5 ms·

I don't understand the willful ignorance of libertarians who make the claim that the state doesn't do anything outside of extorting people and ruling with guns.

by mden 13y ago

I don't understand the willful ignorance of libertarians who make the claim that the state doesn't do anything outside of extorting people and ruling with guns. Yes, there are problems with every single government ever made, and there will be for the foreseeable future, but there a lot of obviously good things that come as a result of having a state. Listing them seems silly, but apparently it's not considering how many libertarians share your view. Things like protecting weaker parties through a court system, providing national infrastructure for the economic prosperity of everyone (as opposed to private infrastructure for the prosperity of few), national defense, food and water regulation, base level research and development, protection from criminals, corporate regulation, are only a few that immediately come to mind.

pogue 13y ago
I see this as more of a discussion of the politics of _why_ a black market should exist, more than recognizing that it does and people want it. There is never going to be a completely deregulated marketplace for everyone. A SilkRoad 2.0 is an idea for an elitist market where only the technically skilled can use it properly and correctly, and thus becomes self limiting on its own. I see it like this: a few like minded people want to trade things that many high minded people would rather not exist or don't want to be openly sold (whichever you prefer) without having boot clodding storm troopers kick down your door and take away your ability to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is just a simple progression/evolution of the black market.
jsnk 13y ago
Libertarians have no problem admitting that the state may do some good in some regards. In fact, it could potentially be an immensely positive force. I think where libertarian attitude diverge away from the mainstream view is that the state is nevertheless evil. Perhaps a necessary evil to run the world so to speak, but still evil because it must violate rights of people to exist by definition.
- mden 13y ago
  It's a fair point that most libertarians aren't for the complete removal of the state. However, in my experience they seem to try to vastly simplify many issues by waving their hands and talking about the non-aggression principle as if that automatically solves everything. The truth is, while there may be laws which are unjust, unfair, or plain silly, most of them were created to meet a need or solve a problem. Sometimes it's very easy to forget that. A good friend of mine is an anarcho-capitalist and while he is overall a very technical, very logical, and generally smart person, neither of us have managed to convince the other that their view-point is flawed. It's rather frustrating.
  - orthecreedence 13y ago
    Not to argue with your friend through you, but I just don't understand how anarcho-capitalists even exist. The theory behind any anarchistic system, by nature, is the abolishment of any hierarchy. Capitalism, by nature is completely hierarchical, and without some sort of third-party governing it, even more so. I know the ideal form of capitalism is small companies exchanging freely without government intrusion, but the reality is that capitalism, mixed with human nature, eventually leads to one corporation that rules everything. This has been shown to happen even with government intervention, which is where anti-trust laws and worker's rights came from. So if you piss off "the corporation", you have their private militia come after you. Then their courts sentence you to death, or slave labor. How is this anarchistic? Seems pretty top-down to me. Just because a company is running things doesn't mean it's not a government. I just don't really understand libertarianism, I guess. It makes sense if you're filthy rich, but otherwise you'd just go from being middle class to a peasant with no rights almost instantly. Are all libertarians filthy rich and just very vocal (there seem to be a lot of them), delusional, misinformed, or am I missing some large part of the theory behind it? The only way I could ever see the phasing of government out working successfully is in a shared economy (anarcho-communism). Not that I think human nature would ever permit a system like this until tens of thousands of years of psychological/spiritual evolution take place, but I think at the time humans are able to self-organize in every sense there will no longer be the need for personal possessions. Oddly enough, we would be a lot like ants.
