Is "Libertarian" a Contradiction?

[abcqwerty123]

First and foremost, I am an anarchist and I am not trying to bash libertarians at all, just trying to understand better.

 

So my question is, when people are asked what political party they see themselves apart of and they answer with, "The libertarian party", doesn't this make them a hypocrite? This is also assuming that they are a libertarian because they believe in freedom.

 

So, since you can't have freedom while enslaved to government, how can there be a political party that wants freedom and not be considered a hypocrite? It is like a slave owner saying he doesn't believe in slavery while voluntarily owning slaves.

 

The only way I can see libertarian working is if it isn't a political party at all and is anarchy mixed with the non-aggression principle. Then, anyone who claims to be a part of the libertarian political party would therefore not believe in freedom and have a different definition to the word libertarian.

 

Anyways, if anyone can explain how I am wrong, if I am wrong, that would be awesome. I just keep hearing people tell me they are libertarians as they continue to vote and support government.

[cab21]

i think libertarian has minarchy and anarchy camps

[BlackHeron]

I have a saying that goes, "Statists gonna State."

 

I totally hear what you are saying here.  It's like a mind-trap.  There is no such thing as a "libertarian party" in lower caps nor a "Free State."

 

The LP isn't.   But we are dealing with people who have been brainwashed by generations of public school and state indoctrination.  There is a great quote from The Matrix that goes like this:

 

 

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

 

I'm sure the people who get involved with the LP feel that they are helping. Perhaps they feel that somehow the Republic can be restored and the Constitution raised from the dead like the rotting paper zombie document that it is.  But in the end they are all just another pawn on the street ready to channel an agent to do the dirty work of the State.  Fight to protect it they will.  They are just not yet ready for the full medicine of voluntaryism.

[abcqwerty123]

i think libertarian has minarchy and anarchy camps

 

My point is that if you believe in freedom, which most libertarians claim to do, then you can't use libertarian as a political party. You either are for freedom(Anarchy-No Rulers) or you are not for freedom(Government-Slavery).

 

 

I have a saying that goes, "Statists gonna State."

 

I totally hear what you are saying here.  It's like a mind-trap.  There is no such thing as a "libertarian party" in lower caps nor a "Free State."

 

The LP isn't.   But we are dealing with people who have been brainwashed by generations of public school and state indoctrination.  There is a great quote from The Matrix that goes like this:

 

I'm sure the people who get involved with the LP feel that they are helping. Perhaps they feel that somehow the Republic can be restored and the Constitution raised from the dead like the rotting paper zombie document that it is.  But in the end they are all just another pawn on the street ready to channel an agent to do the dirty work of the State.  Fight to protect it they will.  They are just not yet ready for the full medicine of voluntaryism.

 

Yup. I mean, I am happy when someone goes from republican or democrat to what they call libertarian because they are getting closer and closer to true freedom, but it always bothers me when someone says they are for small government, therefore libertarian. I want to reply with, "So you are for small amounts of slavery, therefore you believe in freedom? Are you saying that slavery is freedom?".

[BlackHeron]

But roooooooooaaaaaaaadssssssss.....

[dsayers]

There is a difference between libertarian and Libertarian. The latter is a proper name. Anybody can apply any proper name they like. Democrats aren't necessarily for democracy and Rebuplicans aren't necessarily for the republic.

 

I try to avoid labels for the most part. It's too easy for people to not have identical ideas of what the label means. There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those who initiate the use of force and those who will not.

[MrCapitalism]

http://www.agorism.info/_media/our_enemy_the_party.pdf

[abcqwerty123]

There is a difference between libertarian and Libertarian. The latter is a proper name. Anybody can apply any proper name they like. Democrats aren't necessarily for democracy and Rebuplicans aren't necessarily for the republic.

 

I try to avoid labels for the most part. It's too easy for people to not have identical ideas of what the label means. There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those who initiate the use of force and those who will not.

 

True true...

 

 

http://www.agorism.info/_media/our_enemy_the_party.pdf

 

The link doesn't work. 

[MrCapitalism]

Sorry about that. The pamphlet is reproduced in quotes in this blog post.http://wconger.blogspot.com/2008/10/our-enemy-party.html

 

Juicy bit. 

 

Any “Libertarian” Party is immoral, inconsistent, unhistorical (see revisionist accounts of similar parties in the past: the Philosophic Radicals, the Liberty Party, the Free Soilers, and many others), psychologically frustrating and thoroughly counter-productive. Worst of all, such an LP may be the savior of the State.

[cab21]

My point is that if you believe in freedom, which most libertarians claim to do, then you can't use libertarian as a political party. You either are for freedom(Anarchy-No Rulers) or you are not for freedom(Government-Slavery).

 

 

im not sure they think of it as slavery, but give them the argument.

 

DRO wise, minarchy could just be thought of as it being rational that individuals in a area have 1 DRO and that DRO is good

[abcqwerty123]

im not sure they think of it as slavery, but give them the argument.

 

DRO wise, minarchy could just be thought of as it being rational that individuals in a area have 1 DRO and that DRO is good

 

True, people don't think of government as slavery, which is the problem. Especially when the definitions of slavery and government are almost identical.

[cab21]

True, people don't think of government as slavery, which is the problem. Especially when the definitions of slavery and government are almost identical.

 

what definition are you using for each

 

government- A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

 

slavery - Condition in which one human being is owned by another.

 

say the statement is

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

[dsayers]

 

True, people don't think of government as slavery, which is the problem. Especially when the definitions of slavery and government are almost identical.

 

might help to make the case. It's also good for helping statists see the correlation and arguing against the social contract. 

 

government- A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

 

In order for government to be legitimate, it would have to own all of the land and every person and every thing on that land. It's analogous to slavery in every sense of the word.

[cab21]

In order for government to be legitimate, it would have to own all of the land and every person and every thing on that land. It's analogous to slavery in every sense of the word.

 

the citizens would own the land, the government would not own the citizens.

( im just going for correct identification of the theory, and then it can be argued why anarchy makes more sense after that)

 

 

"The source of the government's authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose."

[dsayers]

According to various psychopaths, I am owned by various people at the city, county, state, district, national, and global level. Each one of them has innumerable commands I must adhere to under threat of violence and I assure you that my consent was not secured for a one of them. Just as I do not secure the consent of a book I place on a shelf, open for my amusement, or toss into the trash on a whim. Because that book is my property.

 

I wouldn't argue that anarchy "makes more sense." That would be a vague categorization. It is moral, universal, and sustainable.

[cab21]

According to various psychopaths, I am owned by various people at the city, county, state, district, national, and global level. Each one of them has innumerable commands I must adhere to under threat of violence and I assure you that my consent was not secured for a one of them. Just as I do not secure the consent of a book I place on a shelf, open for my amusement, or toss into the trash on a whim. Because that book is my property.

 

 

 

what does that have to do with minarchist libertarian/objectivist definitions, morals, and principles?

[abcqwerty123]

what definition are you using for each

 

government- A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

 

slavery - Condition in which one human being is owned by another.

 

say the statement is

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

 

Slavery: The system in which a person(s) controls and makes decisions for another person(s). 

Government: A group of people which control and make decisions for society.

 

I mean, there are many different definitions but when you describe either one, they are exactly the same.

[cab21]

Slavery: The system in which a person(s) controls and makes decisions for another person(s). 

Government: A group of people which control and make decisions for society.

 

I mean, there are many different definitions but when you describe either one, they are exactly the same.

 

 

a group of people is society.

that does not mean each individual thinks he/she owns another individual or the society as a sum of individuals.

[dsayers]

what does that have to do with minarchist libertarian/objectivist definitions, morals, and principles?

 

I said in order for government to be legitimate, it would have to own everybody within its borders and you said it wouldn't own the people. I elaborated on how they claim ownership over everybody.

[abcqwerty123]

a group of people is society.

that does not mean each individual thinks he/she owns another individual or the society as a sum of individuals.

 

It means a small group of people have control over a larger group of people and the only way you can control someone else is by using force. If you don't use force or the threat of force, then you don't have control over someone because their actions are voluntary.

[cab21]

I said in order for government to be legitimate, it would have to own everybody within its borders and you said it wouldn't own the people. I elaborated on how they claim ownership over everybody.

 

by this, ayn rands objectivist government would not be legitimate.

 

we don't the minarchy that rand was advocating.

so talking about what nonminarchist governments do, is not talking about what a randian minarchy would advocate for.

 

It means a small group of people have control over a larger group of people and the only way you can control someone else is by using force. If you don't use force or the threat of force, then you don't have control over someone because their actions are voluntary.

 

 

people are controlled by the use of force, so one would have to look at when people are controlled.

if force is only used in retaliation, then force is not used in initiation.

so people voluntarily agree to be part of a organization that only uses force in retaliation.

[greekredemption]

I suppose in the case of a nightwatchman state, proponents reason that there is a universal preference among rational people to escalate disputes to an accepted authority instead of resolving those disputes arbitrarily.

[dsayers]

by this, ayn rands objectivist government would not be legitimate.

 

we don't the minarchy that rand was advocating.

so talking about what nonminarchist governments do, is not talking about what a randian minarchy would advocate for.

 

Tell me more. I was speaking of government in general. As I understand governments, they are inherently illegitimate as they at the very least dispense with consent. If it is consensual, it is not government. I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise, but not with labels that don't tell me anything. Please start with your definition of "government" and then how the government you're referring to fits that definition AND secures consent of everybody it claims to govern before claiming to govern them.

[In_The_Gray]

First and foremost, I am an anarchist and I am not trying to bash libertarians at all, just trying to understand better.

 

So my question is, when people are asked what political party they see themselves apart of and they answer with, "The libertarian party", doesn't this make them a hypocrite? This is also assuming that they are a libertarian because they believe in freedom.

 

So, since you can't have freedom while enslaved to government, how can there be a political party that wants freedom and not be considered a hypocrite? It is like a slave owner saying he doesn't believe in slavery while voluntarily owning slaves.

 

The only way I can see libertarian working is if it isn't a political party at all and is anarchy mixed with the non-aggression principle. Then, anyone who claims to be a part of the libertarian political party would therefore not believe in freedom and have a different definition to the word libertarian.

 

Anyways, if anyone can explain how I am wrong, if I am wrong, that would be awesome. I just keep hearing people tell me they are libertarians as they continue to vote and support government.

 

 

I too am an anarchist and I am confused about many versions of libertarianism, specifically when "libertarian" is used to define Republicans, which seems very hypocritical.

 

That being said, I believe in a form of libertarianism that sees government as support rather than authority. Basically like a company/organization for the people, run with complete transparency, guided by the people's votes, and that can be opted out by any who oppose it.

 

For example, I see the benefit in public school even though it is nowhere near as efficient and intellectually impactful as it could and should be. Even so, if everything were privatized there is a good chance that publicly funded or "free" schooling would not exist.

Same with transportation, energy, environmental acts, etc... There are many things that are vital to the beneficial evolution of our society that could be slowed or even ruined by privatization simply because most private companies are in search of profit over progress.

The same can be said about modern government, and that is a huge problem we are facing.

 

But if we were to make government fully transparent and allow for more voting control from individuals (ex. I don't want to vote for someone to do all the voting on my behalf), and we allow anyone and everyone to opt-out, it is then that we are no longer slaves.

 

To further clarify my argument, the benefit of government services over private services is that we have a valid taxation system in place (based on % of income rather than hard values) that is all encompassing. It allows fast growth in valuable but less profitable areas  that is funded by more profitable areas that may in fact be less valuable as a whole. For example, nuclear and oil may be making a lot of money, while solar (for example) might have very little profits early on. But based on the people's votes and based on the knowledge that solar energy is a necessary part of a future, the government can afford to take profits earned for electricity taxes on oil and nuclear and use it to fund renewable resources that most private companies would consider as "nonprofitable".

[abcqwerty123]

people are controlled by the use of force, so one would have to look at when people are controlled.if force is only used in retaliation, then force is not used in initiation.so people voluntarily agree to be part of a organization that only uses force in retaliation.

When there is the threat of force, then it is always. People cant eat certain things, smoke certain things, say certain things, etc... All these restrictions brainwash society into their slaves from birth and if you attempt to break free, you end up getting examples of force. Watch Adam Kokesh for examples.How do i voluntarily agree to be apart of the us mafia? I was born here and did not sign some social contract which it sounds like you are getting too.

[dsayers]

But if we were to make government fully transparent and allow for more voting control from individuals (ex. I don't want to vote for someone to do all the voting on my behalf), and we allow anyone and everyone to opt-out, it is then that we are no longer slaves.

 

And no longer talking about government. You're talking about an insurance company or a private club. Lack of competition and consequence is how you know government is evil.

[BlackHeron]

And no longer talking about government. You're talking about an insurance company or a private club. Lack of competition and consequence is how you know government is evil.

 

Exactly.

 

Who is this "we" person/persons who are doing all of this, "making government more x?"  That's what I want to know.

 

Might as well try and infiltrate the local mafia gang and try to convert it from the inside into a charitable organization.  

[In_The_Gray]

And no longer talking about government. You're talking about an insurance company or a private club. Lack of competition and consequence is how you know government is evil.

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about, though.

I said "Basically like a company/organization for the people, run with complete transparency, guided by the people's votes", referring to  a government replacement. This is not at all how an insurance company functions. An insurance company makes their own decisions based on corporate growth, not based on the well-being of everyone they affect.

 

But yes, I agree that it isn't the current definition of "government" that I am talking about. 

 

Also, I completely agree about the evils of government, but I disagree on the source of the government's evil. Lust for power is the source, in combination with lack of competition. But power is the main source, still.

 

You imply that a company is not evil because it has competition. This couldn't be more absurd. You think that tech companies that outsource their factory work to china where they can pay a less-than-liveable wage is not evil?

You think that factory farms that subject their livestock in torturous conditions are not evil?

​You think that insurance companies that jump through loopholes to avoid living up to their coverage obligations is not evil?

 

The list of evil yet highly successful corporations is much larger than you seem to think.

Of course "evil" is a subjective term, but I think most of us would be on the same page when thinking about what it means.

[cab21]

Tell me more. I was speaking of government in general. As I understand governments, they are inherently illegitimate as they at the very least dispense with consent. If it is consensual, it is not government. I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise, but not with labels that don't tell me anything. Please start with your definition of "government" and then how the government you're referring to fits that definition AND secures consent of everybody it claims to govern before claiming to govern them.

 

 keeping with rands writings from above

 

"government- A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

 

 

it secures the consent of people it claims to govern through those people's thinking it is rational to consent to such a organization and then choosing to do so. those that don't consent, are giving the same rules as those that do, in that neither are simply left along if they want to initiate the use of aggression. registration is a way to get consent from those that choose to be part of such organization. 

 

if someone says "i don't recognize your homestead as your property, and i am going to take it from you for my good or the public good." , such a government would defend against that sort of property violation. people that don't consent do not get a free pass to rape, murder, steal, and other methods of initiating aggression. a government is not going to say it needs consent to use a anti missile system to intercept a missile fired upon a homesteader by someone who wants to take the land.

 

 

When there is the threat of force, then it is always. People cant eat certain things, smoke certain things, say certain things, etc... All these restrictions brainwash society into their slaves from birth and if you attempt to break free, you end up getting examples of force. Watch Adam Kokesh for examples.How do i voluntarily agree to be apart of the us mafia? I was born here and did not sign some social contract which it sounds like you are getting too.

 

 

people face consequences if they don't certain things

the threat of defensive force if someone murders or attempts to murder is deemed by some philosophy as good, so that people don't go around murdering each other at whim and the rule of brute force is not law.

 

someone can always disagree with such a system of banning the initiation of aggression  by going out and murdering someone or raping someone among other actions of initiation aggression against others.

 

i have not said anything defending the currrent usa mafia or suggesting a mafia like institution

[dsayers]

You imply that a company is not evil because it has competition.

 

I didn't speak about the presence of competition. I spoke of the coercive squelching of competition as evil.

 

You think that tech companies that outsource their factory work to china where they can pay a less-than-liveable wage is not evil?

 

Voluntary exchange of value. No evil here.

 

​You think that insurance companies that jump through loopholes to avoid living up to their coverage obligations is not evil?

 

What do you mean by loophole? Are you talking about state-protected contract violation?

 

registration is a way to get consent from those that choose to be part of such organization.

 

I don't follow. McDonald's doesn't assert itself as being the burger provider and ask people to register to ex post facto substantiate the claim. They offer burgers. I "register" if I buy their burgers in the moment. Next day, I might buy burgers elsewhere. Day after that, I might elect to not buy burgers at all. There doesn't need to be a pre-determined relationship, which means they have to maintain their level of quality and service or suffer the consequence of people choosing their competitors instead.

 

You have not addressed the fact that when something is voluntary, it's not government, so I think we're done here.

 

"Not all rape is evil. What about rape where both parties consented and either party could opt out at any time for any reason?" Then it's no longer rape.

[abcqwerty123]

people face consequences if they don't certain things

the threat of defensive force if someone murders or attempts to murder is deemed by some philosophy as good, so that people don't go around murdering each other at whim and the rule of brute force is not law.

 

someone can always disagree with such a system of banning the initiation of aggression  by going out and murdering someone or raping someone among other actions of initiation aggression against others.

 

i have not said anything defending the currrent usa mafia or suggesting a mafia like institution

 

I am confused here. You have been defending the government and now you say you aren't? And yes, defending your property is okay but having your property raided because you posted a photo on facebook of you smoking a blunt and then if you attempt to defend yourself from this kidnappers, you will be killed, that is NOT okay.

 

Anyways, I am very sorry but I won't be replying to you anymore. I feel like you are trolling. You don't make sense with many of your posts and you keep contradicting what you say making it so hard to understand what you are even talking about or what side you are on. So, thanks for the reply and you have a great day.

[cab21]

I don't follow. McDonald's doesn't assert itself as being the burger provider and ask people to register to ex post facto substantiate the claim. They offer burgers. I "register" if I buy their burgers in the moment. Next day, I might buy burgers elsewhere. Day after that, I might elect to not buy burgers at all. There doesn't need to be a pre-determined relationship, which means they have to maintain their level of quality and service or suffer the consequence of people choosing their competitors instead.

 

 

day 1, i will hire a organization that says i cannot rape

day 2 i will hire a organization that says i can rape

day 3 i will not hire a organization at all

 

are you suggesting that organizations that defend rape compete with those that defend against rape?

or there is the suggestion that organizations compete, but both compete on how well they defend against rape.

 

 

 

You have not addressed the fact that when something is voluntary, it's not government, so I think we're done here.

 

through contracts

therefor it's voluntary 

 

"Not all rape is evil. What about rape where both parties consented and either party could opt out at any time for any reason?" Then it's no longer rape.

 

 

do you want a DRO  where each partie can opt out at any time for any reason?

that at any time for any reason its moral to rape if someone chooses it's moral to rape instead of the agreement that it's immoral to rape.

[In_The_Gray]

I didn't speak about the presence of competition. I spoke of the coercive squelching of competition as evil.

 

 

Voluntary exchange of value. No evil here.

 

 

What do you mean by loophole? Are you talking about state-protected contract violation?

 

 

 

Yes, it is the squelching of competition that is evil This occurs in government and corporation alike.

 

Regarding the poor workers who are unable to live in adequate living conditions and barely able to support there family, if that isn't evil than this is where we must agree to disagree. Companies are taking advantage of someone's unfortunate situation even though they can afford to pay a fair and livable wage. Not seeing an issue with taking advantage of those less fortunate is exactly the problem that most people have with anarcho-capitalism.

 

As for the loophole clarification, I'm referring to any method used to trick insurance customers into thinking they have coverage when they actually don't. And any method of delaying, hiding, or outright violating contractual obligations for the company's gain.

[dsayers]

do you want a DRO  where each partie can opt out at any time for any reason?

 

Opt-out suggests a binding in advance, which I've clearly argued against. Also, what I want doesn't matter. This is an important distinction since what we're talking about is the difference between voluntary interaction and coercion.

 

that at any time for any reason its moral to rape if someone chooses it's moral to rape instead of the agreement that it's immoral to rape.

 

The immorality of rape isn't subjective.

 

Yes, it is the squelching of competition that is evil This occurs in government and corporation alike.

 

Corporations are fictitious legal shields created by the state. You're saying this occurs in government and government alike.

 

Regarding the poor workers who are unable to live in adequate living conditions and barely able to support there family, if that isn't evil than this is where we must agree to disagree. Companies are taking advantage of someone's unfortunate situation even though they can afford to pay a fair and livable wage.

 

Nothing you said here refutes my point that there is nothing evil about the voluntary exchange of value. You say agree to disagree to avoid addressing this point. You've instead just redressed it for the purpose of pulling on heart strings. Appeals to emotions are not the same as an argument. Nor have you defined what "adequate living conditions" or "livable wage" means, explained why somebody having a family they cannot afford to is a 3rd party's responsibility, or how "can afford" equates to "must pay."

[cab21]

I am confused here. You have been defending the government and now you say you aren't? And yes, defending your property is okay but having your property raided because you posted a photo on facebook of you smoking a blunt and then if you attempt to defend yourself from this kidnappers, you will be killed, that is NOT okay.

 

there is a difference between defending government as is, and defending a concept of how government ought to be.

 

a proper government would not raid your property because you posted a photo on facebook of you smoking a blunt.

a proper government could  raid your property if it followed correct procedures and had a warrant for your arrest  based on evidence that you committed a murder, for one example.

 

 

 

Anyways, I am very sorry but I won't be replying to you anymore. I feel like you are trolling. You don't make sense with many of your posts and you keep contradicting what you say making it so hard to understand what you are even talking about or what side you are on. So, thanks for the reply and you have a great day.

 

 the non-aggression principle cannot be defended by a anarchy where organizations compete against the nonaggression principle. each competing organization would have to hold that principle for the non-aggression principle's enforcement

Opt-out suggests a binding in advance, which I've clearly argued against. Also, what I want doesn't matter. This is an important distinction since what we're talking about is the difference between voluntary interaction and coercion.

 

what you want does matter as far as your political philosophy goes.

a murderer does not submit to a trial voluntary, so a theory of how to deal with that situation seems proper

the formation of the government is voluntary interaction, the trial of the murderer is not all voluntary interaction, since the murderer does not volunteer for the trial. 

 

The immorality of rape isn't subjective.

 

should the response to rape be subjective or objective, since the immorality of rape is objective?

is a subjective response from competition of how people respond better than a objective response following objective procedures?