Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss (Read 6449 times)
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #50 - Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm
Print Post  
Wait what? You never heard of private protection companies? Basically you would pay a company to make sure that your home does not get broken into and you are not assaulted.

Sort of like the police except there would be competing protection companies. Think of it like Mall Cops (who are private) as the protection of the general public. Just that these private police officers would be armed (not sure if Mall cops are).

So in this case it is not any of the three things you proposed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Awesome
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline


Posts: 377
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Joined: Dec 1st, 2012
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #51 - Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:30pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:33am:
1) It's "every man for themself" in which case it's the "law of the jungle" were only the strongest survive. Aggression is unchecked except by active defense by the person. A person would literally be confined to their "castle" (home) or they would lose anything and everthing to others. 

This is a caricature. While I don't know if private security will be effective in defense against thugs, there is no evidence that such will the world be without the government. You and Josh seem to have this conversation:

Josh: the social contract does not make sense

Shiva: but without government we will all kill each other

Josh: you have no evidence for that

Shiva: my evidence is that without government we will all kill each other.
  

NSA agents, if you can read this, your mother will die tomorrow.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #52 - Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:39pm
Print Post  
Awesome wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:30pm:
This is a caricature. While I don't know if private security will be effective in defense against thugs, there is no evidence that such will the world be without the government. You and Josh seem to have this conversation:

Josh: the social contract does not make sense

Shiva: but without government we will all kill each other

Josh: you have no evidence for that

Shiva: my evidence is that without government we will all kill each other.

True, it's very cyclical and doesn't get to the point. Reminds me of people who base their beliefs in "what the bible says" and when asked how they know this is true they say "the bible says so" when asked how they know the bible is true the response is again "the bible says so".

So it doesn't seem too far-fetched to say that statism is a belief system. You believe that without government everything would go to hell. Now, I don't advocate for any government removal any time soon but I do think the burden of proof is on those who say that chaos would erupt.

To make things clear, I don't think it's feasible in any way to get rid of the government anytime soon. I don't think too much about what would happen if government was removed because I have yet to hear a good argument for how to go about getting rid of it. So it seems silly/pointless to even argue about what would happen without government.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #53 - Dec 25th, 2013 at 8:17am
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:39pm:
True, it's very cyclical and doesn't get to the point.
So it doesn't seem too far-fetched to say that statism is a belief system. You believe that without government everything would go to hell. Now, I don't advocate for any government removal any time soon but I do think the burden of proof is on those who say that chaos would erupt.


We have numerous examples of where government has broken down and in all cases chaos erupted. Somalia comes to mind instantly and the fact is undeniable that lacking government chaos replaces law and order historically. 

Liberalterian wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:39pm:
To make things clear, I don't think it's feasible in any way to get rid of the government anytime soon. I don't think too much about what would happen if government was removed because I have yet to hear a good argument for how to go about getting rid of it. So it seems silly/pointless to even argue about what would happen without government.


I would like to believe in Utopia as well but we're not anywhere near that today. Someday perhaps but if it ever happens it will probably be thousands of years from now. It is a goal that we should certianly strive for.

As I've noted in another post the roles and responsibilities of government are fundamentally dictated by the violations of the Rights of the Person by other Persons. The laws overwhelmingly address the violations of the Rights of others by other Persons. We wouldn't need a military, for example, if there was no threat of other "People" attacking or invading our nation. We wouldn't need the 13th Amendment if "slavery" had never existed in the US.

Someday, hopefully, individuals will evolve intellectually so that government is unnecessary. It is a noble goal but it is a distant goal that we will never achieve in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children's children's children.

In the meantime I will advocate for limited government to protect our inalienable rights as persons and to mitigate the violations of our inalienable rights when they are violated by other persons.

At the same time I'll also address the fact that we don't have a firm understanding of what our inalienable rights actually are.

As I've noted in other posts we don't have a "right to pollute" and we don't have a right of property related to land or natural resources as we did not produce land or natural resources with our labor. We did not grow that 300 year old redwood in the forest and we did not create that oil in the ground and we don't have a Right of Property related to it. We, as a society, might need that redwood lumber or that oil in the ground but those that bring it to market don't actually own the wood or the oil because they didn't produce it with their labor. They merely brought it to market. 

We cannot apply the "divine right of kings" and the "inalienable rights of the person" in the same belief system as they are juxtaposed beliefs.

So someday we might reach Utopia but it will take a lot more knowledge and education that will have to be universal througout mankind. In the meantime we require government as the Rule of Law must exist to protect us from other Persons.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #54 - Dec 25th, 2013 at 3:02pm
Print Post  
Awesome wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:30pm:
This is a caricature. While I don't know if private security will be effective in defense against thugs, there is no evidence that such will the world be without the government. You and Josh seem to have this conversation:

Josh: the social contract does not make sense

Shiva: but without government we will all kill each other

Josh: you have no evidence for that

Shiva: my evidence is that without government we will all kill each other.

Liberalterian wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:39pm:
True, it's very cyclical and doesn't get to the point. Reminds me of people who base their beliefs in "what the bible says" and when asked how they know this is true they say "the bible says so" when asked how they know the bible is true the response is again "the bible says so".

So it doesn't seem too far-fetched to say that statism is a belief system. You believe that without government everything would go to hell. Now, I don't advocate for any government removal any time soon but I do think the burden of proof is on those who say that chaos would erupt.

Whoa, look at this -- reason. That's not allowed in the Faith of Shiva.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #55 - Dec 26th, 2013 at 8:58am
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 3:02pm:
Whoa, look at this -- reason. That's not allowed in the Faith of Shiva.


Considering that I can provide actual evidence that the Rights of the Person are violated more with the absence of government than when government exists, even if the government is tyrannical, I believe I win the argument. Nothing is more tyrannical than "people" unrestrained by the Rule of Law established by government historically. The USSR under Stalin was "better off" than the "People" would have been without the Communist government including the political purges under Stalin. Gross violations of the Rights of the Person but less than what would have been experienced under anarchy and no rule of law.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #56 - Dec 26th, 2013 at 9:32am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 8:58am:
Considering that I can provide actual evidence that the Rights of the Person are violated more with the absence of government than when government exists, even if the government is tyrannical, I believe I win the argument

Where in the hell is your evidence for this?
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Awesome
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline


Posts: 377
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Joined: Dec 1st, 2012
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #57 - Dec 26th, 2013 at 1:35pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 8:58am:
Considering that I can provide actual evidence that the Rights of the Person are violated more with the absence of government than when government exists, even if the government is tyrannical, I believe I win the argument. Nothing is more tyrannical than "people" unrestrained by the Rule of Law established by government historically. The USSR under Stalin was "better off" than the "People" would have been without the Communist government including the political purges under Stalin. Gross violations of the Rights of the Person but less than what would have been experienced under anarchy and no rule of law.

I don't want to play any race cards, but as a Russian, I am quite surprised that you think that we couldn't have voluntarily cooperated to create a prospering society and were "better off" controlled by a Georgian dictator. That aside, give one example of anarchy that was worse than USSR under Stalin. Somalia doesn't count because:

1. It isn't worse than USSR under Stalin.

2. It has a government and in fact had a socialist government before what it has now.

3. Even if it didn't have a government, the poor standards of living and chaos would be due to the fact that there would be a big change (from big gov to no gov) rather than simply because there would be no gov.

But EVEN IF life under anarchy is no good (which, I don't deny, is possible), is initiation of force and infringement upon property rights justifiable to prevent chaos?
  

NSA agents, if you can read this, your mother will die tomorrow.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #58 - Dec 26th, 2013 at 1:41pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 8:58am:
Considering that I can provide actual evidence that the Rights of the Person are violated more with the absence of government than when government exists, even if the government is tyrannical, I believe I win the argument. Nothing is more tyrannical than "people" unrestrained by the Rule of Law established by government historically. The USSR under Stalin was "better off" than the "People" would have been without the Communist government including the political purges under Stalin. Gross violations of the Rights of the Person but less than what would have been experienced under anarchy and no rule of law.

Yeah I disagree with this 100%! The People would have been a lot better off in Anarchy than under a Totalitarian regime. You can claim that a republic is better than Anarchy but to say that Totalitarianism is better is just ridiculous. You're telling me you would rather live in North Korea than Somalia? Because that makes one of us. Have fun being in a work camp with your whole family because one member of your family escaped to China.

Another example that pertains better: Ukraine under Anarchy would have been worse off than it was under Stalin? Seriously... I don't see how many more millions could have been starved.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Reply #59 - Dec 27th, 2013 at 11:50am
Print Post  
It was a bold claim to make that the USSR was better off under Stalin than it would be under anarchy but I believe it to be true based upon some simple facts.

The "rule of law" does not exist under anarchy as there is no enforcement agency to create or enforce the law. As poor as the legal protections were under Stalin there were still some but under anarchy there are none.

For example there are no laws against theft or murder under anarchy (anarchy represents an absence of any law as there is no government to create law) but these were still crimes under Stalin. Slavery can exist under anarchy so long as those enslaving others have the "might" necessary to enslave others. Who's going to have the "authority" to prevent it?

Under anarchy it's "every man for themself" as no one else has any authority to intervene based upon what is best for society.

Charles Ramsey would have had "no authority" to break down the door of Ariel Castro's home and rescue Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight as, without government, there would be no law against kidnapping and holding these women as sex slaves.

That is a fact that the anarchists fail to address. Without government there is no "rule of law" so nothing is illegal. We can have principles but they only apply to us and not to others. I can agree to live by the NAP but cannot impose that upon others under anarchy as I have no authority to do so. Only based upon the "Social Contract" that establishes government can we, as individuals, collectively impose laws that enforce the NAP on all of those under the jurisdiction of the government.

One of the problems I believe exists is that many look at the "Social Contract" such as the US Constitution and state, "I didn't agree to that" but that is not what we agree to. What we agree to are the criteria and conditions that create the "Social Contract" that establishes government. The criteria for the "Social Contract" as established for the US Constitution are very high.

It required 3/4ths of the States to ratify the originaly US Constitution and it requires 3/4ths of the States to change it. We cannot pragmatically expect 100% concurrance to any proposed changes but we did establish that a simple majority wasn't nearly enough to change the "Social Contract" as we understood the tyranny of "democracy" based upon simple majority rule. Instead of simple "democrary" we imposed a very high super-majority requirement to establish and change the US Constitution as a protection against "democratic" rule. It is not a "perfect" protection as nothing is "perfect" but it is a very pragmatic criteria related to the creation of the "Social Contract" of government.

I seriously doubt that anyone here could propose a better criteria for a Social Contract that is required for the establishment of law and order for the nation. Certainly the abandonment of law and order established by the "Social Contract" is not the answer and without law none of our Rights are protected by society.



 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Green Party!? Jill Stein? Yesss
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy