Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet? (Read 5972 times)
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2119
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #30 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:18pm
Print Post  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4273
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #31 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:19pm
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:26am:
To follow up though on your point about a lack of central authority decreasing the incentive for a foreign attack, couldn't the possession of a valuable resource by a populace with no strong defense be enough of a reason for attack, like Iraq did to Kuwait for its oil in Persian Gulf pt.1 starring Papa Bush?

"Follow up on your point," you say, and not even a sentence later, you go on to a "question" that's not really a question but is supposed to be some kind of "gotch ya" statement. Why must you immediately go to the defense and try to sneak by the principle I have laid forward to you? Instead of seriously considering the argument, you're trying to find some way to retaliate against it. That's not intellectual honesty. If you have seriously considered the argument but have found a flaw, then tell me, and tell me directly. Don't play this childish game of "asking questions" when you are not curious about the subject, but simply want to "defend" your position. If you feel that your question is genuine and not an immediate attack mechanism, you need to reevaluate the way you approach these subjects. Go back to my original post and reread my argument. This time, seriously consider it. If you still don't understand it, feel free to post again and ask for clarification. If you have found a serious flaw in the principle, please let me know. Either way, inform me honestly and don't jump around hoops of "question asking" in an attempt at communication. Thank you.
  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #32 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:11pm
Print Post  
Josh,

I'm not playing childish 'gotcha' games.  I read your response regarding Sweden and Ireland and I think you showed me good logic there.  My apologies for not acknowledging it as such.   

As I tossed it around in my head I wondered if just the lack of a central authority was enough to deter foreign attack.  It didn't seem possible to me that that is the only reason.  Maybe I'm a little slow in the ol' cerebrum but some of the libertarian arguments take me awhile to digest. I've probably just been indoctrinated by the state for too many years. 

In any case I thought of why an invading force would want to take over another land and it seems to me that acquisition of a valuable resource is a common cause.  It could be oil or other natural resource, strategic location, intelligent populace, dreams of domination of an entire area, or others.  So the Kuwait example popped into my head.   So I guess I was wondering if there was a flaw in your logic.  If you can explain it to me then I'd be grateful. Not trying to stick it to ya.
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4273
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #33 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:34pm
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:11pm:
I read your response regarding Sweden and Ireland and I think you showed me good logic there.

That was not logic. That was empirical verification of the logic I had already laid forward.

Quote:
As I tossed it around in my head I wondered if just the lack of a central authority was enough to deter foreign attack.

You tossed around the wrong argument in your head. I never said a lack of a central authority was sufficient to deter a foreign attack. To reiterate:

Josh wrote on Sep 9th, 2014 at 7:25pm:
Now, to your question about other nations attacking, think about incentives. Who would you rather concur: me and my property or the country of Germany? A ruling class creates a massive incentive for initiating force. In order to concur the entire territory, the intruder must only takeover the few in the ruling class. In a libertarian society, the intruder would have to takeover each individual property owner.

I was clearly measuring up the incentives of a foreign intruder, and whether the intruder is more incentivized to attack a central authority (in which case, it must only concur the few to takeover the many) or to attack a decentralized society (in which case, it must concur every single piece of property that it desires). Using simple logic, it is easily recognizable that the intruder has a better incentive to attack a statist society. Foreign invaders are less likely to attack without a state than with a state. That doesn't mean, nor did I ever claim, that an attack would never happen without a state (in fact, I explicitly pointed out that Ireland was eventually concurred). It means that a stateless society is a better deterrent to foreign invaders than a statist society.

Obviously, the same principle applies for the resources. A territory which has a singular force agency that prevails over all the resources is more likely to be targeted than a territory which requires the individual invasion of every single property owner (and establishment of a new government).
  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #34 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:45pm
Print Post  
Ok I think I understand your arguments better.  They do make good sense.  Thanks for that.

Not trying to be childish or argumentative here, but my next question is, given that a stateless area is still prone to conquering isn't it still potentially better to be a state with a strong defense against attack?  Can't every population in a certain sense become state-less once their government falls, and the invading force is left with the same predicament as if the area were state-less in the first place?
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4273
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #35 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:55pm
Print Post  
You're not providing any arguments. I provide you a solid case for why a stateless society is superior to a statist society in terms of foreign invaders, and your response is "But isn't it better to have a state?" No, it's not, like I just explained. Do you see the problem with this? It's as if I just explained to you why a negative number multiplied by another negative number comes out to be a positive number, and your response is "but isn't a negative times a negative a negative?" No, it's not -- like I just explained. The second question I cannot comprehend.
  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 41790
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #36 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 3:16pm
Print Post  
The fact is, there's nothing we can do now, as a nation with lots of potential national defense, to stop nuclear weapons from getting into the hands of "private" individuals or non-government groups of people. Just like their isn't much we can do to prevent nations from getting them.
The only real 'solution' is the solution for theft also, punishment as deterrence. Nuke us, and we will nuke you back, with interest. Yes, it's horrifying, but it's the only rational means of (hopefully) preventing use of nuclear weapons, at least against us.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 41790
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #37 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 3:21pm
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:45pm:
...my next question is, given that a stateless area is still prone to conquering isn't it still potentially better to be a state with a strong defense against attack? Can't every population in a certain sense become state-less once their government falls, and the invading force is left with the same predicament as if the area were state-less in the first place?

Yes, just like the best protection for your home is a good defense against attack.
What's the "predicament" that the "invading force" faces if it invades an anarchic area? Historically speaking, anarchic areas are ripe for takeover.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
freeforall
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #38 - Sep 10th, 2014 at 7:03pm
Print Post  
Josh,

What I'm saying is: you gave a good argument how state-less areas/societies are conquerable with difficulty.  We also discussed how states, and I presume weak ones here, are conquerable, perhaps easily.  In my last hypothetical scenario, I ask if STRONG states are the least prone to being conquered.  If so, this does not legitimize the aggression currently practiced by our strong state, but rather to say that in a world of states, you still need to be in a strong state (one that ideally maximizes liberty) to be most secure. 

Anarchy is desirable under the right conditions and I argue unfortunately those conditions are not now. But truth be told I would love to be proved wrong.  So take your best shot.
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4273
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Reply #39 - Sep 11th, 2014 at 2:20am
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 7:03pm:
What I'm saying is: you gave a good argument how state-less areas/societies are conquerable with difficulty.

While true, this representation of my argument does not entirely grasp the point. The argument concludes that there is less of an incentive for a government to attack a stateless society than a statist society.

Quote:
In my last hypothetical scenario, I ask if STRONG states are the least prone to being conquered.

I presume your desire is to see less violence rather than more power. The reason the issue of intruders is relevant is because of the potential attacks of violence. Who wins the game of war is not as relevant as minimizing the initiation of force. Asking about actually being conquered is commenting on the war game and not addressing the relevant issue of measuring the attacks of violence. Obviously, rulers desire to conquer each other, so examining the relevant factors to determine their incentives is necessary, but that is not to be confused with endorsing the behavior. Clearly, identifying the incentives behind intruders and deterring those incentives from killing innocents is far more important than winning the game of war. Thus, with the goal of a peaceful society in mind, the better question is: is there more of an incentive to attack a statist society (with a "STRONG" state) or a stateless society? I'll repost my argument yet again:

Josh wrote on Sep 9th, 2014 at 7:25pm:
Now, to your question about other nations attacking, think about incentives. Who would you rather concur: me and my property or the country of Germany? A ruling class creates a massive incentive for initiating force. In order to concur the entire territory, the intruder must only takeover the few in the ruling class. In a libertarian society, the intruder would have to takeover each individual property owner.


Despite the rhetoric from politicians, placing the word "STRONG" in all caps in front of the word "state" does not alter the conclusion. The state does not magically acquire extra power from mystically transforming tax funds into ultra only-the-state-could-possibly-make-this security machines. Those funds are coming from the state's citizens. The primary difference between a state wielding the weapons and individuals wielding the weapons is that the individuals would be disperse, requiring any potential conquerers to takeover each individual property owner to acquire any single property instead of a single entity in order to acquire an entire territory. Therefore, there is a far better incentive to attack a statist society rather than a stateless society. (I feel as though I'm a broken record.)

Quote:
Anarchy is desirable under the right conditions and I argue unfortunately those conditions are not now. But truth be told I would love to be proved wrong. So take your best shot.

You have yet to provide any arguments that I've seen. That does not rule out the possibility that you have made such arguments. However, it does rule out the possibility that I can "take my best shot" at providing a counterargument. You're handing me a dart and saying to take my best shot with no target in sight. You need to first provide me the argument before I can show any flaws in it. Of course, I would prefer for you to refrain from doing so at this point in time. Instead, your focus should be to either accept the argument I have laid forward to you which explains the query you had with libertarianism in the OP or to provide a solid counterargument to it that I cannot refute.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Hello. And how to create a libertarian planet?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy