According to my brother, taxation is stealing

[Darth Servo]

For sake of simplicity in arguing, I like to put it this way:

You can either give the government 25% a year, or bandits come every 4 years and take everything.

It just so happens to come out even.

Not really since the govt puts a healthy chunk of that back into improving society and helping the individual the cash was taken from while the bandits usually just use it to feed their drug habbit, improve their car stereo, etc.

[Jew]

For sake of simplicity in arguing, I like to put it this way:

You can either give the government 25% a year, or bandits come every 4 years and take everything.

It just so happens to come out even.

Not really since the govt puts a healthy chunk of that back into improving society and helping the individual the cash was taken from while the bandits usually just use it to feed their drug habbit, improve their car stereo, etc.

Come on, Darth Servo. You know better than to argue with a pithy saying. Just admit that wilfulton's witticism has won the debate.

[drachefly]

It's very odd to me that so many here seem to have a definition of 'libertarian' which excludes almost all of the actual libertarians I've heard of who ever get vaguely close to elected.

There was a candidate for governor of New Jersey, for example, who pointed out that while he believed that the 'free market' is the ideal, that the unregulated market is not this idealized free market. In other words, he wanted to keep (certain) market regulations to bring the actual market better into line with the ideal.

Sure, he was against some services I think are the government's business (public libraries, housing projects, etc.), but he was for others that clearly are (law enforcement/criminal justice system, fire departments, road maintenance, environmental protection). If he wasn't completely lying, he was very far from anarchism, and, as far as I can tell, pretty far from minarchism as well.

[Darth Servo]

If he wasn't completely lying, he was very far from anarchism, and, as far as I can tell, pretty far from minarchism as well.

Who here is saying that libertarianism == anarchism?

[Jew]

If he wasn't completely lying, he was very far from anarchism, and, as far as I can tell, pretty far from minarchism as well.

Who here is saying that libertarianism == anarchism?

I think Stas Bush was implying that libertarianism is synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, and thus is incompatible with minarchism. It's true that some libertarians can be classified as anarcho-capitalists (which is pretty close to anarchism), but in my experience most libertarians are minarchists.

[K. A. Pital]

I think Stas Bush was implying that libertarianism is synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, and thus is incompatible with minarchism.

The anarcho-capitalist wing certainly thinks that way.

Perhaps they're not the most numerous, but I would not say that they're not influent in libertarianism. Many of them have been working at the very beginnings of this political idea. As I mentioned before, even minarchism itself owes a lot to anarchists (from both sides of the political spectrum) and was started by anarchists.

A lot of Randists/Objectivists running around, however, and these are certainly of the anarchist ilk. Isn't Randism one of the most influent "philosophies" which underpine libertarianism? If so, that's just sad.

[Jew]

A lot of Randists/Objectivists running around, however, and these are certainly of the anarchist ilk. Isn't Randism one of the most influent "philosophies" which underpine libertarianism? If so, that's just sad.

Rand is not an anarcho-capitalist. She argued strenuously against anarcho-capitalism, saying it was silly and absolutely impractical to have a bunch of competing governments offering their services. I can go find the specific essay if you'd like.

[Darth Wong]

True, but Rand's underlying philosophical argument was that "society" is the enemy of individual people and ethics itself. That dovetails nicely into anarcho-libertarian bullshit.

[Jew]

True, but Rand's underlying philosophical argument was that "society" is the enemy of individual people and ethics itself. That dovetails nicely into anarcho-libertarian bullshit.

She would probably say "collectivism is the enemy." It just happens that the societies of the world are largely collectivist.

[K. A. Pital]

I can go find the specific essay if you'd like.

I think I've read it, but please, you're welcome. It just happens that most Randists I've met either in real life or online are anarcho-capitalist. Perhaps they haven't been reading their own teacher all that well then

[Darth Wong]

True, but Rand's underlying philosophical argument was that "society" is the enemy of individual people and ethics itself. That dovetails nicely into anarcho-libertarian bullshit.

She would probably say "collectivism is the enemy." It just happens that the societies of the world are largely collectivist.

That's because contrary to her bullshit, there are plenty of situations where collectivism works. We've known that since the fucking Greek phalanx.

Decrying collectivism in all its forms, for all situations, is just idiotic. There are times when sharing and duty works better than individual self-interest.

[Jew]

That's because contrary to [Ayn Rand's] bullshit, there are plenty of situations where collectivism works. We've known that since the fucking Greek phalanx.

I understand your point, but military formations have nothing to do with collectivism. Rand talked about collectivist vs. individualist ethics, not collectivist vs. individualist military tactics.

[Darth Servo]

That's because contrary to [Ayn Rand's] bullshit, there are plenty of situations where collectivism works. We've known that since the fucking Greek phalanx.

I understand your point, but military formations have nothing to do with collectivism. Rand talked about collectivist vs. individualist ethics, not collectivist vs. individualist military tactics.

The whole > sum of its parts is true in plenty of fields besides combat tactics.

[Jew]

That's because contrary to [Ayn Rand's] bullshit, there are plenty of situations where collectivism works. We've known that since the fucking Greek phalanx.

I understand your point, but military formations have nothing to do with collectivism. Rand talked about collectivist vs. individualist ethics, not collectivist vs. individualist military tactics.

The whole > sum of its parts is true in plenty of fields besides combat tactics.

Well sure, I don't disagree with that. I just think it's disingenuous to cite a military formation when criticizing a theory of ethics. There are other, more suitable examples that can be used.

[Darth Wong]

Well sure, I don't disagree with that. I just think it's disingenuous to cite a military formation when criticizing a theory of ethics. There are other, more suitable examples that can be used.

How the fuck is it dishonest, moron? A code of ethics has to work in the real world, so the question of establishing practical precedent for the utilitarian effectiveness of collectivism is hardly irrelevant or dishonest. Or do you think that analogy is somehow disallowed from discussion?

[Jew]

Well sure, I don't disagree with that. I just think it's disingenuous to cite a military formation when criticizing a theory of ethics. There are other, more suitable examples that can be used.

How the fuck is it dishonest, moron? A code of ethics has to work in the real world, so the question of establishing practical precedent for the utilitarian effectiveness of collectivism is hardly irrelevant or dishonest. Or do you think that analogy is somehow disallowed from discussion?

Well, what immediately comes to mind is that even in a perfectly-Randian world, a military could still use a phalanx formation without violating any ethical principle. I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand's screed against collectivism never mentioned anything about military tactics, and was never meant to be extended into that unrelated field.

I'm not even sure that a phalanx counts as collectivism either, according to Rand's definition. It's just a military tactic, nothing more or less. Now, a military is usually organized and run according to collectivist ideals, so that might be a good example. I'd hate to see an army run on individualist ethics--there would be no discipline at all!

[Darth Wong]

I'm not even sure that a phalanx counts as collectivism either, according to Rand's definition.

That's precisely the problem; Rand carefully segregates her system of ethics so that its catastrophic consequences wouldn't ever have any negative impact o her. But a real system of ethics should be able to generate some kind of useful recommendation in any situation; this is why we examine ethical systems by putting them through hypothetical scenarios. In her case, it doesn't even survive many real-world scenarios.

It's just a military tactic, nothing more or less. Now, a military is usually organized and run according to collectivist ideals, so that might be a good example. I'd hate to see an army run on individualist ethics--there would be no discipline at all!

Precisely the point. If Randism were a real ethics system, it would generate recommendations that would be useful even to Joe Soldier, every day in his job.

[Jew]

I can go find the specific essay if you'd like.

I think I've read it, but please, you're welcome. It just happens that most Randists I've met either in real life or online are anarcho-capitalist. Perhaps they haven't been reading their own teacher all that well then

I promised to find the specific article, so here it is. I apologize for the delay. This passage stuck in my mind because Rand is so strong in her criticism of anarcho-capitalism. I typed it up myself so any typos are my own.

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called "competing governments." Accepting the basic premise of modern statists--who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business--the proponents of "competing governments" take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to "shop" and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would produce.

Once cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is so devoid of any understandiing of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones' house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.