«12. . .3,4783,4793,4803,4813,4823,4833,484. . .3,6073,608»
Hello, LAISSEZ FAIREHOLM Nations, I am the ambassador from the Versutian Federation. I am a colony of Daldeia, member of Versutian Federation,. Have any questions/concerns feel free to message me.
Morphine should work
I remember back a few years ago, taking the political compass for the first time. I landed about -3, -5. Of course this was when I was only vaguely libertarian, and only cared about social issues. After reading, searching, and philosophizing, I'm now about 8, -6.
Social Democratic views would probably sprout from people only going with their emotions and then finding stuff to back their emotions up. People who don't go by emotions become not conservative or social liberals, but libertarianism, communism, fascism, etc. Libertarianism alone if you go by pure reason. Probably the main reason why there are so many social democrats (and coincidentally high schoolers) is probably that former fact.
Says the guy with the Soviet flag.
"However, Ayn Rand had way to many authoritarian sympathies"'
Such as?
"and hated...HATED...anarchism."
She didn't think that anarchism would lead to a free society! You may disagree with her, of course, but she's not disagreeing with anarchism because she wanted an unfree society.
"Ayn Rand advocated for egoist-esque philosophy, and minimal libertarianism. She is not a good example of libertarianism."
There is nothing about advocacy for an egoist ethics that makes her a poor example of libertarianism.
"According to her libertarianism is her worst enemy."
Source?
"So I don't think that would make her a libertarian, does it?"
Of course it may. We are not obligated to use that term precisely as she did.
Minarchism is libertarianism. Most libertarians tend to be minarchists, out of principle like the Nozick, or out of utilitarianism/consequentalism like Mises. The state is compatible with libertarianism. Statism, or the belief that the state should rule everything, is not.
Statism is the belief that the state should control economic policy, social policy or both to some degree. Not everything.
If someone supports the state in any form, and any size, they are a statist.
Statism is binary. Either you do, or you do not support the state.
Minarchists are scared, usually for bullshit reasons. But who will build the roads?!?I? Or more commonly, national defense, "public goods," and "free riders."
In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
Minarchists are being strawmanned here. One can be a minarchist for principled reasons. If you disagree with those reasons, that's your own business. That doesn't make minarchists unprincipled or unlibertarian.
Ugh. Okay, to some degree. Which is too much in my mind.
That's false. The national defense is best served by the state. A corporate entity, or even a group of them, cannot stand toe to toe with the military might of the state. It would be some huge arse corporation to ever be able to stand toe to toe with a state's military, and by then, why not just make it a state in it's own right? Why not just tax people instead of deal with all the extra complications of parasitism and money?
That was not the claim. The claim was that minarchists are not statists. That is false. Minarchists are statists.
That is your opinion.
A group of business can easily raise enough capital to compete. You also have various problems of logistics (like the lack of a capital to conquer), no government to take over, etc.
Lets not forget that the state's military might is funded by extortion, and not a voluntary decision to protect lives, health and property.
States don't need a capital or government to conquer, as we have seen with American's ventures into the Middle East. They just need to steamroll nations until they find and destroy what they are looking for, terrorists or military agencies, and fvck the rest of the citizenry.
Even if the state's military might is funded by extortion, it could easily lead to that in Ancapistan when a corporation decides everyone who lives in X radius is benefiting illegitimately from their service and threatens them to either pay up or be robbed through the polycentric court system, of which a corporation would definitely have more money and power over a few individuals.
A few individuals? And how did this business gain its power?
American adventures show how a well funded and trained military is sometimes meaningless.
You know...other individuals who are happily paying for their "service," and don't give a rats arse about others who complain, going so far to defend the company (and thus it's reputation).
Sounds like a lot like content taxpayers deriding tax protesters...
How does it do that? Why would a military agency have any incentive to not cause collateral damage if it meant having to face responsibility (and the costs associated)?
Liberated Territories, tell me what is the nightmare of a statist army. Is it another statist army, with somewhat lesser firepower? Or is it a bunch of private military companies, armed with high tech weaponry, and operating like guerrillas?
I believe the answer to be pretty obvious. Regular armies failed to defeat very, very ill equipped guerrillas in the past ( think of the US-backed Cuba Regime vs Castro and his bunch ). If a bunch of half naked, delusional commies with barely relevant weapons can manage it, it is hilarious to think that highly trained, well equipped private forces won't.
And even if a State manages to defeat the PMCs ( extremely unlikely ): imagine how weaponized a "propertarian" society would be. Occupation would be a nightmare.
And you know, if you're going to make an argument about decentralized armies being bad, well, I'm afraid Napoleon already proved you wrong.
http://jim.com/anarchy/defense_against_states.htm
Private companies also provide relevant answers to problems. What do you think was needed to neutralize Bin Laden and his tools?
1) A full on attack, that caused enormous civilian casualties, and mobilized tens of thousands of troops without a true goal ( Nation building... )
2) A tiny Special Operation, involving a hundred of highly trained troops who'd have climbed the mountains to neutralize Bin Laden and his 300 hundred ill equipped idiots?
Companies must answer to their clients. US citizens wanted the death of Bin Laden. They did not wish for afghan people to be blown up ( the non-idiots anyway ). The State did not want his death. He was an excuse, until they had to kill him. French special forces had him on sight in 2001. They were not given the order to open fire.
Companies do not make insane decisions based on politics.
In both cases that's when the people will start to resist. Snowden & hackers, right to bear arms, militias, several military companies etc is something what the local people can do to stop the invaders. The government or the aggressing military corporation would be seen as unpleasant and people would stop buying their services -- or try to. It would be very difficult for them to get new customers. There are also other military companies and militias that could stop a military corporation from using extortion.
Happy birthday to The Glove!
Who is "The Glove"? Anyway, happy birthday, I suppose.
To respond at everyone at once.
The danger of private armies and defense agencies is the potential negligence that may result in having the ability to use force and potentially aggression that cannot be regulated within the confines of the free market. If a libertarian state comes into existence, then it is because the people willed it in. Wouldn't it be better for the people then to monopolize the use of force to serve propertarian principles than leave it to a few companies who could usurp it to their own gains? I do not buy that reputation would solve this one - maybe reputation would work for other things, but not for the use of aggressive force through the military and police. The Roman Empire did not care whether or not it was hated because their armies would steamroll through the world. Why would Security Solutions Inc. be any different? Not only that, but to keep their clients safe, private defense agencies would be inclined to preemptively strike perceived threats, and unless their threats are also clients (leaving the company with the ethical decision to support whoever is more profitable to be alive), they wouldn't give fvck all about the consequences. Even if we assume that Snowdens will start popping out, denouncing the corporation for it's unethical practices, etc. if they client gets the service, why should they care? No, instead we'll have people shifting from service to service, seeking out who is the most likely to defend them against hostile agencies, and encouraging the neutralization of others until the guns are pointed at them, which then they'll switch again. It would be madness. The efficiency of these armies would make them that much more scary - in these kinds of wars without borders, capitals, or governments, people would not feel secure and everyone would be a target, whose quickly shifting alliances would only be the security they have in a land without a state.
Because wars of aggression are extremely expensive and rarely profitable. The US has spent trillions to barely (and not even) control a couple of small, technologically backwards areas. Why would a for profit enterprise even attempt it?
Gary Dwayne Payton (born July 23, 1968) is an American former professional basketball point guard. He is best known for his 13-year tenure with the Seattle SuperSonics, and holds Seattle franchise records in points, assists, and steals. He has also played with the Milwaukee Bucks, Los Angeles Lakers, Boston Celtics and Miami Heat, the last with whom he won an NBA championship. He was nicknamed "The Glove" for his excellent defensive ability.
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=330
Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.
«12. . .3,4783,4793,4803,4813,4823,4833,484. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
