If we’re honest, the only acceptable Rothbardian, anti-state libertarian answer to any conceivable political question or problem is:
“Abolish the state and the market will fix it.”
We can use flowery and diversified language to hide that inevitability, but coming to any other conclusion than “abolish the state” will simply not fly within the purely libertarian framework.
Don’t you find this lack of nuance a bit unstimulating?
We can theorize what the market alternative would be, no?
Theres always economics, epistomology, sociology, and history of political economy which are all very relevant. and when you get bored with that, usufruct vs private property. please tell me your avatar source for the love of god.
Lol best thread title ever.
We can also promote specific ways that the market could fix the problem as well as how charitable/social entrepreneurship institutions would help deal with the problem. Indeed it’s possible for a voluntaryist to be much more pro-involvement and taking action than a statist is, just in a different way.
I like calling it anarcho capitalism.
It seems less boring.
The word anarcho-capitalism has a zing to it that “libertarianism” doesnt have.
When you get down to it, though, the statist is just as boring. Every stinking solution from a statist can be summed up as “there oughta be a law” or “the government should pay for it.”
Abolish the property and the proletariat will fix it
Abolish the capitalist and the bureaucrat will fix it
Abolish the old regime so the US-installed ‘democratic’ one will fix it
Slogans in general are boring. It’s the reasoning behind them that is fascinating.
I find the belief that we cannot accurately predict all future outcomes so it’s futile to try to plan them in advance quite exciting, however.
When you get down to it, though, the statist is just as boring. Every stinking solution from a statist can be summed up as “there oughta be a law” or “the government should pay for it.”
so you are saying libertarians don’t think there should be private laws against murder enforced by free market systems?
what about contracts, aren’t those laws? is the libertarian soceity going to be without contract and without law?
^^ disputes will be solved in private courts.
and how will private courts solve disputes?law? without law?
there is more to law than government law. there is private law
there is more to law than government law. there is private law
That’s true and I didn’t mean to imply that only statists think there should be laws. My point was that statists themselves don’t see a distinction between legislation and law, and therefore, to most statists, government law is law and the only way for a law to be enacted or enforced is through the government.
so you are saying libertarians don’t think there should be private laws against murder enforced by free market systems?
what about contracts, aren’t those laws? is the libertarian soceity going to be without contract and without law?
Sigh. Not what he meant. He meant laws about regulations +spending et al.
who are these statists?
what about the religous that have their god that has laws for them to follow? churches have their own laws and regulations, and are separated from state governments. a person could go to the church for some laws, and to government for other laws. the separation of church as state is a statist thing, otherwise it would be the church with the abolishment of the state or the combined church state.
person one wants cookies, person two wants donuts, is this saying a statist would say “there should be a law that the two will receive cookies, and the government will pay for those cookies”?
As for the objection that statists are equally boring because they always advocate a state measure: that’s not necessarily true. For example, Milton Friedman, who was most definitely a statist, was quite inventive with his solutions.
In my experience they’re anyone who isn’t an anarcho-capitalist. It’s a silly little pejorative that I think is thrown around far more often than is necessary; it’s like the Keynesian idea of “classical economics” being anybody who disagrees with the “new economics”, or the Marxist concept of a “bourgeois mentality”. It’s just us-versus-them sloganeering.
Private courts will be ruled by common sense.
private courts will be ruled by a book by Thomas Paine?
common sense
so courts will use judgement, but will not use law?
As for the objection that libertarians are equally boring because they always advocate a market measure: that’s not necessarily true. For example, Walter Block, who is most definitely a libertarian, is quite inventive with his solutions.
Im sure they can use a set of laws. I guess i was rambling when i said that they are ruled by common sense.
Youd have interchangeable laws for different types of things.
U may want to check out judge.me
Politics and economics are both boring, but we are hobbyists and generally hobbyists can have rather boring passions in regards to public opinion. It’s a specialization. If it was fun everyone would be doing it.
