originally posted by hugh damright
It occurs to me that, if we want to hear the "libertarian philosophy", all we need to do is take any spoiled brat and threaten him with some authority, and he will cry "nobody can tell me what to do, I can do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt anyone". Is there some difference between the libertarian philosophy and the spoiled brat philosophy? It seems like the same think to me - inability to accept proper authority.
Ad homenim. Just because the source is suspect, that doesn't mean the message is wrong. It is reasonable to suspect the motivation of the brat, but it is inappropriate to question the message, itself, by shedding suspicion on the speaker of the message.
Also, the "nobody can tell me what to do" that your spoiled brat cries is not part of libertarianism.
(1) It conflicts with freedom of speech. Anyone is free to
tell anyone what to do. Whether or not the person told what to do should obey the instructions, as dictated by libertarianism, depends upon the particular circumstances.
(2) If your brat is acting in a manner that infringes upon the rights of another, then it is entirely within the other's rights to stop that infringement.
I don't think that libertarians are able to see beyond the individual,
You begin to get the point. Libertarianism begins with the
rights of the individual. A libertarian believes that it is abhorrent to infringe upon the rights of the individual. Society does not have rights. Government does not have rights. Only individuals have rights.
However, that does not mean that a libertarian cannot "see past the individual". Take the idea of the libertarian - a person who does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. It would be someone who believes that you have a right to own your own property, and does not steal your property from you, or trespass upon your property. It would be a person who believes in your right to privacy, and does not attempt to invade your privacy. It would be a person who believes in your right to life, and avoids any action that will impede that right.
That would be a nice person, wouldn't it?
Now imagine a society of people who respect each others rights (except, obviously, for the small percentage of any society that are antisocial). Sounds like a nice society, doesn't it?
Now imagine that such a society had a set of reasonable laws, and a reasonable governmental and court system such that grievances could be redressed, in accordance with the libertarian philosophy. The individual that initiated force in the original encounter (whatever encounter brought it to the attention of the court/government) would be forced to provide restitution to the harmed individual.
Doesn't all this sound rather like how civil la is supposed to work in the USA?
but it seems clear to me that there is more to a culture and society than "defending and/or retaliating against those who initiate force".
There is. And libertarianism doesn't exclude that. In fact, with everyone respecting each other's rights, there's nothing preventing anyone from doing all those other things that society does.