Ramblings of a Disgruntled Libertarian

Originally posted by Bkrmn
It would be nice if groups of people and families could go off and build their own villages and live as they choose, but human nature being as it is, it would only be a matter of time before feuds or all out war sprang up between them.

I think that if people were not preoccupied with the notion of the State, this would not last.

Eventually the American Indians were placated not by violence, but by bribery.

Certainly violence can get you access to land, but it can not get you access to the productive fruits of the population that inhabit that land.

If we were to envision such a society, you have to look at it from the standpoint of how you personally would view an invader into your territory that was intent on taking your property.

If Nebraska was a sovereign State and the US federal government decided to invade Nebraska and take it over against the will of its citizens, the people of Nebraska would react in the same way:

the French and Pols reacted during WWII
the Iraqi insurgents reacted
the Afghanistan insurgents reacted
the Russians reacted in WWII
the Georgians reacted recently
the Palestinians reacted
etc.. etc.. etc..

You end up with protracted battle followed by never-ending insurgent warfare.

The military calls this type of warfare "asymmetric" - which means the US has total military domination, but faces constant armed harassment from the local population.

This eventually drains the resources of the attacking country to the point where it can no longer continue to occupy the territory.

Further, it is in the economic best interest of all the parties involved to engage in free trade with each other. The benefits each society gets by trading faaaaaaaaaaaaar outweighs any gains that might be acquired through a violent take over of resources.

Invaders essentially have nothing to gain and a lot to loose. The reason why we see such wide scale hostility today is because the State system of taxation provides a mechanism for taking the productive fruits of a societies labor that the police personally benefit from.

If an invading force can convince the police of a society that it is in their best interest to cooperate with the invaders, then the invaders can reap the benefits of the collective taxes and not have to worry about acquiring those resources though direct violent action. They can simply have the police take what they need for them.

In a population that is not encumbered by institutionalized theft, the invaders would have a heck of a time convincing the police they stand to benefit from cooperation. Trying to impose legalized theft on a population that is not accustomed to it would be incredibly difficult.

reply to post by mnemeth1


That is seriously insulting mnemeth. If you want to argue about some topic, please have something more to offer than insults about education. BTW, you are one of those I referred to in my OP. Every time, I have posted about the libertarian viewpoints, in you come throwing around insults.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

That is seriously insulting mnemeth. If you want to argue about some topic, please have something more to offer than insults about education. BTW, you are one of those I referred to in my OP. Every time, I have posted about the libertarian viewpoints, in you come throwing around insults.

It's not meant to be an insult.

It's meant to find out what kind of education is being dished out at our schools.

It's not your fault if you weren't taught something in school.

It's the fault of the school system that educated you.

I was never taught a lot of things I should have been taught in school and when they did teach something important, it was taught as a footnote rather than a serious topic that needed to be addressed at length.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Still you are trying to be insulting rather than talk about what you know. You try to discount an ideology by showing times in history where government has interfered with food production and messed it up bad. Ever thought these governments wanted to mess it up bad? I also am not advocating the federal government run food production, rather local government should. When our leaders mess up I can find their house down the road. I want the Federal government doing what they are supposed to do, and local government to be like a village looking out for its people. Is that too hard for you to understand, that the government can be any way we want it and doesn't have to conform with past history economic/government models.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Buddy, in case you haven't figured it out yet, all government does is "mess stuff up bad."

That's what they do for a living.

F### s### up until its not working, the f### it up some more with "fixes."

That is what government does.

That is the only thing government does well.

And we aren't talking about a little boo boo - oh no no no - we are talking around 80 million dead people.

I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a private corporation managing to kill 80 million people with a f### up.

The notion that we should allow government to socialize food production is insane given that when the Soviets and Chinese tried it, they managed to kill 80 million people. You think our bureaucrats are somehow smarter than the Chinese?

LOL

Have you seen any politicians speak lately?

You want those retards to manage our food supply?

Oh, by the way.

Our own government managed to kill 3 million German civilians by "managing" their food supply.

Part of the reconstruction plan was to "reorganize" German agricultural production.

Here's a little video I made on it.

