3 ms·

It's the libertarians who, more than any other group, take reality into account by acknowledging that we can't engineer a "perfect" society by using force again

by mden 13y ago

It's the libertarians who, more than any other group, take reality into account by acknowledging that we can't engineer a "perfect" society by using force against one another. I doubt anyone reasonable even claims that a perfect society is possible - someone will always feel wronged regardless of their circumstance. I don't think it's unfair to say that the main function of a society is to reduce the likelihood that a person of said society gets wronged. Which brings the question of how does a society do that without enforcement of laws? If we accept the NAP is a law, who reprimands those who break it? Who actually defines what it is in the first place? Undoubtedly there are many different interpretations of it and it's not possible to achieve a feeling of fairness in a society if not everyone agrees on its basic structure and laws. If you feel like these are too basic of questions, feel free to link me to what you would consider a definitive explanation.

mindcrime 13y ago
It's complicated, and - as you say - there are aspects that can be interpreted differently. This is why even among professed libertarians, views differ on things like abortion. For me, it all basically reduces to the idea that Bastiat articulated, that "government is just the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". So even as a radical individualist anarchist / anarcho-capitalist, I can still see a role for something like "government", but only if it's use of force is restricted to defensive use, and it respects the idea that "if an individual doesn't have permission to do something, then multiple individuals don't have permission to either". IOW, voluntarily organized collectives, assembled for mutual defense, OR individuals acting in self-defense, are how the NAP would be "enforced". But again, there's no "perfect" political system, IMO. Conflicts could still arise, but I don't think institutionalizing the use of force is a good approach.

by mden 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

It's complicated, and - as you say - there are aspects that can be interpreted differently. This is why even among professed libertarians, views differ on things like abortion. For me, it all basically reduces to the idea that Bastiat articulated, that "government is just the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". So even as a radical individualist anarchist / anarcho-capitalist, I can still see a role for something like "government", but only if it's use of force is restricted to defensive use, and it respects the idea that "if an individual doesn't have permission to do something, then multiple individuals don't have permission to either". IOW, voluntarily organized collectives, assembled for mutual defense, OR individuals acting in self-defense, are how the NAP would be "enforced". But again, there's no "perfect" political system, IMO. Conflicts could still arise, but I don't think institutionalizing the use of force is a good approach.