Think Free Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Hello, everyone. I am a minarchist theist but I think the issue of not using violence for any purpose other than to protect from violence is important enough that I want to support Free Domain Radio. I found out about Free Domain Radio because I thought YouTube could be important for getting the libertarian message out there. But when I looked I was sad to see that Stefan Molyneux was just about the only coherent consistent voice carrying this message, for which he deserves props. I hope that in discussion here we can help each other learn to better communicate the message of non-violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Welcome to the boards! Best case scenario, what would you like to do with a better developed ability to communicate these ideas? It's not meant to be a leading question, I don't know that I have an answer for that myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aFireInside Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 We all want the truth. you don’t have to have the same beliefs; just have reason and integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Think Free Posted September 27, 2013 Author Share Posted September 27, 2013 Best case scenario, what would you like to do with a better developed ability to communicate these ideas? It's not meant to be a leading question, I don't know that I have an answer for that myself. Maybe I don't understand your question, but I think it's pretty obvious that what I would want to do, and want other people to do with the ability to communicate better is to communicate better. Right? EDIT: I suppose the best case scenario would be that we all convince everybody we meet of libertarianism, and model how best to communicate it to everybody they meet. I don't see that as ever happening, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I suppose the best case scenario would be that we all convince everybody we meet of libertarianism, and model how best to communicate it to everybody they meet. I don't see that as ever happening, of course. I wonder though if it really is a problem of communication. Certainly the better the communication, the, ... better. But I've tried communicating these ideas in many ways (even with a single person) and my success rate is sadly not that high. Most people aren't swayed with logic and good communication skills in my experience. But maybe that's just me. Stef is a very logical person and a great communicator and his audience is very big. What I would hate to be the case is that I've been focusing all of this effort on my ability to communicate ideas when it was never that in the first place that sways people. I'm mostly just thinking out loud. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 So what, in your views, are the legitimate roles of the state, that the state ought to fulfill? and why, in your view, is the state the best body to fulfill these roles? I am curious because I have never been a minarchist, I went from being a liberal to being a voluntarist anarchist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I am curious because I have never been a minarchist, I went from being a liberal to being a voluntarist anarchist Hey! Me too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Think Free Posted September 28, 2013 Author Share Posted September 28, 2013 I wonder though if it really is a problem of communication. Certainly the better the communication, the, ... better. But I've tried communicating these ideas in many ways (even with a single person) and my success rate is sadly not that high. Most people aren't swayed with logic and good communication skills in my experience. But maybe that's just me. Stef is a very logical person and a great communicator and his audience is very big. What I would hate to be the case is that I've been focusing all of this effort on my ability to communicate ideas when it was never that in the first place that sways people. I'm mostly just thinking out loud. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. Good thoughts. I think you are right--sometimes it's not a problem of communication. Very often I think it is. As someone who has been improving in his communication skills for a long time, I have come to realize that most of us come out of school as very very poor communicators and have a long way to go in improving our communication skills, both in general and on specific topics. My success rate is also not high, but I have seen a marked improvement as I have improved my skill at communicating the libertarian ideal. How did you become a libertarian? So what, in your views, are the legitimate roles of the state, that the state ought to fulfill? and why, in your view, is the state the best body to fulfill these roles? I am curious because I have never been a minarchist, I went from being a liberal to being a voluntarist anarchist Great question which I cannot give time to at the moment, but I am sure you could find some decent stuff via Google, etc. If that fails, Hobbe's Leviathan should put you onto the beginnings of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 I wrote on Hobbes in university, I don't see that any of his objections to anarchy work at all because having states just scales them up ccompetition, diffidence, and glory apply as much between states as between individuals the only alternatives would be to have one world government or no government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Think Free Posted September 28, 2013 Author Share Posted September 28, 2013 I wrote on Hobbes in university, I don't see that any of his objections to anarchy work at all because having states just scales them up ccompetition, diffidence, and glory apply as much between states as between individuals the only alternatives would be to have one world government or no government Hobbes is only the beginning of the argument, as I eluded to, which is why I recommended Google first. Considering how far we are from even minarchy, let alone anarchy, I don't think it makes sense for libertarians to spend more time trying to convince each other of their specific kind of libertarianism. The vast majority of what the government does is NOT catching and prosecuting violent criminals or defending us from invasion. If you really want someone to try and convince you on this topic, I would recommend someone who is already trying to do so. Google is one way to find such a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan H. Hoffner Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Hi, and welcome! Just something to think about..... Government by definition is the initiation of force. In order for a government to exist, it will have to initiate the use of force to get its funding and to create monopolies on its "services". So, government is a "monopoly on the legal use of force" by definition. If they can't force their subjects to pay for its "services", and if they can't use force to create a monopoly on those "services", then it will not be funded (it won't exist) because people will have better options in the open market where there exists free competition for those same services... Customers will hold the power in having free choice. also, why have a principal called "NAP", if it's not a universal principal without ANY exceptions? If one is not applying a principal universally, then one shouldn't talk about it at all. This is how I understand it, anyway. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Think Free Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 also, why have a principal called "NAP", if it's not a universal principal without ANY exceptions? If one is not applying a principal universally, then one shouldn't talk about it at all. This is how I understand it, anyway. Cheers! The short answer to this is that, the way I see it, even if everyone else in the world were an NAP libertarian anarchist, I would still be much happier with the situation than I am now. Therefore, I see no problem with supporting non-minarchist becoming strict NAP followers. Do I personally believe in the NAP as anarchist understand it? No. Do I think being an NAP anarchist is better than being what the vast majority of people in the world are? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts