Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Good Article on Libertarians

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    Good Article on Libertarians

    I will admit, I have libertarian leanings, but by no means am I a libertarian.

    I fully understand posting this will make me rapidly unpopular here but this is how I feel regarding full libertarians.
    This is an article I found the other day
    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.T...bertarian.html

    Now some Excerpts that I found really good were

    Despite the claimed horror at 'collectivism', libertarians share the general liberal preference for collective forms of decision-making - above all, the market. This is often legitimised by a claimed universal necessity, to 'balance' or 'weigh' preferences. This is an ancient metaphor, and very popular since Newton, but the 'necessity' is not self-evident. No-one can show why preferences should be balanced, or weighed: to want them weighed or balanced is a preference in itself, and by definition a preference for collectivism. In practice, free-market decisions are always collective: supply of one product, by one maker, to one customer is not a free market. A free market in the libertarian sense needs at least three parties: with only one buyer and one seller there is no competition. In a free market with multiple parties and mutual competition, all parties influence the final state of affairs. No individual can decide that outcome alone. While claiming to reject autocracy, libertarianism has in fact abandoned autonomy.
    There is no self-evident way to apply the non-coercion principle: it must be applied to someone or something. The question is, to what, to whom? This is the problem which rights theorists faced, when people started claiming rights for animals, for species, for ecosystems, for land, and for rocks. The non-coercion principle also has a limits problem. May fish legitimately be coerced into nets? Is it coercion to demolish a building? May collectivities benefit from non-coercion? In other words, is the principle of non-coercion exclusive to natural persons? Some libertarians do say that, but even this is unclear. Libertarians can not agree on whether an abortion is initiation of force, because they disagree on whether the fetus is a natural person.
    The best paragraph in this entire article

    A simple example: two islands exchange crops, to reach a minimum healthy diet. Soil conditions mean that a full range of crops can not be grown: without the exchange the inhabitants of both islands will die. Then an external trader arrives, and sells the necessary crops to one of the islands. The trader sells honestly at fair prices: both parties (trader and one island) are satisfied with the deal. Nevertheless, the inter-island exchange ends. On the other island, the population dies of malnutrition. Obviously, they never contracted to this, yet some libertarians would claim that they are in some sense more free.

    The entire article in context, makes a clear argument, that rule of law and government maintained order is essential for society, the libertarian utopia is not possible, and is just as dangerous a myth as perfect communism.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    This is isolationist bulderdash and nothing to to do with "libertarianism". Notice your post doesn't include any writings from famous Libertarians or Objectivist? That's because those ideas assumed by this writer just don't exist in libertarian beliefs.

    The best organization and order come from free will of people freely trading. Read "The not so Wild West".

    This idea that somehow a select few can make the rules and regulations that best represent everybody the best is just a fallacy notion of tyranny. Read "The Tyranny of Good Intentions"


    Libertarians believe each individual has the right to act, think, move individually but do realize that the actions of the choices of many effect them. They are not isolationist who are not influenced by others but oppose the idea that they must make choices by coercion. Fish has nothing to do with people.

    There isn't one libertarian writer that believes each is an "island" to his own.

    You may want to read up on the writing of Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, and others before believing the assumptions of liberty, free choice haters of those who support, "control".

    Omnipotent Government, by Ludwig Von Mises, Economics in one Easy Lesson by Henry Hazlit.

    Actually here is a simple article that destroys the silly myth portrayed.....
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-08-2012 at 10:44 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    No political party has members where every member agrees completely with their party's platform. With this being said here is what the Libertarian Party thinks a libertarian is. They should know, they are the Libertarian Party and have a website to prove it.

    PREAMBLE

    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

    We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

    Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

    In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

    These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

    http://www.lp.org/platform
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    This is isolationist bulderdash and nothing to to do with "libertarianism". Notice your post doesn't include any writings from famous Libertarians or Objectivist? That's because those ideas assumed by this writer just don't exist in libertarian beliefs.
    Really, because they quote in context David Freidman and Charles Murray, both rather prolific libertarian writers and one is a fellow with AEI

    The best organization and order come from free will of people freely trading. Read "The not so Wild West".
    If you read my other thread posted here in lounge about the OK corral, which I need to edit and finish, I just didn't want to lose what I'd already written, The one thing that sticks out is autocratic government control, in that for personal reasons Virgil Earp decided to disarm the clantons and it initiated a gun fight that lead to three deaths. Many wild west towns were autocratically ruled by a sheriff or town marshal, many had strict gun control laws, etc etc etc The wild west was NOT the bloodbathe that anti-gunners made it out to be, but it was not a libertarian society like you make it out.

    This idea that somehow a select few can make the rules and regulations that best represent everybody the best is just a fallacy notion of tyranny. Read "The Tyranny of Good Intentions"
    your book can take a number, I'm so hopelessly behind on the books I want to read that it's doubtful I'll ever get to them all


    Libertarians believe each individual has the right to act, think, move individually but do realize that the actions of the choices of many effect them. They are not isolationist who are not influenced by others but oppose the idea that they must make choices by coercion. Fish has nothing to do with people.
    The entire essay was refuting the idea of a "non-coercion principal" that you just admitted to believing in, so you chose the one example that was easy for you to refute, lets go back to some other ones used, if you want to chop down a tree, and i don't want you to and stand in front of your saw, now what? Under a non-coercion principal anyone owns the veto power. if you want to cut down the tree you'll have to remove me from the site, thus coercing me, and likewise i'm coercing you by refusing to allow you to cut down the tree. gee sounds like an issue for courts and law huh? kinda like what we have now?

    There isn't one libertarian writer that believes each is an "island" to his own.
    Really? that's a pretty authoritative statement, do you personally know all libertarians?

    [QUOTE]You may want to read up on the writing of Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, and others before believing the assumptions of liberty, free choice haters of those who support, "control".


    Omnipotent Government, by Ludwig Von Mises, Economics in one Easy Lesson by Henry Hazlit.

    Actually here is a simple article that destroys the silly myth portrayed.....
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html
    Oh yay, Lew Rockwell comes back again.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I fully understand posting this will make me rapidly unpopular here
    I don't think you have to worry about that.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    SNIP This is isolationist bulderdash and nothing to to do with "libertarianism". Notice your post doesn't include any writings from famous Libertarians or Objectivist? That's because those ideas assumed by this writer just don't exist in libertarian beliefs.

    You may want to read up on the writing of Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, and others before believing the assumptions of liberty, free choice haters of those who support, "control".

    Omnipotent Government, by Ludwig Von Mises, Economics in one Easy Lesson by Henry Hazlit.

    Actually here is a simple article that destroys the silly myth portrayed.....
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html
    +1

    If you want a feel for libertarians, check out Lew Rockwell dot com, The Cato Institute, and the books SVG mentions.

    I might also add one of my favorite books, a pamplet really, That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat. Great little book about economics. If you've ever heard of the Broken Window Fallacy, this pamphlet is the original source. Because it was published in the (1840's?) I'll bet its in the public domain and available on the internet.

    ETA: here it is: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-08-2012 at 10:46 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Really, because they quote in context David Freidman and Charles Murray, both rather prolific libertarian writers and one is a fellow with AEI
    They weren't quoted in your post I read the whole article and the guy stretches. The two guys he quotes are taking out of context. Any libertarian can easily refute his assumptions.



