This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man.

[AyeYo]

How is the action to be a part of a libertarian society voluntary for those that don't want to be a part of that society?

If you want to form a Democracy, Theocracy or Communistic society you're perfectly free to do so as long as the people that are participating do so voluntarily. You just need to refrain from using aggression to force others to do what you want them to do and it'll still be a Libertarian society.

Like I said, all human interactions should be voluntary. Try couching your argument in those terms and see if you can make sense of your complaint of being forced to not force others to do things they don't want to do. I don't think that's even coherent.

You obviously don't understand the question.  WITHIN a libertarian society, there will be people that are not libertarians.  How is the lack of choice, the coercion, and the aggression that you're claiming is being heaped on you in this society ANY different than the situation that those non-libertarians find themself in in a libertarian society?

[AyeYo]

All the bitching and moaning you do about the unjustness of our current society and how persecuted you feel in it...

And where did you see this at? 

It's the basis of libertarianism, i.e. our current society is based on coercion and aggression - see the posts by bitcoin2cash.

[MoonShadow]

All the bitching and moaning you do about the unjustness of our current society and how persecuted you feel in it...

And where did you see this at? 

It's the basis of libertarianism, i.e. our current society is based on coercion and aggression - see the posts by bitcoin2cash.

Even if bitcoin2cash was the pope of libertarians, this statement wouldn't hold water.  The fact that current society is based upon coercion is a provable fact, but has little bearing on how I might feel about it.  I certainly don't feel persecuted.  I've certainly said nothing to suggest what you imply about myself or libertarians in general.  Or were you trying to use the general 'you' while directly addressing an individual on a forum dominated by individualists?

[AyeYo]

All the bitching and moaning you do about the unjustness of our current society and how persecuted you feel in it...

And where did you see this at? 

It's the basis of libertarianism, i.e. our current society is based on coercion and aggression - see the posts by bitcoin2cash.

The fact that current society is based upon coercion is a provable fact

And how is libertarian society not based on coercion?


Sorry for cutting out so much.  I'm trying to wade through the BS and distractions and keep this on point.

[MoonShadow]

And how is libertarian society not based on coercion?

Perhaps there is some confusion here about the meaning of 'coercion'.  What do you think that it means, and in what way do you imagine an ideal libertarian society fitting this description.

And you had a point?

[NghtRppr]

And how is libertarian society not based on coercion?

Libertarian society is simply "keep your hands off other people and their property unless you have their permission". Are you really going to argue disallowing that is tantamount to coercion? Do you really think you should be free to deny others their freedom?

[AyeYo]

And how is libertarian society not based on coercion?

Perhaps there is some confusion here about the meaning of 'coercion'.  

Well there is, because libertarians make it mean whatever they want it to mean on the case by case basis.


Let me say this for the umpteenth time...


If someone is living in a libertarian society (thus being forced to abide by libertarian ideals and being affected by climate and forces created by libertarian society) and they are not libertarian, nor do they want to be libertarian, how is that ANY different than you living in this current society and claiming that  itis coercive and without voluntary choice simply because you don't agree with it?

[NghtRppr]

If someone is living in a libertarian society (thus being forced to abide by libertarian ideals and being affected by climate and forces created by libertarian society) and they are not libertarian, nor do they want to be libertarian, how is that ANY different than you living in this current society and claiming that  itis coercive and without voluntary choice simply because you don't agree with it?

So, you think you should be free to deny other people their freedoms? Then why should we respect your freedom? It's nonsensical. You aren't special. If you make a rule such as, it's alright to deny people their freedoms, then the same rule applies to you. It's like saying that you should be free to kill other people but they shouldn't be free to kill you. It's not even something that merits debate.

[MoonShadow]

And how is libertarian society not based on coercion?

Perhaps there is some confusion here about the meaning of 'coercion'.  

Well there is, because libertarians make it mean whatever they want it to mean on the case by case basis.

I'd really like to see you support that statement.

Let me say this for the umpteenth time...


If someone is living in a libertarian society (thus being forced to abide by libertarian ideals and being affected by climate and forces created by libertarian society)

FAIL

Your premise is false, therefore the remainder of the question cannot be rationally answered.  Try and establish a logical reasoning behind the idea that living in a lib society = forced to abide by lib ideals.

[NghtRppr]

Even if bitcoin2cash was the pope of libertarians...

I am, by the way.

Try and establish a logical reasoning behind the idea that living in a lib society = forced to abide by lib ideals.

Well, if he wants to steal property and since a Libertarian society doesn't permit theft then he will be forced not to steal. Likewise, if he wants to murder people and since a Libertarian society doesn't permit murder then he will be forced not to murder. In a way, he will be forced to abide by Libertarian ideals. However, the question is, why should we care about disallowing theft and murder? Am I really supposed to feel pity for a murdering thief? Why should I, when such a person has no pity for their victims?

See my previous post.  All the bitching and moaning you do about the unjustness of our current society and how persecuted you feel in it... that all applies to non-libertarians under a libertarian society too.  You're all about making all choices voluntary and you claim the current system isn't voluntary... then how is your system voluntary?

It's voluntary because you aren't forced at gunpoint to refrain from doing anything that doesn't violate someone's natural rights. If you think you should be free to take money from people, too bad. That's nonnegotiable as far as I'm concerned.

The current system isn't voluntary because we are forced at gunpoint to refrain from doing things that don't violate someone's natural rights i.e. there are certain drugs we can't consume, we can't pay or be paid less than minimum wage, we can't keep all the money we earn and not be forced to pay taxes, and the list goes on. Again, if you think you should be free to steal from others in the form of taxes or kick down their doors because they are smoking a joint, that's just too bad. I don't feel sorry for coercing you to leave other people alone.

Since we're making analogies to religion, your argument is kind of like when some religious person claims that atheists have faith because they can't prove God doesn't exist. So yes, I am forcing you to leave other people alone and keep your mitts to yourself. If you think you should be able to steal and kill, there's nothing stopping me from doing the same to you. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim you should be free to strip others of their freedom. You really need to acknowledge the difference between self-defense and aggression. One is justified, the other is not.

Notice how I responded to your argument without resorting to name calling. I didn't accuse you of "whining" or "sucking the teat of the government" or any other insults. Please give that a try because that kind of cruft adds nothing to the discussion. It's just noise.

[Dobrodav]

   OK, lets start from begining. We have some libertianists society establashed.
I am do not know how, - lets imagine that this is a result of comet impact.
   Well, after some time, - when big teath and hard muscles (and maybe some firearms) will stop plaing their  major role, we will have some society based on libertinans ideas, - for some reasons ( there is no any of that reasons, but still).

  Well. it is strange, but around this society will be some other societis.
And this is true, even in a case when that society will arise without any comet impact. Strange, huh - ?
 
  Again, we have some libertianist society on land limited state.
That is remind  me about "socialism in one, separately  taken  country". But we will throw away that uncomfortable comparison for now.

  Ahh, i am forgot. Do you know  what was a necessary condition for the victory of communism ? -
The spread of world revolution to the whole world.
That guys, your know, like  - Marks, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, was absolutely confident about this. That caused all that famous KGB hyperactivity, through the world.
But lets count this, just as historycle remark.

   Ok, now we have some pure, and  even fanatical libertianists in some place.
Well there is coming one generation ... Let assume that this generations was teached at home.
Next Generation should fight for their rights, because, they are know, that they should fight for their rights,
or they will be dumped as trash.
   Suddenly there is some fking strangers arise from other countries. Oh FK ! We was not started world fire
of liberty in surounding countries, we was to busy by raising our childs as true citizens of Liberty at that time.
   Well, libertians are fully free. They are free to gather in gangs, and burn out those awkward immigrant`s.
Nice. Smell of freshly smoked "slave minded" immigrants will please their minds for some time.

    But new problems will arise to a new established community.
Some idiot working on relativly infinite source of energy for humanity. Ha- ha-ha  - "Humanity".
Idiot for real.
    It is just coincedence that this moron are smart enough to work on somethig like this - you know : Raining man, and all that genial idiots.

    - Just in case, - that he can really solve that problem, we should take him under our protection.
    - No Way ! WE should take him under  our protection !

     Huh ? YOU ? You are just bunch of idiots that depends  on electricity !
You have no idea what FREEDOM is about !

  - Morons ! - Bustards ! - BANG! - PEWW !! - PEW,PEW,PEW !

   -Okey, it seems like we are loose. But as open minded and really free libertians, we can not allow, that somebody will have advantage over us.
    -HACK! Sorry, moron. But we should to kill you, before that power willing bustards, will claim results of your work.

     We are ready to do anything, to defend our freedom !

[lemonginger]

FAIL

Your premise is false, therefore the remainder of the question cannot be rationally answered.  Try and establish a logical reasoning behind the idea that living in a lib society = forced to abide by lib ideals.

Okay, okay, I've finally been baited into a discussion i swore I would never have again because it goes around and around in circles.

But it will take me a minute to make that point, if you'll indulge answering me some questions first. I promise I won't call anyone capitalist swine or apologists for tyranny or anything.

1) We wake up tomorrow in magical Libertopia. How do we divide the land? How do we divide the wealth?

2) We are living happily in Libertopia for many years when a group of workers travel back to the moon for the first time. They manage to set up some giant mirrors at great work and expense that send a concentrated beam of solar energy to a solar panel factory they have back on earth that they sell electricity from. They also mine a bunch of moon rock to bring back and sell for souvenirs. Do they own the moon?

[MoonShadow]

FAIL

Your premise is false, therefore the remainder of the question cannot be rationally answered.  Try and establish a logical reasoning behind the idea that living in a lib society = forced to abide by lib ideals.

Okay, okay, I've finally been baited into a discussion i swore I would never have again because it goes around and around in circles.

But it will take me a minute to make that point, if you'll indulge answering me some questions first. I promise I won't call anyone capitalist swine or apologists for tyranny or anything.

1) We wake up tomorrow in magical Libertopia. How do we divide the land? How do we divide the wealth?

It's a loaded question because we both know that we don't have an answer.  We don't know how "Libertopia" would work out questions of natural resource ownership or real estate because it's never been tried and the answer is highly dependent upon how a truly free people choose to organize.  From homesteading to high rise condos, those issues can be solved in more than one way.

As for how do we divide the wealth?  Under what conditions would we be dividing anything?  This is a false premise to begin with, that there is a standard way to 'share the wealth', or even a prohibition on coming up with such a method.

2) We are living happily in Libertopia for many years when a group of workers travel back to the moon for the first time. They manage to set up some giant mirrors at great work and expense that send a concentrated beam of solar energy to a solar panel factory they have back on earth that they sell electricity from. They also mine a bunch of moon rock to bring back and sell for souvenirs. Do they own the moon?

Some of it, yes.  They have a claim, certainly.  Did they all come back?  If so, they have abandoned their claims to that which their developed mirrors do not require.  They have a claim on the mirrors only because they are (I assume) still in active use.  Those whom remain have at least as much as they can improve.  That's actually a pretty easy one, and one that has been mentally tortured since The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

[MoonShadow]

Okay, okay, I've finally been baited into a discussion i swore I would never have again because it goes around and around in circles.

And have you ever considered the possibility that this discussion goes in circles because of the single common denominator, yourself?

[lemonginger]

no, it is because there is no "natural right" to property that is not axiomatic. Libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism rely on two different definitions of property basically, and both of those definitions are axiomatic. They are accepted as a priori givens and then ideas of what "liberty" means are built upon their backs. You can't argue with an axiom in a philosophical system because, by definition, that definition is simply given to be true to form the basis of later theorizing.

You can brush off question number 1 as irrelevant, but I find it highly relevant because the vast majority of property (and I think we can agree on this) is stolen, it is intertwined with an immoral and coercive state system, in many cases it was taken by force, built by slaves, expanded through colonialism and empire, etc. If i am to take serious anarcho-capitalists claims that we are both working on movements of liberation, then even if I don't accept your property rules, at least tell me how you think your property rules will be transitioned to.

--

"The vast tracts of land claimed by present-day land barons are illegitimate by any plausible libertarian standard, including the Lockean rule of appropriation. In early modern Europe, the landlord class acted through the State to turn its "ownership" in mere feudal legal theory into a modern right of absolute ownership, and in the process robbed the peasants who had occupied and tilled the land from time out of mind of their very real traditional rights in the land. This process was followed by rack-rents or by mass eviction and enclosure. In the New World, the state acted to preempt access to empty or nearly empty land, by claiming it for the "public" domain. This was followed by restrictions on access by individual homesteaders, coupled with massive land grants to land speculators, railroads, mining and logging companies, and other favored classes. The result was to limit the average producer's independent access to the land as a means of livelihood, to thereby restrict his range of independent alternatives in seeking a livelihood, and thus force him to sell his labor in a buyer's market.

In virtually every society in the world where a few giant landlords coexist with a peasantry that pay rent on the land they work, the situation has its roots in some act of past robbery by the State." (Kevin Carson)

[lemonginger]

Some of it, yes.  They have a claim, certainly.  Did they all come back?  If so, they have abandoned their claims to that which their developed mirrors do not require.  They have a claim on the mirrors only because they are (I assume) still in active use.  Those whom remain have at least as much as they can improve.  That's actually a pretty easy one, and one that has been mentally tortured since The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Define "improve". Not on the moon. Here on earth would be just fine.

If you mix your labor with the land, do you own the radio waves that pass through it? what about a river? the air?

A landlord has 10 buildings they are renting out. One doesn't get rented and falls into disrepair. How long until they don't have a legal claim to that property? (Yes I realize different communities could come up with very different rules about absentee landlords. What's your opinion of your ideal community norms w/rt to this?)

[lemonginger]

Also, just so I don't sound like I'm speaking down to you. Are you familiar with any classical or contemporary anarchist theory that falls broadly on the spectrum all the way from anarcho-communism to individualism/mutualism? Proudhon? Malatesta? Bakunin? Kevin Carson? Voltarine de Clair, Kropotkin, David Graeber, etc? I can't claim I've sat down with many Libertarian Party newsletters, but I have certainly cut my teeth on Nozick, Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises, etc.

[NghtRppr]

1) We wake up tomorrow in magical Libertopia. How do we divide the land? How do we divide the wealth?

Unless there is some record of theft, we assume that the current owners are the rightful owners. The exception, as I hinted at, is when there is a record of theft, for example, my family owned a farm for dozens of generations and then the government seized it under "eminent domain" to build a road. That land would be returned to me.

2) We are living happily in Libertopia for many years when a group of workers travel back to the moon for the first time. They manage to set up some giant mirrors at great work and expense that send a concentrated beam of solar energy to a solar panel factory they have back on earth that they sell electricity from. They also mine a bunch of moon rock to bring back and sell for souvenirs. Do they own the moon?

They don't own the whole moon, no. They own part of it. You need to understand homesteading. To claim unowned property, you have to mix your labor with it and you only own so much as you've mixed your labor with. If you build a base on the moon, you don't own the whole moon or even that chunk of the moon all the way to the center. You've never been to the center of the moon. You only own that area on the surface and enough below it so that if I dig beneath you, I'm not compromising the structure of your construction. If it's found out that there's a lot of valuable resources below that, I can dig at an angel to retrieve them, as long as I don't damage the integrity of your base.

You really need to read some books on Libertarianism. I would suggest Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" as he discusses how to homestead things that are currently unowned as well as things that are currently owned by the government, which presents a slightly different problem.

You can read his book online: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

If you mix your labor with the land, do you own the radio waves that pass through it? what about a river? the air?

You have to be able to exclude others from using it. You can't own a farm and then yell up at the airplanes to stop trespassing. However, if you build a glass dome over your land then you can own the air, the radio waves as well if you can stop them from leaving your property. Rivers are a slightly more complicated issue because if there are people downstream from you, you can't dam it or pollute it because that would be damaging their part of the river and you can't damage other people's property. However, if the rest of the river is unowned, you can do whatever you want and someone can't come in later, notice a dry riverbed and then demand that you tear your dam down so they can have some water. You were there first.

[bcearl]

Poor horseshoe makers, almost all got unemployed ...

[lemonginger]

Unless there is some record of theft, we assume that the current owners are the rightful owners. The exception, as I hinted at, is when there is a record of theft, for example, my family owned a farm for dozens of generations and then the government seized it under "eminent domain" to build a road. That land would be returned to me.

Sorry. Wrong answer. That supposes a "naturalness" or a "neutralness" to nearly all current ownership when even the most cursory libertarian analysis of the last few hundred years would show that the vast vast majority of ownership is very much tied into a coercive and violent system and was gained through some combination of force, slavery, and state+corporate power.