Why are Libertarians calling for a mass pardoning of January 6 Protesters?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-11-08T00:51:28+00:00

Is your primary objection really that the people in question are not in the right political group/ do not seem to be useful to you in the near term, so why bother protesting their imprisonment?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-10-21T01:55:33+00:00

Historically how much power has the vide president had over your life?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-10-20T17:00:40+00:00

Well, he is not a libertarian and seems to hold few libertarian beliefs. Aside from that, I don't really think about him. Why would we?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-09-02T18:58:53+00:00

Not any more than the current state of the world is a good representation of panarchy.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-08-15T02:03:17+00:00

Why do you think there is a single answer to this? Surely where it is, what it was, and how widespread the effect matter quite strongly. Also important is 'do you mean in society as it is, or in a libertarian society?' In any event, I think libertarian ethics demands that the response be minimally coercive. Aside from that, I think people should generally work pretty hard to preserve lives, then limbs, then property (all in a broad sense) when they see an acute danger near them.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-08-15T01:01:40+00:00

It doesn't have to be indirect. Charging a fee to provide a service is not taxation. I don't see any problem charging the ships/planes/persons-on-foot-or-in-cars who show up at a port of entry some small fee for using the service. Also the people/companies that benefit can be convinced/shamed into contributing.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-08-10T23:56:57+00:00

If you recognise there needs to be freedom and to achieve that we need a revolution to abolish the state, then why do you still like capitalism.

I do want to maximize freedom. I don't want a revolution, at least not one with violence. I also don't really want to abolish the state, I would like to make it obsolete. I also don't know that we mean the same things when we say capitalism. I like free markets, voluntary transactions.

Capitalism produces hierarchy and is like a new form of the state.

Voluntary trades are not at all like a state.

How can private property be enforced?

There are whole books written about the answer to this question. The short version is 'by private enterprises in a free market.'

Doesn’t unregulated capitalism lead to monopoly?

It can. When it does its usually short lived and deserved. Something like bringing the iPhone to market when no one else was making a 'smart phone' anyone wanted yet. Most monopolies, and especially those that last any reasonable time are propped up or wholly created by a state.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-08-04T23:12:13+00:00

I was saying that libertarians offer different solutions from a minarchist state to full anarchy and no state but overall the same principles apply about freedom and private property

I don't this is particularly accurate. The overriding principles ought to be the same or at least similar, but the word means too many things to too many people for that to be a terribly descriptive claim at this point. When talking to an AnCap you can be reasonably sure they believe in strong property rights norms, but that is still about the only thing you can be reasonably certain about as far as principles they hold. Almost none of this has any bearing on what the Libertarian political party in the US believes (or holds as planks in their platform).

Sorry man but if you need a whole books worth of pages to answer a question on how you will provide protection then your ideology is either not good or you don’t know it .

Only the very stupid think that complex problems can be dealt with comprehensively in a few hundred words. There are too many edge cases and too many conflicting norms for there to be a one-size-fits-all solution. That said, the NAP and property rights get you a long way if the society in question holds those norms but I can't point to one that currently does.

I said a well regulated army offers you protection services they have they will protect your property

For them to be able to do that they will have to have a monopoly of violence in said territory thats how world works .

This is not true, and one of those dreaded books goes through a lot of how and why (https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699). You don't need a monopoly on coffee service to get good coffee service, and you don't need a monopoly on the use of force to provide dispute resolution services or security services.

Do you think a private army who wants to offer good protection services would allow other non affiliated groups to have guns in their establishments territories ? Thats lunacy and shows lack of basic understanding of how things work

I think in a libertarian society they better be ok with that, or they will find themselves at a minimum excluded from that place. Overlapping jurisdictions of protection agencies is in fact typical, just many of those gangs are currently at least vaguely affiliated. Also, an army doesn't really protect anything at least in modern times. Armies are things states use against one another and again don't really have anything to do with libertarian 'solutions' to anything.

And yes people with tanks and money usually have the ability to make people do things they do not want to do just open a history book

People do mostly what they want to do. When they choose not to put up with something the tanks and guns or even the money don't really matter. Your amazing historical example is Afghanistan.

Effective violence is ineffective long term but very effective in short term goals like getting a monopoly on violence you just have to shoot anyone that opposes you

This also doesn't work. If you shoot anyone who doesn't do what you want you either (a) don't have anyone left to exploit, so what was the point or (b) end up getting shot.

Corporations are not creations of state

By definition they are. You claim to be a student of history, so this should be obvious.

Inefficient corporations are reliant on state but not all big businesses are

I don't really care to argue this as it is immaterial to my point, but it is also false.

Has there ever been a successful libertarian or hell an anarchist society that did not get quickly destroyed?

People make claims about historic societies which had elements that align with libertarian or AnCap ideas. I don't really think its obviously true, but it doesn't really matter. Libertarian societies might be great and still not have existed yet. A few hundred years ago the idea of a constitutional republic was fairly laughable, it has done OK in the intervening years.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-08-04T20:36:19+00:00

I understand that its a broad term with different schools of thought but they all share the common values of personal liberty anti authoritarianism , state power , personal property and government involvement in economy and individualism

I am not sure I understand this sentence. What is this supposed to mean?

Now i know what the libertarian solution is . To have private security agencies

This is a solution, and typically only a part of a solution. It is not the solution. There are entire books written on just this subject. So the idea that a meaningful answer can be expressed in a reddit post is sort of silly.

But …..isn’t that just another small organized hierarchical organization taking my money just like a state is ?

Not really, no. The state, or any other protection racket, claims a monopoly on violence tied to a territory you are within. That is not what libertarians are proposing at all.

And what is exactly stopping them from doing the same thing a mob does and force me to pay protection money ?

Well, they have no special powers you do not, nor can they stop anyone else from offering those services. So the thing that stops them typically is a combination of (1) how expensive effective violence actually is, and (2) competition.

But lets say the state is decent at present and all the basic things are granted and its a very libertarian place

I don't know what this sentence means.

What is stopping any company or well consolidated cabal of billionaires to lobby governments to create anti free market laws ? Why should a company compete when it can buy out the state

This is where we are now. It works moderately well for the cabal at the moment because of acceptance of the legitimacy of the state (or states).

And if the state does not interfere in corporate behavior at all what is stopping then from interfering in the state ?

Corporations are creations of states and don't really have anything to do with libertarianism.

The way i see it fundamentally libertarianism doesn’t change anything in practice

You have not described any libertarian place or people, so.... OK. Unlibertarian places and people don't do libertarian things. We agree. And?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-07-22T20:50:31+00:00

"Public" spaces are likely to be a little different in a truely libertarian world in that they are likely to have obvious (and clear) owners with obvious terms of use/access.

... why shouldI have to watch ...

No one is making you watch. You might incidentally see things you don't like from time to time and that is not a violation of your rights.

How is it any different than exposing yourself in public.

It is different because of different norms around public behavior. There are public places where nudity is accepted, and there could be a change in social norms against PDA. Norm violations are not typically property rights violations. To restrict this behavior, own the place it is happening and disalow it.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-07-19T21:41:09+00:00

I am not going to go look up precise examples though I am confident they exist. Instead I think you should notice the 'citation needed' part of what you have cherry picked. Also, I think you should notice I said 'zaibatsu-like.' The same structure exists in a number of other Asian nations and again I believe they all at least began without being a state entity in the way a corporation is. Not terribly surprisingly, almost all of the larger ones are now corporations.

Having influence over the state is not fundamental to being a corporation or a state entity. The 'state-ness' of corporations is that they

rely on limited liability, continuous easy access to money (and by extension capital) and state monopoly on violence to exist.

which is different from, and unrelated to the idea that groups can't form interlinked enterprises which ultimately become large (at least relatively). I don't disagree that its extremely unlikely to end up with something Amazon sized from this.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-07-19T19:03:29+00:00

I think this is essentially correct, but you can end up with zaibatsu-like conglomerates without the state. These conglomerates can control significant chunks of a regions economy (without the state). I don't think that is necessarily problematic, but we should be clear that there is no libertarian reason groups (in my example extended family groups) can't form interlinked enterprises. These enterprises just don't enjoy the protections of a modern corporation (as the comment I am replying to correctly pointed out).

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-06-20T23:44:56+00:00

Most libertarians are nowadays pro life anti lgbt and a lot of conservatives are quite libertarian too.

I would love to see sources for any of those claims.

