Of course I do, those are my people.
If I’m an anarchist, I’m the worst one ever because I don’t want anarchy. I just want to see the system run in a way that’s more desirable to me.
Alright, I really have to go though. I promise I’ll come back later and take the time to answer each one of your replies as I do appreciate them. Later.
Which would consist of… yes, you being ruler?
Psst nonsense! Libertarian morals stop a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mussolini from gaining control and violating others right to individual choice.
You should not have a choice to be a slaveowner. Why? Because being a slave owner deprives others of freedom and choice. You should not have a choice to be an axe murderer. Why? Because being an axe murderer deprives others of life and therefore the choice of how to live it. You should not have the choice to walk into your neighbors home eat all the food he has and take a crap on his carpet. Why? Because that deprives him of freedom and choice.I can go on like this all day, but I won’t.
However, let’s adopt a messiness and inefficiency standard. Isn’t a society where slavery creates less efficient workers and people have to fear being murdered by axe murderers and people have to worry about you sneaking into their house to eat their food and crap on their carpet both a more troubled/messy society and a less economically efficient society? Therefore shouldn’t we illegalize rights violations of this sort in order to create a efficient and less messy society?
So you can adopt a pseudo-pro-rights position on the basis of creating a less messy and more efficient society.
By exhibiting sympathy for the annihilation of people you share religous/cultural kinship with you are expressing a moral principle, namely that it is bad/wrong to annihilate people who you share a religous/culural kinship with. Can you deny this?
I’m not saying your an anarchist. I’m saying that if you really believed that “Force was messy” and that voluntary economies are more efficient ways of achieving your ends then you’d have to be a market anarchist in order to be consistent. Of course you are not thinking consistently…yet.
No, they do not. You can choose to perform immoral acts.
Are you quite done being silly?
Reality limits choice. I cant chose to travel above speed of light.
C’mon, you are not even try to come with more than half-assed arguments.
You must be using some weird definition of morals.
You seem to have made a little mistake…People who violate rights are criminals, not ‘libertines’…
Wow. The one person to actually do something that should be respected - admit when he think he was wrong - and all this board can do is jump down your throat.
Way to give up the carrot for the stick, people.
Yeah, we’re just a bunch of morals-deniers here. By the way Lord Rochester are you suggesting that people should act in a particular way ?
’
I’m saying that people that want to build a movement based on a pro-business philosophy should probably use better marketing tactics than the ones displayed here.
He’s a libertine & if he violates someones rights within a Libertarian society, he’s going to find it harder to get away with it than he would currently. That was my point.
Libertine: n.
- One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person.
Bro-business philosophy would be Corporatism. Do you see any of that here? [8-)]
Fixed, but you’re going to be ignored, regardless, imo.
It’s this openmindedness and willingness to revise your views that will allow you to come to the truth. I don’t see why others aren’t commending you.
Now as to how a society can work without centralized force, those are practical points about which much has already been written. Since they are practical, real-world points, they are a bit more complicated and not short enough to explain here, but here is a convenient reading list that includes some short articles that make good cases all by themselves. You say you’re not interested in anarcho-capitalism, but don’t mind the name - it’s just anti-monopolism. If you’d like to know how a society can work without centralized force, that school of thought has the best set of arguments and explanations you’ll find.
I agree. Morality seems to me a useless additional construct, or just a semantic obfuscation. It needlessly confuses people.
We have a sense of empathy (but we can’t rely on everyone having it), and we have self-interest and logic. It seems that all the conclusions of “morality” that are relevant to political economy can be derived from those basic aspects of human nature, without the confusing complications. For example, the non-agression principle is attractive because it would outlaw any violation of the life, liberty, and property of us, everyone we care about, and who could ever benefit us. It is further attractive because it organizes society in an extremely efficient way. Both the attractive “moralistic” and utilitarian aspects only require self-interest to explain. Of course, the NAP is also attractive to the sense of empathy most people have even for complete strangers, but that is just icing on the cake.
What is behind that thought, nature or nurture?
Oh noes, whatever will I do without my freedom to steal, rape, pillage and plunder. [8-)]
I think Jacob Bloom really likes what we talk about, but he doesn’t know how it would work in practice. It’s not that it’s easy to say “It will work perfectly”, but I really don’t have any doubts that an anarcho-capitalist society is possible. You should always consider that any political system (for example, republicanism, democracy, dictatorship), always rest in the passive consent of the population. Nowadays, almost every single person I know have the idea that “democracy is not good, but is the better system we’ve made”, and that “capitalism is immoral and unjust, but it’s the only system that works so far”. This people are so blinded that they can’t even think for a minute what other ideologies exist.
Anarcho-capitalism (which is the most radical name, because anarchy implies “chaos”, and capitalism, “benefit for the capitalists”) or free-market libertarianism (this one sounds nicer xD) comes naturally from individuals recognizing their mutual rights of private property, and making voluntary contacts. Everything follows from that. As society have a need for protection and courts, people will voluntarily do that tasks, and they will make profit from it, or do it for free, but in a voluntary way.
But every society can dissappear. Even the biggest empires and dictatorships. I just don’t think (as many others naively do) that anarcho-capitalism can provide the best army (maybe, if the ancap society is very big and has achieved tremendous techonological advance, but I still don’t think that it can win a war to a, let’s say, a very effective dictatorship), but that is not the main idea. If an ancap society is established, it will be the clearest example for other societies to follow.
And we should not forget the main idea behind anarcho-capitalism. It’s not private property rights, and it’s not the non-aggression principle. It’s voluntaryism. An ancap society should (and must) be established by the voluntary consent of every individual. And it’s right, they may share the same values, let’s say, individualism and the highest political end. Just like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, they will propagate their moral code to every one, because everyone will notice that this is beneficial to everybody, at least, who share the same ends. Only after the first establishment of a truly ancap society, we can expect the world to follow. As democracy did, as communism tried, but this way, it will be voluntarily.
Look at my signature and tell me how good limits choice. It’s what’s bad that limits choice. (why do I feel like I’m in a kindergarden class using these words in such simple ways… yes Johnny that’s bad, Bob that was very good..)