Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

Poll

The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

Limited Government Libertarian
- 75 (28.3%)
Minarchist
- 50 (18.9%)
Free Market Retributionist
- 33 (12.5%)
Free Market Reparationist
- 45 (17%)
Self Defense Libertarian
- 35 (13.2%)
Pacifist
- 9 (3.4%)
None of the Above
- 18 (6.8%)

Total Members Voted: 81


Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Down

Author Topic: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?  (Read 62474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fisher

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #180 on: June 14, 2006, 12:52:18 PM »

So you believe the Free State Project is destined to fail?
It already has.
Logged

fisher

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #181 on: June 14, 2006, 12:54:21 PM »

[
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.

We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.
:?
cooperation....that sounds commie!
I thought capitalist are all about competition.
Logged

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #182 on: June 14, 2006, 01:04:48 PM »

beyond Locke's proviso the very fact that you occupy that location creates a monetary and legal obligation on me

Incorrect. My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.


:?
cooperation....that sounds commie!
I thought capitalist are all about competition.

Don't worry - it's a common mistake among deficient intellectuals. It's similar to thinking greed is solely seeking monetary profit, instead of the more general psychic profit.

Cooperation not to kill each other - competition to obtain property.
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #183 on: June 14, 2006, 01:14:35 PM »

Quote
My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.

it does if all of the pile is already legally claimed and I must "pick from the pile" inorder to actually exist because the pile can not be added to via labor...

this is just simple logic.
Logged

fisher

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #184 on: June 14, 2006, 01:20:12 PM »

What is a deficient intellectual?

I don't think I've ever been called an intellectual before this.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deficient
de·fi·cient
adj.
   1. Lacking an essential quality or element: deficient in common sense.
   2. Inadequate in amount or degree; insufficient: a deficient education.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectual
intellectual
n. : An intellectual person.

n : a person who uses the mind creatively


Why not cooperation to obtain property?

cooperation is more efficient than competition.
Logged

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #185 on: June 14, 2006, 01:24:56 PM »

What is a deficient intellectual?

I was going to use 'intellectually deficients'.

Why not cooperation to obtain property?
cooperation is more efficient than competition.

This is false. Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

fisher

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #186 on: June 14, 2006, 01:59:04 PM »

Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
Requiring one way of doing something does not mean it is inefficient.
What if that "one way of doing something" is the most efficient way?
Logged

Highlander

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #187 on: June 14, 2006, 02:07:19 PM »

[
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.

We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.
:?
cooperation....that sounds commie!
I thought capitalist are all about competition.

Small 'c' communism is a fine way to cooperate.  The key being you can leave the commune/church/civic org. when you think it no longer benefits you.
Logged

Highlander

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #188 on: June 14, 2006, 02:10:48 PM »

Why not cooperation to obtain property?
cooperation is more efficient than competition.

This is false. Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean on the first part, would you expand?  Also, consider that competition also breeds cooperation.  There are countless examples if one focuses on the divsion of labor.
Logged

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #189 on: June 14, 2006, 02:40:55 PM »

Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
Requiring one way of doing something does not mean it is inefficient.
What if that "one way of doing something" is the most efficient way?

The chance of that happening is incredibly small, and even if it wasn't, competition would still find it.


Why not cooperation to obtain property?
cooperation is more efficient than competition.

This is false. Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean on the first part, would you expand?

If we are cooperating, we have to do something only one way. Also, if we compromise, we all lose.

Also, consider that competition also breeds cooperation.  There are countless examples if one focuses on the divsion of labor.

Voluntary cooperation is a good as voluntary competition.
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

Highlander

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #190 on: June 14, 2006, 03:13:39 PM »

Quote from: Highlander
You seem to have a much higher faith in free-will to over come centuries of violence and strife, which has transcended all human systems throughout time.

Arguing that humans are fundemantally violent by using examples in which the humans were in violent situations proves absolutely nothing. It's much more logical and consistant to argue that humans are rational; when faced with more to gain by using violence, violence is used, when faced with more to gain by using nonviolence, nonviolence is used.

Do you have children?  When I said 'my own observational history' I was referring to such things as what you see with small children.  They are little savages without constant repetition and discipline!  They grab what isn't theirs and frequently resort to violence when angered by their peers, hitting or biting or kicking!  They will only change this behavior if someone more powerful than them takes action to correct them.  EDIT:  See this thread for discussion which supports this assertion!

The violent criminals in our penal systems overwhelmingly come from fatherless homes.  They end up that way because they lacked the correction I spoke of above.  They aren't irrational, nor are all of them stupid.  Without some authority to lock them away from a given society, they could well acquire arms and power and subject the weak in a totally stateless society.

If you look at the global anarchy among states, you see the same thing.  You have regions where helpless people are ruled by totalitarian war lords, such was the case in Iraq.  The neighbors do nothing to stop them, the big kids on the global block do nothing - in fact some actually cooperate with these guys.  Look again to Baathist Iraq's deals with Russia, France & Germany!

