Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

1181921232440

Posts

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    But that maintenance fee is not the same as taxes. Because... because it's not!

    I wonder if you could get libertarians perfectly happy by just renaming everything. The government could be the "central citizens council", the police could be the "local militia", taxes could be "land usage fees" and courts could be "arbitration centers". You've just eliminated taxes, the justice system, and the government in one fell swoop, with no more costs than reprinting a lot of headed notepaper! Freedom!

    Someone should make a story about a parallel universe run by libertarians, which is the same as this one but with different names.

    Also, screw poor people.

    I think in that universe we'd have killed each other off before we got out of Africa.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    I can't believe I read this whole thing.

    I don't have so much free time that I can waste it in this manner.

    Quire.jpg
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Ascension. Ascension. Hallelujah. Registered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Just about all of these conversations are basically "the people currently in power are dicks so let's start over."

    Thing is that you always eventually get dicks again.

    Something something occasional revolutionthomasjefferson.

    But then we'd have to admit the ones yanking our chains are the ones with executive titles and that's SOCIALISMS! or some such.

    rayofash wrote: »
    But that maintenance fee is not the same as taxes. Because... because it's not!

    I wonder if you could get libertarians perfectly happy by just renaming everything. The government could be the "central citizens council", the police could be the "local militia", taxes could be "land usage fees" and courts could be "arbitration centers". You've just eliminated taxes, the justice system, and the government in one fell swoop, with no more costs than reprinting a lot of headed notepaper! Freedom!

    Yes and no. The big open secret is that what the most vocal libertarians do not want liberty, they seek to "free themselves to enslave the people," they don't want government gone, they just want a bigger say in it than anyone else.

    But that's the game, the spark behind most revolutions, the cause of dreamers who go beyond soft political games and compromises to have fire and energy and life. It's the cycle of history, the madness of being.

    And what ill-informed college students do because being a hippy is now old-school.

    I don't want to be an emperor either. I just want to be a writer, so that other people can read my works and feel the same joy I do in creating them.

    I think Chaplin's speech deserves better then a TF2 AMV. Here's the original.



    Raoul Duke wrote:
    There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

    I have a tumblr.
    Check it out.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    There are systems like it... these forums, for example, are an example of a largely self correcting, emergent community

    These forums are a textbook example of a dictatorship

    B-b-b-benevolent?

    You did know that for quite a while, Tube's title was "Idi Admin", right?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Nova_CNova_C Social Justice Haruspex Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    Tube's benevolence depends on his mood.

    Like, he'll ban you for looking at him wrong on some days, but....

    wait, that's how it is all the time.

    Nevermind. :P

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    I think the fact that the libertarian socialist specifically cited institutionalized religious and sexual power as antithetical to the ideals of libertarian socialism, and then went on to repeatedly offer a community with institutionalized religious and sexual power as an example of libertarian socialism, almost as funny as the fact that that the other libertarian was unable to distinguish between an emergent community without hierarchical power structures and one where a small minority has absolute power.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • CorehealerCorehealer Tynarial I had it. I grasped the spark. I held it in my hands...Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    But that maintenance fee is not the same as taxes. Because... because it's not!

    I wonder if you could get libertarians perfectly happy by just renaming everything. The government could be the "central citizens council", the police could be the "local militia", taxes could be "land usage fees" and courts could be "arbitration centers". You've just eliminated taxes, the justice system, and the government in one fell swoop, with no more costs than reprinting a lot of headed notepaper! Freedom!

    Someone should make a story about a parallel universe run by libertarians, which is the same as this one but with different names.

    Also, screw poor people.

    100.jpg

    fLl2cwm.jpg
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    I have a few questions. Someone please actually read it.


    1) What do anarchists/socialist libertarians/{RoA and that other dude in this thread} actually want? Are they just debating purely abstract concepts? Or do they want to see their ideals of societies implemented? Is this something meant for 4 centuries ahead, or next month?

    2) If they do want to see a socialist libertarian (or whatever name) society, how big they expect/want it to be? An isolated survivalist community far up a montain/isle/desert, something like those last few uncontacted native tribes in Brasil? Maybe they want to see the entire USA become their dream? North America? Or the entire world?

    3) Considering the magnitude of this desired new society as questioned above, how would they see it being implemented? The isolated few people is easy to see. But what about an entire country, or continent, or the world?


    I make those questions because the purely theoretical debate is like a puppy chasing its tail, as another poster has shown.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    I have a few questions. Someone please actually read it.

    1) What do anarchists/socialist libertarians/{RoA and that other dude in this thread} actually want? Are they just debating purely abstract concepts? Or do they want to see their ideals of societies implemented? Is this something meant for 4 centuries ahead, or next month?

    I would imagine everybody wants to see their ideals implemented, as soon as can be safely accomplished. But there are also people who simply want us to "question assumptions"; assuming good faith, I see nothing wrong with using libertarian principles to guide us through careful decisions regarding state actions (ie, "I know we've done it this way for a while, but do we really need the government to provide x?").
    2) If they do want to see a socialist libertarian (or whatever name) society, how big they expect/want it to be? An isolated survivalist community far up a mountain/isle/desert, something like those last few uncontacted native tribes in Brasil? Maybe they want to see the entire USA become their dream? North America? Or the entire world?

    They would appear to desire small, independent communities, at least for now.
    3) Considering the magnitude of this desired new society as questioned above, how would they see it being implemented? The isolated few people is easy to see. But what about an entire country, or continent, or the world?

    The only good way to implement libertarianism is piecemeal--slowly replacing individual government services and functions with voluntary, community-based systems (or with widespread agreement that those systems are no longer necessary/desired). Rather than going the Ron Paul route of "become the President, gut the government, let people figure out where to go from there", it's probably better to start by creating the new systems first. You can't successfully and safely cut out Social Security until you've invented a charity that can consistently and efficiently give a similar quality of support to senior citizens, and that can scale up to take over for the government.

    Transitioning from one system of government to another takes either patience and time or a cataclysm (or an entirely new living space).

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    The only good way to implement libertarianism is piecemeal--slowly replacing individual government services and functions with voluntary, community-based systems (or with widespread agreement that those systems are no longer necessary/desired). Rather than going the Ron Paul route of "become the President, gut the government, let people figure out where to go from there", it's probably better to start by creating the new systems first. You can't successfully and safely cut out Social Security until you've invented a charity that can consistently and efficiently give a similar quality of support to senior citizens, and that can scale up to take over for the government.

    There is no 'good way' to transition to libertarianism, because the ideology is a bad joke and will not function. At best you'll create a state where only the poor pay taxes and a lack of oversight results in catastrophic pollution & labor abuses, at worst you'll completely disintegrate modern society.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    There are systems like it... these forums, for example, are an example of a largely self correcting, emergent community

    These forums are a textbook example of a dictatorship

    You always remind me why I like you in charge

    I accept this social contract

    Something something Leviathan

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    the "small, independent communities" thing is kind of the craziest part; even if you buy the rest of the libertarian laissez-faire ideology, why you'd want to go back to a much less connected, integrated society is beyond me

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    the "small, independent communities" thing is kind of the craziest part; even if you buy the rest of the libertarian laissez-faire ideology, why you'd want to go back to a much less connected, integrated society is beyond me

    Because your imaginary small community will be made up people exactly like you who agree with you on everything. They will exactly share your views on morality, your work ethic, probably your religion and race as well.

    small, independent communities, are not diverse communities. Like someone said up thread it's really not about having no-government, it's about having more control of the government, via tyranny of the majority(who will be just like you).

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    the "small, independent communities" thing is kind of the craziest part; even if you buy the rest of the libertarian laissez-faire ideology, why you'd want to go back to a much less connected, integrated society is beyond me

    Because your imaginary small community will be made up people exactly like you who agree with you on everything. They will exactly share your views on morality, your work ethic, probably your religion and race as well.

    small, independent communities, are not diverse communities. Like someone said up thread it's really not about having no-government, it's about having more control of the government, via tyranny of the majority(who will be just like you).

    Small communities are actually way more controlling then large ones, with a corresponding reduction in freedom. You are way more dependent on your neighbours and they have way more say in how you live your life. Sure they might help you out if you have trouble, but that help comes with some big strings attached. Like: Stop being gay, stop dating that N-word and Cletus needs help fixing his car, guess who is going to help him. You can't quit on such a community and you can't do what you want, because if your community doesn't like it, they can take everything you have away from you. Including your life.

    That "shunning" policy the libertards talk about? In a small community that is a long drawn out death sentence or at best a drop into life destroying poverty. And shunning can happen over trivial acts that annoy the community. Like not attending church every sunday. Conformity becomes the key to survival.

    The smaller the community the more people need each other. The more they need each other, the less freedom people have. Its Sociology 101

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    They would appear to desire small, independent communities, at least for now.

    In the beginning, sure. Only they'd want to grow large enough to be a nation unto itself, like Ray wanted.

  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    And what's to stop people with guns from fucking up that plan? This is not far-fetched. There are people with guns fucking up shit here in Brazil.

    Well, there were always people with weapons fucking shit up. Since the dawn of time. The only times it didn't happen that way were in places so small that everyone is part of the same community. The only reason we don't have so many people with guns fucking shit up nowadays are governments.

    People have raided other people since the dawn of mankind. They still do.

    Oh, another issue. How would a place like, say New York City function without government. It's very to make some vague excuse about the community shunning someone, but what about NYC?

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    And what's to stop people with guns from fucking up that plan? This is not far-fetched. There are people with guns fucking up shit here in Brazil.

    Well, there were always people with weapons fucking shit up. Since the dawn of time. The only times it didn't happen that way were in places so small that everyone is part of the same community. The only reason we don't have so many people with guns fucking shit up nowadays are governments.

    People have raided other people since the dawn of mankind. They still do.

    Oh, another issue. How would a place like, say New York City function without government. It's very to make some vague excuse about the community shunning someone, but what about NYC?

    Exactly.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I have a few questions. Someone please actually read it.


    1) What do anarchists/socialist libertarians/{RoA and that other dude in this thread} actually want? Are they just debating purely abstract concepts? Or do they want to see their ideals of societies implemented? Is this something meant for 4 centuries ahead, or next month?

    2) If they do want to see a socialist libertarian (or whatever name) society, how big they expect/want it to be? An isolated survivalist community far up a montain/isle/desert, something like those last few uncontacted native tribes in Brasil? Maybe they want to see the entire USA become their dream? North America? Or the entire world?

    3) Considering the magnitude of this desired new society as questioned above, how would they see it being implemented? The isolated few people is easy to see. But what about an entire country, or continent, or the world?


    I make those questions because the purely theoretical debate is like a puppy chasing its tail, as another poster has shown.

    I'd like to see the whole world a libertarian socialist society eventually, but for now I'd like to see a state or two adopt the principles starting with cities and going on up. Look up Llan City, California. It was a libertarian socialist society that did very well until the state wouldn't let them build a dam, City of Quartz by Mike Davis goes into more detail.

    As for a time span it can happen within a few months to a few years if people really wanted to work towards it, the Free State Project already has 15 free staters in New Hampshire's congress.

    >And what's to stop people with guns from fucking up that plan?

    What's to stop people from doing it now? The entire country could be overthrown in a month with the right people working the right plan.

    rayofash on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I'd like to see the whole world a libertarian socialist society eventually, but for now I'd like to see a state or two adopt the principles starting with cities and going on up. Look up Llan City, California. It was a libertarian socialist society that did very well until the state wouldn't let them build a dam, City of Quartz by Mike Davis goes into more detail.

    So the community at large told them no.

    Sounds like it worked exactly the way you wanted it to.
    rayofash wrote: »
    What's to stop people from doing it now? The entire country could be overthrown in a month with the right people working the right plan.

    And barring terribly unlikely scenarios such as the bulk of the military joining in the revolt this is just blatantly untrue. What people want to know is what keeps the people with guns from outside the community deciding to takeover.

    What I still want to know since you never answered is what prevents it from turning in to another Gilded Age.

    PSN: allenquid
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Ascension. Ascension. Hallelujah. Registered User regular
    I just finished reading about a libertarian who thinks rape is justifiable on Pharyngula, so forgive the tone of this post.

    How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?

    Raoul Duke wrote:
    There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

    I have a tumblr.
    Check it out.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I just finished reading about a libertarian who thinks rape is justifiable on Pharyngula, so forgive the tone of this post.

    How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?

    See my first post.
    Quid wrote: »
    Show me a Libertarian and I'll show you either a Democrat or Republican who's ignorant on the issues they talk about. Or a sociopath.

    Most, much like the two so far in this thread, have no idea what it is they're suggesting.

    Quid on
    PSN: allenquid
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    I just finished reading about a libertarian who thinks rape is justifiable on Pharyngula, so forgive the tone of this post.

    How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?

    Because... coercion is bad*, man.

    *Except when employed by non-state entities.

  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    @Rayofash or @Shurakai , please answer me this;

    You paint this picture of Libertarians wanting a democratically controlled society, free of the involvement of a coercive government, correct? Now let's ignore fictional communities or states or nations that don't exist, let's focus on the modern day; If the majority of the population of a state, eg, the United States, wanted to be ruled by a government, how do Libertarians respect their democratic opinion? Now, you might argue that in our two party split system, there is often very little room for agreement these days, but even if the two sides disagree with each other, they still fundamentally want a government, just not necessarily one run on the other's principles. So as Libertarians, do you respect the wishes of the gross population, or decide that you know better than the rest?

    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I'd like to see the whole world a libertarian socialist society eventually, but for now I'd like to see a state or two adopt the principles starting with cities and going on up. Look up Llan City, California. It was a libertarian socialist society that did very well until the state wouldn't let them build a dam, City of Quartz by Mike Davis goes into more detail.


    City of Quartz is a book about Los Angeles and its residents. A search for Llan City, California yields no results. Neither does "Allan City"

    I am really skeptical about your account of this when the book you claim its in is about a different city, and the city you're claiming exists doesn't.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    What's to stop people from doing it now? The entire country could be overthrown in a month with the right people working the right plan.
    The only type of coup that would work in the United States is a military coup*. Without the military you cannot win the United States. The thing is, the military has it pretty good in the United States. They don't really have a reason to revolt and take over [and of course the higher ups in the military would still have to convince the rest of the military it was a good idea]

    *We have even had people that tried

    wbBv3fj.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    What's to stop people from doing it now? The entire country could be overthrown in a month with the right people working the right plan.
    The only type of coup that would work in the United States is a military coup*. Without the military you cannot win the United States. The thing is, the military has it pretty good in the United States. They don't really have a reason to revolt and take over [and of course the higher ups in the military would still have to convince the rest of the military it was a good idea]

    *We have even had people that tried

    The military being incredibly diverse makes this an impossibility. If the entire military was drawn from one aspect of society it might be possible, but it's drawn from every background and income level (although officers are predominately upper middle income and enlisted predominately lower middle income)

    For the military to institute a coup in the US the situation would have to be incredibly fucked up, like president refusing to hand over power after an election and using federal forces to exert control/order the bombing of a US city/something like that. Basically it's impossible though, if there was ever enough populist rage where overthrowing the government was even a possibility (see: great depression), the necessity to do so would remove itself.

    The checks and balances aren't perfect, but they can handle that much. The only thing they can't stop is when half the country is willing to die to suppress the rights of their fellow citizens.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Skavenblight Scramblers The Bestest CheatersRegistered User regular
    From my knowledge of history and economics, it seems that for what ever reason monopolies tend to always come into existence. When two powers of any kind exist, one will eventually want to become more powerful than the other. This is why humans have wars and such. Corporations buy each other out, nations conquer each other, the world just does not seem to naturally accept that two or more powers can coexist. If you create a system where there is no monopoly on force or justice, then eventually the organizations created to fill this void will clash. Eventually, one will win out and then you're back to square one, a government.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    I just finished reading about a libertarian who thinks rape is justifiable on Pharyngula, so forgive the tone of this post.

    How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?

    See my first post.
    Quid wrote: »
    Show me a Libertarian and I'll show you either a Democrat or Republican who's ignorant on the issues they talk about. Or a sociopath.

    Most, much like the two so far in this thread, have no idea what it is they're suggesting.

    150 Years of Libertarian.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    I'd like to see the whole world a libertarian socialist society eventually, but for now I'd like to see a state or two adopt the principles starting with cities and going on up. Look up Llan City, California. It was a libertarian socialist society that did very well until the state wouldn't let them build a dam, City of Quartz by Mike Davis goes into more detail.


    City of Quartz is a book about Los Angeles and its residents. A search for Llan City, California yields no results. Neither does "Allan City"

    I am really skeptical about your account of this when the book you claim its in is about a different city, and the city you're claiming exists doesn't.
    It's Llano, California.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llano_Del_Rio
    Economy

    Although Llano did not export goods to outside markets, its local economy was almost completely sustaining. The economy included a paint shop, agriculture, orchards, a poultry yard, a rabbitry, a print shop, and a fish hatchery.[14] Despite the arid environment and sandy soil, Llano’s farms flourished. Using the water purchased by the Llano Del Rio Company, Llano’s farmers transformed the dry soil into fertile farmland. Southern California’s warm climate proved to be ideal for agricultural production. Alfalfa, corn, and grain were Llano’s staple crops. By 1916, Llano grew ninety percent of the food eaten at the colony. However, agricultural exports were prevented by Llano’s distance from a train depot. Though Llano’s export economy never developed much, some goods, such as rag rugs and underwear, were sold at external markets (Hine 122).

    Education

    Llano had a good school system, which followed both the Montessori and the Industrial principles of teaching. Montessori and Industrial schools encourage practical and active learning, teaching methods consistent with socialist values. In the Industrial School or Kids’ Colony children raised livestock, built the school’s facilities, made their own laws, and held their own disciplinary hearings. Consistent with Llano’s philosophy of gender division of labor, girls were registered into the “domestic science department” (Shor 169).

    Culture and free time

    May Day, a holiday that celebrates laborers, was a community celebration at Llano, including a parade and a community picnic. Dances were held every Thursday and Saturday night. One colonist praised these dances saying, “‘If Llano never offers or gives me more than the pleasure of attending these dances I shall feel repaid for all the effort I have made to become a member of this Colony”.[15] Additionally, there was a champion baseball team and other club sports. There was even a drama society. For entertainment, Llano staged black-face minstrel shows, swear words were prohibited when in the presence of women or children, and liquor was not allowed unless permission by a doctor was given. Violation of this ordinance was punishable by unemployment or expulsion from Llano.[16]

    It had it's problems as you can tell, racism being the biggest one.
    @Rayofash or @Shurakai , please answer me this;

    You paint this picture of Libertarians wanting a democratically controlled society, free of the involvement of a coercive government, correct? Now let's ignore fictional communities or states or nations that don't exist, let's focus on the modern day; If the majority of the population of a state, eg, the United States, wanted to be ruled by a government, how do Libertarians respect their democratic opinion? Now, you might argue that in our two party split system, there is often very little room for agreement these days, but even if the two sides disagree with each other, they still fundamentally want a government, just not necessarily one run on the other's principles. So as Libertarians, do you respect the wishes of the gross population, or decide that you know better than the rest?

    Libertarians would respect their rights. The whole point is voluntary participation.

    rayofash on
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edit: Double post.

    rayofash on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I just finished reading about a libertarian who thinks rape is justifiable on Pharyngula, so forgive the tone of this post.

    How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?

    See my first post.
    Quid wrote: »
    Show me a Libertarian and I'll show you either a Democrat or Republican who's ignorant on the issues they talk about. Or a sociopath.

    Most, much like the two so far in this thread, have no idea what it is they're suggesting.

    150 Years of Libertarian.

    Do you even read the links you post?

    Or answer the questions you're asked?

    Quid on
    PSN: allenquid
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edit: Sorry about the tripple post, I can't seem to delete them.

    rayofash on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    @Rayofash or @Shurakai , please answer me this;

    You paint this picture of Libertarians wanting a democratically controlled society, free of the involvement of a coercive government, correct? Now let's ignore fictional communities or states or nations that don't exist, let's focus on the modern day; If the majority of the population of a state, eg, the United States, wanted to be ruled by a government, how do Libertarians respect their democratic opinion? Now, you might argue that in our two party split system, there is often very little room for agreement these days, but even if the two sides disagree with each other, they still fundamentally want a government, just not necessarily one run on the other's principles. So as Libertarians, do you respect the wishes of the gross population, or decide that you know better than the rest?

    Libertarians would respect their rights. The whole point is voluntary participation.

    Then you get the society you have now. Congrats in supporting society!

    PSN: allenquid
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    @Rayofash or @Shurakai , please answer me this;

    You paint this picture of Libertarians wanting a democratically controlled society, free of the involvement of a coercive government, correct? Now let's ignore fictional communities or states or nations that don't exist, let's focus on the modern day; If the majority of the population of a state, eg, the United States, wanted to be ruled by a government, how do Libertarians respect their democratic opinion? Now, you might argue that in our two party split system, there is often very little room for agreement these days, but even if the two sides disagree with each other, they still fundamentally want a government, just not necessarily one run on the other's principles. So as Libertarians, do you respect the wishes of the gross population, or decide that you know better than the rest?

    Libertarians would respect their rights. The whole point is voluntary participation.

    Then you get the society you have now. Congrats in supporting society!

    The problem is it's a state based on violence. We do not see it as legitimate because of this, so we do not want to participate in it or follow its laws.
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I just finished reading about a libertarian who thinks rape is justifiable on Pharyngula, so forgive the tone of this post.

    How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?

    See my first post.
    Quid wrote: »
    Show me a Libertarian and I'll show you either a Democrat or Republican who's ignorant on the issues they talk about. Or a sociopath.

    Most, much like the two so far in this thread, have no idea what it is they're suggesting.

    150 Years of Libertarian.

    Do you even read the links you post?

    Or answer the questions you're asked?

    Did you? A lot of you seem to have a problem understanding what 'libertarian' means.
    So, in summary, considered in terms of our political, social and economics ideas it is unsurprising that anarchists have been using the term “libertarian” for 150 years. Regardless of the attempts by others ignorant of both the history of that term and the reality of capitalism to appropriate it for their hierarchical and authoritarian ideology, we will continue to do so.

    Anarchists and libertarian socialists consider themselves to be one in the same. We do not advocate free market capitalism and some find it offensive when they refer to themselves as libertarian or anarchistic.

    rayofash on
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    Wait... what? From the Llano wiki:
    The political stability of Llano was threatened by internal power struggles between the Board of Directors, which was composed of seven (and eventually nine) members and the General Assembly, which was composed of all of the Llano Company’s stockholders, the members of the colony. Though the Board was efficient, it caused political dissent. Llano’s “Declaration of Principles” proclaimed: “‘equal ownership, equal wage, and equal social opportunities’”.[17] However, Llano was not run in a democratic manner. The Board dictated all rules and regulations. Eventually groups developed, such as the “Brush Gang”, opposing the authoritarian rule of the Board (Shor 167). Some members also believed that Harriman lacked strong socialist principles. One of the founders of the “Brush Gang,” Frank Miller, believed Harriman to be “Czar-like” and against the democratic election of Llano’s leadership. Additionally, many “Brush Gang” members believed that not only the political, but also the economic layout of Llano was counter to socialist ideals.

    However, rule by the General Assembly was also problematic. Its decisions were influenced by personal disputes, which created an ineffective political environment. Resolutions were disputed for hours, made, and then rebuked at the next meeting. In response to dissenters, one of Harriman’s supporter’s, R.K. Williams wrote, “‘Newcomers arrived here filled with idealism and notions of a weird form of democracy that are utterly out of place in an institution dealing with...practicalities. It must be insisted that if this colony is to exist we must allow the well tried and wrought out formulas of corporations organized under capitalism...We are not attempting an Utopian phantasmagoria’”.[18] Supporters felt that unseating the Board would result in anarchy and chaos, and that central control was essential to the formation of a flourishing socialist colony.

    They had a government anyway! How is this an example of what you're proposing at all?

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Suriko wrote: »
    Wait... what? From the Llano wiki:
    The political stability of Llano was threatened by internal power struggles between the Board of Directors, which was composed of seven (and eventually nine) members and the General Assembly, which was composed of all of the Llano Company’s stockholders, the members of the colony. Though the Board was efficient, it caused political dissent. Llano’s “Declaration of Principles” proclaimed: “‘equal ownership, equal wage, and equal social opportunities’”.[17] However, Llano was not run in a democratic manner. The Board dictated all rules and regulations. Eventually groups developed, such as the “Brush Gang”, opposing the authoritarian rule of the Board (Shor 167). Some members also believed that Harriman lacked strong socialist principles. One of the founders of the “Brush Gang,” Frank Miller, believed Harriman to be “Czar-like” and against the democratic election of Llano’s leadership. Additionally, many “Brush Gang” members believed that not only the political, but also the economic layout of Llano was counter to socialist ideals.

    However, rule by the General Assembly was also problematic. Its decisions were influenced by personal disputes, which created an ineffective political environment. Resolutions were disputed for hours, made, and then rebuked at the next meeting. In response to dissenters, one of Harriman’s supporter’s, R.K. Williams wrote, “‘Newcomers arrived here filled with idealism and notions of a weird form of democracy that are utterly out of place in an institution dealing with...practicalities. It must be insisted that if this colony is to exist we must allow the well tried and wrought out formulas of corporations organized under capitalism...We are not attempting an Utopian phantasmagoria’”.[18] Supporters felt that unseating the Board would result in anarchy and chaos, and that central control was essential to the formation of a flourishing socialist colony.

    They had a government anyway! How is this an example of what you're proposing at all?

    They were self governed through direct democracy. Most modern anarchists would be against their decision to have a bureaucracy though, and would generally have an attitude of 'do what you want just don't be a dick.'

    rayofash on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    The problem is it's a state based on violence. We do not see it as legitimate because of this, so we do not want to participate in it or follow its laws.

    But you propose nothing better. This is the flaw here. You are saying we should abandon the current system for one that for millenia has resulted in horrific conditions. Maybe you find coercion to be the worst sin, but most other people consider choosing the system that leads to millions dying needlessly so ray can stop being so horribly oppressed as he sucks off the teat of the government.
    Did you? A lot of you seem to have a problem understanding what 'libertarian' means.
    You want people to work together without an overarching organization ensuring they do. Which is pure, unworkable fantasy.
    Anarchists and libertarian socialists consider themselves to be one in the same. We do not advocate free market capitalism and some find it offensive when they refer to themselves as libertarian or anarchistic.

    Because there's no such thing as an agreed upon definition. Congrats again, your "societies" can't even get past an agreed upon framework.

    Also, a direct democracy does not work with 300 million people. They have shit to do and the government needs to solve problems. It doesn't have time for everyone to put in and then consider their opinions.

    PSN: allenquid
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I'd also note that direct democracy failed even in the example instance.

    Read up on the Peloponnesian War for why direct democracy doesn't work for crafting good policy. Or shit, just look at California's state budget. Representative democracy is useful because people who actually know shit can make better policies in their specialty area than Average Joe.

    Suriko on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Also also, "That won't happen" doesn't hold up against thousands of years of it happening every single time.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    I just finished reading about a libertarian who thinks rape is justifiable on Pharyngula, so forgive the tone of this post.

    How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?

    The same way people are against windmill generators, solar power, and vaccinations; and the same reason people still dabble with "alternative" sciences like chakras and ufology. Ignorance, perspective, and a lack of a decent sense of proportion. A libertarian feels restricted, by government or society or religion; oppressed and held back by a force from without that keeps them from succeeding at "being all that they can be," and denies them excellence. Whether or not they WOULD succeed, they believe they would, and moreover they believe that the forces holding them back also hold the entire WORLD back.

    History is full of people like Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, and Charles Darwin being slowed down or held back in unlocking the mysteries of the universe by dogmatic outside forces. This fact of history is fuels the delusion of the Galileo Gambit which says, "if people hold me back, I must be right." Ergo the sociopath kept from murder, the chemist kept from polluting, and the banker forced to pay taxes are all held back from making the world a better place merely by virtue of the fact that someone is stopping them.

    The thing is, life stagnates and dies without people who occasionally "shake up the system" and buck at social restraints. It also disintegrates if everyone single person does that. Fundamentally the men and women who do that "system bucking" are doing it out of a sense of self (self-righteousness, selfishness, self-obession, self-something) that tells them they are important and right and above (insert social restriction) but as Christopher Hitchens said, “I don’t think there’s any need to have essays advocating selfishness among human beings. I don’t know what your impression has been. But some things require no further re-inforcement.”
    on youtube:
    Spoiler:

    One might say that the crazed system-bucking troublemaker is the "inspiration" to the plodding "perspiration" of the sheeple, but if you remember what the required ratio of those two things is for invention you realize...something. I don't know where I was going with that sentence, but now I am going to bed.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    Suriko wrote: »
    I'd also note that direct democracy failed even in the example instance.

    Read up on the Peloponnesian War for why direct democracy doesn't work for crafting good policy. Or shit, just look at California's state budget. Representative democracy is useful because people who actually know shit can make better policies in their specialty area than Average Joe.

    To clarify for those who don't feel like Googling, direct democracy in California works by way of ballot initiatives. It arguably failed in the case of Proposition 8, which not only featured tyranny of the majority (as it took the right to marriage, guaranteed by the California State Constitution, away from a minority), but saw a powerful organization from a different community (Mormons) funding efforts to influence the vote.

    Also, Californians directly voted to make it really hard for their legislators to pass tax increases, then directly voted to mandate costly services. Last year California dealt with this by making budget cuts to such unessentials as "schools" and "police". Direct democracy only works with a population small enough to ensure almost everybody is informed and engaged. Anything above a real small town is going to run into shit like this where the math doesn't work and the community goes to shit. And if it is a real small town, marauding Mormons will just take over.

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
Sign In or Register to comment.