Anything That's Peaceful

[Newtosilver]

I always say stupid stuff like in a Libertarian world if people can have guns then why can't I have a flame thrower?

Well in the US you can, when Libertarianism comes in in Australia I am spending some cash and getting one - so cool...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/g...SF&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook

 

[SpacePete]

How is Libertarianism different from a might-makes-right system of societal organization?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I always say stupid stuff

How is Libertarianism different from a might-makes-right system of societal organization?

I'm not familiar with such an organisational system. Does it enhance the NAP or work against it?

 

[Newtosilver]

I always say stupid stuff

How is Libertarianism different from a might-makes-right system of societal organization?

I'm not familiar with such an organisational system. Does it enhance the NAP or work against it?

Shiney yourself and Boardsilver have been extremely quite on the Libertarianism debacle in Chile, I thought you would have been extremely keen to look how Libertarianism works in practice and not just how things should work in theory?

 

[bordsilver]

I always say stupid stuff like in a Libertarian world if people can have guns then why can't I have a flame thrower?

Well in the US you can, when Libertarianism comes in in Australia I am spending some cash and getting one - so cool...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/g...SF&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook

Remember that under Libertarianism you are not prevented from doing anything that's peaceful. This applies to every aspect of human action. Actions that violate or are reasonably likely to violate this principle are illegitimate and in such circumstances others are legitimately allowed to use violence (or the threat thereof) in self-defence.

 

[bordsilver]

I always say stupid stuff

How is Libertarianism different from a might-makes-right system of societal organization?

I'm not familiar with such an organisational system. Does it enhance the NAP or work against it?

Shiney yourself and Boardsilver have been extremely quite on the Libertarianism debacle in Chile, I thought you would have been extremely keen to look how Libertarianism works in practice and not just how things should work in theory?

Well if you bothered to read and comprehend what Hawkeye and I have previously said on the topic (in the Beyond democracy thread) then you'd realise that you are making irrelevant points that in no way undermine how Libertarianism works in practice.

 

[Newtosilver]

I always say stupid stuff like in a Libertarian world if people can have guns then why can't I have a flame thrower?

Well in the US you can, when Libertarianism comes in in Australia I am spending some cash and getting one - so cool...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/g...SF&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook

Remember that under Libertarianism you are not prevented from doing anything that's peaceful. This applies to every aspect of human action. Actions that violate or are reasonably likely to violate this principle are illegitimate and in such circumstances others are legitimately allowed to use violence (or the threat thereof) in self-defence.

That is awesome I have always wanted a flamethrower, I would only ever use my flamethrower for peaceful purposes or for self defence at th food court at the local shopping centre. I also want a Hyena or a lion, who would own a poodle when you can have a Hyena.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Shiney yourself and Boardsilver have been extremely quite on the Libertarianism debacle in Chile, I thought you would have been extremely keen to look how Libertarianism works in practice and not just how things should work in theory?

You know more about it than I do, and as far as I know, the matter is still being resolved.

 

[bordsilver]

I always say stupid stuff like in a Libertarian world if people can have guns then why can't I have a flame thrower?

Well in the US you can, when Libertarianism comes in in Australia I am spending some cash and getting one - so cool...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/g...SF&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook

Remember that under Libertarianism you are not prevented from doing anything that's peaceful. This applies to every aspect of human action. Actions that violate or are reasonably likely to violate this principle are illegitimate and in such circumstances others are legitimately allowed to use violence (or the threat thereof) in self-defence.

That is awesome I have always wanted a flamethrower, I would only ever use my flamethrower for peaceful purposes or for self defence at th food court at the local shopping centre. I also want a Hyena or a lion, who would own a poodle when you can have a Hyena.

If your actions are truly peaceful then fine. You'll find that in the majority of cases where you actually worry about other people having flamethrowers, hyenas or lions and you wish to constrain their actions then you doing the same thing will be causing similar worry to other people and they will wish to constrain your action (ie following the Golden Rule is a good yardstick).

Personally I don't care if you want to own a lion like the Dubbo Zoo just so long as you can demonstrate that your precautions against your property causing injury to myself or others are similarly as effective as theirs.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I'd prefer he kept a quoll .

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Back to Somalia again? Good grief ...... and I'd just Un-ignored you.

 

[precious roar]

Problem as I see it, bordsilver, is that libertarians often complain about taxes, and that the governments use force (violence?) to take away their hard-earned cash, so how is the government to provide the safety net for those wretched souls in need of help?

As I mentioned previously, libertarianism sounds great in theory (as does communism) but in reality, how do you stop peoples' innate greed from manipulating markets?

 

[SpacePete]

Back to Somalia again? Good grief ...... and I'd just Un-ignored you.

Good grief, reality check Charlie Brown.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Problem as I see it, bordsilver, is that libertarians often complain about taxes, and that the governments use force (violence?) to take away their hard-earned cash, so how is the government to provide the safety net for those wretched souls in need of help?

It shouldn't, charities and Friendly Societies would task themselves to do that.

Or maybe their families could look after them. :/

As I mentioned previously, libertarianism sounds great in theory (as does communism) but in reality, how do you stop peoples' innate greed from manipulating markets?

Communism sounds like shit actually.

How do you stop people's innate greed from manipulating markets? Ignoring the fact that the greatest manipulators of markets are our governments, competition is what reduces manipulation.

 

[Newtosilver]

Remember that under Libertarianism you are not prevented from doing anything that's peaceful. This applies to every aspect of human action. Actions that violate or are reasonably likely to violate this principle are illegitimate and in such circumstances others are legitimately allowed to use violence (or the threat thereof) in self-defence.

That is awesome I have always wanted a flamethrower, I would only ever use my flamethrower for peaceful purposes or for self defence at th food court at the local shopping centre. I also want a Hyena or a lion, who would own a poodle when you can have a Hyena.

If your actions are truly peaceful then fine. You'll find that in the majority of cases where you actually worry about other people having flamethrowers, hyenas or lions and you wish to constrain their actions then you doing the same thing will be causing similar worry to other people and they will wish to constrain your action (ie following the Golden Rule is a good yardstick).

Personally I don't care if you want to own a lion like the Dubbo Zoo just so long as you can demonstrate that your precautions against your property causing injury to myself or others are similarly as effective as theirs.

Sounds reasonable to me....

"He was in hot water because of the animals, because of permits, and [the animals] escaping all the time," Ms White said. A few weeks ago, she said, she had to avoid some camels grazing on the side of a freeway.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-15364027

Since there will be no zoning regulations in a Libertarian society you could have something similar to the above beside a child care center if you wanted to...... That makes sense to me, I do not see how anyone would have a problem with that.

 

[bordsilver]

Just like the abolitionists didn't particularly care about proving that economies could function without slavery by pointing at other societies that had already done so, I don't particularly care about proving that societies can function with limited or no government interference in people's lives. The morality of treating others respectfully using peaceful means as the self-owning, self-determining individuals they are is enough. As I quoted from Lew Rockwell, that doing so also unfetters human creativity and enabled very large increases in living standards pulling hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty to live far more meaningful and fulfilling lives is a happy happenstance.

However, reposting (yet again) this video of the 1,000 years that Ancient Ireland operated without Government (up until 17th century) is an example of a non-government system existed and lasted for numerous generations.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9OqvBbSD0[/youtube]

Another example given by David Friedman is saga period Iceland, while another given by Anthony Caprio is the Republic of Cospaia (where "For nearly four hundred years, this tiny republic thrived in central Italy with no government, no rulers, no military, no bureaucracy, and no taxes.") For a long period of time the American West operated very effectively with minimal or no government involvement (hint: it was nothing like most of the movies which are basically myths). There are also a range of others but, again, I - and probably nearly all other Libertarians - don't particularly care except from an academic point of view where it is interesting to learn about what institutions they used.

 

[Newtosilver]

Just like the abolitionists didn't particularly care about proving that economies could function without slavery by pointing at other societies that had already done so, I don't particularly care about proving that societies can function with limited or no government interference in people's lives. The morality of treating others respectfully using peaceful means as the self-owning, self-determining individuals they are is enough. As I quoted from Lew Rockwell, that doing so also unfetters human creativity and enabled very large increases in living standards pulling hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty to live far more meaningful and fulfilling lives is a happy happenstance.

However, reposting (yet again) this video of the 1,000 years that Ancient Ireland operated without Government (up until 17th century) is an example of a non-government system existed and lasted for numerous generations.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9OqvBbSD0[/youtube]

Another example given by David Friedman is saga period Iceland, while another given by Anthony Caprio is the Republic of Cospaia (where "For nearly four hundred years, this tiny republic thrived in central Italy with no government, no rulers, no military, no bureaucracy, and no taxes.") For a long period of time the American West operated very effectively with minimal or no government involvement (hint: it was nothing like most of the movies which are basically myths). There are also a range of others but, again, I - and probably nearly all other Libertarians - don't particularly care except from an academic point of view where it is interesting to learn about what institutions they used.

A thousand years ago in Irland the sytstem worked? Well let's get rid of society and all live in huts in groups of 50 people..... Yes Libertarianism would work then I agree with you 100%. We could carry swords and shields in the village and eat potato broth.

1000 years ago in Ireland how would they have handled problems like derivitaves or the debate on nuclear energy?

We have one huge problem though that was 1000 years ago and things have changed a little since then. For example they never had flame throwers or the Internet 1000 years ago..... Just saying.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Back to Somalia again? Good grief ...... and I'd just Un-ignored you.

Good grief, reality check Charlie Brown.

Here's your new avatar.

[imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_main-troll.jpg]

[/imgz]

Now, a question for you that has gone unanswered, does a might-equals-right organisational system enhance or impair the NAP?

 

[precious roar]

Problem as I see it, bordsilver, is that libertarians often complain about taxes, and that the governments use force (violence?) to take away their hard-earned cash, so how is the government to provide the safety net for those wretched souls in need of help?

It shouldn't, charities and Friendly Societies would task themselves to do that.

Or maybe their families could look after them. :/

As I mentioned previously, libertarianism sounds great in theory (as does communism) but in reality, how do you stop peoples' innate greed from manipulating markets?

Communism sounds like shit actually.

How do you stop people's innate greed from manipulating markets? Ignoring the fact that the greatest manipulators of markets are our governments, competition is what reduces manipulation.

And there you have my issue with Libertarianism: Safety nets need to be in place and not left to the whim of some nice folk & competition gets circumvented whenever the big boys see a profit in collusion. Until you change human nature, it won't work.

 

[Newtosilver]

Problem as I see it, bordsilver, is that libertarians often complain about taxes, and that the governments use force (violence?) to take away their hard-earned cash, so how is the government to provide the safety net for those wretched souls in need of help?

It shouldn't, charities and Friendly Societies would task themselves to do that.

Or maybe their families could look after them. :/

As I mentioned previously, libertarianism sounds great in theory (as does communism) but in reality, how do you stop peoples' innate greed from manipulating markets?

Communism sounds like shit actually.

How do you stop people's innate greed from manipulating markets? Ignoring the fact that the greatest manipulators of markets are our governments, competition is what reduces manipulation.

If charity will look after the poor, feed the homeless, pay for their medical insurance, their police insurance, pay for people's medical bills, pay for legal bills etc why has that not happened in other countries? To me saying "charity will take care of it" is beyond stupid. Charities can not afford to keep up with demand now.