I think your confused as to how a libertarian party would run. There may not be a need for parties at all, there may be no incentive to even get into government. Government would never have the power to influence individual lives. There would be no avenues to create major change. All changes would have to be realized in the free market.
Communites who wanted to be non-libertarian are welcome to form their own communes without the need of forcing everyone to subsidize it and participate in it.
I sometimes wonder if promoting minarchism is more beneficial even if you’re an anarchist. This will probably get more people llistening to you. As the state power decreases and people are better off and society starts to prosper, people will hopefully be more open for the final step.
Evenn not in a minarchy? These people would pass the laws and choose members of courts, police and army policies etc..
.
Even not their children? Then it wouldn’t be a non-libertarian community.
My argument is to strip the government of the power to create laws and enforce laws. After your libertarian society is created why would a government need to make NEW laws? Any ability to create new laws is just another slippery slope waiting to be exploited.
All you need enforced is the basic non-aggresion principles, beyond that the court system, policing, and the rest can be done on the free market. No new laws are necessary so there is no branch of government which creates laws. This removes the incentive of a party system and pretty much eliminates the need for democracy. Democracy is done at a private level via capitalism.
When children reach the age when they are ready to care for themselves they are free to leave.
If all state property were to be sold, who should get the money?
since people should be not allowed to wear whatever they want - according to whom?
How do you justify coercion?
Our dept will get it, countries we owe.
I don’t find that true. If you are less consistent, people who are opposed simple say, “Aha! Inconsistency!”
Regarding Burqas, I’m fairly sure that in the absence of the oppressive mandates that are still in place in some locations women would completely stop wearing them within a few generations.
Your support of libertarian philosophy seems to be rather superficial. Libertarianism is, by its very nature, opposed to any kind of “disallowing” or “forcing” beyond what is necessary for society to function—and minarchists and anarcho-capitalists even disagree on the extent of this. Questions like, “Should burqas be banned?” or “Should view X be banned?” (anti-libertarian, in the quoted text) are representative of a belief system that ultimately runs counter to individual liberty. The danger of usurpation or crime is not sufficient justification to prevent free expression.
Wow. Just wow. I knew there was a good reason for lurking around Mises Forums.
Some will. But if you say you’re an anarchist, people will simply say “Aha! You’re an anarchist. Good bye!”
In a society that requires consent of the governed, it would be impossible to make it illegal. So, are you talking about a society that does not require consent of the governed?
therefore market it better. don’t come out and say, “I’m an anarchist”. Heck I wouldn’t come out and say, “I love Obama.” Would you? And yet millions of people like him, but millions of other people don’t like him. It stops any intellectual discussion. So of course that doesn’t help evolve dialogue. people vote for the Bushes and Obama’s in the U.S. Empire and think everything is peachy cream.
When somebody asks me what I’m for I say, “Liberty”. It’s simple. It catches the attention of quite possibly everyone. And then anybody that wants to discuss liberty further instantly will open up.
What do you mean?
I now think burqas should be legal at your own property, but it should be possible for the owner of a street to ban it.
Are you for serious? What do you think we’ve been telling you this entire time? Are you Mikanomics?
If mikanomics is a forum user: no.
Y es, I’m serious. If it’s your street, you should be able to ban whatever you want on it. So I guess I agree with you.
The problem is, by now, the state owns most of the property.
Okay. Welcome to the forum. Cheers!
Haha! I was thinking the same thing…
Great idea. 95% of murder is commited by males. So you only have to abort all male fetuses to prevent a lot of harm. Real cool idea.