I’m sorry but I’m not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean.
I have to say that Gandhi survived for years, even several assassination attempts, continually adhering to personal pacifism. Theres context, he didnt think everyone ought to be a pacifist bar all else, but even so. Ideas are far more powerful than violence.
@ Autolykos
Most of us don’t have a problem with violence per se.
It’s nice to see someone around here willing to admit that. Most people seem tricked into the belief that libertarians promote peace, which tends to aggrivate my sensibilities.
@ Neodoxy
Hashem, if you could have any system put into place (without changing fundamental human nature, I.E some will still want to use force against other people) then what system would you impose exactly?
I’d impose no change, except maybe that everyone must read 100 non-fiction books instead of going through public education, and that the topics must vary between philosophy, history, biology, math, logic, and maybe a few others, at least several different authors and schools of thought per subject. Beyond that, I would choose to be the most powerful person in the world.
@ Malachi
By statism I probably mean hegemony.
I really dont think people have been suggesting that.
Maybe not, but all these topics assume that ancapism has been established, without considering the types of change which would result in ancapism. People are just like, “OK how would ancapism solve C?” Well, we would only have ancapism because and if X, Y, and Z, in which case C wouldn’t be a problem.
doesnt thought precede action?
I don’t claim to think people will achieve ancapism.
I would like to know your theory on why sudden changes do not occur.
I think what you mean is, you want to understand why I don’t think ancapism will suddenly occur. My answer has been the root of the contention between us for some weeks now: it’s an established tendency of homo sapiens to establish and perpetuate hegemonic dominance hierarchies.
Could you elaborate more on how you don’t feel that libertarianism promotes peace?
Sure. It seems to be a violent system of arbitrary morals enforcement. Thus my submission that private law (assuming the OP was using the term as synonymous with libertarianism) is statism under a different banner.
EDIT: To be clear, and relevant to the OP, private law doesn’t degenerate into statism, rather it is statism with a different moral code.
Hashem, what’s your definition of “peace”?
Pervasive nonviolence.
Hashem you strike me as one of the most confused people I’ve ever read.
He’s just being cranky. Maybe they didn’t have any Hello Kitty costumes left at Party City.
Then I’m sorry for you. Feel free to bring up rational points about why I would be confused from your perspective.
Like, for example, when everyone’s dead?
What?
I’m assuming that means to you the same thing as “complete absence of non-violence” means to me. And in that case, no, libertarianism doesn’t promote what you call “peace”. But I think a libertarian world would be closer to that state of affairs than the statist world we live in today.
With that said, why do you (apparently) consider all violence to be bad?
I’ve thought about this before, anarcho-capitalism can be viewed as just another form of government, though what’s the use of getting caught up with labels? What matters is whether a private law society is superior to the current model, not the terms and slogans people use to describe it - though I suppose for the deontological libertarian “voluntaryists” it’s a legitimate criticsm.
Libertarians don’t promise Utopia. Where service is bad, there’s an opportunity for profits. Even if markets don’t work exactly perfectly, better than government monopoly. Why is it silly to posit the system as a future goal to move towards?
Very well then
[quoteuser=“Hashem”]
It’s nice to see someone around here willing to admit that. Most people seem tricked into the belief that libertarians promote peace, which tends to aggrivate my sensibilities.
[/quote]
What is implied here is that Liberarians, in fact, do not promote peace.
Oxford Dictionary gives these definitions for peace:
1freedom from disturbance; tranquillity:
-2a state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended:
So then, Libertarians, in fact, do not constantly advocate against war, police-statism, state-theft and other systemic aggressions? Are they not the ones whose entire moral code is effectively summed up by non-aggression? Apparently, in order to be considered a peaceful person in Hashem’s eyes, one must be either an Anarcho-Communist (one who will not defend private property by force) or one who would allow an aggressor to dominate himself.
If it is the former, then I think you’ll be sorely disappointed with the AnCom camp, as most of them advocate ‘killing the rich’. As for the latter, if that’s what being a ‘peaceful person’ is, I don’t want to be one; it is indistinguishable from cowardice.
Am I wrong here? Is your ideally ‘peaceful man’ the one who will not defend anything? If Libertarians can’t be considerd peaceful then who the hell in the world can?
@ Autolykos
I was saying that I’m glad to see you acknowledge that people around here aren’t opposed to violence. I said most people seem to be tricked into the belief that libertarianism promotes peace, and I stand by that. I feel that if you asked 100 people who had an opinion on the matter, most people would say it’s generally felt that libertarians promote peace—that is, whatever 100 opinionated people feel the term ‘peace’ to mean within the context of libertarianism. When you asked me what I personally mean by peace, my answer was “pervasive nonviolence”, not “complete absence of violence”.
But I don’t claim to believe violence is necessarily “bad”, whatever that would mean. I can’t fault you for not reading every post I make in every thread, but my general view is that violence is a type of behavior. Either someone will or won’t engage in it, and that decision is made by each person individually without the need to retreat to mystical concepts like god or morality or rights.
@ Buzz Killington
I was saying it’s silly to posit ancapism, that is, just to say “OK start with ancapism, now how does it solve X”. As for why it may be silly to work toward ancapism, well it’s silly because it’s a violent system of arbitrary morals enforcement, which is no improvement over the current situation from my perspective.
@ Hashem
I was going to make a post asking how that would be brought about, but I understand now where you’re coming from. Who cares if the world accepts libertarianism? We can live the lifestyle right now and be peaceful ourselves, regardless of how the world isn’t accepting of it. I’m not saying I whole-heartedly agree with your position, but I do get the picture.
Hashem, you talk about other people not being able to make rational statements and yet you would not prevent violence and statism while at the same time desparing against violence and statism. How do you reconcile these views?
Violence and coercion will only be used in self defense.
@ Jargon
Now I see why you thought I was confused. It’s because you weren’t paying attention to what I’ve been saying, and for that I can’t really fault you.
Is your ideally ‘peaceful man’ the one who will not defend anything?
No, and you’d know that if you read my posts. You thought I was confused because you were confused about my views. Anyone is free to use violence whenever he wants, all I’m saying is that he shouldn’t retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals as justification.
If Libertarians can’t be considerd peaceful then who the hell in the world can?
Who in the hell, indeed.
@ Neodoxy
[you may be seen as irrational while claiming to support rational thought because] you would not prevent violence and statism while at the same time desparing against violence and statism. How do you reconcile these views?
I would personally not like violence used against me, but I’m sure if I was the most powerful person in the world I would’t be opposed to others using violence on my behalf. My main point has been that if anyone wants to promote violence, let him do it without retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals. Just understand why violence is a pervasive tendency among homo sapiens, and why you support it in any given situation, without making excuses.