Wouldn't this make an action involuntary? How would the government choose to what to make involuntary and what not to make involuntary? What does against a person's will mean and how would we know if any transaction is against their will. If they choose to take some action does that necessarily mean it is voluntary? Should we look to all circumstances to determine voluntariness before the fact? Is buying at McDonald's voluntary if it is your only option due to circumstances outside of your control? How attenuated does any action have to be from another to make it involuntary? No one asks me if we will be buying fighter jets from Airbus or Boeing, no one asks me which contractor will get the job to paint yellow lines on our national highways. What sets taxation and government expenditure on education apart from any other coercive government expenditure? How would and could the court void involuntary transactions? How would it decide if a transaction was involuntary or not? Where would it look to guidance to decide the issue? Congress? Some weekly referendum? Who would have access to this court? Would you be represented by a paid by tax dollars government attorney if you couldn't afford one? Would I be involuntarily forced to pay for such an attorney program when I bought my big mac at McDonalds? What do you mean by courts are necessary and sufficient accomplish the goal? Do you mean courts alone would decide and be the enforcers of what is voluntary or involuntary? Would they act in concert with anyone else like a police force to enforce their decrees? I don't exactly see how wealth inequality is not a bar to voluntary interaction. Maybe this is a definitional problem on my part as I could be defining voluntary too broadly. So if it isn't by my definition of voluntary, whose is it? Would the courts force me to listen to your definition and would they take action based on your definition? If I disagreed, what would be done to me? What of a system that results in redistributing my wealth away from me to the captains of industry, since I do not own my own means of production? Is my participation in such a system coercive and involuntary. I guess I could leave, but even my departure would be coerced and involuntary, since I would feel unwillingly forced out. It seems like we have lived in a system that has redistributed wealth and bargaining power to the top, so how would we get ourselves back to base 0 where everyone is equal and treated the same on account of their race, religion, nationality, skin color, or other social group and therefore on equal footing in terms of bargaining power? I'm sorry for all the questions, but your answers have left me more quizzical. Even if you could answer just a select handful, I would appreciate the insight.
From the second installment by the libertarian from Rashmon. Allowing the market to be the only guiding principle in organizing society is of course incompatible with democracy. At best if we keep a voting system it leads to abominations like Citizen's United and Ron Paul getting $1.75 million from one donor to support his --or the millions received by other candidates from individual donors-- including Obama, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. While CNC is indeed hard core and following logically the conclusions of libertarian theory it is the role of the "moderate libertarians" in the GOP to "platy watch dog " and to "take the heat" for other conservatives who don't like to come out and say that it doesn't bother them to see folks actually die in the streets of poverty and that work conditions like we see in the Apple factory in China are ok if that is what is efficient and the market dictates.
Considering that this 'fact' is the foundational point that your entire argument arises from, you may want to really question how true it is.
I don't know how that would make all action involuntary. Any action you take on your own behalf would be voluntary. Any action you try to force someone else to take would be involuntary. The government wouldn't make something voluntary or involuntary. If you want to do something, that is your will. If you don't want to some something, but someone else makes you, that is against your will. For example, if someone told you they would lock you in a cage if you didn't work on a farm all day, working on the farm would be done against your will. Absent force or fraud, yes. Sure. It depends on what you mean. If you mean that there are no other dining options as convenient, then yes. If you mean that someone will shoot you if you don't buy from McDonald's, then no. It should be fairly obvious. Nothing. It was an example, not an exhaustive list. Government spending on a fighter jet or highway maintenance is also coercive. I'm not sure I understand the question. The parties would be returned to their pre-transaction positions (or as nearly as possible). Much the same way the government now voids transactions obtained by fraud. Testimony, documentary evidence. The common law. Everyone. Nope. Nope. Necessary means that without them, the goal would not be accomplished. Sufficient means that nothing else is required to accomplish the goal. Most of these words are pretty self explanatory. There could potentially be an enforcement arm, or self enforcement. Either would probably work, though self enforcement would be more along the pure ideal of liberty. If I have $10,000 dollars and you have $100,000, and you offer me $50,000 to work for you for a year, I can do so or not. The fact that you have more money doesn't preclude my making my own choices. You got me, we will need laws. Of course, I never denied the need for laws. Nothing, there is no thoughtcrime in a libertarian society. You do own your own means of production, it is called your labor. You are free to do with it what you will. You can exchange your labor for goods, services, or money; or you can use it to create your own goods. Your participation in a system is involuntary if you are being forced into participating. If you choose to participate than it is not. You can stay, or leave. You can work for someone else or for yourself. You are free to choose. You can certainly choose to gather like minded individuals and form your own society where everyone starts from zero, though I wouldn't want to. We could also all start wherever we are now and move forward with more freedom. I suspect that you are not really as befuddled as you are pretending to be, and that instead you are using this as a rhetorical device. I am answering all of your questions this time. Don't assume that it will happen again. Arby's has far more money than I do, and they would like me to buy food from them. They spend a great deal of money in an attempt to get me to do so. I choose not to. Seems to hold true.
It boggles my mind that people who are so cynical about government can be so naive about the good intentions of corporations - especially since the people in government shuttle back and forth with high level corporate jobs between elected positions. At the point that corporations become powerful enough to bully governments they effectively become governments themselves. And not nice, democratic, rule of law governments. Rather they become the worst type of facist dictatorship. This worldview is a lot like communism and its lofty, laudable ideals. The system only works if everybody subscribes to the ideals of philosophy and eschews their own human nature. Since this is effectively impossible, it won't work. If you think otherwise, go back and look at the way the hippy communes of the 60's self destructed. All it takes is a couple of people wanting to game the system and 'get their share.' If dom country tried to impliment this utopia they woud be either one or several absolute dictatorships within 50 years.
It wouldn't? That seems at odds with your earlier statement: If it is forcing me to pay for the punishment of criminals, then that's involuntarily using the work of my body. The way you have explained it anything the government does results in coercion. So those that couldn't afford representation would be on their own forced to rely on their own limited understanding of the common law to defend themselves. While someone with much larger means could hire the best, and get them laughed out of court? This hardly seems the way to treat the most sacrosanct bed-rock principle of voluntariness in this hypothetical society. Surely it's at least as as important as the liberty interest of criminals in our current society even if it is a civil matter. So we would have this enforcement arm which we would collectively be involuntarily forced to fund. Or, we would be expected to self-police. I don't see how either of those work. One requires coercion, an idea that is anathema to this hypothetical society, while the other is based on some ideal vision that currently does not exist. If everyone in this hypothetical society believes differently than I do and if everything is owned, if I am impoverished, how could I not choose to participate. It's either I participate or starve. I would choose not to starve, and while you might think that is voluntary, I don't. Look, you obviously have a narrower view of involuntariness. I don't think that any action is completely voluntary. Our decisions are influenced by forces outside of our control, like our upbringing, the socio-economic status of the family we are brought into, our race, and even our genetics. People are not born equal, both as a social construction and genetically. We are not rational actors at all times. Neither do we get dealt the same cards later in life. Some people fall ill and die at 50 of extremely debilitating diseases that can only be treated with extremely expensive medical procedures, while others get lucky and live until they are 90 without any serious complications. It's the unfortunate reality we live in where chance figures so prominently into all of our successes and failures. I am befuddled. I think it is because I hold a more expansive view of voluntariness than you do. Sure I use questions as a rhetorical device, but when I fail to understand something or want to know more, I find questions to be the best avenue. I'm intensely curious about the shape of society envisioned by libertarians. That's not feigned at all; if it was, then I wouldn't take the time to think about what you are saying and pose more questions. The most states around the world acknowledge that equality of opportunity does not truly exist, we also value each life somewhere around equally, and we know that while the idea of a rational actor can be helpful in certain situations it is a poor facsimile of reality. I don't see how the ideal libertarian world is equipped to deal with these realities, hence the continued confusion and the continuing questions.
That isn't the government making something voluntary or involuntary. The victim is having his freedom infringed upon by the criminal. The crime is the voluntary act of the criminal, and the victim suffers the consequences against their will. It isn't through some sort of government fiat that the interaction is involuntary, it is the victim's desire not to be victimized. Many prisons are already privatized. I don't think it is unfathomable that enough people would have a vested interest in them to keep them funded. There would be no need for you to pay for them unless you thought doing so was in your interest. The same would be true of the courts. I am sure there would still be lawyers that do pro bono work, you could ask friends and relatives to provide you with a lawyer, or yes you could represent yourself. Or there could be private enforcement agencies that could be hired ad hoc or sell a subscription service. People are willing to pay $40 bucks a month for cell service, they would probably go for private security (one that would likely be more effective than the police since they are competing for your dollars. The same could be said of our current society, or any society for that matter. If you do not acquire food and water in some way you will die. That is hardly an indictment of libertarianism. How does the fact that you may die at 50 instead of 90 determine whether or not it is voluntary to flip burgers at 20? Of course there are things beyond our control, that doesn't make all of our actions involuntary reflexes. You have choices in life. To say that because we have different upbringings that all our choices are forced flies in the face of any reasonable definition of voluntary. You are taking it to such an extreme that the term loses all meaning. The above seems at odds with this: Clearly the problem is not that you don't understand, it is that you don't agree. You think that because not everyone is born on a level playing field, that were are not rational actors.
You misunderstood, but it was my fault for being unclear. I was referring to the fact that I would be forced to pay for a criminal justice system whether or not I agreed with each and every aspect of it. That's the coercion/involuntary action involved. If I was the victim, then I would be doubly coerced, first by the perp and second by the the libertarian government. Sure, prisons can be privatized, but my question was really about the criminal justice system the courts and police. Your response was that people wouldn't have to pay for courts. Really? That seems like a tragedy of the commons waiting to happen. What about the people who can't afford private enforcement agencies? I guess just tough luck, they just go without? Sure, it is. Liberal society doesn't purport to be free of the involuntary use of a person, Libertarian society does. Additionally, modern US society has certain safeguards such as public welfare programs in place for those who have nothing and cannot earn anything. I'm not sure that such people would be taken care of in a Libertarian society except through some meager charity and all the added problems that would entail. Sure, not all of our actions are involuntary, but some are. Even you seem to admit that some are, so how can you square that with your view that this Libertarian society will be free of involuntary action. No, the problem is both. I do not understand Libertarianism, because there are elements that seem fantastical to me that don't square with the reality of human interaction. For this reason I do not agree. The rational actor problem and level playing field problem are two separate issues, though they can overlap. Human beings are not always rational actors, so any model that is predicated on the idea of the rational actor will fail to predict and account for the scope of human behavior. Additionally, the level playing field problem is an issue because inequality can create imbalances of bargaining power preventing some acts from being truly voluntary. So while they overlap, one does not necessarily result in or from the other.
You wouldn't necessarily be forced to pay for the criminal justice system. It could actually be supported by court fees charged to the loser of a case or whoever brings a complaint, much the same way that arbitrators and mediators can be paid for by the parties. You merely assumed it would be paid for by taxation. Thus, if you did not agree with the system, you would not be paying for it (unless you violated someone's rights and they dragged you into it, but I already said that force could be used against wrongdoers). They would have to depend upon the mercy of others, or enforce their rights themselves. I never claimed that it was a perfect system, but I think it would be the rare person who would be unable or unwilling to afford justice. No, it isn't. Finding one example where according to your definition there is an involuntary transaction does not invalidate the model. Especially since even in that instance which truly exists only as a hypothetical, the person still has a choice. People can and have chosen starvation over violation of their morals. You are arguing from a false premise and of course that will lead you to an erroneous conclusion. No one has claimed that a libertarian society would provide for everyone regardless of their choices, yet you are holding that claim against the libertarian society. If you choose starvation over work, that is a voluntary choice. There is no coercion in it. No one is forcing you to starve. I never said that it would be free on involuntary action. That would mean you would need to will every heartbeat, eye blink, breath, digestive process, etc. There are tons of involuntary actions. Reaction to pain stimuli, actions taken while unconscious, etc. would be more examples. The foundation is not a lack of involuntary action, it is a lack of involuntary INTERaction, a lack of coercion if you will. The existence of outside factors beyond the control of the participants does not invalidate that. A short example: two people voluntarily wager a dollar on a game of craps. The dice are a random element, they could give victory to either party. The outcome of the dice is not in the control of either party. The decision to wager on the game was a voluntary transaction between the parties, even though the outcome was against the will of the loser. You contradict yourself. If you don't understand it, how can you disagree with it? What you are really saying is that you don't understand how someone can believe in it, given that you find elements fantastical and that they don't square with reality. The rational actor problem is not a problem at all. If people chose to behave irrationally, they merely suffer the consequences of that choice. There is no requirement in a libertarian society that everyone act rationally. If I want to hire someone to do labor for me, the rational actions of the parties would be for me to seek the lowest price for adequate service and the laborer to seek the highest price for providing his labor. If instead the laborer choose to seek the lowest price for providing his labor, or some arbitrary price because he likes the way those numbers seem to spell boob on his check or whatever other irrational action he chooses to take, he will simply do the labor for less than I was willing to pay. The uneven playing field is solved by the freedom to contract. If you don't like what someone is willing to pay you to do a particular job, don't do that job for them. It is only by expanding the definition of voluntary to an absurd extent that this becomes an issue. That is not a breakdown in the societal model, it is a breakdown in your understanding of the word voluntary. Slavery is involuntary labor, a free labor market is not.
I have yet to read the lengthy exchange between you and Stupid Moniker, so I apologize if what I am about to say has already been addressed. But... When libertarians use the term "aggression" they mean it as initiatory violence or the threat thereof. Some libertarians are pacifist, but it is not a requisite. Now, after this clarification I am sure you have converted to libertarian, right?
i made no such claim. i did call b.s. on this entire piece though. i think "code name cain's" real name might actually be "strawman". you told me that if i like mainstream GOP economics than ron paul is "my guy" - you have no credibility when discussing the man.
This is, put simply, not true. This analysis completely ignores the massive influence of power in capital transactions. What do you do if every employer in your area conspires? They will conspire. If you want to live in that area, you have no real influence. You're ignoring a lot of variables in making this statment, and the variables you're ignoring are the same ones that have so much significance in the current set up.
Part 3, for your edification and/or scorn: Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part III – Regulation By Andrew Dittmer, who recently finished his PhD in mathematics at Harvard and is currently continuing work on his thesis topic. He also taught mathematics at a local elementary school. Andrew enjoys explaining the recent history of the financial sector to a popular audience. Simulposted at The Distributist Review This is the third installment of a six-part interview. For the previous parts, see Part 1 and Part 2. Red indicates exact quotes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s 2001 book “Democracy: The God That Failed.” ANDREW: Let’s imagine that a future libertarian society has been established, and security and justice are provided by competing insurance companies. What will happen if two different people, covered by two different security GLOs, disagree about what their rights are? CODE NAME CAIN: The two people would find an independent arbitrator that would be the unanimous choice of both parties [251]. ANDREW: Suppose that one of the two parties is stronger, and so will likely outlast the other in a direct conflict. Wouldn’t that party prefer to refuse all arbitration and, during the delay, squeeze the other party into submission? CNC: No. ANDREW: Suppose someone annoys you, and you pay their GLO a sum of money that is significantly more than the present value of that person’s future insurance payments. Would the GLO kill the person for you? CNC: No. ANDREW: Suppose that one security GLO is much stronger than a competing GLO, and it wishes to expand its market share. Will it strategically assassinate clients of the weaker GLO in order to advertise its superior security capabilities? CNC: No. ANDREW: These scenarios all appear plausible to me. Why are you sure they won’t happen? CNC: Security GLOs will understand that the sort of aggressive behavior you describe is economically irrational. In fact, insurers will [not engage] in any form of external aggression because any aggression is costly… implying the loss of clients to other, nonaggressive competitors. Insurers will engage exclusively in defensive violence… [287] ANDREW: Suppose the CEO of a security GLO understands his own self-interest differently than you do, and starts killing people. What would happen then? CNC: A security GLO that started assassinating people would represent a threat to stable order not just for the insurer of the murdered individuals, but for all security GLOs. Therefore, the security GLOs would cooperate and defend weaker GLOs from aggression. ANDREW: How can we be sure about whether you’re right? What if the security GLOs fail to cooperate in the way you say? CNC: There is nothing that would stop the GLOs from cooperating in order to establish stability. Already today, all insurance companies are connected through a network of contractual agreements… as well as a system of… reinsurance agencies, representing a combined economic power which dwarfs that of most existing governments. [248] Under pressure to settle questions about intergroup conflict, competition would promote the development and refinement of a body of law that incorporated the widest… consensus and agreement… [250-251] ANDREW: So the insurance companies, taken together, will constitute a sort of global, non-coercive, non-government GLO, established in a consensual and rights-protecting manner. CNC: Exactly. ANDREW: Although it can be very difficult, ordinary people in America can sometimes influence what their government does. I get that the global GLO will be different in that ordinary people will have no voice in what happens – but in what other ways will the global GLO not be a government? CNC: First, you’re wrong – not only will consumers have a voice in the global GLO, they will be sovereign. They will completely control the GLO through their decisions about where to purchase insurance. Anyway, to answer your question, a government is an organization that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of protection and the power to tax [256]. The global GLO will be very different. ANDREW: The global GLO will protect people through the security GLOs that are part of it. Those organizations will be paid money by people who desire protection: noncoercive Tax-Like Payments. Aside from everything being completely voluntary, what is the difference here? CNC: The fact that everything will be completely voluntary is, of course, a very important difference. But there will be another difference. Governments not only monopolize the business of protecting people, but they also monopolize control over territory. In the libertarian society, security GLOs will protect people, but they will not hold final authority over a specific piece of real estate. ANDREW: Oh, I see, private homeowners will rule over territory instead. CNC: Not exactly. Most of the time, houses will be part of “proprietary communities,” like modern-day gated residential communities… owned by a single entity, either an individual or a private corporation… The proprietor [will be] an entrepreneur seeking profits from developing and managing… communities… [215]. The residents will not have full title to their homes, since the proprietor will retain the right to enforce covenants – i.e. rules about who can live there under what conditions. ANDREW: Since these real estate corporations will have authority over specific territorial areas, could we call them territory GLOs? CNC: We can call them whatever we want, as long as we use our terms precisely. ANDREW: So I guess the idea is that even though the global GLO and the security GLOs will impose a few basic rules on everyone, there will be a lot of room for each territory GLO to create its own individual culture. CNC: You’re finally starting to understand. Catholics will be able to live by their principles, Muslims by Islamic principles, and Non-believers by Secular principles. ANDREW: So these local communities will increasingly separate from each other… That might not bother some people, but given that Dr. Hoppe is an economist, isn’t he worried that the world will divide up into small, economically isolated units? CNC: That won’t happen – just because one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance [140]. ANDREW: Uh… will a lot of people not want to live with blacks or Catholics? CNC: Each territory GLO will have entrance requirements (for example, no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus) and those who [do] not meet those entrance requirements [will] be kicked out as trespassers. [211] ANDREW: If you’re only allowed to live in certain areas depending on your race, behavior, and religion, that might sound to some people like a less free society. CNC: Those people are clearly uncomfortable with free individuals making decisions that they think are mutually beneficial. Maybe they would prefer living in the United States of today, where [d]iscrimination is outlawed… [t]eachers cannot get rid of lousy or ill-behaved students, employers are stuck with poor or destructive employees… banks and insurance companies are not allowed to avoid bad risks… and private clubs and covenants are compelled to accept members… in violation of their very own rules and restrictions. [210] ANDREW: Presumably, some people will not mind living with people of other races. CNC: Of course, every territory GLO would be free to discriminate in whatever way it wishes. But we need to be realistic. Notwithstanding the variety of discriminatory policies pursued by different proprietary communities… no proprietary community can be as “tolerant” and “non-discriminatory” as left-libertarians wish every place to be. [212] ANDREW: What do you mean by “left-libertarians”? CNC: Murray Rothbard likes to call them “modal-libertarians” (MLs). As Rothbard says, “the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him,” who only hates government because it is something else to disrespect. MLs think that profanity, drug use… homosexuality… pedophilia… or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality… are perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles [206]. What these countercultural libertarians fail to realize… is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic rise in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the… life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. [208] Left-libertarians and multi- or countercultural lifestyle experimentalists, even if they were not engaged in any crime, would once again have to pay a price for their behavior. If they continued with their behavior or lifestyle [in public], they would be barred from civilized society and live physically separate from it, in ghettos or on the fringes of society, and many positions or professions would be unattainable to them. [212] ANDREW: I can tell you’re excited about this… But maybe you’re getting your hopes up. After all, you’ve said that every territory GLO will be free to develop its own culture. What if some territory GLOs make it so people are rewarded for smoking weed? CNC: Every territory GLO is free to develop its own culture, but only subject to the constraints of inexorable economic laws. First of all, the proprietor and largest investors in the territory GLO would, in order to protect and possibly enhance the value of their property and investments, [216] be very careful about whom to welcome to their territory, and these leaders would set clear standards on what kind of behavior is acceptable for local residents. Second, the security GLOs would also have a say on who immigrates into the territory GLOs, and even more than any one of their clients, insurers would be interested in… excluding those whose presence leads to a higher risk and lower property values. That is, rather than eliminating discrimination, insurers would rationalize and perfect its practice. [262] ANDREW: So the security GLOs would regulate the territory GLOs… Let’s see if I understand. Suppose that the security GLOs decide, based on their research, that watching television makes people more docile. Do you think maybe they would require every family to watch television for a certain number of hours per day? CNC: No, you don’t understand. If one security GLO tried to do this, they would lose business to competing security GLOs that allowed people not to watch television. ANDREW: Suppose that the security GLOs decide, based on their research, that kids who are home-schooled are more likely to oppose a libertarian society. Would they refuse to insure territory GLOs where kids are home-schooled? CNC: Once again, you fail to reckon with the power of market competition. Security GLOs will only cooperate when doing so leads to positive consequences. For example …insurers would… be particularly interested in gathering information on potential… crimes and aggressors… [A]lways under competitive pressure, they would develop and continually refine an elaborate system of demographic and sociological crime indicators. That is, every neighborhood would be described, and its risk assessed, in terms of a multitude of crime indicators, such as… its inhabitants’ sexes, age groups, races, nationalities, ethnicities, religions, languages, professions, and incomes. [260-261] ANDREW: Do you think that the security GLOs might offer people they consider to be potential criminals the opportunity to wear a device keeping them under surveillance – as a condition for granting them insurance? CNC: Now you’re coming up with more practical ideas. But the insurance companies are good at thinking outside the box – they’ve probably already thought of that. ANDREW: Let’s see – so security GLOs will set up precise financial incentives to segregate residential communities by race, etc., following detailed mathematical models. Many people will be effectively forced, in a rights-respecting manner, to be under 24-hour surveillance. I’m curious – what kind of society do you think this will produce? CNC: I think most people would agree that under such conditions, all … regional, racial, national… religious, and linguistic wealth redistribution would disappear, and [so] a constant source of social conflict would be removed permanently [262]. ANDREW: I know that you think this is very unlikely, but suppose people living in the free society of the future decide that they don’t like it very much, and would like to go back to living in a democracy. Could they do it? CNC: That will not be possible. ANDREW: You mean, you are sure that no one will want to go back to democracy? CNC: No, I mean they won’t be allowed to discuss that possibility. In a covenant… among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society. [218] ANDREW: But all of these outlaws, excluded from the libertarian society – how do you know they won’t try to rebel against the civilization you’ve created? CNC: You mean, what if the rejects continue to nurture ideas of democracy, and they make plans to take away the rights of rich people? Keep in mind that in the society of the future, a lot of jobs will be done by robots. As pacifist libertarian Bryan Caplan says, “rich people rarely take the ‘transition to socialism’ lying down…. [If you were a rich person in this scenario], you might want to reprogram your robots for civil war…. True, all of the soldiers of the future may be robots… But… [j]ust because robots do all of the killing doesn’t mean humans won’t do their share of the dying.” In part 4 of this interview series, Code Name Cain will explain why an attentive survey of history shows that all of the rights of governments are illegitimate, and that all of the rights of modern corporations and property-holders are legitimate. PS: False & Hydra are sounding a lot like the article.
exactly, which is why its silly to start a thread about one anonymous persons views and expect libertarians and "paulies" to defend them. and the parts i skimmed over didnt really deal w/ tangible policy - these are more esoteric arguments that dont seem to have anything to do w/ the real world. i dont totally agree w/ that statement - i think government serves a greater purpose than "only that it should serve the limited purpose of making sure that the interactions which occur are voluntary".
thanks! i cant believe people are actually reading this long-ass "interview". who cares what "code name cain" thinks? what does their opinion have to do w/ anything?
It appears that 'libertarians' don't really have any consensus at all on what it means to be 'libertarian' - only that the government sucks. I mean .. I agree that the government sucks, but a 'free market' is not the solution. Also: you should put a link to trueroxfan's profile in your sig. That guy just keeps posting on this board he allegedly doesn't care about. I think he's really hoping people forget.
I am not a fan of libertarian ideals and I believe there are many people who are relatively recent converts (Paul devotees), who do not fully understand the practical ramifications of libertarian priniciples. If you do not find any merit or need to develop your philosophical basis of thought, so be it. Maybe some others may find it challenges them to question their beliefs. The guy who wrote the "interview" has done his homework and provides an interesting skewer of libertarian thought by exposing the flaws inherent in taking it to it's logical conclusions. The article borders on satire, but does so by using the quotes of the prominent libertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s 2001 book “Democracy: The God That Failed.”
