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 Show
| | |-+  Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism  (Read 22263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism
« Reply #90 on: May 08, 2010, 12:44:10 PM »

I guess "Skeptical" gave up; perhaps he was a troll after all.  Still, as they say in sales, an objection is not a rejection; it's a request for more information.  This is the sort of questions I had (asked with the same snarky attitude) right before I embraced the anarcho-capitalist philosophy.

Interesting. How would you have responded to something like this:
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.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" Rillion

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism
« Reply #91 on: May 23, 2010, 09:33:43 AM »

Voluntaryism does not argue for the form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned.Just say five people owned five houses.If they formed a co operative group and enforced their laws on a sixth person who owned a house without the sixth persons permission or agreement and forced the sixth person to pay dues and obey their laws it is logically false to claim it is legitimate.By the same token it would be wrong for the sixth person  to say it is illegitimate for the five persons to have control over their own houses.
That's not the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is that libertarians don't think the 5 people have a right to create a neighborhood from which they can exclude people.

Yes they do.

Quote
Quote
Why cant we decide which group to be part of?
Precisely my point; libertarians refuse to acknowledge the right to make this decision.

No they don't.

Quote
Quote
Immigration is simply people wanting to join your exclusive group.So why cant they?Because they are the wrong color?Because they dont speak your language?Your argument comes from fear that if you let people make these choices you will no longer get to control them.
So, your libertarianism is predicated on your idea of political correctness?  If not, why bring up "wrong color" or language at all?  It doesn't matter why I don't want someone trespassing on my property, does it?

The country is not your property. Nor did everybody in the country all decide to get together and unanimously agree to restrict immigration.

chief engineer of these things?  The State.  QED
[/quote]
I'm leaving the State out of this, because this question doesn't hinge on the State.  It's about libertarians' refusal to acknowledge the right of individuals to form and act as collectives.  According to libertarians, 5 guys have the right to own and control property, but they don't have the right to form a collective substrate beneath their property, call it a nation, and own and control it.[/quote]

Of course they do. But why do you think that admitting this means that the government has a right to control immigration? That would only be the case if all the owners of the land that the government wants to restrict immigration onto had formed just such an agreement, and that the government was they agency that they had all selected to enforce restrictions on entry for them. Since this has not happened, though, your support for immigration controls doesn't seem to follow from your argument for it.

Quote
It is fine if those 1 million are in agreement.But that is some utopian vision you have there buddy!You cant even get two fucking people to agree let alone 1 million.
Libertarians are supposed to be good with theory.  How about 1 million agreeing to abide by the popular vote?

Vote for what? Let's say that a land owner on the Arizona/Mexico border wants to let some Mexicans come and work on his farm whether or not they have been granted visas or permits from the US government. The Mexicans would be violating immigration law, but who's property would the US government be defending if it kicked them out? And why should the fact that a million other people who don't own that land agreed to abide by a popular vote made by three-hundred million other people that don't own this landthat this guy should not be able to let the Mexicans onto his land mean that the government has a right to prevent them coming in?

Quote
Quote
The state and the nation are non existent as you say.It is a collective of individuals with no more rights than one individual has.
No, libertarians don't acknowledge the right of collectives at all, if they don't acknowledge the right of nations to control immigration.  It's tantamount to rejecting the idea of nations altogether.  Maybe this sort of ideological rigidity stands in the way of libertarianism's popularity.

Maybe. The truth can sometimes be unpopular.
Logged

Watrfrnt

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism
« Reply #92 on: June 23, 2010, 10:34:40 AM »

In fact, I put a nation's right to exist before individual rights and liberty, and small government, much less an individual's supposed right to invade that nation at will.  I also think the national right to exist and the individual right to liberty are inextricably entwined; a nation dedicated to individual liberty but unwilling to control its membership will inevitably be destroyed by the influx of individuals lacking, or even hostile to, that dedication.


In the quote you say is that a nation or group must control its membership.

In a nation, at least in our current nation, secession is not allowable. In any nation or group one must be able to quit. If one is able to quit, the group will either expand because it satisfies its members and the people in the group want to voluntary associate with one another or the group will disband or become ever smaller and smaller because the members don't get any felling of community from the group.

If a nation or group relies on coercion to control its members, then that group will eventually cease to exist.

 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 33 queries.