Dec 5, 2013 at 12:30 am #1310603
The founding principle of all libertarian philosophy and the moral justification for anarchy.
What is chaff's opinion on this?Dec 5, 2013 at 4:50 pm #2051257
I think it's a fine idea but the first serious doubt I have about its implementation is whether or not technological/industrial civilization of this scale is even possible without aggression towards/exploitation of other people and/or their property.Dec 5, 2013 at 4:56 pm #2051263
Libertarians create all these terms, very complicated.
I'm for non-aggresion, but I don't see that as a justification for not paying your taxes.
Interesting about the conflict over specific issues like religion or abortion.Dec 5, 2013 at 5:14 pm #2051276
Another quick question I'll throw in concerns property rights. NAP obviously hinges pretty heavily on the concept of private property. Inconvenient fact, but most of the private property of this world has been secured through aggression of some sort against someone and it continues to go that way.
So when it comes to the legitimacy of private property, how many generation back do you want to extend NAP principles?
When it comes to the defense of "private property", it's quite easy to say history is history when your culture/civilization happens to be the victor.Dec 5, 2013 at 5:17 pm #2051279
I have sympathies towards sociocollective-anarchists, particularly those who're lgtbq and/or of color. They're aware the system has failed them utterly, and they mostly focus on taking care of their own, avoiding engageing with power structures as much as possible. They have no illusions of their communities formenting a wider revolution, nor do they want such a thing (sometimes the white ones are more aggressively anarcho-communist, but they also tend to be shitheads, so.). Libertarian anarchists dream of a law-free, gun-filled, yet inexplicably peaceful privately-owned wonderland for all, a notion that is laughable at every possible level.Dec 5, 2013 at 5:23 pm #2051281
Interesting. According to my attached link, 6 million children are abused in some way every year here in the U.S. How would this be resolved in a stateless society which has adopted the NAP? Would the abuser go to jail? If so, what if they said no?Dec 5, 2013 at 7:10 pm #2051331
Tom KirchnerBPL Member
@ouzelLocale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
"According to my attached link, 6 million children are abused in some way every year here in the U.S. How would this be resolved in a stateless society which has adopted the NAP?"
Why, that kind of behavior would disappear in a stateless paradise. Everybody knows the only reason people abuse defenseless children is because of the pressures and frustrations of living in a modern, high speed, technologically driven society where everybody feels alienated and disconnected from their fellow man. They're just looking for luv and affection, Ian. You're just afraid your job would disappear. ;0) ;o)Dec 5, 2013 at 7:11 pm #2051332
To be clear, I'm not an anarchist. I just find anarchist/capitalist philosophy to be fascinating. I find it very difficult to argue against the non aggression principle from a moral standpoint. The argument that any form of government is inherently violent, because it uses violent physical force against those who disobey a mandate, is a sound argument.
"sociocollective-anarchists" sounds like an oxymoron unless it's voluntary. That's the whole point of anarchy… voluntary association allows people to associate in whatever way they want, be it a collective society or a free market society.
In response to Ian, I don't have a good answer for that. However I will say that many minarchists have argued that one of the few legitimate functions of government (besides protection against aggression, protection of property, protection of liberties, enforcement of contracts, ect.) is to protect children from harm and abuse.Dec 5, 2013 at 7:22 pm #2051340
If children are property, parents are free to abuse them with impunity, and defend (or not) their property from outside adults. Property rights doncha know.Dec 5, 2013 at 7:28 pm #2051343
I've never heard an anarchist argue that children are property. I suppose in a stateless society if someone abused their child and their local community disapproved of it, they could get together and forcefully take custody of that child. (self defense of your liberty, or the defense of another persons liberty is not aggression, assuming a child is consider an individual with rights)Dec 5, 2013 at 7:34 pm #2051347
Of course it's voluntary. People who're systemically oppressed by society freely decide to minimize engagement with said society and live collectively or in a mutually accountable community and make decisions by consensus. Not saying it works particularly well all the time; in fact I have seen problems with abusers and failures of community justice, albeit with rape and domestic violence instead of child abuse. In many ways it just replicates larger society right down to the problems, but in some ways it works better for the participants than "normal" living.
Edit: the children as property thing was (slightly) tongue in cheek.Dec 5, 2013 at 8:17 pm #2051377
"The argument that any form of government is inherently violent, because it uses violent physical force against those who disobey a mandate, is a sound argument."
I agree with this to an extent, but I would take it one step further to say that all forms of large scale human civilizations are inherently violent, because they require a locally unsustainable level of resources (and often labor) to make them possible, forcing them to push outward (or exploit classes within).
The Hadza of Tanzania are a pretty good example that illustrate people living in a truly communal, collective, and relatively nonviolent society. I don't think that it's any accident that they typically limit themselves to bands of a few dozen people and that they're self-reliant hunter gatherers.
There seems to be threshold in human societies at which the trouble starts- too many people to support, too many people to work together, and too many resources required to sustain a sedentary group…and the conquests and wars begin. The magic number seems to be pretty low if you study cultural anthropology and hunter-gatherer societies.
I think that anarcho-primitivists put forth the most cogent critique in this regard.
(I believe this belief of mine led someone to call me the Unabomber in an old thread!)
The problem is, there's not much of a solution if civilization itself is the root of so much of the mass exploitation and violence we see in this world.Dec 5, 2013 at 8:20 pm #2051380
There's a lot about the libertarian philosophy that I really like. There are far too many people in prison. I don't think homosexuals or polygamists should be precluded from marriage. I think the federal government is far too big and many of the programs should be handled at the state level. I think we've taken deficit spending too far. I think we need to stop trying to play the world's 911 service. I think the death penalty is barbaric.
But then I listen to that video and really get a sense that there is a lot of arm chair politicking going on and some of the proposed ideas are impractical and illogical. I'm not in a position to say he's wrong but there wasn't anything in that video that would convince me he's right.Dec 6, 2013 at 7:12 am #2051470
Jennifer MitolBPL Member
@jenmitolLocale: In my dreams....
I agree that in principle, there is a lot to like about libertarianism. The problem comes in when your rights interfere with my rights. Then who wins?
If you want to smoke, great. What if I don't want to breathe your carcinogens?
You don't want to vaccinate your kids, great. What if your kid's germs infect my child with a deadly disease?
If you want to shoot a gun on your property, great. But what if that bullet hits me on my property?
You don't want to wear a seatbelt or helmet? I honestly don't care, until you ask me and my tax dollars to support your disabled a$$ after your accident.
Kind of reminds me of the cliche "you're right to swing your arm ends at my face."
So what do we do about that? In a large society that's why we have laws and regulations…to ATTEMPT to delineate my rights and yours, and to keep you from infringing on mine. I don't think anarchists nor libertarians have come up with good answers to this.Dec 6, 2013 at 7:44 am #2051477
Conservatives or libertarians are good for keeping the liberals or progressives in line.
Don't do "feel good" programs that are expensive and not effective.
And vice versa.
But the current "do anything to make Obama unsuccessful" policy is going overboard
And both political parties have been corrupted by the huge amounts of money that has bought our governmentDec 6, 2013 at 9:33 am #2051514
Sarah KirkconnellBPL Member
@sarbarLocale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
Two words that show why regulation can be a good thing:
Chinese Smog.Dec 6, 2013 at 11:29 am #2051543
Ben 2 WorldBPL Member
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
Humans need good laws and norms both to inspire and to protect. The worst abuses happen when folks try to create 'paradise on Earth'. Be it Christendom, Sharia, rabidly secular Communism, or some sort of fantasy 'lawless freedom'.Dec 6, 2013 at 5:15 pm #2051664
Jennifer MitolBPL Member
@jenmitolLocale: In my dreams....
Oh now c'mon Sarah…if you try to stop all that smog spewing you'll be a job killer!!Dec 6, 2013 at 5:51 pm #2051669
That smog doesn't hurt anyone, there's a group that does research that shows it's harmless, don't worry about it…Dec 6, 2013 at 6:29 pm #2051682
I wonder how much of their pollution is subsidized by US solar panel rebates?Dec 27, 2013 at 6:22 pm #2058051
After watching the video you provided a link to in the OP, I stumbled upon a YouTube celebrity by the name of Stefan Molyneux. Since then I've listened to several of his podcasts and videos to better understand his libertarian philosophy.
I honestly enjoy listening to him and I think he's appropriately critical of wars, the American imprisonment binge, and laws that protect large corporations and further the exploitation of the poor. Unfortunately he has done little to change my opinion of libertarianism because he constantly talks about how he has empirical evidence and historical references to support his belief that widespread adoption of libertarian principles will solve these problems but then fails to provide them.
He has many thousands of hours of videos and podcasts and I'm rapidly losing interest in listening to any more to see if he'll ever deliver the goods but just wanted to give you some feedback.
Edit to add: While I don't agree with him down the line, I will give Molyneux his due as he does provide the sources for his research in the link below his YT videos.Dec 27, 2013 at 6:35 pm #2058055
Marko BotsarisBPL Member
@millonasLocale: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA
OK, since I seem to have gotten myself into (or been gotten into) a very churlish mood, I will just say this …
Why is it that people who are super-into-love-at-first-sight over Ayn Rand are, at least in my experience, always the ones who have barely read another political philosopher in their life, either before or after?
Now that I have launched a ping-pong ball in a room full of cats, I think I better go eat something. I'm in a seriously mean mood, either because I wasted the last few hours, or because I need food.
More likely I really *am* just a mean person.Dec 27, 2013 at 6:54 pm #2058061
Have a nice weekend sunshine:)Dec 29, 2013 at 4:21 pm #2058611
For the record and if there was any doubt, I'm not a liberal by the sad contemporary political definition but I appreciate this article.Dec 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm #2058622
Ahhh… Ian is another secret liberal like Doug : )
One thing about Libertarians/Tea Party, as long as they're out of power and agreeing to disagree with what's happening currently, they're okay. But if, hypothetically, they were in power, they would not agree on what to do and the whole thing would collapse.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.