Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I would guess that the police in the united states probably prevent greater than zero crime.

I would also guess that the police in the united states create greater than zero crime.

I am not in a position to say which of those is the larger quantity.

So the obvious solution is not to look at the statistics of, say, countries with no law enforcement such as Somalia to work out how much crime there might be with no functioning justice system, but to instead assume that they have cause exactly the same amount of crime that they prevent.  Although of course it seems that you don't care about what actually produces the best results for people, and instead just want to arbitrarily "maximise freedom", whatever that might mean, huh?

Insert Godwin reference here.

I don't get it.  I don't even see a possible association fallacy here.

[Vector]

Yeah, I got too tired and confused myself.  Just ignore it, hey?

[Montague]

Didn't read the whole thread, but to answer OP's question, Libertarianism isn't about giving corporations power, its about seperating the government from economics altoghter. Like a seperation of commerce and state, like a seperation of church and state.

Because the state will still create the laws, enforce them and have a monopoly of violence and there will be no legal means for a corporation to obtain any unusual power through the government. If a corporation thought to take over the country or something else illegal, the Army or police would roll through and kill and arrest everybody involved just like any other place in the world.

The idea that the government would be unable to involve itself in the affiars of commerical entities means the reverse is true as well.

[Powder Miner]

... ... ... I think I'm too saddened by the state of the politics on this forum to actually answer. Soooo far left that crackpot definitions that directly oppose those of the actual definitions are taken as normal, and people think that libertarians mean "power to the corporations" and more power to the government, and that any falsity or twisting of the truth is not questioned... I'm afraid I'll have to stay out.

[Nadaka]

... ... ... I think I'm too saddened by the state of the politics on this forum to actually answer. Soooo far left that crackpot definitions that directly oppose those of the actual definitions are taken as normal, and people think that libertarians mean "power to the corporations" and more power to the government, and that any falsity or twisting of the truth is not questioned... I'm afraid I'll have to stay out.

No we do not think that libertarianism means power to the corporations or more power to government. That is merely the inevitable result of dis empowering the government that is supposed to represent the people and provide for their common defense. Like I said in my first post, I sympathize with the ideal, but I also recognize that it is completely unworkable as a form of government.

[Phmcw]

Didn't read the whole thread, but to answer OP's question, Libertarianism isn't about giving corporations power, its about seperating the government from economics altoghter. Like a seperation of commerce and state, like a seperation of church and state.

Because the state will still create the laws, enforce them and have a monopoly of violence and there will be no legal means for a corporation to obtain any unusual power through the government. If a corporation thought to take over the country or something else illegal, the Army or police would roll through and kill and arrest everybody involved just like any other place in the world.

The idea that the government would be unable to involve itself in the affiars of commerical entities means the reverse is true as well.

So for you libertarianism is a purely economic program?
Could you develop about the monopoly of violence? I don't remember Libertarian being vocal against private security and prison.

The idea that the government would be unable to involve itself in the affiars of commerical entities means the reverse is true as well.

And could you develop this? I don't see a link of causality between the latter proposition and the former.

@ Power Miner : Then do stay out. There is few message as useless and false than "I won't write in this thread".
But if you continue to stay involved, please feel free to propose your own definition. There is no such things as crackpot definition, only used and unused one, and as this is an international Forum, there is few chance that we all use the same (as a matter of fact, the US definition of "socialists" is hilarious to us. The socialist party has been part of the government in Belgium for dozens of year and we still don't eat Americans).

[Criptfeind]

I am pretty sure you don't actually know the American definition of socialist.

[LordBucket]

So for you libertarianism is a purely economic program?
Could you develop about the monopoly of violence? I don't remember
Libertarian being vocal against private security and prison.

Like I mentioned back on page 2 or so, Libertarianism is a philosophy from which a variety of different methods and ideas can be derived. The basic premise is that individual liberty > group desire or benefit. But that can be applied in many ways.

The core value is the same, but not all libertarians would apply that value in the same way.

Kind of like how ten men voting to rape one girl is democratic in principal, but very few people would seriously attempt to apply the idea that way. If the one girl rejects the vote of the ten men and doesn't submit, she is rejecting democracy and embracing a libertarian idea that her liberty is more important than the preference of the majority. Similarly if one person has food and ten people are starving, if the person with food refuses to let the others have any, and the other ten choose to allow themselves to starve to death rather than take the food by force, they're also acting in harmony with the libertarian ideal. Whereas if the person with food wants to keep it...but willingly accepts the vote of the majority and gives out the food so that everyone lives, he would be acting in harmony with the democratic ideal.

It's easy to come up with scenarios in which either philosophy looks good, or looks bad, but I think understanding the core concepts is more valuable.

[Leafsnail]

Y'know, it's not all or nothing.  You can vote on things that clearly affect everyone and still have personal rights, for instance.

[LordBucket]

Y'know, it's not all or nothing.  You can vote on things that clearly affect everyone and still have personal rights, for instance.

It's funny you should say that. Because I said the same thing way back on page 1:

Problems generally have more than one solution. To questions like "in a libertarian society how would X be handled" I offer the general answer of "well, how do we want to handle it?"

Libertarianism is a philosophy, from which methods and solutions can be derived. It's not a specific set of methods or solutions. So any question of "in a libertarian society, how would X be handled" is somewhat missing the point. I can give you answers to questions like these, but the answers that I give are not the only answers.

And I also said it in the post you're replying to:

But that can be applied in many ways.

And I've said it a few other times throughout the thread.

Why are you saying what I've said many times as if it's a counter to what I'm saying?

[Leafsnail]

Both of your quotes are completely irrelevant to the point I was making, so I guess you misunderstood me?

[Criptfeind]

The think the idea is the "methods and solutions" you suggested were all pretty crazy. And the point about choosing is both minor and part of every philosophy.

[Phmcw]

I am pretty sure you don't actually know the American definition of socialist.

Depend on which one you speaking about. I think on the one used for the whole "Obama is a socialist" idiocy.

[LordBucket]

The think the idea is the "methods and solutions" you suggested were all pretty crazy.

Like which? Which methods and solutions have I proposed that were crazy?

Quote me please.

[Phmcw]

Ok I'm beginning to be seriously annoyed now. Don't discuss the merits of Libertarianism he or I'll lock. Make another thread for that. And therefore don't attack LordBucket on his beliefs, because that's not the point.

Like I mentioned back on page 2 or so, Libertarianism is a philosophy from which a variety of different methods and ideas can be derived. The basic premise is that individual liberty > group desire or benefit. But that can be applied in many ways.

I was questioning Montague. He seemed to say that his political engagement was basically separate state from economics.