4 ms·

> The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game This is one of the primary reasons I'm a pure libertarian. The more in depth research I did, th

> The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game This is one of the primary reasons I'm a pure libertarian. The more in depth research I did, the more I found it's nothing but a rigged game. It truly is like the joke that's along the lines of: "What's the difference between the government and the mob?" "The mob didn't get 12,000 hours of schooling to convince you it's necessary."

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
The elephant in the room, what do you do with monopolies and cartels? How 'pure' is pure libertarian? Do we allow private currencies to be issues by anyone, this used to be a massive problem? Does someone in 'pure libertatian' society get a free defence attorney or school education? Do we have fire safety laws? We used to have entire cities burn down. Do we regulate banks and financial markets at all? Do we have a regulator to stop ponzi schemes if the contract explains the mechanisms in fine print? It feels like there would be a tidal wave of financial machinations where ordinary people would loose their shirts.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  I'm not going to expound on all topics here. Instead I'll give you a resource that closely matches my thoughts on one of the subjects of concern. > We used to have entire cities burn down. https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departments-united-states https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departm... This same resource hits nearly every one of your points with well reasoned alternatives to government intervention. Instead of expecting an answer to every what if that immediately comes to mind, please research the viewpoint from credible libertarian sources like the Mises Institute. Another research avenue--anything Murray Rothbard.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    What makes you think that rich and powerful private enterprises don't cause exactly the same kind of problems as state governments? They have the same coercive power, albeit through different means.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone. Government is monopoly of violence. For example, mono crop wheat is terrible, but the government uses its monopoly of force to coerce me into subsidies for foods I refuse to eat. These subsidies are the reason it's healthiest to stick to the perimeter of the store. Without them, cheap cereal junk foods would at least not be so cheap. This encouragement of low quality mono cropping directly supports big ag and companies like Monsanto. I'd much rather spend my money at a local farm.
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        The government is not a monopoly of violence. Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. In addition to this, if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights, then this doesn't eliminate government violence: it allows the wealthy to access it by proxy.
        reedjosh 5y ago
        > Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. These organizations are either government sanctioned or considered criminal. The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. > if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights I don't support that. I think individuals should take the protection of themselves and their property seriously. And no, I don't just mean having a gun, but instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
        nicoburns 5y ago
        > The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. What count as initiation of force? If I walk into your house and take your things, am I initiating use of force? If I want to live somewhere where that is not the norm, how am I supposed to find that place? It seems very idealistic to me that such a place could exist without it being enforced somehow. > instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well. If that private entity makes that provision through the use of force, do they not then constitute a government of sorts? If they do not use force, then how do they manage to make that provision at all?
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    Imagine how that would play out post Grenfell. No we can't put out your fire because your builder used the wrong cladding, you should have read the T's and C's. Tough luck. It's always in the interest of insurance companies to pay out as little as they can get away with.
js8 5y ago
Honest question from definitely-not-libertarian democratic-socialist. Isn't the main point of libertarianism a defense of private property, concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? I think libertarianism is quite self-contradictory, because if we assume completely fair starting conditions (they historically never were) and assume that people are renumerated fairly (which is subjective and disputable), the system as a whole tends to accumulate wealth in hands of smaller and smaller number of citizens, if nothing else then by just random chance, and since the property ownership is sacrosanct, there is no mechanism which could counteract the accumulation. Then these people might use the accumulated wealth to oppress others, as a kind of oligopoly. This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  If you generalise the libertarian principle to all large organisations and powerful individuals rather than just governments then it starts to make a whole lot more sense.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I believe even those on your side of the political spectrum believe that corruption is what prevents the people from properly benefiting from government intervention. I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. I believe you and I have like ideals, but I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. > This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process. And yet the Soviet Union is the system that fell.
  - frenchy 5y ago
    > I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started. There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

The elephant in the room, what do you do with monopolies and cartels? How 'pure' is pure libertarian? Do we allow private currencies to be issues by anyone, this used to be a massive problem? Does someone in 'pure libertatian' society get a free defence attorney or school education? Do we have fire safety laws? We used to have entire cities burn down. Do we regulate banks and financial markets at all? Do we have a regulator to stop ponzi schemes if the contract explains the mechanisms in fine print? It feels like there would be a tidal wave of financial machinations where ordinary people would loose their shirts.

reedjosh 5y ago
I'm not going to expound on all topics here. Instead I'll give you a resource that closely matches my thoughts on one of the subjects of concern. > We used to have entire cities burn down. https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departments-united-states https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departm... This same resource hits nearly every one of your points with well reasoned alternatives to government intervention. Instead of expecting an answer to every what if that immediately comes to mind, please research the viewpoint from credible libertarian sources like the Mises Institute. Another research avenue--anything Murray Rothbard.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  What makes you think that rich and powerful private enterprises don't cause exactly the same kind of problems as state governments? They have the same coercive power, albeit through different means.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone. Government is monopoly of violence. For example, mono crop wheat is terrible, but the government uses its monopoly of force to coerce me into subsidies for foods I refuse to eat. These subsidies are the reason it's healthiest to stick to the perimeter of the store. Without them, cheap cereal junk foods would at least not be so cheap. This encouragement of low quality mono cropping directly supports big ag and companies like Monsanto. I'd much rather spend my money at a local farm.
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      The government is not a monopoly of violence. Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. In addition to this, if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights, then this doesn't eliminate government violence: it allows the wealthy to access it by proxy.
      - reedjosh 5y ago
        > Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. These organizations are either government sanctioned or considered criminal. The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. > if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights I don't support that. I think individuals should take the protection of themselves and their property seriously. And no, I don't just mean having a gun, but instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
        nicoburns 5y ago
        > The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. What count as initiation of force? If I walk into your house and take your things, am I initiating use of force? If I want to live somewhere where that is not the norm, how am I supposed to find that place? It seems very idealistic to me that such a place could exist without it being enforced somehow. > instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well. If that private entity makes that provision through the use of force, do they not then constitute a government of sorts? If they do not use force, then how do they manage to make that provision at all?
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Imagine how that would play out post Grenfell. No we can't put out your fire because your builder used the wrong cladding, you should have read the T's and C's. Tough luck. It's always in the interest of insurance companies to pay out as little as they can get away with.

js8 5y ago

Honest question from definitely-not-libertarian democratic-socialist. Isn't the main point of libertarianism a defense of private property, concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? I think libertarianism is quite self-contradictory, because if we assume completely fair starting conditions (they historically never were) and assume that people are renumerated fairly (which is subjective and disputable), the system as a whole tends to accumulate wealth in hands of smaller and smaller number of citizens, if nothing else then by just random chance, and since the property ownership is sacrosanct, there is no mechanism which could counteract the accumulation. Then these people might use the accumulated wealth to oppress others, as a kind of oligopoly. This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process.

nicoburns 5y ago
If you generalise the libertarian principle to all large organisations and powerful individuals rather than just governments then it starts to make a whole lot more sense.
reedjosh 5y ago
> concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I believe even those on your side of the political spectrum believe that corruption is what prevents the people from properly benefiting from government intervention. I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. I believe you and I have like ideals, but I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. > This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process. And yet the Soviet Union is the system that fell.
- frenchy 5y ago
  > I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started. There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.