Afghanistan

[BitterTea]

Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.

There would still be governments under libertarianism. The difference is that they would be forced to compete with each other rather than allowed to stagnate. By forcing governments to compete, it is exactly "we the people" that get to decide what shape the government takes.

Isn't that exactly what you have in Afghanistan?  Lots of competing "governments" one of which is US backed, one of which is Indian backed and one of which is Pakistan backed.  How exactly does that benefit the Afghans?

We seek not cut-throat, by any means necessary competition (that's government), but non-violent competition.

[1714162971]

1714162971

[1714162971]

1714162971

[1714162971]

1714162971

[Hawker]

Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.

There would still be governments under libertarianism. The difference is that they would be forced to compete with each other rather than allowed to stagnate. By forcing governments to compete, it is exactly "we the people" that get to decide what shape the government takes.

Isn't that exactly what you have in Afghanistan?  Lots of competing "governments" one of which is US backed, one of which is Indian backed and one of which is Pakistan backed.  How exactly does that benefit the Afghans?

We seek not cut-throat, by any means necessary competition (that's government), but non-violent competition.

So how would you stop India and China and whoever else arming and directing one of your "governments?"

[FredericBastiat]

None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.

And libertarians don't offer up unified and consistent protection of systems which will break down when divided, all so arbitrary rights can be awarded to each individual.

I think, given the opportunity, there would be groups of individuals who would collectively provide services in a number of ways to protect an individual's liberties. Inconsistencies already abound now. I'm not sure that will ever go away. If a system was perfect, it wouldn't need itself to exist as people would just do the "right thing" in the first place.

Delegating away, and thus monopolizing, power of governance is always a bad idea (violates contract). At that point, there is very little incentive to improve. Besides, the NAP is very eloquent and simple. If you were to attempt to educate everybody to provide services with that axiom as a cornerstone, anybody drifting far afield of that would be called to task relatively quickly. Notice I didn't say force its use, just notify.

Most people are aware when their personal liberties are being encroached upon. Given that fact, I think many would find laws relatively easy to understand and create. Any person or persons violating that provision on a consistent basis would find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned as it would be difficult to last long in that state of operation. Violent monopolies change that significantly because they are not allowed to fail. Corruption can only grow in that situation.

[speeder]

You people must not say what is good, or evil, based on your own culture standards.



For example, a culture where self-defense is considered evil and thus that people must rely on state, is good, or evil?

A culture were self-defense is considered good, to the point that people are constantly fighting, is good, or evil?


A culture with declining population as women increase in wealth is good, or evil?

A culture with strong numbers in base work, but with women working mostly caring for their children, is good, or evil?

[Hawker]

None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.

And libertarians don't offer up unified and consistent protection of systems which will break down when divided, all so arbitrary rights can be awarded to each individual.

I think, given the opportunity, there would be groups of individuals who would collectively provide services in a number of ways to protect an individual's liberties. Inconsistencies already abound now. I'm not sure that will ever go away. If a system was perfect, it wouldn't need itself to exist as people would just do the "right thing" in the first place.

Delegating away, and thus monopolizing, power of governance is always a bad idea (violates contract). At that point, there is very little incentive to improve. Besides, the NAP is very eloquent and simple. If you were to attempt to educate everybody to provide services with that axiom as a cornerstone, anybody drifting far afield of that would be called to task relatively quickly. Notice I didn't say force its use, just notify.

Most people are aware when their personal liberties are being encroached upon. Given that fact, I think many would find laws relatively easy to understand and create. Any person or persons violating that provision on a consistent basis would find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned as it would be difficult to last long in that state of operation. Violent monopolies change that significantly because they are not allowed to fail. Corruption can only grow in that situation.

Surely the problem is Afghanistan is that there are thousands willing to fight and die for their right to impose their beliefs on other Afghans?  They have been able to do so for the last 40 years with no sign of an ending.  There is no monopoly of violence in Afghanistan.  You can't realistically say that the militias will "find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned" any time soon.

[FredericBastiat]

Surely the problem is Afghanistan is that there are thousands willing to fight and die for their right to impose their beliefs on other Afghans?  They have been able to do so for the last 40 years with no sign of an ending.  There is no monopoly of violence in Afghanistan.  You can't realistically say that the militias will "find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned" any time soon.

It's the imposing part that makes it impossible. In a libertarian environment you don't impose. Afghans are under a Islamic Republic. That means their religion rules the people which is not in any way conformant with the NAP. You pick a country like that and attempt to compare it with even basic human rights and that's about as far away from libertarianism as you can get. There is no means to compete at all and probably never will be.

[hmongotaku]

Besides being the top growing opium country, it's also has 1 billion dollars worth of lithium on der hills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YNbfpQNqk&feature=related

Like McCain said, He don't care if we're in there for another 100 years!

[Hawker]

Surely the problem is Afghanistan is that there are thousands willing to fight and die for their right to impose their beliefs on other Afghans?  They have been able to do so for the last 40 years with no sign of an ending.  There is no monopoly of violence in Afghanistan.  You can't realistically say that the militias will "find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned" any time soon.

It's the imposing part that makes it impossible. In a libertarian environment you don't impose. Afghans are under a Islamic Republic. That means their religion rules the people which is not in any way conformant with the NAP. You pick a country like that and attempt to compare it with even basic human rights and that's about as far away from libertarianism as you can get. There is no means to compete at all and probably never will be.

A country like that? Its worth remembering that until the destruction of the Afghan state in the 1970s, it was a peaceful land and Kabul was a very popular tourist destination.  The present mess in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of the destruction of the Afghan state. 

Afghans are now under several Islamic governments that are competing against one another and in most cases backed by foreign governments.  That surely is the point is talking about the place - it shows the alternative to a strong democratic government is violent competition between putative governments.