- Messages
- 9,933
This movement is producing some fantastic video. 18 episodes so far. This is the lastest:
Stop a Douchebag - Libertarian Solutions to Communist Problems
- Thread starter OfficePants
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,933
They're stopping people from driving on sidewalks, those aren't public roads. Where they live, there's problem there with pedestrians being hit. These fine young men are doing a public service the communist police won't.
- Messages
- 9,933
As a result of it's communist past, its a non-functioning society. Exemplified here with social norms, like letting people walk on sidewalks, as something to be tread on by aggressive anti-social drivers. The citizens are treading back. This situation is defacto lawlessness, so it's up to the population to establish what it wants. In some of these videos, the pedestrians are very thankful for the effort, see the vid below.
- Messages
- 9,933
Episode 17. By the way, those stickers are perfectly thin paper that doesn't come off easily.
- Messages
- 9,933
In the libertarian ethos, how should these drivers be handled?
- Messages
- 9,933
How does that help?
- Messages
- 9,933
So lets simplify, does the libertarian ethos say that the guy left driving the car has the right to drive on the sidewalk?
- Messages
- 9,933
It's a serious query. I'm trying to understand because I'm surprised that you don't see these citizens taking action against aggressors as in line with the ideals of freedom and no government interference, among other things. Autonomy and freedom of choice are interfering with that of others, so how does this get resolved within the libertarian ethos?
- Messages
- 9,933
For the same reason there are public roads.
- Messages
- 9,933
Unfortunately its corrupted thru both public and private toll roads. What's the alternative to a public system of transport?
Edit, its been corrupted by other forces too.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,933
Ok then for arguments sake, everything is private, you own the bridge between Philly and Cherry Hill, you have a monopoly and charge $50 in today's money to cross. Expensive right?
You have so much money now that you payoff anyone that attempts to build another bridge, and since there is no law against paying someone not to build a road, you maintain a monopoly, and because it costs you more to maintain your monopoly, you now charge $70 which covers the payoffs and gives you even more profit.
Because you can charge $70, you buy the closest bridges and knock them down. Either you drive 100 miles to get to Cherry hill, or you pay me $80.
Can you poke a hole in this unregulated dynamic?
- Messages
- 9,933
That would be nice. How about the scenario, then?
- Messages
- 9,933
Seems suggesting people take a 3 mile flight deflects from where libertarian ideals start to break down. I guess swimming it would be an alternative too.
The wealthy owner now buys up all means of transport across the river, and installs a fence so you can't swim it. There is a complete monopoly on crossing, and all means are priced as excessively as the bridge because the owner can. You need to cross. Do you just pay?
doghouse
King Of The Elite Idiots
- Messages
- 12,430
What he is saying isn't libertarian ideals, it's just him being on a whiny bender.
Public roads that everyone agrees on is pretty much a shining example of libertarian ideals, no matter how much government enthusiasts like to paint libertarianism like Somalia, which is actually anarchy. I'm partial to anarchy myself, but that's neither here nor there.
- Messages
- 9,933
Serious query. Why are public roads a shining example of libertarian ideals?
How does libertarianism differ from anarchy? Because every time I try and wrap my head around it, the end state always seems to be anarchy because when you start to dissect the ethos, individualism trumps all.
- Messages
- 9,933
It's not. We have had many monopolies in the past that were possible thru enormous wealth's ability to squash any challenge. Just look at the railroads, steel, standard oil, and the Rothschild family history.
doghouse
King Of The Elite Idiots
- Messages
- 12,430
The short version is libertarianism holds that the negative conception of liberty is correct (which I 100% agree with). Negative liberty means that people aren't restrained by onerous regulation of behavior, have freedom to decide their own actions, business dealings, modes of interpersonal reactions, etc... In a nutshell, it's classical liberalism. The word liberal has been requisitioned to other ends, so they had to come up with a different label, which is libertarianism.
Individualism does trump all, but the biggest benefit for an individual is to have a functioning society. People come together and agree on things they like, and society is formed. This is obviously the super condensed version as this has been a process that has been going on for a millenia, it wasn't you, me, JimmyRustler and Rambo sitting around tossing dice on a Friday and one of us says "Shit, we should form a community". It's taken many wars, revolutions, and other upheavals to work itself out to the current point, and it's still realizing itself today. Tea Party idiots get tripped up on the last point there. Having a government who is the switchboard of society, facilitating trade, defense and infrastructure people want is a crucial part of liberal/libertarian principle. If not then we have limited our own freedom.
The difference between classic liberalism/libertarianism and modern liberalism is bottom up vs/ top down government. Democratic vs authoritarian. The previous two sentences are the TL;DR version I guess, it's hard to condense this stuff but so much. It's probably the single biggest concept in the history of political discourse.
People who cast libertarianism as anarchy do it either purposefully or ignorantly to support top down governance.
- Messages
- 9,933
Ep 19 out... ha ha, these are fucking brilliant.
- Messages
- 9,933
Thank you. This is very articulate and did help me understand. You're right, Liberal has become indistinguishable from Socialist ideals (not commie style), it did shift my world view to look at Libertarian as a more pure take on liberal ideals.
doghouse
King Of The Elite Idiots
- Messages
- 12,430
I'm happy to help pass on what I can, though I'm not sure I have done it justice. I am not able to articulate ideas very well in general, I could never be a teacher. My coaching is usually along the lines of "Just fucking do it already".
Add in that most people who attach Libertarian to their view these days are Tea Bag nutjobs and it becomes an even tougher row to hoe.
- Messages
- 9,933
Ha ha, ep 20 released.
- Messages
- 9,933
Episode 21. Dude wouldn't move for almost 4 hours.
- Messages
- 9,933
Ep 22 is up!
- Messages
- 9,933
Heh... ep 23
Featuring hot chick
Featuring hot chick
- Messages
- 4,235
With respect, I don't think that's quite correct.
Libertarian, taken to its logical conclusion, is anarchy and I know a number of libertarians who are quite open about being anarchists. They refer to themselves as "anarcho-libertarians" or, sometimes, as "anarcho-capitalists".
There's even a Wikipedia entry on the topic:
Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Essentially, some libertarians (often termed "minarchists") do think that a state should exist, but that it should be very, very much smaller than it currently is, and basically handle only essential duties such as policing, justice and external defence. Everything else - roads, transportation, hospitals, education and so on - can be taken care of by private organisations. Of course, those organisations do not have to be for-profit - they could be run by churches (as many hospitals and schools still are) or by other such organisations of like-minded individuals who have banded together to provide a service. The key to libertarians, however, is that such things are voluntary, unlike government, which they see as coercive.
doghouse
King Of The Elite Idiots
- Messages
- 12,430
Wikipedia?
There's two things here. The first, which is the point I was trying to convey earlier, is that these people you are referencing aren't libertarian, they are co-opting the word to their own end. They are anarchists. That word doesn't sound as wholesome so they steal the libertarian moniker to make it palatable for mass consumption. And I say this as someone who likes a bit of anarchy. It's definitely not the same thing or a subset of general libertarian though. You could make an argument that given the changing nature of language, that libertarian has changed to cover this group, but I would disagree strongly as these people aren't consequential enough to really warrant that.
The second is there is no logical conclusion to libertarian, it is a definition, not a process, and has already had it's boundaries well set. In a nutshell, when choosing methods of governance, all things being equal, lean towards preserving individual liberty and rights. That's all. This is pretty well set from the times of Montesquieu and Jefferson. It's definitely not a free for all that the anarchists want. The voluntary aspect is always a red herring used by these guys too, since every form of society is voluntary and coercive at the same time. You can do anything you want in any system, you just might get shot from it in some. That's just devolving to cause and effect. Conversely, there is always societal pressure in any group of humans, so there is no such thing as purely doing what you want if you want to coexist with other individuals. The question really resolves to making sure the government respects individual freedom enough that there aren't massive riots in the street or coups in order to try and further the democratic process and public wishes, because those things harm every individual by not providing the most efficient society.
- Messages
- 6,461
I read a great book by an Austrian economist that ultimately advocated anarcho-capitalism. In fact it's cited in that wiki, Herman-Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed. It made many great points.
First, it rather defended monarchy, as that is the family business model where long-term planning and sustainability are vital. Democracy leads to a temporary shareholder model of stewardship where the leader has no long-term stakes and is out to plunder what he can while he can.
The big point was that we see government as a territorial monopoly on law and authority. In the modern age, this is unnecessary. We all have different car insurance agencies and cell phone carriers, and can swap to another with little difficulty, yet to leave a government we are dissatisfied with requires leaving your home and all roots entirely behind. It was not timely when the book came out, but an example of non-territorial government would be religious or military. There are areas where local religion is known to be strict enough that a offender will be turned over to some religious structure for justice regardless of what secular area or person was involved. Similarly, if some sailor causes trouble on shore leave, it is generally trusted that the miltary will deal with the matter and local/foreign officials need not try and punish.
Sucession is the prerogative of all. The United States, before Lincoln fucked it all up, was loose conglomeration of states. Any could leave, and presumably a county could leave a state, a town could leave a county, etc. Otherwise you have monopoly, and it sucks. To include monopoly of the voters, as that is confined to some area and ignores variation. Almost every state has some tyranny between the urban, suburban and rural populaces because they have rather irreconcilably different needs yet are lumped together by outdated boundaries because territorial monopoly.
Anyway, I'm a Ron Paul type that says almost all the evils of modern government can be cured by strict adherence to the original ground rules of the Constitution.
First, it rather defended monarchy, as that is the family business model where long-term planning and sustainability are vital. Democracy leads to a temporary shareholder model of stewardship where the leader has no long-term stakes and is out to plunder what he can while he can.
The big point was that we see government as a territorial monopoly on law and authority. In the modern age, this is unnecessary. We all have different car insurance agencies and cell phone carriers, and can swap to another with little difficulty, yet to leave a government we are dissatisfied with requires leaving your home and all roots entirely behind. It was not timely when the book came out, but an example of non-territorial government would be religious or military. There are areas where local religion is known to be strict enough that a offender will be turned over to some religious structure for justice regardless of what secular area or person was involved. Similarly, if some sailor causes trouble on shore leave, it is generally trusted that the miltary will deal with the matter and local/foreign officials need not try and punish.
Sucession is the prerogative of all. The United States, before Lincoln fucked it all up, was loose conglomeration of states. Any could leave, and presumably a county could leave a state, a town could leave a county, etc. Otherwise you have monopoly, and it sucks. To include monopoly of the voters, as that is confined to some area and ignores variation. Almost every state has some tyranny between the urban, suburban and rural populaces because they have rather irreconcilably different needs yet are lumped together by outdated boundaries because territorial monopoly.
Anyway, I'm a Ron Paul type that says almost all the evils of modern government can be cured by strict adherence to the original ground rules of the Constitution.
- Messages
- 9,933
Interesting post.
I never considered monarchy that way. And it's very true that the current model is a short term plunder-fest. But monarchy has largely died because it's own set of unstable abuses and forms of tyranny it introduces. The idea that a benevolent leader will guide and do good for all is nothing more than an occasional match of self interest with that of the public. Just look at the Sultan of Brunei and his thousands of cars all rotting in the heat and humidity.
The more time I spend within it, the more democracy is just a different type of deal with the devil. I have advocated many times that the south should form it's own union, as the values just don't match those of other states. Eventually humans will tire of the theft of our incomes into forever more unfair redistribution into the hands of the elite and their military industrial complex. And eventually people will start to accept that police and military are not there to protect them, they are there to protect their own interests, corporations, and the elite.
Ron Paul will never, ever, ever, ever get elected because the people that want things to be this way will not allow for it.
Lastly, I think it's an accurate macro view to say that we are forced into a system of territorial monopolies, whether they be dictators, democracies, or other forms. This nation state disease has carved the whole world up, I suppose save for Antarctica. I don't see a mechanism to introduce an alternative.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,461
I subscribe to the notion that democratic revolts succeeded because the revolutionaries could more readily mobilize people ready to kill for the cause than the king could. Heck, that's how the US started...
Like any family business, you get degradation and decadence through the generations if there is not a strong check against it.
Perhaps off topic, but I see the phony two-party system as similar to the basket ball full court press (playing defensively whenever not in possession of the ball, as opposed to consensually agreeing to play defensively on only half the court). One can succeed via eternally vigilance, but instead our parties have decided to take it easy and alternate instead.
- Messages
- 9,933
I would argue there was never a time of check against abuse in this nation's history. The country, in it's infancy, was Somalia. There was no stability or rule of law save outside a few small cities, and even there it was tenuous at best. Slavery was widespread.
As it grew and developed, the politics of self interest did so along with it, while it's a movie, "Gangs of New York" sorta illustrates my point. Now, technology has allowed a complete surveillance state to emerge, and does so while it's supposed to be completely illegal. The nation is a bunch of fat, lazy, television watching blobs, and it's handing over the keys to the inept millennial generation, I don't even want to dream of the Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho politicians they'll have governing us.
doghouse
King Of The Elite Idiots
- Messages
- 12,430
Lol
- Messages
- 4,235
Wikipedia?
There's two things here. The first, which is the point I was trying to convey earlier, is that these people you are referencing aren't libertarian, they are co-opting the word to their own end. They are anarchists. That word doesn't sound as wholesome so they steal the libertarian moniker to make it palatable for mass consumption. And I say this as someone who likes a bit of anarchy. It's definitely not the same thing or a subset of general libertarian though. You could make an argument that given the changing nature of language, that libertarian has changed to cover this group, but I would disagree strongly as these people aren't consequential enough to really warrant that.
The second is there is no logical conclusion to libertarian, it is a definition, not a process, and has already had it's boundaries well set. In a nutshell, when choosing methods of governance, all things being equal, lean towards preserving individual liberty and rights. That's all. This is pretty well set from the times of Montesquieu and Jefferson. It's definitely not a free for all that the anarchists want. The voluntary aspect is always a red herring used by these guys too, since every form of society is voluntary and coercive at the same time. You can do anything you want in any system, you just might get shot from it in some. That's just devolving to cause and effect. Conversely, there is always societal pressure in any group of humans, so there is no such thing as purely doing what you want if you want to coexist with other individuals. The question really resolves to making sure the government respects individual freedom enough that there aren't massive riots in the street or coups in order to try and further the democratic process and public wishes, because those things harm every individual by not providing the most efficient society.
I think that you may be conflating liberal, with libertarian. Or, perhaps we're just going to have to have an argument about semantics and political terminology!
There is, of course, overlap between "little "l" liberals" (that is, traditional liberals who believe in limiting government and so on, not the term "liberal" that's been misappropriated and is often improperly used an insult by conservatives in the US nowadays and as an incorrect substitute for "socialist") and libertarians. JS Mill, Bastiat, Montesquieu, Hayek, Rawls, Friedman and others are best described as liberals - they were happy to have a central government (to a greater or lesser degree) but they thought that government should be limited in what it did and that it was best left to private citizens to take care of most things. However, other liberals, such as Nozick, von Mises, Rothbard and others, took liberal thought further and argued that government was, in fact, not necessary and that it is actually an impediment to freedom and progress. These people are best described as libertarians.
So, I would argue that whilst all libertarians are little "l" liberals, not all liberals are libertarians.
Perhaps you are right that the definition of libertarian has changed over time and that it has become more extreme. I don't agree, because as I've noted above, I think that what you are talking about is liberalism, not libertarianism. However, even if the meaning of libertarianism has drifted more towards anarchy than used to be the case, that is not unusual as many words, including those in political and economic discourse, have changed in emphasis and meaning over the past few centuries - "communist" is an excellent example of this.
doghouse
King Of The Elite Idiots
- Messages
- 12,430
classic liberalism = libertarianism
It's an anachronism to use libertarianism to distinguish various classic liberals. The word was invented to describe classic liberals when liberalism diverged and somehow became anti-liberal. I'm still puzzled how that happened, but that is another conversation...
It's an anachronism to use libertarianism to distinguish various classic liberals. The word was invented to describe classic liberals when liberalism diverged and somehow became anti-liberal. I'm still puzzled how that happened, but that is another conversation...
- Messages
- 9,933
Self entitled prick
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
- Messages
- 9,933
New episode!
Sartodi Napoli
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,952
This is what i am as well, very close to Paleoconservative in economical therms.
When you can´t have a totalitarian Catholic and militar country as with Franco or Pinochet, the other solution is to avoid a socialist fake democracy and do not have masons on the power.
Anarchocapitalism is the key.
To live free or die.
- Messages
- 9,933
And another!
- Messages
- 9,933
That's nein fair
Sartodi Napoli
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,952
- Messages
- 9,933
Nationalism is just as worthless as the EU.