Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism

[The Muslim Agorist]

Theft IS ownership.

If theft is ownership than illegal immigration is citizenship, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. So, I’m not sure what your objection is.

You’re responses give me sufficient suspicion that you are not interested in a reasoned discussion and you are willfully conflating opposite concepts and ignoring logical arguments.

I don’t feed trolls. Sorry.

[alaric89]

About that strawman....
I'm sorry. You indicated you wanted a standing army at collective borders. I assumed you knew someone would be in charge of those forces and they would indeed have power. I made assumptions,my bad.
In a libertarian society there would be no need for a standing army because there would be no collective border to protect.
I am not afraid of the ghosts out there as much as I am afraid of people, with no accountability, who can take a gun, put it to my head, tell me he doesn't like my pinecone/mud fetish. (and besides it is against the law because a Governor from 1865 saw his wife stuffing pine cones up her ass while rubbing her clit, this pissed him off because he really wanted to poon her in the back door but never got permission and got a anti masterbating pinecone law passed in a slim vote, because some assholes can actually be jealous of a fucking pinecone) and to protect me this authority figure is going to stuff the pine cone in my ear and make me do jumping jacks- because he can.
Nope rather have a unprotected border.

[hellbilly]

It's understandable that Skeptical is being confrontational. I do think he is quick to throw an insult, give a poke in the eye, etc.- but so is everyone else here. I think he's about 70% "there" but not really sure as he does seem too pro-state so far to me.

However, if anyone is denying there's truth in some of his points, then those people have a lot more faith in their neighbors than I do.. given the way I see people being so eager to drag each other down versus pull one another up, any Libertarian society would be quick to fold. I just can't give many people credit for really being responsible enough to form a successful society, with or without any claim of a "state", government, etc.

[davann]

It's understandable that Skeptical is being confrontational. I do think he is quick to throw an insult, give a poke in the eye, etc.- but so is everyone else here. I think he's about 70% "there" but not really sure as he does seem too pro-state so far to me.

However, if anyone is denying there's truth in some of his points, then those people have a lot more faith in their neighbors than I do.. given the way I see people being so eager to drag each other down versus pull one another up, any Libertarian society would be quick to fold. I just can't give many people credit for really being responsible enough to form a successful society, with or without any claim of a "state", government, etc.

It is my belief that government is at the center of the issue of people's nastiness to each other. Left on thier own they would be extremely good neighbors. People are good in default mode. IMHO.

People are inherently bad and must be ruled is the defense of the socialists. That type of thinking has led to many many problems in society.

[hellbilly]

I have no idea what you think the gov. is responsible for as far as the nastiness in people's personal lives go.. but do you honestly believe that the nastiness (that you think the gov. causes) will go away simply because the gov. goes away?

[gibson042]

How about I decide to start following you around Secret-Service-style to ensure your security against potential terrorists. Shouldn't you pay for that protection?

No.  Going to answer my question now?  I'm talking about something that would INEVITABLY ARISE from a libertarian opt-out.  This is inevitably an issue in a sta- thingy of any viable size; people on the borders wind up bearing the brunt of the burden of defense, while those in the middle get the benefits.  Do you just endorse a parasitic solution to this and move on?

You answered your own question. If you are not obligated to pay for the unrequested protection I granted you, then I am not obligated to pay for the unrequested protection conferred upon me by coastal inhabitants. Nor are they obligated to subsidize the higher cost of shipping goods to me. Whatever additional burdens or benefits they have are just a fact of their location, in the same way that people in top floor walk-ups exchange fewer stairs for better views.

A list of priorities does not an endorsement make.

Fine. You have not explicitly endorsed the status quo, but your arguments are used by those in power to defend it.

My personal alternative is to remove monopoly protection from all services currently provided by government organizations. A fair price (if one exists) can be established in a free market, and all agents can bear liability for their actions.

Which hardly answers my point; force underlies claims of ownership, and power that giveth also taketh away.

But all of this is really quite irrelevant if you're willing to employ or advocate force in pursuit of your goals. Debate is for civilized people.

...

Try to control your libertarian reflex.  I'm not a statist.  Or are you calling me a liar?  If so, I'd like to know your telepathic method.  I've been showing that pure libertarianism (at least as it's been presented here), is unworkable.  That doesn't make me a statist.

It's a rhetorical device, not a reflex. I'm trying to ascertain whether you don't know that you're advocating force against peaceful people, or don't care. And I haven't called you a statist, but your apparent willingness to set rules for others' houses and businesses puts you in that ballpark.

The correct answer is, "How the hell do I know how free market roads will work? All I know is that people need roads, and so someone or some group of people will supple them."

Yeah, but how are your immigrants going to use them?  Suppose the people who own the roads don't want immigrants on them?  Suppose ONE FREAKIN' STOCKHOLDER doesn't want them on his roads?  I mean, we all know it would be wrong for the other 99 stockholders to FORCE that 1 stockholder to do something with his property he doesn't want done.  And we all know keeping the billion immigrants ready to invade and take over your libertarian paradise waiting would be wrong, wrong, wrong.

I understand your fear of the unknown, but the truth is you have far more to worry about from someone wielding the reigns of power to "do good" than an average person who moves for a chance at more prosperity. And when any large group, foreign or native, starts to abuse a system, it creates an opportunity for people to try newer and better business models—but only in the absence of state coercion. Society won't crumble just because some roads are overused and undermaintained. You've probably driven on plenty of bad and/or congested roads. I know I have.

Well, there's certainly one big down side to a free market in roads; three competing companies means three road systems, which is a hideously inefficient allocation of resources.  Same goes for utilities; what would be the point of 5 electrical grids?  Is there a place with free competition in roads and utilities?  If so, do they have multiple road or utility systems?  If so, have they benefited from same?  If the answers are no, no, and no, how, other than pure theory, do you know that's a good idea?

Electricity, roads, and rails were all developed without statutory standardization; there's a natural incentive for common carriers to interoperate after brief competition for dominance. The same process can be seen today in mobile and VoIP telephony, computer interfaces, video formats, and geopositioning... all overseen by literally dozens of prominent voluntary standards organizations.

Your mind probably won't change after reading this thread. But I encourage you to think deeply about this, maybe listen some more, and come back in a month or two with more questions. We'll still be here.

[digitalfour]

I don't support any state.

So, how is law to be enforced?  No laws?  State o' nature?

Private property can be protected without having monopolies claiming to own everything.

How does your ideology replicate?

By education, how else?

Better ideas win out in the end.

[davann]

I have no idea what you think the gov. is responsible for as far as the nastiness in people's personal lives go.. but do you honestly believe that the nastiness (that you think the gov. causes) will go away simply because the gov. goes away?

The vast majority of nastiness would I believe. Of course this is just a feeling. I have no solid eviedence as I was born into a world dominated by government. I have nothing to compare.

It would also help to get people spread out more. Cities tend to cause a lot of nastiness also. Or maybe it is just the power of the state is also condensed in cities too. Hard to say. 

[Skeptical]

You answered your own question. If you are not obligated to pay for the unrequested protection I granted you, then I am not obligated to pay for the unrequested protection conferred upon me by coastal inhabitants.

No, you're comparing free-riderism to being a victim of a protection racket, they're two different things.  But if you can't see the difference, then libertarianism is starting to make more sense.

It's a rhetorical device, not a reflex. I'm trying to ascertain whether you don't know that you're advocating force against peaceful people, or don't care.

Yes, in the absence of a better alternative, I advocate force.  For God's sake it's been the right hand of civilization for how long now?  I'm supposed to throw it out and drink the absolutist libertarian Kool-Aid why, exactly?

And I haven't called you a statist, but your apparent willingness to set rules for others' houses and businesses puts you in that ballpark.

The problem you guys have is that you're purely ideological.  You don't seem to give two shits about how your "system" would work in the real world.  Does anyone take you guys seriously?  I did, before I came here.  Now I think you're a joke.  In fact, I think you guys are completely un-serious.  You're like those pacifist groups, like the Quakers.  Everything's fine as long as you can live in your little bubble, under the protection of the big bad gubbmint.  That's because you'll never be put to the test.  But like the Quakers, you'd wither and die in the real world, without Uncle Sam's protection.  A society can no more be truly pacifist than it can be truly libertarian.

Don't bother telling me how your thingies would survive.  I know now for sure they wouldn't.  Libertarian socie- er, wait, societies are for humans...libertarian natio- er, wait, nations are for humans...libertarian countr- er, wait, countries are for humans.  Libertarian thingies = suicide pacts.

Libertarian principles can inform a society, but they can never form the basis for one (unless it's a bunch of parasites like the Quakers, free-riders "too good" to pull their weight).

[Skeptical]

It's understandable that Skeptical is being confrontational. I do think he is quick to throw an insult, give a poke in the eye, etc.- but so is everyone else here. I think he's about 70% "there" but not really sure as he does seem too pro-state so far to me.

