Such statements are highly disingenous, given you are the one defender power in these debates.
You’re a commie, libertine, socialist, hippie.
I think the only people who are entirely unreachable are tax collectors and most members of high elected office. All you need to show them is that they will be better off in a free society.
Wow, I am glad to see an intelectual debate of ideas!
How realistic is this scenario? Who in the right mind would come up with such a silly contract?
But they won’t be better off. How could they be better off without their power?
Wow, so you persist in childishly calling people names and misrepresenting them. You don’t make your side of these debates look good at all by demonstrating an inability to engage people rationally. Well, since you aren’t willing to engage in rational argumentation, I’ll take a pot shot at you: by your own theory of rights, in which rational argumentation in an explicit sense is its prerequisite, I suspect you don’t have any rights, since you have demonstrated an inability to engage in rational argumentation. Therefore, you should be removed from free society (following your wonderful Hoppean logic).
As for the content of the names you’ve called me, I fit none of the descriptions. I’m not a communist, since I support individual and private property and reject Marx’s theory of history and alienation. I’m not a socialist either, since I reject the labor theory of value and hold “petty burgeousie” ideas. I’m not a hippy, since that era is long over and I don’t live on some kind of psychadelic farm. And I’m not a libertine, I don’t even drink alchohol, my sex life is quite boring, and the worst I do is cigarettes and sometimes pot.
Any more blatant misrepresentations you have for me?
By putting a lot of work into it?
Seriously though, I’m living in a village community of about 750 people. The space all those people are currently occupying could easily be homesteaded by one committed individual. I don’t see your problem.
Okay. Jack and Joe believe in wholly unprovable fairy tales and use coercion to get their children to submit to the same sort of irrational belief ? How do you, supposedly a ’ libertarian’, feel about that ?
Almost everyone except tax collectors and high ranking elected officials (i.e. members of congress not named Paul or Flake and the President or Vice President) would be better off. I believe in the power of human liberty. In a free society they can achieve dreams they never thought were achievable. Power is like a hard drug - it is pleasurable but also has nasty side effects as Epicurus pointed out thousands of years ago. True pleasure comes from personal goals that do not involve lording over others.
The fact that people are currently occupying it means it isn’t homesteadable to begin with. I can’t just “homestead” property other people already own. So how does an individual claim ownership over this community without becoming a defacto monarch?
You may believe that, but many people believe in power. Even if they themselves are powerless, they are in awe of power. They will obviously become hysterical when the myths of power are challenged.
Take for example the issue of American imperialism. It may seem obvious that a free society would never engage in such adventures. However there is a group of people who claim to be for liberty that are also full supporters of imperial adventures to “liberate” other countries. They love power more than liberty.
Who on earth would actually risk doing hard drugs? Who in their right mind would become a Navy SEAL, considering how dangerous this is? Who would dare crossing an untamed ocean to settle on some undeveloped land just to pursue one’s wacky religion?
Answer: People with a high time preference, people with a high risk preference, people with a high religious preference.
Libertarianism is about recognizing preferences as subjective. The question is not “who would want to do that?”, but “why should I keep the person from doing that?”.
Really ? 750 people are ALL at once going to voluntary sell their houses/land ?
Your rhetoric is so disingenous as to be laughable, given that you are the one argueing for a myth of power here.
Libertarianism is not about recognizing preferances as subjective. I think you are misunderstanding or blowing up the subjective theory of value, which has to do with economic value, not ethical value. Libertarianism by no means implies that all ethical preferances are completely subjective. If I have the ethical preferance to violate your individual rights, this is not purely subjective and it would obviously contradict libertarianism.
This depends upon HOW they are challenged. There are ways to demonstrate that they already practice liberty in their own lives most of the time. Do they ask a government planning board before they buy a new pair of shoes? Probably not.
Probably, I’m still laughing from the last lot.
It is perfectly possible to support an all-powerful state that practices economic liberalism for utilitarian purposes.
Well, at least you’re semi-honest about being a troll.