    If you read my other thread posted here in lounge about the OK corral, which I need to edit and finish, I just didn't want to lose what I'd already written, The one thing that sticks out is autocratic government control, in that for personal reasons Virgil Earp decided to disarm the clantons and it initiated a gun fight that lead to three deaths. Many wild west towns were autocratically ruled by a sheriff or town marshal, many had strict gun control laws, etc etc etc The wild west was NOT the bloodbathe that anti-gunners made it out to be, but it was not a libertarian society like you make it out.
    There is no perfect society, I never claimed it was a libertarian society. People who advocate anti liberty thoughts always use the rare examples of what happened to try to justify their desire for control. "Never let a crisis go to waste".
    Even in you very own example, the people of the town got together and hired someone to take care of their problem.





    your book can take a number, I'm so hopelessly behind on the books I want to read that it's doubtful I'll ever get to them all
    Because you'd rather read others viewpoints on libertarian than what libertarians actually believe?




    The entire essay was refuting the idea of a "non-coercion principal" that you just admitted to believing in, so you chose the one example that was easy for you to refute, lets go back to some other ones used, if you want to chop down a tree, and i don't want you to and stand in front of your saw, now what? Under a non-coercion principal anyone owns the veto power. if you want to cut down the tree you'll have to remove me from the site, thus coercing me, and likewise i'm coercing you by refusing to allow you to cut down the tree. gee sounds like an issue for courts and law huh? kinda like what we have now?
    This is the biggest fallacy of this guys whole argument, non-coercion doesn't = pacifist. I used the example you posted.

    Your analogy leaves too much out, like on who's property that tree is on? Yes it may very well be an issue for courts and law, but not like what we have now. It is not "co-ercion" to protect my property from you damaging it.

    Notice the focus on coercion, what is it you want to coerce others into? I doubt it is saving or cutting down trees.

    I personally believe their is a lot of room for civil courts and if you would read any of the books I or Citizen has posted you would see that this was what our country was founded on.







    Really? that's a pretty authoritative statement, do you personally know all libertarians?
    Nope but have read most writing by many who take libertarian stances.

    [QUOTE]You may want to read up on the writing of Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, and others before believing the assumptions of liberty, free choice haters of those who support, "control".



    Oh yay, Lew Rockwell comes back again.....

    So you didn't read the article? I see you would rather take the position of an anti-liberty article against libertarians, making assumption of what they believe than actually reading what libertarians believe from a libertarian website?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Civil judgements don't mean squat if there is not a criminal penalty for not paying up.

    The crux of our problem, criminal justice system, can't live with it, can't live without it.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Civil judgements don't mean squat if there is not a criminal penalty for not paying up.

    The crux of our problem, criminal justice system, can't live with it, can't live without it.
    There can be criminal penalties for civil judgement.

    For much of our history, you stole my horse I took you to court and proved you committed the crime. And you were sentenced accordingly or found not guilty accordingly.

    Private prosecution is still allowed in this country too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No political party has members where every member agrees completely with their party's platform. With this being said here is what the Libertarian Party thinks a libertarian is. They should know, they are the Libertarian Party and have a website to prove it.
    OK, here's the thing. I might be stepping in it by saying this, but here goes. I'm generally a defender of a persons right to make any choice they want. The problem I have is the culture we live in that has removed a crucial aspect of that right. Personal responsibility. If you choose to live your life as a druggie, I won't stop you. However, when you can no longer afford to pay for food and clothes and medical bills and life in general, don't make me pay for your choices. You see, we live in a society that wants to have an iron clad safety net for everyone no matter how they got there. But that infringes on my right to live my life without the burdens of having to cover your sorry rear end for your stupid decisions (not you personally just a generic you to the world.)

    If people would willingly accept the consequences of their actions to the point that a destroyed life that is incapable of feeding itself would be that persons own fault, I'd be all for it. But that's not going to happen. I'm always going to have to pay to cover the idiotic choices of people who feel no personal responsibility. And if that's the case, I want to be able to at least have some say in how much it's gonna cost me to support someone else's "lifestyle." Do you see the point?

    I'd have no problem with the pure libertarian viewpoint if they really meant it. If they really wanted to abolish all assistance to people who make those choices, I'd be more supportive. You get lung cancer from smoking? Sucks to be you. You made a choice. You get AIDS from IV drug use? Sucks to be you. You made a choice. You kill someone while driving drunk? You die in the chair, sucks to be you. You made a choice. I can't see that really happening.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    OK, here's the thing. I might be stepping in it by saying this, but here goes. I'm generally a defender of a persons right to make any choice they want. The problem I have is the culture we live in that has removed a crucial aspect of that right. Personal responsibility. If you choose to live your life as a druggie, I won't stop you. However, when you can no longer afford to pay for food and clothes and medical bills and life in general, don't make me pay for your choices. You see, we live in a society that wants to have an iron clad safety net for everyone no matter how they got there. But that infringes on my right to live my life without the burdens of having to cover your sorry rear end for your stupid decisions (not you personally just a generic you to the world.)

    If people would willingly accept the consequences of their actions to the point that a destroyed life that is incapable of feeding itself would be that persons own fault, I'd be all for it. But that's not going to happen. I'm always going to have to pay to cover the idiotic choices of people who feel no personal responsibility. And if that's the case, I want to be able to at least have some say in how much it's gonna cost me to support someone else's "lifestyle." Do you see the point?

    I'd have no problem with the pure libertarian viewpoint if they really meant it. If they really wanted to abolish all assistance to people who make those choices, I'd be more supportive. You get lung cancer from smoking? Sucks to be you. You made a choice. You get AIDS from IV drug use? Sucks to be you. You made a choice. You kill someone while driving drunk? You die in the chair, sucks to be you. You made a choice. I can't see that really happening.
    Yes most of us with Libertarian leanings also say you must pay the consequences for your own actions.

    Positive law usually creates more problems than it supposedly solves.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yes most of us with Libertarian leanings also say you must pay the consequences for your own actions.

    Positive law usually creates more problems than it supposedly solves.
    Ah, but "usually" is not a valid argument for abolishing law across the board. And I think many purely libertarians stray too far into anarchy. I lean toward libertarian. But more importantly I am a firm supporter of States rights. If California wants cradle to the grave nanny state, they can do that. But when it fails miserably, they should have no assistance in bailing them out. What our society has forgotten is that freedom entails certain necessary risk and potential failure. You have the right to live as you wish, but you also have the risk of failing and that risk is all on you. I should not be anchored to your failure and you should not be anchored to mine. And btw, that same principle applies to business. All business has risk. IF you take the risk and accept the responsibilities, you should be given the rewards that you work for. I have no right to claim your reward for your business if I took no risk and did nothing to help you.

    There is a place for certain guidelines and a safety net that provides minimal care for those who cannot or those who have been abused by others. We need rules to live by that define our interactions with each other. Should you choose to live wholly self sufficient and have no interaction with others, you would have no reason to bother with those laws. But that is not exactly realistic. To me it is a balancing act. The Constitution provides a strong framework of rules that we can live by. Unfortunately we have perverted those rules and added to them where we should not have. And we have blatantly ignored them when they are not convenient (all parties have done this). Honestly, I am convinced we are at the point of no return. I don't believe this country can ever return to it's founding principles. We are too far gone.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The 16th Amendment is the root of all evil in this country. If the citizens of a state desire to implement/maintain a state income tax OK. My confiscated property (money via federal income tax) is sent to other states that I will never interact with. The Social Security tax is a Ponzi scheme.

