4 ms·

You're asking for specific answerers to many complex questions. I'm not going to try to put them in a few words here. If you are honest about your desire to und

by solson 16y ago

You're asking for specific answerers to many complex questions. I'm not going to try to put them in a few words here. If you are honest about your desire to understand libertarian ideas read "Healing our World in an Age of Aggression" by Dr. Mary Ruwart. http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/0963233661 http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/09... I will say this, government has become so big and so complex I can't imagine ever unraveling it. The best I hope for is that someday we will actually shrink the government a bit instead of constant growth. The current government growth is unsustainable so it might be a forgone conclusion anyway. I am a libertarian (small l) because it is the only political philosophy which honestly wants to reduce the size of the government. I also want to bring awareness to people that the use of the law is the use of violence and that we should be aware that when make new laws, we understand that we are advocating violence against those who don't comply. For example, do we really want to arrest and lock someone in jail when they refuse to wear a seat belt and don't pay the fine or when they smoke a cigarette in a bar? Is that what we've become? If so, what's next? I do believe in the rule of law, but we've made the rule of law trivial and arbitrary... anyway, off the soapbox.

jshen 16y ago
Reading a book is a large investment of time. You have to give me something to make me think it's worthwhile. This narrative of violence doesn't make any sense to me. Should we use violence to enforce contract law? Should we use nuclear power, and if so should we use violence to raise taxes to manage nuclear power plants? Should we use violence to prevent child labor? I'm still trying to find some core libertarian values that I can understand and is consistent. I'm not motivated to spend hours reading a book without that.
- solson 16y ago
  Are you looking for some universal value? How about, "We should not use violence or coercion against peaceful people, and we must intelligently and slowly begin to work toward that goal. Violence is not an acceptable answer to our problems." But you are clearly an intelligent person, and you know that life is nuanced. Social interactions aren't 100% consistent all the time. But this is clearly an ideal we could work toward. I'm starting to think I'm feeding a troll. I feel like you are just trying to get me to say, something like "Child labor should be legal." But I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the answer can be solved - over time - without violence. How could you learn about a thing without investing some time? A few reasons why reading the book would be worth your while: 1. Why do you believe violence is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of the above goals? 2. Is working toward a less violent world worthwhile, even if it seems remote at this moment? 3. To gain understanding. Even if you're sure there is no possible way you'd agree with anything you'll read in such a book, you would learn about the philosophy that is embraced by an estimated 10-20% of the American public, not enough to "win" an election, but certainly enough to lose one if you piss them off. Go ahead and have the last word...
  - jshen 16y ago
    I've asked a few simple questions and haven't gotten an answer. How does that make me a troll? 'I feel like you are just trying to get me to say, something like "Child labor should be legal."' No, I'm trying to get you to explain how you prevent it without violence. "I'm saying that the answer can be solved - over time - without violence." How? "How could you learn about a thing without investing some time?" There is an effectively infinite number of things I could learn about, sadly I have a small finite amount of time. This makes me picky about what I spend time on. "Why do you believe violence is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of the above goals?" For many reasons. One, it's in individuals personal interest to take advantage of others. This could be child labor, pollution, outright fraud, breaking a contract, etc. How would you deal with these? I still don't know. Two, some people are plain crazy, and do stupid things. And that still leaves the more complicated issues like water rights. How does a libertarian system deal with water flowing throw a river on someones property? Can the person upstream suck it out or build a damn? Can they dump pollutants into it? How does a libertarian system resolve that, and more importantly how would you enforce the resolution? "Is working toward a less violent world worthwhile, even if it seems remote at this moment?" This doesn't mean anything. How do you deal with situations where one persons interests and liberty are in conflict with another persons interests and liberty?
    - piguy314 16y ago
      I'll try to address some of your questions. 1. It's ok to use violence within a constitutionally limited scope. Common elements of this use of violence are: Property rights must be enforced, legal contracts must be enforced, violent crime must be punished, negative liberties must be protected and enforced, due process must always be used. The justification for this narrow application of violence (state power) is that absent such a minimum floor of rule of law society would devolve into chaos and rampant violence. 2. The answer to most of your more nuanced and complex questions is "It will be adjudicated by a court." Libertarians believe strongly that the court is the branch of government best suited to settle most of these matters because a) it will restrain the power of the other two branches by holding them to the limits set forth in the constitution and b) it decides all conflicts on the individual circumstances and facts of the situation rather than attempting to paint with a broad brush a set of regulations that apply in all circumstances irrespective of context. 3. Libertarians always make clear distinctions between limits on federal, state and municipal government. It is not inconsistent, for example, for a libertarian to want the federal government to be limited to the powers enumerated in the constitution while supporting building codes at the local or state level. The justification for this is usually that powerful central governments breed corruption and cronyism that cannot be addressed through the democratic process or courts like it can at the local or state level. This also creates a series of competing communities that can "experiment" with different sets of regulations to see what works. Successful communities will thrive (more people will move there) and unsuccessful ones will fail (people will move somewhere else.

by solson 16y ago

jshen 16y ago

Reading a book is a large investment of time. You have to give me something to make me think it's worthwhile. This narrative of violence doesn't make any sense to me. Should we use violence to enforce contract law? Should we use nuclear power, and if so should we use violence to raise taxes to manage nuclear power plants? Should we use violence to prevent child labor? I'm still trying to find some core libertarian values that I can understand and is consistent. I'm not motivated to spend hours reading a book without that.

solson 16y ago
Are you looking for some universal value? How about, "We should not use violence or coercion against peaceful people, and we must intelligently and slowly begin to work toward that goal. Violence is not an acceptable answer to our problems." But you are clearly an intelligent person, and you know that life is nuanced. Social interactions aren't 100% consistent all the time. But this is clearly an ideal we could work toward. I'm starting to think I'm feeding a troll. I feel like you are just trying to get me to say, something like "Child labor should be legal." But I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the answer can be solved - over time - without violence. How could you learn about a thing without investing some time? A few reasons why reading the book would be worth your while: 1. Why do you believe violence is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of the above goals? 2. Is working toward a less violent world worthwhile, even if it seems remote at this moment? 3. To gain understanding. Even if you're sure there is no possible way you'd agree with anything you'll read in such a book, you would learn about the philosophy that is embraced by an estimated 10-20% of the American public, not enough to "win" an election, but certainly enough to lose one if you piss them off. Go ahead and have the last word...
- jshen 16y ago
  I've asked a few simple questions and haven't gotten an answer. How does that make me a troll? 'I feel like you are just trying to get me to say, something like "Child labor should be legal."' No, I'm trying to get you to explain how you prevent it without violence. "I'm saying that the answer can be solved - over time - without violence." How? "How could you learn about a thing without investing some time?" There is an effectively infinite number of things I could learn about, sadly I have a small finite amount of time. This makes me picky about what I spend time on. "Why do you believe violence is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of the above goals?" For many reasons. One, it's in individuals personal interest to take advantage of others. This could be child labor, pollution, outright fraud, breaking a contract, etc. How would you deal with these? I still don't know. Two, some people are plain crazy, and do stupid things. And that still leaves the more complicated issues like water rights. How does a libertarian system deal with water flowing throw a river on someones property? Can the person upstream suck it out or build a damn? Can they dump pollutants into it? How does a libertarian system resolve that, and more importantly how would you enforce the resolution? "Is working toward a less violent world worthwhile, even if it seems remote at this moment?" This doesn't mean anything. How do you deal with situations where one persons interests and liberty are in conflict with another persons interests and liberty?
  - piguy314 16y ago
    I'll try to address some of your questions. 1. It's ok to use violence within a constitutionally limited scope. Common elements of this use of violence are: Property rights must be enforced, legal contracts must be enforced, violent crime must be punished, negative liberties must be protected and enforced, due process must always be used. The justification for this narrow application of violence (state power) is that absent such a minimum floor of rule of law society would devolve into chaos and rampant violence. 2. The answer to most of your more nuanced and complex questions is "It will be adjudicated by a court." Libertarians believe strongly that the court is the branch of government best suited to settle most of these matters because a) it will restrain the power of the other two branches by holding them to the limits set forth in the constitution and b) it decides all conflicts on the individual circumstances and facts of the situation rather than attempting to paint with a broad brush a set of regulations that apply in all circumstances irrespective of context. 3. Libertarians always make clear distinctions between limits on federal, state and municipal government. It is not inconsistent, for example, for a libertarian to want the federal government to be limited to the powers enumerated in the constitution while supporting building codes at the local or state level. The justification for this is usually that powerful central governments breed corruption and cronyism that cannot be addressed through the democratic process or courts like it can at the local or state level. This also creates a series of competing communities that can "experiment" with different sets of regulations to see what works. Successful communities will thrive (more people will move there) and unsuccessful ones will fail (people will move somewhere else.