If we're honest, the only acceptable Rothbardian, anti-state libertarian answer to any conceivable political question or problem is:
"Abolish the state and the market will fix it."
We can use flowery and diversified language to hide that inevitability, but coming to any other conclusion than "abolish the state" will simply not fly within the purely libertarian framework.
Don't you find this lack of nuance a bit unstimulating?
We can theorize what the market alternative would be, no?
Theres always economics, epistomology, sociology, and history of political economy which are all very relevant. and when you get bored with that, usufruct vs private property. please tell me your avatar source for the love of god.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Lol best thread title ever.
We can also promote specific ways that the market could fix the problem as well as how charitable/social entrepreneurship institutions would help deal with the problem. Indeed it's possible for a voluntaryist to be much more pro-involvement and taking action than a statist is, just in a different way.
I like calling it anarcho capitalism.
It seems less boring.
The word anarcho-capitalism has a zing to it that "libertarianism" doesnt have.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
When you get down to it, though, the statist is just as boring. Every stinking solution from a statist can be summed up as "there oughta be a law" or "the government should pay for it."
Abolish the property and the proletariat will fix it
Abolish the capitalist and the bureaucrat will fix it
Abolish the old regime so the US-installed 'democratic' one will fix it
Slogans in general are boring. It's the reasoning behind them that is fascinating.
I find the belief that we cannot accurately predict all future outcomes so it's futile to try to plan them in advance quite exciting, however.
so you are saying libertarians don't think there should be private laws against murder enforced by free market systems?
what about contracts, aren't those laws? is the libertarian soceity going to be without contract and without law?
^^ disputes will be solved in private courts.
and how will private courts solve disputes?law? without law?
there is more to law than government law. there is private law
That's true and I didn't mean to imply that only statists think there should be laws. My point was that statists themselves don't see a distinction between legislation and law, and therefore, to most statists, government law is law and the only way for a law to be enacted or enforced is through the government.
Sigh. Not what he meant. He meant laws about regulations +spending et al.
who are these statists?
what about the religous that have their god that has laws for them to follow? churches have their own laws and regulations, and are separated from state governments. a person could go to the church for some laws, and to government for other laws. the separation of church as state is a statist thing, otherwise it would be the church with the abolishment of the state or the combined church state.
person one wants cookies, person two wants donuts, is this saying a statist would say "there should be a law that the two will receive cookies, and the government will pay for those cookies"?
Jargon:please tell me your avatar source for the love of god.
Un, deux.
As for the objection that statists are equally boring because they always advocate a state measure: that's not necessarily true. For example, Milton Friedman, who was most definitely a statist, was quite inventive with his solutions.
In my experience they're anyone who isn't an anarcho-capitalist. It's a silly little pejorative that I think is thrown around far more often than is necessary; it's like the Keynesian idea of "classical economics" being anybody who disagrees with the "new economics", or the Marxist concept of a "bourgeois mentality". It's just us-versus-them sloganeering.
Private courts will be ruled by common sense.
private courts will be ruled by a book by Thomas Paine?
common sense
so courts will use judgement, but will not use law?
As for the objection that libertarians are equally boring because they always advocate a market measure: that's not necessarily true. For example, Walter Block, who is most definitely a libertarian, is quite inventive with his solutions.
Im sure they can use a set of laws. I guess i was rambling when i said that they are ruled by common sense.
Youd have interchangeable laws for different types of things.
U may want to check out judge.me
Politics and economics are both boring, but we are hobbyists and generally hobbyists can have rather boring passions in regards to public opinion. It's a specialization. If it was fun everyone would be doing it.
Cab21- i think you might be a partial troll (unless you actually did think that), since i wasnt referring to thomas paine's common sense.
Check this out: http://www.judge.me/online_arbitration#legal
It would work something like this, but i cant say for sure in an anarcho capitalist system since the market always comes up with new ideas.
Another example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
The free market of courts will enventually impose a set of laws upon itself: hence common law./\
Bert- not to mention that by doing this we arent being ignorant drones valuing the tv remote more than our liberties.
http://www.judge.me/online_arbitration#legal
website used law.
another example of the use of law
common law, makes sense.
free market forms of law and voluntary contracts.
Did i win?
common law is not common sense
common law is a option in a private free market court system. it's one possible solution people could come up with as a way to run the court, it's not the only solution. people would have all sorts of ways to make laws in the courts and we could get some entrepreneurial ideals for court systems.
my comment originated from the one that says statemest thinks laws should be made to solve problems, as far as i know, ancap thinks so as well, it's just a matter of how the law is done, through a private free market, or possibly including a government. many statists ( we include minarchy nightwatchmen here) allow for both government and private free market court law and solutions.
we see the catholic church deal with child rapist priests inside the church by moving them, that is a example of private law.
Its kinda like common sense.
If there is a child rapist in an institution, its common sense to banish them.
I guess it doesnt matter whatever you call it. Most courts i hope will use common sense.
(I can only hope....)
i mean they moved them and hid the sin, they were not banished and continued the sin from new positions.
common law is precident law or case law, so common law can be awful law depending on which case and which precident is used.
Dude, you misunderstood me.
To native English speakers, especially Americans, the phrase "there oughta be a law" carries a specific meaning and connotation. I wasn't saying statists are boring for wanting "law" or a legal framework within which society operates (which, yes, could be provided by private courts). I was saying that the impulse to meet every social problem or interpersonal conflict (poverty, drug abuse, animal abuse, garbage disposal, texting while driving, playing loud music, smoking, nudity on television, nudity in strip clubs, obesity, anorexia, bulemia, suicide, abusive language on the internet, shall I go on?) with a new law, i.e., legislation, is statist and that is what's boring and repetitive.
Anarcho-capitalists may sound like a broken record (note: another English colloquialism), but in reality what they propose is as diverse as the human mind itself. Statists are the one's who can think only of using violence and fear to get solutions. That was my point.
im from washington state and i have never heard " there oughta be a law".
so the opposite would be "there oughta not be a law" against murder, theft, rape, property violations, trespass?
legislation can be diverse as the human mind itself.
ok, so nonviolent, nonfearful solutions to murder, how many diverse solutions can you think of? prevent murder by neither creating fear nor violence against someone who murders or someone thinking about murdering.
loss of a reciprocal trading opportunity- fear, paying restitution- violence
i'll try a " there oughta be a law"
there oughta be a law that all government funding is through voluntary donations.
there oughta be a law that all government participation is through voluntary contract.
i'm still not following this, "there oughta be a nightwatchman government"
all those are statist, each proposing new legislation, yet somehow seems less than "there oughta be a law that we eat only at mcdonalds and the government pay for it, and violators will be shot".
"some starting a business oughta create a law about how to run the business"
You write like a non native English speaker. Sorry I assumed.
the opposite of "there oughta be a law" is not "there oughta not be a law". It is "it is not the case that every social ill requires a legal response." There are some social problems that are best met with non legal responses (think nutrition, or lying to your spouse). Just because some actions might rightfully be against the law, it does not therefore follow that every other issue must also be met by a new law. Once again, my point was never that law=bad, it was that law=inappropriate tool to address many social problems. Unfortunately, the statist solution to practically every problem ignores this fact by consistently calling on the legislature to create a new law.
Were you able to follow that?
i'm not following your definition for a statist. i don't know who is calling for legislation for practicly every problem.
"it is the case that every social ill requires a legal response." who gives this argument?
Holy cow you're obtuse. Troll?
Is libertarianism boring? No, the government bores me though.
That is what happens in democracy. The government ought to do something.
ayn rand is a statist, does she say the government ought to do something?
who has said there ought to be a law about bedtimes or wakeup times?
finding some person who thinks there ought to be a law does not make them the majority.
Its not the fact that its a majority. Its the fact that people are the government. If "the people" are the government such as in a democracy, then if they want a certain agenda or idea instilled in others, they can only turn to the government, for that is where their power lies in a democracy. In an anarchy we would only mind our own business and not bother others who disagree. Of course youre taking it too far by suggesting about bed times, not even the most statist statists do that (actually there have been curfew laws, though they arent that intrusive IMO).
We are talking about issues such as homosexuality/education/if you can be naked in the street/hate speech/regulations/marijuana use.
Many things which ought to not have a law, have a law for them.
Democracy welds government within society In a democracy, the whole fabric of society is geared towards the state (Beyond Democracy)
god has a law about that
A libertarian society would, perhaps, make for boring history. Seems the most interesting history are made by those with the most repulsive regimes - Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.
Yes, it IS boring and as a result I started frequenting r/anarchism in reddit. So many possibilities of trolling... They even did so I could post only one post in ten minutes, no more.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
All '-isms' are boring. It's a key reason the libertarian position is marginal. I'm a recent convert, and I'm telling you -- we really need a simple message to be considered as a legitimate alternative. I know the Libertarian Party has improved on messaging, and Gary Johnson's got my vote, but we will never get past 3% until we say something like this: 'Wouldnt you rather decide where your money goes than this guy?' (pictures of Obama and Romney)
I agree on the last point. I think that in politics libertarians should focus on the single issue of decentralization and localism. On the other issues, more ground is made through more focused educative measures rather than political ones. As we always say, 'the market will sort it out' - this time through foot-voting.