Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Sphairon:

GilesStratton:

But to get back on topic: Professor Hoppe is correct 100% of the time.

I have to disagree with his choice of sunglasses rather often.

Are you going to dispute the taste in sunglasses of a man who lives in Las Vegas?

Juan:

I understood (part of) your position.

I  don't see what you haven't understood seeing as you summarized it far better than I managed to.

Juan:

On the other hand, I don't think that's the whole story, as far as libertarianism is concerned

What do you mean?

 

Nerditarian:

While it will logically be basically libertarianism I wonder where PDAs will fall on issues of disagreement among us.

This is all I was asking.

 

GilesStratton:

I don't see what you haven't understood seeing as you summarized it far better than I managed to.

What I tried to summarize is a possible scenario/outcome which I would not call libertarian at all. For instance, a worst case scenario in which minority X gets wiped out. Of course, such a scenario will play out according to the laws of economics. Is it expensive for minority X to buy security ? They can't afford it ? Too bad...

We agree on the economics of the situation.

GS:

J:

On the other hand, I don't think that's the whole story, as far as libertarianism is concerned

What do you mean?

That disposing of minority X according to supply and demand of 'security' has nothing to do with a libertarian moral system ?

You've said that people are not interested in philosophy and so they will buy the product "security/justice" as offered by entrepreneurs. But in reality you're forgetting that entrepreneurs must provide what the market demands. So, if the majority wants to buy the torturing of redhead, redheads are out of luck ?

Nerditarian:

I can't say what percentage of society would be able to afford this, but not a lot. And now from what I absorb people on the top of the social ladder, in modern semi-market societies who got there by market means quite frankly are less likely to give a damn about social things like that. Whose more opposed to fornication and pornography, as an example? Hugh Hefner or low-income baptists? How do you think Hugh Hefner's golf buddies feel about it? To ask these questions is to answer them. And further more, would more wealthy people invest in prostitution or try and raise an army to stop it? There would be far more of the previous.

Well I personally agree that things could (and would) take that turn. However, I doubt that's the kind of thing that 'cultural conservatives' want to hear.

Do you think that this would be affordably priced so that the nonmillionaire footwashers could afford the luxury of pushing people around ?

Still I think that it depends on relative numbers. Yes, it will be impossible for one person to push people around. On the other hand, in a 'community' in which a substantial group can pool resources against a minority, it sounds far more plausible.

Juan:

We agree on the economics of the situation.

But that's all I've commented on. Do I want to see red heads killed in large numbers? Not particularly, do I acknowledge that it might well happen? Yes.

You think it might happen in a libertarian society ?

Juan:

Nerditarian:

I can't say what percentage of society would be able to afford this, but not a lot. And now from what I absorb people on the top of the social ladder, in modern semi-market societies who got there by market means quite frankly are less likely to give a damn about social things like that. Whose more opposed to fornication and pornography, as an example? Hugh Hefner or low-income baptists? How do you think Hugh Hefner's golf buddies feel about it? To ask these questions is to answer them. And further more, would more wealthy people invest in prostitution or try and raise an army to stop it? There would be far more of the previous.

Well I personally agree that things could (and would) take that turn. However, I doubt that's the kind of thing that 'cultural conservatives' want to hear.

It doesn't matter what one wants to hear. There are those who want to hear that libertarianism will result in egalitarianism. It won't. It won't result in murdering people either.

Juan:

Still I think that it depends on relative numbers. Yes, it will be impossible for one person to push people around. On the other hand, in a 'community' in which a substantial group can pool resources against a minority, it sounds far more plausible.

1. You concede that it would be impossible for one rich guy to push all people around. It would be insane. 2. Well, if there's more than one person they have self-defense. They likely have PDAs. Also if PDAs pulled their resources to pay for a inter-PDA contractual police force to enforce contracts and individual rights between them, which some have suggested but I remain agnostic, the police force would arrest them. 3. The cost to fight this would be huge. While private companies might be better at violating rights(your argument a while back), the ones who defend rights will also be better at it. Those who were offended would be able to retaliate or use self-defense. 4. As GS freely admits and I hope you would too, people who don't like each other tend not to live in each others midst without putting those differences aside. It wouldn't be one black against a community of whites. It would be a small community of blacks against a larger community of whites, at worst. 5. A "rights-insurance" would not insure people who violate rights because when you start doing that race riot stuff, it's not an insurable risks. 6. It costs a lot, a lot, a lot to wage war. It costs a lot to wage war in Iraq. It costs a lot to wage war on drugs. It costs a lot to wage war on minorities of color, sex or creed. Because of this, the inherent risks, the much more widespread philosophic belief in libertarianism making this taboo* etc. there would be a smaller labor pool of "PDAs" willing to take such a job. This would raise the price tremendously. This cannot be said enough. The average person simply could not afford to hire a PDA to do this for them. 7. As such they would either have to agress themselves and open themselves up to retaliation, hire someone to aggress which is for the above reasons not at all economic, or not aggress. The great thing about AnCap is that either the later is chosen, or you end up knee high in a heaping pile of dung. *This is not to imply that entrepreneurship cannot aid in, contribute to or be the proximate cause of the fall of the state, per se. However, as faith in PDAs goes up Faith in States goes down. When the emperor has no clothes it's harder to support his right to be evil.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

We agree on the economics of the situation.

But that's all I've commented on. Do I want to see red heads killed in large numbers? Not particularly, do I acknowledge that it might well happen? Yes.

The problem is that there are only two ways to aggress in AnCapLand: 1- Do it yourself. This sets you up for personal retaliation. It's less available to the physically disinclined. In this situation, almost always the person will be out numbered. Either he'll attack someone who is packing. Or has a PDA. Or maybe all the insurance companies in the area pooled their resources for a private police force. Again, in the end your in at least, at least. as much trouble as you are in a Statist society. 2- Hire someone. Unlike defense, this could not be covered by insurance because rights violations are uninsurable. In fact, for either of these ways it is an uninsurable risk to attack someone. Therefore, the costs would be prohibitive, for reasons I've explained several times. Only the super rich could afford it. Paradoxically,the super rich tend not to care enough about the habits of the poor to do this. Would Hugh Hefner, Gene Simmons and Co. launch the next assault on fornication or would poor baptists? To ask the question is to answer it. Those who'd be most likely interested in doing so would likely be stopped by economics. 3- Once we've established that the super-rich are the only ones who could possible munster a force to fight these kinds of battles is the elimination of redheads, gays, blacks or any real minority the real threat? No. The only threat is they might try and use their force to establish a sick Stateless Welfare State, so to speak. But again. Then people wouldn't buy their movies. And since the cost of aggression is many, many times greater than that of defense, even if they could spend something equal to what the resistors, writ large, spend on defense they would only get a small fraction of the troops. The costs would destroy them.

Juan:

You think it might happen in a libertarian society ?

The gist of literally hundreds of arguments.

It might happen, unless you believe that a libertarian society would be perfect.  I do not.  PDAs will not only be required to deal outside the libertarian society, but to maintain order and enforce property rights within.

Well, I asked Giles, not you. And it seems he has declined to answer ?

Sorry, I didn't see it, the answer is no it wouldn't be libertarian, at least not truly. But then, no society ever will be.

GilesStratton:

Jon Irenicus:

To put it in a more simple way: nobody is going to insure a black homosexual who is living amongst white, homophobic racists.

True, and they don't have to; they're just remaining passive in this case. I'm referring to PDAs that actively aggress on behalf of their customers. There's nothing anarchic or libertarian about them. They're not even economically sensible. They'll just end up broke and be crushed as they deserve to be.

But if I'm one of those racist, homophobic white people and I decide to break the window of the black homosexual, or if I'm the father who breaks the ribs of the guy who is leading my child somewhere my PDA/ insurance company is going to turn a blind eye.

And here we see your attempt to misapply libertarian theories to justify your own insanity. Do you really think a rational protection agency is going to be okay with you engaging in crimes on people just because they're black or homosexual? Sounds like you're just looking for an excuse.

GilesStratton:

More than likely the black guy won't have a PDA, or if he does they'll tell him too bad, he shouldn't have moved in there in the first place.

This just echoes the statist love or or leave it sentiment, and you appear to just being looking for a justification for treating people badly.

Juan:

Well, I asked Giles, not you. And it seems he has declined to answer ?

Your new avatar is so sexy, I feel drawn to your  posts.

 

LS:

Your new avatar is so sexy, I feel drawn to your posts.

True to my childish/immature nature, I can't give up watching 'cartoons'. Japanese animation is awesome.

Juan:

You think it might happen in a libertarian society ?

Back in the day, republicanism was the means to roughly the same ends we desire, human liberty. Our ancestors, the classical liberals didn't get what they bargained for, Hoppe is extremely right on this point. That's not to say I agree with him as a categorical statement that monarchy > democracy, as too nondescript. Or that on a whole ones better than the other. I'm sort of of two minds on that issue. But that's beside the point. The republicanism is not what made a classical liberal society, classically liberal. A respect for freedom was on the whole their ends. It is our belief that democracy, or technically republicanism, is not conducive to these ends. So we as libertarians seek an anarchocapitalist society. But the anarchocapitalist society would not become libertarian until the economic processes I described are taking to their logical extent. So as a matter of definition, I must answer categorically no. And yes I realize this was initially geared towards Giles.

Brainpolice:

GilesStratton:

More than likely the black guy won't have a PDA, or if he does they'll tell him too bad, he shouldn't have moved in there in the first place.

This just echoes the statist love or or leave it sentiment, and you appear to just being looking for a justification for treating people badly.

I'm not trying to justify anything, just explain.

Brainpolice:

Do you really think a rational protection agency is going to be okay with you engaging in crimes on people just because they're black or homosexual?

Yes.

I find it quite intriguing that as the thread develops, the perils of a stateless society appear to be exactly those of a democratic state: majority enslaving minority, pressure to conformity due to increasingly centralized legislative institutions (first gays, then Muslims, then atheists and in the end, we only get protection for Christians?) and a lack of productivity due to the expectation of invasion and plunder by the ruling group.

For the first time in a long time, I'm actually flirting with minarchism. See where that got us?

As for Dr. Hoppe's choice of sunglasses, he's getting better. Just look at the last Bodrum group picture. One sexy beast!

Nerditarian,

I do see your points and agree with them. I'm not objecting to a free market in security -- I know it's the only system worth advocating. What I was trying to underline is that such a system can only work when people believe that leaving their neighbors alone is the right thing to do. I don't think that economic incentives alone will do the trick, so to speak.

To me, all this roughly means that the majority of people will have to deal with philosophical issues, which is something Giles doesn't believe is possible or will happen. Liberty Student also seems to believe that systematic un-libertarianism is possible in a libertarian society, which strikes me as a contradiction in terms. You correctly note that, as a matter of definition, that's not possible.

Also, it seems to me that 'cultural conservatism' is at odds with the idea of leaving people alone. I know this is kind of a blanket statement, but it's not so far off IMO.

The institutionalization of a monopoly over law and order would aggravate, not improve matters.

Sphairon:

I find it quite intriguing that as the thread develops, the perils of a stateless society appear to be exactly those of a democratic state: majority enslaving minority, pressure to conformity due to increasingly centralized legislative institutions (first gays, then Muslims, then atheists and in the end, we only get protection for Christians?) and a lack of productivity due to the expectation of invasion and plunder by the ruling group.

There's nothing strange about it. Competition in the production of security is no silver bullet unless justice is properly defined beforehand.

For the first time in a long time, I'm actually flirting with minarchism.

Of course, miniarchism would be better...if it worked, but it can't work. Anyway, miniarchism also takes for granted that the majority of people 'protected' by the state hold libertarian values.

Juan:

Liberty Student also seems to believe that systematic un-libertarianism is possible in a libertarian society, which strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

I want to correct this, if only because I am tired of it going in circles.

There will never be a libertarian society by your definition.  Not something which is enduring.  Part of what makes man a man, is his flaws and animal instincts.  While I desire your libertarian paradigm, I do not see how men will stop doing foolish things motivated by malintent.

I am all for nice outcomes, peace and tranquility.  I just don't think it is a realistic expectation.  It's a very big leap from trusting the market, and then assuming the market has to only produce positive outcomes.

 

LS:

I want to correct this, if only because I am tired of it going in circles.

You go in circles because you refuse to use ordinary and accepted definitions. A free-society, by definition, lacks institutionalized aggression. Whether you regard that as utopia or not, is another matter.

Jon Irenicus:

The institutionalization of a monopoly over law and order would aggravate, not improve matters.

That's why it's only a flirt. As much as I'd like to believe the myths about honest sheriffs and conception in liberty, it's still a bad incentive structure after all.

Juan:

Competition in the production of security is no silver bullet unless justice is properly defined beforehand.

If I remember correctly, we had an argument about whether religious communes could legitimately exist within a private property framework. This alone goes to show that all the toil about objective ethics, even within a small ideological niche such as ours, really boils down to an individual's perspective. And it also explains why a "proper definition of justice" will not prevent plundering PDAs from arising on the marketplace.

What will prevent them, though, is the economic incentive of real defense providers who would recognize these organizations as the crooks they are. See, Giles is not advocating this proposition because he's some evil social-darwinist reactionary, but because it's a matter of deductive logic.

Personally, I believe this invade-and-pluder mentality would be much less of a problem if more people had respect for the ideas behind the Second Amendment and acted accordingly. So you're from "Evangelical Defense Ministries" and want to arrest me for being gay? Talk to Mr. AR-15, then.

Of course, miniarchism would be better...if it worked, but it can't work. Anyway, miniarchism also takes for granted that the majority of people 'protected' by the state hold libertarian values.

Agreed.

Sphairon:

This alone goes to show that all the toil about objective ethics, even within a small ideological niche such as ours, really boils down to an individual's perspective. And it also explains why a "proper definition of justice" will not prevent plundering PDAs from arising on the marketplace.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that we can't define what justice/right/wrong/aggression/coercion is ?

What will prevent them, though, is the economic incentive of real defense providers who would recognize these organizations as the crooks they are.

That makes no sense until you tell me whether "justice" is objective or not.

See, Giles is not advocating this proposition because he's some evil social-darwinist reactionary, but because it's a matter of deductive logic.

I see no logic in Giles' position beyond a description of how amoral PDAs would work. I think you realized that if majorities want to oppress minorities economic laws will not stop them.

Personally, I believe this invade-and-pluder mentality would be much less of a problem if more people had respect for the ideas behind the Second Amendment and acted accordingly. So you're from "Evangelical Defense Ministries" and want to arrest me for being gay? Talk to Mr. AR-15, then.

That sounds like the usual caricature of the far west...

Juan:

A free-society, by definition, lacks institutionalized aggression.

Right.  And it is utopian, and unlikely.  Great goal to strive for though.

Juan:

What I was trying to underline is that such a system can only work when people believe that leaving their neighbors alone is the right thing to do. .... Also, it seems to me that 'cultural conservatism' is at odds with the idea of leaving people alone. I know this is kind of a blanket statement, but it's not so far off IMO.

I see your point, but this would not be the cultural conservatism we're speaking of here. Tom Woods is a Latin-Mass Catholic. He pretty much believes prostitutes will go to hell. That's an oversimplification, but thats the short version. But we don't see him advocating the kidnapping of prostitutes. In fact, he would argue that this is conflating the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. Some Latin-Mass Catholics may think prostitutes must be eliminated, but to assign that view to him is impossible. Some evangelicals may think prostitutes must be eliminated by force, but to assign that view to Vance, the columnist on LRC, would be impossible. Because someone is a social conservative, it does not mean he will enforce their views by force. In this view, those who start charities are liable to want to force charity and recreate the welfare state. Should we right of charitable people all together and try to create a libertarianism that only appeals to tightwads? IMHO that's not a good idea. Having a preference (either towards conservativism or charity) does not mean believing in state enforcement of these preferences. Most people, including most libertarians, have feelings one way or another on these issues. That does not mean believing in using force to enforce them. As far as your disagreements go, I see myself as an equivocal centrist. What Giles has been saying is that people starting PDAs now would be a start towards the goal of AnCap. Entrepreneurship is great. But, as a consequence of fighting for the state in that way, in my opinion, people would become libertarians. The initial purchasers of the PDA's service, or the initial settler on AnCap Island, would be libertarians. When people see these libertarians have their proverbial bells and whistles together, than they will sign up with said PDA service or move to AnCap Island or support whatever entrepreneurial pro-liberty venture they believe in. However, as a consequence of doing so, they will more or less cease to believe in the state as a legitimate/moral tool when it's compared with something better. Now, we're not starting with a blank slate. People who choose AnCap alternative institutions, to borrow a term from our lefty friends, will turn against the state in the majority. Or else they would believe the state propaganda about our institutions being evil frauds who exploit the workers, or what not and stick with the states. Seeing us be more efficient and cheaper would be the economic stimulus, but considering that most people are not natural rightsers they will believe that libertarian, or the system they are choosing, is more efficient and/or more moral compared to those who believe in states. People generally don't believe in violence, EXCEPT under the guise of states. Now if states were shown to be less efficient at protecting person and property than PDAs and people choose PDAs they would be libertarians. In addition, once AnCap Land came into being their would be financial constraints leading to no inter-PDA battles. Now most people, won't read Rothbard. Perhaps, they will read Hazlitt. Or Healy. Or Murphy. Whomever. Now most people in the Am. Rev. had some classical liberal beliefs. Most did not read Locke, but rather they read people applying Locke to their lives. It will be the same way with our peaceful global revolution. Except Rothbard is our Locke. This is where LS comes in. Your misinterpreting LS, I think. I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems to me that LS is pointing out that violence would be possible in a libertarian society. But the economics of capitalism make systemic violence all but impossible. I think his point is that one person could still punch another for no apparent reason with no force of nature stopping him. Sure, that's a concession I'd make. But we're speaking apples and oranges. Sorry for the reallly, really long post. My posting will probably come to an abrupt halt again really soon, so you won't have to deal with me pulling stunts like this much longer. Until my next foray, anyway.

Sphairon:

For the first time in a long time, I'm actually flirting with minarchism.

Create a state to protect the revolution? Why didn't anyone think of that before!

Nerditarian:

This is where LS comes in. Your misinterpreting LS, I think. I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems to me that LS is pointing out that violence would be possible in a libertarian society. But the economics of capitalism make systemic violence all but impossible. I think his point is that one person could still punch another for no apparent reason with no force of nature stopping him.

This ^^^

Would you mind editing that holy batman wall of text into some paragraphs?

fezwhatley:

Would you mind editing that holy batman wall of text into some paragraphs?

Done

Nerditarian:

I see your point, but this would not be the cultural conservatism we're speaking of here. Tom Woods is a Latin-Mass Catholic. He pretty much believes prostitutes will go to hell. That's an oversimplification, but thats the short version. But we don't see him advocating the kidnapping of prostitutes. In fact, he would argue that this is conflating the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.

Some Latin-Mass Catholics may think prostitutes must be eliminated, but to assign that view to him is impossible. Some evangelicals may think prostitutes must be eliminated by force, but to assign that view to Vance, the columnist on LRC, would be impossible. Because someone is a social conservative, it does not mean he will enforce their views by force.

In this view, those who start charities are liable to want to force charity and recreate the welfare state. Should we right of charitable people all together and try to create a libertarianism that only appeals to tightwads? IMHO that's not a good idea. Having a preference (either towards conservativism or charity) does not mean believing in state enforcement of these preferences.

Most people, including most libertarians, have feelings one way or another on these issues. That does not mean believing in using force to enforce them. As far as your disagreements go, I see myself as an equivocal centrist. What Giles has been saying is that people starting PDAs now would be a start towards the goal of AnCap.

Entrepreneurship is great. But, as a consequence of fighting for the state in that way, in my opinion, people would become libertarians. The initial purchasers of the PDA's service, or the initial settler on AnCap Island, would be libertarians. When people see these libertarians have their proverbial bells and whistles together, than they will sign up with said PDA service or move to AnCap Island or support whatever entrepreneurial pro-liberty venture they believe in. 

However, as a consequence of doing so, they will more or less cease to believe in the state as a legitimate/moral tool when it's compared with something better.

Now, we're not starting with a blank slate. People who choose AnCap alternative institutions, to borrow a term from our lefty friends, will turn against the state in the majority. Or else they would believe the state propaganda about our institutions being evil frauds who exploit the workers, or what not and stick with the states.

Seeing us be more efficient and cheaper would be the economic stimulus, but considering that most people are not natural rightsers they will believe that libertarian, or the system they are choosing, is more efficient and/or more moral compared to those who believe in states.

People generally don't believe in violence, EXCEPT under the guise of states. Now if states were shown to be less efficient at protecting person and property than PDAs and people choose PDAs they would be libertarians. In addition, once AnCap Land came into being their would be financial constraints leading to no inter-PDA battles.

Now most people, won't read Rothbard. Perhaps, they will read Hazlitt. Or Healy. Or Murphy. Whomever. Now most people in the Am. Rev. had some classical liberal beliefs. Most did not read Locke, but rather they read people applying Locke to their lives.

It will be the same way with our peaceful global revolution. Except Rothbard is our Locke. This is where LS comes in. Your misinterpreting LS, I think. I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems to me that LS is pointing out that violence would be possible in a libertarian society.

But the economics of capitalism make systemic violence all but impossible. I think his point is that one person could still punch another for no apparent reason with no force of nature stopping him. 

Sure, that's a concession I'd make. But we're speaking apples and oranges. Sorry for the reallly, really long post. My posting will probably come to an abrupt halt again really soon, so you won't have to deal with me pulling stunts like this much longer.

Until my next foray, anyway.

fezwhatley:

Would you mind editing that holy batman wall of text into some paragraphs?

sorry Google chrome's fault.

Juan:

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that we can't define what justice/right/wrong/aggression/coercion is ?

We can try, and will come to different conclucions. For example, you claim that "indoctrinating" children with religious beliefs constitutes some sort of abuse. You also claim that you have doubts about the legitimacy of religious communes.

As an arbitrator in such a case, you might come to vastly different conclusions than Giles, Hoppe or I would. Still, we'd both consider ourselves just.

The human system of justice and right(s) evolves together with human mental capacity and, to an extent, with material well-being. Cavemen may have struggled to recognize the inhabitants of other caves as worthy of rights. Some Founding Fathers didn't realize that "conceived in liberty" and "owning huge amounts of slaves" won't add up. Today, our system of objective justice is concerned with questions like the rights of future generations or animal rights.

There is no "objective" city upon a hill. Whether it is Rothbardian or Randian or Aristotelian justice you want to put in place, at some point you will be forced to deviate from the rule. If you don't believe me, think "feudal land arrangements", "Castle doctrine" or "religious communes". You will face competition regarding your views on these issues. Of course, you can always claim that you're in fact the objective one everyone else just won't get it, but that's a bad excuse for denying ethical relativism.

 

That makes no sense until you tell me whether "justice" is objective or not.

Maybe Plato was right that while there is a concept of justice that is indeed objective, man's senses cripple the idea whenever they try to derive it.

No, I don't believe you will ever have -the- perfect system of justice. I believe in evolutionary morality.

I see no logic in Giles' position beyond a description of how amoral PDAs would work. I think you realized that if majorities want to oppress minorities economic laws will not stop them.

Ideology's one thing, risking your life to implement it quite another one.

That sounds like the usual caricature of the far west...

The "Mild West" was founded on people's ability to defend their lives and property claims both by pooling resources in claim organizations and by making sure that "everyone and their grandma" had personal means of defense.

An armed society really is a polite society.

Sphairon:

The "Mild West" was founded on people's ability to defend their lives and property claims both by pooling resources in claim organizations and by making sure that "everyone and their grandma" had personal means of defense.

An armed society really is a polite society.

Truth.  My family is testament to this.

Sphairon:

We can try, and will come to different conclucions. For example, you claim that "indoctrinating" children with religious beliefs constitutes some sort of abuse. You also claim that you have doubts about the legitimacy of religious communes.

As an arbitrator in such a case, you might come to vastly different conclusions than Giles, Hoppe or I would. Still, we'd both consider ourselves just.

The human system of justice and right(s) evolves together with human mental capacity and, to an extent, with material well-being. Cavemen may have struggled to recognize the inhabitants of other caves as worthy of rights. Some Founding Fathers didn't realize that "conceived in liberty" and "owning huge amounts of slaves" won't add up. Today, our system of objective justice is concerned with questions like the rights of future generations or animal rights.

This ^^^^^

I'd like to add, the capacity for understanding rights is definitely changing/expanding all of the time.  Back in the day, Lysander Spooner was quite the radical, we take the abolition stance today for granted.

We have to be very careful not to be too self-righteous when it comes to rights, there is no telling what future developments and revelations might come down the pike, making us look anachonristic and conflicted to future generations.  The *NOW* is not the forever.

Sphairon:

Some Founding Fathers didn't realize that "conceived in liberty" and "owning huge amounts of slaves" won't add up.?

Give me a break. Here's an alternate explanation : They were just a bunch disgusting, hypocritical politicians who knew pretty well what they were doing and didn't give a damn. They didn't show that rights are not objective. They showed that they, so called 'founding fathers', had a sick moral double standard.

For example, you claim that "indoctrinating" children with religious beliefs constitutes some sort of abuse.

It is indoctrination and abuse. It's an objvective fact that revealed religions are baseless and that parents manipulate and coerce their children.

No, I don't believe you will ever have -the- perfect system of justice. I believe in evolutionary morality.

So, you are another moral relativist, although you use a fancier name for it.

There is no "objective" city upon a hill. Whether it is Rothbardian or Randian or Aristotelian justice you want to put in place

Libertarianism is individual rights, no more no less. Individual rights were certainly NOT invented by Rothbard or Rand and even less by Aristotle. Also the fact that some people may disagree about X doesn't mean that X is not real/objective. Your fallacious point is based on pretending that disagreement means knowledge is impossible. But it doesn't.

Ideology's one thing, risking your life to implement it quite another one.

Ah yes. Because there's never been such a thing as mass murder for alleged ideological reasons. There's never been such a thing as wars of religion for instance.

An armed society really is a polite society.

Sounds like a slogan for arm manufactures.

Juan:

Liberty Student also seems to believe that systematic un-libertarianism is possible in a libertarian society, which strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

LibertyStudent:

There will never be a libertarian society by your definition.

Juan:

A free-society, by definition, lacks institutionalized aggression.

LibertyStudent:

Right. And it is utopian, and unlikely.

Nerditarian:

This is where LS comes in. Your misinterpreting LS, I think. I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems to me that LS is pointing out that violence would be possible in a libertarian society. But the economics of capitalism make systemic violence all but impossible. I think his point is that one person could still punch another for no apparent reason with no force of nature stopping him.

LibertyStudent:

This ^^^

It seems clear to me that LS has his definitions/logic messed up but then you indeed put words in his mouth and he changed his tune (in his last post). Sorry.

Nerditarian, I appreciate your post but I feel a bit disappointed because I'm not sure my point is really being addressed. Libertarianism is a moral system, not an economic one. Libertarianism relies on individual moral judgement, not in community rules, authority, revealed religion, masses led by 'natural elites' or similar conservative fantasies.

Also, do you think this is pure slander ? http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

Juan:

Also, do you think this is pure slander ? http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

It was only a matter of time until you played that card.

Juan:

It seems clear to me that LS has his definitions/logic messed up but then you indeed put words in his mouth and he changed his tune (in his last post). Sorry.

Not at all.

You're choosing to highlight the wrong part of the argument.

it seems to me that LS is pointing out that violence would be possible in a libertarian society. But the economics of capitalism make systemic violence all but impossible. I think his point is that one person could still punch another for no apparent reason with no force of nature stopping him.

I know you are hung up on this

Juan:

A free-society, by definition, lacks institutionalized aggression.

I was disagreeing with your Utopian perfectly peaceful society.  Will there be institutionalized aggression?  Honestly, I didn't even consider this in your latest round of semantic games.  You're talking about fantasy and unicorns, and I am talking about reality.

I already told you that a free society by your definition is a pipe dream.  However a capitalist system without systemic (different than institutionalized) violence, is entirely possible and probable in the collapse of the superstate and the means of property rights enforcement by individuals.