5 ms·

Because the state has taken up ALL the arable land on the entire planet. There is no where for them to go. If you show me a place that is exempt from laws and p

by zo1 12y ago

Because the state has taken up ALL the arable land on the entire planet. There is no where for them to go. If you show me a place that is exempt from laws and people can willingly go to peacefully make their own state, then by all means, we'll show you a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society. Let me just say this again, because it needs to be said over and over again. All the arable and usable land has been taken over and controlled by the state. All.

ufmace 12y ago
This is kinda devils-advocate-y, but it's worth remembering that if the world is a certain way, there's probably a reason for it. The fact that pretty much all of the livable land is either controlled by relatively powerful states, or occupied by tribal people with beliefs entirely incompatible with libertarianism, tells us something about how the world works. If you want to form a country, or some entity with sovereignty over a decent-size plot of land, then you're going to need a military. That military will have to actually be loyal to the government/leadership and the population of that place. If you don't have that, then some other more established country will come take over, or at least have such strong influence that they are de facto in charge. That's why I don't think pure libertarianism is tenable - if you don't have some sort of powerful state, then some other powerful state will come take over your society. There's still plenty of room for debate on exactly what the role of that state is, and how the leadership is chosen and laws are made, but I don't think you can ever get around that. It's kinda like claiming that total pacifism is the best philosophy, but it never had a chance because all of these other big meanies keep squashing it. Like it or not, those big meanies are part of the world too, and if your philosophy can't handle them, then it's no good.
chrisbennet 12y ago
Failed nation states are places without laws. Laws require someone to exercise control. Governments just don't do that for free. I can see the appeal of being left alone in peace. Certainly you can see the appeal of being able to live on a river that isn't polluted, or being able to drink water that isn't contaminated? The only reason you can do that is because big brother uses those ("taken by force") taxes to keep the poor factory owner (who just wants to be left alone) from dumping his mercury where ever he wants.
- zo1 12y ago
  "Certainly you can see the appeal of being able to live on a river that isn't polluted, or being able to drink water that isn't contaminated?" That's called damage to property (my body, or my section of the river), or possibly an act of aggression. Both are covered by anarcho-capitalist and libertarian philosophies. "The only reason you can do that is because big brother uses those ("taken by force") taxes to keep the poor factory owner (who just wants to be left alone) from dumping his mercury where ever he wants." Ah, yes... I see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

by zo1 12y ago

ufmace 12y ago

This is kinda devils-advocate-y, but it's worth remembering that if the world is a certain way, there's probably a reason for it. The fact that pretty much all of the livable land is either controlled by relatively powerful states, or occupied by tribal people with beliefs entirely incompatible with libertarianism, tells us something about how the world works. If you want to form a country, or some entity with sovereignty over a decent-size plot of land, then you're going to need a military. That military will have to actually be loyal to the government/leadership and the population of that place. If you don't have that, then some other more established country will come take over, or at least have such strong influence that they are de facto in charge. That's why I don't think pure libertarianism is tenable - if you don't have some sort of powerful state, then some other powerful state will come take over your society. There's still plenty of room for debate on exactly what the role of that state is, and how the leadership is chosen and laws are made, but I don't think you can ever get around that. It's kinda like claiming that total pacifism is the best philosophy, but it never had a chance because all of these other big meanies keep squashing it. Like it or not, those big meanies are part of the world too, and if your philosophy can't handle them, then it's no good.

chrisbennet 12y ago

Failed nation states are places without laws. Laws require someone to exercise control. Governments just don't do that for free. I can see the appeal of being left alone in peace. Certainly you can see the appeal of being able to live on a river that isn't polluted, or being able to drink water that isn't contaminated? The only reason you can do that is because big brother uses those ("taken by force") taxes to keep the poor factory owner (who just wants to be left alone) from dumping his mercury where ever he wants.

zo1 12y ago
"Certainly you can see the appeal of being able to live on a river that isn't polluted, or being able to drink water that isn't contaminated?" That's called damage to property (my body, or my section of the river), or possibly an act of aggression. Both are covered by anarcho-capitalist and libertarian philosophies. "The only reason you can do that is because big brother uses those ("taken by force") taxes to keep the poor factory owner (who just wants to be left alone) from dumping his mercury where ever he wants." Ah, yes... I see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill