neighborhood grump who yells at the kids if a ball rolls onto his lawn or who complains about the kids roller skating in front of his house may diminish our enjoyment of our homes, and that is always unfortunate, but he has no obligation to make us happy and he isn't affecting our investment in our property.

But if that trashy neighbor moves in, his place is all potential buyers driving into the market are likely to see. And they are likely to tell the realtor to just keep on driving. I would. I have in fact when that was the case. Everybody's property value drops by thousands and the only folks who will likely choose to buy in that area are other trashy people. Which only bring the values down even more for those who are left.

There simply has to be a remedy that even libertarians can agree to?

As for that willow tree you're allergic to, that one is even tougher. But given the very few people who are allergic to willow trees, the willow tree will not affect everybody nor significantly harm anybody's property values. So the best course of action is to appeal to the neighbor's sense of kindness and hope he will choose a different tree. It's sort of like everybody shouldn't be required to forego peanuts because some people are allergic to them, but it would be an act of kindness not to unnecessarily expose somebody you knew was allergic.

 

[kaz]

Competing agencies do not solve the basic problem that I pointed out through – the ability for one who has the money to simply buy them off. The profit motive, if anything, increases this danger. As I stated, I am not ready to accept that my liberties are at the whims of a paid off cop. There is stock in the free market but it DOES NOT extend to the protection of rights.

If you are willing to leave the protection, enforcement and in general your liberty to a paid company, why have government at all? What purpose does that government even serve now?

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

So I'm not a libertarian, interesting. Are Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe also not libertarians?

The term anarchist or anarchno-capitalist perfectly defines your view while libertarian makes it completely muddy because people think you support limited government instead of no government, so why don't you just use the term that doesn't confuse anyone?

As to your question, they all primarily referred to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, which is actually clearly anarchist. So unlike you they were clear. I've seen you use the term, but you generally use the word libertarian, then get into confusing arguments because you just argue for anarchy.

However, anarchy doesn't maximize my liberty any more than socialism does. With socialism, at least I have the option of turning my mind off, staying out of politics and succumbing and living my life in peace. With anarchy, while the word politically means no government and not chaos, it would actually result in chaos. I'd be far too busy trying to survive and avoiding armed gangs to even try to have a stable environment to develop a home or have a family.

 

[kaz]

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

I try not to waste my time telling others what they are or what they believe

Ditto. And in fact I didn't anywhere. There has in fact been no dispute at all on that. We've argued whether anarchy would work and I'm saying anarchy doesn't maximize liberty, but no where do I tell him or have we disagreed on what he believes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

So I'm not a libertarian, interesting. Are Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe also not libertarians?

The term anarchist or anarchno-capitalist perfectly defines your view while libertarian makes it completely muddy because people think you support limited government instead of no government, so why don't you just use the term that doesn't confuse anyone?

As to your question, they all primarily referred to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, which is actually clearly anarchist. So unlike you they were clear. I've seen you use the term, but you generally use the word libertarian, then get into confusing arguments because you just argue for anarchy.

However, anarchy doesn't maximize my liberty any more than socialism does. With socialism, at least I have the option of turning my mind off, staying out of politics and succumbing and living my life in peace. With anarchy, while the word politically means no government and not chaos, it would actually result in chaos. I'd be far too busy trying to survive and avoiding armed gangs to even try to have a stable environment to develop a home or have a family.

No, they all had no issue referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but they still referred to themselves as libertarian as well. That people have a mixed up view of what being a libertarian is is not really my issue. The fact is that one can be a minarchist libertarian, or an anarchist libertarian.

But you're ducking the question. You said I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist, so is it your contention that three of the most important libertarian thinkers in history, that I've already named, aren't actually libertarians?

 

[kaz]

He is an anarchist, not a libertarian. He just likes the word. Libertarians want government the size that maximizes our liberty. Anarchists are no more libertarian than Republicans or Democrats are as they may go opposite directions, but they're ideologues who ignore that their extremes greatly diminish freedom.

I try not to waste my time telling others what they are or what they believe. I disagree with some of the positions of the libertarians here like this case and TASB on many issues but I am not going to tell them they are not libertarians. If that term does not fit him, as conservative did not fit me though I thought of myself as one for years, he will eventually change it himself. It is no more productive than telling a Christian that they are not really Christian. It does not lead to honest or even rational debate.

Libertarian and anarchist are not mutually exclusive, despite whatever kaz thinks.

I do think that, and it's my right since I'm only speaking for kaz. As for mutually exclusive:

Republicans and libertarians - agree gun ownership should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Democrats and libertarians - agree that abortion should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Anarchists and libertarians - agree that government should not forcibly confiscate and redistribute money, not mutually exclusive

So I agree with your statement, but I don't see where it gets us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I try not to waste my time telling others what they are or what they believe. I disagree with some of the positions of the libertarians here like this case and TASB on many issues but I am not going to tell them they are not libertarians. If that term does not fit him, as conservative did not fit me though I thought of myself as one for years, he will eventually change it himself. It is no more productive than telling a Christian that they are not really Christian. It does not lead to honest or even rational debate.

Libertarian and anarchist are not mutually exclusive, despite whatever kaz thinks.

I do think that, and it's my right since I'm only speaking for kaz. As for mutually exclusive:

Republicans and libertarians - agree gun ownership should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Democrats and libertarians - agree that abortion should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Anarchists and libertarians - agree that government should not forcibly confiscate and redistribute money, not mutually exclusive

So I agree with your statement, but I don't see where it gets us.

It means that one can be both a libertarian and an anarchist at the same time.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don’t see where a private police force would be any better than the existing one. That type of service, the enforcement of the law, is right up the governments ally. It is exactly why the government exists. Same goes with private courts. That is a terrible example by the way as arbitration is corrupt as hell. Many companies require arbitration in their contracts because they KNOW that arbitration will go their way. That is not because they are in the right but because they have bought that service. A private police and court system would be no different than that with the biggest payer calling the shots. When it comes to the law, we must try as hard as possible to make it as blind as we can. That essentially requires a public system. One that is ran at the local lever preferably. I also do not see how they would perform any better. I don’t find that communal things like police are any violation of libertarian principals anyway. There is no reason that they are not run by the local governments as well.

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

As a side note: volunteer fire departments are a misnomer AFAIK. They are STILL publically funded. The fireman might not be paid but they still need to okay for the building, the trucks, maintenance and a host of equipment. There is no example of an actual fire department that is not currently dependent on government funds. If that is not the case, please link to one that has all volunteer force AND all donated equipment. The pay after model is also untenable. It is one of the problems that is faced in the medical world. If you do not turn people away, they are going to use the service and not pay for it. What do you do then? Go out of business.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

It is amazing how much these libertarians sound like conservatives. They are NOT classical liberals. And conservatism is all about creating an aristocracy. A hierarchy of some form. Today it would be a plutocracy. A return to the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the Pinkertons, the hired thugs.

1892: The Homestead strike

An account of a militant strike of steel workers of the Carnegie company
in the US defending their organisation and conditions against the bosses,
the police and hired armed mercenaries.

The Robber Baron Andrew Carnegie precipitated the Homestead Strike of 1892 with his attack against the standard of living of the workers and his bid to break the union representing the highest skilled workers. Carnegie announced his intention to impose an 18 percent pay cut and issued a statement saying that the real issue was whether the Homestead steel workers would be union or non-union. He ordered a 12 foot high fence to be built around the plant – 3 miles in length – with 3 inch holes at shoulder height every 25 feet, signalling preparation for an armed fight with the workers. At the same time Carnegie hired the notorious Pinkerton company to provide armed thugs for the upcoming struggle. An ultimatum was issued for workers to accept the wage cut by June 24th or face mass layoffs.

The workers did not take these provocations lightly. They were not about to abandon the union and submit to Carnegie’s dictates without a fight. The Amalgamated Union, which represented the skilled workers, about 750 of the plant’s 3,800 employees, established an Advisory Committee, comprised of five delegates from each lodge, to coordinate the struggle against Carnegie’s attacks. A mass meeting of 3,000 workers from all categories, union and non-union voted overwhelmingly to strike.

The Advisory Committee took responsibility for organising an elaborate network to track the company’s manoeuvres, to monitor the possibility of an anticipated transport of Pinkerton goons by river boat from Pittsburgh. Workers rented their own vessel to patrol the river. Every road within a five mile radius of Homestead was blockaded, and a thousand strikers patrolled the river banks for ten miles. The Committee assumed virtual control of the town, assuming authority over the water, gas, and electricity facilities, shutting down the saloons, maintaining order and proclaiming ad hoc laws. An attempt by the county sheriff to move against the strikers fell flat on its face when he proved unable to raise a posse. The workers offered the sheriff a tour of the plant and promised to guarantee the security of the facility from any trespassers. Sympathy for the strikers was high.

On July 5th a steam whistle sounded the alarm at 4am. Two barges transporting more than 300 Pinkertons left Pittsburgh. By the time the thugs arrived at Homestead, 10,000 armed strikers and their supporters were gathered to "greet" them. An armed confrontation erupted. Thirty workers were wounded, and three killed in the early fighting. Armed proletarians from nearby towns rushed to the scene to reinforce their class brothers. The shoot-out continued throughout the day. Finally the demoralised Pinkertons, trapped in debilitating heat on the barges, outnumbered and outgunned, mutinied against their superiors.

more

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

"Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

NONE of these were 'imaginary' or 'hobgoblins.' READ it. These were the brave men upon whose shoulders the middle class and unions were built on. Some were beat to a pulp, some of them were killed, but they refused to relent.

'Civilization' throughout history is RARE. The history of humankind is filled with the divine right of kings, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies and dictatorships. Until the most liberal and enlightened men of their day created a democratic republic. It was not a perfect union, it is still not a perfect union, but we have through enlightened leaders that followed made it a better union, a more inclusive union, a more colorblind union. And we have been able so far to avoid facing the fate of Robert Frost's hired man: the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

Less than a month before his brutal assassination, a very enlightened and brilliant man said:

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.

Robert Frost said:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.

I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

Take human nature altogether since time
began . . .
And it must be a little more in favor of
man,
Say a fraction of one percent at the very
least . . .
Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
increased.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Contumacious]

'Civilization' throughout history is RARE. The history of humankind is filled with the divine right of kings, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies and dictatorships. Until the most liberal and enlightened men of their day created a democratic republic. y

Please explain , clearly and succinctly, how the present welfare/warfare state and its managing bureaucrats who believe in the divine right of demagogue politicians and parasites to steal loot and plunder and transfer wealth is salutary for all of us.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

It is amazing how much these libertarians sound like conservatives. They are NOT classical liberals. And conservatism is all about creating an aristocracy. A hierarchy of some form. Today it would be a plutocracy. A return to the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the Pinkertons, the hired thugs.

1892: The Homestead strike

An account of a militant strike of steel workers of the Carnegie company
in the US defending their organisation and conditions against the bosses,
the police and hired armed mercenaries.

The Robber Baron Andrew Carnegie precipitated the Homestead Strike of 1892 with his attack against the standard of living of the workers and his bid to break the union representing the highest skilled workers. Carnegie announced his intention to impose an 18 percent pay cut and issued a statement saying that the real issue was whether the Homestead steel workers would be union or non-union. He ordered a 12 foot high fence to be built around the plant – 3 miles in length – with 3 inch holes at shoulder height every 25 feet, signalling preparation for an armed fight with the workers. At the same time Carnegie hired the notorious Pinkerton company to provide armed thugs for the upcoming struggle. An ultimatum was issued for workers to accept the wage cut by June 24th or face mass layoffs.

The workers did not take these provocations lightly. They were not about to abandon the union and submit to Carnegie’s dictates without a fight. The Amalgamated Union, which represented the skilled workers, about 750 of the plant’s 3,800 employees, established an Advisory Committee, comprised of five delegates from each lodge, to coordinate the struggle against Carnegie’s attacks. A mass meeting of 3,000 workers from all categories, union and non-union voted overwhelmingly to strike.

The Advisory Committee took responsibility for organising an elaborate network to track the company’s manoeuvres, to monitor the possibility of an anticipated transport of Pinkerton goons by river boat from Pittsburgh. Workers rented their own vessel to patrol the river. Every road within a five mile radius of Homestead was blockaded, and a thousand strikers patrolled the river banks for ten miles. The Committee assumed virtual control of the town, assuming authority over the water, gas, and electricity facilities, shutting down the saloons, maintaining order and proclaiming ad hoc laws. An attempt by the county sheriff to move against the strikers fell flat on its face when he proved unable to raise a posse. The workers offered the sheriff a tour of the plant and promised to guarantee the security of the facility from any trespassers. Sympathy for the strikers was high.

On July 5th a steam whistle sounded the alarm at 4am. Two barges transporting more than 300 Pinkertons left Pittsburgh. By the time the thugs arrived at Homestead, 10,000 armed strikers and their supporters were gathered to "greet" them. An armed confrontation erupted. Thirty workers were wounded, and three killed in the early fighting. Armed proletarians from nearby towns rushed to the scene to reinforce their class brothers. The shoot-out continued throughout the day. Finally the demoralised Pinkertons, trapped in debilitating heat on the barges, outnumbered and outgunned, mutinied against their superiors.

more

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

"Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

NONE of these were 'imaginary' or 'hobgoblins.' READ it. These were the brave men upon whose shoulders the middle class and unions were built on. Some were beat to a pulp, some of them were killed, but they refused to relent.

'Civilization' throughout history is RARE. The history of humankind is filled with the divine right of kings, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies and dictatorships. Until the most liberal and enlightened men of their day created a democratic republic. It was not a perfect union, it is still not a perfect union, but we have through enlightened leaders that followed made it a better union, a more inclusive union, a more colorblind union. And we have been able so far to avoid facing the fate of Robert Frost's hired man: the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

Less than a month before his brutal assassination, a very enlightened and brilliant man said:

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.

Robert Frost said:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.

I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

Take human nature altogether since time
began . . .
And it must be a little more in favor of
man,
Say a fraction of one percent at the very
least . . .
Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
increased.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
President John F. Kennedy

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." - Albert Jay Nock

 

[Contumacious]

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. k

Yes, indeed.

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

The Communist Manifesto

.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don’t see where a private police force would be any better than the existing one. That type of service, the enforcement of the law, is right up the governments ally. It is exactly why the government exists. Same goes with private courts. That is a terrible example by the way as arbitration is corrupt as hell. Many companies require arbitration in their contracts because they KNOW that arbitration will go their way. That is not because they are in the right but because they have bought that service. A private police and court system would be no different than that with the biggest payer calling the shots. When it comes to the law, we must try as hard as possible to make it as blind as we can. That essentially requires a public system. One that is ran at the local lever preferably. I also do not see how they would perform any better. I don’t find that communal things like police are any violation of libertarian principals anyway. There is no reason that they are not run by the local governments as well.

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

As a side note: volunteer fire departments are a misnomer AFAIK. They are STILL publically funded. The fireman might not be paid but they still need to okay for the building, the trucks, maintenance and a host of equipment. There is no example of an actual fire department that is not currently dependent on government funds. If that is not the case, please link to one that has all volunteer force AND all donated equipment. The pay after model is also untenable. It is one of the problems that is faced in the medical world. If you do not turn people away, they are going to use the service and not pay for it. What do you do then? Go out of business.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

It is amazing how much these libertarians sound like conservatives. They are NOT classical liberals. And conservatism is all about creating an aristocracy. A hierarchy of some form. Today it would be a plutocracy. A return to the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the Pinkertons, the hired thugs.

Nothing about libertarianism is about creating aristocracy. Where are you getting this. Nothing in your little story has anything to do with libertarianism at all. It does not advocate violence or abandon collective bargaining. It embraces that actually. You are free to do as you wish and that includes working with your coworkers to gain an advantage if you so choose.

Libertarian 'laissez-faire' will certainly create an aristocracy. A new Gilded Age. And the most egregious Supreme Court ruling in history, Citizen United, has set us on an inevitable course to become a full blown plutocracy. And the ministers of propaganda at faux news and their ilk paid for by the biggest polluters and cartels in America are filling the empty heads of 'conservatives' and 'libertarians.' They are telling the American people they only have 2 things to fear, government and liberals. While they wheel the Trojan Horse into our communities.

I made a comment before when I was called 'comrade': Why is it if we follow liberal ideas we get free market capitalism and a clean environment. And if we follow your right wing regressive 'libertarian' ideas we would get an environmental landscape that would look identical to the environmental catastrophe that was called the Soviet Union?

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'.

f you want a clear understanding of this ruling, here is an excellent analysis. The right wing robes have taken the right's 'free market' economic dogma and applied it to caselaw, and overturned 150 years of legislation, caselaw and jurisprudence.

CITIZENS UNITED AS NEOLIBERAL JURISPRUDENCE: THE RESURGENCE OF ECONOMIC THEORY

Two things stand out in the majority opinion: first, it espouses a dogmatic, free market form of economic theory; and second, it is printed on the pages of a judicial opinion that authoritatively defines the terms of the First Amendment. This combination of capitalist ideology and caselaw makes up what I call neoliberal jurisprudence, the use of neoclassical economic theory as judicial reasoning.... “the idea that much of politics could be understood as if it were a market process, and therefore amenable to formalization through neoclassical theory.” Based on the claim that voters and politicians are only out to maximize their own gains, neoliberalism sees “the state [as] merely an inferior means of
attaining outcomes that the market could provide better and more efficiently.” With regard to its instrumental purposes, neoliberalism is based on two realizations: “[t]he [m]arket would not naturally conjure the conditions for its own continued flourishing”; and, accordingly, the state must be “reengineer[ed] . . . in order to guarantee the success of the market and its most important participants, modern corporations.”

For now, it suffices to note that it is a jurisprudence that borrows openly from neoclassical economic theory and that its goals do not include efficiency, for neoliberalism relies not on evidence but on general precepts. Incorporated into caselaw, neoliberalism becomes an explicitly ideological variant of legal philosophy that seeks the creation of an unregulated market for political goods.

A close reading of Citizens reveals that the five conservative Justices of the Roberts Court have redefined democracy on the basis of this free market approach to constitutional values. This much is evident in the principles affirmed by the majority: corporations have a First Amendment right to political speech; a restraint on how that speech is funded is a constraint on speech itself; political speech must occur in an unregulated market; the government is untrustworthy and corporations are trustworthy; the only acceptable role for government in regulating money in politics is to prevent quid pro quo corruption; enhancing the voice of some by restricting the voice of others is unconstitutional; undue influence and unequal access are perfectly democratic and compatible with public trust in the system; and an open market is necessarily competitive and home to diverse viewpoints that inform a vigilant and independent electorate.

Student Council Server