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

@Fighteer: This is a tad late, but isn't this a case of freedoms to vs. freedoms from?

edited 29th May '11 8:56:00 AM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

And I wasn't claiming everything that happened in the book would happen IRL, merely using it as an example. Thought that was pretty clear.

Well done. Now burst your bubble and return to reality. Do you honestly think society would actually function without governments? That all the world's problems would end? Are you really stupid enough to think that greed wouldn't take over and that people would automatically stop exploiting each other?

It isn't only governments or other faceless organisations that do that. Hell survivors of tragedies fuck each other over for personal benefit all the time.

edited 29th May '11 8:56:57 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

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

Political correctness=Overzealousness happens, but generally it's just being polite.

Affirmative Action=Leveling the playing field

Feminism=also leveling the playing field

Rejection of marriage=Where the fuck did you get this! Rush Limbaugh? That's really more of an anarchist or hell, libertarian position. Did you forget Gay Marriage?

edited 29th May '11 8:58:18 AM by Alichains

PC - politeness shouldn't be forced

Affirmative action - shouldn't be forced as well

Feminism - shouldn't be forced as well

Marriage - it's pretty common opinion in the more left-leaning groups. I've heard many people criticizing marriage itself for being something ancient, unnecessary and 'sex-negative' (whatever that means). Libertarians would rather reject the idea of marriage being legally protected, not the idea of two people sustaining a long-term monogamous relationship connected with the idea of creating family, sharing money and responsibilities etc

edited 29th May '11 9:01:00 AM by nzm1536

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

@Caissas: Indeed, people do fuck each other over all the time.

However, suggesting a monopoly and systematization of fucking each other over looks like an immensely foolish solution to the Humans Are Bastards problem.

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

There is no solution to the Humans Are Bastards problem.

What you are suggesting would make things worse by removing any sense of order whatsoever. Somalia is what we would end up like, if not simply a more primitive or oppressive version of what we have now. A return to Feudalism is not desirable.

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

^^^ Indeed.

edited 29th May '11 9:03:17 AM by MajorTom

Limited government is a chimera. At the end of the day, those who are supposed to keep it limited are always more than willing to find compelling government interests out of thin air and override people's rights.

It doesn't work, it's never worked, it will never work.

If the choice is give up freedom or give up safety, FUCK SAFETY.

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

And that's why I'll always support small goverment. Just enough to limit people fucking each others over but not enough for the goverment to start fucking people over. Not a perfect way, because there are no perfect ways, but a well-organized minarchy could be pretty good

The problem is that the complete lack of any control would result in crime skyrocketing and law of fist. Minimum control gives freedom and safety, to certain extent.

edited 29th May '11 9:06:07 AM by nzm1536

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

Opposition to marriage is not a mainstream left-liberal position, to the best of my knowledge. It's more a fringe thing.

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

Maybe it's Vocal Minority

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

^^^ Which you want to know something ironic in the face of modern liberalism? That's exactly the reison-de-tre of the US Constitution and classical liberalism. Maximum individual freedom for minimal government power no matter how well-intentioned.

edited 29th May '11 9:07:21 AM by MajorTom

Well, there you go. Individuals being responsible and well-informed and rational based on their own self interest without any coercion is a nice ideal, but I want safety nets in place to prevent or at least minimize the disaster when reality inevitably fails to live up to that ideal. A bulwark against harsh darwinism. Government seems to fit the bill.

A single fist does not make things better.

Sure, most of the time it's being evil elsewhere, oppressing someone else. But when the mindless brutality of the State picks you as a target, you're fucked. You may resist an attacker. Team up with some friends, you can resist a gang.

You can't resist a group specifically designed to be the biggest, baddest, gang in town. You don't have almost endless backup. They do. The State is essentially the gamble that they'll go fuck someone else over. It's not a sane gamble, unless you're perfectly mainstream and completely unremarkable.

Have a vice they don't like. Have an opinion they don't like. Have looks they don't like. Be the target of a random moral hysteria. Then you are not safe anymore.

The State does not guarantee safety, especially since it is a threat itself.

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

"I have seen him criticize the government for funding art projects he believes don't benefit him. "

How dare I object to empty spending of people's money!

"Actually, taxable healthcare increases your health and liberty, not to mention your personal wealth"

What? No. Learn economics please.

"It is very well documented that healthcare costs are lower for a far higher quality of service where there is universal healthcare rather than insurance-based. "

[citation needed], infact, it's pretty easy to show otherwise (yo, note it's a UK paper).

"So Deux, are you trying to tell me you not once ever used a road, the service of police or fire fighters, or a school?"

All of which are powers explicitly given to (state and local governments, with federal highways) governments by consent of the governed, and the 3/4 that are done wellish are things that only government can do (County/state/country wide roads need eminent domain. Firefighting needs to be a mandatory subscription or all volunteer, as otherwise a huge fire will start on the property of a non-payer and harm the payers. Police have been discussed. Also: Note how terrible government schools do, but that's another subject.).

Private industry does health care just fine when government is out of the way. Fix civil suits so malpractice insurance and "don't sue me for not testing for even though it isn't relevant to your care" tests isn't bending doctors over, allow me to buy insurance for only what I want and not state required things like hair transplants and allow insurance to be sold nationally like every other form of insurance. All 3 problems are major contributors to the cost of health care, and they are all government's fault!.

I'm of the view that marriage is an exclusively religious ceremony, and that government should not grant legal privileges for it to anyone.

What's ironic about it? I support libertarianism and classic liberalism, not modern social-liberalism

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

I think the best arguement in favour of Taxes is that it means that government is still tied to its people.

Look at Nigeria, about 90% of the governments income comes from Oil and the rest from farms and other industries (the preseident is in general in the pocket of the oil barons who want to run the place like a fiefdom) and as such no-one is taxed and none of those people has any ability to influence government policy.

If you give government's huge incomes that are seperate from the majority of their people then you create a government that is easily co-opted by the people who DO have to pay.

Its this reason (more than the myriad other ones that have been brought up) that I often find the idea of Libertarian "coercion" to be oddly daft.

^^ Modern liberalism advocates providing freedom by force of government power. Classical liberalism advocates providing freedom by denying government power.

edited 29th May '11 9:35:51 AM by MajorTom

Despite John Mc Cain's claims, hair transplants are not generally covered by insurance. The only times they are covered is when it's part of re-constructive surgery, after a severe accidental injury.

Hardly something anybody would want to not cover. If anything, letting you opt out of such coverage makes it more likely you are going to use it to take from the rest of us.

edited 29th May '11 9:39:15 AM by blueharp

I know it. And I agree with classic liberalism. The more power the goverment has the less freedom we have

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

So are the Nordic Countries filled with unfree people? And are people in Somalia the most free?

Just for the record... Somalis used to be quite free before the Islamists started messing with them.

And it's Saudi money fault (they promote islamism worldwide), hardly the fault of the Somalis themselves.

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

The more power ANYBODY has over you, the less free you are.

Intervention in Nordic countries goes way too far. And Somalia is not much worse than most of the other African countries. It's a badly organized minarchy (i.e. the crime isn't fought how it should be) but it doesn't change the fact that there can be a well organized minarchy(i.e. Hong Kong, esp. before being anexed to China)

edited 29th May '11 9:48:30 AM by nzm1536

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

Okay, that first assertion? Proove it, how do you quanitfy it "going too far" if people are significantly happier, healthier, more productive etc than elsewhere?

Or are you just going to define a nebulous quality of "freedom" and leave it at that?

REALLY, Somalia isn't "much worse" than Botswana? That is kind of a sweepingly dense statement there.