Why not just TRY Libertarianism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
As Tamara pointed out a few pages ago, millions of CCW-holders have been doing this every day for years. When "the other guy" initiates force, they respond and not before.

And if the possibility that "the other guy" might not adhere to the principle is a fatal flaw, then there are zero valid codes of conduct. All codes of conduct are rendered invalid with BigG's "logic."
 
Pretty thin, Dischord. Comparing CCW with running a nation under the NAP is valid in what way, may I ask?

CCW, imho, is a controlled privilege that many use merely for the convenience of buying a handgun without a background check. The idea that "millions" of citizens are circulating around legally heeled 24/7 does not stand up under much "logical" examination either. /BigG logic
 
The private army would serve those defensive interests of its shareholders. And if it got out of line, the armed people themselves can whack it down.

Since you are so enamored with the status quo, notice that many of the wars in America's history - probably the most celebrated ones too - have been initiated by others and we stepped in for our own and our allies' defense: The Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, GW1, GW2.

-z
 
Comparing CCW with running a nation under the NAP is valid in what way, may I ask?
The vast majority of CCW holders adhere to the NAP (whatever the exact number carrying at any point in time).

I note that you totally ignored my second point. All codes of conduct are rendered invalid by your "other guy" fatal flaw.
 
I didn't say it was a fatal flaw; you did, dischord. I just pointed it out as a problem that needs to be addressed and has not been, at least in this discussion so far.

Next point. Many conflicts are over resources. I find an oil deposit off shore of my territory. While I'm back scaring up capital so I can exploit my "find" another guy who secretly spied on me gets his rig up there first and tells me to piss off. What are my rights there? Does it matter if he's from a different nation? Why?
 
With regard to a private army taking over, let's compare it to what we have now.

Today, the military is funded by taxes which we are forced to pay. Furthermore, we have little control over how much money is spent on the military. They are limited in what they do basically by the guy who signs their check. He can in fact spend however much he wants, and charge us for the bill later.

The Lib/NAP scheme I described is actually more resistant to abuse of power because its funding is directly controlled by those paying for it - namely the citizens who employ it for their defense. If it starts to go awry, we simply stop funding it.

Note that today, there is nothing fundamentally stopping the army from pillaging Europe to fund itself.

-z
 
I didn't say it was a fatal flaw;
Yes you did. You said it caused libertarian principles to fail.

BigG said, "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."

If failure can be based on your "other guy" principle, I defy you to come up with any workable code of conduct.
I just pointed it out as a problem that needs to be addressed and has not been, at least in this discussion so far.
Yes it has. Multiple times.
Next point. Many conflicts are over resources.
That's a valid point of discussion, but I won't discuss it until you provide an example of any code of conduct that stands up to your "other guy" failure test.
 
I didn't say it was a fatal flaw; you did, dischord. I just pointed it out as a problem that needs to be addressed and has not been, at least in this discussion so far.
What exactly is your problem with a "country running under NAP"? We keep explaining how it would work and you keep coming back with this.

Re: the Oil Rig example.

Property rights don't go out the window with Lib/NAP. In fact, one of the tenets of Libertarianism is property rights, and they are much stronger than what we have today in the USA. As long as nobody else has claimed the property yet, you can. And if someone then takes your stuff, they've initiated force against you. Of course, how do we know you've claimed that oil deposit? It would be in your best interest to somehow publicize the claim. People have to have some way to know what's yours and what's not.

Since it's in everyone's best interest to have their property rights respected, it makes sense to have some sort of public registry for who owns what estate. Right now this is usually done in a county records office. In the Lib/NAP, it could be done in any appropriate forum, or by a consortium of private recording firms. And it's in everyone's best interest to make sure property and estate dispute are resolved properly, you will likely get help in resolving the problem.

In your specific example, he set out to defraud you and steal your property, so you are justified in reclaiming it, or delegating that task to others in your employ.

-z
 
We keep explaining how it would work and you keep coming back with this.
Actually, Zak, he's flip-flopping. In one post, he says his "other guy" principle supposedly causes the NAP to fail. Then when I ask him to provide an example of any another code that doesn't have this supposed fatal flaw, he back peddles, claiming he never said it was a fatal flaw (and then he absurdly claims that a point that's been addressed multiple times was never addressed).
 
Thumper,

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviet Onion would've been under a more constant and subversive pressure from a more libertarian USA. All those potential customers, and all you have to do to get their cash is get them to revolt... Radio Free Europe would be a Kukla, Fran, and Ollie show by comparison to what folks unshackled by the .gov would've done to gain access to the amber waves of the Ukraine. :uhoh:

BigG,

Another straw man, I know, I know.

Yet it doesn't stop you from raising it. Odd...

Logical fallacies are fun, though, aren't they? :scrutiny:
 
Before you put your arms out of joint patting yourselves on the back, the argument that I have to be able to name some system of conduct that will satisfy the other guy criteria otherwise my point that you haven't driven a nail thru that objection yet except to your smirking buddy, does not hold water. I asked you if NAP could work in the information age with things as they are in the USA. You conveniently forgot that. And seized on a straw to cover yourself with a fig leaf.

To prove I'm a good sport, I WILL name a code of conduct that satisfies your question. The current ethical code, call it Judaeo-Christian, or whatever you wish. Whether or not you believe in it, you adhere to it just the same. What I can't understand is why you make such a big deal about semantics when you fail to adress practical questions about YOUR belief system.
 
To prove I'm a good sport, I WILL name a code of conduct that satisfies your question. The current ethical code, call it Judaeo-Christian, or whatever you wish. Whether or not you believe in it, you adhere to it just the same.
The "other guy" doesn't aways adhere to the Judao-Christian code. Under your "other guy" principle, Christianity is a failed philosophy. Please try again to provide an example of a code that can pass your test.
What I can't understand is why you make such a big deal about semantics when you fail to adress practical questions about YOUR belief system.
Semantics? You said your "other guy" test caused the NAP to fail. I pointed out that you set up an absurd test that no code of conduct can pass. None.
 
BigG,

The current ethical code, call it Judaeo-Christian, or whatever you wish.

...which says something about "doing unto others" and so forth and discourages aggressive acts against non-offensive people, right? Or is that the one where they say "Take out the other guy's eye before he can take out yours." Amazing... :uhoh:

Like I said: It's pretty funny to watch folks mock the code they live by. (Shot anyone for no good reason lately?)
 
BigG,

Would you mind telling me which domestic laws you just absolutely must have that violate the NAP?

Tamara,
Like I said: It's pretty funny to watch folks mock the code they live by. (Shot anyone for no good reason lately?)
Himself. In the foot.
 
Going back a few rants.... :p

The "all taxation is armed robbery" angle is an interesting philosophical ramble. It is, of course, true, insofar as if you stop and think about it, eventually the government is going to use guns to get your money. But saying it over and over also makes libertarians look like loony, dope-smoking utopian ideologues insetad of a potentially credible political force in the United States. People are used to Big Lies, telling them the truth all at once just makes you look insane.

"No taxes, period? Gee, are they promising free beer and rub-downs from the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders whenever I want, too?"

Run a party platform that disavows national armed forces, and you might as well be asking people to vote for the Christian Falangist Party of America... politically suicidal. It would make Howard Dean look like Geroge S. Patton.

"Wow, these libertarians make me crave the unbridaled militarism of Michael Dukakis..."

Maybe there is a good argument to be had about that, but it will be about 200 years AFTER Libertarians first become politically relevant in the United States... which may or may not happen at all at some undisclosed time in the future.

It kind of reminds me of what I read about all the small right-wing parties that were floating around Germany in the 1920s. They were full of ideas (mostly bad in their case), and talked about their ideas over beer all the time. They also had their lunch eaten by somebody who could actually do politics. The Nazis hardly had any ideas at all... people joked about them in the 1930s that their ideology was "the World as Will Without Idea," and we can agree that any ideas that they did have were bad ones. But it just didn't matter. Being right in politics means exactly NOTHING if you never get power to do something about it.

