What's wrong with "coercion" as defined by Libertarians?

Kind of hard to prevent coercion when you can't use coercion. Just a little bit of a catch 22 there.

That's a health-care specific argument from me. By saying "I don't wanna pay for all those poor people's healthcare" people are essentially implicitly consenting to them getting little to no healthcare when they can't afford it. Universal healthcare is an altruistic thing to me - even if I use the service less than others, I'm still happy for my taxes to help others who do require them, and from a moral perspective I cannot fathom opposition to that. It seems cruel to object to it.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

^ And there's the problem. With many Libertarian types, the moralistic argument falls on deaf ears.

Sounds like Ayn Rand's philosophy. Which does oppose altruism, of course.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

We don't have to frame this as libertarian versus authoritarian, necessarily. The least loaded and most descriptive distinction is that of "negative freedoms" vs. "positive freedoms".

Negative liberty = more or less the Libertarian point of view; social institutions exist as a means to guarantee "freedom from interference by other people" [1]. This the "your right to swing your fist stops at my face" argument; you can do anything you want as long as you don't restrict the ability of others to do the same.

Positive liberty = the more common social liberal point of view; social institutions exist as a means to ensure everyone "the power and resources to act to fulfill one's potential" [2]. In other words, it's the purpose of goverment to act as equalizer. "Take from the rich and give to the poor" is a form of this.

edited 29th May '11 8:08:50 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I've always felt that those categories were an oversimplification of the differences between the views. To further the swung fist analogy, even if a swung fist doesn't make contact with your face, if it throws a brick at it the results can be worse.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

You're all speaking about the economy: On the economy, traditional big L minarchist libertarianism is more than a bit iffy.

But what about the Libertarian POV on social issues? Surely, people should be entitled to controlling their own lives and lifestyles, as long as they do not violate the rights (life, liberty, property) of non-consenting parties.

edited 29th May '11 8:21:25 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The thing is that for libertarians there is no substantial difference between intervention in ecconomics and intervention anywhere else. After all, how is telling me what to do with my money different than telling me what to do with anything else in my life?

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

That tends to be the view of the American left. Socialist economy, libertarian social views.

Lol wut. What I defended was lack of intervention in ecconomy and lack of social intervention. American left supports both interventions (socialist ecconomy and progressive lifestyle)

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

I'm generally critical with statist socialism not because any sort of opposition to socialism: The State apparatus needed to control the economy is perfectly capable, and generally willing, to control people's private lives too.

I favor stateless socialism: The workers directly seizing the means of production, without the State as an intermediary. No kind of State authority on either the economic or private spheres of life: Worker control is always better than State control.

No kind of central authority capable of compelling obedience. Self-defense, individual and collective (essentially, a strictly defensive, democratic militia, the people itself in arms, and not a buncha armed thugs to control the people) to replace the law enforcement and the military, and so on.

Essentially, an abolition of coercive institutions, resulting in complete freedom for the public.

The State is, in short, a jackboot. Its job is to stomp on people's faces. It's foolish to assume that you can keep it over the faces of those you don't like. Better to just shut it down: That gives you, personally, a better guarantee that they won't oppress you.

edited 29th May '11 8:36:55 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Stateless socialism is impossible and oppressive. How do you imagine 'directly seizing means of production' without oppression and violence? Marxist 'working class dictature' is also a dictature, only based on some stupid utopian assumptions

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

You're right. Instead it guarantees individuals will oppress you by taking over the power vaccum. As things develop, either governments will reform, pseudo-governments will be formed instead, corporations will be formed and run things themselves, or else there will be some sort of weird government-corporate hybrid group in control. You really are living on another planet if you actually think that world peace will be achieved by elimination of the government. You cannot eliminate power and authority altogether, merely change who has it.

Get rid of the governments and you just get something like Jennifer Government, whereby corporations control everything (the book flips the dystopian setting with its anarcho-capitalism; even the police are privatised, and thus essentially mercenaries who only solve crimes if you can pay them).

edited 29th May '11 8:41:23 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

The means of production have ended up in the hands of the ultra-rich mostly via State fiat and largesse. In short, it's not justly acquired property. Most wealth was obtained through systematic use of privilege, corruption, force and fraud, openly or subtly.

They should be restored to the working classes from which it was stolen. Systematic, State-backed exploitation and grants of land and privilege have backed the current wealth distribution. It's as illegitimate as the Roman wealth system was. Hell, part of it was even built on the back of slave labor!

If the government is eliminated and corporations are forcibly turned into worker-owned, democratically managed co-ops, who is going to become the new government? If the people themselves, not subject to any outside authority, take care of their collective self-defense, who's going to assert authority over them?

edited 29th May '11 8:43:55 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

EDIT: You changed your post entirely as I was writing this. Will need to rethink this reply

edited 29th May '11 8:43:25 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

Not really mercenaries, more like normal security services we have, for example, in malls. But again, while anarcho-capitalism would be nearly impossible to create, minarchist libertarianism wouldn't. Obviously, it would require people to become responsible but... well, they should become responsible. Citizens are not babies

edited 29th May '11 8:43:53 AM by nzm1536

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

In that book, they are mercenaries. As are the NRA, who regularly swap contracts with the police and have their own private airforce and entire military bases.

People are utterly self-serving and greed is one of the key defining traits. As is the need to create order from chaos. Order requires leadership and authority. That means that everyone doesn't get to decide absolutely everything, and anarchists utterly fail to comprehend that basic bit of common sense.

edited 29th May '11 8:45:43 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

Unsurprisingly, considering that this is an On-Topic Conversation that was created with a specific focus on the idea of "taxation is theft".

It's not notably different from the social liberal POV that's rather common around here, is it?

There's nothing obviously objectionable about that. Who knows the extent of the practical implications, though? I've seen at least some libertarians use this principle to argue that business owners in the private sector should be able to discriminate against whoever they want. I don't agree with that position, but then, maybe from your POV, this fits more into the "economy" category.

I'm curious at what you think the progressive lifestyle is. Some of us get a little overzealous, but that's true but most are primarily gay rights, reproductive rights, environmental concerns, making sure corporations are kept in check and generally making sure that the next generation isn't completely fucked over.

Oh and you can't expect people to be responsible, after all, it can take many people the build something, but only one person to completely wreck it.

Relevant basic mantra - "too many cooks spoil the broth"

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

@Tongpu: Freedom of association implies the right not to associate.

However, I disagree with the interpretation of corporations as people. If you want the privilege of limited liability, you've gotta accept that it comes with strings attached.

NO limitations on personal freedom of individuals. Corporations? Fuck them.

edited 29th May '11 8:53:42 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

We're not talking about literature here. I was talking about what would probably happen IRL

Progressive lifestyle = political correctness, affirmative action, feminism, rejection of idea of marriage etc. I think those things should be left for people to decide for themselves - if someone wants to dislike someone, he will. If someone wants to be married, why the fuck not? And yes, companies should decide who they hire - if they don't hire qualified black people, they hurt themselves. We are less racist than we used to be and most companies will search for qualified people no matter their race anyway. And yes, I can and will expect people to be responsible. they are adults with easy access to information. And politicans are people too and they are not better in any way than I am so they are not allowed to decide for me.

edited 29th May '11 8:53:32 AM by nzm1536

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

Unfortunately, the border between a person and a person's business, which the person will often claim it's directly aimed at himself, is always blurred in these cases.

edited 29th May '11 8:54:36 AM by Delles

In war, courage. In peace, wisdom. In life, friendship.

Obviously. Person's business is part of person's activity and person's life. We cannot control one without controlling the rest. That's why to be free we need to remove as much control as possible

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

If you want to go minarchist, it'd be quite easy to determine: Are you doing business as a corporation or as an individual?

As an individual, short of poisoning people (no, you can't just release a shit-ton of arsenic in the river, it's sort of murder), theft or coercion, whatever you do is fine. However, it's bound to be a sole proprietorship, which will probably suck if things go wrong.

As a corporation, you're the beneficiary of certain grants of privilege (namely, limited liability). You are therefore bound to the fine print of such privileges, and it might come with many strings attached.

Indeed, I support killing the control mechanism completely. It won't be pretty for big business owners, but screw them.

edited 29th May '11 8:59:15 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.