liberty student: Jon Irenicus: What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society? Peaceful ones. I was thinking about this today. What would people protest in a market economy? When you vote with your dollars, and free choices, why would you waste time lobbying anyone or anything to change? I think that protesting is a consequence of having limited choices, in which case reform is the only possible method for change. But with limitless choices and competition, any firm or institution that got to the point of being protested or lobbied would already be hearing the footsteps of their competitors. My 2 cents. Be interested to read what others think of this...
Jon Irenicus: What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society? Peaceful ones.
What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society?
Peaceful ones.
I was thinking about this today. What would people protest in a market economy? When you vote with your dollars, and free choices, why would you waste time lobbying anyone or anything to change?
I think that protesting is a consequence of having limited choices, in which case reform is the only possible method for change. But with limitless choices and competition, any firm or institution that got to the point of being protested or lobbied would already be hearing the footsteps of their competitors.
My 2 cents. Be interested to read what others think of this...
People would still protest as a means to get others to join there way of thinking, for example expanding awareness of a boycott.
SilentXtarian: Okay... let me ask a few questions. Is there any room for unions in a libertarian society?
Okay... let me ask a few questions.
Is there any room for unions in a libertarian society?
Yes. All forms of voluntary association are fine in a libertarian society. But there would be little need for them.
Any that do not violate anyone's property rights. But why would there be protests in a libertarian society? The primary social check would be the boycott, and it would be far more effective than any political action ever has been.
In a minarchist state what kind of government functions would be allowed?
All kinds. A state is a compulsory monopoly on initiatory force. Such an institution is, by definition, unlimited in function, no matter what "the law" says it may and may not do.
You see, I don't really understand how the libertarian thought would deal with these kinds of problems.
I suggest going here and educating yourself. I especially recommend anything by Rothbard, for starters.
I don't really want to get away with the government altogether because I like our country's principle, I like what America stands for, and I don't want us to go away
Okay, but you ought to realize that no government, no matter how constituted, will ever give a rat's ass about what you think America stands for.
I'm not a statist.
Yes you are. That is not name-calling, it is a fact. You want a state; you are a statist.
I just love the idea of our country
So do I, but I realize that the concept of "our country" has absolutely nothing to do with the government that taxes it.
I'm a believer in our constitution
First, it's not "our" consititution. It's their constitution.
Second, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, whatever tyranny the Constitution did not itself approve, it has been utterly powerless to prevent. It is, as George W. Bush observed, just a goddamned piece of paper.
Third, the Constitution was never intended to protect liberty. It was the result of a successful coup by statists who found themselves disenfranchised when the colonies won the war. It was illegally foisted upon the colonies without the consent of their peoples, and has ever since been an instrument of plunder for the policial class.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I understand that much. What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society? Any that do not violate anyone's property rights. But why would there be protests in a libertarian society? The primary social check would be the boycott, and it would be far more effective than any political action ever has been.
I understand that much.
Okay, would people be allow to protest on their own even if they don't have the right to as they do now though?
Okay, then never mind...
I don't want a state. I just think it's a necessary evil.
I know that. Unfortunately that is the case.
First, it's not "our" consititution. It's their constitution. Second, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, whatever tyranny the Constitution did not itself approve, it has been utterly powerless to prevent. It is, as George W. Bush observed, just a goddamned piece of paper. Third, the Constitution was never intended to protect liberty. It was the result of a successful coup by statists who found themselves disenfranchised when the colonies won the war. It was illegally foisted upon the colonies without the consent of their peoples, and has ever since been an instrument of plunder for the policial class.
I see... there needs to be a lot more privatization of government faciliities. I understand that our country is not what it is meant out to be... what could we do to get back our country? Maybe Direct Democracy? Maybe no state? I just don't want to do away with our country entirely.
SilentXtarian: Okay, would people be allow to protest on their own even if they don't have the right to as they do now though?
People would be able to do absolutely whatever they wanted on their own property, or on others by the license of the owner. There is no positive right to protest; only a negative right against having others stopping you from doing so as long as you are not initiating force in the process of the protest.
I understand that our country is not what it is meant out to be... what could we do to get back our country? Maybe Direct Democracy? Maybe no state? I just don't want to do away with our country entirely.
We can rid ourselves of the state without losing our nationhood, where that nationhood is natural. Currently, there are people bound together in unnatural political union. That would not be the case in a free society, where freedom of association (and the corrolary freedom of exclusion) prevail.
But to the extent that and in the places where people share similar values, culture, and language, the nation of America would still exist.
I actually do not object to direct democracy - though only in a voluntary form. Specifically, I like the idea of Representative Participatory Democracy as imagined by L. Neil Smith: everyone can vote, either through a delegate (which they can freely choose, regardless of geographic location up to the time of the vote) or directly. There is a 90% quorum, and any action passed when the assembly votes applies only to those who voted.
It's sort of a compromise, but I'd be okay with it as long as such a body had no legislative or confiscatory powers. People could wean themselves off their habits of bureaucracy and politics as slowly as they wished, but in the meantime anyone who had no such addiction could simply ignore the government, for the most part.
Keep in mind that it is not law and order we seek to abolish - it is the territorial monopolist on the provision of those things that we oppose.