Me, I think the Libertarian party needs to learn how to do politics better.

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.

In 2000, the Greens were the only people on the TV aside from Democrats and Republicans, and maybe that fascist Pat Buchannan. With a washed-up grade-Z "celebrity" the Green Party pounded the Libertarians into goo. And let's face it, Nader is about as inconsequential and dull as you can get and still qualifiy as a "celebrity," it isn't like the Greens got Oprah to run on their ticket or something. They did a better job than the Libertarians at the national level by an order of magnitude or two, not just in picking their candidate. And national visibility matters, even if you aren't ready to win national office yet. You can't run bland nullities and expect results, and the apparent total non-grasp of that simple idea by the LP speaks volumes.
 
"No taxes, period? Gee, are they promising free beer and rub-downs from the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders whenever I want, too?"
What's with the strawman arguments today? The LP promises lower taxes, not no taxes. See: http://www.lp.org/issues/cut-taxes.html
Run a party platform that disavows national armed forces, and you might as well be asking people to vote for the Christian Falangist Party of America... politically suicidal.
How about some fire scarecrow! Yet another strawman. The LP does not disavow national armed forces. See: http://www.lp.org/issues/national-defense.html
It seems like alot of libertarians seem to think that they can just be right, debate various utopian abstractions amongst themselves, and wait for America to get smart enough to vote for them at some point in the future.
Yeah, a lot of libertarians you meet on the internet do that. But don't confuse their behavior with the practices of the LP -- there are hundreds of libertarians holding public office, and the LP needs to translate that success up to the national level. See: http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php
 
BigG,

I asked you if NAP could work in the information age with things as they are in the USA. You conveniently forgot that. And seized on a straw to cover yourself with a fig leaf.
I replied directly to you the first time you mentioned the "information age", namely:
It is a naive dream to feel that a nation in the information age can relate with all other nations through "playing nice
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.

Sean,

I completely agree that the "No Taxes!" platform will not gain political power due to the "looney" angle. Transitioning to a more libertarian society will not be as easy as being warped into L. Neil's universe ("The Probability Broach") or falling out of the sky into Galt's Gulch. And the Libertarian party has no political power. One inherent problem is that organizing libertarians to gain political power is like herding cats or maintaining a "Indivudualists' Club."

I do think if they chose a "one issue" besides the drug war they might be taken more seriously.

To clarify, in this discussion so far, the "Lib/NAP"'s I have referred to are those hardest-line libertarians who do believe that all taxation is theft. From a person standpoint, I am willing to concede - at least in the "transition period" - that some tax can be just, under certain circumstances.

-z
 
I am glad that dischord brought up the "other guy" objection again. I mentioned it back on page 1:
If "But I can still bash your head in..." is used to refute Lib/NAP, then it can be used to argue against any system of ethics, and it effectively argues best for barbarism.

The Judeo-Christian system fails the test miserably. It only proscribes the behavior of those who follow it, and if my heathen self comes in and takes over the place, you are worse off for following your own doctrine and surviving than the libertarians are.

If your best argument - the "other guy" objection - argues equally well against all political philosophies, then it can argue for none, and ends up with nihilism.

-z
 
The Judeo-Christian system fails the test miserably.

It basically is NAP. No properly interpreted bible passages say that under no circumstances should we use violence. Even the much touted 'turn the other cheek' passage refers to insults and not phsyical violence.
 
Ok, I thought that's what you were getting at, but I wanted to make sure you weren't claiming christianity was an organization of suckers. ;)
 
I like the idea... Hell, I've thought of libertarians pooling their money and just making a new country on some island!
 
but feel free to riff it for whatever yuks you reckon you can get.
;) <-- wink back atcha kiddo :D
(just sign me an old guy that's seen too many people try to run away from home to the utopian commune in Ca or the sunshine on the rocky mtn high)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top