Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ace,Because they aren't the State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Uh, the OP's question is kind of tricky. For Brazilian standards, I'm a radical libertarian, but that's because the concept of "less government interference, please!" whether in business or in the private lives of citizens is pretty much completely alien, both to the right and to the left. Even suggesting that "hey, maybe people should decide on themselves on that issue rather than have the government telling people what they can or can't do" makes people look at you funny. At the same time, I identify very little with what passes as a Libertarian in the US. I'm guessing by American standards, I'd be a moderate liberal (closer to the center in economy, not so much in social issues), but I really don't identify much with the likes of Obama and Hilary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ace,Because they aren't the State. So what? If oppression is happening by an entity that isn't the State, why is it better than the same oppression happening by the State? "Because reasons" is not an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ace,Then it is due to collusion with the State by the Private actor. Corporations have only the ability to act as the State allows them to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ace,Then it is due to collusion with the State by the Private actor. Corporations have only the ability to act as the State allows them to act. I thought in Libertarian-land that the State doesn't have the power to limit the private sector? Isn't that what we were discussing? The difference between a State wielding nearly unlimited power and a private entity wielding the same power? For some reason when the State does it it's tyranny, but when a private entity does it's freedom and I'd like to understand why this is the case. So far you've come up with.... reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ace,A corporation doesn't exist until the State says it exists. It is a creature of Statute. Its existence is at the sufference of the State.And, yes, I've come up with specific reasons why corporations cannot act without collusion or assent from the State.And, yes, individuals can be tyrannical they simply cannot be as tyrannical as State actors can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 One, it seems like the whole go-it-alone and don't look for assistance or help elsewhere mantra is the most stressed and most important tenet. Maybe if you get all your info about libertarians from Salon.com But this is the actual, central tenet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Ramsay - Surely you don't mean to suggest that Salon is part of the hyperbolic left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Maybe if you get all your info about libertarians from Salon.com But this is the actual, central tenet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle How do you bring violators of the NAP to justice? How do you stop people from aggression. If taxes are a violation of NAP, how do you protect the NAP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Ramsay,You cannot have law without the ability to apply coercive force. Law that is based upon voluntary compliance is not law but custom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 A well-worded strawman, but a strawman nonetheless. No one has argued that market mechanisms would free anyone from influence. Nor has anyone tried to pass off a fictive isolation. These are merely projections of your arguments against individualism. (I've seen them before.) As for entitlements, how can one "earn" a stake, absent any proprietor's participation and/or approval, in that which someone else owns?I don't claim Libertarians are victims, much less understand "the routine." I'm venturing into an antagonism that I've have seen persist in this forum, at the very least, since my joining.athias--not seeing the strawperson, to be honest. y'all are complaining about 'hate' for libertarian positions; it is not 'hate'; y'all are not under 'attack,' as i noted in the hugo thread regarding torgs and the rest. it is rather disagreement in a democratic society; this should not bother alleged libertarians; that y'all consider disagreement to be 'hate' indicates an aversion for democratic debate, a totalitarian insistence on control of contending opinion. it's an unworthy rhetoric for anyone, but goddam athias, you personally are better than that; i've seen it. sometimes the antagonism is earned, one might admit; am doubtful, for instance, that you'd accept the wide-eyed virginal 'why are you so hateful?' bit from me were i to throw the same vulgar marxist molotovs into every single conversation and then receive vigorous resistance arising therefrom? it is a rhetoric of fake victimization. but more significantly, it indicates a shifting of the debate: y'all are complaining about the tone of the interaction and thereby conceding the substance of the interaction. the only worse step would be to start saying that we accuse you of thoughtcrime, which is a freedom of expression argument--always the indication of the last refuge of the loser. i couldn't be wronger but it's my right to be as wrong as i want. alrighty then!fairly reasonable to assume, on the ordinary meaning of the words, that 'live and let live' is a non-interference/isolationist principle, no? what other reading is there for it? if it is not that sort of principle, then what is the meaning of the metaphor? provide some content, by all means. of course no one has explicitly said non-interference/isolation, because libertarianism does not normally set forth actual arguments with any precision, relying instead on unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable abstractions such as "individual." (if 'collectivism' is so evil, i don't see y'all rushing to abolish private anti-individualist 'collectivisms,' such as corporations--no wonder why that is!) this is fairly manifestly not my defect. if 'live and let live' doctrine is a non-interference/isolationist principle, then market mechanisms are by definition inconsistent with it, as you appear to admit. if that is the case, why should we prefer the interference of market mechanisms over the interference of the state? y'all have no principle there, other than a desire to evade democratic control over property--but will nevertheless insist, like ayn rand, i suppose, on state protection for property; it is just free-riding, is all. So how is "live and let live" even a meaningful concept if merely influencing or interacting with people violates it?RG--think of it this way: the literal meaning of "live and let live" is perfectly consistent with some stalinists locking us all up in gulag forever, provided we are not executed. it is accordingly always already a meaningless concept. that's entirely the problem with 'libertarian' ideology: it is expressed in metaphors without precise content. its proponents might therefore enter any discussion of policy and deride everyone as a "collectivist" while maintaining a bizarre third-campist aloofness that is based on nothing but figurative language and clichés without content such as 'liberty,' similar to woaded mel gibson screaming inarticulately about 'freedom,' or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Sologdin,In my own defense, as someone to tends toward libertarian (even though I prefer "Classical Liberal"), I don't believe I've made any tone arguments. And I have, on occasion, argued for significant limitations on the power of individuals (with the assent of the State) to form corporations.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 of course not, scot. and i note for the record that you have questioned limitation of liability for private capitals on individualist/collectivist grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Sologdin,:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 similar to woaded mel gibson screaming inarticulately about 'freedom,' or something. :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Solo really is the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I love you sologdin in a purely heterosexual manner?i know.rawwwrrrr.the shrike. you've got to take care of him.<dies and is dead in carbonite> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 And, yes, individuals can be tyrannical they simply cannot be as tyrannical as State actors can. I doubt slaves would agree with you. (And let's just assume those slaves are on a desert island somewhere with no 'State' involved, just to make the distinction clear here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Ace,You're moving the goalposts from the general to the specific. Sure in individual cases that can be true but generally the State, by its nature, has more power to abuse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 So if you literally remove the state from the equation, individuals have more power to abuse than the state. Good...job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.