[Rushtalk] Myth and Truth About Libertarianism
notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Sat Sep 29 23:15:54 MDT 2012
At 03:38 PM 9/29/2012 -0700, you wrote:
>On 9/29/2012 12:56 PM, Paf Dvorak wrote:
>>At 11:41 AM 9/29/2012 -0700, you wrote:
>>>On 9/29/2012 9:37 AM, Paf Dvorak wrote:
>>>And who is going to make the rules, and who will enforce them?
>>The "rules" are natural law. You should enforce them for you and I for me.
>What in the word is natural law? Where can I
>find that written down somewhere?
Yes it is.
"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex
naturalis), is a system of law that is
purportedly determined by nature, and thus
universal. Classically, natural law refers to
the use of reason to analyze human natureboth
social and personaland deduce binding rules of
moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with
the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not
"good law"; cf. posit) of a given political
community, society, or nation-state, and thus
serves as a standard by which to critique said
positive law. According to natural law theory,
which holds that morality is a function of human
nature and reason can discover valid moral
principles by looking at the nature of humanity
in society, the content of positive law cannot be
known without some reference to natural law (or
something like it). Used in this way, natural law
can be invoked to criticize decisions about the
statutes, but less so to criticize the law
itself. Some use natural law synonymously with
natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale)
"Although natural law is often conflated with
common law, the two are distinct in that natural
law is a view that certain rights or values are
inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue
of human reason or human nature, while common law
is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or
values are legally cognizable by virtue of
judicial recognition or articulation. Natural law
theories have, however, exercised a profound
influence on the development of English common
law, and have featured greatly in the
philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez,
Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius,
Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis
Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich
de Vattel. Because of the intersection between
natural law and natural rights, it has been cited
as a component in United States Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United
States, as well as in the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism
states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law."
>I am sure we'd get a universal consensus on
>interpretation. And therein lies a major
>rub. Each free individual has his or her own
>law, with each individual enforcing it as he or
>she sees fit. The difference between this and vigilantism is ?
Let's start with agreeing on the definition of
natural law before we veer off on a tangent, ok?
>>>>>How long before someone (or many probably)
>>>>>decided they wanted to be boss? History is riddled with same.
>>>>Yes, you are correct. But do you think
>>>>bullies should be able to do this? Don't you
>>>>think one should be able to repel wannabe slave-holder with extreme prejudice?
>>>Hmmm. Perhaps, but who decides when its time
>>>to do that. Incrementalism makes it difficult
>>>to draw that line. And human nature clearly
>>>dictates that not all will see the line in the same place at the same time.
>>True. I guess I would decide for me, and you for you.
>>This is along the lines of the argument RKBA
>>folks use when suggesting everyone should carry:
>>"An armed society is a polite society."
>>If you knew that there was no police force to
>>be a bully with a gun for you if you crossed
>>the line, maybe you'd think twice before crossing it.
>First of all, it is ludicrous to believe that
>everyone would "carry". And if I live in a
>society where I need to, how truly free am I?
I don't know. I think I have the right to carry
and being denied that right makes me not free. As
to ones alleged "need" to carry, I don't think a
collective is authorized to decide what I need.
>And if it is true that "an armed society is a
>polite society", then this great freedom of
>which you write derives from fear, not morality. How free am I then?
I would prefer to know that my rights end at your
nose. Comparing freedom to Utopia is a fools errand. Utopia isn't an option.
And really, don't we all now govern ourselves
with the idea that using force against others is wrong and possibly dangerous?
(please remind me if I've missed your point)
>>>No, it doesn't, and is an exaggeration. But
>>>you already showed above by your suggestion of
>>>"terminate with extreme prejudice" that deadly
>>>force is appropriate even in situations
>>>without the same threat. Where is that line drawn, and how is it enforced?
>>Without the same threat? Stealing the fruits of
>>my labor is a good line. After all, our lives
>>on earth and finite. And what I choose to do
>>with that time should be totally up to me. If
>>you and the majority think some of my time
>>should be spent on things you value, you're
>>wanting to take from me a portion of my life.
