Why not just TRY Libertarianism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we are all graduates of kindergarten we already know my right to swing my fist stops where you nose begins. It's not nice to pick a fight, etc. We already have this concept well integrated into our CULTURE. We can even call it good manners and dispense with it. On the other hand, it is NOT a basis for GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...

It is relevant to government because the government's fist should stop at my nose, too!.

Justify why any law should exist which is more restrictive than the NAP.

For example, you could justify income redistribution.
For example, you could justify the AWB.
Etc.

It is a naive dream to feel that a nation in the information age can relate with all other nations through "playing nice
Click to expand...

Just as the Lib/NAP system does not require each person to "play nice", it does not require other nations to "play nice." The exact same arguments - which I've been repeating for the last two pages - apply there as well.

You don't go around nuking countries because they have Islamic governments; You nuke them (or invade, whatever), when they have the means, opportunity, and intent to attack you.

-z
 
It is immoral to initiate force or fraud against any sentient being.
Click to expand...
Just to prove I am a good sport, Is that or is that not the so-called Non Agression Principle?

Dischord, I give you credit for some reading ability but you seem to think I am illiterate. Where does it say the nap does a, b, c? I don't see that it says anything other than the exact twelve words. Or is there a corrolary that is missing above that you are quoting from?

We have gone over what does this principle mean in other threads and there are some who find great things in it. Things others fail to see because the words do not exist. Are we having a difference similar to a discussion between a loose constructionist and a strict constructionist? All I know is the the libertarians claim it as the basis of their political platform. I asked how does this work in a practical sense and received a bunch of yada yada lawyer talk and evasion. Now if that is your idea of practical implementation, I'm still not convinced.
 
Hi again, Zak! About nuking countries, which you mentioned; that makes me think of having the infrastructure to have nukes in the first place. The practical side of me says, OK, Zak, how do you plan to fund the infrastructure? With bake sales or subscriptions? The ability to have nukes depends on a bunch of pure science called The Manhattan Project which was a bloated, super secret govt conspiracy way back when and a whole lot of other things, too. No way l/Ls are going to sign on for a pig in a poke like that. Besides, once they have it, the bad gomit might turn it on US!!:what:
 
You don't go around nuking countries because they have Islamic governments; You nuke them (or invade, whatever), when they have the means, opportunity, and intent to attack you.
Click to expand...

Ah...if that's the case, then we're reaching some manner of agreement. I was mistaken in thinking that the NAP meant I had to wait for the other guy to strike first. Obviously not an option in the nuclear age.
 
BigG, with regards to the nuclear program thing,I think it's a foregone conclusion that a Lib country wouldn't possess Stealth Bombers, Space Shuttles, or currently have a lander on Mars.
 
Thumper,

There is a good analogy in the NAP comparing individual self-defense to national defense. If Bad Guy X walks up and pulls a gun on you, you do not have to wait for him to shoot you to act defensively. He's fair game already because of the opportunity, means, intent doctrine.

MAD is an interesting case as a study of the "intent" part of the triad. Neither country wanted complete destruction of themselves, while they may have wanted control or destruction of the other country. Because both sides were intelligent enough to understand MAD, neither had the actual intent.

-z
 
With regards to the nuclear program thing, I think it's a foregone conclusion that a Lib country wouldn't possess Stealth Bombers, Space Shuttles, or currently have a lander on Mars.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism stresses the importance of the individual over the State. I think it is correct to say that a Lib country's government would not have a space program. However, that is a far cry from there being no space programs in the country. Private individuals and industry would take over the role-- admittedly, they would probably focus on profit-making missions like GPS, satellite communications, mining, or even frontier exploration.

How much money would be left in the economy if the government's function was minimized? Those with lots of wealth would be motivated to ensure its protection. One concrete way this could happen would be that those with wealth to protect would buy "insurance" or a "protection service." The insurance and protection companies would band together as a matter of economics (economy of scale) to fund national defense projects to the extent that force is needed vs. monetary protection.

Would a nuclear bomb have been created by a Lib country? I don't know. The USA had an advantage during the war that many great minds escaped to here and helped with bomb work. It is my belief that a Lib country would drain the brains of more tyrannical countries in short order.

-z
 
I think it's a foregone conclusion that a Lib country wouldn't possess Stealth Bombers, Space Shuttles, or currently have a lander on Mars.
Click to expand...
:eek: Thumper, then it could not be the USA now. If a libertarian govt would scrap all that stuff people dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to build, it don't seem right. Maybe an agrarian country 200 years ago, but not 21st Century USA.
 
Thumper, then it could not be the USA now.
Click to expand...

Bingo! There would be fewer jackboots and more liberty.

If a libertarian govt would scrap all that stuff people dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to build, it don't seem right.
Click to expand...

It's no knock on those people who spent their lives working for the DOD or NASA, but one cannot deny that those projects were funded with stolen money, taken at gunpoint.

By the way, where in the Constitution does it say the FedGov has the power to tax for NASA?

-z
 
Where does it say the nap does a, b, c? I don't see that it says anything other than the exact twelve words.
Click to expand...
sigh,

The point is that you've been incorrectly saying the NAP demands things it doesn't (e.g. "ABC"). No matter how many times people explain to you that you are misrepresnting the NAP, you simply ignore them and repeat your mischaracterization.

Big G: "I would never espouse a principle that ties my hands while leaving everybody else free to do what they will to me until they violate my "rights.""

That is an absurd twisting of the NAP -- your strawman argument. You seem to think you've "won" because you knocked down an argument that no one ever made.

BTW, the NAP I know is L. Neil Smith's, "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation."
 
harpethriver,

Now I know why libertarians are OK with the usage of drugs-after trying to decipher some of the arguments on this thread the only thing left that makes sense would be to burn a big fat spliff.
Click to expand...

It's so easy to make "big fat spliff" jokes rather than rational arguments, n'est ce pas? :rolleyes:
 
Teach me and I will learn. Scorn me and I'll tell you to piss up a rope.
Click to expand...
Y'know ... I think it's interesting that you'd say something like this after repeatedly going out of your way to scorn anyone who believes in the concept of libertarianism.
I think it's a foregone conclusion that a Lib country wouldn't possess Stealth Bombers, Space Shuttles, or currently have a lander on Mars.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. If enough people wanted 'em, they'd be built and maintained. If not, they won't be built, but if not enough people want them to pay for them anyway, why should they be built?

Also, does the end justify the means? Does the creation of the Great Pyramids justify the oppression of the Egyption people?

If you got to choose how much money you'd spend on the gov't and where it'd go, would you invest in the space program and the military?
 
Is anyone here willing to make the case that the U.S., as a strictly Libertarian country, could have competed with the Soviet Union through the cold war? I'm pretty sure they had their eyes on our amber waves of grain.

The Randian ideal vs Communism militarily...interesting concept.
 
Is anyone here willing to make the case that the U.S., as a strictly Libertarian country, could have competed with the Soviet Union through the cold war?
Click to expand...

Let's see,

A) The U.S. never attacked the Soviet Union. Meets the NAP.

B) The U.S. built a huge arsenal in repsonse to the Soviet threat. Meets the NAP.

C) The U.S. stood by allies (bases in Europe) in case the Soviets attacked them. Meets the NAP.
 
Well, providing for the common defense is one of the few legitimate government functions under the Constitution. Hard to say how you are going to do that without a government taking in revenue in some fashon.

It is also one of the few things that arguably lends itself to having a central government do it. 50 heterogenous state militias cannot do what 1 Army with uniform standards and discipline can. Heck, the whole "minuteman" idea didn't really work all that well during the Revolutionary War.
 
Well Zak,

I guess I'm a "moderate Lib/NAP."

<points back to dustind's parody post about Libs having to be exreme in all they do and believe>
 
I find it rather difficult to believe that companies would band together in order to secure a private defense force. Any defense company would have to show a profit in order to keep it's doors open, so how do you do that by keeping peace?

If the military was doing it's job by practicing good diplomacy and silently killing Al Queda types, you wouldn't know about any problems for them to solve. They would be thought to be unnecessary and their funding would soon cease.

The only way you can successfully run a for-profit military would be something akin to what the Romans would do: conquer an area, tapp whatever resources you can (materials, slaves, etc) and move on.
 
You know, it is hard to get fired up by all this ideological blather when the Libertarian Party is still less relevant than the Green Party in American politics. Their ideas are much stupider, of course. But they also pounded the Libertarian Party into goo in the last presidential election. Ideas don't get you political power. Perhaps libertarians should spend more time thinking about how they can actually get votes and matter, and less time debating the fine points of the NAP.
 
Ideas don't get you political power. Perhaps libertarians should spend more time thinking about how they can actually get votes and matter, and less time debating the fine points of the NAP.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with you there. The LP needs to build on its growing number of local and state level successes. Compare the number of LP elected officials to the number of Greens. Yeah, some of the elected LPs are dog catchers, but the Greens don't even have that.

In any event, in 2000 the Greens' showing was due to having a celebrity candidate, Nader, and I really doubt they'll do as well this year.

Perhaps, in Presidential elections, a third-party needs a celebrity -- otherwise the media ignores the campaign. If Joe Tiedye, rather than Nader, had been the Green candidate, he would have done just as poorly as Browne.
 
I find it rather difficult to believe that companies would band together in order to secure a private defense force. Any defense company would have to show a profit in order to keep it's doors open, so how do you do that by keeping peace?
Click to expand...

That's why I proposed that insurance companies might pay a "defense" conglomerate for defense, based on the actuarial need of defense forces vs. monetary insurance. The defense force would provide underlying security for the insurance companies. The money ultimately comes from property owners who want their "stuff" protected.

-z
 
More on "moderate Lib/NAP."

I think we all here can agree that movement towards a more-libertarian society would be a good thing.

Yeah, the extreme ideal utopia is most-probably unattainable. But if we can get halfway there, shouldn't we do it?

You know what? Democracy is an unattainable utopian ideal too. But Western society didn't simply chuck out the idea. It created a halfway point that works in the real world -- the republic. We should try to do the same with the libertarian philosphy.
 
Y'know ... I think it's interesting that you'd say something like this after repeatedly going out of your way to scorn anyone who believes in the concept of libertarianism.
Click to expand...
Any scorn was directed at the inability to defend the NAP when asked practical applications of it. Sorry if you feel slighted, Cordex.

The idea of private armies has been tried before. Ever hear of warlords? How about Julius Caesar, and his predecessors Sulla, Marius, et al? When you have a private army, it serves the interest of its OWNER. How is that for some cool private property? "I don't need a CCW, I've got a battalion of armed thugs." ;)

The idea that I do not have the right to initiate force against another human being nor to delegate that right sounds good on paper but it fails when I remember that just because I happen to believe it and adhere to it, the other guy probably will not. Another straw man, I know, I know. :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top