Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Krugminator2]

And if you think that someone would rather be a slave than free, xplains why you're a statist bootlicker though.

I never said or even remotely implied that. There is no way you could logically interpret that from what I said. I know you like to call names and I don't. But I will this time. You aren't a libertarian. You are a nihilist. You are a cancer. People like you are worth less than zero to libertarianism.

No, the US didn't invent freedom. This is a stupid statement. John Locke, the origin of many "American" ideas was English and you can find many liberty ideals as far back as ancient China.

Good point. The colonists broke off from England because they had too much freedom under British rule.

 

[otherone]

You aren't a libertarian. You are a nihilist.

 

[Raginfridus]

Yes, unless you use the government to tell them they can't.

Is forming an opinion bloc and centrally directing the "narrative" from the top down libertarian, so that libertarians are told what they can/cannot support also libertarian? No government, just *official* talking points.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Is forming an opinion bloc and centrally directing the "narrative" from the top down libertarian, so that libertarians are told what they can/cannot support also libertarian? No government, just *official* talking points.

As far as I know this is an internal debate not a top down command and control situation, libertarianism has to mean something and we are discussing what that should be.

AnCap is not libertarianism it is AnCapism.

 

[Raginfridus]

As far as I know this is an internal debate not a top down command and control situation, libertarianism has to mean something and we are discussing what that should be.

AnCap is not libertarianism it is AnCapism.

So you would never subscribe to something like HuffPo or NatRev for libertarians?

Also, what kind of support are we talking about? What -isms can be supported by libertarians?


One more thing, can the Alt-Right be supported by libertarians? (However you define support.)

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you would never subscribe to something like HuffPo or NatRev for libertarians?

I would maybe subscribe to a publication that shared a sufficient amount of my views but I would not consider them to be the determiner of what libertariansism is.

Also, what kind of support are we talking about? What -isms can be supported by libertarians?

Libertarians can support whatever they want, but it may or may not be compatible with libertarianism, and it may not be a good idea for them to do so.

One more thing, can the Alt-Right be supported by libertarians? (However you define support.)

Whether that is a good idea or not depends on how you define the "alt-right".

 

[Raginfridus]

I would maybe subscribe to a publication that shared a sufficient amount of my views but I would not consider them to be the determiner of what libertariansism is.

OK

Libertarians can support whatever they want, but it may or may not be compatible with libertarianism, and it may not be a good idea for them to do so.

So the choice of who/what/when/where/why to support "X" is ultimately in the hands of the individual?

Whether that is a good idea or not depends on how you define the "alt-right".

AlternateRight.com

 

[Swordsmyth]

So the choice of who/what/when/where/why to support "X" is ultimately in the hands of the individual?

Besides being a simple fact that is definitely the libertarian position.

AlternateRight.com

It appears to be dead, I got redirected to this:



Hundreds of thousands of premium domains

Questions? We're here to help! Call today:
1-303-893-0552


[h=1]AlternateRight.com is for sale[/h]
https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=alternateright&e=com

 

[Raginfridus]

Besides being a simple fact that is definitely the libertarian position.

So if the simple facts of libertarianism need to conform to a definite position, assuming these simple facts aren't capriciously chosen by a mob or an elite as the wind blows, what's the bedrock identity libertarians need to share: the Nation or the State? Which one's the most resilient heritage to found a libertarian identity upon? You've established it isn't the individual, and that we don't owe loyalty to fiefdoms like NatRev.

Here's what I mean: https://www.usip.org/glossary/state-versus-nation

It appears to be dead, I got redirected to this:



Hundreds of thousands of premium domains

Questions? We're here to help! Call today:
1-303-893-0552


AlternateRight.com is for sale


https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=alternateright&e=com

Try AltRight.com they must have switched domains after 2011. New brand, same bs.

 

[Swordsmyth]

So if the simple facts of libertarianism need to conform to a definite position, assuming these simple facts aren't capriciously chosen by a mob or an elite as the wind blows, what's the bedrock identity libertarians need to share: the Nation or the State? Which one's the most resilient heritage to found a libertarian identity upon? You've established it isn't the individual, and that we don't owe loyalty to fiefdoms like NatRev.

Liberty is the bedrock principle.

Try AltRight.com they must have switched domains after 2011. New brand, same bs.

They seem to be a dangerous mix of lies and truths, if they are the alt right that your question referred to then they should be avoided even temporary cooperation on shared values is dangerous.

 

[Raginfridus]

Liberty is the bedrock principle.

Not the State? I hope you don't mean Liberty of the State, because then you have no grounds to complain.

They seem to be a dangerous mix of lies and truths, if they are the alt right that your question referred to then they should be avoided even temporary cooperation on shared values is dangerous.

They are the AltRight, started opinion bloc'ing ~10 ago as the AlternativeRight.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not the State? I hope you don't mean Liberty of the State, because then you have no grounds to complain.

Liberty for the individual is the bedrock principle, a state is necessary to protect it from enemies foreign and domestic.

They are the AltRight, started opinion bloc'ing ~10 ago as the AlternativeRight.

I've never looked into the alt-right and I have heard many people give different opinions about what the alt-right is, I believe you that they are the founders of the movement but there are others who claim the mantle, some of them seem more like the Constitution Party (I am not calling them alt-right, I am just using them as a comparison for some of those who claim to be the alt-right).

 

[Raginfridus]

Liberty for the individual is the bedrock principle, a state is necessary to protect it from enemies foreign and domestic.

What if I told you that the State does not protect Life or Liberty from enemies foreign or domestic?

I've never looked into the alt-right and I have heard many people give different opinions about what the alt-right is, I believe you that they are the founders of the movement but there are others who claim the mantle, some of them seem more like the Constitution Party (I am not calling them alt-right, I am just using them as a comparison for some of those who claim to be the alt-right).

Yeah, that's what an opinion bloc are, they're often movements or trusts colonized by opportunists. Once they gain the audience's attention, they build brand loyalty, then their editors cut out the old guard. That's how the Trotskyists used NatRev and such to gag the Conservatives.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What if I told you that the State does not protect Life or Liberty from enemies foreign or domestic?

We would disagree, I would also tell you that a state is inevitable so you have to create one that is liberty oriented so that you don't get a tyrannical one.

 

[Raginfridus]

We would disagree, I would also tell you that a state is inevitable so you have to create one that is liberty oriented so that you don't get a tyrannical one.

Why do you believe States are inevitable? In who's interest is it to tell you that, because States are magically inevitable, therefore we need them now? Is mankind on some sort of progressive trajectory? Is the Inevitable State going to perfect us?

History attests that States are not inevitable, that they've had to be fought and won for. Keeping in mind States =/= Nations, Nations corrode as the rule of the State centralizes.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Keeping in mind States =/= Nations, why do you believe States are inevitable? In who's interest is it to tell you that, because States are magically inevitable, therefore we need them now? Is mankind on some sort of progressive trajectory? Is the Inevitable State going to perfect us?

History attests that States are not inevitable, that they've had to be fought and won for, and that Nations corrode as the rule of the State centralizes.

That depends on your definition of the state, I am calling any government a state, Anarchy always falls to organized forces.

 

[Raginfridus]

That depends on your definition of the state, I am calling any government a state, Anarchy always falls to organized forces.

Nations aren't governments by any definition. Nation-States are nations with a state government. That still leaves you explaining why it is States are inevitable, when they're not. They have to be fought for, won, and kept or they don't happen. I know founding myths like to romanticize the State's conquest of a Nation, but the magic ain't how they come to be.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Nations aren't governments by any definition. Nation-States are nations with a state government. That still leaves you explaining why it is States are inevitable, when they're not. They have to be fought for, won, and kept or they don't happen. I know founding myths like to romanticize the State's conquest of a Nation, but the magic ain't how they come to be.

Any given state is not inevitable, but some state is, tribes will form if nothing else, they will choose leaders and enforce rules on members and control territory.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, I don't know what you mean by equating HB's list of works by various authors as "those days."

We've always been for small, limited government as a platform. Limited for Liberty.

We've not been ant-government as a platform so far as I can recall. If we have and I'm mistaken, then please tell me when that time was.

That aside, let's take a look at HB's list. It contains works from a broad cast of authors. All of whom offer differing, varying, and most often contrary applications of an ideal. Now this presents a problem. I'll tell you why. It presents a problem because each and every one of those varying applications must be secured by a governmental body of some concoction which must be supported by both society as well as smart people. It's far more complex than just applying an ism to something and rolling with it. Each one of those varying applications of a single ism demand a tailored means of security. And in every case all you're doing is trading one State for another.

The application of any ism (particularly with regard to securing it) is equally as important as said principles of the ism.

I don;t agree with Hoppe, Rothbard, and sure as heck wouldn't even touch Stefan Molyneux wit ha 10 foot pole.

I like Ludwig Von Mises. He did a great job at explaining the shortcomings in the applications of his counterparts. Which is not to minimize such authors as Rothbard and Hoppe. All contributed something to the ideal.

Good sir, you misunderstand. That list is category/subject-specific. That the individual authors had shortcomings does not diminish the value of those works. I have lots of qualms with Rothbard, Ron Paul, Hoppe, von Mises, etc, but I also like a lot of what they do. And they're good enough that I consider them part of the libertarian canon(or as Riggenbach calls it "The Libertarian Tradition").

ETA: RP likes Murray, and Mises was a fan too(though Mises didn't agree with his politics, of course). You should give him an honest chance. His history and econ are world class, even though his ethics are flawed.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Nations aren't governments by any definition. Nation-States are nations with a state government. That still leaves you explaining why it is States are inevitable, when they're not. They have to be fought for, won, and kept or they don't happen. I know founding myths like to romanticize the State's conquest of a Nation, but the magic ain't how they come to be.

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

Sorry, bro. Nailed it^^ that reminds me... Ma Vlast is a classic example of State origin mythology that's not all that different from the myths Muricans make up for their sense of national origin and identity.