Image below from left libertarian (drug/pharma oriented) Alter-Net's website where the most read article is of course about famous cannabis ingesters, while they also have an article in the top 5 which is antagonistic to the right libertarians (metals oriented) about more of their libertarian nemesis' typical out of control hijinks with guns.
We of course are unfortunately caught in the crossfire and second hand smoke of this incestuous libertarian civil war.
Revealing image which illustrates the antagonism and correlating material associations of these two groups of warring libertarian morons pretty well I think.
Gee wiz, how do you label or classify a libertarian who has appreciation for both cannabis and the role that precious metals play in monetary matters?
ReplyDeleteIt takes the ability to think abstractly in order to realize that weed smoking (and drug testing), gun ownership (and gun-free voluntary communities) and a personal choice of money are nothing but voluntary non-violent activities which are all permissible pursuant to the non-aggression principle. Vicious and violent authoritarian types who wish to inflict their wealth-shifting funny money schemes upon society apparently lack such abilities because they have endless problems making these simple and straight forward logical connections. What other explanation is there?
ReplyDeleteA abstract principle I mostly agree with but it is not feasible in the modern networked, institutionalized world in which we live and where everything has an impact on the system through a web of relationships.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is just about no frontier left to escape to, other than perhaps constructing floating city states, or establishing city states on isolated islands. But the island option seems to be limited by rising sea levels.
I regret this lack of alternatives, but it is the case and all the fantasizing about redesigning the US along Libertarian principles is an exercise in imagination and the stuff of novels. Without splitting the US apart, it's not going to happen, and there's no chance of the US breaking up into decentralized autonomous splinter groups "doing their own thing" in relative isolation from each other.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteA voluntary community is a place you can either choose to live in, or choose to leave, right?
In other words it's like a country which doesn't stop people from leaving. Like the USA for example.
If you happen to be born in a voluntary community which you really don't like, you can always leave, right?
Ed,
ReplyDeleteMaybe they cancel each other out and therefore you can understand MMT?
rsp,
If you happen to be born in a voluntary community which you really don't like, you can always leave, right?
ReplyDeleteYes. Duh. That's the point.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteIt may not be a "free will choice" there is emerging evidence coming out that this appearance of "choice" may be mistaken and this is just electrical patterns in the brain which may be effected by the drugs (electro-chemical) and metals (electro-magnetic):
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2014/06/free-will-could-be-result-of-background.html
Still looking into it, so standby for now...
rsp,
A abstract principle I mostly agree with but
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that a prohibition upon the initation of violence would and should be everyone's default position. It would also seem to me that someone advocating the initiation of violence (socialists, Neo-Cons, Keynesians, MMTers, Al Qaeda) would have to show beyond all reasonable doubt some failure in the system of non-violence and justify beyond all reasonable doubt the dire necessity of the proposed use of violence. I don't think that exercise is particularly difficult in terms of logical complexity.
The inevitable response of the advocates of violence is to obfuscate and distort the meanings of well understood words and concepts instead of answering the challenge.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteyou've said before that voluntary communities could be statist, lesbian anarchist, pro-gun, anti-gun... anything really.
So if you happen to be born in a statist voluntary community which you don't like, you can always choose to leave.
So LEAVE.
Here are some other voluntary communities which might appeal to you, as they have low taxes, and are small, wealthy, orderly, and pretty:
ReplyDeleteMonaco
Andorra
Jersey
y: You are right. I will leave. However, that's a clever dodge to avoid justifying your lust for violence. I knew couldn't do it.
ReplyDeleteI'm also glad to know that, in addition to be explicitly based upon violence, the case for MMT is based upon an alleged absence of "free will" in humans. I guess that justifies even more violence and repression, right?
ReplyDeleteI don't have a lust for violence. I just live in a voluntary community which happens to not be an 'anarcho-capitalist' voluntary community.
ReplyDeleteThe libertarian left is non-violent in the extreme and very few left libertarians even own weapons for self-defense. They place primary emphasis on individual freedom in a community of those who recognize and acknowledge equality of persons as human beings while also celebrating diversity of individuals as unique.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in my twenties and involved in the anti-war movement and countercultural revolution, I made the consciousness decision to "turn on, tune in, and drop out" —that is, to turn on my crap detector, tune in to the hidden agenda of TPTB and the alternative, and to drop out of the insane asylum.
If studies alternative community, visited alternative communities, and also lived in them. There's pretty much something for everyone available and if not, one can create one's own with like minded volunteers. The basis of such communities is self-sufficient individuals cooperating for mutual benefit, and some communities cooperate with each other on this basis.
What I found was a very different America that was emerging with all sorts of alternatives and experiments going on, some of which where already ongoing for some time beneath the radar.
What I also discovered is that, by and large anyway, Americans are "live and let live." and are generally tolerant of diversity as long as they have plausible deniability and can claims that don't know what's going on behind closed doors.
The fly in the ointment is the control freaks and the concern trolls. Usually, alternative groups can pursue their own lifestyle as long as it is private. However, issues arise when they are ratted out to the authorities or media. Usually, this was ignored or there was a perfunctory investigation of which nothing came. Unless, of course, the group was considered some sort of threat.
Problems arose when groups that were formerly underground decided to come out and confront the status quo. At that point lines were crossed and battle lines drawn around social, political, and economic issues that had previously been unchallenged openly.
So now we have a cultural war in full force, with many groups, from the Dominionists like Raphael Cruz that want a theocracy, to Libertarians like Peter Thiel that seek to create sovereign city states independent of other nation states and their laws and institutions.
The most successful groups so far, however, have been left libertarians in promoting civil rights (Civil Rights Act), anti-war (draft ended), right to privacy (Rowe v. Wade), gender equality (ERA still to pass though), and LGBT rights, and now the chipping away at draconian drug laws with success in several states.
Left libertarians tend to be more socially and politically engaged than economically, other than in opposing state capture by an oligarchy. But this is more political, that is, about abuse of power, than economic. Similarly, environmentalism Is not views as much an economic issue on the left as it is a social and political one.
Left libertarians don't want good government of the proper size to be effective in meeting systemic requirements efficiently. They tend to be system thinkers rather than methodological individualists, holding that we are all in this together and need to coordinate in order to seize opportunities and address challenges.
Left libertarians are generally open to diversity and tolerant of views with which they disagree, drawing the line at human rights and civil liberties.
Tom,
ReplyDelete"Left libertarians don't want good government of the proper size to be effective in meeting systemic requirements efficiently."
Sorry, they do or they don't?
Mr. Hickey:
ReplyDeleteThere is no requirement that voluntary communities be substantially different than already existing communities. There would simply be a lack of state violence so that there would be no cops (or majority types) beating the crap out of minorities and no 1% using state violence to enforce their position of privilege to be used loot the 99%.
Public opinion and fashion concerning the appropriate form of community are always going to be the controlling factors in society. The reason for the NAP is precisely because of the unpleasant attributes of human nature you describe.
"there would be no cops (or majority types) beating the crap out of minorities"
ReplyDeleteMurray Rothbard:
"Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error… Take back the streets: Get rid of the bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear”
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
"Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated"
(Rothbard, M. N. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York, N.Y. and London.)
Unlike Murray Rothbard, I am opposed to police brutality, and I am not a racist.
However I do not think that the solution to police brutality and racism is 'anarcho-capitalism', because I am not stupid.
Left libertarians as well as most other people, excepting extreme authoritarians, are in general agreement over a NAP as a social and political requirement. The difficulties arise in defining "aggression." Not everyone agrees about this, as is the case with most contentious social and political issues.
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way, POV's are distinguished by boundary conditions of inclusion and exclusion. Sometime even fine lines result in contention where people may be unwilling to compromise what they regard as principle.
If this were not the case, resolving such issues would be relative simple through compromise.
"Left libertarians don't want good government of the proper size to be effective in meeting systemic requirements efficiently."
ReplyDeleteSorry, they do or they don't?
Should be, "Left libertarians want good government of the proper size to be effective in meeting systemic requirements efficiently."
I'll take that comment down and replace it with a corrected version.
The libertarian left is non-violent in the extreme and very few left libertarians even own weapons for self-defense. They place primary emphasis on individual freedom in a community of those who recognize and acknowledge equality of persons as human beings while also celebrating diversity of individuals as unique.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in my twenties and involved in the anti-war movement and countercultural revolution, I made the consciousness decision to "turn on, tune in, and drop out" —that is, to turn on my crap detector, tune in to the hidden agenda of TPTB and the alternative, and to drop out of the insane asylum.
I studied alternative community, visited alternative communities, and also lived in them. There's pretty much something for everyone available and if not, one can create one's own with like minded volunteers. The basis of such communities is self-sufficient individuals cooperating for mutual benefit, and some communities cooperate with each other on this basis.
What I found was a very different America that was emerging with all sorts of alternatives and experiments going on, some of which where already ongoing for some time beneath the radar.
What I also discovered is that, by and large anyway, Americans are "live and let live." and are generally tolerant of diversity as long as they have plausible deniability and can claims that don't know what's going on behind closed doors.
The fly in the ointment is the control freaks and the concern trolls. Usually, alternative groups can pursue their own lifestyle as long as it is private. However, issues arise when they are ratted out to the authorities or media. Usually, this was ignored or there was a perfunctory investigation of which nothing came. Unless, of course, the group was considered some sort of threat.
Problems arose when groups that were formerly underground decided to come out and confront the status quo. At that point lines were crossed and battle lines drawn around social, political, and economic issues that had previously been unchallenged openly.
So now we have a cultural war in full force, with many groups, from the Dominionists like Raphael Cruz that want a theocracy, to Libertarians like Peter Thiel that seek to create sovereign city states independent of other nation states and their laws and institutions.
continued
continuation
ReplyDeleteThe most successful groups so far, however, have been left libertarians in promoting civil rights (Civil Rights Act), anti-war (draft ended), right to privacy (Rowe v. Wade), gender equality (ERA still to pass though), and LGBT rights, and now the chipping away at draconian drug laws with success in several states.
Left libertarians tend to be more socially and politically engaged than economically, other than in opposing state capture by an oligarchy. But this is more political, that is, about abuse of power, than economic. Similarly, environmentalism Is not views as much an economic issue on the left as it is a social and political one.
Left libertarians are sensitive to power and its use. Being egalitarians, they want to see power equalized and decentralized as much as possible iaw the principle of subsidiarity, since asymmetric power is the basis of hierarchies and privilege and the enemy of consensus, political equality, and flat governance.
Left libertarians want good government of the proper size to be effective in meeting systemic requirements efficiently. They tend to be system thinkers rather than methodological individualists, holding that we are all in this together and need to coordinate in order to seize opportunities and address challenges. They are of the view that organization is required rather than just leaving matters to "natural forces" in human affairs, and that organization should be effective at achieving objectives efficiently without either violating rights and liberties, or institutionalizing power relationships.
Left libertarians are generally open to diversity and tolerant of views with which they disagree, drawing the line at human rights and civil liberties.
"no 1% using state violence to enforce their position of privilege to be used loot the 99%"
ReplyDeleteOf course, as is completely obvious to any sane person, the 'anarcho-capitalist' world is a world controlled by corporations and the very wealthy, if not controlled by gangsters and warlords.
The fundamental tenet of 'anarcho-capitalism' is that people should be stripped of all their rights, except for their right to own property. All their other rights as citizens, including their very citizenship, should be taken from them.
However even the supposed 'right' to own property is meaningless in the anarcho-capitalist world, unless you are individually strong enough to defend yourself against criminals, gangsters, and marauding warlords (possibly with nuclear weapons and the like), or wealthy enough to hire your own protection force and army.
This means, of course, that in 'anarcho-capitalist' world those with more property will inevitably have more liberty, more power, and more control. Those without property, or with very little property, will have no liberty, no power, and no control.
"There is no requirement that voluntary communities be substantially different than already existing communities. There would simply be a lack of state violence so that there would be no cops (or majority types) beating the crap out of minorities and no 1% using state violence to enforce their position of privilege to be used loot the 99%.
ReplyDeletePublic opinion and fashion concerning the appropriate form of community are always going to be the controlling factors in society. The reason for the NAP is precisely because of the unpleasant attributes of human nature you describe."
No disagreement there. As I said above, the issue is the meaning of aggression, where there is considerable disagreement.
Is physical discipline of family members by the head of the household aggression. Some thinks so, other think that it is a divinely mandated responsibility. This related not only to positive law, but also one's conception of human rights and civil liberties. These sorts of issues abound.
This brings up the question as to whether a NAP is sufficient. Left libertarians say it is necessary but not sufficient since it doesn't adequately address human rights and civil liberties, for example.
For example, an abstract NAP leaves abortion up in the air. One side can argue that abortion is aggression against the unborn, while others can argue that a blanket prohibition regardless of the woman's health is aggression against women whose lives are at risk through birth. Those asserting self-ownership would argue that women have control over their bodies rather than the community or state, so there can be no aggression operative when a woman voluntarily seeks an abortion. This is just one instance relating to a single issue involving principle where there is no compromise.
"This brings up the question as to whether a NAP is sufficient"
ReplyDeleteWhen Bob rants about the NAP, aggression and violence in the context of taxation and government spending, all he is really saying is "I have a weird fringe theory of property and property rights which is different to yours and almost everyone else's!".
Instead of behaving like a sane, reasonable and rational person, and saying "I disagree with you on this and that" Bob mindlessly shouts "aggression!" and "violence!" at people who have different opinions to him on certain matters.
It's just a moronic rhetorical trick, but Bob is too stupid to even realize that that is all it is.