• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Libertarianism

I read the OP and find a common slippery slope argument: Libertarianism is no different from Anarchy.

I don't find that to be the most honest of appraisals made, though one wonders due to the sounding off of some Libertarians who like to post on the Internet.

DR
 
paximperium said:
Yes.
Nope. A court or private police with no authority, HAS NO AUTHORITY.
If I have a bigger army then your pathetic little "private" court and police, in Libertopia I do get to rob, pillage and murder to my heart's content as long as my army of thugs is bigger than yours.

Didn't you see "The Three Amigos" or any Western?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you have an army that's bigger and better than a public court and police you could rob, pillage, and murder to your heart's content.
 
Darth Rotor said:
I read the OP and find a common slippery slope argument: Libertarianism is no different from Anarchy.

I don't find that to be the most honest of appraisals made, though one wonders due to the sounding off of some Libertarians who like to post on the Internet.

DR
Click to expand...

I'd say that the difference is that libertarians believe in natural laws where anarchists believe in no law, but that is by no means definitive.
 
lightfire22000 said:
I'd say that the difference is that libertarians believe in natural laws where anarchists believe in no law, but that is by no means definitive.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but depending upon which libertarian or Libertarian is speaking, sometimes that distinction does not come across. Given the vagueness of natural laws (Or do you mean natural rights? ) or their often abused status, your point doesn't add much to my warm feeling on such arguments.

DR
 
rocketdodger said:
And guess what -- as soon as you agree to some rules that limit your own freedom, you are back to where we are today. So what exactly is your argument? That smaller groups are better? Why, given that the larger groups will always consume the smaller ones?
Click to expand...

This is the key point, I think, and always what I try to argue in response to anarchists and anarcho-xists. As far as I can tell, this has to be what "anarchy" looks like.
 
Does anyone here have a clue how the mafia works? Contrary to popular belief, competing gangsters do not go around randomly killing each other and innocent bystanders. They peaceably meet at a neutral location to settle disagreements (the technical term is "sit-down"). Yes, the formation of such an organization may require bloodshed, but that's how most states come into existence anyway (except a lot more people die for nations).

War between competing defense agencies costs a lot of gp (and lives -- another way of saying gp), so rationally self-interested corporations have an incentive against fighting. It's the free-market at work.
 
drkitten said:
Actually, I find it interesting that he will "provide a fight that WE won't want because WE might get killed." Evidently the possibility that his side would take casualties never occurred to him.
Click to expand...

Yes, the hardcore libertarians always seem convinced that they would thrive in an anarchy.

Of course, it's possible he's right; if he can get enough people on his side to make the odds overwhelmingly against us, then he can probably guarantee a victory through sheer numbers. But that's hardly a fight that HE would want either.

And in order to get that many people on his side, as rocketdodger pointed out, he'll have to come to some agreement on rules of engagement and mutual respect; i.e. he will be forced to reinvent government anyway....
Click to expand...

In the brief period of anarchy before some new government established itself, it would all come down to strength of numbers. It's curious how the libertarian fringe thinks that right now, the other 99.99% of the population consists of (1) corrupt thugs who abuse the power of the state; and (2) the "sheeple" who meekly follow said thugs. But somehow in the libertarian utopia this will all change, and the corrupt thugs and their sheeple will be outnumbered by the brave libertarian true believers.

Well, hey, whatever gets you through the night.
 
Darth Rotor said:
I read the OP and find a common slippery slope argument: Libertarianism is no different from Anarchy.

I don't find that to be the most honest of appraisals made, though one wonders due to the sounding off of some Libertarians who like to post on the Internet.

DR
Click to expand...

The problem is that the proponents of libertarianism in this thread want a libertarianism that is little different from Anarchy. It is not really a fallacy when it is the position of those in the debate.

Are there rational libertarians? Maybe but they seem a very small percentage of those who self identify as libertarian.
 
drkitten said:
Ah, I see. So I can secede myself from the jurisdiction of every court in the world -- and then I can rob, pillage, and murder to my heart's content, simply because I'm legally untouchable.

Finally, we see the true Libertopian fantasy come out.
Click to expand...
Finally, we see the true opposition to libertarianism come out: take the most crazed position you can find, and label it "true Libertarianism."

I'm sure you're smarter than that.

I hope, anyway...
 
FlamingMoe said:
Finally, we see the true opposition to libertarianism come out: take the most crazed position you can find, and label it "true Libertarianism."

I'm sure you're smarter than that.

I hope, anyway...
Click to expand...

If you want a less crazed libertarian position to be discussed, present one.
 
lightfire22000 said:
They were both extremely decentralized groups that only organized naturally to achieve victory. They did not organize for the sake of bureaucracy, which is exactly a statist's conception of government. They were both predominantly flexible fighting units with very loose authority as long as every party was committed to their cause. There was little forced organization in both instances. They were "militia" in every sense of the word.
Click to expand...
Actually they were highly organized, just look at the VC supply lines.

Often, they did not even have superior numbers, though most of the time they did.
Click to expand...
You do know that this is impossible in the English language?

Plus, if you attacked, you couldn't stomach the losses you'd face.
Click to expand...
A faulty assumption. We are already organized and likely to have better arms.

Also, if you invaded, you'd be a government anyways since you'd be coercing.
Click to expand...
So?
 
lightfire22000 said:
I have faith in people's ability to see that when conflicts cause dire consequences, no one defends himself through excessive violence. Then, they defend themselves through sweet lady reason.
Click to expand...


Sorry, haven't read the entire thread, but this one needs a few laughing dogs all to itself.

:dl:

This guy has just redefined "naive". I wonder if he has ever actually interacted with other people at all. Or even if he reads or watches fictional drama based on an understanding of human behaviour.

Rolfe.
 
lightfire22000 said:
Provide a fight that you wouldn't want because you'd get killed. Anybody who tried to own slaves would get killed. Once they all got killed, no one would enslave others. Once you coerce and seize property, you become government and should be abolished anyways.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but here's another one.

:dl:

Should there be some sort of bypass procedure for the "Critial thinker" forum tag for cases like this?

You maybe have to show how you (or your side) would inevitably be wielding the superior force in that situation, before you so confidently declare the outcome. What if the majority with the strongest thugs approves of slave-ownership?

Rolfe.
 
Provide a fight that you wouldn't want because you'd get killed. Anybody who tried to own slaves would get killed. Once they all got killed, no one would enslave others. Once you coerce and seize property, you become government and should be abolished anyways.
Click to expand...

This is weird coming from a CSA sympathizer.
 
lightfire22000 said:
I could defend myself if you attacked because I'm confident in your fear of casualties.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but there are so many gems in this thread that simply demand laughing dogs.

:dl:

What if Dr Kitten is confident in your fear of casualties?

Rolfe.
 
lightfire22000 said:
Yeah, but you wouldn't want to risk it either. So I could defend myself if you attacked because I'm confident in your fear of casualties.
Click to expand...

Rolfe said:
I'm sorry, but there are so many gems in this thread that simply demand laughing dogs.
Click to expand...

True enough. An enemy's fear of casualties is a good way to keep him from attacking. It's not, as far as I can tell, a great way to defend yourself if he does attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom