Is libertarianism only a philosophy?

[JeanPaul]

I would personally prefer to live in a libertarian society.

 

But what about the others? What if they don't?

 

What if 70% of the people cannot cannot cope with liberty, with responsibility?

What if 30% of the people are not honest, ready to cheat and lie to others?

What if 10% of the people are genetically prone to violence?

 

Isn't that completely imaginery to hope that a stateless countries will emerge some day?

[NotDarkYet]

The state doesn't solve those problems.  

 

It multiplies them.

What if 70% of people cannot cope with a state?   Think of the poverty, wars, schools, money supply, prisons...and you'll have your answer.

[dsayers]

What is a "libertarian society"? How we would arrive at one from where we are today? An understanding of this will mostly answer your questions. Assuming you mean free society, the path to such a place would involve breaking the cycle of violence by helping parents to understand the ways they damage their children that have previously been socially acceptable.

 

If a person cannot "cope with responsibility," this accrues to that person's parents. If we understood the importance of peaceful parenting, there would be measures in place to catch this at a very early age. We would be able to provide help not only to the child, but their parents as well. As a result, people who are deceptive would only exist in the smallest of margins. They would not be able to survive in a world that would ostracize the deceptive.

 

As for genetically violent, short of understanding ways to reduce trauma in utero, there's not much that can be done about this. However, saying "1% of people will always be genetically violent" is not a compelling case for institutionalized coercion (government). It IS a strong case for not having one. Because those who are violent will gravitate towards the State in order to carry out their violence with far less risk to themselves.

[luxfelix]

Plus, I imagine it would be more efficient and enjoyable to live in a free society (where your neighbors respect NAP etc.). That, in turn, is likely to attract others to learn about the benefits of peaceful parenting.

 

Even if this process occurs slowly within a state, that state will eventually cease to exist as there are no more people willing to replace soldiers, politicians, and other positions in the bureaucracy.

 

In this way, it seems that a free society is the natural environment, with a temporary cancer of violence that further withers away with each root we sever from the heart of a child (within ourselves and others).

[JeanPaul]

You did not answer my quetions. You just reveresed my figures, and said that it would be enjoyable to live in a free society.

 

So, it seems to me that that your free society is purely theoretical. I was hoping that we could address the points I raised, and come up with practical solutions on how to implement a free society, at least somewhere in the world.

[JeanPaul]

The state doesn't solve those problems.  

 

It multiplies them.

What if 70% of people cannot cope with a state?   Think of the poverty, wars, schools, money supply, prisons...and you'll have your answer.

I know that the state does not solve problems. I know that poverty, wars, etc. are caused by states. I am not the one who needs be convinced!

All the other pople I know are not yet convinced. This is not even 70%, it is over 90%. Where do we start? I am an inventor, I am a practical person, I do not want to wait until I am dead to see a change.

 

What is a "libertarian society"? How we would arrive at one from where we are today? An understanding of this will mostly answer your questions. Assuming you mean free society, the path to such a place would involve breaking the cycle of violence by helping parents to understand the ways they damage their children that have previously been socially acceptable.

 

If a person cannot "cope with responsibility," this accrues to that person's parents. If we understood the importance of peaceful parenting, there would be measures in place to catch this at a very early age. We would be able to provide help not only to the child, but their parents as well. As a result, people who are deceptive would only exist in the smallest of margins. They would not be able to survive in a world that would ostracize the deceptive.

 

As for genetically violent, short of understanding ways to reduce trauma in utero, there's not much that can be done about this. However, saying "1% of people will always be genetically violent" is not a compelling case for institutionalized coercion (government). It IS a strong case for not having one. Because those who are violent will gravitate towards the State in order to carry out their violence with far less risk to themselves.

Who will help parents understanding that they are not doing a good job with their parents. My neighbors think that I am the one not doing a good job with my kids because i do not yell at them.

State prisons or not, we still need to do something about the violent people ready to rape my daughters, for example. Genes are not inherited in utero.

 

Plus, I imagine it would be more efficient and enjoyable to live in a free society (where your neighbors respect NAP etc.). That, in turn, is likely to attract others to learn about the benefits of peaceful parenting.

 

Even if this process occurs slowly within a state, that state will eventually cease to exist as there are no more people willing to replace soldiers, politicians, and other positions in the bureaucracy.

 

In this way, it seems that a free society is the natural environment, with a temporary cancer of violence that further withers away with each root we sever from the heart of a child (within ourselves and others).

My neighbors are not interested in NAP. They have their own values. They prefer to believe in "god" and traumatize their kids.

Sadly, states are getting stronger and stronger, and bureaucracy more and more present. So what makes you think that states will eventually cease to exist? How do you know that it is not the exact opposite that is happening?

 

We have not been capable of proving 99% of the 7 billion inhabitants that something as silly as God does not exist, so how will we be able to prove them that States, which is already a bit less silly than God, are bad? 99% of the 7 billion inhabitants think that kids needs to be yelled at, beaten, that stealing and lying to your neighbors is fine, so where do we start?

 

Also, there are societies on the planet that are much less inclined to living in a free society. How will we defend ourselves from their missiles if we have no more army and weapons?

 

Forgive me, but I am not an intellectual, I do not understand abstractions. I am interested in a concrete philosophy that can lead to ideas that can be implemented here and now.

[J. D. Stembal]

Privatize the military. Problem solved. Three quarters of active duty probably couldn't fight their way out of a bag of doughnuts.

[Josh F]

Most people don't want freedom and the majority are addicted to some kind of violence and power.  But why cater our goals to the lowest common denominator? 

[dsayers]

I am a practical person, I do not want to wait until I am dead to see a change.

 

Practicality dictates that you can not solve a problem that you don't understand. You could flip a light switch in your home if all you wanted was to see change. To address the problem of dependence on State violence, it's going to take making the case for peaceful parenting. This is a multi-generational change, so it's impractical to expect results in our lifetimes. Even if the enforcer class told the ruling class no today, we wouldn't experience peace because there are too many broken people who haven't processed their trauma. It takes time to build.

 

My neighbors think that I am the one not doing a good job with my kids because i do not yell at them.

 

What have you done about this? You mentioned their religiosity, so I don't anticipate you'd be able to make much progress. Still, I'm curious as to what you have done to address that.

[luxfelix]

My neighbors are not interested in NAP. They have their own values. They prefer to believe in "god" and traumatize their kids.

Sadly, states are getting stronger and stronger, and bureaucracy more and more present. So what makes you think that states will eventually cease to exist? How do you know that it is not the exact opposite that is happening?

 

We have not been capable of proving 99% of the 7 billion inhabitants that something as silly as God does not exist, so how will we be able to prove them that States, which is already a bit less silly than God, are bad? 99% of the 7 billion inhabitants think that kids needs to be yelled at, beaten, that stealing and lying to your neighbors is fine, so where do we start?

 

Also, there are societies on the planet that are much less inclined to living in a free society. How will we defend ourselves from their missiles if we have no more army and weapons?

 

Forgive me, but I am not an intellectual, I do not understand abstractions. I am interested in a concrete philosophy that can lead to ideas that can be implemented here and now.

 

I don't know per se, but it seems to me a hypothesis worth considering.

 

Start with yourself and work out into your family and friends (choose good allies!) and continue to parent peacefully; like the time and effort necessary to sift specks of gold from the sand, the eventual profit greatly outweighs the cost.

 

EndTheUsurpation suggested privatizing the military; to add to this, I would point to the historical precedent of Napoleon Bonaparte. He was able to raise armies with greater flexibility than his monarchical opponents, in part because the aristocracy could not trust to arm the peasantry and then return home without risk of armed rebellion, whereas Napoleon could rely on the mutual motivations of his countrymen to join him and skirmish with initiative lacking in the enemy ranks.

 

In a free society, what would foreign governments hope to take but each estate, one-by-one, until they've been exhausted and overwhelmed?

[JeanPaul]

Most people don't want freedom and the majority are addicted to some kind of violence and power.  But why cater our goals to the lowest common denominator? 

In order to achieve our goal of a free society, should we kill all the ones who do not want freedom or who are addicted to violence and power?

 

Luxfelix, I know very well that my action will have no influence on the society. Maybe I can convince one ot two persons, but there are still 6.9 billion people to convince.

