Political Theory

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

liberty student — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:13:11 GMT

You can't steal what is freely given.

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

Blueline976 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:18:09 GMT

I asked him to clarify what he meant in my reply. Here is my reply:

Me (first part of his post):

I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at. Could you clarify this post? In the mean time, here is my response based on what I understood:

If you are hungry, doing seemingly crazy ideas to ease the hunger might come to mind. Some people follow through with those ideas. But it sounds like you're saying that people in difficult situations aren't capable of rational thought or clear-thinking. What I meant by a lack of coercion is a lack of government force and influence on the market. You pretty much covered that in the second part of your post, however.

(Second part):

Again, do you have examples of free markets? Or are you saying that markets without coercion are unpleasant to live in? Your posts confused the hell out of me.

I admit, I stole a bit of the "rational thought" part from what you guys posted. Not because I needed an argument, but because it made sense.

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

wilderness — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:07:26 GMT

liberty student:

His assertion about coercion is flawed.

While there may be pressure to eat your child or rob your spouse, men have free will. To say that coercion is inevitable means that we're not capable of rational thought, but that we're slaves to our physical desires.

There are numerous examples where starving people do not become cannibals, so it seem to me his premise is very flimsy.

I agree liberty student. I couldn't make much sense of the guy's assertion. I don't know if he meant in an idealistic sense that murder, rape, and theft will always be present around the world, which is probably true. Yet, if he meant it in the sense you make here that biological desires overcome rational thought, then yes, "There are numerous example...". I think it's due to his premise is flawed and therefore doesn't provide enough clarity to his own statements. I find myself guessing to what he actually meant.

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

liberty student — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:58:17 GMT

His assertion about coercion is flawed.

While there may be pressure to eat your child or rob your spouse, men have free will. To say that coercion is inevitable means that we're not capable of rational thought, but that we're slaves to our physical desires.

There are numerous examples where starving people do not become cannibals, so it seem to me his premise is very flimsy.

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

Blueline976 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:47:11 GMT

I don't even know where to begin on how to reply to his post, to be honest. I don't think much of it made sense.

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:40:52 GMT

Wow did he even try? There's no response to speak of. To his first "argument", is it "meaningless" to speak of a society where rape isn't sanctioned? Based on his reasoning, yes. He is conflating what people might do with whether that is what they ought to. It just becomes clearer if you use the example of rape (or murder - murder becomes murkier though because it can be justified in self-defence.) To his second, he didn't even bother to show how that is true.

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

wilderness — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:22:09 GMT

Blueline976:

Although it might be a waste of time to argue with this guy, he finally replied:

Me (using the "prepared statement") :

Consider this definition: A true "free market" (unregulated and such) includes the absence of coercion, or the ability of citizens to create security for themselves and their property.

Also consider the that there are virtually no truly free/unregulated markets in the world. How does Sierra Leone still fit?

To me, saying that free markets are bad while they essentially don't exist doesn't make sense. Unless, you could provide examples of the failures of the decentralization of power and absence of coercion.

Him:

Absence of coercion is impossible.

probably true

Blueline976:

If I am hungry I am under pressure independent from my will to secure resources. The hungrier I am, the more pressure against me exists. If you have something I want that I would have greater difficulty acquiring elsewhere, I am under pressure to get it from you. If a lack of any coercion at all is required for a free market, you may as well endorse the concept of human society without people. The concept is meaningless on its face.

probably true, he will kill for food when he's hungry, we all now know. And that, apparently, will happen whether it's a free market or a corruption thereof (State presence). So will the State change his hunger pains and make him not kill for food? If so, then it looks like he needs somebody, anybody to control his own actions. Is he a boy still?

Blueline976:

What you can do for a free market, however, is a market based economy in which there is little to no government intervention wherein capital and investment exists. The fact of the matter is a number of those exist not one of them is a pleasant place to live.

examples?

Blueline976:

I didn't think he understood the coercion part until the second part of his reply. I believe that what "no coercion" means (in an economic context) is absence from a government force. I'm fairly sure he said this in the second paragraph (where he said "little to no government intervention")

He sort of dropped the ball with the last sentence, however. What "number" of countries have truly free markets if there aren't any?

Yeah, he dropped the ball. I've seen pictures of nomads in Mongolia, and they smile and laugh still. They know about cities were the government exists and they aren't leaving everything behind to live there. Doesn't mean we all have to leave the cities, but what's he driving at?

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

Blueline976 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:57:23 GMT

Although it might be a waste of time to argue with this guy, he finally replied:

Me (using the "prepared statement") :

Consider this definition: A true "free market" (unregulated and such) includes the absence of coercion, or the ability of citizens to create security for themselves and their property.

Also consider the that there are virtually no truly free/unregulated markets in the world. How does Sierra Leone still fit?

To me, saying that free markets are bad while they essentially don't exist doesn't make sense. Unless, you could provide examples of the failures of the decentralization of power and absence of coercion.

Him:

Absence of coercion is impossible. If I am hungry I am under pressure independent from my will to secure resources. The hungrier I am, the more pressure against me exists. If you have something I want that I would have greater difficulty acquiring elsewhere, I am under pressure to get it from you. If a lack of any coercion at all is required for a free market, you may as well endorse the concept of human society without people. The concept is meaningless on its face.

What you can do for a free market, however, is a market based economy in which there is little to no government intervention wherein capital and investment exists. The fact of the matter is a number of those exist not one of them is a pleasant place to live.

I didn't think he understood the coercion part until the second part of his reply. I believe that what "no coercion" means (in an economic context) is absence from a government force. I'm fairly sure he said this in the second paragraph (where he said "little to no government intervention")

He sort of dropped the ball with the last sentence, however. What "number" of countries have truly free markets if there aren't any?

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

Felipe — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:16:09 GMT

GilesStratton:

Any debate will only progress to the extent that each participant has some common ground with the other. Which is exactly why this won't go anywhere, you two simply do not share any of the same values. Any debate will be useless, especially since both parties are more concerned with "winning" the debate than you are with reaching any sort of agreement regarding the truth.

Communists favour equality, liberals favour liberty and prosperity. The two latter values are not compatible with forced equality (driven by envy). Give up, your time is better spent elsewhere.

So very true, most of the time when Im dealing with marxists I focus in showing them the weak spots in their ideology rather than actually reaching an understanding....... of course they do the same

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

hayekianxyz — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:27:31 GMT

Blueline976:

Never said it did validate it :P. It's just a tad overwhelming when an argument is one-sided because a guy is flipping through the Communist Manifesto while debating.

Thanks to all of you. Maybe I'll keep this updated so you can all laugh at his arguments?

Any debate will only progress to the extent that each participant has some common ground with the other. Which is exactly why this won't go anywhere, you two simply do not share any of the same values. Any debate will be useless, especially since both parties are more concerned with "winning" the debate than you are with reaching any sort of agreement regarding the truth.

Communists favour equality, liberals favour liberty and prosperity. The two latter values are not compatible with forced equality (driven by envy). Give up, your time is better spent elsewhere.

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

wilderness — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:49:54 GMT

Oh, that's right. I also did have this link to the 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Badnarik. There are Constitutional Classes on this link of his and his whole first class is dedicated to "rights". So he goes into property rights and such. He even points out that if you don't understand "rights", then you won't understand the rest of his class on those video links. I have yet to watch all the videos, but I did watch the whole first one on "rights". It was very interesting and I would like to finish watching them all. I just haven't had the time with all these other projects I'm involved in. Here's the link:

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

wilderness — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:44:46 GMT

Blueline976:

"Maybe Blueline is trying to find the principle or premise that helps him to understand and give view to his own arguments?"

Precisely!

Also, I will be calling the person I am debating "Mr. X." It's mysterious, edgy, and saves me from calling him "that guy."

If you didn't pick up on it in my previous post in this thread, I would start with "property rights". I don't know of any book or essay that discusses property rights exclusively but it is the principle underlying Libertarianism. Property rights are at the forefront of any culture that espouses freedom it just so happens to be that I find libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics takes these natural rights of individuals more seriously than any other manifestation of these rights that I know about. To first understand property, it is easier to understand the first property you own, which is you. You are born into a family and thus are under the care of parents that living within their labor (the house he or she worked for and thus own, etc...) you therefore are subject to them for you live on their property. For property is also what you labor, and if you work for another business that business trades off your labor for a wage. That wage is the fruit of labor as well. It is your property. It used to be in the United States after they gained their independence that all people used to own their land, it was their property. They therefore paid no taxes on their land. The land was theirs to do anything with as long as they did not harm another's property. After the Civil War then slowly most people began to lose the title of their own property (called allodial title) and got deeds instead. Property taxes eventually came along, meaning, the people didn't outrightly own their land, they now had to pay a rent, a tax. I believe Texas is the only U.S. state left in which you can still get allodial title for your land property and it considered to be strictly yours and no government can say or do anything on your land property. Same goes for permits to have a gun, which incidentally happened after the Civil War too. It is a natural right to defend yourself thus carry a weapon. According to the principle of property rights therefore it is a right, not a privilege to have a gun to protect your own life. Yet that's exactly what a permit is. Permit... in other words, permission, it is the State saying the gun owner has permission to have a gun, and therefore also has permission to defend their own life with the gun. Yet according to property rights one does not need permission to defend their own life. It is a right.

I gave you some true examples, but if you get into "property rights" conceptually enough you'll be able to expand your own thinking from that premise. If anybody else has concise sources that strictly deal with "property rights" I wouldn't mind learning more about them as well. I've read about them in Rothbard's "For a New Liberty:..." so I know they are found in that source, but they only come up in one of the chapters. I've come across this principle ever now and then and I've discussed it with other people, but I don't think I've come across a source that discusses it only. If anybody has more to offer?

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

Blueline976 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:57:21 GMT

"Maybe Blueline is trying to find the principle or premise that helps him to understand and give view to his own arguments?"

Precisely!

Also, I will be calling the person I am debating "Mr. X." It's mysterious, edgy, and saves me from calling him "that guy."

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

wilderness — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:39:37 GMT

liberty student:

Blueline976:
Maybe I'll keep this updated so you can all laugh at his arguments?

I don't see a problem with that, although I am more interested to read (with pride) the progression of your arguments.

Maybe Blueline is trying to find the principle or premise that helps him to understand and give view to his own arguments? For instance, that whole unregulated thing about the free market and how some people tend to think their is no law in the free market. If people understood the basic principle about the free market, property rights, and even the more basic assertions that rights are not privileges but natural conclusions of life and thus the respect of individuals, then people would have a stepping off point to think on their own.

I know, personally, I only recently came to know what property rights are. They didn't teach it in the public school system I was in. I'm in my third decade of living on this earth and I'm only now coming to understand that there is such as a thing as property rights, natural rights, and Common Law, etc... And now I come to find out along this awakening of mine within this year that those inalienable rights spoken of, yes in a State document, have nothing to do with the State. In those days it was more commonly understood that rights are just natural conclusions of life and responsible freedom. I mean about a month ago I ran across somebody that tried to argue with me about privacy rights. That I have no right to privacy anywhere including my house cause it's not law written down in the Constitution. I had to explain those rights are not laws the founders just made up to write down on paper. They were commonly recognized natural rights in those days that spur off the principle of property rights. He still tried to argue I didn't have the right to privacy, but somebody else interjected that the Declaration of Independence mentions that there are other rights. That man still came back saying the Declaration of Independence is not law only the Constitution could count as law. But then we had to point him in the direction of understanding what property rights meant and how it is a principle that's been around for quite a long time and only somebody now a days could come up with such an absurd argument that I can't have privacy in my own house. That's the kind of people we are up against.

just interjecting my little spiel, thanks

Re: "Commie" Defending Libertarianism

liberty student — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:25:50 GMT

Blueline976:
Maybe I'll keep this updated so you can all laugh at his arguments?

I don't see a problem with that, although I am more interested to read (with pride) the progression of your arguments.