However, if anyone is denying there's truth in some of his points, then those people have a lot more faith in their neighbors than I do.. given the way I see people being so eager to drag each other down versus pull one another up, any Libertarian society would be quick to fold. I just can't give many people credit for really being responsible enough to form a successful society, with or without any claim of a "state", government, etc.

I think you and I could share a beer and talk like adults.  It's the rest of this bunch who come across as autistic.  We could agree that we want as little government intrusion in our lives as possible without throwing the baby out with the bath water (i.e., strictly limited government, a society informed by libertarian values, rather than destroyed by them).

And YES, it absolutely comes down to human nature, which is not some abstract logic, but a concrete reality.

Edit: oh, and don't even bother trying to foist that "socialists assume humans are bad" crap on me.  I'm well aware of what socialists are up to, and no I don't share their psychotic need to do evil in the name of good, nor do I share their creepy assumptions about human nature.  I believe people are basically good, too.  But I also know that good takes a lot of shapes, as many shapes as there are minds on the planet.  And some people's idea of good line up with Kim Jung Il's.  And you guys would fold like a cheap tent when Kim and his gang came around the corner.

[Skeptical]

Theft IS ownership.

If theft is ownership than illegal immigration is citizenship, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

I mean, is this what it's like arguing with autistics?  "Hey, I know, I'll just shove this square peg into one of those round holes in the Orwell quote."

For Chrissakes, who thinks someone who stole something and got away with it doesn't own it?  I mean, besides a Kool-Aid drinker?

Edit: oh, and would you clowns please stop misusing "statist"?  It means someone who think's the state's hunky-dory, e.g., "gimme more, gimme more," not "anyone but anarchists."  I'm for the minimum government possible, which disqualifies me as a statist.

[Skeptical]

I'm done here for now, I feel I made my point.  And I learned a new lack of respect for libertarians.

To summarize, libertarianism is a suicide pact.  As proof, I offered several scenarios, all of which sit just fine with libertarians:

1) Open borders are non-negotiable for libertarians, up to and including a nuke-equipped-RV-driving immigrant.
2) Open borders are non-negotiable for libertarians, up to and including mass invasion in unlimited numbers by "peaceful" immigrants whose stated purpose is to end libertarianism.
3) Open borders are non-negotiable for libertarians, up to and including mass infiltration by millions of troops of a foreign power.

The sad thing is, I'm not even exaggerating.  Libertarians literally have no problem with any of these scenarios.  I kept waiting for them to cry "foul!  We'd never be so stupid!"  But they never did.

Libertarianism is a suicide pact.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot, free markets are not synonymous with libertarian.  The secret, burning desire of every business in the history of the world has been to become a market-dominant monopoly.  How would libertarians prevent GovCorp from taking over?  They wouldn't.

[blackie]

I post no trespassing signs on my property. No open boarders here.

[alaric89]

I'm done here for now, I feel I made my point.  And I learned a new lack of respect for libertarians.

To summarize, libertarianism is a suicide pact.  As proof, I offered several scenarios, all of which sit just fine with libertarians:

1) Open borders are non-negotiable for libertarians, up to and including a nuke-equipped-RV-driving immigrant.
2) Open borders are non-negotiable for libertarians, up to and including mass invasion in unlimited numbers by "peaceful" immigrants whose stated purpose is to end libertarianism.
3) Open borders are non-negotiable for libertarians, up to and including mass infiltration by millions of troops of a foreign power.

The sad thing is, I'm not even exaggerating.  Libertarians literally have no problem with any of these scenarios.  I kept waiting for them to cry "foul!  We'd never be so stupid!"  But they never did.

Libertarianism is a suicide pact.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot, free markets are not synonymous with libertarian.  The secret, burning desire of every business in the history of the world has been to become a market-dominant monopoly.  How would libertarians prevent GovCorp from taking over?  They wouldn't.

I'll be serious for a moment (taking a break from my pinecones) If you are sincere you really should look at the other threads besides your own.
You'll find most of us are not fans of corporations for example.
If you listened to the radio show you will find very find a lot of disagreement even between the hosts of the program.

[BobRobertson]

It seems to me, from glancing over this 5 page slug-fest, that the simple issue of collective power is the problem.

Libertarians, in principle, do not believe that 2 people have more rights or powers than 1, nor 100, nor 1M.

So while 1 person is perfectly within his rights to post No Trespassing signs around his property, it is not his right to tell his neighbor to do the same.

It is, therefore, also wrong for 100 people to tell me I have to post No Trespassing signs, or for 1M to "restrict immigration" by fiat because they are just doing exactly the same thing.