imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
But that's just my point. The bad individuals in government are there because bad (or just dumb and uninformed) individuals voted them into power. So in marshual land that leaves you with a whole lot of bad (or dumb) individuals and no one but you and I, and all the authority we don't have, to babysit them. If they attack you, you shoot them. Fair enough. What do you do when they steal something from you? Your land of no authority provides for no punishment beyond self-defense. Do you shot them in that case also? I guess I'll give you that one too. What happens when you have a property dispute? You have no government or regulating body to enforce or hold records on who owns what, so you get into an argument with your neighbor. Neither of you have any form of authority over the other and no one has authority of either of you, because you're both "liberated" people, so who settles it?
All of your conjecture assumes absolute anarchy, which is not something I've ever advocated. In fact, while I do often sympathize with anarcho-capitalists, I do not believe that my "philosophy of non-aggression and respect for human rights" necessarily equates to anarchism of any sort.
On the other hand, an anarcho-capitalist would point out that society forms its own controls, and they are effective precisely because they are not the same form as the regulatory sort imposed by government.
I'll point out that an astute observer (yourself) would notice I quote Jefferson quite a bit. I consider my views nearly in line with Jeffersonian Liberalism. However "extreme"
you may consider this philosophy, most of us will agree it's clearly not anarchism.
AWDstylez wrote:
Do both bust out Browning's gift to mankind and whoever is left standing wins? Sounds like state-of-nature living to me.
I admit it, this time you made me laugh. :lol: And now that you point it out, state-of-nature (as you call it) might indeed be an improvement (however slight) over the current state of affairs.
AWDstylez wrote:
I ask you again, WHY you put so much faith in the same people you don't trust to govern?
It's not a question of with whom I hold faith. One implication of both the quotes I used above is that the speaker
doesn't necessarily trust people as a whole. The difference is, when I assume (trust, you would say) that my neighbor isn't going to mess with me, even in the unlikely event that I am wrong the worst that happens is a little property dispute, maybe self-defense. In contrast, consider what far greater wrongs Americans' faith in their corrupt government has enabled it to commit.
AWDstylez wrote:
But, what I'd love to hear is your explanation for how regulatory actions would take place in marshual land. What of things like the FDA that set standards for food and drug products to protect consumers. What of the EPA that keeps us from having to walk around with gas masks on? What of infrastructure departments like the DOT and FAA? Who controls the public owned roads? Who sets standards for airline safety? Where do laws come from? Who enforces them?
I can expound upon this further in PM if you'd like, but this is off-topic to the point I'm not going to answer here. You might do better doing some reading some on your own. Very erudite and intelligent folks have answered these questions before.
AWDstylez wrote:
Utopia is all well and good when you're dreaming about it at night, but in reality is doesn't work because people are stupid and motivated by self-interest. Government is the product of everyone getting together and attempting to better society. Anarchy is just glorified state-of-nature existence.
This just goes so show how little you understand libertarianism (of any sort). Libertarians never claim to offer anything like a utopia. A cornerstone of the philosophy is that society is inherently not "perfect," but that in addressing the problems of society we will have more effect by protecting individual freedom and (thus) individual responsibility than through a governmental, regulatory approach.
