Anything That's Peaceful

[bordsilver]

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.

No zoning regulations? Making some assumptions there I think.

Did you notice that it was dealt with by people teaming together and solving the problem by a mixture of information, avoidance, care and action? You know, a bit like farmers do when a feral pig (or whatever) starts causing problems. At no point was a government welfare state with a regulatory apparatus that fines farmers for growing too many potatoes necessary. Funny enough neither were mandatory data retention laws, anti-gay marriage laws, VLAD laws, cinema and book censorship laws, anti-marijuana laws, anti-euthanasia laws, anti-piracy laws. Didn't require any bans on people freely renting their labour out for mutually agreeable rates. Didn't require any agriculture subsidies, bank bailouts, car industry bailouts, excessive tariffs, alcohol excises, anti-competition bans or licencing of hair braiders either.

 

[bordsilver]

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.

I already dealt with that and posted links. Saying that you need charity to deal with social issues if the government doesn't is simply nonsense.

 

[bordsilver]

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.

Keep up

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Charities can not afford to keep up with demand now.

Whaaaaaat???

Why? I thought our democratic system of political and economic organisation was working really well?

 

[SpacePete]

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?

You still refuse to answer any difficult questions that may shed some light on the reality of Libertarianism, and instead resort to insults.

Again, how is a Libertarian system different from might-makes-right? As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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.

The old "humans are inherently evil so we need need governments to control us" theory?

So are humans moral or immoral? The biological answer is that we have evolved behaviors that increase our chances of survival and reproduction. When in a stable and safe environment with enough food in our bellies, having a biology of morality sustains our place in the community of humans who help ensure our biological imperatives. In highly stressful, resource poor environments, we'll step on whoever is in front of us if it helps us survive. The exceptions to this rule are the five percent of the population who I've found do not have an oxytocin response and are pathologically selfish like Madoff, and another few percent who are nearly pathologically virtuous like Mother Teresa. The rest of us vacillate between good and evil.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/201102/are-humans-good-or-evil

Libertarian society with the NAP as it's fundamental principle simply could not tolerate a "highly stressful, resource poor environments, we'll step on whoever is in front of us if it helps us survive." It doesn't mean that society will be stress free, but what it means is that capital, labour and entrepreneurial behaviour will be directed to maximising resource allocation.

 

[bordsilver]

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?

You still refuse to answer any difficult questions that may shed some light on the reality of Libertarianism, and instead resort to insults.

Answering difficult questions generally requires a willingness on the party asking the questions to interact nicely as well. What sort of difficult questions do you have?

Again, how is a Libertarian system different from might-makes-right?

It's more might enforces rights. It is specifically focused on what is an illegitimate use of might.

As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

Can you repost what these "real world examples" of "real issues" are? I'm struggling to find any in the previous posts.

 

[Newtosilver]

If there are 500,000 unemployed and most are going to be low skill labour and you have no safety net those 500,000 people will be competing for jobs do not exist, people bid lower and lower for the available jobs and you have wages that are not liveable. You would end up with hundreds of thousands people in extreme poverty who are working full time. On a positive note they would have guns and flamethrowes and there would be an abundant supply of cheap drugs. Sounds pretty good to me. If an employer offers $3 and the alternative is to starve do you really have two people negotiating on even terms? That is the same as using money as a weapon to threaten or intimidate.

There will always be a percentage of people who will be unemployed, Libertarianism just seems to ignore that issue.

 

[SpacePete]

As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

Can you repost what these "real world examples" of "real issues" are? I'm struggling to find any in the previous posts.

Several posts back:

...Look at Chile and the "Libertarian paradise" that was setup, it imploded nearly imediately. And a LOT of Libertarians lost a lot of money. Most people say it was a scam but a few of the Libertarians who bought into it think that Ken Johnson was just not qualified to run something like the project "on such a large scale".

A "rescue team" was formed (ex military including a high ranking ex marine) he stated that sometimes "force" needs to be used to remove people from organisations, comments were also made that "Ken had better hope the police find him before we do" that to me is a threat of violance but apparently that is not allowed in a Libertarian paradise.

The ex military fella running the rescue also used the word dictatorship and stated he has been given permission to act on members of the "rescue team" however other members do not want or like this as it goes against their principles and it is against Libertarian principles.

The recue team has also openly admitted what they have done is illegal and they have no problems with that however other members who purchased land in the community do have a problem with it becasue it is not in line with Libertarian principles.

The Libertarian ideals in "theory" have gone out the window and reality is playing out something very different to what is supposed to happen in a Libertarian system. Why? Becasue Libertarianism does not work on a small scale let alone in a modern society.

The whole Libertarian idea is based on ideas do not work in reality.....

Ann rynd who wrote Atlas Shrugged regarded anyone who was on welfare or accepted medical assistance from the Govt as scum, parasites etc. She then got lung cancer and went on Govt benefits and the Govt payed for here medical treatment. Theory and reality are very different things as she found out.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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?

You still refuse to answer any difficult questions that may shed some light on the reality of Libertarianism, and instead resort to insults.

Again, how is a Libertarian system different from might-makes-right? As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

I've learnt that you thrive on insults, you seem to enjoy insulting others so I assumed you would get excited if I insulted. A person with a bit more intelligence would've used that as their avatar in an attempt to throw the insult back at the instigator. But anyway, you're young.

I don't know how a Libertarian system is different from a might-equals-right system because as I have said twice, I don't know what a might-equals-right system is. If a might-equal-right system upholds the principle of non-aggression as the basis of it's organisational structure then it would probably look like Libertarianism, if it didn't it wouldn't.

My best guess is that a might-equals-right system is a government enforced system, and there has been more than enough debate on that to show that the NAP is not at the basis of any government imposed social structure.

 

[bordsilver]

If there are 500,000 unemployed and most are going to be low skill labour and you have no safety net those 500,000 people will be competing for jobs do not exist, people bid lower and lower for the available jobs and you have wages that are not liveable. You would end up with hundreds of thousands people in extreme poverty who are working full time. On a positive note they would have guns and flamethrowes and there would be an abundant supply of cheap drugs. Sounds pretty good to me. If an employer offers $3 and the alternative is to starve do you really have two people negotiating on even terms? That is the same as using money as a weapon to threaten or intimidate.

There will always be a percentage of people who will be unemployed, Libertarianism just seems to ignore that issue.

How did people in extreme poverty afford to buy guns, flamethrowers and drugs?

It is not enough to make a statement like this and expect a real world solution. It has to be a plausible situation from the real world in the first place. For example, besides not understanding why you think there is no safety net, the question is what were the circumstances that lead to 500,000 people being unemployed? Also the context surrounding the labour market (eg is this a large number of people? 1%, 2%, 20% etc) and background economic conditions.

 

[SpacePete]

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?

You still refuse to answer any difficult questions that may shed some light on the reality of Libertarianism, and instead resort to insults.

Again, how is a Libertarian system different from might-makes-right? As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

I've learnt that you thrive on insults, you seem to enjoy insulting others so I assumed you would get excited if I insulted. A person with a bit more intelligence would've used that as their avatar in an attempt to throw the insult back at the instigator. But anyway, you're young.

Since you are the one instigating the insulting behavior towards others, I really felt no need nor obligation to descend to your level, even if you think that demonstrates a lack of intelligence on my part. The one thing I have learnt from dealings with you is that you are quick to anger and abuse when someone disagrees with you and then throw around accusations.

Now, please stick to the topic at hand.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

@SilverPete:

[imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_bing.jpg]

[/imgz]

It's schizophrenia isn't it?

 

[bordsilver]

As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

Can you repost what these "real world examples" of "real issues" are? I'm struggling to find any in the previous posts.

Several posts back:

As I said to NewToSilver, the irrelevance of Chile situation was already discussed in the Beyond Democracy thread (you know the one). In essence, it is just a simple case of fraud happening in a place that is governed by the Chilean Government (where a substantial amount of the contract breaches are directly related to Chilean Government permits) and hence they are the ultimate authority no matter what else people would like. As I posted in one of your threads recently, otherwise smart, sophisticated investors operating within a highly regulated state with a strong rule of law got sucked in by Bernie Madoff. Is that supposed to be a failure of Liberal Democracy?

 

[Newtosilver]

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?

You still refuse to answer any difficult questions that may shed some light on the reality of Libertarianism, and instead resort to insults.

Again, how is a Libertarian system different from might-makes-right? As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

I've learnt that you thrive on insults, you seem to enjoy insulting others so I assumed you would get excited if I insulted. A person with a bit more intelligence would've used that as their avatar in an attempt to throw the insult back at the instigator. But anyway, you're young.

I don't know how a Libertarian system is different from a might-equals-right system because as I have said twice, I don't know what a might-equals-right system is. If a might-equal-right system upholds the principle of non-aggression as the basis of it's organisational structure then it would probably look like Libertarianism, if it didn't it wouldn't.

My best guess is that a might-equals-right system is a government enforced system, and there has been more than enough debate on that to show that the NAP is not at the basis of any government imposed social structure.

From what I have read about the Libertarian community has decended into a might is right situation. You have the "rescue team" who by there own admission have acted illegally, there have also been threats of violance against Ken Johnson. The "rescue team" is comprised of a lot of ex military. Some members of the community do not agree with what is happening. The "rescue team" I can't remember the exact term but they reclaimed, retook the compound by "force of action" I think the term was.

None of that sounds like the Libertarianism you talk about in theory here.

The big question here is why are these people abandoning the Libertarian principles and doing something else? Is the Libertarianists way of doing things not working? There has to be a reason why they are acting this way. I love real life examples for some reason they just seem to play out different from theory.

Why are they not acting in accordance with there deeply held Libertarian principles?

 

[SpacePete]

On a side note, it's an interesting study of character to observe the personality types and behaviors of those who so vehemently advocate Libertarianism.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The big question here is why are these people abandoning the Libertarian principles and doing something else? Is the Libertarianists way of doing things not working? There has to be a reason why they are acting this way. I love real life examples for some reason they just seem to play out different from theory.

Why are they not acting in accordance with there deeply held Libertarian principles?

have they all abandoned the concept or just some?

You are correct, there has to be a reason, I know very little about the situation but it smells like scam to me, or maybe not a scam but an attempt at overthrowing the founder. How it all pans out will be interesting.

 

[bordsilver]

On a side note, it's an interesting study of character to observe the personality types and behaviors of those who so vehemently advocate Libertarianism.

http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-774465.html#p774465

 

[Newtosilver]

Can you repost what these "real world examples" of "real issues" are? I'm struggling to find any in the previous posts.

Several posts back:

As I said to NewToSilver, the irrelevance of Chile situation was already discussed in the Beyond Democracy thread (you know the one). In essence, it is just a simple case of fraud happening in a place that is governed by the Chilean Government (where a substantial amount of the contract breaches are directly related to Chilean Government permits) and hence they are the ultimate authority no matter what else people would like. As I posted in one of your threads recently, otherwise smart, sophisticated investors operating within a highly regulated state with a strong rule of law got sucked in by Bernie Madoff. Is that supposed to be a failure of Liberal Democracy?

Chile is not irrelevant, look at how the people in that community are acting, they are Libertarians, why are they not acting like Libertarians?

 

[bordsilver]

You still refuse to answer any difficult questions that may shed some light on the reality of Libertarianism, and instead resort to insults.

Again, how is a Libertarian system different from might-makes-right? As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.

I've learnt that you thrive on insults, you seem to enjoy insulting others so I assumed you would get excited if I insulted. A person with a bit more intelligence would've used that as their avatar in an attempt to throw the insult back at the instigator. But anyway, you're young.

I don't know how a Libertarian system is different from a might-equals-right system because as I have said twice, I don't know what a might-equals-right system is. If a might-equal-right system upholds the principle of non-aggression as the basis of it's organisational structure then it would probably look like Libertarianism, if it didn't it wouldn't.

My best guess is that a might-equals-right system is a government enforced system, and there has been more than enough debate on that to show that the NAP is not at the basis of any government imposed social structure.

From what I have read about the Libertarian community has decended into a might is right situation. You have the "rescue team" who by there own admission have acted illegally, there have also been threats of violance against Ken Johnson. The "rescue team" is comprised of a lot of ex military. Some members of the community do not agree with what is happening. The "rescue team" I can't remember the exact term but they reclaimed, retook the compound by "force of action" I think the term was.

None of that sounds like the Libertarianism you talk about in theory here.

The big question here is why are these people abandoning the Libertarian principles and doing something else? Is the Libertarianists way of doing things not working? There has to be a reason why they are acting this way. I love real life examples for some reason they just seem to play out different from theory.

Why are they not acting in accordance with there deeply held Libertarian principles?

Link?