 

Who will this privatized army receive orders from? From the people?

 

Help me, I am lost.

[dsayers]

In order to achieve our goal of a free society, should we kill all the ones who do not want freedom or who are addicted to violence and power?

 

"Should we initiate the use of force to establish a society where there will be no initiation of the use of force?" Asked and answered.

 

It is unclear what you are talking about. You use the words want and addiction, but what a person wants or craves is not important. It's how they behave. A guy can adore Corvettes as much as he likes as long as he doesn't steal one, eh?

[NotDarkYet]

If people can't be trusted with voluntary trade, they certainly can't be trusted with power.

 

 

You can't break humans into 2 opposite moral categories. 

[luxfelix]

Luxfelix, I know very well that my action will have no influence on the society. Maybe I can convince one ot two persons, but there are still 6.9 billion people to convince.

 

Who will this privatized army receive orders from? From the people?

 

Help me, I am lost.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

Your actions will influence society; through peaceful parenting, your inventions, and what you "vote" for with your wealth, time, and attention will help to chisel David from Michelangelo's marble.

 

I don't know if this is what EndTheUsurpation specifically had in mind, but if there is a privatized army that must conform to the clients' demands in order to stay in business/make a profit, then in that way the army is receiving orders from the people (even if the soldiers follow the specific orders from their commander).

 

It may help to conceptualize it as a business selling a product/service (in this case it's security from aforementioned foreign governments).

 

I hope that helps. 

[JeanPaul]

Dsayers, I was not talking about "initiation of the use of force", I was talking about plain killing. We would not tell the statists, "we are going to initiate the use of force against you in order to eventually live in a stateless society where kids will be peacefully parented." They would not even understadn what it means. We just tell them, prepare to die. When we go stateless, will we also go humourless?

 

I was just quoting someone when I used the words wanting and addiction.

 

Mathematically , I just don't see how I can influence society. My actions represent 1/10^9 at most. I am not Stefan. No one listen to me. Besides, I have very bad ideas. I am immoral, I do things that revolts other libertarians, I want to violently coerced intellectual property protection and I want to forge a monopoly.

 

I just can't see how my actions can influence society, let alone in a good way.

[JeanPaul]

What have you done about this? You mentioned their religiosity, so I don't anticipate you'd be able to make much progress. Still, I'm curious as to what you have done to address that.

I told them "do not initiate the use of force on your kids" or I will punch you in the face, because we like joking. But they surprised me by telling me that if I punched them, they would forgive me and pray for me, and they added that God does not initiate the use of force on anyone.

[shirgall]

I told them "do not initiate the use of force on your kids" or I will punch you in the face, because we like joking. But they surprised me by telling me that if I punched them, they would forgive me and pray for me, and they added that God does not initiate the use of force on anyone.

 

That's an easy one, since God put the fruit of the tree of knowledge in Eden, which allowed Adam and Eve to eat it, and that's when the carnivores started eating everything else. Lions would have been frolicking with fluffy bunnies in peace if it was not for Him.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Adam and Eve fed the fruit of knowledge to a marmoset.

[dsayers]

Dsayers, I was not talking about "initiation of the use of force", I was talking about plain killing.

 

Where the use of force between moral actors is present, there is an initiator. Am I supposed to ignore that just because you didn't use those specific words?

 

Of course you're not going to be able to influence the world when you don't take things that are important seriously.

[JeanPaul]

Where the use of force between moral actors is present, there is an initiator. Am I supposed to ignore that just because you didn't use those specific words?

 

Of course you're not going to be able to influence the world when you don't take things that are important seriously.

The initiators are the statists of course. Killing them is mereley self-defense.

[dsayers]

A statist is somebody who believes in the validity of the State. Beliefs are not the initiation of the use of force. Killing is not only irreversible, but the largest debt you could create to somebody. In order for it to be a justified reaction, what it's a reaction to must be similar in scope. Somebody that votes to have a dollar stolen from me every year to fund X, Y, or Z for example has not initiated the level of force that would justify lethal force, even if they're of the mind that they would do it again if they had the opportunity.

