Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[uwot]

Well, I like stuff: motorbikes, beer, hospitals, holidays and whatnot, and I don't mind paying the people who design and make all that happen.

I see that as a very libertarian position.

Maybe. I'm never really sure what people mean by libertarian. It clearly means different things on opposite sides of the pond, but from what you say below, and the times you have described yourself as a minarchist, I take it you pull up short of the full blown anarcho-free-trade-capitalism.

I do know that Charlie Marx urged the workers to forcibly seizing control of the means of production: land, factories, natural resources, which effectively is what America did in 1776

That's not right. The rebels didn't take English assets; they got out from under English governance. Joe the farmer didn't steal his farmland from the Crown; he told the Crown it no longer had a say over his farmland.

Depends on your point of view. Bear in mind that, to the Crown, the entire empire is an asset.

Marx is exactly the wrong place to go when it comes to America severing ties with England.

I'm not a scholar of Marx, but I imagine he was aware of the French and American revolutions and thought they were a good thing.

I don't have a problem with people owning stuff if they have acquired it honestly through hard work.

As long as no one was unjustly deprived of life, liberty, or property, I don't give a flip about what the other guy has.

No indeed. If they deserve it, good luck to them.

What I object to is elites using their influence and power to hoover up anything worthwhile and manipulate the law so that the majority of people have to pay them for the stuff they have stolen, and then hysterically scream 'Commie!' at anyone who challenges them.

This is the drawback to state-sponsored capitalism. The proper solution, of course, is to remove the big stick of government from the equation (in context, the only role of government [as proxy] is as contract arbiter of last resort, not as enforcer of station). That is: I favor free enterprise as the solution.

I take your point about context, and while I suspect I see a greater role for government in defence, infrastructure, health and education ('No, you are not going to teach that creationist bullshit!' for example) within the context, I agree.

It seems to me that they have persuaded enough people that any restriction on the 'rights' of the elite to treat the proles as a commodity, is an assault on the freedom of the proles to be treated as a commodity.

The solution, again, is to hobble the governors, remove the big stick, force the economic elite to compete without gov protections and gov favor. A lot of folks, motivated by envy, want to cripple the elites, which is dumb. Just take away the buffers they enjoy. The crafty will stay rich honestly; and the less crafty will lose wealth. Let every man compete, let the customers decide.

The thing is, how do you "force the economic elite" to do anything that will cost them money?

Odin's Hall: "Does it have motorbikes?"

I imagine so. I know it has shotguns (my toy of choice).

Well, the cool thing about guns and motorbikes in Odin's Hall is that everyone is already dead.

[henry quirk]

"Maybe. I'm never really sure what people mean by libertarian. It clearly means different things on opposite sides of the pond, but from what you say below, and the times you have described yourself as a minarchist, I take it you pull up short of the full blown anarcho-free-trade-capitalism."

Libertarianism has a lot of strains and most of 'em tend toward consequentialism. Me, I'm a natural rights guy, makin' me a rare animal (cuz natural rights/law is not favored these days).

This...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

...is a decent overview.

My specific view: The individual owns himself. The individual has a right to his life, liberty, and property, The individual's life liberty, or property is only forfeit (in part or in whole) when he willingly, knowingly, deprives (in part or in whole) another of his life, liberty, or property. Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, so instruments are used to offer defense and compensation: a sensible, minimal court of last resort, a sensible, minimal constabulary, a sensible, minimal, border-stationed military, and a militia to rule the other three (the first three are employees; when they look to dis-embed themselves from that subordinate position, the militia - every other armed person in the minarchy - is empowered to put them down).

#

"Bear in mind that, to the Crown, the entire empire is an asset."

Sure, I get that. It's competing notions: does a man rule himself, or is man (meant to be) ruled another?

#

"I imagine he was aware of the French and American revolutions and thought they were a good thing."

Marx was an awful person, so I don't care what he thought.

#

"No, you are not going to teach that creationist bullshit!"

In a private school, one funded by the folks who send their kids to it, they can teach whatever they like.

#

"how do you "force the economic elite" to do anything that will cost them money?"

Violence of course.

The violence of the ballot, or the violence of the gun. Me: I have almost no faith in the ballot.

#

"Well, the cool thing about guns and motorbikes in Odin's Hall is that everyone is already dead."

Exactly, so: go nuts!

[Nick_A]

Henry

My specific view: The individual owns himself. The individual has a right to his life, liberty, and property, The individual's life liberty, or property is only forfeit (in part or in whole) when he willingly, knowingly, deprives (in part or in whole) another of his life, liberty, or property. Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, so instruments are used to offer defense and compensation: a sensible, minimal court of last resort, a sensible, minimal constabulary, a sensible, minimal, border-stationed military, and a militia to rule the other three (the first three are employees; when they look to dis-embed themselves from that subordinate position, the militia - every other armed person in the minarchy - is empowered to put them down).

Who or what guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property?

The Declaration of Independence says they are guaranteed by our creator:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Secular Statism asserts that your rights are defined by and guaranteed by a central government which will tell you what to do and force compliance in the cause of peace.

Which will do the better job serving the goal of the ideal society and preserving your rights?

[henry quirk]

"Who or what guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property?"

I'm a deist and I own a shotgun, so: God installs 'em, I (self)defend 'em.

[Nick_A]

"Who or what guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property?"

I'm a deist and I own a shotgun, so: God installs 'em, I (self)defend 'em.

So God needs men with shotguns to further his aim? Isn't this a sign of weakness and the inability to use more practical means?

[henry quirk]

"Who or what guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property?"

I'm a deist and I own a shotgun, so: God installs 'em, I (self)defend 'em.

So God needs men with shotguns to further his aim? Isn't this a sign of weakness and the inability to use more practical means?

My god built me with all the tools I need to make a go of living. The gist of Natural Law is integral to me. He doesn't expect or want my worship, and he offers no aid. What my god's ultimate aim is, or what he needs, is his business.

Question: Why does God need prophets and scriptures to further his agenda?

[commonsense]

Interesting points, Henry. On the whole, I pretty much agree with you.

I think you’re saying that there’s really just one law: don’t mess with someone else’s life, liberty or property except under special circumstances (e.g., self defense). That makes sense.

There are few societal institutions (which could just as well be private rather than governmental): courts, police and the military (the military could be utilized on infrastructure during times of peace). Good idea.

With the militia ruling the the other 3, there’s just one question that comes up: who or what controls the militia?

[Impenitent]

"Who or what guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property?"

I'm a deist and I own a shotgun, so: God installs 'em, I (self)defend 'em.

So God needs men with shotguns to further his aim? Isn't this a sign of weakness and the inability to use more practical means?

tell that to the crusaders, communists and the jihadists...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

"Interesting points, Henry. On the whole, I pretty much agree with you."

All the right people (and Robot Overlords) do. Seems only pussies and commies and necrophiliac mom bangers don't.

#

"I think you’re saying that there’s really just one law: don’t mess with someone else’s life, liberty or property except under special circumstances (e.g., self defense). That makes sense."

Square on the head, Common.

#

"There are few societal institutions (which could just as well be private rather than governmental): courts, police and the military (the military could be utilized on infrastructure during times of peace). Good idea."

With courts, constabulary, and military you're lookin' at what I think of as essential services. Someone to arbitrate dispute, someone to investigate dispute, someone to keep invaders out. Not sure how to classify them (sumthin' less than government, sumthin' more than private services). The key feature of the three is they're employees, never directors, never leaders. They don't comprise a state. They don't rule.

#

"With the militia ruling the the other 3, there’s just one question that comes up: who or what controls the militia?"

Each adult in the militia.

The Night Watchman model I propose is a fragile thing (no more or less than the current American system, but still), and to work needs a mature citizenry. Mature, in context, means self-directing, self-relying folks with little patience for parasites or politicians. No doubt there'd be circumstances where folks might disagree on whether courts, constabulary, or military had overstepped, but law is rather stark and minimal and unambiguous in a minarchy, and it won't take long for anyone to recognize if violations had occurred.

Hangings (at the worst) and bein' shot in the ass with rock salt (the best) would be common penalties for proxies who look to be more than proxies.

[Arising_uk]

tell that to the crusaders, communists and the jihadists...

-Imp

Maybe tell it the Yank as in the last few decades they've destroyed a couple of countries and led to a couple of million deaths.

[henry quirk]

tell that to the crusaders, communists and the jihadists...

-Imp

Maybe tell it the Yank as in the last few decades they've destroyed a couple of countries and led to a couple of million deaths.

That was for booze and chicks, not god (and they deserved every lick we gave 'em).

[Arising_uk]

That was for booze and chicks, not god (and they deserved every lick we gave 'em).

Nah! It was for Oil and it wasn't worth the dead grunts lives nor all those women and children's lives that were destroyed.

[Age]

"Interesting points, Henry. On the whole, I pretty much agree with you."

All the right people (and Robot Overlords) do. Seems only pussies and commies and necrophiliac mom bangers don't.

#

"I think you’re saying that there’s really just one law: don’t mess with someone else’s life, liberty or property except under special circumstances (e.g., self defense). That makes sense."

Square on the head, Common.