    - 13y ago
- baddox 13y ago
  Many libertarians wouldn't bring up the idea of "evil" in arguments. Many focus on economic arguments, for example.
jlgreco 13y ago
Do you really think that this system will hinder the governments ability to do those positive things that you've mentioned? This is a system for facilitating voluntary transactions between individuals. That should not frighten you.
- krapp 13y ago
  >This is a system for facilitating voluntary transactions between individuals. Should we still not be frightened (or at least concerned) if what's being transacted is child slaves, or kidnapping/murder for hire, or guns for the mafia? There are a number of very unhealthy things which can fall under "voluntary transactions between individuals" I'm not making an argument against anonymous marketplaces by any means, just against the idea that black markets are necessarily benign by definition, because they exist outside the reach of the state.
  - goshakkk 13y ago
    There is a number of unhealthy uses of guns, like murder. Should we ban guns? And there also is a number of unhealthy uses of cars, like using it to transport yourself right after robbing a bank. Should we ban cars? Anything that can be used for the good, can be used for the bad as well. That shouldn't however mean that that thing should not be produced/sold/used.
    - krapp 13y ago
      >There is a number of unhealthy uses of guns, like murder. Should we ban guns? No, but I believe the state has a legitimate interest in regulating their sale and use. But i'm not talking about guns in the abstract. I'm talking about the purposes that organizations involved in a black market gun trade would likely be putting them to. Collectors of firearms are not going to be using Silk Road 2. People who just want something to protect their home aren't likely going to be using it, either. The issue is the degree to which a black market, by virtue of it's purpose to evade law enforcement, would be used to facilitate criminal activity. Or to extend your example further, no, we shouldn't ban cars, but we have every right to shut down chop shops.
mindcrime 13y ago
I don't understand the willful ignorance of libertarians who make the claim that the state doesn't do anything outside of extorting people and ruling with guns. Luckily, very few - if any - libertarians ever make such a claim. If anything, you're probably either misunderstanding what they're saying, or simply engaging in hyperbole to the point of, essentially, setting up a strawman. Libertarians acknowledge that the govt sometimes does things that are, in some sense, "good". We just happen to consider that irrelevant, since "good" which requires violating the NIF principle is not justified in our worldview. And/or, some Libertarians will also argue that for almost every value of X, where X = "something the State does", that X either isn't actually needed at all, or would be provided more efficiently by a non-State mechanism.
goshakkk 13y ago
> food and water regulation Just wondering. Why do you think forcing companies into complying with some regulation is necessarily a good thing? If the customers care about this kind of safety, the producers will voluntarily comply with some private standards and will pass some private certification to attract customers. So that is definitely not a valid reason of where government is needed. It can be done without the govt and without coercion. (I could expand on every point you consider to be a good reason for existence of the state if you wish.)
- pogue 13y ago
  If you don't force companies to comply with regulations for the benefit of society, they will simply cut corners to increase the profit margins to the themselves and their shareholders. This is essentially true for any industry where there is potential for damage to the environment, or even their end consumers. I don't have any exotic links to theories or viewpoints on this, but it is my firm believe. Consumers cannot necessary demand something if they're not aware of it (ie: EPA testing water supply for contaminants, USDA testing meat supply for salmonella). It's taken decades of pushing for the populace to get basic things like the Clean Food & Water Act(s) passed and be able to eat/drink/consume products being able to know what the ingredients are and not (for the most part) getting sick from doing so. Regulation needs to and should exist for basic human services of life.

