Age requirement for voting in a libertarian society?

[Snowflake]

@Leviathan

Gee willigers, there’s differences between absolute and relative poverty?

He’s saying there’s a point at which “relative poverty” becomes trivial.

@Leviathan

there’s absolute ignorance of the legitimate constrictions on social mobility that afflict the U.S. to a greater extent than other developed Western nations.

The amount of social mobility isn’t necessarily bound up with poverty.

@Leviathan

You blindly follow a marginal heterodox school that has contributed virtually nothing to modern economics

ABCT? Prediction of all major recessions?

@Leviathan

and has had its greatest achievement demolished by superior socialist argument.

Magic looks good on paper, but doesn’t work irl.

[AdrianHealey]

@Leviathan

Lakoff writes of U.S. “libertarians” having the same basic moral framework for their ideology as traditional social rightists,

Can I see the empirical research on that, svp?

[Capital_Pumper]

@Leviathan

Gee willigers, there’s differences between absolute and relative poverty? This sad little rambling only proved my point about your economically bankrupt moral view to an even greater degree; there’s absolute ignorance of the legitimate constrictions on social mobility that afflict the U.S. to a greater extent than other developed Western nations. You blindly follow a marginal heterodox school that has contributed virtually nothing to modern economics and has had its greatest achievement demolished by superior socialist argument.

Unlike Esuric’s posts, your’s don’t educate the gallery. In fact, you’re putting on display the highly acclaimed socialist debating tactic: ridicule over substance.

[Marko]

@Stranger

Well “whatever the club decides” is not saying much. There are economic factors to consider.

When Hoppe set up the Property and Freedom Society, he explicitly made it a monarchy to avoid the co-opting that happened to Mont Pélerin Society.

Well a business owner could do the same and sell non-voting shares of his business only.

Bottom line is; elections valid only for those who agree to abide by them…

[AdrianHealey]

@Leviathan

Poverty is not caused by social factors that predetermine the fate of individuals, but by the personal character flaws of the poor,

How about: it is nearly always a mixture of both, in varying degrees of importance on the one and the other?

(And don’t forget to add the third important reason: the institutional framework - or lack there off.)

[Wraith]

@Leviathan

Of course, the fact that you see currently existing wealth distribution as just (attacking taxation as “theft” is evidence of that), is simply an illustration of the fact that you intend to defend the gains made by state-enforced capitalism. If you were consistent, you’d actually support massive redistribution, as all property has its ultimate origins in force and fraud, either through direct inheritance, or through creation made possible through theft of productive resources.

LOL

[Leviathan]

I’m not going to waste time regurgitating the same nonsense with a mass of you in a derailment of the thread, at least not now. We’ll see if I have more patience later, but try getting back to the topic.

[Capital_Pumper]

@Leviathan

Majority vote at least has the benefit of maximizing self-management to a greater degree than minority rule does.

You deal in false dichotomies and justifications of lesser evils. Such ideas are the symptoms of a democratic society, or a hegemonic society as it should be called.

[Esuric]

@Leviathan

I didn’t cite voting specifically, though it’s likely that exclusion from the political process is a factor in the generation of apathy and disinterest in it. But exclusion from the acquisition of responsibility will only naturally result in the underdevelopment of self-management abilities. As put by John Darling, “[there is a] common-sense perception, endemic in our culture, of children as rather silly and immature, unfit to be given responsibility. Yet such a view is clearly in danger of being self-confirming; for where children are seen as silly and immature, they will not be given responsibility, and where they are not given responsibility, they are likely to remain silly and immature.” But it’s something that I’d expect a libertarian to understand, not you.

So, not only do you get to define your own terms, but you get to re-state my argument for me. Thanks. I said children should not be allowed to vote–that’s all.

@Leviathan

I think you’ll have to accept that if you want to play a consistent game of defining words according to popular understandings of them, you’ll be on the losing end in many instances.

Capitalism:

• “an economic system based on private ownership of capital.”
• “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition.”
• “Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.”

1. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:capitalism&ei=_elkS4b3B43glQeP96GqAw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/capitalism
3. http://www.investorwords.com/713/capitalism.html

[Capital_Pumper]

@Leviathan

I’m not going to waste time regurgitating the same nonsense with a mass of you in a derailment of the thread, at least not now. We’ll see if I have more patience later, but try getting back to the topic.

On the contrary, I think you deserve all the credit by derailing the thread with a semantics squabble. Then again, socialists turn every discussion into a semantics squabble. Punchlines are the legacy socialists will leave behind; dignity and Marx be damned because no cost is too great.

[Zeddicus]

@Marko

Yes, 150 years old.

I second this. Naturally it should then also be the limit age for holding political office.
If you are that old and still have enough wits to do anything it will probably be sensible

On a more serious note voting for political office is at the very least aiding and abetting violations of individual rights and should not be done by anyone.

There doesn’t have to be any age restrictions in a voluntary society. If you make a contract with a 5 year old that is your problem.
No one will be stupid enough to insure said contract, making legally void.

[AdrianHealey]

@Leviathan

I’m not going to waste time regurgitating the same nonsense with a mass of you in a derailment of the thread, at least not now. We’ll see if I have more patience later, but try getting back to the topic.

I just asked 2 simple questions.

[AnonLLF]

I don’t believe in voting.I think it leads to all sorts of trouble(essentiallyh it creates all the problems of democracy even if it claims to be a republic).My conception of a free society is anarchy so I don’t think their would be any voting simpy because there would be no need for it in the political sense.In terms of private institutions I see no problem with it though I doubt all instititutions would have voting and I have no problem with that either.

In the case of voting currently while it exists, it should be limited.The universal suffrage was a huge mistake and should be reversed.I agree with Hoppe that the suffrage should be limited to property owners so redistribution of wealth is slightly more limited.

I don’t seek why you attack hierarchy.Voluntary hierarchy is acceptable and vital in society.the characterisation of Rothbard as somehow being a lefty and then becoming right wing is the great lie perpetrated by ‘left libertarians’ to bolster their position so they can still be lefty and rothbardian.It’s not true as Rothbard’s closest associates can tell you.Of course his ideas changed and developed by not radically and much of them merely grew not radically changed.

[Nielsio]

@1147196

I disagree with most every age restriction set by the government but should there be a minimum age requirement for voting or not in a libertarian society?

Anybody should be able to vote. However, nobody should be allowed to steal.

[Lilburne]

@Leviathan

The reference to “men” is a subtle trace of sexism and of a belief in the innate leadership qualities of men as opposed to women.

I think it’s more likely that Esuric was simply using the #2 dictionary definition of “man” (“a human being of either sex: a person”), one which PREDATES the definition of “man” as “male” (it derives from a time when “man” ONLY meant human) and that the only subtle trace to be found here is of a banal and crude anti-right paranoia on your part.

[Zeddicus]

If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to construct the best possible minarchism I would allow everyone to vote regardless of age.

It doesn’t really matter since all they would elect would be a parliament that only can do one thing … depose the monarch.

[Stranger]

@hkarnoldson

If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to construct the best possible minarchism I would allow everyone to vote regardless of age.

It doesn’t really matter since all they would elect would be a parliament that only can do one thing … depose the monarch.

Your idea of the best possible minarchism is the Second French Empire?

[scineram]

Anyone who pays the poll tax,

OR

there won’t be any since I will rule.

W00T

[Dondoolee]

@Leviathan

Since there will be opposition to republicanism as a whole, it would be better to ask if there should be a minimum age for participation in affairs of societal management. I’d say not (and I’d oppose all other age restrictions also), and add that it overlaps fairly well with civil libertarianism, if you’ve ever had a look at John Holt and Richard Farson.

I honestly don’t see how this is too controversial a view on this site.

1. It doesn’t advocate democracy as govt,

2. It says there should be no age restrictions in the participation of societal managment. This, I would think, would be obvious in any form of libertarian/ anarchist aesthetic.

Add to that I don’t see how voting in any libertarian system would be anything but highly specialized and decentralized. It seems like an issue that would most likely resolve itself. It is not like there is much objecive criterea in age that can be used anyway

As to “owning property”:

what is that? Do you mean land or would my body and PC count?

It seems a bit out of date to say land owners. Plus it may kind of screw people in cities like NYC and Chicago, as well as those who just don’t wish to invest capital in land.

[apehead]

I think the concept of the original question is strange, unless the questioner isn’t an anarchist.

I the anarchic condition, I’m sure each tribe would have varying ways of deciding how to act. Some would have no voting restrictions, some would, some wouldn’t even vote.

The market would then decide which system worked best for each tribes ends, and that system would be most successful.