Blackout

Are politicians elected by majority vote? Do some politicians hold positions that are less oppressive than others? If the answer to both are yes, then participation matters. Pew research poll conducted in 2014 showed that only 11% of people described themselves as libertarian. Show me an libertarian presidential candidate that has garnered more than a token 1% or 2% popular vote, then I will believe that libertarianism has been genuinely tried and has failed. The goal is to hamper the attempts of government to expand taxation and seizure of the private economy. So if progressives want to institute a VAT tax and conservatives want to institute a flat tax, voting in the conservatives may achieve this objective. Abstaining from voting is not voting for less government, it is having no voice at all (in so far as politicians are concerned) and guarantees your opinions will be ignored.

My position is close to Frosty's. For those who do not vote, I'd like to ask whether you think a democracy is preferable to authoritarianism? Is there more freedom in a democracy? If you prefer democracy but refuse to vote, how is it any different than living in an authoritarian country?

I don't know. Is it wrong to ask the guy shaking me down if he can take out the trash when he passes by the kitchen?

I am not under any illusion that the citizens can wield the power of the government to rid ourselves of government or reform the immorality of the politicians. Yet, whether we participate in the political process or not, our money will be stolen at the barrel of a gun and used in various ways. Therefore, does it not make sense to try to influence the way our own money is spent and use our votes elect anyone who can help slow the growth of government? I just feel like we're not going to make enough of a dent in the ignorance of the public or it's addiction to other people's money to ensure what rises out of the ashes of our broken society will be any better. A peaceful transition is not on the horizon, which means the resulting turmoil will probably wipe out most of our wealth and leave our children a wreck to fix. I don't think the libertarian movement has ever gained enough momentum or picked up enough clout to prove whether it works or not. If people who hate government are too disgusted to participate in it, while those who are addicted to it put great effort into its continued expansion, guess what will happen? It's rather like how couples who want to be good parents rarely have a lot of them and people who don't give a shit about their kids have a truck full, guaranteeing we will have lots more dysfunctional individuals down the road. Thanks for the video; that guy's a riot. I'd settle for a government so full of gridlock that it fights itself too much to get anything done.

I think the argument is that the state initiates violence and thus is immoral. Participation in the state is at the least enabling the initiation of violence and thus is also immoral. However, given that the state exists, should we not try to shape it in some way? Does abstaining from elections actually further the cause of liberalism? I get that politics is the way statists manipulate voters into giving the state one's freedom and money, but given that different political parties have ideologies ranging from big government to enormously big government, shouldn't we seek to empower the most moderate factions of government? Sure, no amount of cancer is good for you but if it's going to be forced on you, wouldn't you prefer a smaller tumor?

I took a break from the forum while work deadlines came due, but I've been working this out on paper for a while and I came to a similar conclusion. Those who disengage from agreements for personal gain really do no enter into them in good faith and thus commit fraud, which is clearly immoral. When agreements are adopted by parties in good faith, rational actors will not seek to break a win-win agreement nor accept entering losing propositions. In this case, if conditions change such that a win-win situation turns into a win-lose situation, it would be ideal to re-negotiate the agreement and if that is not possible, I do see a good case for disengagement. I think that I find comfort in the legal protection of contractual relationships (essentially enforced by threat of force) because I perceive the people around me to be fairly irrational or irresponsible, which I suppose would also apply to my views on anarchy. I have some reservations about what happens to transaction costs in an economy when one cannot recoup the loses from broken contractual agreements but that is one based on subjective values rather than morality.

Thanks for the invitations! I don't have much free time at this point in my life and I'm trying to give as much as possible to my 15 month old son and 3 and half year old daughter, but I will make an effort when things settle down a bit.

I think this is the heart of the issue; I have a hard time with the idea that someone can take a course of action with the knowledge that it will cause tangible harm, simply out of utility, with no moral value attached to such an action. I realize that I automatically equated trustworthiness with moral good and I’ll have to take some time to ponder whether that is true. Yes, that is an important distinction and I appreciate the correction. Yes, I absolutely agree that a person always has the freedom to disengage from any agreement as that is part of voluntary association. What I take issue with is that the idea no restitution is morally required whatsoever. It’s also not the case restitution can be forced by the aggrieved, but rather I’m asking if one ought to be compelled by moral sense to give it.

Aren't free markets predicated on voluntary transactions? Forced associations would seem to violate this, thus the acquisition of slaves would not be supported by free market principles.

Good first step! We're in crazy land here in the US, where some places require children's lemonade stands and bake sales to get permits!

Nice to see another New Englander here! I go to Exeter to visit a friend from time to time and enjoy driving along the shore.

In this case ownership is meaningless because it does not preclude anyone else from claiming what you "own". You devalued the concept by removing the privileges associated with it.

Threats are coercive acts, so if you believe agression is always wrong you may find all threats immoral. Otherwise, it might help to think about the nature of the threat. "Kill him or I'll kill you" is a threat of violent action, on your part if the other party does not comply. In addition, you are forcing someone to initiate violence, which is not morally permissible. So I think that would be wrong on 2 counts. "Stop smoking or I will ignore you" is a threat to exercise your power of free association, which I believe to be morally permissible, and doesn't require the other party to do anything immoral. "Murder him or I will divorce you" also comes across as rather immoral, since you are demanding someone commit an immoral act. If an action is immoral for you to commit, it does not follow that the same action would be permissible for someone else to commit on your behalf (ie. hiring hitman).

First, I want to thank you for sharing your work and inviting discussion. I like how it is easy to read and the language feels more personal, which I think will help you reach a wider audience. I have a question about why you feel that agreements should not be morally binding when extended beyond the present. If you universalize this concept, doesn't it mean that voluntary agreements about future services are worthless? If the prerequisite for me to obtain a job involving technical work that requires 6 months of training, what rational employer is going to invest the resources to train me if I can quit right afterwards and work for someone else? Since the new employer wouldn't have to spend the resources to train me to do the same job, he/she could offer better compensation and win over the worker. This seems more like freedom from the responsibilities of your voluntary associations rather than freedom of voluntary association. How does this viewpoint extend to insurance arrangements or loans?

My name is Tao and I'm new to the community. I have been watching the FDR Youtube videos for a few weeks, which I have really enjoyed. I am a 1.5 generation Chinese immigrant to the US and have been recalibrating my moral and political compass since leaving college and discovering the real world (as opposed to the fairy tale world sold to me in public school). This past year, I've been exploring the libertarian principles and that is what initially brought me to Stefan's channel and this community. I look forward to friendly discussions with all of you.

If parties enter into voluntary and, assuming both are rational, mutally beneficial transactions, what does it mean to say marginal profits are too high? If prices are too high or low, they are the product of a market manipulation on the demand or supply of a good, usually caused by government interference in my opinion. If the price of a good is too high, the market will incentivise someone to come in and undercut the price to make a fortune, thus it is when barriers to entry are erected that prices are kept artificially high. Regulations, patent law, and permitting all such barriers and are controlled by the state and its agencies, therefore it is government that creates immoral markets.

I assume you wouldn't feel the need to ask if it's okay to play Monopoly with a friend you aren't romantically interested in, so you probably already understand on some level that sex is more risky and requires more emotional attachment than most recreational activities. So ask yourself why it is you want to do it; do you feel it would deepen the friendship or do you want commitment free sex and this friend just happens to be available?