Sorry about this, but im fed up of the misuse of startrek in this thread. Yes it is an esentialy a post scarcity socity but that does not stop it from posessing socilistic qualitys in the wide distribution of replicators and the free sharing of the energy to use them (actualy finite, but plentiful). furthermore following the marxist system of development communism includes, and is better for a superabundance or post scarcity of resources.

wikipedia communism fifth line

However I'm not arguing marxism is perfect and personly embrace many libraterian and anarchist veiews only as an anarcho-communist. I seek the maximum personal freedoms but do not see why they should conflict with incoporating social responcibility into your decisions. People should be free to do as they like without harming another, the prerequests for this is the elimination of an intrusive goverment and all powerfull monopolys of supercorporations together. People still need to co oporate in building/maintaining infrastructure and defending themselfs so a "goverment" of direct democracy is usefull. corporations could be eliminated in capitalism with regulation creating something like distributism see this thread but even then this is a messy system with a lot of waste in economicly administrive jobs like banking. a varient on communism works much better. my personal ideology can be better explained in the latter pages of this thread

Anyway thanks to the OP for bringing the flaws of popular libraterianism to peoples atention.

reply to post by AnonymousJ



I don't think anyone is arguing with you about the socialistic qualities of star trek, so I'm not quite sure what you are "fed up with."

Seeking maximum personal liberty while supporting a communist agenda is an oxymoron.

Communism necessarily supplants the individual for the "common good". Communism must necessarily be authoritarian and violent since the product of an individual's labor is not his own.

We used to call that slavery until Stalin made it cool by wiping out 8 million Ukrainians.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Do you not realize that government is you and us? When I say local government I am not referring to what we have currently, with lapdog corporate agenda driven local representatives. I am talking about such a scaled back form of local government that only concerns itself with doing the community needs and ensuring the community is self sufficient. Such a local government would not be concerned with business interests. It would use the talent pool of it's citizens and organize their efforts for the greater good.

Anyway, thanks for chiming in again, as you were one of the prime reasons I wrote this thread. I do not want to hear history from you if you can not visualize something different than history shows. Are we that ignorant we could not identify what in history went wrong? Do you not believe that technology has advanced to a point where there is absolutely no need for anyone to go hungry? I do. I think we have the ability to stop hunger world-wide. Instead of tanks we build farm equipment. We take the profit out of farming and the regulation out of farming and the cost of food goes down. But then what happens under the system you want is nobody will not want to farm because there is no profit in the farming. I beg to differ. Local farming would flourish as no transporting of the food would need to be done. Any money from the food would be spread out amongst the farmers and farming just might be profitable again.

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

You are not a libertarian. You are a National socialist w/o the communist, globalist twist.

Hence, the purpose of this thread. You are kidding right? I neither want a national socialist agenda nor am I okay with government telling me where to work and what I can spend my money on. If socialism is no government control of states, and states have no control of local government upon the objection of the people, then I guess you have me pegged.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Do you not realize that government is you and us?

No, it is not.

If I like to smoke pot and you don't, you don't have the right to tell me I can't unless I am hurting you or damaging your property in some way by my actions.

The will of the majority is a fallacy. There is no such thing.

I do not give my consent to be governed by people like you.

You have no right to place any rules upon MY life that do not directly affect YOUR person or property.

Further, you are continuing to push the notion that government should take over our food production even though government managed to kill 80 million people last century by collectivizing agriculture?

That is the very definition of insanity.

If you can name one government program IN ANY COUNTRY AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY that was run in a superior fashion to comparable private industry, I'll eat my shorts.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Any real libertarian must necessarily be an anarchist. For one can not love liberty and the State at the same time. The two are incompatible.

And any anarchist must necessarily reject capitalism. I don't mean to jab you here, but "anarcho-capitalist" (as you self-describe yourself in your profile) is an oxymoron. Fundamental anarchist philosophy postulates that not only is state power illegitimate, but ANY power exercised over another individual, in any form, is also illegitimate.

The nature of capitalism is the acquisition of wealth. With that wealth comes power--the ability to hire & fire, accumulate real property and control who uses it and who doesn't, etc. Any true anarchist rejects the concepts of money, wealth, property, and everything that goes along with them.

Capitalism and anarchy are incompatible. I think a lot of libertarians and "anarcho-capitalists" aren't really thinking this through. If you accumulate and control resources and means of production (wealth), you are by definition exercising power over others. This is an anti-libertarian concept.

Originally posted by NthOther
And any anarchist must necessarily reject capitalism. I don't mean to jab you here, but "anarcho-capitalist" (as you self-describe yourself in your profile) is an oxymoron. Fundamental anarchist philosophy postulates that not only is state power illegitimate, but ANY power exercised over another individual, in any form, is also illegitimate.

Any anarchist must necessarily reject communism. Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. Anarchism is the lack of a State, and forcible control over the means of production in a planned economy necessitates an armed State.

