3 ms·

Not to mention that whenever there is a power vacuum, for instance due to a failed state, what emerges isn't usually a scenario where individuals enjoy more fre

by lottin 6y ago

Not to mention that whenever there is a power vacuum, for instance due to a failed state, what emerges isn't usually a scenario where individuals enjoy more freedoms but the opposite of that.

andrepd 6y ago
One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum?
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s Anarchists that don’t want government. Libertarians want a very strong government, they simply don’t want it to do much.
  - lottin 6y ago
    No, anarcho-capitalist libertarians are against government (not just against bad government, but against any government). For example, Rothbard writes "The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State. The libertarian system would meet this problem by scrapping the entire notion of creating a government." (The Libertarian Manifesto)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 6y ago
      Anarchism is one flavor of libertarianism, but it’s not the only option or even the original one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism “Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.” That said, anarcho-capitalist still wants the rule of law they just don’t want to call it government. Rothbard's anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[11] This legal code would recognize contracts, private property, self-ownership and tort law in keeping with the non-aggression principle.[11][12]
      - lottin 6y ago
        Anarchism and libertarianism originated in Europe in the 18th century as a branch of Socialism. What Americans call libertarianism is what the rest of the world calls anarcho-capitalism, a rather different ideology. Anyway, Rothbard, a prominent anarcho-capitalist, states quite clearly that "libertarians" (i.e. anarcho-capitalists) are opposed to government, which contradicts your statement that anarcho-capitalists want "a strong government".
        Retric 6y ago
        US libertarian party is based on small government but it very much wants a strong military. Some members are anarchists but the party is far more diverse than just that. So, referring to libertarianism in the US as identical to anarcho-capitalism isn’t accurate. Anyway, I agree that Rothbard doesn’t want government, but I am saying he does want the rule of law which is a separation point from pure anarchism. How exactly you get a court system that’s not backed up by the threat of force without people simply ignoring it is a point of contention.
- splintercell 6y ago
  > One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum? I don't think there is a 'vacuum' because people have a need for a boot on their face, that first the King put his boot on people's faces (which is now how it worked, it was a huge mixed bag), and then the govt must do it or else a strongman might do it again. There is no 'power vacuum', just a need for certain societal order. How that societal order is provided is where all these things happen. Monarchies are 'a' way to provide that societal order (for national defense and other things for that matter). Similarly Democracies are another one of that. Imagine if you went to 900 BC and tried to install a democracy to the people there? Would it really work out? Would people happily rejoice? Or they'd lose their democracy to a King soon enough? There is an argument that can be made that political systems people embrace, depends upon the weapon systems available to them [1]. That, printing press gave us the age of enlightenment (and Protestantism, which is a reversion of Christianity to the original text, as opposed to the Papal church), but the invention of (widespread) guns gave us the Democracy. Because earlier only a lifetime of trained soldier could fight but now the training of a firearm (to become lethal) can be acquired in a very short amount of time. As an anarchocapitalist, in 2000s we envisioned private companies providing that societal order which allows us to get away with governments, and this was heavily criticized that this would just cause private companies to just become govts. But in 2010s, I can say that blockchain (and yes I understand the unpopularity of the idea) have the capability to create that societal order. In 2000s we always envisioned [2] that the free market money would look like Amazon Bucks or Walmart Bucks, but now we realize that with cryptocurrencies we don't need a single company but a decentralized network to do the same job. 1. Weapons Systems and Political Stability, by Carrol Quigley 2. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/11/sj-masty/austrian-economics-valhalla/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/11/sj-masty/austrian-econom...
  - lottin 6y ago
    Interesting but you're not answering any of the relevant questions. Without government, how are laws made, and how are they enforced? Answering these questions would give us an idea of the "societal order" that you are trying to create.
  - 6y ago

by lottin 6y ago

Not to mention that whenever there is a power vacuum, for instance due to a failed state, what emerges isn't usually a scenario where individuals enjoy more freedoms but the opposite of that.

andrepd 6y ago

One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum?

Retric 6y ago
It’s Anarchists that don’t want government. Libertarians want a very strong government, they simply don’t want it to do much.
- lottin 6y ago
  No, anarcho-capitalist libertarians are against government (not just against bad government, but against any government). For example, Rothbard writes "The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State. The libertarian system would meet this problem by scrapping the entire notion of creating a government." (The Libertarian Manifesto)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    Anarchism is one flavor of libertarianism, but it’s not the only option or even the original one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism “Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.” That said, anarcho-capitalist still wants the rule of law they just don’t want to call it government. Rothbard's anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[11] This legal code would recognize contracts, private property, self-ownership and tort law in keeping with the non-aggression principle.[11][12]
    - lottin 6y ago
      Anarchism and libertarianism originated in Europe in the 18th century as a branch of Socialism. What Americans call libertarianism is what the rest of the world calls anarcho-capitalism, a rather different ideology. Anyway, Rothbard, a prominent anarcho-capitalist, states quite clearly that "libertarians" (i.e. anarcho-capitalists) are opposed to government, which contradicts your statement that anarcho-capitalists want "a strong government".
      - Retric 6y ago
        US libertarian party is based on small government but it very much wants a strong military. Some members are anarchists but the party is far more diverse than just that. So, referring to libertarianism in the US as identical to anarcho-capitalism isn’t accurate. Anyway, I agree that Rothbard doesn’t want government, but I am saying he does want the rule of law which is a separation point from pure anarchism. How exactly you get a court system that’s not backed up by the threat of force without people simply ignoring it is a point of contention.
splintercell 6y ago
> One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum? I don't think there is a 'vacuum' because people have a need for a boot on their face, that first the King put his boot on people's faces (which is now how it worked, it was a huge mixed bag), and then the govt must do it or else a strongman might do it again. There is no 'power vacuum', just a need for certain societal order. How that societal order is provided is where all these things happen. Monarchies are 'a' way to provide that societal order (for national defense and other things for that matter). Similarly Democracies are another one of that. Imagine if you went to 900 BC and tried to install a democracy to the people there? Would it really work out? Would people happily rejoice? Or they'd lose their democracy to a King soon enough? There is an argument that can be made that political systems people embrace, depends upon the weapon systems available to them [1]. That, printing press gave us the age of enlightenment (and Protestantism, which is a reversion of Christianity to the original text, as opposed to the Papal church), but the invention of (widespread) guns gave us the Democracy. Because earlier only a lifetime of trained soldier could fight but now the training of a firearm (to become lethal) can be acquired in a very short amount of time. As an anarchocapitalist, in 2000s we envisioned private companies providing that societal order which allows us to get away with governments, and this was heavily criticized that this would just cause private companies to just become govts. But in 2010s, I can say that blockchain (and yes I understand the unpopularity of the idea) have the capability to create that societal order. In 2000s we always envisioned [2] that the free market money would look like Amazon Bucks or Walmart Bucks, but now we realize that with cryptocurrencies we don't need a single company but a decentralized network to do the same job. 1. Weapons Systems and Political Stability, by Carrol Quigley 2. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/11/sj-masty/austrian-economics-valhalla/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/11/sj-masty/austrian-econom...
- lottin 6y ago
  Interesting but you're not answering any of the relevant questions. Without government, how are laws made, and how are they enforced? Answering these questions would give us an idea of the "societal order" that you are trying to create.
- 6y ago