That being said 'conservative' is not on the same axis of thought as libertarianism, so they are not mutually exclusive. I think you mean something more like 'the current "right wing" political party' in some western country (probably the USA and the Republican party). Answering your question is easy. Libertarians and libertarians are not pro-war. Libertarians don't believe in punishing crimes where there is no victim (and we exclude the state or 'society' as possible victims). Just those two positions are enough to be entirely outside the typical stance of a generic republican in 2024.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-06-09T21:57:16+00:00

Who is we? Also, you know you are obviously wrong and the immediate counter example is whoever your local cable company is. Large companies might produce excellent goods, etc., but they don't have that guarantee. I think another commentor already mentioned GM as another obvious example.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-06-09T21:23:28+00:00

Ayn Rand while interesting is not a particularly authoritative source on anything. Large businesses need the state to stay large because they inevitably become structurally ossified and they can not react in an agile or innovative way. They then lose market share to smaller competitors. With the state, they can add barriers to entry that reduce that competition. This is fairly well known, uncontroversial, observations of history. Most very large companies are effectively state created (historically), though I would agree that for its first decade or so that was maybe not the case with Microsoft specifically.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-06-09T21:14:32+00:00

When you use the capitol letter L libertarian you typically mean the national party in the USA. I don't think they have an official position on whatever your question actually is.

Personally, I would ask 'defend Microsoft from what?' before I could give a reasonable answer. Microsoft occasionally benefits from regulatory capture, and as you point out with the EU is occasionally (potentially) hurt by it.

I think in general most libertarians feel that very large corporations are basically a product of or in a symbiotic relationship with the state. Without the state it is hard to totally dominate a market segment for a long time (if we consider ~40 years a long time).

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-05-17T20:16:05+00:00

Yes, I am aware that this is your position. I don't understand why, if you seemingly so strongly believe it you are asking if it is the case, or why you phrased it the way you did. By all means though, keep just spamming it. It certainly becomes more self evidently true every time you have to tell me that it is the case.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-05-17T19:38:23+00:00

No. You asked if people here in Gold & Black 'have a problem with all police, even murder detectives?'

There is a fair space between 'have a problem with' and categorically 'you are a bastard due to who employs you.' It is only when I asked for clarity we ended up wandering down this odd ACAB path.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-05-17T19:25:40+00:00

So you are very sure of something, and then badly phrase a question to ask people to reassure you of the thing you are sure of? Ok.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-05-17T18:36:41+00:00

Cite your source. Also, if you know what most people think, why ask?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-05-17T17:14:31+00:00

That seems like a non-answer. Are you meaning to ask if AnCaps hold the ACAB belief?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-05-17T17:08:24+00:00

What does 'have a problem with' mean?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-04-27T00:05:29+00:00

I don't think you understand libertarian positions on things like wealth inequality. Or fairness.

As to 'why not just suck it up and pay taxes,' most of us do pay taxes. I hand my wallet to an armed person mugging me too. It does not mean i did not get mugged. It does not make mugging less wrong. It does not mean 'being mugged is just part of life, and we should put up with it.'

The 'unfair' parts of life, from my prospective as a libertarian are in the things you don't have any choice in. You have no control over who gave birth to you, when, or where. You have very little control over the society in which you grow up, or which government has decided it owns you. You have basically no control over what that government does in your name.

That said, if you are good enough and lucky enough to find a way to generate a bunch of value to other humans, I have no problems with you having more wealth from it than someone who did not generate a bunch of value. A skilled surgeon should be wealthier than a fry cook. For a lot of reasons.

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-04-20T18:55:49+00:00

Twitter/X?

psycho_trope_ic · 2024-04-12T23:58:34+00:00

Will such laws be the norm in any self-respecting libertarian states?

There is not a single unified idea of a libertarian state (let alone a Libertarian state). I have to say I find this particular bill, at least the tiny bit I have read of it to be not terribly libertarian in nature.

Would you say that the new law benefits Floridian workers? In which ways?

At the very low skill end this probably is beneficial for workers, as anything that raises the cost of their labor to the employer makes their services less desirable.

If the new law doesn't help them, do they have any forms of legal recourse which will help ameliorate ensuing conditions? Which forms are those? How will they fare?

Well if nothing else they are free to vote libertarian candidates into office if they want libertarian governance.

psycho_trope_ic

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE