Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism

[Violet]

In an attempt to create order I honestly don't see any index of anarchy to work out. Anarchy means societal chaos. It will not work. Neither does over-control, let me add.

I would urge you to seriously look at anarchism and explain to me how it could ever possibly work... Just my little input, sorry I don't have the time to read up on all of your posts.

The thing about anarchy is that even with the state gone: there remains all the other players on the field. Some of these players are powerful and one must tread lightly around them... some of these players are weak and you could butcher them so long as they are not involved in some way with the power players.

Government is anything but necessary to the function of a society at large. It's the rulebook of the important players that is responsible for the 'laws' of a place with no laws. Generally, murder is on this on a wide scale. To openly murder in an anarchistic society is likely to bring the wrath of that society down upon you. As typically is to openly steal. Do honestly you think that because there is no state there are also no 'laws'? As if.

[HeyItsZeus]

In an attempt to create order I honestly don't see any index of anarchy to work out. Anarchy means societal chaos. It will not work. Neither does over-control, let me add.

I would urge you to seriously look at anarchism and explain to me how it could ever possibly work... Just my little input, sorry I don't have the time to read up on all of your posts.

The thing about anarchy is that even with the state gone: there remains all the other players on the field. Some of these players are powerful and one must tread lightly around them... some of these players are weak and you could butcher them so long as they are not involved in some way with the power players.

Government is anything but necessary to the function of a society at large. It's the rulebook of the important players that is responsible for the 'laws' of a place with no laws. Generally, murder is on this on a wide scale. To openly murder in an anarchistic society is likely to bring the wrath of that society down upon you. As typically is to openly steal. Do honestly you think that because there is no state there are also no 'laws'? As if.

That's not what I said. I just like it when big brother can help. Like when a government gives health care and other human necessities.

[Violet]

I suppose it is a misconception.

I'm a capitalist, a left wing capitalist if you will. I'm going to admit, whether it be out of my ignorance or not, anarchy scares me. I feel secure with big brother as long as big brother is kind and caring. Democracy is nice because it let's you change and pick your big brother. Libertarianism takes the assumption that big brother is not necessary, or as necessary as people like myself think he is which from what I can pull together is completely false. That's how I make my assertion.

For me, as long as a democracy is in place, regulated capitalism is the way to go.

Democracy is disgusting because you do not get to pick your 'big brother'. The 'tyranny of the masses' does. And if you are not among them: you are very unlikely to like the eventual reward for being different in a democratic society.

And libertarianism has squat diddly to do with anarchy, hon.

---

So libertarianism is regulated capitalism?

Could it be possible I'm a libertarian?

No, none of that has anything to do with regulations! You can buy, sell and consume anything at all you want for any price you are willing to pay with anybody who is willing to trade, so long as everyone consents and everyone is fully informed. Regulations attempt to restrict this framework.

Granted... 'so long as everyone consents and everyone is fully informed' is a regulation.

---

That's not what I said. I just like it when big brother can help. Like when a government gives health care and other human necessities.

If you like it when more powerful people than you help you... there is this funny little thing called 'friendship' and also one called 'manipulation'. I don't like it when someone more powerful than me helps me unless it serves to speed up my current goal... and even then I am wary of help from those who do not need to help me.

[theVOID]

Granted... 'so long as everyone consents and everyone is fully informed' is a regulation.

No, it's really not, it's the difference between criminal and legal activity, A lack of consent is force, a lack of information is fraud - It would be 'regulations' if some government stooge had to approve the contract before hand but in this case the contract would be made and the persons involved would know that if they are fraudulent they can be fined/imprisoned should the other party complain.

Democracy is disgusting because you do not get to pick your 'big brother'. The 'tyranny of the masses' does. And if you are not among them: you are very unlikely to like the eventual reward for being different in a democratic society.

Amen! This fucking democracy can lock me in a little cell because I like getting high after a days work.

And libertarianism has squat diddly to do with anarchy, hon.

Well... Given the definition some forms of anarchy are libertarian, but the way I see it they are sibling ideologies - Either way, it's a little more than diddly squat (or squat on a diddly, your pass-time ).

That's not what I said. I just like it when big brother can help. Like when a government gives health care and other human necessities.

If all you're concerned with is healthcare you're not at odds with most libertarians, we would advocate a system where neither insurance (except catastrophe) nor single-payer are necessary, for instance; You go to the doctor and get treated, they give you an invoice, if you earn lots of money you pay for it yourself, if you earn some money the 'pool' will pay some of it and if you're truly broke the 'pool' will pay for it all.

The 'pool' would be made up of charitable donations and a taxpayer safety net, assuming you can let a hospital pay it's income taxes into the pool you already have a substantial source of returning revenues, considering that people who are taxed less tend to be more charitable you would have larger support from individuals and some taxes can be collected to make up any shortfall.

The real advantage is that rather than everyone being insured for everything which creates a kind of demand-in-advance, pushing up prices, the demand for healthcare is representative of the number of people receiving care at any one time - It also gives people incentive to manage their health more carefully because they will be responsible for more of the costs, rather than passing the burden to everyone else.

You'd also need to get rid of the fucking absurd malpractice laws so genuine mistakes are seen for what they are, replace it with something that punishes gross negligence only - That way the hospitals can make better use of nurses and medical technicians which will also keep prices down. They also need more specified training, something a nurse friend of mine is adamant about, she is working in a respiration ward and says she has used, over her decade in medicine, less than 10% of what she was taught - She could have been qualified in 2 years instead of 4.

Sorry, by Utopia I meant your ideal societal set-up. I understand what you mean, but my major opposition to the libertarian view is the downplay of the governments role on society. In a democracy the society is represented by the government so overall government is what the voter makes it.

In a true democracy your nation would be a totalitarian Christian cesspit, the majority would have voted long ago for a "Christian nation" and if you were in the way of their vision of society they'd step on you like a bug.

With libertarian rules in place the government won't have the chance to be good, but I do acknowledge that with these same rules it is more difficult for government to cause harm.

The Government can't simply "do good" because they don't own anything, in order to do something for somebody they have to take the resources from someone else. Tell me, how likely are you to ever use Obama's fancy "high speed rail" that is costing hundreds of billions so you can get from NY to LA? How many people in your entire nation will use it? Fuck all, and that means that in order to promote a specific ideological agenda your 'collective thug machine' has to coerce people out of their resources via threats of imprisonment, taking their resource to build something that they don't fucking want.

If there was any real demand for high speed rail the government wouldn't have to do anything, if the genuine demand for it is there the markets will act, some capitalists somewhere will take investment from those who voluntarily give it, build a rail station and then charge a fare at a profit to make back the cost of the investment - That hasn't happened and now everyone else not only has to pay to build the fucking thing but everyone else is going to be taxed to subsidise the fares for the minority who will use it for as long as the damn thing is in operation.

My position is that with the correct government in place, one with minimal corruption, programs and laws will be made for the betterment of society. But first we need to have educated voters...

Oh, the "betterment of society" now is it? It was for the "betterment of society" that your president spent trillions of dollars that you didn't have in order to make sure these poor bankers could sleep under silk sheets at night. I'm going to let homeless people live in your lounge, after all, it's "better for society", and you can't own any pets either because the money you spend on your beloved dog could give a child an education! I'm sure that arresting a 20 year old for drinking in a bar is for the "betterment of society" too! Lock me up Zeus, I smoke weed and it's "better for society" if nobody does. The "Betterment of society" is the biggest crock of shit excuse for stepping on one person to benefit others to ever exist, it has no concern at all for the rights of people who are in the way of some agenda, if you stand to loose because it's better for someone else somewhere then either move out of the way or you're going to get trampled by the mob.

If you want to make society better you can do it without fucking people over, give what you don't need, encourage others to do the same, promote desires and values that benefit others, encourage attitudes of thrift and investment rather than consumption and self-gratification.

I was totally stoked when I got a $8500 tax credit to help with my house purchase!

Wow, they cause the single biggest asset bubble that did more harm to more people than any other economic gaff in history by doing pretty much exactly that and they still haven't learned their lesson?

Un fucking believable.

Oh, and by the way Rhizo, welcome to the "People who are out to personally fuck Min" club.

[LinuxGal]

An oxymoron and a half. Libertarian means far more than "small government", and in any case, I'd be hard pushed to find a small government way to implementing socialism. You chuck the ideas of freedom that come with Libertarianism out of the window when you append the word "socialist".

A libertarian is a Republican who wants legal edibles at his same-sex marriage reception, and leaves a vending machine outside his front door on Halloween with a note that says, "Trick or treat, you little shits."

[Jehanne]

An oxymoron and a half. Libertarian means far more than "small government", and in any case, I'd be hard pushed to find a small government way to implementing socialism. You chuck the ideas of freedom that come with Libertarianism out of the window when you append the word "socialist".

A libertarian is a Republican who wants legal edibles at his same-sex marriage reception, and leaves a vending machine outside his front door on Halloween with a note that says, "Trick or treat, you little shits."

With or without Tap & Pay?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Eleven years. Eleven fucking years.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

An oxymoron and a half. Libertarian means far more than "small government", and in any case, I'd be hard pushed to find a small government way to implementing socialism. You chuck the ideas of freedom that come with Libertarianism out of the window when you append the word "socialist".

A libertarian is a Republican who wants legal edibles at his same-sex marriage reception, and leaves a vending machine outside his front door on Halloween with a note that says, "Trick or treat, you little shits."

I must admit I do not understand your analogy. Libertarians are almost by definition pro-same-sex-marriage. Some libertarian politicians in the US, though, voted against the law that would legalize same-sex-marriage nation-wide on the grounds that they are against federalism (does not make a lot of sense to me, I think that this goes precisely the opposite of the idea of human rights: rights of the states are not human rights, they are rights of the governments, which, in my opinion, should not be protected), but that's not because they are against same-sex-marriage per se.

[Ranjr]

A libertarian is a Republican who wants legal edibles at his same-sex marriage reception, and leaves a vending machine outside his front door on Halloween with a note that says, "Trick or treat, you little shits."

I must admit I do not understand your analogy. Libertarians are almost by definition pro-same-sex-marriage. Some libertarian politicians in the US, though, voted against the law that would legalize same-sex-marriage nation-wide on the grounds that they are against federalism (does not make a lot of sense to me, I think that this goes precisely the opposite of the idea of human rights: rights of the states are not human rights, they are rights of the governments, which, in my opinion, should not be protected), but that's not because they are against same-sex-marriage per se.

I read her post as a joke about how so many, maybe a majority, of self-proclaimed Libertarians in the US are actually closet Republicans who want to avoid revealing or defending the way they vote.

[FlatAssembler]

I must admit I do not understand your analogy. Libertarians are almost by definition pro-same-sex-marriage. Some libertarian politicians in the US, though, voted against the law that would legalize same-sex-marriage nation-wide on the grounds that they are against federalism (does not make a lot of sense to me, I think that this goes precisely the opposite of the idea of human rights: rights of the states are not human rights, they are rights of the governments, which, in my opinion, should not be protected), but that's not because they are against same-sex-marriage per se.

I read her post as a joke about how so many, maybe a majority, of self-proclaimed Libertarians in the US are actually closet Republicans who want to avoid revealing or defending the way they vote.

Right. I think true libertarians should not vote. Like the anarcho-capitalist and vegan philosopher Michael Huemer said, in most elections it's impossible to be an informed voter, and being an uninformed voter is positively immoral. Uninformed voting is as if some tourist asked you where some restaurant is, and you, instead of admitting you don't know, make a guess and probably misdirect him.