It is impossible for "the people" to control the means of production without an armed State.

For the means of production is necessarily the fruits of one man's labor. It takes individual actors laboring to produce some "thing" and that thing must then be taken away from them by force, since individuals who produce some "thing" necessarily own it by virtue of the application of their labor to that resource.

If I pick up a stick from the ground and apply my labor to it, transforming it into a spear, you do not have the right to take my spear and give it to someone else who you feel may need it more than I do.

The spear is mine.

I made it.

I found it.

I produced it.

It is mine.

And I will fight you to make sure I get to keep it.

Only through the coercive power of an armed State might you manage to abscond with the fruits of my labor.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Any anarchist must necessarily reject communism. Anarchism is the lack of a State, and forcible control over the means of production in a planned economy necessitates an armed State.

I completely agree. An anarchist society must be 100% voluntary for each individual. If there is any forcible control over resources, you have a de facto state.

Originally posted by NthOther

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Any anarchist must necessarily reject communism. Anarchism is the lack of a State, and forcible control over the means of production in a planned economy necessitates an armed State.

I completely agree. An anarchist society must be 100% voluntary for each individual. If there is any forcible control over resources, you have a de facto state.

If you agree to a voluntary society, then this necessarily means you are a capitalist.

Voluntary markets = free market capitalism.

There is no oxymoron.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Man you are something else. Are you 12? Do you have any concept of working together, or did you just read a book and let that decide what you think? Government is us. We are the government. Did you not read the constitution? Sure there are sometimes groups of people that will influence the government, but surely those people are within our society. They are part of us.

As to saying that I support government ran food production, what do you think we have now? The only reason why food production is profitable is because of the government. Remove all the government restrictions and local farming would begin to come back. Government is designed to ensure our continued freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government should be limited to just those functions and enforce no standard that encourages profit over the means to survive.

At least in the system I would like, you could go live in your own little village and run everything for profit and allow the greed and corruption to run rampant. In the system I envision my neighbors are my friends, and they make life easier to live when we all pitch in to do our part. Each person has a gift they can give. What is your gift?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If you agree to a voluntary society, then this necessarily means you are a capitalist.

Voluntary markets = free market capitalism.

There is no oxymoron.

Inequal distribution of resources allows the people with those resources to have power over and control those who don't. Capitalism facilitates this, therefore capitalism is incompatible with true human liberty. Forced equal distribution of resources (communism) is obviously an illegitimate exercise of power and is therefore also incompatible with human liberty.

There is nothing about having a voluntary society that necessitates markets at all. Money itself, the exchange of one thing for another, is not necessary in a voluntary society. Everyone chooses, of their own volition, to cooperate with one another. The concepts of money and the "free" market are archaic means of controlling people. That's why, as noted in previous posts, Star Trek makes few references to them--in that world, humanity has recognized money for what it is and outgrown it.

No money = no markets = no capitalism.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


The reason why our food prices are skyrocketing is because government is hosing up the food markets beyond all recognition.

Currently we are burning around 4 billion bushels of corn a year in our gas tanks thanks to government regulations. The US produces around 15 billion bushels total annually.

Currently we are subsidizing corn production by 4 billion dollars annually.

Currently we are arresting small dairy farmers for selling direct to consumers.

Currently the federal reserve is engaged in printing 600 billion dollars, which is why the price of corn has risen from 3.48 to 5.10 per bushel from a year ago.

Currently the government is about to starve us to death.

Learn history.

Originally posted by NthOther
Inequal distribution of resources allows the people with those resources to have power over and control those who don't. Capitalism facilitates this,.

Negative.

Capitalism allocates resources based on the talent and need of each individuals contribution to society.

Communism promotes the unequal distribution of resources in society because resources are allocated politically rather than by the market.

If we look at the wealth distribution of ANY NATION over time, we can see that as countries become more socialistic, the wealth disparity increases. As countries become more capitalistic, the wealth disparity decreases.

The US is prime example numero uno of this phenomena in action.

If a businessman is extremely successful at meeting the markets needs, he will acquire a large amount of resources (wealth).

If a businessman fails miserably at meeting the markets needs, the market will relieve him of his property post-haste.

Only those businessmen who are successful at meeting the needs of society will become prosperous. Those are the people we WANT to have money and resources so they can employ people productively.

Oh, and "money" is a free market phenomena.

Voluntary societies have an extreme need for money.

Money is what allows for the specialization of labor.

If money did not exist, we would be left with nothing but barter and no way to specialize in a trade.

Anarchist Professor Walter Block explains: