The fact is that the premise that the state is a representation of egalitarianism is blatantly nonsensical to anyone who can see that the mere fact that a state creates a ruler-subject dichotomy is not egalitarian in nature, and to anyone who can see that the effect of state power is NOT more equality in society. That by itself simply demolishes your premise. I’ve already shown you why your premise is wrong ad nauseum, and you can argue for heirarchy until you’re blue in the face, but none of your points prove the untenable premise you’re trying to argue for. No state, by definition, can genuinely be egalitarian precisely because the internal structure of a state and the relationship between a state and its subjects is inherently unequal. This should not be a controversial point. In fact, it’s part of why marxism fails, because its theory is not consistant with the reality of what a state is, and hence it results in an even more powerful unegalitarian state, and egalitarianism is only used as the rationale for the exclusive bureaucracy or dictatorship. In short, an egalitarian state is a logical impossibility.
Yup. I think leftism (and rightism) are jokes. But then, I don’t run around calling myself right, or defending the right. In fact, for all of the hullabaloo the left makes about the libertarian right, I still have yet to see the right (as a self-identifying group) manifest itself.
This is incorrect. And your definition of conditions which “need” improvement, and what that improvement might be, is totally subjective.
No. You choose to conflate your personal biases and value judgments with libertarianism, just like Long did in his recent article when he held up feminism as some left achievement. Feminism is collectivism, that’s libertarianism 101. But again, you guys turn a blind eye to all sorts of things as long as it furthers your sense of values, particularly when those values are very narrow within the broader understanding of what libertarianism is.
The goal is a society without the coercive apparatus of the state within a libertarian ethical framework, the consequence is liberty. I don’t pretend to know what the specific consequence of that liberty would be, but I hardly think that it is a pointless goal. If the society that emerges from the framework of liberty happens to be some natural egalitarian order or the opposite, so be it! To try and impose the view of what one would like it to be on a society of liberty seems like a very deceptive way of dealing with the issue.
Private violations of personal sovereignty would be handled by a Libertarian court system. I think everyone here pretty much agrees with that, both RL and LL. I don’t think anyone claimed that the state was the only entity capable of initiating aggression against another person. But once again, to claim that an “anarchist society will specifically have X outcome” seems…silly.
What prejudices? LS barely has any.
Granted, that’s not the case with me. I can’t wait to drop the term anarchism or libertarianism to distance myself from commies like you.
In a sense it is, since you seem to assume that upon abolishing the state the poor will rise up out of the chains imposed on them by the capitalist scum and becomes Aristotles, Kants and Hoppes.
Of course, LS is quite the traditionalist. (As opposed to you who can’t seem to get past “19th century anarchism”?)
Not really, just meaningless. I just couldn’t care for r the leeches that contaminate society with their offspring for more welfare.
Your continual insistance on pretending that there is no libertarian right is ridiculous, especially given that the libertarian right is openly asserting itself in these threads, and you’re defending them.
I could use the same line of argument dismiss to the libertarian’s view that the condition that is the state needs improvement. A libertarian sees the state as a negative condition, ergo, they see the elimination of that condition that is the state as an improvement. Hence, I could just as easily argue that “your definition of conditions with need improement is completely subjective”, and hence brush off the desire to oppose the condition of the state as “subjective”.
I hope you can see your hypocrisy here. No, that isn’t libertarianism 101. On one hand, you accuse others of conflating personal preferances with libertarianism, then you imply that libertarianism inherently means you must oppose feminism. Once again, you make blanket judgements of social causes without looking at the subtleys of different positions among them. Wendy McElroy, for example, is a libertarian/individualist feminist. Not all people who identify as feminists are collectivists.
This accusation applies more to you than anything.
The fact of the matter is that egalitarianism in any form is untenable, as such it doesn’t really make sense to criticize something or to just how egalitarian it is in regards to its consequences. It only makes sense to question the implications of an ideology and then question to what extent it is egalitarian. Now, democracy, with the “one vote per person” ideology and the concept that we’re all really part of the government (some indeed claim that it is really self government) implies egalitarianism to a great extent. Moreover the disregard for private property, destroys the objective borders between people, hence making us more equal.
Perhaps you could stick to “refuting” instead of a running commentary as well?
As buisness to some extent is hierarchical, as is the family, as are social relations generally. The fact of the matter is some humans are better leaders than others, the current leaders are those who are most adept at weilding power. Without the state the “leaders” would be those that demand the most respect.
And it isn’t.
Actually, Marxism fails because of that whole calculation thing.
All egalitarianism is.
Stop misrepresenting me with rhetorical statements. I am not a communist. My political philosophy is not consistant with communism.
Once again, this is just a misrepresentative rhetorical statement. You are really bad about doing this. I don’t believe that “upon abolishing the state the poor will rise up out of the chains imposed on them by the capitalist scum” and become gods.
Stop lieing about my views, it is out of the bounds of rationality.
I’m not defending “leeches that contaminate society”, and your statement is simply raw bigotry with no basis in reality.
Sorry, your premise remains absurd. The effect of the state very blatantly is not that we are made more equal. All the state does is created a massive web of redistribution that benefits various small niches at the expense of the rest of society. That does not increase equality at all. You’re simply engaging in bad rationalization to back up your indefensible bias for more heirarchy.
The problem is that this exact same line of argument can constitute a conservative defense of the state.
That’s only one reason among many as to why it fails. I also explained an additional reason why it fails, I.E. it’s theory about the nature of the state is nonsensical.
Stop it. You are trolling me and making up lies about me. I am not a communist and do not have a favorable view of communism.
Your behavior is simply childish.
You’re going to have to do more than assert things as if they were self evident.
So what?
Perhaps not, but there are clear implications of the belief that we need to help the most dull and generally least capable people in society.
Stop the commentary, it’s boring.
And it fails because unlike the family, the church, buisness and human relations in general it is still coercive.
You did finally get something correct.
Thank you, so much, for the amusement you just provided.
Ok, this is getting a bit out of hand. It’s time to cool off.
Give me a break. You very well know that the effect of state power around us is not a more equal society. To argue that our current society actually is equal is absurd on its face. It is self-evident. Just look around yourself or turn on the news.
That inherently is not “equal” in nature, hence demolishing your premise.
Noone holds that believe, and your way of phrasing it just asserts your own ridiculous prejudice.
There is nothing inherently virtuous or non-coercive about the family, the church or buisiness. A family can be healthy or unhealthy, coercive or uncoercive. A church can be coercive or non-coercive. A buisiness can be coercive or non-coercive. Your tendency to treat them as if they are inherently being good, regaurdless of context, simply makes no sense.
Amusement?
Thankyou, so much, for confirming to anyone with sanity that you are trolling me.
Notice, I wasn’t talking about effects. Try to answer what I actually say.
So what? Some morally and intellectual weak people are starving and asking the government for money. What’s more, they’re given it and almost every applauds the governments action to help the poor. Moreover false “elites” are promoted, so yes, the whole thing is very egalitarian.
No, it doesn’t. Try reading my premise.
Yes I am very prejudice, so what? The poor are generally less intelligent and capable then the upper and middle classes (that’s why they’re poor generally) so yes, people do hold that belief.
I treat them as natural humans institutions. That’s all.
You’re not joking are you ?
No I mean when church and state controlled almost every aspect of daily life and jailed and burned dissenters and heretics. I’m referring to the conservative ancien regime which was overthrown by libertarians. According to Hoppe :
This is just your prejudice, not an accurate description of reality. Your assumption that people are morally and intellectually weak stems for your own intellectual weakness and is just an irrational bias.
And what you’re completely leaving out is the reality of the situation: it does not help the poor. Hence, it is NOT actually egalitarian.
No, the promotion of “false elites” is not egalitarian. The promotion of elites in general is not egalitarian. Your premise fails. Egalitarianism is not what follows from any of this.
Prejudice is inherently irrational. Especialy your archiac ones.
Noone, outide of extreme social conservatives, actually believes that the poor are inherently less intellegient or moral by virtue of their economic status. It is not intrinsic or some law of nature.
Everything that exists is natural, so it’s a meaningless point.
I don’t see how it follows from the fact that the state panders to empathy and the fact that the libertarian is opposed to the state provision of welfare services that the libertarian must therefore be opposed to empathy itself and the provision of welfare as a matter of principle. I also would propose that there is a notable psychological problem or ulterior motive going on for an individual who actually lacks any capacity to have empathy for people experiencing negative conditions or builds a caracature for themselves that functions that way. I say this as a full-scale psychological egoist who uses an ethical framework of mutual self-interest and hence rejects altruism as an ethical theory, so don’t try to misrepresent me. Empathy is a perfectly valid principle when put in a proper context, particularly the context of mutual self-interest.