#

"There are few societal institutions (which could just as well be private rather than governmental): courts, police and the military (the military could be utilized on infrastructure during times of peace). Good idea."

With courts, constabulary, and military you're lookin' at what I think of as essential services. Someone to arbitrate dispute, someone to investigate dispute, someone to keep invaders out. Not sure how to classify them (sumthin' less than government, sumthin' more than private services). The key feature of the three is they're employees, never directors, never leaders. They don't comprise a state. They don't rule.

#

"With the militia ruling the the other 3, there’s just one question that comes up: who or what controls the militia?"

Each adult in the militia.


The Night Watchman model I propose is a fragile thing (no more or less than the current American system, but still), and to work needs a mature citizenry. Mature, in context, means self-directing, self-relying folks with little patience for parasites or politicians. No doubt there'd be circumstances where folks might disagree on whether courts, constabulary, or military had overstepped, but law is rather stark and minimal and unambiguous in a minarchy, and it won't take long for anyone to recognize if violations had occurred.

Hangings (at the worst) and bein' shot in the ass with rock salt (the best) would be common penalties for proxies who look to be more than proxies.

Would either 'you', "henry quirk", or the one known as "common sense", or both, like to discuss these points in more detail?

Obviously they are very personal and only one-sided views of things, which could and would never work in practice.

[uwot]

Maybe. I'm never really sure what people mean by libertarian. It clearly means different things on opposite sides of the pond, but from what you say below, and the times you have described yourself as a minarchist, I take it you pull up short of the full blown anarcho-free-trade-capitalism.

Libertarianism has a lot of strains and most of 'em tend toward consequentialism. Me, I'm a natural rights guy, makin' me a rare animal (cuz natural rights/law is not favored these days).

Well the irony is that you can't be a consequentialist unless you believe in some form of natural law - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for example. Consequentialists, such as yours truly, generally don't have any beef with the concept of natural law, but trying to get two of us to agree exactly on what that law is and how it should be applied, is like nailing jelly to the wall. The issue is with the stripe of deontologist who insist that the law is supernatural in origin; the sort of people who believe a bunch of stories written for, perhaps even by, bronze age peasants, and that the consequences of disobeying the 10 commandments for example, are worse than any torture that has ever been suffered on Earth.

This...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

...is a decent overview.

Thanks for that. As it happens, that's precisely where I went to try and work out what you meant by 'libertarian'.

My specific view: The individual owns himself. The individual has a right to his life, liberty, and property, The individual's life liberty, or property is only forfeit (in part or in whole) when he willingly, knowingly, deprives (in part or in whole) another of his life, liberty, or property. Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, so instruments are used to offer defense and compensation: a sensible, minimal court of last resort, a sensible, minimal constabulary, a sensible, minimal, border-stationed military, and a militia to rule the other three (the first three are employees; when they look to dis-embed themselves from that subordinate position, the militia - every other armed person in the minarchy - is empowered to put them down).

Well yeah, in my view only kleptocrats and religious nuts would disagree with the broad scope of that.

Bear in mind that, to the Crown, the entire empire is an asset.

Sure, I get that. It's competing notions: does a man rule himself, or is man (meant to be) ruled another?

Easy one, that.

I imagine he was aware of the French and American revolutions and thought they were a good thing.

Marx was an awful person, so I don't care what he thought.

I dunno. I disagree with his arguments, but I think he was genuinely trying to do some good.

"No, you are not going to teach that creationist bullshit!"

In a private school, one funded by the folks who send their kids to it, they can teach whatever they like.

I disagree. Over here there are reports of Islamic Schools radicalising some students. I don't know how much of that is true and how much is paranoid delusion or straightforward racism, but it is not something that children should be taught in my view. Nor do I think that fundamentalist christians should teach children that the way to bring about Armageddon and the day of judgement is to start another war in the middle east. Should commies be allowed to teach the stuff by that awful Mr Marx? I think as a general rule teaching children that every question can be answered by reference to a few books and that men in frocks can be trusted, is teaching them to be stupid; which to me is an abuse of their natural right not to be a fucking idiot.

how do you "force the economic elite" to do anything that will cost them money?

Violence of course.

The violence of the ballot, or the violence of the gun. Me: I have almost no faith in the ballot.

Me neither. Too many people being taught to be stupid.

Well, the cool thing about guns and motorbikes in Odin's Hall is that everyone is already dead.

Exactly, so: go nuts!

Amen.

[henry quirk]

That was for booze and chicks, not god (and they deserved every lick we gave 'em).

Nah! It was for Oil and it wasn't worth the dead grunts lives nor all those women and children's lives that were destroyed.

Yeah, oil, that's it: and that black gold was worth every brown, heathen soul.