# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  For a New Libertarian - Jeff Deist @ Mises U 2017

## Brian4Liberty

For a New Libertarian
Jeff Deist - 07/28/2017




> ...
> What I'd like to talk about today is libertarians, more than libertarianism itself. And Ill ask you to consider whether libertarians have lost their way.
> 
> The title For a New Libertarian is I hope an obvious play on the title of Murray Rothbards famous book For a New Liberty. Its an underrated book, less well-known perhaps than The Ethics of Liberty. Lots of authors have the ego to call their books a manifesto, but few books actually live up to such an bold subtitle. This book does.
> 
> I love Murrays line: libertarianism, then, is a philosophy seeking a policy. I wonder if hed change that line today, if he could see where the public policy branch of libertarianism has become. Or maybe he should have written libertarianism is a philosophy seeking better libertarians.
> 
> I also chose the title to make the important point that we dont need a new libertarianism or anything so grand. Thanks to the great thinkers who came before us, and still among us, we dont have to do the hard work  which is good news, because not many of us are smart enough to come up with new theory! We can all very happily serve as second-hand dealers in ideas.
> 
> ...

----------


## Origanalist

> My second point relates to civil society itself. Because while libertarians enthusiastically embrace markets, they have for decades made the disastrous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to civic or social institution — in other words, hostile to civil society itself.


Spot_on.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So let’s understand — and sell — liberty as a deeply pragmatic approach  to organizing society, one that solves problems and conflicts by  muddling through with the best available private, voluntary solutions.  Let’s reject the grand visions and utopias for what will always be a  messy and imperfect world. Better, not perfect, ought to be our motto.


So, now, _after a century or two_, you finally understand?

...astounding. 

But, you don't _actually_ understand do you? 

You actually have abandoned libertarianism altogether and now have another agenda, no?




> My second point relates to civil society itself. Because while  libertarians enthusiastically embrace markets, they have for decades  made the disastrous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion,  to tradition, to culture, and to civic or social institution — in other  words, hostile to civil society itself.
> 
> Which is bizarre if we think about it. Civil society provides the very  mechanisms we need to organize society without the state. And in keeping  with Rothbard’s point about liberty and human nature, civil society  organizes itself organically, without force. Human beings want to be  part of something larger than themselves. Why do libertarians fail to  grasp this?
> 
> It scarcely needs to be said that family has always been the first line  of defense against the state, and the most important source of primary  loyalty — or divided loyalty, from the perspective of politicians. Our  connection with ancestors, and our concern for progeny, forms a story in  which the state is not the main character. Family forms our earliest  and hence most formative environment — and at least as an ideal, family  provides both material and emotional support. Happy families actually  exist.
> 
> But government wants us atomized, lonely, broke, vulnerable, dependent,  and disconnected. So of course it attempts to break down families by  taking kids away from them as early as possible, indoctrinating them in  state schools, using welfare as a wedge, using the tax code as a wedge,  discouraging marriage and large families, in fact discouraging any kind  of intimacy that is not subject to public scrutiny, encouraging divorce,  etc. etc.
> 
> This may all sound like right-wing talking points, but it doesn’t make it untrue.


Well, Sir, it depends...

Who is *paying you*?




> My final point is about the stubborn tendency of libertarians to  advocate some of sort of universal political arrangement.To the extent  there is political end for libertarians, it is allowing individuals to  live as they see fit. The political goal is self-determination, by  seeking to reduce the size, scope, and power of the state. But the idea  of universal libertarian principles became mixed up with the idea of  universal libertarian politics. Live and let live was replaced with the  notion of universal libertarian doctrine, often coupled with a cultural  element.


No, "universalism" is another word for coherence. 

Libertarianism doesn't only prohibit aggression when the "tribe" or whatever dislikes it; it prohibits it in all cases whatsoever. 




> What’s more, it turns out that very few things are actually universally  agreed upon. Not governance, not rights, not the role of religion, not  immigration, not capitalism, not neoliberalism. We have a hard enough  time winning respect for individual liberty and property rights in the  West, where we have a strong common law tradition.
> 
> Yet libertarians are busy promoting universalism even as the world moves  in the other direction. Trump and Brexit rocked the globalist  narrative. Nationalism is on the rise throughout Europe, forcing the EU  to defend itself, secession and breakaway movements exist in Scotland,  in Catalonia, in Belgium, in Andalusia, even in California. Federalism  and states’ rights are suddenly popular with progressives in the US. The  world desperately wants to turn its back on Washington and Brussels and  the UN and the IMF and all of the globalist institutions. Average  people smell a rat.
> 
> We should seize on this.


The thing speaking is not capable of "seizing" upon this for at least two reasons:

1) It isn't a libertarian

2) It is an idiot

ALTOGETHER, this is real, real $#@!ing sad. Ludwig von Mises would want *nothing* to do with this chimpery.

----------


## thoughtomator

> If there is one overriding point we should remember it is that liberty is natural and organic and comports with human action.


That statement could not be more false.

Barbarity is what is natural and organic. That why it crops up everywhere when nothing else is strong enough to keep it out.

Liberty is actually the endpoint of the evolution of theory of government during the Enlightenment and it absolutely depends on the existence of institutions to defend it from barbarity.

Any "libertarian" who doesn't understand this is no libertarian. They're just someone who wants to be self-sovereign which is a rump, retarded and lobotomized version of what liberty actually is.

Guess that explains why this movement ultimately died. Its own key people didn't understand the concepts they were trying to teach others, and when the movement ultimately relied on making sense this was a death blow.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I don't have much time to post these days, and to be perfectly frank I'm a bit tired of it all anymore... but I did catch this posting @ LRC this morning and thought it was interesting from a philosophical perspective but much more so from a practical one, and thought I'd drop by to share, if someone hasn't already.  

I haven't read much by Mr. Deist, but I thought this was a rather interesting piece.  Enjoy.  Or not.   

Also, I hope you all are well!

Snip; full text @ the link:




> Sometimes libertarians do fall into a trap of needing something new, what we might call a modernity trap. It has become trendy to imagine that technology creates a new paradigm, a new third way that will make government obsolete without the need for an intellectual shift. The digital age is so flat, so democratic, and so decentralized that it will prove impossible for inherently hierarchical states to control us. The free flow of information will make inevitable the free flow of goods and services, while unmasking tyrannies that can no longer keep the truth from their citizens.
> 
> While I certainly hope this is true, Im not so sure. It seems to me that states are shifting from national to supra-national, that globalism in effect means more centralized control by an emerging cartel of allied states like the EU and NGOs  not to mention calls for a convergence of central banks under a global organization like the IMF. We should be suspicious of the determinist notion that there is an inevitable arc to human history.
> 
> And while we all benefit from the marvels of technological progress, and we especially welcome technology that makes it harder for the state to govern us  for example bitcoin or Uber or encryption  we should remember that advances in technology also make it easier for governments to spy on, control, and even kill the people under their control.
> 
> So I suspect that while humans continue to exist, their stubborn tendency to form governments will remain a problem. The choice between organizing human affairs by economic means or political means was not undone by the printing press, or the industrial revolution, or electricity, or any number of enormous technological advancements. So we cant assume liberation via the digital revolution.
> 
> No, Rothbards conception of liberty has held up quite well over nearly half a century. Humans are sovereign over their mind and body, meaning you own yourself. From this flows the necessary corollary of property rights, meaning individuals have a valid claim to the byproducts of their minds and bodiesaxiomatically we know that humans have to act to survive. And from self-ownership and property rights we arrive at a theory of when force is permissible, namely in self-defense. And these ideas of self-ownership, property rights, and non-aggression ought to apply to everyone, even when a group bands together and call themselves government. Since governments by definition use force (or threaten force) in many ways that are not definable as self-defense, they are invalid under the Rothbardian paradigm.
> ...


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/...-flipping-out/

----------


## r3volution 3.0

The Ludwig von Mises Institute™ now has nothing to do with Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist and liberal of the last century. 

They were anarchists for thirty years: fine, excessive exuberance, sympathetic enough.

But now..? 

Now they've joined the burgeoning nationalist movements in the US and Europe (yay Trump, yay Brexit...gee, socialism ain't so bad becuz PC...).

Shame to everyone who is currently associated with the now, perversely misnamed organization.

I hope the handful of useful intellectuals still over there depart for less Vichy-esque pastures.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The Ludwig von Mises Institute™ now has nothing to do with Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist and liberal of the last century. 
> 
> They were anarchists for thirty years: fine, excessive exuberance, sympathetic enough.
> 
> But now..? 
> 
> Now they've joined the burgeoning nationalist movements in the US and Europe (yay Trump, yay Brexit...gee, socialism ain't so bad becuz PC...).
> 
> Shame to everyone who is currently associated with the now, perversely misnamed organization.
> ...


Perhaps you can enlighten us on which people at Mises are no longer worthy. Is Ron Paul no longer useful?

Here's a list of the staff. Quite a few people involved:
https://mises.org/faculty-staff

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Perhaps you can enlighten us on which people at Mises are no longer worthy. Is Ron Paul no longer useful?
> 
> Here's a list of the staff. Quite a few people involved:
> https://mises.org/faculty-staff


Any and all that have been making nationalist/pro-Trump noises.

Off the top of my head, that would include at least Rockwell, Deist, and Woods.

The organization as a whole (along with LRC) is being led in that direction, though there are no doubt some associates who object.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

What?  Woods?  Get out... I don't believe it...

----------


## Suzanimal

> The Ludwig von Mises Institute™ now has nothing to do with Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist and liberal of the last century. 
> 
> They were anarchists for thirty years: fine, excessive exuberance, sympathetic enough.
> 
> But now..? 
> 
> Now they've joined the burgeoning nationalist movements in the US and Europe (yay Trump,* yay Brexit...gee, socialism ain't so bad becuz PC*...).
> 
> Shame to everyone who is currently associated with the now, perversely misnamed organization.
> ...



What do you have against Brexit? And where are you getting the socialism ain't so bad from?




> Any and all that have been making nationalist/pro-Trump noises.
> 
> Off the top of my head, that would include at least Rockwell, Deist, and Woods.
> 
> The organization as a whole (along with LRC) is being led in that direction, though there are no doubt some associates who object.


I'm not thrilled with some of the Trump love but the Mises Institute is a wealth of information on Austrian Economics and it sounds to me that you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What do you have against Brexit?


It means more immigration and trade restrictions.

As elsewhere in Europe, anti-EU activism there has nothing to do with liberty. 




> And where are you getting the socialism ain't so bad from?


The "libertarians" apologizing for Trump are saying that we should overlook Trump's socialism because he's "fighting PC/globalism/unicorns."




> I'm not thrilled with some of the Trump love but the Mises Institute is a wealth of information on Austrian Economics and it sounds to me that you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.


Their _library_ (consisting of things written by non-Trump-slurpers) is great and I cite it often.

Their current activities? Not so much.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Any and all that have been making nationalist/pro-Trump noises.
> 
> Off the top of my head, that would include at least Rockwell, Deist, and Woods.
> 
> The organization as a whole (along with LRC) is being led in that direction, though there are no doubt some associates who object.


It's a big organization, and that's only a few people. They have a long history and have made many contributions to the liberty movement. There is no reason to discard them for a single, perceived disagreement. I doubt any of them would describe themselves as Trump supporters. More like people who have talked about a deep state for a long time, and because of current politics, the deep state is being exposed.

Ron Paul was criticized as a "nationalist" and "isolationist". Just because he wants to focus on the US, does not make him some kind of evil person.




> I'm not thrilled with some of the Trump love but the Mises Institute is a wealth of information on Austrian Economics and it sounds to me that you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.


Agree. No reason to dismiss the Mises Institute because of a fringe disagreement on a single issue.

----------


## Suzanimal

> It means more immigration and trade restrictions.
> 
> As elsewhere in Europe, anti-EU activism there has nothing to do with liberty.


And staying in the EU does have something to do with liberty? Give me a break. They chose to secede and did it peacefully, good for them.




> The "libertarians" apologizing for Trump are saying that we should overlook Trump's socialism because he's "fighting PC/globalism/unicorns."


I don't like that stuff either but I don't see too much of it on Mises. It seems like most of that stays at LRC. 




> Their _library_ (consisting of things written by non-Trump-slurpers) is great and I cite it often.
> 
> *Their current activities? Not so much.*


Like MisesU? Or the FREE high school seminars I take my kids to every year? No benefit to that?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ALTOGETHER, this is real, real $#@!ing sad. Ludwig von Mises would want *nothing* to do with this chimpery.



eeeeyep. I agree.

Mises, not unlike libertarianism, is gradually but surely becoming nothing more than a word to be tossed around by the underinformed.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And staying in the EU does have something to do with liberty? Give me a break.


Staying in the EU would mean fewer restrictions on trade and immigration, no?




> They chose to secede and did it peacefully, good for them.


There's no such thing as a right to national self-determination. 

The best outcome is the one which preserves the most liberty - that's not BREXIT. 




> Like MisesU? Or the FREE high school seminars I take my kids to every year? No benefit to that?


Sure, that too. I'm talking about their current politics, not their pure educational activities. 

They should stick with the latter.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I doubt any of them would describe themselves as Trump supporters.


Google "Libertarians For Trump."

...which reminds me, Block is another one. 




> Ron Paul was criticized as a "nationalist" and "isolationist". Just because he wants to focus on the US, does not make him some kind of evil person.


Ron Paul wasn't a socialistic, warmongering, conman. 




> Agree. No reason to dismiss the Mises Institute because of a fringe disagreement on a single issue.


Shilling for the sitting, highly anti-liberty President of the United States isn't a "fringe" matter.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Google "Libertarians For Trump."
> 
> ...which reminds me, Block is another one. 
> 
> Ron Paul wasn't a socialistic, warmongering, conman. 
> 
> Shilling for the sitting, highly anti-liberty President of the United States isn't a "fringe" matter.


Found this. Not a ringing endorsement, more like Trump was a lesser evil that didn't sound like a neocon.




> Libertarians for Trump, Revisited
> By Walter E. Block
> 
> I had this idea that we libertarians should support Donald Trump for the nomination of the Republican Party for president, not because he was a libertarian, nor, even, because his views were very congruent with our philosophy. My thought, though, was that out of all the Republican candidates, he was the most libertarian on foreign policy. He was the least likely to get us into World War III.  And, thanks to the tutelage I had received over the years from the likes of Murray Rothbard, Ralph Raico and Bob Higgs, I knew that imperialism, foreign aggression, were more of a threat to liberty than were violations of economic or personal liberty rights.
> ...
> More: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/...tarians-trump/

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Found this. Not a ringing endorsement, more like Trump was a lesser evil that didn't sound like a neocon.


...except that he wasn't and did. 

Block's "not a ringing endorsement" sounds to me like "trying to shill for Trump without coming off as a sellout." Some of the same "libertarians" shilling for Trump were doing so in the fall of 2015, long before he clinched the nomination. Some were doing this while simultaneously $#@!ting on Rand. And I recall none of them jumping on the Obamawagon in 2008, despite the fact that he actually sounded much less neocon-ish than Trump. I don't see pragmatism here. I see people who've lambasted pragmatists for years (to the point of $#@!ting on Rand Paul when he actually had a chance of winning), suddenly join the Trump train for the simple fact that they like his attack on PC and his anti-immigrant views - the rest being rationalization, trying tp pretend those foolish/ignoble reasons aren't the real reasons. 

Another fine example of this now comes to mind: Raimondo (arguably the worst of the lot)

----------


## Natural Citizen

I really am baffled by the disconnect associated with the Mises name. The politics verus the education material are two completely different paradigms. Granted, the old school guys are thinning out but I just don't understand this new socialistic breed of political beings associated with the Mises name.

Anyway. Off topic, perhaps. I'm merely reminded of  the phnomenon.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I really am baffled by the disconnect associated with the Mises name. The politics verus the education material are two completely different paradigms. Granted, the old school guys are thinning out but I just don't understand this new socialistic breed of political beings associated with the Mises name.
> 
> Anyway. Off topic, perhaps. I'm merely reminded of  the phnomenon.


Any examples of "socialism" from Mises Institute?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Any examples of "socialism" from Mises Institute?


Well, there's the OP, which is one great paean to nationalism contra libertarianism.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Any examples of "socialism" from Mises Institute?


Well. What's a little humorous is that the op itself is an excellent demonstration of that political mindset. 

It's unfortunate. 

I'm mixed about the Mises Institute these days. 

If they stuck with the Mises economic platform, that's one thing. 

But Rev's right when he says it's been about a 30 year transition toward the political entity that they've become. Their politics are fudged up.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Any examples of "socialism" from Mises Institute?





> Well, there's the OP, which is one great paean to nationalism contra libertarianism.


Which part is an example of socialism?




> Well. What's a little humorous is that the op itself is an excellent demonstration of that political mindset. 
> 
> It's unfortunate. 
> 
> I'm mixed about the Mises Institute these days. 
> 
> If they stuck with the Mises economic platform, that's one thing. 
> 
> But Rev's right when he says it's been about a 30 year transition toward the political entity that they've become. Their politics are fudged up.


Since you also made the claim they are socialistic and progressive, I'd like an example. Pick which part of the op you have a problem with or pick something off the Mises Wire. I don't care. I'd just like an example.

----------


## Origanalist

> Well, there's the OP, which is one great paean to nationalism contra libertarianism.


Well, no, it's not. And why are you equating socialism to nationalism in general? 




> How about an abstraction, like fighting for “your country” or freedom or your religion? This is where thing get more tenuous. Many people have and will fight for such abstractions. But if you ask soldiers they’ll tell you that in the heat of battle they’re really fighting for their mates, to protect the men in their units--and to fulfill a personal sense of duty.
> 
> In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.


This is a "great paean to nationalism"? It was the only part that even mentioned anything related to it. I suspect there were other things in it that triggered your response. I also have no clue what Natural Citizen is going on about.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, no, it's not. And why are you equating socialism to nationalism in general? 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a "great paean to nationalism"? It was the only part that even mentioned anything related to it. I suspect there were other things in it that triggered your response. I also have no clue what Natural Citizen is going on about.


War and Socialism come from Nationalism. And while Nationalism is ancient, the only thing that has changed is its form. From ancient Egypt to the Roman Empire to 17th century Mercantilism, the result has always been the same. A planned economy. And again, by way of war and socialism. 

That's likely where Rev's coming from with it. It's certainly where I'm coming from with it. But we could go much deeper from a historica lperspective. I don't really feel like it, but we can, I suppose. And reading through the thoughts there in the op, it really is reflective of the Nationalist history and form of planned economies which leads us to to war and Socialism. 

I think that the person in the op just hasn't thought that all the way through.


An example of the writer's shortcoming in understanding the process I've just kind of touched on would be this single line....




> And we probably would fight for our towns and communities if they were physically invaded by an outside force, even though we don’t personally know all of the people in our towns and communities.


That really does echo the old saying about  Proletarians of all countries unite.

 But its form has changed. Now it's moving toward Proletarians of all countries, don't come to my country and take my property away from me.

----------


## Origanalist

> War and Socialism come from Nationalism. And while Nationalism is ancient, the only thing that has changed is its form. From ancient Egypt to the RomanEmpire to 17th century Mercantilism, the result has always been the same. A planned economy. And again, by way of war and socialism. 
> 
> That's likely where Rev's coming from with it. It' certainly where I'm coming from with it. And reading through the thoughts there in the op, it really is reflective of the Nationalist history and form which leads us to to war and Socialism. 
> 
> I think that the person in the op just hasn't thought that all the way through.
> 
> 
> An example of the writer's shortcoming in understanding the process I've just kind of touched on would be this single line....
> 
> ...





> My second point relates to civil society itself. Because while libertarians enthusiastically embrace markets, they have for decades made the disastrous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to civic or social institution — in other words, hostile to civil society itself.


Is this what you are referring to? I happen to agree with this. I don't see how you get from this to a planned economy, socialism and war.

As far as rev goes the talk of decentralization is what triggered him in my opinion. He despises the idea of smaller, decentralized government.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Which part is an example of socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> Since you also made the claim they are socialistic and progressive, I'd like an example. Pick which part of the op you have a problem with or pick something off the Mises Wire. I don't care. I'd just like an example.


A lot of the new breed of ''Mises'' writers and politicos have no business even being associated with the name Mises. So a separation must be made in order to acknowledge that reality.

The person in the op, while he does get some fundamental things right, is one of those people. I can explain why the combined influence of war and socialism has historically existed as an international movement of the working class. And I can explain that war and Socialism have both historically served as the Nationalist's means of economic control. I touched on it in my previous post.

But I can't make you put two and two to gether, Suz. You're a  hard head. 

It's okay. I love you all the same. 

You're doing the right thing by introducing your children to the Mises eductational material. That's something else entirely.

But this new breed of young politicos who are latching onto the Mises name have much to learn about history. It's the only way they'll realize the shortcomings in their political logic.

----------


## Origanalist

> An example of the writer's shortcoming in understanding the process I've just kind of touched on would be this single line....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				And we probably would fight for our towns and communities if they were physically invaded by an outside force, even though we don’t personally know all of the people in our towns and communities
> 			
> ...


wut?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Is this what you are referring to? I happen to agree with this. I don't see how you get from this to a planned economy, socialism and war.
> 
> As far as rev goes the talk of decentralization is what triggered him in my opinion. He despises the idea of smaller, decentralized government.


The one thing that I've always disagreed with rev about is his trust in anarcho-monarchism. Perhaps I have my isms confused and I don't really understand what he's actually promoting. I dunno.

 But that's really the only thing I disagree with him about. The guy knows his history. I can tell that he does because he equates things in his writings that one really wouldn't know that he's equating unless they, too, knew their history. 

 He equated Nationalism to Socialism. So if we look at history, we know that war and socialism have always been the mechanism of the Nationalist's economic control. 

 If I were a clever nationalist (or one who hasn't really studied geopolitical history), I'd promote precisely what the guy in the op promoted. I would promote the idea of collectively organizing to defend society (again, regardless of whether we even knew them) from an international invasion of people looking to take our property. Nationalism is based on a national economy and the idea that a nation can only grow economically at the expense of the rest of the world. That's why he brought up the bit about an invading nation. And his solution was historically no different than any other nation in history which have used war and socialism to support nationalism.  

 Anyway. It's early, O. I'll probably look at this later and retype it. I can't eventhink straight this early.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Well, there's the OP, which is one great paean to nationalism contra libertarianism.





> Well. What's a little humorous is that the op itself is an excellent demonstration of that political mindset. 
> 
> It's unfortunate. 
> 
> I'm mixed about the Mises Institute these days. 
> 
> If they stuck with the Mises economic platform, that's one thing. 
> 
> But Rev's right when he says it's been about a 30 year transition toward the political entity that they've become. Their politics are fudged up.


While I may not agree with everything in Deist's speech, I don't see it advocating "socialism" as defined by most people.

It's hard to even twist what he said into nationalism. He talks about human nature to form into groups, and that those groups can create a civil society _without_ government.

And once again, equating nations with socialism is stretching definitions beyond the breaking point. Ron Paul explicitly believes in nations. It does not make him a "socialist", an "isolationist" or any other twisting of language in an attempt to disparage him.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> There's no such thing as a right to national self-determination.





> No, "universalism" is another word for coherence.


Not everyone agrees with your anarcho-monarchist universalism. That is one of the points of the OP article, which you no doubt disagree with. Fine, disagree with him. You will not be changing his (or other people's) mind by attacking the Mises Institute.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> War and Socialism come from Nationalism. ... it really is reflective of the Nationalist history and form of planned economies which leads us to to war and Socialism. ...





> Is this what you are referring to? I happen to agree with this. I don't see how you get from this to a planned economy, socialism and war.
> 
> As far as rev goes the talk of decentralization is what triggered him in my opinion. He despises the idea of smaller, decentralized government.


NC can correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like the slippery slope argument. Any government or nation at all eventually slides into the worse case scenario of totalitarian control and war-mongering.

Perhaps given enough time, and especially power, that tendency does exist. But does the creation of one law automatically equal the worst case scenario? Does making murder illegal lead inevitably to a totalitarian state? People like to organize and make laws, that is inevitable. No changing that. But many states exist that are not totalitarian or overbearing, so that goal is achievable.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Which part is an example of socialism?


The part promoting nationalism, as I said. Nationalism is itself a socialistic ideology, sacrificing the rights of individuals for the alleged rights of nationalities. Then there's the pro-Trump statements in general, which, since Trump is highly socialistic, are implicitly pro-socialism. The attitude is that we should overlook Trump's support of socialized medicine, or the Fed, or corporate subsidies, etc, because of his nationalism (which is an odd "trade-off" since the latter too is an anti-liberty position). 

@Origanalist 

See above




> Not everyone agrees with your  anarcho-monarchist universalism. That is one of the points of the OP  article, which you no doubt disagree with. Fine, disagree with  him.


And so I have. But to be clear, this isn't a matter  of opinion, where good libertarians can agree to disagree. Either you  believe that libertarian principles are just (everywhere) or you don't.  To say that they're only just in places where the people (the majority, I  suppose...) accept them is to swap out libertarianism for some kind of  nation-based democratic socialism: liberty is good --> what the people will is good. Also, anarcho-monarchist...? I'm a  monarchist, of course, but I'm not sure what it would mean to be an  "anarcho" monarchist. In any event, this issue has nothing to do with  monarchy vs. democracy. It's a question of fundamental ethical  principles, not political science.

P.S. To clarify something: 

There are two kinds of nationalists: those who view nationalism as a means to an end (such as liberty), and those who view it as an end in itself. Likewise with democracy. The former are tolerable (however mistaken they may be), the latter are not. The former have chosen the wrong means to achieve their goal; the latter have abandoned our common goal altogether. The Deist wing of the libertarian movement, if I can call it that, is hovering between the two positions, gradually working their way over to the latter, intolerable one.

----------


## Origanalist

> *The part promoting nationalism*,
> 			
> 		
> 
> What part was that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


//

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> And  so I have. But to be clear, this isn't a matter  of opinion, where good  libertarians can agree to disagree. Either you  believe that  libertarian principles are just (everywhere) or you don't.
> 
> 
> Believing them to be just and enforcing them on people who don't want to  live by them in regions that are not in close proximity are two  different things.


So, whether it's just to force libertarian principles on people depends on their proximity?

e.g. Forcing some guy in your town to not steal is just, yet forcing some guy in another state to not steal is unjust?

----------


## Origanalist

> So, whether it's just to force libertarian principles on people depends on their proximity?
> 
> e.g. Forcing some guy in your town to not steal is just, yet forcing some guy in another state to not steal is unjust?


It's simply a matter of whether or not you feel obligated to police the entire world, how you achieve this dubious goal and who would pay for such an endeavor. Whereas you can personally (and comparatively economically) stop aggression  against yourself, family, neighbors.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's simply a matter of whether or not you feel obligated to police the entire world, how you achieve this dubious goal and who would pay for such an endeavor. Whereas you can personally (and comparatively economically) stop aggression  against yourself, family, neighbors.


You're not really answering my question, which is about principle, not the practical questions of _how_ one might go about enforcing libertarianism (on anyone). As to that matter of principle, I ask again, you're saying that it can be unjust to force libertarianism on someone simply in virtue of their distance from oneself?

----------


## Origanalist

> You're not really answering my question, which is about principle, not the practical questions of _how_ one might go about enforcing libertarianism (on anyone). As to that matter of principle, I ask again, you're saying that it can be unjust to force libertarianism on someone simply in virtue of their distance from oneself?


It's unjust force libertarianism on anybody. Period. Forcing people on the other side of the country not to steal is just a ridiculous proposition requiring a massive central government. Let them deal with their own thieves. You can however force people not to steal from yourself, your family and your immediate neighbors (if you and they so wish) without said massive government.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's unjust force libertarianism on anybody. Period.


So, you believe it is unjust to use force to stop a crime in progress, or punish a criminal after the fact?




> Forcing people on the other side of the country not to steal is just a ridiculous proposition requiring a massive central government. Let them deal with their own thieves. You can however force people not to steal from yourself, your family and your immediate neighbors (if you and they so wish) without said massive government.


Well this contradicts what you just said.

"Forcing people not to steal" is what "forcing libertarianism on people" _means_.

----------


## Origanalist

> So, you believe it is unjust to use force to stop a crime in progress, or punish a criminal after the fact?
> 
> 
> 
> Well this contradicts what you just said.
> 
> "Forcing people not to steal" is what "forcing libertarianism on people" _means_.


Lol, if you say so. I notice you skipped right over my other questions and focused entirely on this as is goes against your world government proclivity.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Lol, if you say so.


Logic says that "_it's unjust [to] force libertarianism on anybody_" and "_you can however force people not to steal_" are contradictory.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Logic says that "_it's unjust [to] force libertarianism on anybody_" and "_you can however force people not to steal_" are contradictory.


We can't force foreigners not to steal either.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We can't force foreigners not to steal either.


Do you mean that it is impossible or immoral?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Do you mean that it is impossible or immoral?


We could conquer them and impose our justice system on them, but it would be wrong.
Their territory, their people = their business not ours.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We could conquer them and impose our justice system on them, but it would be wrong.
> Their territory, their people = their business not ours.


Are you saying that enforcing libertarianism on foreigners is wrong in itself, regardless of any practical considerations (i.e. even if it could be done as easily as with the domestic population), OR that it is only wrong because of practical problems (attempts would in fact be counterproductive, ala Iraq [pretending for a moment that liberation was what was actually attempted in Iraq])? It sounds like you're taking the first position, but I want to be sure.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Are you saying that enforcing libertarianism on foreigners is wrong in itself, regardless of any practical considerations (i.e. even if it could be done as easily as with the domestic population), OR that it is only wrong because of practical problems (attempts would in fact be counterproductive, ala Iraq [pretending for a moment that liberation was what was actually attempted in Iraq])? It sounds like you're taking the first position, but I want to be sure.


Wrong in and of itself.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Wrong in and of itself.


Got it. Next question: why _is_ it just to enforce libertarianism on the _domestic_ population?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Got it. Next question: why _is_ it just to enforce libertarianism on the _domestic_ population?


Unless you are going to take the Anarchist position, which would be contrary to your previous positions, this is not a question that I need to answer to you.
You and I differ on the size of the realm that should exist to protect the innocent, administer justice and safeguard liberty, we have had that conversation before and I see no reason to have it again.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Unless you are going to take the Anarchist position, which would be contrary to your previous positions, this is not a question that I need to answer to you. You and I differ on the size of the realm that should exist to protect the innocent, administer justice and safeguard liberty, we have had that conversation before and I see no reason to have it again.


No, I'm not going to be deserting to the anarchist camp any time soon. As you know, my view is that a minarchist state (i.e. the means of forcing libertarianism on people) is justified on the principle of aggression-minimization; i.e. that world is best in which occurs the least possible aggression. I was hoping to get your own justification of minarchism in your own words, because, going by mine, your distinction between domestics and foreigners is untenable; i.e. on my principle, foreign intervention that would reduce total aggression would be justified, but you claim it would not be. I'm familiar with your pragmatic argument against foreign intervention/world government, but you've said here that forcing libertarianism on foreigners is unjust _in itself_, regardless of any practical considerations. So, why is that?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, I'm not going to be deserting to the anarchist camp any time soon. As you know, my view is that a minarchist state (i.e. the means of forcing libertarianism on people) is justified on the principle of aggression-minimization; i.e. that world is best in which occurs the least possible aggression. I was hoping to get your own justification of minarchism in your own words, because, going by mine, your distinction between domestics and foreigners is untenable; i.e. on my principle, foreign intervention that would reduce total aggression would be justified, but you claim it would not be. I'm familiar with your pragmatic argument against foreign intervention/world government, but you've said here that forcing libertarianism on foreigners is unjust _in itself_, regardless of any practical considerations. So, why is that?


In brief: there is a threshold size of society where a group has the right to separate from others and play by their own rules, they may be wrong and unjust but the responsibility is on them as long as they only wrong themselves. People have a right to be wrong as long as they agree with eachother and don't inflict their wrongness on outsiders, their fundamental wrongness is a matter for GOD to punish, the best we can do for them is political "missionary" work and that should be done on a private non-governmental basis.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> In brief: there is a threshold size of society where a group has the right to separate from others and play by their own rules, they may be wrong and unjust but the responsibility is on them as long as they only wrong themselves. People have a right to be wrong as long as they agree with each other and don't inflict their wrongness on outsiders, their fundamental wrongness is a matter for GOD to punish, the best we can do for them is political "missionary" work and that should be done on a private non-governmental basis.


If the inhabitants of Ruritania all agreed with each other, there would be no aggression by definition, and so the whole point would be moot. The situations in which I would say intervention may be justified are precisely those in which the Ruritanians disagree amongst the themselves, such that one group is oppressing another (as occurs in every real society). By saying that "the Ruritanians have a right to be wrong" aren't you saying that the majority (or the military junta, or whatever group it is which is in power) have the right to oppress the remainder?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If the inhabitants of Ruritania all agreed with each other, there would be no aggression by definition, and so the whole point would be moot. The situations in which I would say intervention may be justified are precisely those in which the Ruritanians disagree amongst the themselves, such that one group is oppressing another (as occurs in every real society). By saying that "the Ruritanians have a right to be wrong" aren't you saying that the majority (or the military junta, or whatever group it is which is in power) have the right to oppress the remainder?


If the Ruritanians believe that either Anarchy or Tyranny is correct and allow some or all of their people to rob, rape, kill etc. and do not rise up in rebellion to impose order in Ruritania because "INSERT CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS BELIEF" that is their problem and none of our business, GOD is responsible to punish them in this life or the next as he sees fit. In our own society it is our responsibility to "fight the good fight" by one means or another unless our society totally rejects the truth and becomes alien to us, in which case one can live under the tyranny while preaching the truth in an attempt to reclaim society or seek to either emigrate or secede to join/create a society where the right is attainable.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If the Ruritanians believe that either Anarchy or Tyranny is correct and allow some or all of their people to rob, rape, kill etc. and do not rise up in rebellion to impose order in Ruritania because "INSERT CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS BELIEF" that is their problem and none of our business, GOD is responsible to punish them in this life or the next as he sees fit.


Are you saying that a state has the right to tyrannize its subjects (which implies that its subjects have no rights), or only that, though a state has no right to tyranize its subjects, you simply don't care if it does so, so long as you aren't one of its subjects?




> In our own society it is our responsibility to "fight the good fight" by one means or another unless our society totally rejects the truth and becomes alien to us, in which case one can live under the tyranny while preaching the truth in an attempt to reclaim society or seek to either emigrate or secede to join/create a society where the right is attainable.


How do we determine when our society "becomes alien to us"? Is it a matter of numbers? Or what the state is doing? Or something else?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Are you saying that a state has the right to tyrannize its subjects (which implies that its subjects have no rights), or only that, though a state has no right to tyranize its subjects, you simply don't care if it does so, so long as you aren't one of its subjects?


I am saying that though a state has no right to tyrannize it's subjects those subjects have a right to submit to tyranny, and that those who are not subject to that tyranny have no right to interfere beyond philosophical  "missionary work". There might be an exception for private individuals from outside to come to the aid of the oppressed if the oppressed request it, since in that case the oppressed would not be submitting to the tyranny.






> How do we determine when our society "becomes alien to us"? Is it a matter of numbers? Or what the state is doing? Or something else?


When society overwhelmingly accepts and submits to tyranny as a matter of philosophy instead of as a misinterpretation of liberty.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I am saying that though a state has no right to tyrannize it's subjects those subjects have a right to submit to tyranny, and that those who are not subject to that tyranny have no right to interfere beyond philosophical  "missionary work". There might be an exception for private individuals from outside to come to the aid of the oppressed if the oppressed request it, since in that case the oppressed would not be submitting to the tyranny.


So, people have a "right to submit to tyranny," which right we violate by trying to liberate them?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So, people have a "right to submit to tyranny," which right we violate by trying to liberate them?


Yes, odd as it sounds.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, odd as it sounds.


People obey laws either voluntarily or involuntary (i.e. under coercion). If a person is obeying the laws voluntarily, these aren't really laws in any meaningful sense, and, in any event, there is no aggression and so no need for intervention at all - a hippie commune comes to mind. However, this is never the case in any natural society, e.g. in a N. Korea or a USSR, where people (at least some people) are obeying the laws involuntary. Are those people, the ones obeying the laws only because the state is coercing them, exercising their "right to submit to tyranny", such that by preventing the state from coercing them, we would be violating their rights?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> People obey laws either voluntarily or involuntary (i.e. under coercion). If a person is obeying the laws voluntarily, these aren't really laws in any meaningful sense, and, in any event, there is no aggression and so no need for intervention at all - a hippie commune comes to mind.


What if the "law" says redheads are divine and may rape anyone they please? does that not count as aggression?





> However, this is never the case in any natural society, e.g. in a N. Korea or a USSR, where people (at least some people) are obeying the laws involuntary. Are those people, the ones obeying the laws only because the state is coercing them, exercising their "right to submit to tyranny", such that by preventing the state from coercing them, we would be violating their rights?


We have no way to tell for sure, therefore we have no right to interfere, if some NORKs started a rebellion and put out a call for help then individuals might be justified in going to their aid but the nation would not have a right to make that judgement call for all of us.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What if the "law" says redheads are divine and may rape anyone they please? does that not count as aggression?


Not if the "victims" also accept the law voluntarily (i.e. then it's not rape). 

I was only acknowledging your point that people can voluntarily submit to laws which, if enforced, would be unjust.

..as preface to my point that many people submitting to the laws are doing so _involuntarily_. 

...and that it would be absurd to suggest that saving such people from coercion would violate their rights. 




> We have no way to tell for sure, therefore we have no right to interfere


If we don't know there's aggression occurring in Ruritania, then we have no right to intervene, of course.

But if we do, we do?




> if some NORKs started a rebellion and put out a call for help then individuals might be justified in going to their aid but the nation would not have a right to make that judgement call for all of us.


Why that distinction? It doesn't apply domestically, does it?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If we don't know there's aggression occurring in Ruritania, then we have no right to intervene, of course.
> 
> But if we do, we do?


"WE" can't know if the overwhelming majority are submitting involuntarily or not, if we somehow magically could then it would become a question of whether we should take the risk to intervene, are we our brother's keeper? (GOD did not refute Cain, the question was irrelevant and meant to distract from the fact that both he and GOD knew exactly what had happened to Able) if we have a duty to our fellow man how does it measure up to our other duties such as our duty to support our families? etc.
These are questions that only the individual can answer in relation to foreigners, it might be possible for the nation state to organize those who wished to volunteer but that would be the extent of justifiable collective action, and even that would be debatable since it might invite blow-back against the whole country not just the volunteers.






> Why that distinction? It doesn't apply domestically, does it?


Members of the same society are bound by it's rules and are subject to their enforcement, the options available to leave that society are a different subject that we have discussed before.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

@Swordsmyth, before responding to your last post in detail, I want to make sure I understand something.

You acknowledge that intervening to liberate Ruritarians whose submission to the Ruritanian state is involuntary does not violate their rights?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> @Swordsmyth, before responding to your last post in detail, I want to make sure I understand something.
> 
> You acknowledge that intervening to liberate Ruritarians whose submission to the Ruritanian state is involuntary does not violate their rights?


In theory yes, it would not violate their rights to aid them in securing their rights. That is why I said it is possible for individuals to help them under the right circumstances.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> "WE" can't know if the overwhelming majority are submitting involuntarily or not


Why does it have to be an "overwhelming majority"? Let's take it to the extreme and suppose it's just one guy. If you were to replace the Ruritanian state with a minarchist one, you would not be violating that guy's rights (to the contrary), nor would you be violating the rights of the rest of the population (if their practices, e.g. communism, under their former government were truly _voluntary_, they would be entirely free to continue those practices under the new, minarchist government). 




> Members of the same society are bound by it's rules and are subject to their enforcement


So, it's just for the American state to "make the call for all of us" and force us to support its domestic aggression-suppression operations, but not to do so for foreign aggression-suppression operations? Why? It can't be (as we've now established) that the the foreign operations violate the rights of the foreigners. So what is the reason?

Another issue: if it's truly impossible to know for sure whether people are submitting to a law voluntarily or not, as you claim, and this applies universally, what would be the argument against any tyrannical law of our own state? I mean, maybe the vast majority of the population _voluntarily_ obeys every federal law in the US, such that those laws don't involve any aggression, right? ...or is that absurd?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Why does it have to be an "overwhelming majority"? Let's take it to the extreme and suppose it's just one guy. If you were to replace the Ruritanian state with a minarchist one, you would not be violating that guy's rights (to the contrary), nor would you be violating the rights of the rest of the population (if their practices, e.g. communism, under their former government were truly _voluntary_, they would be entirely free to continue those practices under the new, minarchist government).


You would have killed people and destroyed property without just cause.






> So, it's just for the American state to "make the call for all of us" and force us to support its domestic aggression-suppression operations, but not to do so for foreign aggression-suppression operations? Why? It can't be (as we've now established) that the the foreign operations violate the rights of the foreigners. So what is the reason?


I said that the state has no right to tyrannize anyone, people have the right to submit to tyranny but nobody has the right to be the tyrant.
So long as our society believes in liberty (however misguided their implementation) I will by appropriate means oppose tyranny, if our society falls completely I have laid out my options above.




> Another issue: if it's truly impossible to know for sure whether people are submitting to a law voluntarily or not, as you claim, and this applies universally, what would be the argument against any tyrannical law of our own state? I mean, maybe the vast majority of the population _voluntarily_ obeys every federal law in the US, such that those laws don't involve any aggression, right? ...or is that absurd?


See above as well as my previous posts. Our society still believes in liberty and I am a member of it, therefore I can and will fight for liberty in our society.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You would have killed people and destroyed property without just cause.


If you're referring to collateral damage, taxes to finance the operation, etc, those practical considerations aren't relevant to this discussion. Remember, you said that intervention is unjust in itself, regardless of any practical considerations. Since then, you've agreed that intervention to remove a tyrannical state wouldn't violate the rights of that state's subjects who involuntary obey that state's laws. Do you agree with my last post's explanation of how it also wouldn't violate the rights of the remainder, who obey the laws voluntarily? If so, then we're agreed that intervention (in itself) does not violate the rights of the foreigners.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If you're referring to collateral damage, taxes to finance the operation, etc, those practical considerations aren't relevant to this discussion. Remember, you said that intervention is unjust in itself, regardless of any practical considerations.


You can't intervene without physical aggression, it is part and parcel of the concept, the only other option would be some theoretical mind control which would be an even grosser violation of the targeted populations rights. 




> Since then, you've agreed that intervention to remove a tyrannical state wouldn't violate the rights of that state's subjects who involuntary obey that state's laws. Do you agree with my last post's explanation of how it also wouldn't violate the rights of the remainder, who obey the laws voluntarily? If so, then we're agreed that intervention (in itself) does not violate the rights of the foreigners.


Unless an overwhelming majority believe in freedom and request our help intervention would violate the rights of those who wish to submit to tyranny, if the society is overwhelmingly in favor of tyranny the point is obvious, if the society is roughly evenly divided then it would still violate the rights of those who wished to submit to tyranny if we as outsiders intervened in an internal struggle. (Note that we are implicitly talking about a minimum sized society or one with such an even distribution of the members of the two sides that dividing the liberty lovers from the tyranny submissives would not be a possible solution, or one in which the liberty lovers will not accept that solution).

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> intervention would violate the rights of those who wish to submit to tyranny


Those "submitting to tyranny voluntarily" (e.g. happily financing welfare) could continue to do so, voluntarily, in a minarchist state, no?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Those "submitting to tyranny voluntarily" (e.g. happily financing welfare) could continue to do so, voluntarily, in a minarchist state, no?


There are other forms of tyranny, and you would have violated their right to be left alone, and their rights to life and property.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There are other forms of tyranny


Allowing them to continue doing what they were already doing is a form of tyranny..?




> and you would have violated their right to be left alone, and their rights to life and property.


As I said earlier, those issues (collateral damage etc) are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> Are you saying that enforcing  libertarianism on foreigners is wrong in itself, regardless of any  practical considerations (i.e. even if it could be done as easily as  with the domestic population), OR that it is only wrong because of  practical problems (attempts would in fact be counterproductive, ala  Iraq [pretending for a moment that liberation was what was actually  attempted in Iraq])? It sounds like you're taking the first position,  but I want to be sure.
> 
> 
> Wrong in and of itself.


In explaining why intervention is wrong in itself, regardless of practical problems, you can't cite practical problems!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Allowing them to continue doing what they were already doing is a form of tyranny..?


That is not what I meant. I meant that there are other forms of tyranny besides welfare taxation.






> As I said earlier, those issues are irrelevant.


As I said before killing those who resist and/or destroying their property are integral to the concept of intervening, "collateral" damage is killing those who don't resist and/or destroying their property, the only alternative would be mind control which would be theft of the subjects free will.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> As I said before killing those who resist  and/or destroying their property are integral to the concept of  intervening, "collateral" damage is killing those who don't resist  and/or destroying their property, the only alternative would be mind  control which would be theft of the subjects free will.


That applies to ALL aggression-suppressing operations, foreign or domestic. 

Hence it CANNOT provide a basis for opposing the former and supporting the latter. 

There must be some other basis for that distinction.

So  far in the thread, the basis you've advanced is that foreign  intervention violates the rights of the foreigners. 

But you've not been  successful in explaining HOW it does so, except by citing collateral  damage, etc, as you do above, but that is present in domestic aggression-suppressing operations as well, and thus cannot be an argument only against foreign intervention - it can only be an argument against both or neither.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That applies to ALL aggression-suppressing operations, foreign or domestic. 
> 
> Hence it CANNOT provide a basis for opposing the former and supporting the latter. 
> 
> There must be some other basis for that distinction.
> 
> So  far in the thread, the basis you've advanced is that foreign  intervention violates the rights of the foreigners. 
> 
> But you've not been  successful in explaining HOW it does so, except by citing collateral  damage, etc, as you do above, but that is present in domestic aggression-suppressing operations as well, and thus cannot be an argument only against foreign intervention - it can only be an argument against both or neither.


The difference is that tyranny in MY society affects me, therefore I have a right to intervene directly or by proxy, tyranny in FOREIGN societies does not harm me therefore it is none of my business.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

First, to get the issue settled once and for all, would you agree that foreign intervention does not violate  the rights of the foreigners, except in the same way that our own state's domestic aggression-suppressing activities violate the rights of our own population (collateral damage, etc)?




> The difference is that tyranny in MY society affects me, therefore I have a right to intervene directly or by proxy, tyranny in FOREIGN societies does not harm me therefore it is none of my business.


All else being equal, it would be good if there were less aggression in Ruritania, regardless of whether that would personally affect me.

Agree or disagree?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> First, to get the issue settled once and for all, would you agree that foreign intervention does not violate  the rights of the foreigners, except in the same way that our own state's domestic aggression-suppressing activities violate the rights of our own population (collateral damage, etc)?


Almost, but there is the additional factor of intrusion, the foreigner has a right to only be subject to his own society not yours and the Chinese and the Russians etc.






> All else being equal, it would be good if there were less aggression in Ruritania, regardless of whether that would personally affect me.
> 
> Agree or disagree?


Yes on a cosmic scale, but you do not have a right to interfere, that is the business of Ruritanians and GOD.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Almost, but there is the additional factor of intrusion, the foreigner has a right to only be subject to his own society not yours and the Chinese and the Russians etc.


Those "voluntarily submitting to tyranny" would be able to continue doing what they were doing.

Those "involuntarily submitting to tyranny" would be positively liberated.

So I don't know what you mean; what exactly is this right you reference and how would intervention violate it?




> Yes on a cosmic scale, but you do not have a right to interfere, that is the business of Ruritanians and GOD.


One has the right to take any action which doesn't violate someone else's rights - agree?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Those "voluntarily submitting the tyranny" would be able to continue doing what they were doing.
> 
> Those "involuntarily submitting to tyranny" would be positively liberated.
> 
> So I don't know what you mean; what exactly is this right you reference and how would intervention violate it?


Freedom of association/disassociation, the Ruritanians have a right to only be subject to eachother, and not have to worry about some outsider telling them what to do, if some of them are submitting involuntarily they have the right to leave or try to change their society by one means or another. 






> One has the right to take any action which doesn't violate someone else's rights - agree?


Yes, what we are discussing is whether there is a right you are violating.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Freedom of association/disassociation


...which the new minarchist regime would respect




> the Ruritanians have a right to only be subject to eachother, and not have to worry about some outsider telling them what to do


Not sure what that means. Do you mean they have a right to _aggress_ against one another?

...because that is the only behavior that the new minarchist regime would prohibit. 




> Yes, what we are discussing is whether there is a right you are violating.


Got it

----------


## Swordsmyth

> ...which the new minarchist regime would respect


No it would impose itself on them and not allow them to dissociate themselves from it.






> Not sure what that means. Do you mean they have a right to _aggress_ against one another?
> 
> ...because that is the only behavior that the new minarchist regime would prohibit.


No I mean they have a right to submit to aggression by their fellows, if you prohibit the aggression you also prohibit the submission, you can't submit to something that is not allowed to happen. There are people who will submit to something they would not do on their own, some of them want to be made to do them, it does not make much sense but not all people are fully rational.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution  3.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
> 
> ...


In the liberal  tradition, freedom of (dis)association means the absence of forced  integration or segregation (it is just a subset of "respecting property rights"). Under a minarchist regime, this would of  course be the situation. So, you must be using "freedom of (dis)association" in  an entirely different sense, and I'm not really sure what you mean. Your  complaint that the minarchist state would "not allow them to dissociate  themselves from it" sounds like an argument against the state in  general - i.e. no state allows its subjects to "dissociate from it," if  that means "not obey its laws." 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Not sure what that means. Do you mean they have a right to _aggress_ against one another?
> 
> ...because that is the only behavior that the new minarchist regime would prohibit.
> 
> 
> No I mean they have a right to submit to aggression by their  fellows, if you prohibit the aggression you also prohibit the  submission, you can't submit to something that is not allowed to happen.  There are people who will submit to something they would not do on  their own, some of them want to be made to do them, it does not make  much sense but not all people are fully rational.


So, if the raping of redheads had been legal under the old regime,  and the new minarchist regime outlaws the raping of redheads, you say  that the new regime is violating the rights of the redheads, because  they might have wanted to be raped...? No, no one wants to be raped; rape  is involuntary by definition. If the redhead wanted to have intercourse,  it wasn't a rape. The only sense in which a person can "want to be  raped" is in the context of some weird sado-masochistic game, and that,  being entirely voluntary (despite appearances to the contrary), would be  entirely legal under the new minarchist regime. Hence, no one's rights  are violated by outlawing the raping of redheads, nor by the outlawing of any other aggression.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In the liberal  tradition, freedom of (dis)association means the absence of forced  integration or segregation (it is just a subset of "respecting property rights"). Under a minarchist regime, this would of  course be the situation. So, you must be using "freedom of (dis)association" in  an entirely different sense, and I'm not really sure what you mean. Your  complaint that the minarchist state would "not allow them to dissociate  themselves from it" sounds like an argument against the state in  general - i.e. no state allows its subjects to "dissociate from it," if  that means "not obey its laws."


But they were already disassociated from it and you would have forced your state on them thereby violating their rights.






> So, if the raping of redheads had been legal under the old regime,  and the new minarchist regime outlaws the raping of redheads, you say  that the new regime is violating the rights of the redheads, because  they might have wanted to be raped...? No, no one wants to be raped; rape  is involuntary by definition. If the redhead wanted to have intercourse,  it wasn't a rape. The only sense in which a person can "want to be  raped" is in the context of some weird sado-masochistic game, and that,  being entirely voluntary (despite appearances to the contrary), would be  entirely legal under the new minarchist regime. Hence, no one's rights  are violated by outlawing the raping of redheads, nor by the outlawing of any other aggression.


You are correct that *IF* the new state allowed people to submit to whatever they wanted from eachother then it could not be a violation of their rights in general, they could simply form a "Ruritanians" club and behave as they liked, but you would have deprived them of their national territory and thereby violated their property rights.
GOD owns the highest form of title to all of creation and therefore has the right to judge them in what is is otherwise their domain, the rest of us do not.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But they were already disassociated from it and you would have forced your state on them thereby violating their rights.


Either way, with or without regime change, a state is "forcing itself on them."

So what's the difference?




> You are correct that *IF* the new state allowed people to submit to whatever they wanted from eachother then it could not be a violation of their rights in general, they could simply form a "Ruritanians" club and behave as they liked


Indeed




> but you would have deprived them of their national territory and thereby violated their property rights.


The new minarchist regime would of course respect private property rights.

As for the _collective_ land ownership which you seem to be invoking, there is no such thing.

The land is not owned by Ruritanians collectively, but by many individual Ruritanians.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Either way, with or without regime change, a state is "forcing itself on them."
> 
> So what's the difference?


They chose to submit to the old government, you would have forced the new one on them with violence.







> The new minarchist regime would of course respect private property rights.
> 
> As for the _collective_ land ownership which you seem to be invoking, there is no such thing.


Then what does the new regime posses/control?
Sovereignty over a domain exists, one group had it and then your minarchist state seized it from them through aggression.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> They chose to submit to the old government, you would have forced the new one on them with violence.


No, the old regime also forced itself on them with violence; that is the nature of the state, any state.

If obedience to the old regime was truly and universally voluntary, then it wasn't a state at all and Ruritania was an anarchist society. 




> Then what does the new regime posses/control?
> Sovereignty over a domain exists, one group had it and then your minarchist state seized it from them through aggression.


The sovereign power exists, yes. Someone holds it, yes. But who _ought_ that be?

I say, whoever will exercise it best (i.e. so as to minimize aggression).

Whereas, for you (apparently), sovereignty is the people's, no matter how badly they exercise it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, the old regime also forced itself on them with violence; that is the nature of the state, any state.
> 
> If obedience to the old regime was truly and universally voluntary, then it wasn't a state at all and Ruritania was an anarchist society.


Were they in armed rebellion against their former state? 
Did they resist your invasion with arms?
Did they call for changes to their society?
You can choose to decree that Ruritanians were not in a state of voluntary submission, but what of Freedonians or Metrosylvanians? In order to justify your invasion you must prove that it would be just in the worst case scenario because you can't tell if that is the case in Ruritania.






> The sovereign power exists, yes. Someone holds it, yes. But who _ought_ that be?
> 
> I say, whoever will exercise it best (i.e. so as to minimize aggression).
> 
> Whereas, for you (apparently), sovereignty is the people's, no matter how badly they exercise it.


It might belong to a monarch for all it matters in this debate, you are declaring a right to seize property and give it to those who will make the best use of it, that sounds like communism or at least tyranny to me, only GOD has the right to redistribute property.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Were they in armed rebellion against their former state? 
> Did they resist your invasion with arms?
> Did they call for changes to their society?


Coercion can make for quiet obedience; such obedience isn't any more voluntary for being quiet.

Either there was a state in Ruritania pre-invasion, in which case at least people were submitting involuntarily, or there was anarchy.

If there was a state, then you can't criticize the new regime simply on the grounds that it too is a state. 




> In order to justify your invasion you must prove that it would be just in the worst case scenario because you can't tell if that is the case in Ruritania.


I don't know what you mean. I can't tell if _what_ is the case in Ruritania?




> It might belong to a monarch for all it matters in this debate, you are declaring a right to seize property and give it to those who will make the best use of it, that sounds like communism or at least tyranny to me, only GOD has the right to redistribute property.


The "property" in question here (i.e. the powers of sovereignty) is not property in the libertarian sense. It wasn't homesteaded, it wasn't bought, or wasn't received as a gift, it wasn't received in compensation from a criminal. Depriving someone of this "property" is in no way analogous to depriving someone of property obtained in one of the aforementioned ways. 

The origin of this "property" is, rather, the realization (which we've both experienced) that anarchy is impossible, and there must be a state. The next step is to ask: who should control it? And one's answer to that question depends on what one thinks the purpose of the state should be. Should it be to allow the persons who control it to do what they like? If so, then assign them the sovereign power unconditionally. Or is it to minimize aggression? If so, then assign it to whoever will use it to do that.

N.B. This isn't only about monarchy v. democracy. It could be two democracies (perhaps the French people will exercise the sovereign power in the Congo better than the Congolese), or two monarchies (perhaps the Prussian king will exercise the sovereign power in Poland better than the Polish king), or any two states of any form.

----------


## otherone

> No I mean they have a right to submit to aggression by their fellows

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Coercion can make for quiet obedience; such obedience isn't any more voluntary for being quiet.
> 
> Either there was a state in Ruritania pre-invasion, in which case at least people were submitting involuntarily, or there was anarchy.


They may have been submitting voluntarily.




> If there was a state, then you can't criticize the new regime simply on the grounds that it too is a state.


I did not do so.






> I don't know what you mean. I can't tell if _what_ is the case in Ruritania?


The best case scenario to justify your invasion.






> The "property" in question here (i.e. the powers of sovereignty) is not property in the libertarian sense. It wasn't homesteaded, it wasn't bought, or wasn't received as a gift, it wasn't received in compensation from a criminal. Depriving someone of this "property" is in no way analogous to depriving someone of property obtained in one of the aforementioned ways.


That argument only applies to the first person to seize power for himself, if we ignore the possibility of sovereign power being granted by GOD it still can be inherited, whether by a monarch or a member of the citizen partners, if nobody has a better claim then inheritance is a legitimate method of acquiring property.
Sovereignty is a thing of value held by one or more persons therefore it is property, your theories of monarchy are predicated on the monarch owning this property.




> The origin of this "property" is, rather, the realization (which we've both experienced) that anarchy is impossible, and there must be a state. The next step is to ask: who should control it? And one's answer to that question depends on what one thinks the purpose of the state should be. Should it be to allow the persons who control it to do what they like? If so, then assign them the sovereign power unconditionally. Or is it to minimize aggression? If so, then assign it to whoever will use it to do that.


I believe that the citizens of our society should hold it collectively and delegate it to someone who will minimize aggression, but I am a member of our society and one of the "partners" who hold title to it's sovereignty therefore I have a say, elsewhere others hold sovereignty wholly or collectively and it is theft to seize it from them and redistribute it to whomever you or I choose.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> 


Do you believe we should invade foreign countries to "liberate" them?

----------


## otherone

> Do you believe we should invade foreign countries to "liberate" them?


Your use of the the word "right" is what was misleading.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Your use of the the word "right" is what was misleading.


Well people do have a right to submit to tyranny, it is not one I would recommend using but they do have it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> They may have been submitting voluntarily.


If everyone consents to the laws, then Ruritania is an anarcho-capitalist utopia and there's no reason for intervention in the first place. If not everyone consents (as would always be the case in reality, of course), then the new regime wouldn't be doing anything new in forcing itself on the people. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution  3.0
> 
> If there was a state, then you can't criticize the new regime  simply on the grounds that it too is a state.
> 
> 
> I did not do  so.


You said "They chose to submit to the old government, [whereas] you would have forced the new one on them with violence."

So,  you're criticizing the new regime for forcing the people to obey,  contra the old one which (allegedly) didn't force them to obey, no?




> The best case scenario to justify your invasion.


I still don't know what you mean. 




> That argument only applies to the first person to seize power for  himself, if we ignore the possibility of sovereign power being granted  by GOD it still can be inherited, whether by a monarch or a member of  the citizen partners, if nobody has a better claim then inheritance is a  legitimate method of acquiring property.
> 
> Sovereignty is a thing of value held by one or more persons therefore it is property...


It's inappropriate to treat sovereignty as property in the libertarian sense of the word. 

All  ethics concern property. Any time one is making ethical statements  about what someone should or should not do, one is speaking of property  rights. Communism or shariah is a theory of property rights as much as  libertarianism is. Ethical systems differ only in the _specific property rule_s  they endorse. For example, libertarianism endorses the rule of freedom  of contract, while Shariah does not. One can speak of sovereignty as  property only in the general sense in which all ethical concepts concern  property. That is the extent of it. It is inappropriate to treat  sovereignty as property in the uniquely libertarian sense of the word, _because the reasons for which we as libertarians want property to be respected do not apply in the case of sovereignty_. 

The  deontological justification for property doesn't apply in the case of  sovereignty (it was not acquired legitimately, by homesteading,  contract, or restitution, and so the "owner" has no fundamental right to  it). As for the consequentialist justification, one would have to show  that treating sovereignty as you are results in some material advantage  resulted; whereas, in fact, by treating sovereignty as property in the  libertarian sense, and declaring that the overthrow of a tyrannical  state is equivalent to theft, you are creating worse practical results  than would obtain otherwise. 




> your theories of monarchy are predicated on the monarch owning this property.


A monarch can be treated as if he owned the country for the purpose of economic analysis. This is very different from the ethical  claim that he owns the sovereign power, which, on my view, he most  certainly does not. The legitimacy of his power is contingent on how he  employs it. If he abuses it, and it is possible to remove him and  replace him with something better, that is entirely just: not a theft of  "his property." 




> I believe that the citizens of our society should hold it  collectively and delegate it to someone who will minimize aggression,  but I am a member of our society and one of the "partners" who hold  title to it's sovereignty therefore I have a say, elsewhere others hold  sovereignty wholly or collectively and it is theft to seize it from them  and redistribute it to whomever you or I choose.


Yes, I understand that you believe that sovereignty is the property  (in the libertarian sense) of the people; that the legitimacy of a  government of the people does not depend on what that government does;  that removing such a government, no matter that it is very bad and its  replacement very good, is unjust, and equivalent to a theft. 

Suffice it to say, I disagree, for the reason that my goal is aggression-minimization, which the above contradicts.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If everyone consents to the laws, then Ruritania is an anarcho-capitalist utopia and there's no reason for intervention in the first place. If not everyone consents (as would always be the case in reality, of course), then the new regime wouldn't be doing anything new in forcing itself on the people.


All that is necessary is an overwhelming majority submitting voluntarily.






> You said "They chose to submit to the old government, [whereas] you would have forced the new one on them with violence."
> 
> So,  you're criticizing the new regime for forcing the people to obey,  contra the old one which (allegedly) didn't force them to obey, no?


No it is not the same if most of them submitted voluntarily to the old regime.






> I still don't know what you mean.


The best case scenario to justify your invasion of Ruritania is that the people are submitting involuntarily and would welcome relief from it's tyrants.
The worst case scenario is that an overwhelming majority support their current government.
You can't claim to be justified in your invasion unless you can prove the former or justify it in the face of the latter.






> It's inappropriate to treat sovereignty as property in the libertarian sense of the word. 
> 
> All  ethics concern property. Any time one is making ethical statements  about what someone should or should not do, one is speaking of property  rights. Communism or shariah is a theory of property rights as much as  libertarianism is. Ethical systems differ only in the _specific property rule_s  they endorse. For example, libertarianism endorses the rule of freedom  of contract, while Shariah does not. One can speak of sovereignty as  property only in the general sense in which all ethical concepts concern  property. That is the extent of it. It is inappropriate to treat  sovereignty as property in the uniquely libertarian sense of the word, _because the reasons for which we as libertarians want property to be respected do not apply in the case of sovereignty_.
> The  deontological justification for property doesn't apply in the case  of  sovereignty (it was not acquired legitimately, by homesteading,   contract, or restitution, and so the "owner" has no fundamental right to   it).


Just because something may have been seized unjustly at some point in it's history does not mean it is not possible to own it.
The first humans on earth possessed sovereignty over their territory, and every society that split off possessed sovereignty over their territory, that sovereignty was passed down to their descendants except where it was seized by an outsider, but even then after one or more generations of inheritance the ownership became legitimate, the declaration of independence lays out the case for the Americans seizure of sovereignty over their own territory but even if you discount it the sovereignty that we as citizens now share has been legitimized through many generations of inheritance.
Sovereignty is property just as much as any other thing which a man can posses.




> As for the consequentialist justification, one would have to show  that treating sovereignty as you are results in some material advantage  resulted; whereas, in fact, by treating sovereignty as property in the  libertarian sense, and declaring that the overthrow of a tyrannical  state is equivalent to theft, you are creating worse practical results  than would obtain otherwise.


Unlimited consequentialism is flawed it presumes that man is GOD and has a right to control outcomes even at the cost of violating others rights, it is the basis for communism and tyranny, and it is not compatible with liberty






> A monarch can be treated as if he owned the country for the purpose of economic analysis. This is very different from the ethical  claim that he owns the sovereign power, which, on my view, he most  certainly does not. The legitimacy of his power is contingent on how he  employs it. If he abuses it, and it is possible to remove him and  replace him with something better, that is entirely just: not a theft of  "his property." 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that you believe that sovereignty is the property  (in the libertarian sense) of the people; that the legitimacy of a  government of the people does not depend on what that government does;  that removing such a government, no matter that it is very bad and its  replacement very good, is unjust, and equivalent to a theft. 
> 
> Suffice it to say, I disagree, for the reason that my goal is aggression-minimization, which the above contradicts.


We will have to end this debate because if we disagree about it being property we will never agree on the rest.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> All that is necessary is an overwhelming majority submitting voluntarily.
> 
> ...
> 
> No it is not the same if most of them submitted voluntarily to the old regime.
> 
> ...
> 
> The best case scenario to justify your invasion of Ruritania is that the  people are submitting involuntarily and would welcome relief from it's  tyrants.
> ...


Haven't you already agreed that the minarchist regime wouldn't violate the rights of Ruritanians who had been "voluntarily submitting to tyranny" under the old regime, since those people would be free to keep doing whatever it is they were doing? 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
> ...


Unless I'm misreading that, it sounds like you've conceded the whole "right to submit to tyranny" argument.

...acknowledging that intervention doesn't violate it. 

So your only remaining objection to intervention is that it violates the people's alleged collective property rights, correct?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Haven't you already agreed that the minarchist regime wouldn't violate the rights of Ruritanians who had been "voluntarily submitting to tyranny" under the old regime, since those people would be free to keep doing whatever it is they were doing? 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I'm misreading that, it sounds like you've conceded the whole "right to submit to tyranny" argument.
> 
> ...acknowledging that intervention doesn't violate it. 
> 
> So your only remaining objection to intervention is that it violates the people's alleged collective property rights, correct?


As with most things property rights are the foundation on which all more complex concepts are built, so I say again:

We will have to end this debate because if we disagree about it being property we will never agree on the rest.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> As with most things property rights are the foundation on which all more complex concepts are built, so I say again:
> 
> We will have to end this debate because if we disagree about it being property we will never agree on the rest.


I'm just trying to focus the debate.

If we've already settled the "right to submit to tyranny" issue (have we? as it appears?), we can move on to alleged collective property rights.

What I _don't_ want to do is get deep into a discussion of the latter only to have the former resurface, if it's indeed been settled.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I'm just trying to focus the debate.
> 
> If we've already settled the "right to submit to tyranny" issue (have we? as it appears?), we can move on to alleged collective property rights.
> 
> What I _don't_ want to do is get deep into a discussion of the latter only to have the former resurface, if it's indeed been settled.


The right to submit to tyranny is the right to delegate your share of sovereignty to the tyrant, so it is an extension of the property rights issue.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The right to submit to tyranny is the right to delegate your share of sovereignty to the tyrant, so it is an extension of the property rights issue.


Alright

Is "the people own the sovereign power" a first principle of yours, or do you justify it by reference to some other, more fundamental principle?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Alright
> 
> Is "the people own the sovereign power" a first principle of yours, or do you justify it by reference to some other, more fundamental principle?


First principle: GOD created the universe so he owns it.
Second principle: All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are the rights to life liberty and the ownership an control of property, the right to property includes territorial sovereignty.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> First principle: GOD created the universe so he owns it.
> Second principle: All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are the rights to life liberty and the ownership an control of property, the right to property includes territorial sovereignty.


Alright, so then it's fair to say your support for popular sovereignty is deontological, not consequentialist.

Now, do you recognize that there is a contradiction between popular sovereignty and liberalism?

Such that interventions which would be justified on liberal grounds are barred by popular sovereignty?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Alright, so then it's fair to say your support for popular sovereignty is deontological, not consequentialist.
> 
> Now, do you recognize that there is a contradiction between popular sovereignty and liberalism?
> 
> Such that interventions which would be justified on liberal grounds are barred by popular sovereignty?


Yes, that is what we have been discussing.
Liberalism is about how a state should be governed, sovereignty endowed either upon a monarch (the divine right theory, which was the case with ancient Israel after the people demanded a king) or upon the people in general (the declaration of independence's theory) determines the existence and territorial extent of the state/s.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, that is what we have been discussing.


The point I'm making is that your argument against intervention is not a liberal argument. It's based in popular sovereignty, not opposition to aggression in the liberal sense of the term. You would oppose an intervention which reduced total aggression, if it also violated popular sovereignty. I wouldn't, because I'm a liberal. 




> Liberalism is about how a state should be governed, sovereignty endowed either upon a monarch (the divine right theory, which was the case with ancient Israel after the people demanded a king) or upon the people in general (the declaration of independence's theory) determines the existence and territorial extent of the state/s.


Liberalism is about respecting property rights (i.e. its unique conception thereof) or (what is the same thing) opposing aggression. The form of government is important only insofar as it affects how well property rights are respected/how much aggression there is. Whereas, the view you're espousing grants primary importance to the form of government (namely, that is be democratic and national). Hence, inevitably, it conflicts with liberalism: not only in that it prohibits aggression-minimizing interventions as we've been discussing here, but also in terms of the domestic politics of any state (the socialistic tendencies of democracy we've discussed elsewhere).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Whereas, the view you're espousing grants primary importance to the form of government (namely, that is be democratic and national). Hence, inevitably, it conflicts with liberalism: not only in that it prohibits aggression-minimizing interventions as we've been discussing here, but also in terms of the domestic politics of any state (the socialistic tendencies of democracy we've discussed elsewhere).


Popular sovereignty does not dictate a particular form of government, the people could delegate their sovereignty to a king or high priest if they wanted, and what we are discussing is sovereignty as property which is why I mentioned divine right theory.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Popular sovereignty does not dictate a particular form of government, the people could delegate their sovereignty to a king or high priest if they wanted, and what we are discussing is sovereignty as property which is why I mentioned divine right theory.


Got it, my mistake. Popular sovereignty people are usually principled democrats, and you are at least a pragmatic democrat, so I just assumed. 

Nonetheless, your version of popular sovereignty still puts liberty second to nation and is therefore illiberal.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Got it, my mistake. Popular sovereignty people are usually principled democrats, and you are at least a pragmatic democrat, so I just assumed.


My position is principled, it is just based on a different principle, those you are calling principled democrats would justify invading a monarchy to establish a democracy or a republic, my principles would not.




> Nonetheless, your version of popular sovereignty still puts liberty second to nation and is therefore illiberal.


Sovereignty is the ultimate liberty, therefore I maintain that I am a Classical liberal, just a different kind.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> My position is principled, it is just based on a different principle, those you are calling principled democrats would justify invading a monarchy to establish a democracy or a republic, my principles would not.


Yes, that's what I mean.




> Sovereignty is the ultimate liberty, therefore I maintain that I am a Classical liberal, just a different kind.


Well, no sense in arguing semantics....

 Suffice it to say that we have irreconcilable first principles and no agreement on this particular issue is possible. 

I'm satisfied with having shown that there is no _liberal_ case against intervention: that any sound argument against it must come ex liberalism.

...liberalism in Rothbardian sense of the word, shall we say.

----------


## timosman

> So, whether it's just to force libertarian principles on people depends on their proximity?
> 
> e.g. Forcing some guy in your town to not steal is just, yet forcing some guy in another state to not steal is unjust?


Troll of the year.

----------


## Suzanimal



----------


## Suzanimal

> A lot of the new breed of ''Mises'' writers and politicos have no business even being associated with the name Mises. So a separation must be made in order to acknowledge that reality.
> 
> The person in the op, while he does get some fundamental things right, is one of those people. I can explain why the combined influence of war and socialism has historically existed as an international movement of the working class. And I can explain that war and Socialism have both historically served as the Nationalist's means of economic control. I touched on it in my previous post.
> 
> But I can't make you put two and two to gether, Suz. You're a  hard head. 
> 
> It's okay. I love you all the same. 
> 
> You're doing the right thing by introducing your children to the Mises eductational material. That's something else entirely.
> ...


I'm actually not hard headed at all.

Still waiting for an example of the MI promoting socialism.






> You're doing the right thing by introducing your children to the Mises eductational material. That's something else entirely.


Interesting you should say that considering how you poo-pooed MisesU in this thread.  

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...24#post6508024

----------


## Natural Citizen

Suz, this kind of stuff is man's work. Can ya just go make us a sandwich or something? 




> I'm actually not hard headed at all.
> 
> Still waiting for an example of the MI promoting socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting you should say that considering how you poo-pooed MisesU in this thread.  
> ...

----------


## Suzanimal

> Suz, this kind of stuff is man's work. Can ya just go make us a sandwich or something?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

I'll have a Reuben, a real one, no turkey or light dressing.

----------


## Suzanimal

Still waiting...

----------

