Leviathan:Gee willigers, there's differences between absolute and relative poverty?
Leviathan: there's absolute ignorance of the legitimate constrictions on social mobility that afflict the U.S. to a greater extent than other developed Western nations.
Leviathan:You blindly follow a marginal heterodox school that has contributed virtually nothing to modern economics
Leviathan: and has had its greatest achievement demolished by superior socialist argument.
Leviathan:Lakoff writes of U.S. "libertarians" having the same basic moral framework for their ideology as traditional social rightists,
Can I see the empirical research on that, svp?
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Leviathan: Gee willigers, there's differences between absolute and relative poverty? This sad little rambling only proved my point about your economically bankrupt moral view to an even greater degree; there's absolute ignorance of the legitimate constrictions on social mobility that afflict the U.S. to a greater extent than other developed Western nations. You blindly follow a marginal heterodox school that has contributed virtually nothing to modern economics and has had its greatest achievement demolished by superior socialist argument.
Gee willigers, there's differences between absolute and relative poverty? This sad little rambling only proved my point about your economically bankrupt moral view to an even greater degree; there's absolute ignorance of the legitimate constrictions on social mobility that afflict the U.S. to a greater extent than other developed Western nations. You blindly follow a marginal heterodox school that has contributed virtually nothing to modern economics and has had its greatest achievement demolished by superior socialist argument.
Unlike Esuric's posts, your's don't educate the gallery. In fact, you're putting on display the highly acclaimed socialist debating tactic: ridicule over substance.
Stranger: Well "whatever the club decides" is not saying much. There are economic factors to consider. When Hoppe set up the Property and Freedom Society, he explicitly made it a monarchy to avoid the co-opting that happened to Mont Pélerin Society.
Well "whatever the club decides" is not saying much. There are economic factors to consider.
When Hoppe set up the Property and Freedom Society, he explicitly made it a monarchy to avoid the co-opting that happened to Mont Pélerin Society.
Well a business owner could do the same and sell non-voting shares of his business only.
Bottom line is; elections valid only for those who agree to abide by them...
Leviathan: Poverty is not caused by social factors that predetermine the fate of individuals, but by the personal character flaws of the poor,
How about: it is nearly always a mixture of both, in varying degrees of importance on the one and the other?
(And don't forget to add the third important reason: the institutional framework - or lack there off.)
Leviathan:Of course, the fact that you see currently existing wealth distribution as just (attacking taxation as "theft" is evidence of that), is simply an illustration of the fact that you intend to defend the gains made by state-enforced capitalism. If you were consistent, you'd actually support massive redistribution, as all property has its ultimate origins in force and fraud, either through direct inheritance, or through creation made possible through theft of productive resources.
LOL
I'm not going to waste time regurgitating the same nonsense with a mass of you in a derailment of the thread, at least not now. We'll see if I have more patience later, but try getting back to the topic.
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties must force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith
Leviathan: Majority vote at least has the benefit of maximizing self-management to a greater degree than minority rule does.
Majority vote at least has the benefit of maximizing self-management to a greater degree than minority rule does.
You deal in false dichotomies and justifications of lesser evils. Such ideas are the symptoms of a democratic society, or a hegemonic society as it should be called.
Leviathan:I didn't cite voting specifically, though it's likely that exclusion from the political process is a factor in the generation of apathy and disinterest in it. But exclusion from the acquisition of responsibility will only naturally result in the underdevelopment of self-management abilities. As put by John Darling, "[there is a] common-sense perception, endemic in our culture, of children as rather silly and immature, unfit to be given responsibility. Yet such a view is clearly in danger of being self-confirming; for where children are seen as silly and immature, they will not be given responsibility, and where they are not given responsibility, they are likely to remain silly and immature." But it's something that I'd expect a libertarian to understand, not you.
Leviathan:I think you'll have to accept that if you want to play a consistent game of defining words according to popular understandings of them, you'll be on the losing end in many instances. ;)
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Leviathan: I'm not going to waste time regurgitating the same nonsense with a mass of you in a derailment of the thread, at least not now. We'll see if I have more patience later, but try getting back to the topic.
On the contrary, I think you deserve all the credit by derailing the thread with a semantics squabble. Then again, socialists turn every discussion into a semantics squabble. Punchlines are the legacy socialists will leave behind; dignity and Marx be damned because no cost is too great.
Marko: Yes, 150 years old.
Yes, 150 years old.
I second this. Naturally it should then also be the limit age for holding political office.If you are that old and still have enough wits to do anything it will probably be sensible :)
On a more serious note voting for political office is at the very least aiding and abetting violations of individual rights and should not be done by anyone.
There doesn't have to be any age restrictions in a voluntary society. If you make a contract with a 5 year old that is your problem.No one will be stupid enough to insure said contract, making legally void.
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
I just asked 2 simple questions. :(
I don't believe in voting.I think it leads to all sorts of trouble(essentiallyh it creates all the problems of democracy even if it claims to be a republic).My conception of a free society is anarchy so I don't think their would be any voting simpy because there would be no need for it in the political sense.In terms of private institutions I see no problem with it though I doubt all instititutions would have voting and I have no problem with that either.
In the case of voting currently while it exists, it should be limited.The universal suffrage was a huge mistake and should be reversed.I agree with Hoppe that the suffrage should be limited to property owners so redistribution of wealth is slightly more limited.
I don't seek why you attack hierarchy.Voluntary hierarchy is acceptable and vital in society.the characterisation of Rothbard as somehow being a lefty and then becoming right wing is the great lie perpetrated by 'left libertarians' to bolster their position so they can still be lefty and rothbardian.It's not true as Rothbard's closest associates can tell you.Of course his ideas changed and developed by not radically and much of them merely grew not radically changed.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
1147196: I disagree with most every age restriction set by the government but should there be a minimum age requirement for voting or not in a libertarian society?
I disagree with most every age restriction set by the government but should there be a minimum age requirement for voting or not in a libertarian society?
Anybody should be able to vote. However, nobody should be allowed to steal.
Leviathan:The reference to "men" is a subtle trace of sexism and of a belief in the innate leadership qualities of men as opposed to women.
I think it's more likely that Esuric was simply using the #2 dictionary definition of "man" ("a human being of either sex: a person"), one which PREDATES the definition of "man" as "male" (it derives from a time when "man" ONLY meant human) and that the only subtle trace to be found here is of a banal and crude anti-right paranoia on your part.
If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to construct the best possible minarchism I would allow everyone to vote regardless of age.
It doesn't really matter since all they would elect would be a parliament that only can do one thing ... depose the monarch.
hkarnoldson: If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to construct the best possible minarchism I would allow everyone to vote regardless of age. It doesn't really matter since all they would elect would be a parliament that only can do one thing ... depose the monarch.
Your idea of the best possible minarchism is the Second French Empire?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Anyone who pays the poll tax,
OR
there won't be any since I will rule.
W00T
Leviathan: Since there will be opposition to republicanism as a whole, it would be better to ask if there should be a minimum age for participation in affairs of societal management. I'd say not (and I'd oppose all other age restrictions also), and add that it overlaps fairly well with civil libertarianism, if you've ever had a look at John Holt and Richard Farson.
Since there will be opposition to republicanism as a whole, it would be better to ask if there should be a minimum age for participation in affairs of societal management. I'd say not (and I'd oppose all other age restrictions also), and add that it overlaps fairly well with civil libertarianism, if you've ever had a look at John Holt and Richard Farson.
I honestly don't see how this is too controversial a view on this site.
1) It doesn't advocate democracy as govt,
2) It says there should be no age restrictions in the participation of societal managment. This, I would think, would be obvious in any form of libertarian/ anarchist aesthetic.
Add to that I don't see how voting in any libertarian system would be anything but highly specialized and decentralized. It seems like an issue that would most likely resolve itself. It is not like there is much objecive criterea in age that can be used anyway
As to "owning property":
what is that? Do you mean land or would my body and PC count?
It seems a bit out of date to say land owners. Plus it may kind of screw people in cities like NYC and Chicago, as well as those who just don't wish to invest capital in land.
I think the concept of the original question is strange, unless the questioner isn't an anarchist.
I the anarchic condition, I'm sure each tribe would have varying ways of deciding how to act. Some would have no voting restrictions, some would, some wouldn't even vote.
The market would then decide which system worked best for each tribes ends, and that system would be most successful.
"35 and own property"
Har. So you could just buy gum or a pair of socks. And what about self-ownership? Ha, no need for gum or socks.
Voting or taxes will be abolished under anarchism. The former will only exist actually cooperative groups: like people working together, mutual aid, people in clubs of similar interests, community and neighborhood organizations, etc. And not the arbitrary range of tax cattle that you have under a nation-state. Instead of being in the pin of the state, it will revolve around your being part of specific activities. And the various groups will not have voting power over the other. Leviathan is correct in calling some authoritarian. As being able to predict arbitrary numbers might as well qualify you for being a politician or ruler yourself.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Leviathan:The reference to "men" is a subtle trace of sexism and of a belief in the innate leadership qualities of men as opposed to women. I think it's more likely that Esuric was simply using the #2 dictionary definition of "man" ("a human being of either sex: a person"), one which PREDATES the definition of "man" as "male" (it derives from a time when "man" ONLY meant human) and that the only subtle trace to be found here is of a banal and crude anti-right paranoia on your part.
That being said, I find it highly pretentious when people talk about men in the abstract. "Man qua man", etc. As if categories of things exist instead of individuals. More tyranny is delivered on this behalf, because it confuses what is good for this species instead of those who act morally and thus are deserving of the good. And so pushes ethics aside or in the case of Rand's objectivism uses cognitive dissonance to support states. Though these claims about "man" are certainly applicable to non-reasoning species and species not responsible for action. Or those that aren't diverse or deduce their essence through experience and time. The biologist EO Wilson once made the comment that Marx had the right idea, but had the wrong species (Wilson studies ants), for instance.
Byzantine: John Ess:More tyranny is delivered on this behalf, because it confuses what is good for this species instead of those who act morally and thus are deserving of the good. Nature, and by extension, the market, is clearly the biggest tyrant of all.
John Ess:More tyranny is delivered on this behalf, because it confuses what is good for this species instead of those who act morally and thus are deserving of the good.
Nature, and by extension, the market, is clearly the biggest tyrant of all.
Neither can be said to be good for the species. They are good for those who they serve. In the first instance you would have to be more specific. In the second, it is those who sell goods and services to meet customer demands or live and work in proximity to those who do. Neither is it perhaps good for those who act criminally. If we mean natural markets; as in some pure form of markets that punishes criminality. But I do not know if this is natural; I don't know what is meant by this. The very act of delineating markets from unnatural ways of being presupposes an ethics. And not an automatic feature of being.... or at least of all beings.
And I do not mean to say that because people say what is best for the species, that it actually creates the best utility. Or that this comes from some empiricism. Only that for political purposes, such rhetoric is used. (see: the many vulgar definitions used by various political groups to "save" nature or markets through state force). And thus a political mechanism is both necessary for this rhetoric and for the tyranny to be produced. In that way, nature (unless this definition is coopted by politicians) is not a tyranny. And the same for markets: a word that is both indifferent to and a rhetorical item for political purposes. Markets may, however, suck for many people. And thus someone's life may or not revolve around economical relationships. While at the same time having no good reason to oppose this way of life in others. But only their place in relation to it.
John Ess:That being said, I find it highly pretentious when people talk about men in the abstract. "Man qua man", etc. As if categories of things exist instead of individuals.
Here, here. Man the idea, is a fallacy, an idea invented to cause individuals to abrogate themselves to the idea, after which they can be manipulated to serve another's ends. Stirner deals with this (almost too) extensively.
That's where our opinions diverge. Good is as much a construct as Man. Individuals who submit to it have lost their fullest possible freedom of will, and those who haven't can use that submission to enslave others more easily.
Jackson LaRose: John Ess:That being said, I find it highly pretentious when people talk about men in the abstract. "Man qua man", etc. As if categories of things exist instead of individuals. Here, here. Man the idea, is a fallacy, an idea invented to cause individuals to abrogate themselves to the idea, after which they can be manipulated to serve another's ends. Stirner deals with this (almost too) extensively. John Ess:More tyranny is delivered on this behalf, because it confuses what is good for this species instead of those who act morally and thus are deserving of the good. That's where our opinions diverge. Good is as much a construct as Man. Individuals who submit to it have lost their fullest possible freedom of will, and those who haven't can use that submission to enslave others more easily.
Yes, good and morality are both used to manipulate. And at the individual level, no doubt. Since morality has to do with virtue and thus with a subject with a freedom to act (groups lack the ability to reason about action and so do prisoners and non-human animals). (In addition to it being a matter of similar classes of beings like 'homo sapien' beholden to rules that exist in making morality judicial rather than relative and thus useless). But there is a difference between what someone simply says is the good/ moral... versus what is good and what is ethical.
For instance, one could say that it is good to do something for me regardless of if you wish to. Or it is moral to obey the police. But neither is the case. But rather the morality or immorality of my forcing your service. Or of the methodology of police (which conflicts or doesn't with methodologies in some other domain... can I use a tazer to accomplish work goals, too?).
But your own sentence contradicts itself by saying that to have "lost their fullest possible freedom of will" is to be lamented. And using the concept good to "enslave others" is an evil. For two reasons.