    Back to Article I, Sections 8 & 9.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Ah, but "usually" is not a valid argument for abolishing law across the board.
    He said positive law. Like many words, positive law has more than one meaning. In a libertarian context, positive law is used to distinguish all the screwed up man-made laws that do not align with Natural Law and natural rights.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    He said positive law. Like many words, positive law has more than one meaning. In a libertarian context, positive law is used to distinguish all the screwed up man-made laws that do not align with Natural Law and natural rights.
    I'm aware of that. And my comment remains unchanged. If you want to use the term "positive law" then I will use it in that context. Just because positive laws "usually" screw things up does not mean there is no need for any at all. Man made laws are necessary in some cases to protect and support those who cannot. The problem comes in the form of an over abundance of unnecessary laws. As I said, there are many (and by that I don't mean a majority or a even a large portion) libertarians who want anarchy by which I mean absence of any man made laws. They desire a dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest world. And that is not acceptable to most people including a lot of libertarians. Further, "natural law" can be subjective. You may deem it wrong to murder, but why should I? (PS, I'm using an extreme example for effect.) Point being, there has to be a balance and no one in this world can agree on where that balance exists. So we bicker about it.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    I'm aware of that. And my comment remains unchanged. If you want to use the term "positive law" then I will use it in that context. Just because positive laws "usually" screw things up does not mean there is no need for any at all. Man made laws are necessary in some cases to protect and support those who cannot. The problem comes in the form of an over abundance of unnecessary laws. As I said, there are many (and by that I don't mean a majority or a even a large portion) libertarians who want anarchy by which I mean absence of any man made laws. They desire a dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest world. And that is not acceptable to most people including a lot of libertarians. Further, "natural law" can be subjective. You may deem it wrong to murder, but why should I? (PS, I'm using an extreme example for effect.) Point being, there has to be a balance and no one in this world can agree on where that balance exists. So we bicker about it.
    I understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Ummm. Who told you libertarians want no law? Who told you anarchy = no laws?

    Anarchy means no rulers, deriving from the Greek archon, which meant chief or king or something. Just because you thoroughly decentralize power and have no government in the classic sense does not mean you have no laws and no enforcement mechanism when the need arises.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-09-2012 at 03:08 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Ummm. Who told you libertarians want no law? Who told you anarchy = no laws?

    Anarchy means no rulers, deriving from the Greek archon, which meant chief or king or something. Just because you thoroughly decentralize power and have no government in the classic sense does not mean you have no laws and no enforcement mechanism when the need arises.
    To be honest I don't think you followed my comment. What I said was, "there are many who..." I did not claim the generic "libertarians want no law." I also qualified my definition in this discussion of anarchy to be limited to absence of man made law. In the absence of man made law, and complete reliance on only natural law you invite the subjectivity of individual interpretation of natural law. Which allows each to define what they will as "natural law." In essence, if law is subjective whether natural or positive, it is anarchy in the end. That's why I believe there is a place for some positive law so that we reduce subjectivity in areas where it can cause conflict. BUT, being greedy people (as a whole) we tend to over do everything including making laws.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    To be honest I don't think you followed my comment. What I said was, "there are many who..." I did not claim the generic "libertarians want no law." I also qualified my definition in this discussion of anarchy to be limited to absence of man made law. In the absence of man made law, and complete reliance on only natural law you invite the subjectivity of individual interpretation of natural law. Which allows each to define what they will as "natural law." In essence, if law is subjective whether natural or positive, it is anarchy in the end. That's why I believe there is a place for some positive law so that we reduce subjectivity in areas where it can cause conflict. BUT, being greedy people (as a whole) we tend to over do everything including making laws.
    I think you're going in circles now. Any law, or any matter for discussion, is subject to individual interpretation. Its a given. Its use here only serves to confuse. Stop it. Start differentiating.

    All law is man-made. One of the definitions for positive law is law that is posited. Well, minerals and plants don't posit law, so that only leaves Man. The whole point of making the distinction between positive law and natural law is to start gaining agreement that some laws are so harmful to many and beneficial only to elites and government that something needs to be done about it, and which are which. Thus, for example, John Locke wrote Second Treatise on Government. A quick way to sort them out is to divide the laws into those which align with nature and the physical universe, and those that don't. Thus, some laws are considered natural. For example, self-defense because it aligns with the right to be alive and the natural instinct for self-preservation. Whereas the law that said the king owned all the land and the deer was obviously made-up for the benefit of kings and nobles.