>>Just because you aren't taking it all doesn't mean that it's ok.
>I do not want to take anything from you. Never
>hinted that I did. But I have met some people
>who have a pretty warped perception about
>"things being taken from them." Again, this
>boils down to each making his or her own rules
>and having the freedom to enforce them - sound or ridiculous.
You don't want my tax dollars to fund whatever
you think "we" need? You're a rare exception to the norm.
>>My line is drawn at my nose. Don't you know
>>when someone else is in your space? How do you
>>repel someone in your space now? I'm not trying
>>to create a Utopia. Utopia isn't an option.
>I don't terminate them with extreme
>prejudice. And I don't advocate same for
>stealing from me (though I admit it's tempting).
All I'm saying is that you should be able to kill
someone who tries to steal a portion of your
life. Stealing my car and/or demanding a portion
of my wages for taxes is the same as enslaving me.
>>>>This is the argument against private
>>>>ownership of the roads. It is a good question
>>>>and is answered in many libertarian books and
>>>>articles. It really has nothing to do with
>>>>anarchy though, at least not as defined above.
>>>I am not interested in reading the books. The
>>>reason, is that you simply do not provide a
>>>compelling reason to investigate this concept any further.
>>Ok. Well you brought the subject up. I'm not so
>>much a libertarian as libertarians are pro
>>others-government. They say they're for
>>self-government, but not 100%. Maybe Dennis Jr.
>>can answer your question better than I.
>No. You bring this whole issue and concept to the forefront, not Dennis Jr.
No, I don't agree with corporate/company ownership of roads as Libertarians do.
If tomorrow we were suddenly without government,
the roads that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
With that in mind (as opposed to the Utopian
society you seem to belive I want) what is your question on this subject.
>>>>330,000,000 simply can't be free to do
>>>>whatever they want. But that doesn't mean I
>>>>favor what we have today. We have a
>>>>mess. But what you suggest would be an even bigger one.
>>>>I don't think I do. I think we're closer in
>>>>our beliefs on this than you think. (I think) ;-)
>>>>Here is it again for review:
>>>>People everywhere live their lives in anarchy
>>>>wherever they can, that is they make
>>>>arrangements between themselves with no
>>>>government threatening violence to influence
>>>>their decisions. They trade, pick sexual
>>>>partners, enjoy hobbies, buy what suits them
>>>>and makes plans, all without the interference
>>>>of government. Even though they may not
>>>>acknowledge how much they prefer anarchy
>>>>(because they don't understand that the best
>>>>parts of life are lived in the absence of a
>>>>ruler), they will often try to minimize the
>>>>roll of government in their own lives. As
>>>>much as they may support the idea of taxes,
>>>>for example, most of the sheeple will try to
>>>>minimize (within the bounds of the law, of
>>>>course!) how much they have to render unto Caesar.
>>>>Do you disagree?
>>>On what you write in this paragraph, no, I do
>>>not disagree. But I have still read here no
>>>convincing argument that we could survive
>>>without some form of centralized governing
>>>body; there are simply way too many differing
>>>opinions on what is right and on how things should be.
>>I don't see that. I only see straw men (but I
>>answered anyway). Maybe I'm missing something.
>Straw men is an excuse you have made before. is
>this to be your cop-out when you have no
>legitimate answer? These aren't straw men;
>these are but very few of the real issues with
>which the society you promote will have to deal. Your promotion is shallow.
Again, I am promoting nothing. You asked (as an
example) how I would deal with roads. You
suggested that certain people might prevent my
travel upon them. I think I answered that
question: Force should be met with equal force.
You stand in front of me and forbid me to travel
upon "your" road. What made it yours? Did you buy
it from those who stole the land in the first place?
The roads exist. They were evolved from paths. A
government of bullies co-opted these historical
paths and made them theirs. Some were taken by
these thugs via eminent domain. In my perfect
Utopia of anarchism the roads would no longer be
maintained and insured by government. I'm
guessing folks would want to continue to travel
upon them and would tacitly agree to not forcefully *take* them.
notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk