Grab a cup of coffee and take 10 minutes to wrap your head around this.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']This guy is bonkos.

Also, not a Libertarian.

He interviewed "someone" that's using a pseudonym, c'mon now.[/QUOTE]
Sure though to be fair the guy actually gives very few opinions. He's virtually verbatim reciting from an author. This is pretty much what raging hardcore libertarianism theory would look like. The right to contract is absolute. He hits it on the head, just a little harder than I think most of us are used to.

What would you say isn't libertarian?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']This guy is bonkos.

Also, not a Libertarian.

He interviewed "someone" that's using a pseudonym, c'mon now.[/QUOTE]

Rockwell, DiLorenzo, Herman Hoppe and Rothbard are (were, in Rothbard's case) ancaps, Mises was a minarchist who allowed for micro-secession (he was pretty much Voluntaryist).

Article's a troll, though.
 
The scary part isn't that someone wrote this fantasy piece but rather the possibility that it's based on real life and/or the views of any rational human. The mere fact that someone could look at the recent market crash and assume it wouldn't have happened if there was less regulation...
 
[quote name='speedracer']Sure though to be fair the guy actually gives very few opinions. He's virtually verbatim reciting from an author. This is pretty much what raging hardcore libertarianism theory would look like. The right to contract is absolute. He hits it on the head, just a little harder than I think most of us are used to.

What would you say isn't libertarian?[/QUOTE]

Someone can say it doesn't represent all (or even most) libertarians, but anyone who can say it doesn't represent them at all is full of it.

I have been "discussing" issues with libertarians for years and many do dwell in similar fantasy worlds, some of those who aren't so hardcore probably just don't realize the fucked roots of their philosophy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']I promise it's worth it. I'll reserve comment until some people have read it.

Journey Into A Libertarian Future Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Part 4-6 will be released over the next couple of days.

I... I just....what?[/QUOTE]
I have been reading these the last few days. Personally reserving full judgement until the sixth piece is published, but so far it seems no bueno to me.
Edit- Part 4 is posted
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...iv-–-the-journey-into-a-libertarian-past.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Article's a troll, though.[/QUOTE]
How so? Guy is crazy ancap fo sho but that doesn't mean he's a troll really. Just among the most extreme examples of the philosophy. Communists aren't trolls, they're just crazy extreme liberals.
[quote name='Msut77']Someone can say it doesn't represent all (or even most) libertarians, but anyone who can say it doesn't represent them at all is full of it.

I have been "discussing" issues with libertarians for years and many do dwell in similar fantasy worlds, some of those who aren't so hardcore probably just don't realize the fucked roots of their philosophy.[/QUOTE]
This line of reasoning is where I lost my libertarian religion. I got to basically the same point this guy does, then realized that for all my rationalizing about self-interest and economic drivers, it can't account for the irrationality of human nature.
 
[quote name='speedracer']How so? Guy is crazy ancap fo sho but that doesn't mean he's a troll really. Just among the most extreme examples of the philosophy. Communists aren't trolls, they're just crazy extreme liberals.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying there was no interview, that the author wrote the entire article.
 
and people won't rebel against this society because the army will be comprised of robots...ugh. So his idea is we don't need a government, because there is no government we will create companies to take the place of the government and fulfill the exact role of the government, but it won't be a government because they want to make money.

the whole thing makes me wonder if I should laugh at him or cry for him.
 
I just wonder if, in this fantasical world, the 'Security GLOs' get along with one another. What's preventing one GLO from attacking another? (i.e. war).

I didnt make it halfway through part 1 before deciding it is not worth my time to continue reading this. It is neither educational, nor entertaining.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I'm saying there was no interview, that the author wrote the entire article.[/QUOTE]
Entirely possible. It's more the ideas that interest me than whether it's even real. I think it's good fodder for conversation.. well, better than the standard fare of Boehner/Pelosi/Obama is teh suxxor.

[quote name='perdition(troy']and people won't rebel against this society because the army will be comprised of robots...ugh. So his idea is we don't need a government, because there is no government we will create companies to take the place of the government and fulfill the exact role of the government, but it won't be a government because they want to make money.

the whole thing makes me wonder if I should laugh at him or cry for him.[/QUOTE]
The part about GLOs is interesting stuff. The structural weakness with government is the monopoly. It's an inherent flaw in the system. I recognize that as a lib.

So strip away the really absurd flying robots that perfect discrimination stuff. Could this work in any form anywhere? Would it be destined to become a government? Could it co-exist with other governments?

I'm a liberal specifically because I don't think it's viable, but it's still a fun thought experiment. Or maybe I just think really retarded shit is fun.
 
Libertarianism =/= Privatization

The only part I really agree with is that the property owner should be able to own an Anti-Aircraft turret. The whole wash about insurance has nothing to do with freedom though; insurance companies are like a form of mafia extortion and should be eliminated completely...
 
I honestly don't think there are many people who can have such quick and detailed answers for all of these hypothetical situations. Seems like the author staged a fake interview to point out how ridiculous libertarian ideals are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Entirely possible. It's more the ideas that interest me than whether it's even real. I think it's good fodder for conversation.. well, better than the standard fare of Boehner/Pelosi/Obama is teh suxxor.[/QUOTE]

I can dig that. Have you read much Rothbard?

I'm going to sit back for a bit and see where the thread goes.
 
[quote name='speedracer']How so? Guy is crazy ancap fo sho
[/QUOTE]

exactly, he's ancap. if you had a venn diagram of ancap and libertarian there would definitely be some crossover, but they aren't on in the same.

hell, the second part of this "article" starts off with the guy saying that most libertarians dont agree with him. i mean, this would be like interviewing a nut job that is incredibly far left that calls himself a democrat or someone that is far right and calls himself a repubican (or whatever party), have an interview and then say, "oh, this is what will happen if X party has their way". when in reality people of X party are going to read this interview and just give a blank stare of disbelief.
 
I def lean more towards a CONCEPT of Libertarianism. With that said, I clearly think we need SOME Government. Small, but there. I'm more bigger on local governments. Speaking just for USA, the states, IMO, really should be in charge of whatever the people want. People in Vermot want a universal healthcare? Put it to vote and let Vermot find a way to deal with all the aspects. The people in Pennsylvania want free college/education? Go for it, but PA and the people of PA should be the ones responsible for it.

With 50 states, we all have our options on where to live and what would be "right" for us.

For the MOST part (please understand that..) I don't support federal funding. I can't say I really support many "federal" things (AGAIN, FOR THE MOST PART). It should be left up the states, and to towns/townships/cities etc.

For a country as large and populated as ours, 1 size fits all rules just can't work. Why should the people in Maine have their tax dollars fund things that happen in Montanna? (Making an example, not citing anything specific lol)

I know this is not fully what a libertarian is, because it sounds more anarchists than anything. I don't really know - nor care - what to label myself. I guess my views just stemmed from Libertarian stuff. :shrug:
 
States can already do most of that kind of stuff. i.e. Romneycare in MA.

The problem of having no federal funding is the super poor states like Mississippi, West Virginia etc. would be even worse off as their local tax bases are so low as their economies are terrible with few jobs and most young people moving out of state for work etc. Federal funding helps balance that out some and there's really no other option. The economy is never going to improve in sparsely populated rural states as there's just no reason for businesses to move there due to the lack of population, and population isn't going they're never going to be places people want to move for jobs even if there were jobs available etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Defining libertarian is always fun. They believe everything and nothing depending on who you ask and what time of the day you ask.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Defining libertarian is always fun. They believe everything and nothing depending on who you ask and what time of the day you ask.[/QUOTE]

the thing is, people try and make libertarians into some kind of political philosophy. it's not, any more than democrat or rebuplican is. it's a political party, they have an agenda and its out there for everyone to view. of course its going to be different depending on who you ask and what time of the day it is. you think all democrats or republicans align? of course not.
 
Libertarians can barely get a dog catcher elected. It gets treated seriously because some serious money backs its propaganda and the regular folk who push it obsessed zealots. Republicans have adopted some of the shady seen in the OP like the starve the beast strategy.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I can dig that. Have you read much Rothbard?[/quote]
I didn't. Their whole click just seemed a bridge too far for me when I was into libertarianism. It just felt like sophistic circle jerking. Even when I was hardcore I felt like Hayek was a dick. Thoreau is probably as close as I got but hell, anyone that doesn't like Thoreau is a jerk. I really preferred the guys that were earlier and seemed to be breaking ground in a way I felt worked. I love the shit out of Bastiat and blame him for my inability to give up libertarianism for so long. :D

Thinking he was just a libertarian by another name, I read Marcuse's One Dimensional Man expecting new and exciting ways to tell Communists to go fuck themselves and instead had my own shit wrecked.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I can dig that. Have you read much Rothbard?

I'm going to sit back for a bit and see where the thread goes.[/QUOTE]
Hey feeding, it seems you have read a lot of libertarian literature. I have personally only read Nozick's treatment of libertarianism, so can you point me to a writer who is more relevant today and who doesn't try to hide their implicit assumptions.
 
The funny thing to me is that libertarians seem to clamor for this social contract where we all respect each other and do no wrong. Except, we kind of already have that, it's just that most people can't be trusted to do no wrong. So instead of having laws against doing wrong that are enforced, now we want insurance companies (that payout so well already) to compensate people for injustices.

So they want what's already happening?
 
[quote name='nasum']The funny thing to me is that libertarians seem to clamor for this social contract where we all respect each other and do no wrong. Except, we kind of already have that, it's just that most people can't be trusted to do no wrong. So instead of having laws against doing wrong that are enforced, now we want insurance companies (that payout so well already) to compensate people for injustices.

So they want what's already happening?[/QUOTE]

I just skimmed the article, but he mentioned deporting all of the criminals to desert wastelands. Seems a little different that what we have now, but I can't tell if it would be more effective. :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw
 
Before even getting half way through the first part, it already feels like a fake interview.

ANDREW: Tell us now about the libertarian society you are working to make possible.
CNC: It will be a free society – no government, no coercion. People will have their rights respected. Everyone will be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s rights… why are you looking at me like that?
Click to expand...
Come on, that feels like such satire.
 
Well if that is to be believed, libertarians are nothing but anarchist. If you think that anyone is going to respect your rights without something defending them (ie government) you're nuts.

See how long it takes for your home to be broken into when no police force is there to catch the burglar.

Oh but you can defend your home yourself!

What about the 8 or so hours I'm away at work?

Uhh....

Yeah.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well if that is to be believed, libertarians are nothing but anarchist. If you think that anyone is going to respect your rights without something defending them (ie government) you're nuts.

See how long it takes for your home to be broken into when no police force is there to catch the burglar.

Oh but you can defend your home yourself!

What about the 8 or so hours I'm away at work?

Uhh....

Yeah.[/QUOTE]
You buy security!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top