    The whole point of distinguishing between the two is to get government and elites off our backs and allow people to thrive. Basically, it is because the subjective angle on positive law hasn't been working well ever since the first barbarian thug set himself up as chief that men like Locke and Rothbard are trying to change things.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-09-2012 at 04:27 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Good Article on Libertarians

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The 16th Amendment is the root of all evil in this country...
    Glad to finally hear someone else saying this. Did no one understand Justice Roberts in his Obamacare ruling? He essentially said that the ability to tax income gives the Feds virtually unlimited power to exercise control over the People!

    Repeal the 16th Amendment. It is the root of all federal evil!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  20. #20
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I think you're going in circles now. Any law, or any matter for discussion, is subject to individual interpretation. Its a given. Its use here only serves to confuse. Stop it. Start differentiating.

    All law is man-made. One of the definitions for positive law is law that is posited. Well, minerals and plants don't posit law, so that only leaves Man. The whole point of making the distinction between positive law and natural law is to start gaining agreement that some laws are so harmful to many and beneficial only to elites and government that something needs to be done about it, and which are which. Thus, for example, John Locke wrote Second Treatise on Government. A quick way to sort them out is to divide the laws into those which align with nature and the physical universe, and those that don't. Thus, some laws are considered natural. For example, self-defense because it aligns with the right to be alive and the natural instinct for self-preservation. Whereas the law that said the king owned all the land and the deer was obviously made-up for the benefit of kings and nobles.

    The whole point of distinguishing between the two is to get government and elites off our backs and allow people to thrive. Basically, it is because the subjective angle on positive law hasn't been working well ever since the first barbarian thug set himself up as chief that men like Locke and Rothbard are trying to change things.
    By that logic, if a law aligns with what someone deems is "natural" then it is a natural law. In that sense, an argument can be made by the King that it aligns with his right to be owner of all the land. I'm not arguing he's correct, but if all law is subjective then his interpretation of natural law is as accurate as yours. In fact, that is exactly what the monarchy argued. They were placed in position in their minds "by God" and therefore they had that natural right to make the laws. So then all laws they made were natural laws. You (and I would to) argue they are incorrect in that conclusion. But, again, if all law is subjective then both positions are equal correct. That is the pitfall of "natural law" that is ignored or avoided too often. The argument that natural law is somehow innately fair is tenuous. In reality, natural law is only fair to the people who interpret it to be fair. (btw, that's circular logic) It is a matter of perspective more than right or wrong. So if that is the case, you can argue natural vs positive, I see it as an amalgam that shifts depending on your perspective. Which is why I say they are subjective. And while this may irk you, I think Natural Law is equally subjective depending on perspective.

    So let's ignore the extreme ends of the spectrum of totalitarian rule on one end and total anarchy on the opposite. My point is, and always has been, that the best we can hope for is a balanced approach that lands us somewhere in the middle. And we all tug in one direction or the other. I do think that libertarians tug in the direction of anarchy, but by no means desire that as an end. And to a large extent I would tug that way also. Some tug more so than I do. But I also accept that some laws, even if I don't like them, are a necessary part of being a civilized society. Case in point, the speed limit. What is an acceptable speed limit? I'm a pretty good driver, so I say 100MPH. But my MIL is horrific so she says 25MPH. Who is right? Which one is "natural"? What about the person who says "no speed limit at all!" In that case, who's perspective is used to define the rule as being "natural" because it aligns with self preservation?

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    By that logic, if a law aligns with what someone deems is "natural" then it is a natural law. In that sense, an argument can be made by the King that it aligns with his right to be owner of all the land. I'm not arguing he's correct, but if all law is subjective then his interpretation of natural law is as accurate as yours. In fact, that is exactly what the monarchy argued. They were placed in position in their minds "by God" and therefore they had that natural right to make the laws. So then all laws they made were natural laws. You (and I would to) argue they are incorrect in that conclusion. But, again, if all law is subjective then both positions are equal correct. That is the pitfall of "natural law" that is ignored or avoided too often. The argument that natural law is somehow innately fair is tenuous. In reality, natural law is only fair to the people who interpret it to be fair. (btw, that's circular logic) It is a matter of perspective more than right or wrong. So if that is the case, you can argue natural vs positive, I see it as an amalgam that shifts depending on your perspective. Which is why I say they are subjective. And while this may irk you, I think Natural Law is equally subjective depending on perspective.