1) To submit to losing one's free will is a contradiction. Since choice and non-choice are asserted. This problem must also be the case with those who also obey the good. Whether they do or not or whether it is right or not is another matter to the non-problem of it being their will. Even if it is as Nietzsche says that there are only better versus weaker wills, the problem of fullness is a non-issue. As the fullness of a weak will is still a weak will. And a strong will resists anything that negates the characteristics of its definition. Which is the facts of its resistance capability. This is similar to "limited government" and in fact related. Since all government is limited and all governments exploit freedom. And those who proclaim the good, never deny the freedom of the will. (which must always be a physiological and political 'fact'). But must use the mythology of it it in order to reap the benefits of the concept's implementation in society.
2) That there is no good and there being a problem with the good (and thus an "evil") is also a contradiction. Since resisting the good, or rather not what is "good" but whatever definition it is (rather than the word itself), will become the good: the fullest free will and the obligation to use it. And rather than no dedication to the good, there is merely two competing goods. Even if one is seemingly negative and the other positive. Rather than good or no good. It is the object of philosophy to deny or assert something as good. Though non-philosophers (and perhaps because of this, philosophy must exist) cannot prevent themselves from making such judgments as well. As it comes necessarily with action and discourse about action.
Byzantine: John Ess:They are good for those who they serve You serve nature and the market, not the other way around.
John Ess:They are good for those who they serve
You serve nature and the market, not the other way around.
It works both ways. You input goods and services. But you also have your own personal profit without which a market cannot exist. (and indeed nothing which profits no one ever becomes an institution). And profit comes to people in varying degrees, obviously. If you look at their bank accounts. Hence, it will serve those who gain from it.
Nature is perhaps a different case. Nature provides some with better genetics, better looks, some gift or proclivity or talent, geographical differences, the fact of even being born at all, a higher or lower quality of parental investment, etc. And these all have little to do with one's action or service. Again, some are served better than others: and ultimately will champion nature as the good. While others will champion virtue. Ultimately, both matter. I'm not sure what is meant by serving nature. In the same way as serving in a market; which seems more clear to me.
John Ess:(groups lack the ability to reason about action and so do prisoners and non-human animals).
I would disagree with that. My dog decides not to poop in the house anymore because she knows I'll yell at her. Is that not reason? I also have a contention about the "prisoners" included in that quote (if I understood your meaning correctly, maybe not, I kind of had trouble completely following your thought)
John Ess:But there is a difference between what someone simply says is the good/ moral... versus what is good and what is ethical.
That is a personal judgment. Please refer to the thread "Libertarianism without natural rights?"
John Ess:To submit to losing one's free will is a contradiction.
OK, I'll concede that notion.
John Ess:And a strong will resists anything that negates the characteristics of its definition.
And if the "characteristics of it's definition" become "the desire of good to triumph over evil", or of "the desire of Christianity to triumph over Islam", they blood gets spilled for "just causes".
John Ess:That there is no good and there being a problem with the good (and thus an "evil") is also a contradiction.
I never made that assertion. It also was not implicit in my statement. I think as absolutes, they're both "spooks". Depending on the individuals ends, it makes sense to classify actions as "good" (beneficial, constructive) or "bad" (counter-productive) as means to those ends, but considering that every individual has distinct ends, it is hard to classify any action as "always" good or "always" bad.
John Ess:the fullest free will and the obligation to use it.
I'm saying that's my goal, not the goal. And I don't understand how the attainment of something obliges you to use it.
John Ess:Though non-philosophers (and perhaps because of this, philosophy must exist) cannot prevent themselves from making such judgments as well.
Of course, you must make judgments to willfully act at all, but they are (logically) personal judgments about personal ends.
Esuric: Leviathan:Absolute drivel. If anything, I've been excessively neoclassical in my approach, not sufficiently integrating heterodox insights. Of course, the fact that you didn't actually offer any economic criticism is telling; you simply declared my position wrong without elaboration. This represents the extent of your abilities, I'd say. Whenever I do, you vanish. Go back to our prior discussions and respond.
Leviathan:Absolute drivel. If anything, I've been excessively neoclassical in my approach, not sufficiently integrating heterodox insights. Of course, the fact that you didn't actually offer any economic criticism is telling; you simply declared my position wrong without elaboration. This represents the extent of your abilities, I'd say.
Whenever I do, you vanish. Go back to our prior discussions and respond.
Leviathan does not want to have a straight forward argument on any specific topic. He would rather weasel himself around jumping from topic to topic, especially when his fallacies are revealed. This can be witnessed in every single discussion with him in the past. When the going gets tough, he gets to going.
Leviathan:And it's the definition of the majority of the U.S. public
Again we point out that Leviathan is more concerned with arguing over semantics and rhetoric than actually explaining his position.
Esuric:By the way, I responded to you last comment, but it's being reviewed. I linked about 4 definitions of capitalism. it may remedy your confusion.
Ahh I hate when that happens.
As for the OT.
I beleive voting is unecessary. Voting is the occupation of practicing coercion against your neighbor.
However if it must be necessary than who should have a say on how other people's property should be manipulated. I would say only property owners should dictate how property is coercively controlled. Otherwise what you get is political vampirism where welfarists exploit property owners by way of compulsion, without ever having motivation to get their own property in the first place.
I would prefer no voting process at all, but if I must I would go with property owners only. But giving property owners the right to vote does not fix the voting process. There is still rational ignorance, there is still compulsion being employed. It would be less than ideal.
I would prefer no voting process at all, but if I must I would go with property owners only
This would really piss off people in NYC, Chicago, etc. especially after libertarians say things like "your body is your property" yet owning that piece of property would not be good enough to cast a vote on, it would have to be the arbitrary notion (and antiquated) of land ownership that counts. I think realistically speaking you could expect a bloody revolt if some one tried to pull that off in a country where everyone was used to voting.
I don't think this would be an entirley accurate statement in an "anarchistic" type of society. As I said, I think everything would most likely be decentralized and specialized anyway. Voting on certain things in certain situations is a very useful tool, it has its uses in life and seems quite natural.
Dondoolee:This would really piss off people in NYC, Chicago, etc. especially after libertarians say things like "your body is your property" yet owning that piece of property would not be good enough to cast a vote on, it would have to be the arbitrary notion (and antiquated) of land ownership that counts. I think realistically speaking you could expect a bloody revolt if some one tried to pull that off in a country where everyone was used to voting.
A good point but I could really say the same thing about property owners revolting against welfarists, yet they dont.
Dondoolee:I don't think this would be an entirley accurate statement in an "anarchistic" type of society. As I said, I think everything would most likely be decentralized and specialized anyway. Voting on certain things in certain situations is a very useful tool, it has its uses in life and seems quite natural.
How about not centralized voting. If people voluntarily antee up themselves and their property into such a system thats fine with me. Many HOA's work this way to keep property value high in a community. What I am referring to though however is coercive voting, where people are forced to comply without ever having agreed to do so.
Solid points though
1) True, but that could mean a number of things:
a) There are not enough property owners to win in a revolt
b) For the most part property owners don't mind the laws enough to revolt
c) The laws/guns favor the property owners anway
d) The property owners have "more to lose than there chains", so to speak / do not have the same level of desperation (in general) as a non property owner
e) Enough property owners sympathise w/ non property owners
f) Owning property may somehow cause someone to disdain something like a bloody revolt (for whatever reason)
Either way if you take away some peice of power already established from (in general) a more desperate group of people, and those people significantly out number a better off group of people I would expect the chances of revolution to sky rocket. I think this would be even more the case if it was something like owning land; which is I think a very poor requirment to vote in a centralized type govt by any method of reasoning, particularly libertarian.
2) Yes I, and I think most agree on this site, that massive federal coercive type voting is a shame, or putting up a democratic way of life as some type of infallable "good cause" ideal is idiotic. I am just saying there would be natural and useful reasons for voting in almost any society.
Stranger: hkarnoldson: If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to construct the best possible minarchism I would allow everyone to vote regardless of age. It doesn't really matter since all they would elect would be a parliament that only can do one thing ... depose the monarch. Your idea of the best possible minarchism is the Second French Empire?
No, more like dark ages Europe with some modifications to use the power limiting mechanics of democratic influence.I think that the best possible state is very small (demographically), a classical monarchy (ie a dictatorship with a private government. The state is the monarchy, not the people) and I think it should use democratic influence in politics only as a means to allow "revolution" without blood. Democratic influence should also exist in the court system. Like British and American systems of juries and common law. That is a really bad system, but I think it is the least bad government solution to justice I can see.
One could organise these states in some kind of federation or feudal empire that makes sure that internal borders are open. This creates all kinds of problems, but on the other hand a small monarchy closing it's borders could be really bad too.
A constitutional republic could work similarly, but I think the incentives to create a welfare state are lower if the president is elected for life and no power to add to government rests with any officials that ever will need to fish for votes ... which makes would make this president a king.
And if elections only serve to impose restrictions on government (or replace it) there is little reason not to allow children to vote as well.
Ofc none of this is a particularly good solution to anything. But the the least bad minarchism possible..