Where are my libertarians?

[Jack V Savage]

How do you completely abstain from violence in the resolution of society's problems?

For Greoric, his solution is to define violence he likes as "defensive."

 

[electricfuneral]

I consider myself a libertarian.

 

[electricfuneral]

I am for the free movement of goods and people.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

So we can agree that Trump's platform is in fact similar to Ron Paul's, but you don't trust Trump because you think he has no principles.

Fair enough. What I think is that Trump's ego will do him good by him trying to outdo other presidents and become GOAT president. He's a GOAT campaigner in my book, just for beating the Clinton/Media machine and all the powers that be who didn't want him to win. Let's hope he gets to be the greatest president since Andrew Jackson.

Ron Paul's platform is nothing at all similar to Trump's.

 

[fallable]

I think I'm the only non-statist in here, but I appreciate the company of non hyper-statists.

If you read through my posts you would probably get a nationalist/identitarian vibe from me, and that's true. But underpinning my core foundational beliefs is the concept of Private Law Society.

If you remember I made a post touching on wheat people/rice people and the fact that people are wired differently. Although humans have basic fundamental traits in common we also have basic fundamental traits in opposition, even between closely related groups. We are very divided culturally and politically and this is where PLS comes into play.

I think it's probably a ways off, but I believe PLS is the future of humanity and Providence willing, the universe. I can only hope my group is around to enjoy it.

 

[fallable]

Libertarianism kills itself because it has literally no protection. What absolutely free trade means the whole of Africa could immigrate in and good luck having and preserving your precious freedoms then.

This is the problem with a lot of libertarians. They are basically free market leftists. There are multiple strains of libertarianism, some I think would go a long way toward facilitating the alt-right and a future for white children.

True freedom means living the life you choose to live. That could mean setting your society up in the mold of the Spartans, or the Odinist Viking Age Scandinavians, or like the Franks under Charles Martel. These societies could form coalitions to facilitate innovation and economic growth, patriotic media and entertainment, and military and defense strategies/capabilities.

In our system the controllers of capitol monopolize media, entertainment, education etc., which leaves those people who oppose the views and policies of the monopolizers out in the cold for the most part. What the ancient Aryans knew was it is all about how you organize yourselves. In some ways certain strands of libertarianism (right/paleo libertarianism, or Private Law Society) uphold voluntary association which facilitates the freedom to organize in a way that helps further the interests someone may wish to pursue.

There is also the potential there to minimize conflict due to the fact that people get to choose what's best for themselves and thus are more insulated from the bad policies of others. While free to form the military and alliances that are necessary to maintain their sovereignty.

 

[shitpostmodern]

By not legitimizing its initiation, and allowing the services we all want anyways to be produced by cooperative means as opposed to coercion.

How do libertarians suggest we undo the centuries of violence that no doubt has had an impact on land distribution today? How is this confronted in homesteading theory, if you know?

Genuinely curious, I have lots of libertarian friends but nobody ever really seems to give a coherent cut off point for when violence from the past no longer matters.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Probably dying while relying on social security and Medicare like their hero Ayn Rand

Also relying on the public education they got, or the public education their employers or customers got. Or typing in the computers and interwebs developed by the state, etc.

But taxation is theft bro. Why should I give my money to strangers who've done nothing for me???

 

[Greoric]

How do libertarians suggest we undo the centuries of violence that no doubt has had an impact on land distribution today? How is this confronted in homesteading theory, if you know?

Genuinely curious, I have lots of libertarian friends but nobody ever really seems to give a coherent cut off point for when violence from the past no longer matters.

Well we don't have a time machine so undoing violence is kind of impossible. The question really should be how are property rights assigned in an ethically consistent manner. The answer to that is the first owner that acquired a piece of property nonviolently is the rightful one. It most certainly wouldn't be what you may have been alluding to, which is continuing state violence by imposing theft of current land owners. That solution is certainly not ethical.

 

[Greoric]

Not certain what elaboration you're looking for. I'm just pretty sure that I have a better appreciation for the difficulty of governing the ungovernable than you do since making the nation ungovernable was the strategy used by my country's leading party to become the leading party.
It's also been an on-again off-again strategy of various groups in the time since.

It tends to depend on foreign governments being sympathetic to your cause, and it hasn't really worked out to our benefit.

Nothing here points to the abolition of violence as a resolver of problems.
And the statement I initially responded to hints at a resignation on your part to the necessity/unavoidabiltiy of violence as a coercive tool.

You sound like you want to remove violent governments, but don't really have any idea what to replace them with that won't also utilize violence.

Right so even in the case of SA the people that don't want to be governed aren't really advocating no governance. They just don't want *that* kind of governance they currently have.

More specific to the point is the abolition of the legitimization of aggressive violence. We're advanced primates after all, and there'll most likely always be someone that wants to commit violence to achieve their ends. By consequence someone, like you, that rightfully owns the property you created or earned has the right to defend that property with defensive violence.

To your last point, I don't want to just remove violent governments. I want to remove all governments because they're all violent... by definition. They all apply threats of aggressive violence to get you to do (or not do) things.

 

[shitpostmodern]

[

Well we don't have a time machine so undoing violence is kind of impossible. The question really should be how are property rights assigned in an ethically consistent manner. The answer to that is the first owner that acquired a piece of property nonviolently is the rightful one. It most certainly wouldn't be what you may have been alluding to, which is continuing state violence by imposing theft of current land owners. That solution is certainly not ethical.

"Undoing" is a poor choice of a word on my part. Your response gets at the heart of my point, so I'll play off of it.

Your argument is that the legitimate owner is the first one who acquired the right to use the land without force. My problem with this is that it could, potentially, totally absolve a violent, land-grabbing warlord of any wrongdoing once he sells a stolen piece of land to a willing market participant.

I'll approach you in good faith and assume, for the sake of my point, that you would not believe that an immediate exchange between said warlord and a buyer to be legitimate, given how the warlord acquired the land (through force). The immediacy of the exchange brings into question the legitimacy of the buyer's claim to the land.

Assuming you don't find this exchange to be legitimate (or just, fair, what have you), then it is probably safe to assume that two exchanges removed from the violence is not enough to dismiss said violence. Or three.

My question, then, is where would this cut-off point be?

Not trying to start a fight, just trying to engage in some spicy discourse. The fun is in the details here. I'm on a mobile, so lemme know if I have been unclear.

 

[TheGreatA]

In a day and era where the level of bureaucracy is ever more expansive, I believe that we need people who argue in favour of its reduction. Otherwise the expansionists will go thorougly unchallenged, whether they are conservative or liberal in their mindset.

Where many libertarians fail, is the ability to properly vision a "free society" and what it means to be a truly free citizen, partially because we've never lived as one. But atleast they dare to ask the questions and contemplate the potential answers, unlike so many who are completely content and willing to live like dogs, as long as their owners do not continuously smack them on their snouts, to remind them of their wretched position.

 

[Greoric]

"Undoing" is a poor choice of a word on my part. Your response gets at the heart of my point, so I'll play off of it.

Your argument is that the legitimate owner is the first one who acquired the right to use the land without force. My problem with this is that it could, potentially, totally absolve a violent, land-grabbing warlord of any wrongdoing once he sells a stolen piece of land to a willing market participant.

I'll approach you in good faith and assume, for the sake of my point, that you would not believe that an immediate exchange between said warlord and a buyer to be legitimate, given how the warlord acquired the land (through force). The immediacy of the exchange brings into question the legitimacy of the buyer's claim to the land.

Assuming you don't find this exchange to be legitimate (or just, fair, what have you), then it is probably safe to assume that two exchanges removed from the violence is not enough to dismiss said violence. Or three.

My question, then, is where would this cut-off point be?

Not trying to start a fight, just trying to engage in some spicy discourse. The fun is in the details here. I'm on a mobile, so lemme know if I have been unclear.

No worries at all mate. Like you mentioned in the earlier thread this is the WR after all. I love the depth of the argument here, and considering you're approaching it genuinely you're already going to be one of my favorite posters (sparring partners?).

The cut off point is what I wrote in the last post. The first owner that acquires the property nonviolently is the rightful owner. Now, as an addition to that, its also the owner that can be tangibly defined that way. There may very well have been an owner that previously acquired the property before, but whom was conquered. If there's no one left around to claim a link to that trespass then its kind of meaningless to withhold any legitimate claim to it for anyone forever throughout all time.

The warlord example is actually interesting from one angle already, but no. It's not immediately obvious that transaction is illegitimate. Are there family members still around that can make a case that their family's land was taken by the warlord? If not then who's is it? Saying its everyone's is effectively the same as saying it's no one's. It's obviously not the warlord's ethically, or even anyone that coerces or kills him to take the land themselves. If no one else is making a connection to the land then the person who bought it from the warlord is the first nonviolent and therefore rightful owner.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I would best be defined as a paleoconservative. My political bible is a book by Russell Kirk titled The Politics of Prudence.

 

[WiolentOne]

Right so even in the case of SA the people that don't want to be governed aren't really advocating no governance. They just don't want *that* kind of governance they currently have.

More specific to the point is the abolition of the legitimization of aggressive violence. We're advanced primates after all, and there'll most likely always be someone that wants to commit violence to achieve their ends. By consequence someone, like you, that rightfully owns the property you created or earned has the right to defend that property with defensive violence.

Could preemptive violence be considered defense under the right circumstances?

If so, who or what defines and decides what is ethical in that case?

 

[Greoric]

Could preemptive violence be considered defense under the right circumstances?

If so, who or what defines and decides what is ethical in that case?

Yes, of course. That's why in self defense cases you don't have to wait for the the other person to actually throw. You just have to show the threat was imminent.

As for your second question, the aggressor is obviously not the party acting defensively... That's just a matter of arbitration.

 

[TheGreatA]

Could preemptive violence be considered defense under the right circumstances?

If so, who or what defines and decides what is ethical in that case?

You shouldn't have to wait until the bodies start dropping or when you've already been shanked to the gut, to begin fighting back.

Being defensive does not mean that you need to be submissive. The point is to prevent conflict, not to live in fear of it.

 

[shitpostmodern]

The warlord example is actually interesting from one angle already, but no. It's not immediately obvious that transaction is illegitimate. Are there family members still around that can make a case that their family's land was taken by the warlord? If not then who's is it? Saying its everyone's is effectively the same as saying it's no one's. It's obviously not the warlord's ethically, or even anyone that coerces or kills him to take the land themselves. If no one else is making a connection to the land then the person who bought it from the warlord is the first nonviolent and therefore rightful owner.

In my hypothetical, no, there wouldn't be any family members left to claim the land.

I'm less concerned with who ought to be compensated and more concerned about the legitimacy of an exchange that involves something that is, in all technicality, stolen. Deciding what to do with the land will vary depending on one's political leanings.

 

[Greoric]

In my hypothetical, no, there wouldn't be any family members left to claim the land.

I'm less concerned with who ought to be compensated and more concerned about the legitimacy of an exchange that involves something that is, in all technicality, stolen. Deciding what to do with the land will vary depending on one's political leanings.

I understand your objection to the transaction in and of itself, as in what legitimacy does the warlord have to sell the land he actually conquered, right? Well, if no one is around to dispute that claim then there doesn't seem like a problem or at least an injustice that has any route to arbitration. That's simply a problem without any tangible solution.

That also doesn't have anything to do with the owner that actually did acquire the property cooperatively, and there's certainly no one that has any higher ethical claim to the land than the person that spent resources to acquire it peaceably. Its illegitimate then for anyone to come to the nonviolent owner and demand he relinquish it.

Also keep in mind that all property was stolen or conquered at one point or another. In fact, no one's ancestors are innocent of those trespasses, which actually illegitimizes "the public's" claim to that property under question as well. So really the question going forward is how would we be ethically consistent without any way to prove property claims otherwise, and that's with the first nonviolent owner.

 

[shitpostmodern]

I understand your objection to the transaction in and of itself, as in what legitimacy does the warlord have to sell the land he actually conquered, right? Well, if no one is around to dispute that claim then there doesn't seem like a problem or at least an injustice that has any route to arbitration. That's simply a problem without any tangible solution.

That also doesn't have anything to do with the owner that actually did acquire the property cooperatively, and there's certainly no one that has any higher ethical claim to the land than the person that spent resources to acquire it peaceably. Its illegitimate then for the anyone to come to the nonviolent owner and demand he relinquish it.

Also keep in mind that all property was stolen or conquered at one point or another. In fact, no one's ancestors are innocent of those trespasses, which actually illegitimizes "the public's" claim to that property under question as well. So really the question going forward is how would we be ethically consistent without any way to prove property claims otherwise, and that's with the first nonviolent owner.

Well, I would disagree that a lack of an obvious claimant to the stolen land undoes or mitigates any injustice (I also think a whole lot of deontological libertarians would have bones to pick here as well), but that's getting off track. The point isn't about finding a solution or compensating losers, but trying to find a point where accusations of force are no longer a relevant factor in an exchange of land.

I'm well aware that all land was, at some point, essentially stolen--this actually its nicely into the example I was trying to make: We know that, going far enough back, much land that is now occupied by people was seized by force at one point from another group of people. Assuming that one doesn't find the previous example of the exchange between the warlord and the first buyer as legitimate, we can infer that there is a point between "land stolen thousands of years ago" and "land stolen last week/month/year" where the "stolen" part no longer matters (or, at least, is no longer relevant) to the current occupant.