by mden 13y ago

pogue 13y ago

I see this as more of a discussion of the politics of _why_ a black market should exist, more than recognizing that it does and people want it. There is never going to be a completely deregulated marketplace for everyone. A SilkRoad 2.0 is an idea for an elitist market where only the technically skilled can use it properly and correctly, and thus becomes self limiting on its own. I see it like this: a few like minded people want to trade things that many high minded people would rather not exist or don't want to be openly sold (whichever you prefer) without having boot clodding storm troopers kick down your door and take away your ability to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is just a simple progression/evolution of the black market.

jsnk 13y ago

Libertarians have no problem admitting that the state may do some good in some regards. In fact, it could potentially be an immensely positive force. I think where libertarian attitude diverge away from the mainstream view is that the state is nevertheless evil. Perhaps a necessary evil to run the world so to speak, but still evil because it must violate rights of people to exist by definition.

mden 13y ago
It's a fair point that most libertarians aren't for the complete removal of the state. However, in my experience they seem to try to vastly simplify many issues by waving their hands and talking about the non-aggression principle as if that automatically solves everything. The truth is, while there may be laws which are unjust, unfair, or plain silly, most of them were created to meet a need or solve a problem. Sometimes it's very easy to forget that. A good friend of mine is an anarcho-capitalist and while he is overall a very technical, very logical, and generally smart person, neither of us have managed to convince the other that their view-point is flawed. It's rather frustrating.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  Not to argue with your friend through you, but I just don't understand how anarcho-capitalists even exist. The theory behind any anarchistic system, by nature, is the abolishment of any hierarchy. Capitalism, by nature is completely hierarchical, and without some sort of third-party governing it, even more so. I know the ideal form of capitalism is small companies exchanging freely without government intrusion, but the reality is that capitalism, mixed with human nature, eventually leads to one corporation that rules everything. This has been shown to happen even with government intervention, which is where anti-trust laws and worker's rights came from. So if you piss off "the corporation", you have their private militia come after you. Then their courts sentence you to death, or slave labor. How is this anarchistic? Seems pretty top-down to me. Just because a company is running things doesn't mean it's not a government. I just don't really understand libertarianism, I guess. It makes sense if you're filthy rich, but otherwise you'd just go from being middle class to a peasant with no rights almost instantly. Are all libertarians filthy rich and just very vocal (there seem to be a lot of them), delusional, misinformed, or am I missing some large part of the theory behind it? The only way I could ever see the phasing of government out working successfully is in a shared economy (anarcho-communism). Not that I think human nature would ever permit a system like this until tens of thousands of years of psychological/spiritual evolution take place, but I think at the time humans are able to self-organize in every sense there will no longer be the need for personal possessions. Oddly enough, we would be a lot like ants.
  - 13y ago
baddox 13y ago
Many libertarians wouldn't bring up the idea of "evil" in arguments. Many focus on economic arguments, for example.

jlgreco 13y ago

Do you really think that this system will hinder the governments ability to do those positive things that you've mentioned? This is a system for facilitating voluntary transactions between individuals. That should not frighten you.

krapp 13y ago
>This is a system for facilitating voluntary transactions between individuals. Should we still not be frightened (or at least concerned) if what's being transacted is child slaves, or kidnapping/murder for hire, or guns for the mafia? There are a number of very unhealthy things which can fall under "voluntary transactions between individuals" I'm not making an argument against anonymous marketplaces by any means, just against the idea that black markets are necessarily benign by definition, because they exist outside the reach of the state.
- goshakkk 13y ago
  There is a number of unhealthy uses of guns, like murder. Should we ban guns? And there also is a number of unhealthy uses of cars, like using it to transport yourself right after robbing a bank. Should we ban cars? Anything that can be used for the good, can be used for the bad as well. That shouldn't however mean that that thing should not be produced/sold/used.
  - krapp 13y ago
    >There is a number of unhealthy uses of guns, like murder. Should we ban guns? No, but I believe the state has a legitimate interest in regulating their sale and use. But i'm not talking about guns in the abstract. I'm talking about the purposes that organizations involved in a black market gun trade would likely be putting them to. Collectors of firearms are not going to be using Silk Road 2. People who just want something to protect their home aren't likely going to be using it, either. The issue is the degree to which a black market, by virtue of it's purpose to evade law enforcement, would be used to facilitate criminal activity. Or to extend your example further, no, we shouldn't ban cars, but we have every right to shut down chop shops.

mindcrime 13y ago

I don't understand the willful ignorance of libertarians who make the claim that the state doesn't do anything outside of extorting people and ruling with guns. Luckily, very few - if any - libertarians ever make such a claim. If anything, you're probably either misunderstanding what they're saying, or simply engaging in hyperbole to the point of, essentially, setting up a strawman. Libertarians acknowledge that the govt sometimes does things that are, in some sense, "good". We just happen to consider that irrelevant, since "good" which requires violating the NIF principle is not justified in our worldview. And/or, some Libertarians will also argue that for almost every value of X, where X = "something the State does", that X either isn't actually needed at all, or would be provided more efficiently by a non-State mechanism.

goshakkk 13y ago

> food and water regulation Just wondering. Why do you think forcing companies into complying with some regulation is necessarily a good thing? If the customers care about this kind of safety, the producers will voluntarily comply with some private standards and will pass some private certification to attract customers. So that is definitely not a valid reason of where government is needed. It can be done without the govt and without coercion. (I could expand on every point you consider to be a good reason for existence of the state if you wish.)

pogue 13y ago
If you don't force companies to comply with regulations for the benefit of society, they will simply cut corners to increase the profit margins to the themselves and their shareholders. This is essentially true for any industry where there is potential for damage to the environment, or even their end consumers. I don't have any exotic links to theories or viewpoints on this, but it is my firm believe. Consumers cannot necessary demand something if they're not aware of it (ie: EPA testing water supply for contaminants, USDA testing meat supply for salmonella). It's taken decades of pushing for the populace to get basic things like the Clean Food & Water Act(s) passed and be able to eat/drink/consume products being able to know what the ingredients are and not (for the most part) getting sick from doing so. Regulation needs to and should exist for basic human services of life.