|
RocketLunatic posted:Curious how a libertarian society would handle immigration, refugees, and so on. Mile-wide tire fires, automated turrets, self-healing mine fields. You know, all the reasonable stuff we've come to know and love from libertarianism.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:Would it be aggression to simply use roads and hiking trails through the unforgiving deserts to these lands? Yes. It's my land, get the gently caress off of it right now before I blow your brains out. quote:Would libertarian villages/communes/cult headquarters have a vacancy sign when space opens up? Would it be lawful for them to camp out on some land where no one is living and start their own socialist paradise? Hypothetically yes and yes, but Libertopia isn't the kind of place with "unclaimed land." Somebody is gonna own every last acre, and they're going to exact tolls or vengeance on any passers by.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
I think asking how a Libertarian society would deal with things is just a worthless question beyond realizing that no, they can't deal with anything. As I said before, it's really like any new-age mysticism or anything similar that talks about a massive awakening and transformation in humanity. It's a world so unlike ours. I mean, the minute you start talking about a world without coercion, you just wonder how that would happen. People aren't coercive because the state exists. If anything, the state exists because people are coercive. People like to be in control, and people will amass it. When you have a worldview that basically says "Hey, all of these problems will solve themselves," how can you really have a reasonable conversation about anything? It requires you to start off with such a fundamentally flawed presumption of people. It would only work if everyone came together and gave up their own self interest. It's like the Toto song "Africa" - "There's nothing that 100 men or more could ever do." And I'm done. I just quoted Toto in a political conversation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:Curious how a libertarian society would handle immigration, refugees, and so on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR-MrJwqcFc Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I think asking how a Libertarian society would deal with things is just a worthless question beyond realizing that no, they can't deal with anything. As I said before, it's really like any new-age mysticism or anything similar that talks about a massive awakening and transformation in humanity. It's a world so unlike ours. I mean, the minute you start talking about a world without coercion, you just wonder how that would happen. People aren't coercive because the state exists. If anything, the state exists because people are coercive. People like to be in control, and people will amass it. This is assuming that libertarians want a world without coercion. But really, if you examine things like the NAP, what they want is a world where they're never compelled to do anything or refrain from doing anything, but where they are free to coerce others based on the rather arbitrary definitions of initiatory violence. Their worldview doesn't work because it's disingenuous to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR-MrJwqcFc Very helpful. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
So Jrod, please elaborate more on how private entities would never back the use of force or get their own little armies if it proved convenient. https://www.propublica.org/article/firestone-and-the-warlord-intro Real Life posted:Firestone served as a source of food, fuel, trucks and cash used by Taylor’s ragtag rebel army, according to interviews, internal corporate documents and declassified diplomatic cables. Bolding mine. "We abhor violence and would never initiate force...unless we got a sweet deal out of it!" I guess it encapsulates libertarian ethics quite well, though. Between paying a higher tax or tariff to someone else or setting a few vilalges on fire and hacking limbs off, you go with the option that makes best ROI! Do you work for Firestone, perchance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Let's not forget that if anything goes wrong in Libertopia, you can just exercise your freedom of speech to post bad reviews on the internet, thus denying the company business! Oh, unless the company forbids you: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/tripadvisor-bad-review-hotel-refund-100-fine-customers-blackpool On phone, so hard to quote but for tldr: a couple stayed in a bad hotel, complained online, then were fined Ł100 on their credit card for violating a 'no bad reviews' policy of the hotel's! Regretfully, this ingenious free market ray was referred to a state watchdog and now the hotel can't charge dissatisfied customers. In Libertopia, this usage of contracts and the free market would have been prevented by contracts and the free market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
I think the thing that bugs me is that, even when you're being really charitable about their ideals, is that you sort of run into a wall of "aggression is wrong, these people are only powerful and in charge because of collusion and aggression"and, well, doesn't that mean that aggression works, that force trumps everything but more force? At best, it's like a horrible Prisoner's Dilemma where you're stuck being aggressive just to not fall behind. Although speaking of which, isn't the current optimal strategy to drop shibboleths at the start of the game so you can burn the people not showing the correct shibboleth and support those who do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
If you're talking about what I think you are, that strategy relied on the players recognizing each other and then some of them all-defecting and others all-cooperating with each other, essentially taking dives for the teammate all-defector. Whenever a player encountered a non teammate, yeah, all-defecting to minimize their points was the strategy. This resulted in a team that took a lot of the highest scoring spots, but also the lowest. E: tit for tat (with possibly rare forgiveness) remains the best strategy if you only have control over one player, iirc. I think, I'm really not up on it at all but find it fascinating as a layman. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I guess it encapsulates libertarian ethics quite well, though. Between paying a higher tax or tariff to someone else or setting a few vilalges on fire and hacking limbs off, you go with the option that makes the best ROI! Those villagers clearly had too high a time preference, or they would have saved and invested like Aryan übermenschen and would easily been able to hire Goodyear or Michelin to protect their rights. That the villagers didn't have the wherewithal to plan adequately for their own defence is hardly the fault of Firestone who after all has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders which it cannot be blamed for upholding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Those villagers weren't mixing their labor with the land properly anyway, so it was free for the taking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
On that note, I'd like to put forward a free market hypothetical that is free from interference by any states that could somehow inevitably be to blame for such a scenario. Supposing that the Market Revolution is a wild success, and all are free to associate and voluntarily exchange as they see fit. I would like to follow one particular group in this new society, who I will call the Pioneers. The Pioneers are a group of like-minded individuals, forming a voluntary mini-society based around their own philosophy. For the sake of argument, I will assume that this philosophy is one that everyone reading this will see as benign, to avoid our Horace Greely fantasy from being derailed by hidden fascism. The Pioneers decide that the purity of their beliefs are best preserved by starting a self-sufficient society, somewhere out in an unoccupied frontier that we will also assume exists. They successfully found their mini-utopia on that frontier, mixing their labor with the land and avoiding any of the possible pitfalls that could ruin such a dream. Call it a covenant community, call it a non-networked Dispute Resolution Organization, call it an anarchist Free Territory, but the overall result is the same: not a world-shattering marvel of progress, but a modest-yet-comfortable existence, free from coercion and initiatory violence of any kind. That is, of course, until the barbarians arrive. They come without warning or negotiation, and commit horrible violence against our pastoral paradise. The Pioneers were not pacifists by any stretch, but they are ultimately unable to repel the assault, and the attackers eventually kill every man woman and child in the village. We could discuss endlessly the immorality of such an act, and the various market measures that could or could not be used to punish them, but those are not my concern. My concern is this: with the rightful owners of that land dead and their heirs along with them, who owns that land now? Clearly it cannot simply pass to the ones who killed them, but who else could have a claim on it? There is no past owner to revert to, no state or lord to assert an indirect claim. Does it simply become unowned land until another group mixes their labor with it? And who else would be that new party but the people who just invaded it? By any reasonable standard we can claim, that property will fall into the hands of that violent horde, rewarding them for their aggression with a village and lands already prepared for their occupancy. How do Libertarian ethics resolve the question of land ownership in this case? And if you claim that this is an absurd edge case, I would like to point out that killing a group of people and taking their property is not exactly an uncommon event in human history, state-supported or no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
As Ayn rand showed, that these savages obviously could not have real ownership of their land, so it belongs to the civilized invaders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
And if they weren't savages before, we'll be sure to tell our children and eventual neighbors they were, thus making it historical truth! I hear the Pioneers liked to sacrifice a child in a hideous cannibal blood rite every full moon, the bastards. Good thing we killed them all!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:How do Libertarian ethics resolve the question of land ownership in this case? And if you claim that this is an absurd edge case, I would like to point out that killing a group of people and taking their property is not exactly an uncommon event in human history, state-supported or no. This is similar to the question of how Libertarian law would handle investigating the death of an unidentified corpse. Nobody is obliged to exact restitution from the attackers: the most they can do is boycott them, but I'm sure many other such small nations would be afraid to do so. As for the rightful ownership of the land, logically it can only belong to the invaders. By knocking your people down and mixing their swords with your hearts, they have incontrovertibly mixed their labor with the land, and if they settle there and take up your farms, nobody would be able to argue that 1) they were putting the land to use and 2) no other living person had a better claim. In a way, this is the fundamental point of libertarianism: never to initiate violence, least of all against property rights derived logically. The only way that bad actors can be punished is via mechanisms of the free market. If the people of Libertopia exact bloody vengeance on the barbarians, they have made a consequentialist decision, rather than deontological one, and they could no longer claim to be truly Libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Guys, in real libertopia they would use their early warning drones to detect the invaders and then get all of the surrounding villages to rise up as one to repel them, just like what happened throughout history when a much larger invading force threatened a small community. Or at least that's what jrod said when this was brought up before, only he needed about 7 paragraphs to say it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:In a way, this is the fundamental point of libertarianism: never to initiate violence, least of all against property rights derived logically. The only way that bad actors can be punished is via mechanisms of the free market. If the people of Libertopia exact bloody vengeance on the barbarians, they have made a consequentialist decision, rather than deontological one, and they could no longer claim to be truly Libertarian. Yeah, and this sense of "don't initiate violence, but don't make me give up the goods and services that I received through the violence of others" tends to slip out from time to time. If my home is settled on the bones of a murdered village, that's no concern of mine even if descendents come around to reclaim the land; I certainly didn't kill anyone, and I detest initiating violence and now that I have watered the lawn clearly the land is now mine. The logical conclusion of this two faced aspect of the NAP leads to situations where you can keep slaves, and beat them, you just can't enslave an individual yourself. Which is exactly how they justify slavery in the south. Those plantation owners didn't put the slaves in chains, they came that way! It would break the NAP to try and free those slaves, better let the free market handle it
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Guys, in real libertopia they would use their early warning drones to detect the invaders and then get all of the surrounding villages to rise up as one to repel them, just like what happened throughout history when a much larger invading force threatened a small community. Nah you just assassinate the barbarian leader duh then no one will dare general a barbarian horde to aggress you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Oh right, I forgot that the assassination thing was brought up, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Hey, Jrodefeld. Let's talk about property rights. So, I buy a house for $200,000. 3 years later, somebody buys the plot of land next to me and builds a sewage treatment plant or strip club or meth lab, or some other undesirable location where you would not want to live next to. The value of my house shoots down to $50,000 on a good day. How can I protect my property rights? If this other establishment was not next to my house, it would be worth at least $200,000. Am I powerless in this scenario? Can I burn down the sewage treatment plant to protect my property rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Hey, Jrodefeld. Let's talk about property rights. Something something Zoning rights determined by DRO, something Liberty, something using violence against me for peacefully wanting to dismantle your society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Caros posted:Something something Zoning rights determined by DRO, something Liberty, something using violence against me for peacefully wanting to dismantle your society. Yes. I am going to ignore what you have to say. I'm curious what you have to say about this article written by some guy you never heard of instead. [Long article from a Mises.org link.] See, obviously, in a Libertarian society, this would never happen!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Yes. I am going to ignore what you have to say. You forgot to throw in "I would appreciate your comments." at the end
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Let's not concern ourselves with outcomes, as a libertarian I know logically that the means always justify the ends
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Hey, Jrodefeld. Let's talk about property rights. What if you're in a primarily White neighborhood in one of those not-so-tolerant states in the South, and say that there is an influx of minorities who start buying up houses and thus lowering property values. Should such a thing be stopped?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What if you're in a primarily White neighborhood in one of those not-so-tolerant states in the South, and say that there is an influx of minorities who start buying up houses and thus lowering property values. Should such a thing be stopped? Well as Murray Rothbard and Hans Herman Hoppe would say. (Cut and paste articles from LewRockwell.com.) You see this is perfectly good and all about spreading Liberty. Also in this youtube clip Stephen Moleneux explains how a DRO could do this. Also Liberty. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
If Jrodefeld comes back, you know he's going to be upset that we have replaced him with a Jrodbot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:If Jrodefeld comes back, you know he's going to be upset that we have replaced him with a Jrodbot. The people demand, andthe Invisible poo poo Hand of the Free Post Market provides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:If Jrodefeld comes back, you know he's going to be upset that we have replaced him with a Jrodbot. It was cheaper than keeping him around and less infuriating so the market decided to get its dumb poo poo elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
We built the first robot that works entirely in paradoxes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Does anyone else have Libertarian friends they're willing to throw into the thread? I figure we'll either get a larger variety of arguments (ha), more frequent updates of the same arguments, or another meltdown like that Finnish dude. I'm okay with all of these possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:If you're talking about what I think you are, that strategy relied on the players recognizing each other and then some of them all-defecting and others all-cooperating with each other, essentially taking dives for the teammate all-defector. Whenever a player encountered a non teammate, yeah, all-defecting to minimize their points was the strategy. This resulted in a team that took a lot of the highest scoring spots, but also the lowest. I still get them impression Libertarianism brings up that issue and kind of dances around it, since they imply that violence and force are extremely effective, how could anyone afford not to use it? I was going to say it's a lot easier to be moral when you're not constantly tempted to sin just to get by, but it turns out rich people tend to be slightly more assholish. Maybe they just want everyone to be virtuously poor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Does anyone else have Libertarian friends they're willing to throw into the thread? I figure we'll either get a larger variety of arguments (ha), more frequent updates of the same arguments, or another meltdown like that Finnish dude. I'm okay with all of these possibilities. Sandy, all my friends are sane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I still get them impression Libertarianism brings up that issue and kind of dances around it, since they imply that violence and force are extremely effective, how could anyone afford not to use it? This hits the nail on the head. For the corporate Libertarians that fund the movement, it's a simple matter of knowing that they've won the game, and that violence or government intervention are the only ways they'll be knocked down, so why not conflate the unacceptable one wit the universally-loved one and convince everyone else that they ought to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just like your great grandfather did? This becomes especially clear when you ask what would happen to existing capital if we decided to transition to Libertopia today. Jrode will rant and rave about how it's the Government's fault that a company like Exxon or Walmart is as big and dangerous as it is, but however ill-gotten, no libertarian suggests loving with their gains.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:If Jrodefeld comes back, you know he's going to be upset that we have replaced him with a Jrodbot. Robots act. It's an axiom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:Robots act. It's an axiom. Is programming a robot coercion then? After all, I am forcing the robot to not harm humans. It is not voluntarily choosing not to harm humans. There is no place for robots in the An-Cap Society. Jrod, explain to us why you hate robots!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Is programming a robot coercion then? After all, I am forcing the robot to not harm humans. It is not voluntarily choosing not to harm humans. There is no place for robots in the An-Cap Society. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Does anyone else have Libertarian friends they're willing to throw into the thread? I figure we'll either get a larger variety of arguments (ha), more frequent updates of the same arguments, or another meltdown like that Finnish dude. I'm okay with all of these possibilities. I can honestly say that I'm not friends with any libertarians. I mean, I know people who are libertarians, but as soon as I hear them talking about how Wal-Mart's entry-level employees should be grateful they were hired at all I mentally file them away as human garbage and move on. Anyway, since the whole thread seems to be taking a break, I don't think anything in this thread has made me laugh harder than jrode's bit "by posting on the internet instead of using violence, you have embraced the concepts of libertarianism without even knowing it!" I mean, the rest of it is dumb and bad, but that's like the crown jewel of dumb and bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
I have a couple of friends who used to be minarchists of one flavor or another, but the events of 2008 and since have thoroughly disabused them of such madness. In particular, they tended to be the sort who were initially enamored of Ron Paul before they knew anything about him beyond the superficial, and once the discovered he was only one or two costume changes removed from a klansman that ended pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:24
|
|