    So let's ignore the extreme ends of the spectrum of totalitarian rule on one end and total anarchy on the opposite. My point is, and always has been, that the best we can hope for is a balanced approach that lands us somewhere in the middle. And we all tug in one direction or the other. I do think that libertarians tug in the direction of anarchy, but by no means desire that as an end. And to a large extent I would tug that way also. Some tug more so than I do. But I also accept that some laws, even if I don't like them, are a necessary part of being a civilized society. Case in point, the speed limit. What is an acceptable speed limit? I'm a pretty good driver, so I say 100MPH. But my MIL is horrific so she says 25MPH. Who is right? Which one is "natural"? What about the person who says "no speed limit at all!" In that case, who's perspective is used to define the rule as being "natural" because it aligns with self preservation?
    There is a member on this forum who does believe it's his natural right to drive as fast as he wants with no drivers license.....

    Law is law, whether or not it's codified and written or simply accepted custom.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    There can be criminal penalties for civil judgement.
    Please provide a specific historical example. Not questioning your contention I just have no knowledge of such an occurance occurring simultaneously in a court of law. Or, is part of the criminal punishment that directs restitution the same as combining civil and criminal punishments?

    For much of our history, you stole my horse I took you to court and proved you committed the crime. And you were sentenced accordingly or found not guilty accordingly.
    Does this support the above? Horse theft is a criminal matter. Giving back your horse would be criminal restitution. I also think any monitary restitution for lost wages because you had no horse to go to work on would be criminal and not civil. But, I'm just guess at this point.

    Private prosecution is still allowed in this country too.
    Where is this allowed? I have a few folks in mind that deserve private prosecution. Starting with my local school board.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Please provide a specific historical example. Not questioning your contention I just have no knowledge of such an occurance occurring simultaneously in a court of law. Or, is part of the criminal punishment that directs restitution the same as combining civil and criminal punishments?

    Does this support the above? Horse theft is a criminal matter. Giving back your horse would be criminal restitution. I also think any monitary restitution for lost wages because you had no horse to go to work on would be criminal and not civil. But, I'm just guess at this point.

    Where is this allowed? I have a few folks in mind that deserve private prosecution. Starting with my local school board.
    Roger Roots "Are cops Constitutional" is a good read on it some of it's cites are a bit hard to find and easy to dismiss though, but it still has some good hits on history. Tyranny of Good Intentions is better written by actual constitutional lawyers but it helps describe how our legal system started.

    The modern proactive cop and prosecutor wasn't a fixture in our Blackstone, common law foundlings, I would hire a "prosecutor" to prosecute and although this truly isn't "private" prosecution in the true sense, because ultimately myself and my attorney acting as prosecutor are acting as agents of the state. Since crimes like theft, etc are considered public crimes which the state has authority over. I guess from my understanding civil and criminal punishments weren't combined sorry for my misleading words (not intentional) but that criminal complaints can be filed civilly or by civilians which was the case for many common wealth centuries.

    In Washington it is this document....http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules...crrlj2.1&pdf=1

    I have talked to a local Lawyer who has filed a case against Des Moines officers for their illegal stalking, torture and ultimately killing of a family pet. The courts have bounced his case around not sure how to handle it, and the prosecutors want it dismissed even though they don't want to prosecute. I should find time to see what happened to that case.

    Roberts vs. United states was a case that reached SCOTUS and the private prosecution was upheld but now that I look at it again it looks like they made a newer ruling on it in 2010 I'll have to look at it more when I have some time.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-10-2012 at 10:05 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •