Libertarianism in One Sentence

[Truth-Bringer]

But doesn't the idea of ownership of any kind of a person or a person's time fly in the face of your ideology? And by the same token, your argument just proved palerider correct: just as the employer/employee relationship can be voluntary, a slave system of one kind or another could just as easily be portrayed that way as well.

No, it cannot - it's either VOLUNTARY or it isn't.

But that is an extreme point of view and aside from the issue I'd much rather hear you discuss. How would the government hold accountable those who violate its laws? Without a tax system the government would be starved for money, and unless you plan on slashing up the national defense budget along with the social programs I'm sure you detest, I'm not seeing how a tariff or duties would bring in enough money to keep the government afloat and doing its job (however you define "its job," of course).

I think a lot of people don't want to try libertarianism just because of fear, which is irrational. All we're calling for is experimentation, via the scientific method, to apply our principles. If it fails, we can always go back to what we have now. There's no risk if we start with a small, area, a small city or large town, then go to a state, then regional, and finally the federal level if all works as planned.

One thing is certain, refusal to experiment is irrational and unscientific. All scientific progress and verification of truth has come via the scientific method, which is based on experimentation.

Why not experiment? It's already been done on some levels, such as Thomas Jeffersons administration, with great success:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=898

Socialists and collectivists don't want to experiment with it because they want more government - plain and simple - and there are a lot of socialists in the media who don't want to do any stories on libertarianism as a result. Politicians don't want to experiment with it because THEY LOSE POWER in such an environment. They can't purport to come save everyone and save the world when the government is limited solely to protecting individual rights under natural law.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I am talking about actual slavery, not your flawed definition of slavery.

ROTFLMAO!!! If there's one thing that always holds up, it's the fact that there's always one of you arrogant, know-it-all elitists on every forum. The one thing you all have in common: you all think you're a hell of a lot smarter than you actually are.

My definition isn't flawed just "because you say so," arrogant one. You have to do something called "prove it."

So if someone takes 50% of everything you own by threat of force, you're not essentially half their slave? They take 50% of the product of your labor, or else they use force against you. That's partial slavery. If you say it ain't so, then produce a logical syllogism that disproves it.

Here are a few definitions that further support my position. Read 'em and weep, arrogant one:

SLAVE

1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another: BONDMAN

2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.

SLAVERY

1. drudgery, toil
2. submission to a dominating influence
3. a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding.

The same dictionary then defines "servitude" as follows:

SERVITUDE

1. : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life
2. : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another

From the above definition, you can see that servitude, or slavery, encompasses not only surrendering control of one’s body and time to another, but it also involves the right of use and beneficial enjoyment of one’s property as well. Servitude is a condition where we have been involuntarily deprived of liberty. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1388 defines slavery as follows:

slavery: The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

slave: A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

The condition of slavery is referred to in the U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 77 (sections 1581 through 1588) as "peonage", which is defined as follows:

PEONAGE

1. a: the use of laborers bound in servitude because of debt b: a system of convict labor by which convicts are
2. : the condition of a peon.

PEON 3 a: a person held in compulsory servitude to a master for the working out of an indebtedness b: DRUDGE, MENIAL

I will simply skip answering the rest of that drivel because it does not have a thing to do with the fact that within the libertarian philosophy, there is the very real possibility of actual slavery thus putting the lie to your libertarianism in one sentence theory.

The only one spouting drivel here is you, arrogant one. This is not just the "pale rider says it's so, so it is" show. You are full of yourself, man, and it's running out your ears... The way you run from my questions and run from the facts I present that expose the corruption and incompetence of your beloved Republicans, it looks like you're more of a Shetland pony rider.

The fact is, that within the philosophy of libertarianism is the very real possibility of literally owning other human beings.

No, that possibility does not exist. The possibility for voluntary servitude exists, but that exists under any political system. As stupid as it may be, one could voluntarily serve another without compensation. If they knowingly and voluntarily choose to do so, they have the right to do it, although, as I said, it would be a stupid decision. But since that isn't happening on a broad scale now, it wouldn't happen on a broad scale under any political system.

So you can stop crying now. Your speculation is irrelevant. Try actually proving something for a change instead of foisting your worthless opinions on people and pretending that equates to a valid argument. You're a joke.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The concept of ownership of a human body, even self ownership creates within the philosophy of libertarianism an irreconcilable paradox that leaves the entire philosophy unworthy of being taken seriously.

ROTFL some more... You are a freakin' riot, man. Again, just cause you say so, right? That's a nice little skew there after you've refused to answer my question - so I'll ask it again: Do you own yourself? Do you control your own actions? Are you too scared to answer my questions? Or too stupid?

Libertarians want prostitution and drugs made legal, and they don't want to pay taxes. That is the depth of the political movement.

No, you lying fraud. The essense of the movement is "other people are not your property." And they're not, so you need to stop stealing from them and trying to control their peaceful and honest behavior. Get a life of your own and stop trying to control other people.

Libertarianism is a young persons philosophy. The paradox of human ownership within the philosophy is such that no mature thinking person would ever take it seriously and as such, anyone beyond the age of 30 who remains a libertarian is intellectually suspect.

LOL. Ad Hominems don't make an argument. Sorry, arrogant one, but you'll have to do better...

Government would not hold accountable those who violate its laws.

There were no taxes under Thomas Jefferson's administration, and yet law breakers were held accountable. Imagine that...YOU'RE LYING AGAIN. Laws would be upheld under a Libertarian government and crime would be punished. The only difference is that crime would be limited to violations involving force and fraud.

For example, murder, rape and assault - crimes. Collusion, theft by deception, false advertising - crimes. Smoking pot in your house - not a crime. Agreeing to exchange sex for money - not a crime.

We'll focus all law enforcement on the real criminals.

In order to be a libertarian, you have to believe in a universal spirit of good will among human beings. As such, like thinking individuals would form private syndicates to protect their rights and security against others. If a universal spirit of good will existed among human beings, this would be a fine and dandy solution to individual security. The fact is, however, that no such universal spirit of good will exists,

Actually, it's the inverse that you imply, that humankind has no spirit of good will, that defeats your own argument:

"Some people argue that because human nature is inherently evil, therefore "government" is necessary to control people to curb their evil behavior. This is a fallacious argument. It's like saying you must appoint a fox to guard the hens. If people are evil, then a "government" consisting of people will ipso facto also be evil. For more on this issue, see Human Nature, Anarchy, and Capitalism by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. It seems reasonable to me that the evil in the Mafia is greater than the evil in the general population. Why should anyone expect "government" to be any different?

"By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments... The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments... that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity." -- John Hospers

See Government Death Machines..., Death by Government and American Holocaust: The Genocide of the Native American Peoples and the Theft of Their Land. Maybe the main differences are that "government" evil tends to occur on a much wider scale than Mafia evil, and that people in "government" are better at disguising their evil than the Mafiosi.

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- William O. Douglas ("Supreme Court Justice")

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07b.shtml

and as a result, the private syndicates formed by like thinking libertarian groups would quickly come to resembel crime families such as the mafia and yakuza. Those with the most funding would quickly assimilate less wealthy groups and their resources with them. A further form of slavery that reinforces the paradox.

Except for the inconvenient fact that there are actual historical examples which refute your irrational claims:

FROM MUTUAL AID TO THE WELFARE STATE
by David T. Beito
University of North Carolina Press, 2000, paperback

Private individuals did a great job helping each other before the welfare state came along

I've had it with all this talk of making government more "compassionate." Before the coming of the welfare state, there were all kinds of private arrangements to help people in need, doing a better job than bureaucrats do today.

Here is the untold story of American fraternal societies which provided millions with insurance, employment information, temporary lodging, and character references. Beito shows how "the rise of alternative forms of social welfare [i.e. the government] has dramatically reduced the demand for social welfare services among members. Mutual aid was a creature of necessity. Once this necessity ended, so, too, did the primary reason for the existence of fraternalism. Without a return to this necessity, any revival of mutual aid will remain limited. The shift from mutual aid and self-help to the welfare state has involved more than a simple bookkeeping transfer of service provision from one set of institutions to another... The old relationships of voluntary reciprocity and autonomy have slowly given way to paternalistic dependency. Instead of mutual aid, the dominant social welfare arrangements of Americans have increasingly become characterized by impersonal bureaucracies controlled by outsiders." Important book.

"David Beito's new book is an original, highly readable contribution to at least two lively scholarly debates--one on the evolution of social welfare provision and the second on the history of civic associations and social capital. His masterful and provocative account of the history of fraternalism embodies lessons of interest to anyone concerned about the vitality of community solidarity in contemporary America."
--Robert D. Putnam, Harvard University

"Mr. Beito's history is fascinating and instructive in itself, but it is also well-presented, mercifully free of jargon and trendy obsessions that make most academic social history such a chore to read. Fraternal societies are not likely, ever again, to play the role they they once did, but their noble past stands as a rebuke to anyone inclined to respond to the crisis of the moment with a call for "legislative action," as if we cannot help ourselves."
--Bruce Bartlett, in the Wall Street Journal

Book is listed at http://www.lfb.com

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Great Thread!!

 

[vyo476]

I think a lot of people don't want to try libertarianism just because of fear, which is irrational. All we're calling for is experimentation, via the scientific method, to apply our principles. If it fails, we can always go back to what we have now. There's no risk if we start with a small, area, a small city or large town, then go to a state, then regional, and finally the federal level if all works as planned.

One thing is certain, refusal to experiment is irrational and unscientific. All scientific progress and verification of truth has come via the scientific method, which is based on experimentation.

Why not experiment? It's already been done on some levels, such as Thomas Jeffersons administration, with great success:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=898

Socialists and collectivists don't want to experiment with it because they want more government - plain and simple - and there are a lot of socialists in the media who don't want to do any stories on libertarianism as a result. Politicians don't want to experiment with it because THEY LOSE POWER in such an environment. They can't purport to come save everyone and save the world when the government is limited solely to protecting individual rights under natural law.

You didn't answer my question. How does the government hold accountable those who violate your principles?

 

[palerider]

All we're calling for is experimentation, via the scientific method, to apply our principles. If it fails, we can always go back to what we have now.

More evidence of why libertarianism is not the philosophy of mature people. Grownups know that almost all scientific experiments fail and when one is talking about an economy, and a legal system that is the size of ours, when the experiment inevetably failed, there would be no going back. The damage would take generations to repair if, in fact, it could ever be repaired.

 

[palerider]

ROTFLMAO!!! If there's one thing that always holds up, it's the fact that there's always one of you arrogant, know-it-all elitists on every forum. The one thing you all have in common: you all think you're a hell of a lot smarter than you actually are.

I am not the one promoting a flawed philosophy. The fact of the matter is that libertarians consistently get 1% or less of the national vote. This doesn't happen because you are smarter than 99% of the population, it happens because most of the population see the immaturity that libertarian thinking represents.

My definition isn't flawed just "because you say so," arrogant one. You have to do something called "prove it."

Of course it is. To be a slave, one must be legally owned by another. LEGALLY OWNED. That is what slavery is. Any other definition is flawed. Prove that your definition of slavery constitutes legal ownership.

So if someone takes 50% of everything you own by threat of force, you're not essentially half their slave? They take 50% of the product of your labor, or else they use force against you. That's partial slavery. If you say it ain't so, then produce a logical syllogism that disproves it.

First off, if I am a slave, I am legally owned by someone else and since they own me, they also own everything that could be construed as mine. As a slave, I would not have anything that my master had not specifically given me and therefore would have nothing that someone else could take 50% of. Your definition is flawed and your philosophy is flawed. The nature of libertarianism is that you must unilatarally redefine words in order for your philosophy to make any sense at all.

There is no such thing as partial slavery. Another made up term. One is either a slave, or one is free. If you don't like this system, you are free to travel the world seeking another that suits you better. You are obviously never going to change this one getting 1% of the vote.

And the "threat of force" analogy is so tiresome. Get a new one, and don't come up with "men with guns" either, it has already been used ad nauseum as well.

The only one spouting drivel here is you, arrogant one. This is not just the "pale rider says it's so, so it is" show. You are full of yourself, man, and it's running out your ears... The way you run from my questions and run from the facts I present that expose the corruption and incompetence of your beloved Republicans, it looks like you're more of a Shetland pony rider.

I have shown you already. If you lack the intellectual wattage to comprehend it, that is not my responsibility. And in case you haven't noticed, it is you who is running away. Have you noticed that everyone you have talked to has pointed out that you are not answering specific questions they put to you? You regurgitate a flood of drivel in place of specific answers and then tell everyone how smart you are. Wake up and smell the pancakes.

No, that possibility does not exist. The possibility for voluntary servitude exists, but that exists under any political system. As stupid as it may be, one could voluntarily serve another without compensation. If they knowingly and voluntarily choose to do so, they have the right to do it, although, as I said, it would be a stupid decision. But since that isn't happening on a broad scale now, it wouldn't happen on a broad scale under any political system.

Ownership of one's self makes one's self property. One can sell property to another. Under the philosophy of libertarianism, one could legally sell oneself to another and fit the legal definiton of slavery. By the same token, if you owe me a debt that is larger than your monetary holdings, I am entitled to sieze your property, and if yourself is property, I woud have the legal right to sieze yourself in payment of debt. The fact that you don't see this glaring fact within your philosphy is evidence that you are not a mature, thinking person.

So you can stop crying now. Your speculation is irrelevant. Try actually proving something for a change instead of foisting your worthless opinions on people and pretending that equates to a valid argument. You're a joke.

I am not crying. A political group that can't get elected to any office higher than city council and dog catcher hardly represents a threat worthy of crying over. There is a specific reason that your philosophy which has been around for quite some time can't gain traction. When you grow up, you will come to know why.

 

[palerider]

ROTFL some more... You are a freakin' riot, man. Again, just cause you say so, right? That's a nice little skew there after you've refused to answer my question - so I'll ask it again: Do you own yourself? Do you control your own actions? Are you too scared to answer my questions? Or too stupid?

Not because I say so, because your philosophy says so. I have put the question to you, now you can either address it, or continue to roll on the flooor laughing in defeat. This is the typical libertarian response. Laugher in lieu of defending your philosophy.

The answer to your question is no, I do not own myself. No one owns me. If I owned myself, I could sell my body parts for profit. I clearly can't do that, so I clearly don't own them. And I control my actions to a degree, exactly as you do. In any society, you are given a range of options that you may operate within.

No, you lying fraud. The essense of the movement is "other people are not your property." And they're not, so you need to stop stealing from them and trying to control their peaceful and honest behavior. Get a life of your own and stop trying to control other people.

No, the essence of libertarianism is legal prostitution, legal drugs, and no taxes. Not necessarily in that order. All libertarians have one of these as their holy grail. Your grail is no taxes.

LOL. Ad Hominems don't make an argument. Sorry, arrogant one, but you'll have to do better...

Are you arguing that most libertarians aren't under the age of 30?

There were no taxes under Thomas Jefferson's administration, and yet law breakers were held accountable. Imagine that...YOU'RE LYING AGAIN. Laws would be upheld under a Libertarian government and crime would be punished. The only difference is that crime would be limited to violations involving force and fraud.

Is Thomas Jefferson all you have? His idea of replacing taxes with tarrifs failed and caused a drastic contraction of the economy. He was no economic guru. And libertarian ideas of law enforcement are a joke.

As to the syndicates, you post evidence of them and then suggest that syndicates are not libertarianism's answer to law enforcement.

 

[palerider]

You didn't answer my question. How does the government hold accountable those who violate your principles?

He provided an example. Libertarinans favor private law enforcement. If you can afford to join the syndicate, you and your property will be protected from all syndicates that are of equal and lesser power to yours. Those who can afford a more powerful syndicate, however, will quickly assimilate yours and you will become subjects of those who are able to afford the most power. Or you can opt out and be a free agent. To see how that works out, go and try to be a gang of one in the territory of the Bloods.

Don't expect a direct answer from "truth bringer" (what a joke) or any libertarian for that matter. And don't expect for them to engage in a philosophical discussion with their own words. They like to post long recitations from others that they believe answers the questions that are being put to them. Libertarians are almost universally young people who have not reached a level of intellectual maturity in which they can seriously examine their philosophy. Anger and frustration drive them.

When libertarians begin to grow intellectually, one of two things happens with them. Either they realize that their philosophy is terribly flawed and they leave libertarianism in favor of something that makes more sense, or they realize that they can take advantage of the anger and frustration that the young libertarians express and they use that, and them to gain some modicum of local political power. There are very specific reasons that there are very few rank and file libertarians over the age of 30. There are the very young who cut and paste the words of others in an attempt to make their arguments, and there are the few older ones who keep them agitated, also mostly with the words of others.

 

[vyo476]

He provided an example. Libertarinans favor private law enforcement. If you can afford to join the syndicate, you and your property will be protected from all syndicates that are of equal and lesser power to yours. Those who can afford a more powerful syndicate, however, will quickly assimilate yours and you will become subjects of those who are able to afford the most power. Or you can opt out and be a free agent. To see how that works out, go and try to be a gang of one in the territory of the Bloods.

Don't expect a direct answer from "truth bringer" (what a joke) or any libertarian for that matter. And don't expect for them to engage in a philosophical discussion with their own words. They like to post long recitations from others that they believe answers the questions that are being put to them. Libertarians are almost universally young people who have not reached a level of intellectual maturity in which they can seriously examine their philosophy. Anger and frustration drive them.

When libertarians begin to grow intellectually, one of two things happens with them. Either they realize that their philosophy is terribly flawed and they leave libertarianism in favor of something that makes more sense, or they realize that they can take advantage of the anger and frustration that the young libertarians express and they use that, and them to gain some modicum of local political power. There are very specific reasons that there are very few rank and file libertarians over the age of 30. There are the very young who cut and paste the words of others in an attempt to make their arguments, and there are the few older ones who keep them agitated, also mostly with the words of others.

The same goes for most extremist movements in this country. I remember when I was in high school I was so far off the left end of the spectrum that Hilary Clinton had to use binoculars to find me. I'd like to think I've mellowed a bit since then.

Truth-Bringer, I have another question. If you are steadfast in your belief in the Libertarian philosophy, how do you plan to bring others into the fold? All you seem to be doing here is attempting to insult palerider over and over. That is hardly a very good strategy for convincing people of the error of their ways; you'd be more likely to be polarizing people against you. And a tip: things like "ROFLMAO" have no place in a semi-formal discussion. It makes you look juvenile.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

He provided an example. Libertarinans favor private law enforcement. If you can afford to join the syndicate, you and your property will be protected from all syndicates that are of equal and lesser power to yours. Those who can afford a more powerful syndicate, however, will quickly assimilate yours and you will become subjects of those who are able to afford the most power. Or you can opt out and be a free agent. To see how that works out, go and try to be a gang of one in the territory of the Bloods.

Don't expect a direct answer from "truth bringer" (what a joke) or any libertarian for that matter. And don't expect for them to engage in a philosophical discussion with their own words. They like to post long recitations from others that they believe answers the questions that are being put to them. Libertarians are almost universally young people who have not reached a level of intellectual maturity in which they can seriously examine their philosophy. Anger and frustration drive them.

When libertarians begin to grow intellectually, one of two things happens with them. Either they realize that their philosophy is terribly flawed and they leave libertarianism in favor of something that makes more sense, or they realize that they can take advantage of the anger and frustration that the young libertarians express and they use that, and them to gain some modicum of local political power. There are very specific reasons that there are very few rank and file libertarians over the age of 30. There are the very young who cut and paste the words of others in an attempt to make their arguments, and there are the few older ones who keep them agitated, also mostly with the words of others.

the problem with all of this drivel .........is your so far from reality you need binoculars to even see it im 50 yrs old and a Libretarian there goes your childish one dimensional theory huh pale? Btw there are thousands and thousands of us way older than 30 get a clue will ya

 

[palerider]

im 50 yrs old and a Libretarian there goes your childish one dimensional theory huh pale?

If you are 50 and a libertarian voter rather than a libertarian leader, then you are intellectually suspect as one your age should be able to recognize the paradox within libertarianism and thus find it unworthy of serious consideration.

I flirted with libertarianism until I was in my middle 20's and outgrew it. Philosophically, the movement is bankrupt and always has been.

 

[vyo476]

the problem with all of this drivel .........is your so far from reality you need binoculars to even see it im 50 yrs old and a Libretarian there goes your childish one dimensional theory huh pale? Btw there are thousands and thousands of us way older than 30 get a clue will ya

While they say that imitation is the highest form of praise, I don't like being parroted.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

While they say that imitation is the highest form of praise, I don't like being parroted.

Exactly how is it you are being "parroted" My my arent you full of yourself

 

[vyo476]

I remember when I was in high school I was so far off the left end of the spectrum that Hilary Clinton had to use binoculars to find me

the problem with all of this drivel .........is your so far from reality you need binoculars to even see it

No doubt you see the similarity.