"If it moves, privatise it. If it doesn't move, privatise it." - Walter Block. Nick's a pretty switched on young man. Wish I'd had the opportunity to meet Neville Kennard before he died. He was a member of a free-thinking, entrepreneurial and philanthropic family, Neville Kennard always upheld individual liberty. He supported lots of libertarian-related activities and think tanks. He was the first chairman, the first donor, the first distinguished fellow and an emeritus trustee of The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS). He was a great supporter of the Property and Freedom Society and its most generous donor. He was also a regular columnist for economics.org.au. He even participated in the Workers Party.
"I think people should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want. We haven't tried that in a while. Maybe it'll work." - George Carlin
I'm actually quite surprised that this post did not attract more comments... What's the matter with all you gubmint lovers out there ... the cat suddenly got your tongue?? :lol:
shirbit man - i obviously missed a very witty (but politically incorrect comment (which would have made it all the more amusing!) Could you PM me what was deleted sos i can also enjoy/savour it? :lol:
I was under the impression that people who wanted no government were anarchists not libertarians. The point libertarians are making is that government has overstepped it's boundaries and become too bloated, not that there is not still essential services that a smaller government will need to supply - like the defence force.
Hawkeye said previously he'd correct me on this, but you could argue that anarcho-capitalists are the only ones who apply the libertarian political philosophy in all aspects of society - namely that what is deemed immoral for an individual must also be considered immoral for any entity as well - while the minarchists and classical liberals (and even the objectivists who don't class themselves as Libertarians at all) allow a certain level of immorality by allowing/promoting a Government entity that has exceptional powers. What is a "true" libertarian is therefore debatable but I would say that using libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism is probably gaining ground.
You're not a true liberatrian Maybe I did say that, but I don't subscribe to the "you're only a true libertarian if...". And at that end of the day it's only a label anyway. It already means different things for different people. It's interesting that a lot of anarchists don't like the label anarchist (due to the connotations with the guys in black and also because it is widely believed that anarchy means chaos) and many are now coining the term voluntarism instead. Which tbh I kind of like because it's easier for people to get their heads around. EDIT: lol, I can't even spell it right.
^ Why name the animals? A group of complicated inter-related concepts is simpler for the human brain to comprehend, understand and develop and allows storylines to be written to test the logical boundaries that a given set of concepts leads to.
Labels are conveniences necessary for everyday communication. But you can't rely on them to always mean the same thing to everyone. Which imo, is where many of the disagreements on SS revolve around. People arguing about a label because they define it differently.
:lol: Trying to have a single label for people who believe in individualism is fraught. Herding cats would be easier
you are correct of course in terms of the official terminology. I still believe the term "anarchists" is very misleading though as it implies something bad, whereas in reality - the absence of all forms of government would be the best thing that could ever happen to mankind! To my mind the only remnants of gubmint which should exist are a truly independant court/judicial system and a very small and focussed police force to enforce court orders. And yes - a defence force too. Other than that there should be absolutely no gubmint at all! the only problem though - with having even such a limited gubmint - is that it would attempt to grow again into a big/socialist gubmint, because that's what cancers do... and gubmints of every form are nothing but a cancer. The US gubmint has proven this over and over in that it started out as a minimalist libertartian gubmint - constrained by the greatest and 'bestest' constitution the world has ever seen - yet that gubmint has grown like the cancerious tumour that it is and has trampled on their constitution in the process - rendering it to be a worthless piece of paper! So gubmints - even libertarian ones - cannot be trusted. It would be interesting to see what Ron Paul would do - if he were president - to ensure that all his hard work to downsize gubmint didn't simply get undone as has occurred over the last 100 years.... I don't think there is ANYTHING that can be done - except to make any form of gubmint ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL!
You are right, it is misleading. The actual context is monarchy = one ruler anarchy = no rulers But in reality it is more associated with chaos and disorder. The problem I have with this is that it is still essentially a protection racket. ie one group has the monopoly power to provide protection for everyone with no competitors allowed. But I can see where it comes from. I thought the same too. We need laws and therefore you need a court system and police to enforce them. But like I say behind the names it's really still just a monopoly racket. If you had independent security agencies where each person could basically choose what level of protection they want. ie, you could imagine the basics being murder, theft, rape, assault, etc. You would then have mediation services which each agency would contract with to provide resolution to disputes between customers of different agencies. So basically, when you sign up for one of these agencies for protection, part of the contract will be that you agree to abide by the decisions of the independent mediation service that the agency uses. There's a lot of work out there describing how this would work and how, and though it wouldn't be perfect, it would most likely lead to a fairer, more just and more cost-effective system.
+1. Some interesting literature on this topic (including historical examples of certain elements). It's seems unlikely to happen but it can readily work. If we ever get the opportunity to test the final boundary I'll be stoked.
It was what pushed me over the edge from minarchism into anarchism. When I thought about the potential of this and how it would most assuredly be much better than the travesty of a justice system we currently have, that's when I realised I couldn't and didn't want to support the minarchist idea any longer.
Sadly a lot of young 'libertarians' I interact with on means such as Youtube think libertarianism is just about taking drugs and making them legal. It's sad, they are so limited to the possibilities of where freedom of action and the freedom of the mind can take mankind.