So I do think it demonstrates something about human nature, if one looks from the micro examples in a nursery room to the macro examples on the world stage.

Quote from: MobileDigit
Quote from: Highlander
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.

We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.

I don't think it possible.

EDIT:  The reason is because it is many times easier to just take the bread the little red hen made after months of planting, tending, harvesting, milling and baking it!  If you have a lot of power, cooperation may appear less profitable.

Quote from: MobileDigit
So you believe the Free State Project is destined to fail?

What would success look like?  Is the common goal of all free staters Anarcho-Capitalism, or a drastically limited state?  If the former, I'd say yes, it will fail.  The latter has a chance, but against well financed odds.

Quote from: MobileDigit
Quote from: Highlander
I think competition, cooperation and persuasion is the best way to live together in peace.  However, those who do not must be dealt with.  That is reality.

I agree. However, being 'dealt with' does not require violence. If I initiated force, or refused to pay court costs, and an organization tracked my violations, and businesses would not hire me, wouldn't that be dealing with me? Wouldn't that make me seriously consider not being violent?

I sincerely think it a utopian belief violent persons can be dealt with non-violently.  The hypothetical person above could just as likely join a disreputable business or organization.

If people are rational, as you've said, then some end consumers might only take their own cost benefit into consideration, ignore moral considerations and would not care if he was getting stolen goods or those produced on the backs of some oppressed group.

Quote from: MobileDigit
Quote from: Highlander
I think the free market cannot solve the problem of people who wish to rule over others.  It cannot overcome tribalist tendencies.  When I try to reason out what society might look like under An-Cap, I cannot escape that strong men will maintain order over given areas, especially areas that are essentially lawless.  Less able people will provide money or services to these strongmen for protection.

Imagine there are 10 security forces and free entry into the security market in say, New Hampshire. If one becomes rogue, the others prevent it from extorting the populace. An added check is that most residents own firearms. Exactly how is this situation not solving the problem of people attempting to rule over others?

First let us realize that to get from reality to your ideal would not ever be at a place where security forces are 'legit' so that some fraction can go rogue, but I'll play along anyway.

What if the one rogue force had always been rogue and looked really hot in her X-man uniform... no wait, what?  Where was I?  Oh yeah, the rogue force was bent on advancing weaponry to annihilate the remaining 9.  Since the other 9 were mandated by AnCap principles to only use defensive force, The R force knows this and covertly develops a biological or chemical weapons which kill the fighters but leaves the property unharmed.  Once they attack, it is likely too late for those protected by the other 9.

Quote from: MobileDigit
If you go into the woods and build a house, and then I come along after you and claim you are my serf and must pay me, that is immoral. What I am proposing is that you build a house and then you hire me, which is no different than hiring a maid.

What if the woods are your woods?  By what mechanism would you prove title to the land under AnCap?

Quote from: MobileDigit
Quote from: Highlander
I agree you shouldn't be forced to join a collective, even one justified on the above reasoning, perhaps a compromise would be to allow individuals to claim sovereignty in the same manner American Indian tribes do?  Governments would then get funds from you when providing you with services you pay for, no?

If that was so, the government would not be a government, it would be a business. Governments are involuntary, businesses are voluntary.

Good point.  I'm guilty of ignoring the fact that I largely want what you want, I just believe humans need a common authority for certain basics, or humans devolve into tribal factions over whatever they most need or desire.  I do think the best government for these basics are local, however.   I also think we need protection from the other states on the planet.

Finally, I appreciate your willingness to slosh this out.  I think AnCap is good and logical in the abstract, but faces the practical problems I've already mentioned. 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2006, 03:53:54 PM by Highlander »
Logged

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #191 on: June 14, 2006, 05:28:05 PM »

They grab what isn't theirs and frequently resort to violence when angered by their peers, hitting or biting or kicking!

I was not like this, nor my sister. Also, don't children frequently say "He started it" or "She took my toy"? Is this not evidence to the fact that property rights are important?

Why must only one security force exist? If multiple ones do, and none force you to pay, it is anarchy.

They aren't irrational, nor are all of them stupid.

If they are not irrational, wouldn't they choose wealth over violence?

Without some authority to lock them away from a given society,

There is nothing in anarcho-capitalism theory that says this is immoral, only that they must consent to it in the first place.

they could well acquire arms and power and subject the weak in a totally stateless society.

They can also do this in a stateful society, but not in a society where the weak have weapons.

If you look at the global anarchy among states, you see the same thing.  You have regions where helpless people are ruled by totalitarian war lords, such was the case in Iraq.  The neighbors do nothing to stop them, the big kids on the global block do nothing - in fact some actually cooperate with these guys.  Look again to Baathist Iraq's deals with Russia, France & Germany!

The problem with the argument that there is global anarchy because there is no world government is that states are not humans. States subjugate by their vary nature - taxation, while humans do not. Thus, you are again using a violent situation to "prove" human nature is violent.

The reason is because it is many times easier to just take the bread the little red hen made after months of planting, tending, harvesting, milling and baking it!  If you have a lot of power, cooperation may appear less profitable.

And the big guns surrounding the little red hen's house make cooperation more profitable.

What would success look like?  Is the common goal of all free staters Anarcho-Capitalism, or a drastically limited state?  If the former, I'd say yes, it will fail.  The latter has a chance, but against well financed odds.

I imagine success would look like the Libertarian party's platform.

In my opinion, the only chance for anarcho-capitalism is evolution, not revolution. I believe that a small enough government will allow private security and private courts, and will shrink until the security agencies could protect their clients from it, and government will die of starvation. :)

I sincerely think it a utopian belief violent persons can be dealt with non-violently.

They would be met violently if caught in the act.

The hypothetical person above could just as likely join a disreputable business or organization.

Would you trade with a disreputable business?

If people are rational, as you've said, then some end consumers might only take their own cost benefit into consideration, ignore moral considerations and would not care if he was getting stolen goods or those produced on the backs of some oppressed group.

This is true now as well, but then again other (and likely most) consumers would not buy from those companies. And you know, boycotts do work.

First let us realize that to get from reality to your ideal would not ever be at a place where security forces are 'legit' so that some fraction can go rogue, but I'll play along anyway.

I point you to my theory of how anarchism will come about, above.

Oh yeah, the rogue force was bent on advancing weaponry to annihilate the remaining 9.  Since the other 9 were mandated by AnCap principles to only use defensive force, The R force knows this and covertly develops a biological or chemical weapons which kill the fighters but leaves the property unharmed.  Once they attack, it is likely too late for those protected by the other 9.

By rogue agency I mean one practicing extortion. In that case, the legitimate agencies can protect their clients.

You seem to imply that a government would be able to solve this issue because it would search the rogue agency's property, but if the rogue agency is covertly developing weapons, how would the government know? If it was openly developing weapons, wouldn't the legitimate agencies be able to protect their clients with technology?

What if the woods are your woods?  By what mechanism would you prove title to the land under AnCap?

I disagree that one can own woods without acting to change them. The mechanism could be however you could prove you rightfully own the property, witnesses, previous owner, court cases saying you do, etc.
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

rabidfurby

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #192 on: June 14, 2006, 09:08:34 PM »

Quote
My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.

it does if all of the pile is already legally claimed and I must "pick from the pile" inorder to actually exist because the pile can not be added to via labor...

this is just simple logic.

Your argument: You have to occupy land in order to exist, and land is finite. Therefore, using land harms everyone else. Did I get that right?

Now, a counterexample:
You have to eat food in order to exist, and food is finite. Therefore, eating harms everyone else.
You have to drink water in order to exist, and water is finite. Therefore, drinking water harms everyone else.
You have to breathe oxygen in order to exist, and oxygen is finite, Therefore, breathing harms everyone else.

If land is subject to this "economic rent", why isn't food and air and water? If you can answer without relying on "this old dead guy said so", I'll give you a cookie.
Logged

mbd

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #193 on: June 14, 2006, 09:18:57 PM »

When a person comes into existence, they either owe rent or are given free rent by someone. No free lunches, bubba. I don't know why you need pages of posts to explain this. I also don't see what the problem is.
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?
« Reply #194 on: June 18, 2006, 09:59:36 PM »

Quote
My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.

it does if all of the pile is already legally claimed and I must "pick from the pile" inorder to actually exist because the pile can not be added to via labor...

this is just simple logic.

Your argument: You have to occupy land in order to exist, and land is finite. Therefore, using land harms everyone else. Did I get that right?

Now, a counterexample:
You have to eat food in order to exist, and food is finite. Therefore, eating harms everyone else.
You have to drink water in order to exist, and water is finite. Therefore, drinking water harms everyone else.
You have to breathe oxygen in order to exist, and oxygen is finite, Therefore, breathing harms everyone else.

If land is subject to this "economic rent", why isn't food and air and water? If you can answer without relying on "this old dead guy said so", I'll give you a cookie.

food is produced via human labor therefore it is legitimate private property...3D spaces to occupy are not.

water and air beng part of the natural commons are subject to economic rent...

in NH all the surface water over 20 acres and all underground water is owned in common with the state as the public trustee.

when privately enclosing both air and water - today we are leaving "enough and as good in common for others"

the private enclosure of air to be used as a sink for our waste is a problem because we have gone beyond leaving "enough and as good" and thus we are all subjected to the flip side of economic rent in form of negative externalities.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2006, 10:03:45 PM by BenTucker »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 37 queries.