Castro has passed on

[theprestige]

Feudalism. Been there, done that.

It's feudalism to hire security guards, now?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Craig, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Your only solid sentence fragment began after the semi colon. All previous looks like willful misunderstanding.

 

[Craig B]

Craig, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Your only solid sentence fragment began after the semi colon. All previous looks like willful misunderstanding.

Some sort of reasoned argument, or specific reference to what you mean, would be appreciated.

 

[Noztradamus]

The US. Duh.

Are you stating that libertarians who advocate the bosses buying and selling "protective and judicial services" on "the market" are not "real libertarians"?

I'm saying that's a fringe position.

All True Libertarians are Capitalist Corporate Mobsters

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Feudalism? The factory owner as a land owning nobleman can recruit men at arms to defend his land, yes he could. I think he could also just kill the trouble-makers among the workers and resolve the issue that way.

It's feudalism to hire security guards, now?

Work it out in light of the rest of libertarianism. Put that world into practice, then tell me about guards and property, especially once all land is owned. Been there. Not nice.

 

[theprestige]

Work it out in light of the rest of libertarianism. Put that world into practice, then tell me about guards and property, especially once all land is owned. Been there. Not nice.

All land is owned right now. What do you want to know about guards and property, that we don't already know from current practice?

 

[Craig B]

All land is owned right now. What do you want to know about guards and property, that we don't already know from current practice?

What is meant by "owned"? We're discussing trespass on land, and laws about this vary from one jurisdiction to another. They're rather different in England and Scotland for example, although these countries are part of the same political entity.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

All land is owned right now. What do you want to know about guards and property, that we don't already know from current practice?

You forgot, we do not have the form of government suggested. Not yet.

 

[Mycroft]

Some sort of reasoned argument, or specific reference to what you mean, would be appreciated.

For starters it helps to understand that discussing libertarianism isn't the same as advocating for a libertarian system.

The modern operation that most resembles the feudal system is, as your post proves yet again, the Mafia.

I'm not sure that the word "Libertarian" is applicable to such agencies; as a political principle Liberty grew out of the resistance to feudal constraints, and the word denoted their absence.

I can't make any sense out of this statement. Did you mistakenly think I was advocating for feudalism? When you say "yet again", wth does that mean? Have we ever had a discussion comparing feudalism to the Mafia? If so, was there anyone advocating for a feudal or Mafia style rule?

Hlafordlaes did compare Libertarianism to feudalism. I personally disagree with that comparison, but I doubt he's advocating for either a feudalistic or libertarian society either. He seemed to be using the term "Feudalism" in a pejorative sense to describe a possible libertarian outcome.

 

[Craig B]

For starters it helps to understand that discussing libertarianism isn't the same as advocating for a libertarian system.



I can't make any sense out of this statement. Did you mistakenly think I was advocating for feudalism? When you say "yet again", wth does that mean? Have we ever had a discussion comparing feudalism to the Mafia? If so, was there anyone advocating for a feudal or Mafia style rule?

Hlafordlaes did compare Libertarianism to feudalism. I personally disagree with that comparison, but I doubt he's advocating for either a feudalistic or libertarian society either. He seemed to be using the term "Feudalism" in a pejorative sense to describe a possible libertarian outcome.

I do not think and have not said that you are promoting feudalism, let alone that you support the Mafia. But I think that the description you gave of libertarianism has features in common with these phenomena.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do not think and have not said that you are promoting feudalism, let alone that you support the Mafia. But I think that the description you gave of libertarianism has features in common with these phenomena.

It doesn't. Companies hire private security all the time, that's not peculiar to libertarianism. That doesn't make them mafia-like, because that private security is not empowered to do the kinds of things that make the mafia what it is (like assassinating enemies, etc). And libertarianism doesn't introduce those features either.

And none of this is terribly relevant anyways. This all started when you said Castro was once a libertarian. Now it's clear that you meant something very different by the word than we Americans mean by it. Castro was certainly never a libertarian under the American definition. I don't have a lot of interest in the European definition, and whatever he might have started as, he sure as hell finished as a commie bastard.

 

[Craig B]

I can't make any sense out of this statement. Did you mistakenly think I was advocating for feudalism? When you say "yet again", wth does that mean? Have we ever had a discussion comparing feudalism to the Mafia? If so, was there anyone advocating for a feudal or Mafia style rule?

A connection between feudalism and other forms of institutionalised lawlessness has often been noted

In the end, it was the nobility that created the conditions necessary for organised crime to flourish. At the national level, had tax revenue been invested in roads, police and schools, the bandits and gabelloti might have been brought under control. Into the twentieth century, it was convenient for both Church and State to ignore these deplorable conditions, and poor social conditions often breed crime ...

... many of Sicily's small towns had four local power centres: ... (including) ... the local "patriarch" or galantuomo (gentleman mafioso).

In fact, the galantuomo was a Mafioso or the prototype of one. He might not threaten or kill anybody himself, but he had a private "army" of thugs to do it for him. Ostensibly, his minions might themselves be land managers, performing other duties (murder or extortion) as needs be. The Mafia had been born.​

 

[Craig B]

It doesn't. Companies hire private security all the time, that's not peculiar to libertarianism. That doesn't make them mafia-like, because that private security is not empowered to do the kinds of things that make the mafia what it is (like assassinating enemies, etc). And libertarianism doesn't introduce those features either.

But in the absence of any central power, who or what would prevent these features from being introduced by local or corporate private magnates? (ETA That is exactly what is related in the example of Sicily as I note in my previous post, written before I read your comments. (/ETA))

And none of this is terribly relevant anyways. This all started when you said Castro was once a libertarian. Now it's clear that you meant something very different by the word than we Americans mean by it. Castro was certainly never a libertarian under the American definition. I don't have a lot of interest in the European definition, and whatever he might have started as, he sure as hell finished as a commie bastard.

Ah, yes. All this fancy analytical stuff must be very irksome to you. "Commie bastard" will do. And "sure as hell" to show the proper populist level of verbal usage.

I am as you have seen, highly critical of Castro, and of the communist regimes that, like you, I think incapable of producing democratic societies. Why? What causes this? Not all the people who maintain such regimes started with that motivation, and I don't think Castro did. I think he started off as what outside the USA is known as a libertarian. As I have said, this invites enquiry. But wait, say you ... who the goddam hell needs to know anything about commie bastards?

Well if that's how you feel, keep trying not to understand, and I will keep trying to find answers to such questions. Probably I won't, but I'll keep trying.

 

[Ziggurat]

But in the absence of any central power

Again: that is a fringe position among American libertarians. Most American libertarians think there should still be government, and its role would still be to enforce basic laws such as prohibitions on murder, theft, etc., it just wouldn't engage in all the social engineering it does now.

I am as you have seen, highly critical of Castro

But you won't say he's worse than Pinochet, even though he was. Why?

Well if that's how you feel, keep trying not to understand, and I will keep trying to find answers to such questions. Probably I won't, but I'll keep trying.

Go ahead and try, I won't stop you. But since you acknowledge that you probably won't succeed, and it won't make a difference even if you do, you can't really blame me for putting my efforts elsewhere.

 

[Craig B]

Again: that is a fringe position among American libertarians. Most American libertarians think there should still be government, and its role would still be to enforce basic laws such as prohibitions on murder, theft, etc., it just wouldn't engage in all the social engineering it does now.

That would give local magnates a free hand to engage in local predatory "social engineering". That sort of society was once common, before the development of parliaments representing increasing proportions - now effectively all - of the people.

The common name for local big-boss "social engineering" is feudalism

But you won't say he's worse than Pinochet, even though he was. Why?

I have said what I have said about Castro and Pinochet, neither of whom promoted democracy; and I will not allow you to exonerate the second as the price of your acknowledgement that I have accused the first.

 

[Ziggurat]

That would give local magnates a free hand to engage in local predatory "social engineering".

No, it wouldn't. I never said the government had to be purely local. Federalism works pretty well.

I have said what I have said about Castro and Pinochet, neither of whom promoted democracy; and I will not allow you to exonerate the second as the price of your acknowledgement that I have accused the first.

Saying Castro is worse than Pinochet doesn't exonerate Pinochet any more than saying Pol Pot was worse than Castro exonerates Castro. That is a deeply illogical conclusion you have reached.

But your refusal to acknowledge that Castro was worse than Pinochet leads me to conclude that you don't think he was, and on that score you are terribly mistaken.

 

[Craig B]

No, it wouldn't. I never said the government had to be purely local. Federalism works pretty well.

Local obviously means anything below the level of national, in a discussion of this kind. Nobody could predict that you would entertain the senseless idea that it is fine for States to

engage in all the social engineering (the central government) does now.​

I find it hard to accept that this could be called "libertarianism" even in the odd sense that the expression seems to have acquired in the USA.

The Colour Bar ("social engineering" in the strongest sense!) in former times practiced by certain States; is that policy acceptable to Libertarians because it was applied locally by these States' governments without being demanded, enforced or imitated by the national government - merely permitted by it? That is an odd use of the word Liberty, indeed.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Colour Bar ("social engineering" in the strongest sense!) in former times practiced by certain States; is that policy acceptable to Libertarians because it was applied locally by these States' governments without being demanded, enforced or imitated by the national government - merely permitted by it? That is an odd use of the word Liberty, indeed.

Why on earth do you think Libertarians would be fine with that? Of course they would be opposed by that. It's a fundamental restriction on people's freedom, and whether it's applied locally or nationally is irrelevant.

Seriously, you've got some messed up notions about what libertarianism means here. There's basically no connection between what you're asking about and what's actually the case. God knows where you're getting any of these ideas from.

 

[Mycroft]

I do not think and have not said that you are promoting feudalism, let alone that you support the Mafia. But I think that the description you gave of libertarianism has features in common with these phenomena.

Then let’s discuss that. What are those features? I disagree that the ability to hire people to defend your property rights is particularly relevant because it doesn’t necessarily lead to the kinds of abuses associated with the Mafia or feudalism. Are there any other comparisons? If so, what?

A connection between feudalism and other forms of institutionalised lawlessness has often been noted

In the end, it was the nobility that created the conditions necessary for organised crime to flourish.
​

Creating the conditions necessary for the Mafia to flourish is very different from saying the systems share elements in common, so I don’t see how this is a useful contribution.

Maybe a better avenue to explore is to ask what mechanism could exist in a Libertarian system that would prevent the property-owner who hires armed guards (Pinkertons) to defend his property rights from then ordering these armed guards to go out and violate other people’s rights.​

 

[Craig B]

... armed guards (Pinkertons) to defend his property rights

I will explain soon. May I observe out of interest that I am at present located within a few minutes' walk of the place where Allan Pinkerton was born in 1819.