 

I want you to know that I'm only participating at this point for the benefit of others. You make it very hard to take you seriously.

[JeanPaul]

Sorry, Dsayers, but I think that everybody understood that I was joking. I am not intelligent enough to think that we should start by killing half of the people in order to create a beautiful society. I am not a communist. Some posters here might be though. Maybe more like for a stateless communist society variant. In this Utopia, people would have had been raised with love, people would be non-violent, people would not want to get rich, would want to help each other, ideas would be shared freely, people would work for big corporations (self-governed), individualists, who can only be trouble makers, would no longer exist.

[dsayers]

As a communicator, the onus is on you to convey your ideas. A little empathy would dictate that having text only, certain cues for what could be construed as humor are not present. I also know that a lot of truth is said in jest AND that it's a common defense mechanism for somebody to backpedal and claim humor to escape responsibility.

 

I didn't take it as such because it's similar to a very valid question/scenario. For example, let us say that a human is both a psychopath and a serial killer. From a moral standpoint, they are no different than a feral beast loose in a civilized area even though they are biologically a human being. This is hard for some people to grasp, so I could totally see somebody seriously asking such a question.

 

When I said that it's hard to take you seriously, it's not because you asked if we should kill off all the evildoers. It's because you shift from absent to strong-arming and from serious to joking and back. I don't think that philosophy or integrity are of interest to you.

[JeanPaul]

You are all very intelligent and knowledgeable, but I find the climate very tense here. After couple posts, I learn that I am manipulative, immoral, that support the violence, that I am a savvy investor, that I want to receive money for nothing, that I have no humor and that I packpedal, that I should look for a job in a big company, that I did not try hard to convince by neighbors not to yell at the children, etc. I guess philosophy is not for me.

[shirgall]

You are all very intelligent and knowledgeable, but I find the climate very tense here. After couple posts, I learn that I am manipulative, immoral, that support the violence, that I am a savvy investor, that I want to receive money for nothing, that I have no humor and that I packpedal, that I should look for a job in a big company, that I did not try hard to convince by neighbors not to yell at the children, etc. I guess philosophy is not for me.

 

I think you are taking it a little personally. Many people here take an opposite position of an argument to ferret out the truth of the argument and discard the pieces that don't make sense. All of us are not perfect. Many of us are still learning to do this.

 

If you are interested in Philosophy, check out this series of early podcasts: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio-IntroPhilosophy

 

This is definitely the place to come to have an argument and check your premises. It can be hard on newcomers sometimes, but for the most part we're plenty nice.

[JeanPaul]

I am being told that you are manipulative, immoral, that you support violence, are a savvy investor, that you want to receive money for nothing, that you have no humor and that you packpedal, etc. and I should not take it personally? If this is what is philosophy, this is not for me. I came here to find answers on how to do without patents in a stateless society, I have gotten utopian answers only and tons of criticisms. Before coming here, I thought I was a good person, working very hard to improve things and driving, trying to raise my four kids the best I can. Now, I ma some kind of monster, something in between a serial killer and a psychopath. Was this the Socratic method? As I said, I am done with philosophy, this is too painful.

[shirgall]

I am being told that you are manipulative, immoral, that you support violence, are a savvy investor, that you want to receive money for nothing, that you have no humor and that you packpedal, etc. and I should not take it personally? If this is what is philosophy, this is not for me. I came here to find answers on how to do without patents in a stateless society, I have gotten utopian answers only and tons of criticisms. Before coming here, I thought I was a good person, working very hard to improve things and driving, trying to raise my four kids the best I can. Now, I ma some kind of monster, something in between a serial killer and a psychopath. Was this the Socratic method? As I said, I am done with philosophy, this is too painful.

 

I had a rough time getting started, but consider it a crucible where your assumptions are being put to the test. Don't be afraid to push back, but consider the way you push back carefully. There is a lot of respect here for experiences, because those are empirical. There is a lot of respect here for logic, because logical arguments are true whether or not people believe in them or not.

 

You started this thread with a lot of questions, and that's great. What I think people have been weeding out is the underlying assumptions.

 

Libertarians don't initiate the use of force on people and they don't do business with people that do. They certainly defend themselves from those that do. They don't form "private armies" to weed out unbelievers. They want to be left alone and they want to leave others alone. They want to do business with those they trust and not be forced to associate or do business with those they do not trust.

 

As you say, the Statists believe that the government should have the power to initiate force and they lend it that power by tolerating the rules, regulations, powers, and penalties that the state grants itself and applies to others. Is that enough to start a war? Most don't think so. However, approximately 1/3 of a population of a culture socially conditioned to accept a King started a rebellion only a couple hundred years ago.

 

Most libertarians are just trying to whether the storm with whatever dignity and freedom they can muster. No one wants to start or fight in a war. It's not rational to kill people and break things unless faced with an immediate, unavoidable danger of death or great bodily harm.

 

So, to answer your starting questions: for the people that cannot cope with liberty, we hope to teach them about what liberty can offer. For the people that are not honest, we hope that educating everyone about honesty and about who is dishonest will lead to better decision-making. For the violence-prone we hope that a populace that is serious about self-defense and self-reliance will at least make the violent recalcitrant instead of aggressive.

 

It's not what I'd call a project plan, but it's an idea that has more merit than a lot of other crap that's come down the road.

[JeanPaul]

I understand all this but why do people have to be so aggressive and mean here?

 

Also, you say libertarians do this and that. Where? In a utopian world? People here I bet live very normally. I heard Stefan saying that making a living by selling stuff to the state is fine, etc. I do not think that there has been much philosophy discussed in my two (and last) threads, I have only seen opinions, criticisms and insults.

 

Do you find very philosophical to say to someone that he is manipulative, immoral, that you support violence, are a savvy investor, that you want to receive money for nothing, that you have no humor and that you packpedal, etc.?

 

"There is a lot of respect here for experiences, because those are empirical. There is a lot of respect here for logic, because logical arguments are true whether or not people believe in them or not." What are you talking about? It is exactly the opposite.

 

Do you find telling a guy who invented a new steering wheel that he should start selling car logical?

[shirgall]

Also, you say libertarians do this and that. Where? In a utopian world? People here I bet live very normally. I heard Stefan saying that making a living by selling stuff to the state is fine, etc. I do not think that there has been much philosophy discussed in my two (and last) threads, I have only seen opinions, criticisms and insults.

 

Do you find very philosophical to say to someone that he is manipulative, immoral, that you support violence, are a savvy investor, that you want to receive money for nothing, that you have no humor and that you packpedal, etc.?

 

"There is a lot of respect here for experiences, because those are empirical. There is a lot of respect here for logic, because logical arguments are true whether or not people believe in them or not." What are you talking about? It is exactly the opposite.

 

Do you find telling a guy who invented a new steering wheel that he should start selling car logical?

 

As someone that was an official in a state party, and a candidate for public office, I have probably seen a lot more libertarians in action than you might expect. I am prouder of this community than most of them because this community has put far more effort into self-knowledge, clarity, and logical argument. This is not to say that everything here is perfect. We are all learners.

 

But you presented an interesting sandwich, "opinions, criticisms, and insults." The middle item is expected but you present it as negative, the final item is certainly negative, and the way you write this makes me think you feel the first item is negative too, as in "only negative opinions." Criticisms are not negative. They are intended to help you either recognize an error or at least improve your argument.

 

The people responding to the steering wheel thread are portraying important truths: It is not enough to invent a better mouse trap. It is important to figure out if people want it, to figure out how to get your message out so people know they want it, to make them at a cost that allows you a reasonable profit, and to be able to deliver enough of them to meet demand. These are business realities, and it is logical to point out reality whenever it appears to be overlooked. Make a car with the better steering wheel and demonstrate its value. All of the car companies that are out there started with people that had better ideas than someone else and banded together to make their own cars for the public.

 

Do you know what the core competency is of the various car companies? For example, Honda was really good at making small, fuel-efficient motors when it started. It sought out partnerships for the rest of the car manufacturing and started making cars instead of just engines. The rest is history.

 

When people claim an argument is manipulative, immoral, supportive of violence, etc. they are pointing out flaws in your arguments. I agree that the approach of saying *you* are these things is not the best. It is off-putting. I try to be clear that what I am criticizing is the argument. While I try to avoid metaphors, but I like to visualize the arguments and counter-arguments dancing on the stage, and the participants of the debate sitting in a box in the balcony (perhaps like Statler and Waldorf, but without the contempt).

 

I think you find more people with empathy than contempt in this audience, but also a lot more people that have enough courage to tell it like it is. There's also a lot more lurking than posting in this audience.

[JeanPaul]

But you presented an interesting sandwich, "opinions, criticisms, and insults." The middle item is expected but you present it as negative, the final item is certainly negative, and the way you write this makes me think you feel the first item is negative too, as in "only negative opinions." Criticisms are not negative. They are intended to help you either recognize an error or at least improve your argument.

 

The people responding to the steering wheel thread are portraying important truths: It is not enough to invent a better mouse trap. It is important to figure out if people want it, to figure out how to get your message out so people know they want it, to make them at a cost that allows you a reasonable profit, and to be able to deliver enough of them to meet demand. These are business realities, and it is logical to point out reality whenever it appears to be overlooked. Make a car with the better steering wheel and demonstrate its value. All of the car companies that are out there started with people that had better ideas than someone else and banded together to make their own cars for the public.

 

Do you know what the core competency is of the various car companies? For example, Honda was really good at making small, fuel-efficient motors when it started. It sought out partnerships for the rest of the car manufacturing and started making cars instead of just engines. The rest is history.

 

When people claim an argument is manipulative, immoral, supportive of violence, etc. they are pointing out flaws in your arguments. I agree that the approach of saying *you* are these things is not the best. It is off-putting. I try to be clear that what I am criticizing is the argument. While I try to avoid metaphors, but I like to visualize the arguments and counter-arguments dancing on the stage, and the participants of the debate sitting in a box in the balcony (perhaps like Statler and Waldorf, but without the contempt).

I used the word criticism is its basic menaing. Forgive me, English is neither my native language, nor my adopted language. What I meant is that I have heard opinions and insults rather than arguments, or very weak arguments.

 

You do not see any problem in "telling a guy who invented a new steering wheel that he should sell cars"? This makes sense to you?

 

"It is not enough to invent a better mouse trap. It is important to figure out if people want it, to figure out how to get your message out so people know they want it, to make them at a cost that allows you a reasonable profit, and to be able to deliver enough of them to meet demand." Is this some kind of business and marketing forum? Besides, it is not enough to invent a better mouse. This is a vague opinion only. It is as saying it is not enough to be tall, one needs to be muscular too. I invent things. If some people are interested, good for me, if they are not too bad for me. I am sorry, I am not as talented as you all here, I can only do a few things. What is the interest in talking about big companies all the time? Is there someone here who will create a huge corporation one day? I won't.

 

I have learned one thing here: a libertarian society is impossible. When I see the amount of negativity and hate here, I think that libertarianism thing is just another utopia, like communism. If I may express and feeling, the atmosphere here reminds me something between the Jehovah’s witness and the hard core communists I have talked too.

 

I wish you all all the best nonetheless.

[shirgall]

Is this some kind of business and marketing forum?

 

No, it's an empiricism and philosophy forum. Philosophy explores truth. What works for inventors is a solid business plan, not just an idea. Sometimes people try to prove a point in isolation, but when it comes to invention there's a *lot* of knowledge represented here about what happens to really make an invention successful.

 

I have learned one thing here: a libertarian society is impossible. When I see the amount of negativity and hate here, I think that libertarianism thing is just another utopia, like communism. If I may express and feeling, the atmosphere here reminds me something between the Jehovah’s witness and the hard core communists I have talked too.

 

I wish you all all the best nonetheless.

 

 

You can assert it is impossible, but you have not demonstrated it. We challenged your ideas and the assumptions that underlie them. You are welcome to accept or deny those challenges, but we encourage everyone to process what has been said and figure out the truth for themselves.

[J. D. Stembal]

I understand all this but why do people have to be so aggressive and mean here?

 

Take a step back and look at this statement rationally. I've read all your posts in the two threads you started, and most people have been very civil with you. You've only received five negs, yet you've had a lot of insightful replies, too. Who is being mean and aggressive and why?