The opinion you didn't ask for

[Mark Carolus]

As long as we depend on other people to survive, other people will be able to exploit you.

 

I am an avid believer in almost everything libertarians stand for, i think people like Stefan are great teachers who can help humanity.

I would absolutely LOVE a world where people lived their lives according to the upb and nap, but even IF we can get to the point where we achieve critical mass and even IF we manage to change things for the better, what exactly is going to keep us from falling into these problems again?

 

We have the constitution, but it doesn't mean anything at all, it is after all merely a piece of paper and pieces of paper CAN NOT guarantee your liberty.

Are we going to write a new constitution on magical paper this time? or on DVD perhaps? maybe we can laser etch it on the moon like a tattoo or something?

 

Seriously, NOTHING is going to guarantee us that it won't go wrong again, unless ( and please tell me if I'm wrong and if so, how I am wrong ) people stop depending on people.

 

 

If you're gonna try and refute this argument, then please, at least try to tell me how people depending on other people, does not mean we can be exploited.

[Think Free]

As long as we depend on other people to survive, other people will be able to exploit you.

 

I am an avid believer in almost everything libertarians stand for, i think people like Stefan are great teachers who can help humanity.

I would absolutely LOVE a world where people lived their lives according to the upb and nap, but even IF we can get to the point where we achieve critical mass and even IF we manage to change things for the better, what exactly is going to keep us from falling into these problems again?

 

We have the constitution, but it doesn't mean anything at all, it is after all merely a piece of paper and pieces of paper CAN NOT guarantee your liberty.

Are we going to write a new constitution on magical paper this time? or on DVD perhaps? maybe we can laser etch it on the moon like a tattoo or something?

 

Seriously, NOTHING is going to guarantee us that it won't go wrong again, unless ( and please tell me if I'm wrong and if so, how I am wrong ) people stop depending on people.

 

 

If you're gonna try and refute this argument, then please, at least try to tell me how people depending on other people, does not mean we can be exploited.

 

I think I agree with your conclusion, if not your argument. And this is one area in which I disagree with Stef. He seems to believe that we have to have anarchy over "minarchy" because minarchy inevitably leads to immoral government. It seems to me that the move to immoral government is a real historically possible contingency under anarchy or minarchy, and that therefore only eternal vigilance will prevent it in any case. I also believe that possibility of maintaining minarchy or possibly anarchy indefinitely are also real historically contingent possibilities.

[TheRobin]

We're dependant on other people, but not on every single one of them. Constant exploitation can't happen if you're free to not have anything to do with the exploiter, and then, what's he/she gonna do? 

 

It's like the sleazy salesman who knowingly sells you a shitty prduct. sure you might fall for those at some point in your life, but so what? Not the end of the world for you and a hell of a loss of reputation for the seller in the long run.

 

Exploitation is really difficult if people have other options, so not arbitrarily restricting those via the justification of violence is your best and only bet anyway.

 

But basically: People don't want to be exploited, so it's not gonna happen unless via the use of force, but if most people get that using force against peaceful people is not justified, its not a possible option for any exploiter, or if they use it they'll just be ostriziced by those people not liking that behaviour.

[Pepin]

I'm not really understanding the argument. If it is that whatever proposed mechanism doesn't completely eliminate something, therefore there is a problem, then I don't really see the point of the argument. If we had a way to reduce rape by 95% and someone's rebuttal to it was that it isn't 100%, well then I guess that's true, but we aren't working on a binary scale.

 

If I'm not understanding your argument, which I feel I am not, please expand on what you mean.

[Mark Carolus]

We're dependant on other people, but not on every single one of them. Constant exploitation can't happen if you're free to not have anything to do with the exploiter, and then, what's he/she gonna do? 

 

It's like the sleazy salesman who knowingly sells you a shitty prduct. sure you might fall for those at some point in your life, but so what? Not the end of the world for you and a hell of a loss of reputation for the seller in the long run.

 

Exploitation is really difficult if people have other options, so not arbitrarily restricting those via the justification of violence is your best and only bet anyway.

 

But basically: People don't want to be exploited, so it's not gonna happen unless via the use of force, but if most people get that using force against peaceful people is not justified, its not a possible option for any exploiter, or if they use it they'll just be ostriziced by those people not liking that behaviour.

 

This is correct, but how can we ensure that people stay "awake/aware"?

Say we manage to change the world, we have an entire generation that understands what real freedom is ( to put it in simple terms ), how will we make sure that 3 generations later, we don't have the same problems again?

It is during times of great economic prosperity, that people allow for government, or a form of government to grow.

It is during times of great economic prosperity, that people are not focusing on things that might become problematic in the future.

 

If people in the 60's and 70's ( the baby-boomers ) were aware of the consequences of their choices, their actions or in fact lack of actions, i don't think we'd have these problems today.

Sure we might have other problems yes, but most likely not the problems we have now.

Basically, people become philosophically lazy during times of economic prosperity and that gives room for corruption and exploitation.

 

The problems we see today, are not the result of one big decision made by governments 6 years ago, they are the result of incremental changes made by governments, i don't think we can guarantee this won't happen again, merely by trying to educate people here and now.

I'm not really understanding the argument. If it is that whatever proposed mechanism doesn't completely eliminate something, therefore there is a problem, then I don't really see the point of the argument. If we had a way to reduce rape by 95% and someone's rebuttal to it was that it isn't 100%, well then I guess that's true, but we aren't working on a binary scale.

 

If I'm not understanding your argument, which I feel I am not, please expand on what you mean.

 

People depend on other people to feed cloth and house them, yes you can choose to live out in the forest and be completely independent, but that's not really an option for the majority of people right?

[Emanuel]

Children who are raised philosophically and nurtured well enough will never submit. They will never accept the use of force against them or anyone else. It's really that simple. I think you're missing the main premise of FDR, which is peaceful parenting.

[TheRobin]

There seems to be no coming back of slavery and racial discrimintation and I don't see how you could make the case that during times of econmic prosperity people will slowly get back into it and start holding some people as slaves against their will and everyone around them not saying anything about it. If your theory is correct then slavery would've come back a few generations ago already, yet this didn't happen, why do you think that is? And why do you think the same reasons wouldn't also apply to government?

[Mark Carolus]

Children who are raised philosophically and nurtured well enough will never submit. They will never accept the use of force against them or anyone else. It's really that simple. I think you're missing the main premise of FDR, which is peaceful parenting.

 

Can you guarantee that people will keep raising their children philosophically in the future, say, a hundred years from now?

I know i will try to do my very best to raise mine that way, but how can i guarantee my grand-children that they will also be raised that way?

[Wesley]

Can you guarantee that people will keep raising their children philosophically in the future, say, a hundred years from now?

I know i will try to do my very best to raise mine that way, but how can i guarantee my grand-children that they will also be raised that way?

The way it is ensured is the extension of humanity. Once people realize that children are people too, the it would be as infeasible to "fall back into raising children abusively" as it is currently to "fall back into buying some slaves to pick cotton". The thought of doing that is either laughable as a bad joke, or if you show that you are serious it will bring the rage of people around you.

[PatrickC]

To be honest this question has been dealt with more than enough times.. search the forum dude..

[Think Free]

Can you guarantee that people will keep raising their children philosophically in the future, say, a hundred years from now?

I know i will try to do my very best to raise mine that way, but how can i guarantee my grand-children that they will also be raised that way?

 

Why does this question matter? Of course we can't guarantee anything for all time. To do that would be to somehow eliminate the power and free will of ensuing generations. Our responsibility is to do the best we can with what we have in our time. This is why the libertarian argument is fundamentally a moral rather than a consequentialist or utilitarian argument. Libertarians eschew questions of outcome when humans are involved because humans don't have the power to predict human behavior.

[Pepin]

People depend on other people to feed cloth and house them, yes you can choose to live out in the forest and be completely independent, but that's not really an option for the majority of people right?

 

What? I'm still not understanding the point of this argument, nor the "live in the woods" part. If I have a theory that when put in  place decreases murder down from 10% to .5%, certainly there is still murder, but this doesn't mean that my theory was bad.

 

What does interacting and trading with other people have to do with violence and exploitation? Why not argue that people ought to avoid being in the same room together because by being in the same room together it means that one of us could be raped? Why not compare the statistics of being raped with the statistics of death by riding a bike, driving car, playing scrabble with a coffee in one hand, or disease?

[Josh F]

What does exploit mean?  I never get it, I hear lots of socialists use it with out ever providing a definition.  Is it exploitation when I go back for second free samples.at the supermarket?  Is exploitation what happens when you try and get a discount?  Is it exploitation to wait for your boss to be in a good mood before you ask for a raise?  Am I exploiting people when I hire them to do jobs I dont want to do myself?  Did I exploit my parents for all that free food they gave me as a child? 

 

Unless it involves FRAUD, THEFT, or any other type of FORCE it doesn't really matter.  Exploitation without force is a failure of the individual to assert their boundaries or defend themselves from abusive personalities.  This is best addressed with therapy, not government. 

[Naer]

We should live in a way that makes us free in our personal lives