Libertarians Seek Granite State Takeover

Your orginal question “begs the question”, when you get to a logic class(if you do in your chosen major), you’ll learn what that means and why it’s a logical fallacy.

In the mean time we’ll forgive you for thinking within the box as that’s what you’re being graded on most of the time.

lol…wait, wait…where is the argument against mine?

Oh, that’s right…there isn’t one…just the announcement of facts yet you somehow missed the point of the whole exchange.

Are you the dumb uni student’s teacher?

Wouldn’t they be proud of Greece now?

“…There was NOTHING close to Athenian democracy in written human history PRIOR to its existence…”

Yes, and that’s why “…they get credit for the first attempt at democracy…”

That said, the Sumerians had a proto-democracy. Gilgamesh’s tablet describes this early single house parliamentarian style system at about 2,200 BCE. 4th century BCE (India) Indians had an elected council that held sway over the Raja. Multiple Indian societies had democratic style councils that all men were welcome in regardless of station during Siddh?rtha Gautama Buddha’s reign ~ 500 BCE.

Democracy didn’t just spring out of the ground in Athens in 700 BCE, nor did it continue there throughout the ancient period. Ick and Ooog were likely living in a democratic society long before we even had the written word.

Which logical fallacy are we talking about?

There are so many logical fallacies (and just plain fallacies) here at FITSNEWS that it’s kind of hard to keep up some time. If we’re talking about the idea that we shouldn’t try it, I’ve already demonstrated that Democracy had in fact been tried in multiple forms long before it sprouted in Athens. Libertarian forms of governments already exist in at some form in Ireland, New Zealand and Switzerland. Canada is making a good effort at it.

*edit: “can’t work”

” if you need a link I’ll provide one just for arguments sake”

Yes, good- I’d like that.

“As for forms of Libertarianism, I’ve pointed out 3 (or four) already but here is an excellent treatise ”

What?! What “forms” of Libertarianism have you pointed out? I think you should define what “libertarianism” is for everyone so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing.

The FEE article you just reference no where concludes that “true Libertarianism doesn’t work”….seriously, show me any specific sentence in it that lead you to that conclusion.

Did you even read that last link you supplied (Jones Jr.), or it’s conclusion?

Here’s the closest I can come to remotely trying to fit what you claim within the contents of its passages, a quote within it really:

“…luxury, though it may proceed from vice or folly, seems to
be the only means that can correct the unequal distribution of
property. The diligent mechanic and the skilful artist, who
have obtained no share in the division of the earth, receive a
voluntary tax from the possessors of land; and the latter are
prompted, by a sense of interest, to improve those estates,
with whose produce they may purchase additional pleasures.
This operation, the particular effects of which are felt in every
society, acted with much more diffusive energy in the Roman
world. The provinces would soon have been exhausted of
their wealth, if the manufactures and commerce of luxury had
not insensibly restored to the industrious subjects the sums
which were exacted from them by the arms and authority of
Rome (1977, vol. I, p.48).” -Gibbons

In the least, I think it’s high time you define what you call “libertarianism”, it’s core qualities, etc. so that we clearly understand each other.

Rome tried libertarianism? Please. Define “libertarian” and we’ll go from there.

“Let’s go with the simple definition provided by Webster: Libertarian: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government.”

Ok; let’s start with something a bit more discerning in the definition of libertarian so that people in general don’t equate it with lawlessness(because libertarianism in general does bow to “natural law”, as noted by some of your previous links):

The non-aggression axiom

There are corollaries from there and some presuppositions, like Locke’s 2nd treatise type stuff(property rights), but in essence libertarianism can be distilled down to that.

The implications at times can disturb people, hence why the Koch’s kicked Rothbard out of their jointly founded Cato Institute, but that is the philosophy/definition in general.

So based on that definition there is no “libertarian” society, there MAY have been back some time ago(pre written history), but no one really knows for sure.(I’ve read claims pockets existed here and there in written…it’s possible I suppose but not definitive in my mind)

I will grant you that are some societies that are closer to libertarianism in it’s most basic definition, but the “experiment” itself has not been tried in modern history per se.

Libertarianism can also be described as “voluntaryism”, which is in essence pure adherence to the NAP.

Any society that’s been cited in the past as “libertarian” that had a government collecting taxes, represents a dubious at best claim given it ostensibly violates the core tent of the NAP/voluntaryism via taxation.

The “social contract” was of vital importance to convincing many that the basic idea of voluntaryism was/is respected by the state- but when people don’t voluntarily sign an actual “contract” there can obviously be no respect for the NAP.

Sadly, this one aspect is the reason our current government can pretty much do whatever it wants to its citizens, because there is no signed contract(which would outline non-performance penalties too if done right) and the government itself is its own arbiter of it’s adherence to the “social contract”.

The one silver lining to the whole cloud of government is that even it must bow to the concept of voluntaryism, even if it doesn’t intend on adhering to it, it must pretend- lest an uprising- so my hope one day is that after enough government failures over time(1000 years?) that people might find a way to live on a voluntary basis with one another.

“I am somewhat of a libertarian at heart, but I realize it is not an ideal way to form a government.”

Perhaps if you reflect on the concept of voluntaryism you might reconsider why it’s superior to coercive forms, like government- even if you think it’s not feasible.

Sometimes a simple acknowledgement of epistemology truth goes a long way in clarifying why someone like yourself is a “libertarian at heart”(the natural state of man, his desire for peace, etc.)

“We voluntarily submit to the governor or we become outlaws it doesn’t even matter what laws there are, there will always be someone trying to break them. The outlaws are the evidence of my original assertion that our nature precludes a truly libertarian or voluntary society.”

I really don’t buy that argument. It seems circular to me. (aside from the fact that submitting to laws under the threat of punishment is not a voluntary action)

But, more importantly, given your predisposition on the state of man, “sin nature”, I’d ask you to reflect on the philosophy surrounding elected sinful people to rule over other sinners.

It is given the “sinner”, greater power with less responsibility.

I’ll also offer that you consider replacing “sinner” for a moment with “self interest”. There is a way to check this self interest, it’s called the “free market”, which is voluntary.

“Are you still here?”

I come and go. :)

I couldn’t follow up on our exchange because life got in the way.

“So the free market checks self interest?!? I’d argue just the opposite, that self interest drive the free market.”

You don’t have to argue “opposite”, your viewpoint fits because the free market does both; it’s not an “either/or” proposition.

Self interest both drives the free market and checks it. Here’s what I mean:

If any one participant in the free market gets too greedy then he loses market share to competitors.(and if there are no competitors at the time, they will move in or people simply will substitute one good/service for another)

The free market is truly self regulating in that regard. We just don’t see it much anymore because you get a lot of people blaming the free market for government created meltdowns( they’ll blame big banks(created by gov’t), lack of regulation(though there’s heavy regulation & bailouts) etc. et al).