To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[ascent]

Monopolies are never good.

This is not entirely true. Key phrase: utility company infrastructure development.

[AyeYo]

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.


A form of government and leadership.

Which is why I'm not an anarchist.  I consider it an unstable society.  And any unstable society will, more often than not, lead to oppression and tyranny.  The framers of the Constitution built a republic with balance of powers because, as risky as that was, it was the best option available to them.  We may have better options in the age of the Internet, but I'm not any more convinced of that then you seem to be.

Then are you here for the gang bang or just to troll, because the argument is obviously against the anarchists.

Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of scale.  The same incentives to avoid conflict, but not at any cost, exist just the same.

And that matter of scale makes all the difference.  Kind of like how a lemonade stand and running GE is not the same experience, and what the lemonade stand guy can get away with doesn't necessarily work for the GE CEO.

Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.

No, they don't.  The UN has no power not granted to them by the voluntary actions of the member governments.  At best, the UN is an established system of mediation.  At worst, the UN is a puppet organization that gives legitimacy to the collective aggressions of the largest member states.

And a government has no power not granted to it by its people, whether it be through concent or apathay.

 Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.

I'd love to live in the world that you think that you live in.  Even the most progressive democracies of the modern world do not require the consent of the governed to engage in war.  The United States has not declared war in the constitutionally described manner since WWII, and even that would not have required the public support from even a simple majority of voters.

I said nothing about declaring war in a constitutional manner.  I said the support of the public was required.  Again, whether this is accomplished through concent or apathy and how much propoganda is needed is irrelevant.  When public outrage becomes too loud (see: Vietnam), the show cannot go on.

Joe Idiot and Jane Idiot don't have this issue.  They need only be convinced themselves.

The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.

Joe isn't the commander of Bob's Army.  Bob is.  Once Joe makes that phone call, Bob is the one that has to weight the options toward resolution.  Bob faces, not just the prospect of defeat (and his own death) if he should choose to ignore mediation as a solution; but also (more likely) the expense of combat exceeding the perceived losses of his client, the desertion of his manpower, and the depletion of his resources.  Depending on the injustice that Joe has suffered, it can quickly become in the best interests of Bob to compensate Joe himself, and either seek restitution from the offender (or offender's own private security force) using the evidence available to him, or drop Bob as a covered client should the evidence favor that Bob is a fraud.  No one here can really say whether actual combat would be more or less rare in a anarchist society with any certainty.  The answer would be highly dependent upon unforeseeable factors and matters of culture.  That said, I find it unlikely that combat in the streets would be any more likely than such combat between rival mafia families or street gangs are in some areas today.  There is no formal mediation process between such criminal organizations, and by definition, these organizations are filled with violent criminals; yet, these kind of conflicts between such organizations are relatively rare for all the same reasons as it would be rare between private security forces that are (presumedly) comprised mostly of legitimate forces representing a broader and less violent cross section of society.  I can't even imagine how this could lead to a 'Mad Max' scenario of a constant state of low level warfare, as you seem to imagine.  But I won't argue that such a condition is possible.

Again, I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist.  Like so many statists, you seem to confuse the ideologies.

I don't confuse them.  I merely understand that libertarianism IS anarchy, which is why it cannot exist for any period of time.


You've also shot your own system in the foot with your argument about the relationship between Joe and Bob.  Joe hired Bob to defend his interests; he didn't hire Bob as legal council or to question his decisions and debate what is or isn't worth fighting for.  Bob will do as he is told because that's what he's being paid to do, and he wants to get paid.

There is a formal mediation process between criminal organizations, it's called the police.  Conflicts are rare because open conflict draws unwanted attention from the central authority.  That isn't an issue in Liberland, as the Liberkids and their private armies can do whatever they please without fear of a central authority cracking down on them.

[MoonShadow]

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.


A form of government and leadership.

Which is why I'm not an anarchist.  I consider it an unstable society.  And any unstable society will, more often than not, lead to oppression and tyranny.  The framers of the Constitution built a republic with balance of powers because, as risky as that was, it was the best option available to them.  We may have better options in the age of the Internet, but I'm not any more convinced of that then you seem to be.

Then are you here for the gang bang or just to troll, because the argument is obviously against the anarchists.

Please review the subject of this thread.

Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of scale.  The same incentives to avoid conflict, but not at any cost, exist just the same.

And that matter of scale makes all the difference.  Kind of like how a lemonade stand and running GE is not the same experience, and what the lemonade stand guy can get away with doesn't necessarily work for the GE CEO.

The matters of scale do make a difference, but both still respond to the same incentives.

Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.

No, they don't.  The UN has no power not granted to them by the voluntary actions of the member governments.  At best, the UN is an established system of mediation.  At worst, the UN is a puppet organization that gives legitimacy to the collective aggressions of the largest member states.

And a government has no power not granted to it by its people, whether it be through concent or apathay.

I'll concede that point.  Still, the membership of the UN don't grant the UN any kind of monopoly on force, nor any other ongoing power.  Governments are possessive of their regional monopolies.

 Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.

I'd love to live in the world that you think that you live in.  Even the most progressive democracies of the modern world do not require the consent of the governed to engage in war.  The United States has not declared war in the constitutionally described manner since WWII, and even that would not have required the public support from even a simple majority of voters.

I said nothing about declaring war in a constitutional manner.  I said the support of the public was required.  Again, whether this is accomplished through concent or apathy and how much propoganda is needed is irrelevant.  When public outrage becomes too loud (see: Vietnam), the show cannot go on.

We must have different understandings of the term "support" in this context.  In my world, neither apathy nor ignorance would qualify.

The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.

Joe isn't the commander of Bob's Army.  Bob is.  Once Joe makes that phone call, Bob is the one that has to weight the options toward resolution.  Bob faces, not just the prospect of defeat (and his own death) if he should choose to ignore mediation as a solution; but also (more likely) the expense of combat exceeding the perceived losses of his client, the desertion of his manpower, and the depletion of his resources.  Depending on the injustice that Joe has suffered, it can quickly become in the best interests of Bob to compensate Joe himself, and either seek restitution from the offender (or offender's own private security force) using the evidence available to him, or drop Bob as a covered client should the evidence favor that Bob is a fraud.  No one here can really say whether actual combat would be more or less rare in a anarchist society with any certainty.  The answer would be highly dependent upon unforeseeable factors and matters of culture.  That said, I find it unlikely that combat in the streets would be any more likely than such combat between rival mafia families or street gangs are in some areas today.  There is no formal mediation process between such criminal organizations, and by definition, these organizations are filled with violent criminals; yet, these kind of conflicts between such organizations are relatively rare for all the same reasons as it would be rare between private security forces that are (presumedly) comprised mostly of legitimate forces representing a broader and less violent cross section of society.  I can't even imagine how this could lead to a 'Mad Max' scenario of a constant state of low level warfare, as you seem to imagine.  But I won't argue that such a condition is possible.

Again, I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist.  Like so many statists, you seem to confuse the ideologies.

I don't confuse them.  I merely understand that libertarianism IS anarchy, which is why it cannot exist for any period of time.

As I just said, you confuse the ideologies.  Libertarianism is not advocacy for the dissolution of the nation-state.  Nor is it an absence of social cohesion, otherwise considered to be 'chaos'.

You've also shot your own system in the foot with your argument about the relationship between Joe and Bob.

It's not 'my' system.  I presented a defense of the anarchist concept of private security forces sans state.  Libertarians don't advocate for the dissolution of the state, but for it's limittaion to it's core purposes.  One of those core purposes is the defense of nationals from enemies foriegn and domestic, another is the enFORCEment of law.

 Joe hired Bob to defend his interests; he didn't hire Bob as legal council or to question his decisions and debate what is or isn't worth fighting for.  Bob will do as he is told because that's what he's being paid to do, and he wants to get paid.

Bob only wants to get paid if he can stand to profit.  If Bob is the commander of a private security force for a rational reason, then he is going to weigh the risks before (or even after) taking the job.  The argument changes little regardless of how much Joe has, for itf the costs of the war exceed the resources of Joe, it doesn't make any difference.

There isn't a formal mediation process between criminal organizations, it's called the police.  Conflicts are rare because open conflict draws unwanted attention from the central authority.  That isn't an issue in Liberland, as the Liberkids and their private armies can do whatever they please without fear of a central authority cracking down on them.

Again, I wish I lived in the world you think that you live in.  Criminal organizations exist in certain locales because the police forces are either ineffective or corrupt.  In either case, such organizations persist where they do because they have a functional safe zone within which they can operate with near zero risk from local police interference.  Such organizations do not, and never have, operated in other locales because the police forces in those areas have neither problem.  Mafias, in particular, are a phenom begotten by government prohibitions, and are thus strongest in locales wherein the gulf between the degree of prohibitions and the enforcability of those prohibitions are greatest.

[LastBattle]

Genghis Khan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Genghis Khan was up against nation states which surrendered. Plus, these days it is a bit harder to find the initial finance to make an absurdly large army and supply it.

Also, this is a circular argument.

[myrkul]

Monopolies are never good.

This is not entirely true. Key phrase: utility company infrastructure development.

A single set of wires is probably beneficial, but having only one company in control of those wires definitely is not. A consortium is probably best.

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The US Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States (with 235,500 registered voters, as of 2008)[citation needed], behind the Republican party membership which exceeds 50 million[citation needed]and the Democratic Party membership which exceeds 70 million[citation needed]. According to the party, libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence

It seems that myrkul's idea of a society without a government, an army or police is not libertarian at all so the thread is hijacked

Anyway having read the wikipedia, libertarianism seems fine.  I doubt people will vote for it but the idea seems OK.

[NghtRppr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The US Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States (with 235,500 registered voters, as of 2008)[citation needed], behind the Republican party membership which exceeds 50 million[citation needed]and the Democratic Party membership which exceeds 70 million[citation needed]. According to the party, libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence

It seems that myrkul's idea of a society without a government, an army or police is not libertarian at all so the thread is hijacked

Anyway having read the wikipedia, libertarianism seems fine.  I doubt people will vote for it but the idea seems OK.

Don't confuse the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism which, if one is logically consistent, implies anarchism.

[compro01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The US Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States (with 235,500 registered voters, as of 2008)[citation needed], behind the Republican party membership which exceeds 50 million[citation needed]and the Democratic Party membership which exceeds 70 million[citation needed]. According to the party, libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence

It seems that myrkul's idea of a society without a government, an army or police is not libertarian at all so the thread is hijacked

Anyway having read the wikipedia, libertarianism seems fine.  I doubt people will vote for it but the idea seems OK.

that depends on which wing of the L party you refer to.  there is a wing of myrkuls in the party.

IMO, a libertarian government could work (i don't think it would be an optimal form of government, but it would function), if and only if they eliminate corporations or place very strong limits on what they are legally allowed to do.  a person has rights, an imaginary person formed of a group of people does not.

without that provision, it is my opinion a libertarian government is doomed to failure.

[Anonymous]

The Libertarian party is full of pansies. They do not represent libertarianism.

[myrkul]

Anarchy is simply libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

"They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

A government gets its funding via coercion and violence, or it wouldn't be a government.

Ergo: Divest the government of it's Monopoly on force, and allow competing agencies to provide the services of protection.

[LastBattle]

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion

Mind, I would be perfectly fine with a very, very small state with the sole purpose of protection in mind (The night watchman state). It would be inconsistent, but I doubt I would complain unless it started growing.

[MoonShadow]

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion

Mind, I would be perfectly fine with a very, very small state with the sole purpose of protection in mind (The night watchman state). It would be inconsistent, but I doubt I would complain unless it started growing.

I don't disagree with the statement, "anarchism is libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion" on general terms, it's the specifics that concern me.  All things being equal, I'd say that this is correct.  However, people are not always logical, and cultures don't always react to threats in a rational manner.  The differences between a libertarian state and an anarchist society may, in fact, be very small in practice; but I don't consider those differences to be trivial.  Prior to 1908, the lifestyle of the average American was very libertarian in practice, if not in fact.  For example, the average American would have nearly zero contact with official federal agencies over the course of his entire lifetime, and contact with state officials only on an occasional/annual basis.  There was no such thing as regulation of finance except at the highest levels, no personal income tax, no departments of energy, agriculture, education or even defense.  There was no Federal Reserve, and no fractional reserve banking.  All US money was specie or banknotes issued as wearhouse receipts of specie.  All loans were secured with an equal amount of long term savings, not on demand accounts with the backing of the FDIC.  All this was better than it is today in many ways, but worse in different ways.  Semantics aside, the average American born after the civil war could have lived clear till 1913 at least without any contact with any federal agency without even trying to do so.

All of that said, that same average American would have had exactly zero contact with any government in an anarchist society, but would it have looked the same if the federal government did not exist at all?  I can't say that it would have.  Certainly, slavery would have collapsed for economic reasons without the destructive need for a civil war to forciblely ended it, eventually.  But at what cost, then?  Two more generations of declining slavery versus civil war?  The end results might have been about the same if Lincoln had permitted the South to seceed, and slavery then die an economic death without bloodshed, but is that perferable if the cost was two more generations of humans owning humans?  And what, in a truly anarchist society, would prevent the return of that irrational culture, if not the collective threat of force from society at large?  I can't quite accept the argument that private security forces would rise to protect all facets of society.  I can imagine that such a force would rise that caters to black Americans, but what about Islamic Sharia law?  Sure, there would be forces that would protect the interests of daughters of white men, but about the daughters of those who proscribe to sharia themselves?  Do they not have the right to reject their upbringing?  Not according to sharia, but what incentive would a protection company have to intervene on behalf of them?  And if they did have such an incentive, wouldn't AyeYo's argument that such a society is, itself, coercive?  From my understanding of both, sharia is fundamentally incompatible with libertariansim.

[AyeYo]

Anarchy is simply libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

"They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

A government gets its funding via coercion and violence, or it wouldn't be a government.

Ergo: Divest the government of it's Monopoly on force, and allow competing agencies to provide the services of protection.

This will be the first (and probably only one) of your posts that I agree with.  Anarchy most definitely is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion, for exactly the reason you gave.  As has been discussed an endless amount of times already, libertarianism is inherently hyprocritical because coercion and force MUST exist in any society, including a libertarian one.  This leads libertarians to redefine words and apply them in an arbitrary manner in an attempt to avoid inconsistency and contradiction.  It doesn't work.

[myrkul]

Anarchy is simply libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

"They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

A government gets its funding via coercion and violence, or it wouldn't be a government.

Ergo: Divest the government of it's Monopoly on force, and allow competing agencies to provide the services of protection.

This will be the first (and probably only one) of your posts that I agree with.  Anarchy most definitely is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion, for exactly the reason you gave.  As has been discussed an endless amount of times already, libertarianism is inherently hyprocritical because coercion and force MUST exist in any society, including a libertarian one.  This leads libertarians to redefine words and apply them in an arbitrary manner in an attempt to avoid inconsistency and contradiction.  It doesn't work.

That's like saying that cancer MUST exist in any body, even a relatively healthy one.

[NghtRppr]

coercion and force MUST exist in any society

In libertarian society, you are forced to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission. Give me a single reason why I should care if you don't like this.

[jgraham]

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

Personally, I find Atlas's mindless rhetoric oppressive.  Does a Libertarian society mean I have to hear the whining of seventeen year-olds like this a lot more or a lot less?...somehow I think it's more.  Sign me up for the alternative. 

[AyeYo]

coercion and force MUST exist in any society

In libertarian society, you are forced to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission. Give me a single reason why I should care if you don't like this.

As discussed already, because you advocate no force or coercion, yet you force and coerce.

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

[myrkul]

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

Personally, I find Atlas's mindless rhetoric oppressive.  Does a Libertarian society mean I have to hear whining like this a lot more or a lot less...somehow I think it's more.

No, after the coercion and force stops, Libertarians and Anarchists will shut up.

[NghtRppr]

As discussed already, because you advocate no force or coercion, yet you force and coerce.

No, I don't. You define force as making people do things they don't want to do and since I want to force people not to murder, rape or rob me, I'm definitely in support of force. Try again.

[AyeYo]

As discussed already, because you advocate no force or coercion, yet you force and coerce.

No, I don't. You define force as making people do things they don't want to do and since I want to force people not to murder, rape or rob me, I'm definitely in support of force. Try again.

1force
 noun \ˈfȯrs\












Definition of FORCE


1

 a (1): strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life> (2)capitalized—used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane> b: moral or mental strength c: capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>


2

 a: military strength b (1): a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose (2)plural: the whole military strength (as of a nation) c: a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force> <the missile force> d: an individual or group having the power of effective action <join forces to prevent violence> <a force in politics> eoften capitalized: police force —usually used with the


3

: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing


4

 a: an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects b: any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between particles and determine the structure of the universe


5

: the quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech <stated the objectives with force>

I define it as... well... the rest of the non-insane world defines it.  If you're making someone do something they don't want to do, you're FORCING them into it.  Get it?

And stop that hyperbole or I'm going to send you back to the little kids' table.