3 ms·

That sentence is saying that a perfectly libertarian society is an anarchy, where might (market) makes right.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bko 10y ago
> Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and maintain that the power of the state has to be limited or eliminated in order to protect individuals from the arbitrary exercise of authority. [0] I think most would agree that "arbitrary exercises of power" would include murder and arson. The author really does his argument injustice by throwing around a caricature of a political philosophy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
- foldr 10y ago
  "Minimal state" varieties of Libertarianism tend to be internally inconsistent, though. You can't say that taxation is theft and then say, ah yes, but we do actually need a little bit of taxation to fund the police and the judiciary.
  - bko 10y ago
    Agree there are some inconsistencies regarding taxation and the minimal services that the government should perform. However, I would note that the primary tenant of the philosophy is liberty, both economic and personal. This liberty would include property rights, which includes ones person. Ideally, there would be a choice of governing associations that one can choose from for police or judiciary, although I see how this can be impractical in practice. This already exists in the sense that one is free to move to different cities/states but due to the expansion of the role the federal government, this distinction has been made less relevant.
    - foldr 10y ago
      >Ideally, there would be a choice of governing associations that one can choose from for police or judiciary Right, and then "...the bullies would not only take your lunch money, they would murder your family, burn your house, and leave you for dead by the side of the road".
    - philipov 10y ago
      The problem with the libertarian platform is that it's based on 150 year old theory that doesn't incorporate second order effects, so it is unable to deal conceptually with feedback loops and thermodynamic phenomena such as entropy. Trust in the market only works when your wealth represents a non-vanishing proportion of market share; and for everyone else, it represents disenfranchisement and serfdom. This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. That's what you get by rolling down the energy valley of the free market. The minimal state of the government is directly proportional to the strength of one's extended wealth network, and wealth reinforces wealth. There are inconsistencies regarding the minimal services that the government should perform because Libertarians tune their notions to their own wealth level, and discount everyone below them. If we wish to create a government that is representative of all citizens, the minimal state of government is much larger than has been allowed within the libertarian framework to date.
      - alexmingoia 10y ago
        > This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. Isn't this a strawman? Libertarianism isn't a theory that ensures everyone has whatever they want. It's a philosophy centered around liberty (in contrast to freedom). Libertarians are only arguing that anyone should be free to move where they want and free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach.
        philipov 10y ago
        > ...free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach. This is the strawman. No one is suggesting that everyone gets a house on the beach. The problem is that Libertarianism has a naive presentation of coercion strategies. It ignores economic and generational coercion mechanisms, instead focusing on violence (and the government's monopoly on it) as the only form of coercion. This prevents it from achieving the liberty which it promises, except for those who are already wealthy. By seeking to obfuscate and divert attention from other coercion strategies, it disproportionately favors those who wield them to reduce liberty, and so it has a net negative effect on liberty.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    People keep repeating that but I always felt it was a pretty lazy argument. If you're engaging in world building, you can add axioms as you see fit. "Taxation is theft, unless used to fund x, y, z" included. Boom, no inconsistency. Are there other political systems you believe are internally consistent to the same standard you apply to libertarianism?
    - foldr 10y ago
      > "Taxation is theft, unless used to fund x, y, z" included. Boom, no inconsistency. The problem is that the arguments that Libertarians use to show that taxation is theft don't leave room for that sort of exception. So sure, you could just say, without supporting argument, "I think that taxes should pay for x, y and z and nothing else". But then if someone suggests that taxes should also pay for a, b and c, you can no longer give a principled objection.
  - MrMan 10y ago
    They actually can say it. It's all just propaganda to trick people into aspiring to power instead of aspiring to be good citizens. Wealth is more important than social responsibility.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bko 10y ago

> Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and maintain that the power of the state has to be limited or eliminated in order to protect individuals from the arbitrary exercise of authority. [0] I think most would agree that "arbitrary exercises of power" would include murder and arson. The author really does his argument injustice by throwing around a caricature of a political philosophy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

foldr 10y ago
"Minimal state" varieties of Libertarianism tend to be internally inconsistent, though. You can't say that taxation is theft and then say, ah yes, but we do actually need a little bit of taxation to fund the police and the judiciary.
- bko 10y ago
  Agree there are some inconsistencies regarding taxation and the minimal services that the government should perform. However, I would note that the primary tenant of the philosophy is liberty, both economic and personal. This liberty would include property rights, which includes ones person. Ideally, there would be a choice of governing associations that one can choose from for police or judiciary, although I see how this can be impractical in practice. This already exists in the sense that one is free to move to different cities/states but due to the expansion of the role the federal government, this distinction has been made less relevant.
  - foldr 10y ago
    >Ideally, there would be a choice of governing associations that one can choose from for police or judiciary Right, and then "...the bullies would not only take your lunch money, they would murder your family, burn your house, and leave you for dead by the side of the road".
  - philipov 10y ago
    The problem with the libertarian platform is that it's based on 150 year old theory that doesn't incorporate second order effects, so it is unable to deal conceptually with feedback loops and thermodynamic phenomena such as entropy. Trust in the market only works when your wealth represents a non-vanishing proportion of market share; and for everyone else, it represents disenfranchisement and serfdom. This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. That's what you get by rolling down the energy valley of the free market. The minimal state of the government is directly proportional to the strength of one's extended wealth network, and wealth reinforces wealth. There are inconsistencies regarding the minimal services that the government should perform because Libertarians tune their notions to their own wealth level, and discount everyone below them. If we wish to create a government that is representative of all citizens, the minimal state of government is much larger than has been allowed within the libertarian framework to date.
    - alexmingoia 10y ago
      > This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. Isn't this a strawman? Libertarianism isn't a theory that ensures everyone has whatever they want. It's a philosophy centered around liberty (in contrast to freedom). Libertarians are only arguing that anyone should be free to move where they want and free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach.
      - philipov 10y ago
        > ...free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach. This is the strawman. No one is suggesting that everyone gets a house on the beach. The problem is that Libertarianism has a naive presentation of coercion strategies. It ignores economic and generational coercion mechanisms, instead focusing on violence (and the government's monopoly on it) as the only form of coercion. This prevents it from achieving the liberty which it promises, except for those who are already wealthy. By seeking to obfuscate and divert attention from other coercion strategies, it disproportionately favors those who wield them to reduce liberty, and so it has a net negative effect on liberty.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  People keep repeating that but I always felt it was a pretty lazy argument. If you're engaging in world building, you can add axioms as you see fit. "Taxation is theft, unless used to fund x, y, z" included. Boom, no inconsistency. Are there other political systems you believe are internally consistent to the same standard you apply to libertarianism?
  - foldr 10y ago
    > "Taxation is theft, unless used to fund x, y, z" included. Boom, no inconsistency. The problem is that the arguments that Libertarians use to show that taxation is theft don't leave room for that sort of exception. So sure, you could just say, without supporting argument, "I think that taxes should pay for x, y and z and nothing else". But then if someone suggests that taxes should also pay for a, b and c, you can no longer give a principled objection.
- MrMan 10y ago
  They actually can say it. It's all just propaganda to trick people into aspiring to power instead of aspiring to be good citizens. Wealth is more important than social responsibility.