Libertarianism is it worth it? - I think its not

[Frederica Bernkastel]

The fact that some people lack the intelligence to engage with these principles doesn't change the fundamental value of those principles.

It does when you have to apply them to reality... I don't think it's good to hold on ideas that clash with every day life. You can feel free to follow those principles, but that won't stop people from being people

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It does when you have to apply them to reality... I don't think it's good to hold on ideas that clash with every day life. You can feel free to follow those principles, but that won't stop people from being people

The principles of libertarianism don't "clash with every day life" unless you are one of those sociopath criminals who violates the rights of others.
Again, libertarianism is not about expecting everyone to be perfect, it's about creating a society in which peaceful people are free to live their lives unmolested, and those who do molest are met with swift, just resistance (i.e. sociopaths, criminals, or others who initiate aggression).
The real issue is that coercive systems like the state allow and enable the very behaviors that libertarianism seeks to eliminate (yes, there will always be criminals as long as human nature doesn't change, but libertarianism is the best possible way to make sure that crime is as costly as possible to the criminal - just because it is probably unrealistic to 100% get rid of crime does not mean that we should stop fighting against crime)

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

The principles of libertarianism don't "clash with every day life" unless you are one of those sociopath criminals who violates the rights of others.

You don't have to be sociopathic to not follow the principles of "personal responsibility, the right to freely associate, and the principle of non-aggression." Lazy people aren't sociopathic, there are plenty of cases where people can't freely associate (you can't choose your family, some societies don't let you leave).
You're making the same mistake as the frog in the "The Scorpion and the Frog" parable.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

there are plenty of cases where people can't freely associate (you can't choose your family, some societies don't let you leave)

Once again, I believe you are missing the point. This is a critique not of libertarianism, but a critique of the coercive systems in place.
Libertarianism does not ignore the reality of people's circumstances, it seeks to remove the structures that prevent individuals from living freely and making their own choices. Authoritarian governments and oppressive social systems, like the ones you mention, are such structures.

You're making the same mistake as the frog in the "The Scorpion and the Frog" parable.

The real flaw is assuming that people can't change their behavior.
I'm not claiming that people won't ever act against their own best interests, but I am emphasizing that aggression and (non-defensive) coercion should never be the solution.
If people violate others' rights, they must be held accountable, but this is a matter of protecting individuals from harm, not a reflection of inherent human nature.

 

[Rome vs Judea]

I honestly don't understand what kind of argument this is supposed to be. Look, it's current year, therefore timeless principles don't matter? Are you one of those communists who believes that math is racist because it was "invented" by white people centuries ago?

The rest of that sentence, "living in a fantasy land of a White super-majority, well behaved minorities, a decent christian common culture", explains what the date had to do with it, retard.

Your "timeless principles" of "non-aggression"..... is that really what time has shown us? That humans aren't aggressive? Delusional. This bullshit would never work in a multi-racial hellhole society based on materialism and greed.

non-anarchist libertarians as libertarians - which I don't. The consistent libertarian must be an anarchist.

Even better, Mr. "No Rulers" here expects his ideology alone to enforce "human rights and personal freedoms". This is the definition of childish nonsense.

Instead, libertarianism is based on universal principles because human rights and personal freedom are not situational or dependent on the complexity of society.

Do these "universal principles" and "freedoms" come from the universe itself? Did you just make them up? Does anyone write them down anywhere? No, that would be like an authority, like starting a state...we can't do that. Do we just repeat them to each other like a mantra? Or more realistically, repeat them like a prayer, praying to the universe to enforce non-aggression and personal freedom (because no one else can!).

every group of people, regardless of background, can coexist peacefully if their rights are respected.

Sure buddy, sure. Have fun when a group of niggers or spics demonstrates their "personal responsibility" all over your property.


This nonsense is just as utopian as communism. "We overthrow the state and live happily ever after, because we are all super principled individuals!!"

Their ideology is better actually. They won't be working for the McJewstein Corporation like your faggoty ass would be. They will be working at a local cooperative, cooperating using their strong principles (you should understand that concept pretty well).


Jews promote Lolbertarianism for one reason:

The slavers want you isolated and alone, without defense.There's nothing lower than an individual.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Once again, I believe you are missing the point. This is a critique not of libertarianism, but a critique of the coercive systems in place.

The principles of libertarianism clash with the fact that majority of humans see aggression, lazinesss, and involuntary association as in their self interest. That's why civilization exists in the first place. They're not going to follow your principles, and because of that, you can't have a society based on that. It's not in their character or their nature. The systems exist for a reason, you know. It's not a coincidence. The majority of humanity have no problem with authoritarianism, and that's something you can not change. Prolyestizing libertarian principles doesn't do much besides make those people to target you. Which explains why human history is largely defined by the former and not the latter.

The real flaw is assuming that people can't change their behavior

I mean, you wouldn't be on Kiwifarms preaching to us if you believed it was possible. Hic Rhodus, hic salta. You can talk all you want about principles, but it doesn't matter when libertarians don't have history or society on their side.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Your "timeless principles" of "non-aggression"..... is that really what time has shown us? That humans aren't aggressive? Delusional. This bullshit would never work in a multi-racial hellhole society based on materialism and greed.

Again, confusing basic principles of liberty with naiveté. The principles of libertarianism are universal, not dependent on race, culture, or the complexity of society.
Aggression exists, but that's why we emphasize self-defense and the protection of property. The idea that these principles would fail because of "materialism and greed" is to misunderstand what libertarianism seeks to eliminate, namely coercive, authoritarian systems that create inequality and oppression.

Do these "universal principles" and "freedoms" come from the universe itself? Did you just make them up? Does anyone write them down anywhere?

The idea that these principles come from nowhere is a strawman. Human rights and freedom are rooted in the inherent nature of society, not arbitrary authority or state institutions. It's not about "praying" to the universe, but applying principles consistently and holding people accountable when they violate others' rights.

Sure buddy, sure. Have fun when a group of niggers or spics demonstrates their "personal responsibility" all over your property.

That is a reflection of the failure of authoritarianism, not of liberty.

This nonsense is just as utopian as communism. "We overthrow the state and live happily ever after, because we are all super principled individuals!!"

The "utopia" retort simply ignores the true issue. Liberty is practical and just. The state is the true source of violence and corruption.

The slavers want you isolated and alone, without defense.There's nothing lower than an individual.

This isn't about isolated individuals being powerless, it's about the power of voluntary communities and the defense of individual rights against the violence of the state.

The principles of libertarianism clash with the fact that majority of humans see aggression, lazinesss, and involuntary association as in their self interest.

This isn't a critique of libertarianism, this is a defense of the current coercive systems, which is exactly the problem.
Even if you were 1000% correct that people naturally gravitate toward aggression, laziness, and involuntary association, that is not acceptable, that doesn't make it right or just.
Even if I would say for the sake of argument that the majority of people historically accept authoritarianism does not justify it, it simply reflects the failure of those systems to teach or enforce principles of freedom and personal responsibility.

I mean, you wouldn't be on Kiwifarms preaching to us if you believed it was possible. Hic Rhodus, hic salta. You can talk all you want about principles, but it doesn't matter when libertarians don't have history or society on their side.

Just because libertarians face opposition doesn't invalidate the principles themselves. If anything, you should know, the more vitriol and unreasonable hate you get, the more likely you hit the nail on the head.
A consistent principle like non-aggression is the foundation for a free and peaceful society, regardless of how much resistance it faces. Change is hard, but that doesn't mean it's not worth striving for.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

This isn't a critique of libertarianism, this is a defense of the current coercive systems, which is exactly the problem. Even if you were 1000% correct that people naturally gravitate toward aggression, laziness, and involuntary association, that is not acceptable,

It's not a defense. It's just reality. You can't beat a royal flush in poker. The rules don't change just because you don't like them.

Just because libertarians face opposition doesn't invalidate the principles themselves

It kinda does when you have such limited time, on this Earth, to do anything. It doesn't make much sense to stop the moon from making waves.

 

[Rome vs Judea]

Human rights and freedom are rooted in the inherent nature of society,

"Source: I made it up."

Your whole religion is based on pure fabrications like this. You are truly delusional.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It's not a defense. It's just reality. You can't beat a royal flush in poker. The rules don't change just because you don't like them.

The elephant in the room is that the "rules of the game" don't need to be as they are. Systems of coercion are not natural, they're human-made and thus can be changed. Unlike poker, most of the rules that govern human societies are not fixed and unchangeable. We have the ability to shape the ones that aren't fixed.
Your point is essentially an appeal to fatalism. I reject this.

It kinda does when you have such limited time, on this Earth, to do anything. It doesn't make much sense to stop the moon from making waves.

I see it the other way around. Because time is short, it's important to push for real change rather than accept a broken system. If everyone thought like you, positive change would never happen.
The goal isn't to stop the moon from making waves, but to create the conditions where those waves don't crush you in the first place.
Look at geocentrism and slavery for bad ideas that were thought to be eternal and unchangeable and everything is futile. The same "arguments" that were used centuries ago against abolitionists are essentially the same "arguments" used against libertarians today.

"Source: I made it up."

Your whole religion is based on pure fabrications like this. You are truly delusional.

Once again you fail to understand the foundational basis of human rights and freedom.
The idea that every person has the right to their own life, property, and to make their own choices is not something that was fabricated by some abstract philosopher
It's a principle that has been central to moral and ethical thinking for millenia.

What is truly delusional here is your dismissal of these principles as "made up"
To deny that individuals have inherent rights to live freely without being aggressed upon is to deny basic human nature and the possibility of a just society. Just because you fail to see the logic behind these ideas does not mean that they are invalid or fabricated.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

It was nice talking to you XL, I don't really agree with you - but I don't want to dog pile you. But, really, just think about it a bit more. History chose Caesar over Cato.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It was nice talking to you XL, I don't really agree with you - but I don't want to dog pile you. But, really, just think about it a bit more. History chose Caesar over Cato.

If you can make a convincing argument, be my guest.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140917062438/http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2589

This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.

Slavery is natural.	Government (as we know it) is natural.
Slavery has always existed.	Government (as we know it) has always existed.
Every society on earth has slavery.	Every society on earth has government (as we know it)
The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.	The people are not capable of taking care of themselves
Without masters, the slaves will die off.	Without government (as we know it), the people will die off.
Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves	Where the common people have no government (as we know it), they are much worse off (e.g., Somalia).
Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.	Getting rid of government (as we know it) would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.
Without slavery, the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.	Without government (as we know it), the people would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.
Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.	Trying to get rid of government (as we know it) is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.
Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.	Forget anarchy. A far better plan is to keep the ordinary people sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.

 

[Party Hat Wurmple]

This isn't a critique of libertarianism, this is a defense of the current coercive systems, which is exactly the problem.

I'll critique libertarianism. Libertarianism is a doomed political ideology. It's a middle of the road, milquetoast ideology. Centrist ideals are and will always be doomed to lose because centrists aren't strong enough to stand by their morals like right wingers. They aren't crazy enough to make radical changes like leftists. In the face of two stronger ideologies, the centrists will always lose. Libertarianism will always fail to make big changes in society, because by nature, centrism and centrists by proxy cannot make changes in society. Libertarianism has existed before, just under other names, and all were doomed ideologies that fade into something else with a new name as time goes on. Worst of all, because of libertarian's centric nature, in times of crisis, libertarians will be forced to abandoned their principles and choose a side. Being a centrist is great until one side's shitty policies comes to your doorstep and destroys your livelihood. I used to be a diehard libertarian. Then Obama cut my paycheck in half. Twice. I will never be a centrist or libertarian again.

The reality is Centrism by nature is weak, it's always been weak, and the day will come when you'll be forced to pick a side. In fact, you've just witnessed that day. How many libertarians hated Trump and were forced to vote for him because Kamala was insane or decided to vote for RFK? Libertarian policies and ideologies are great and nice thoughts to think about, but they're not congruent with the 40-90 years of life and politics you experience. Life will force you to abandon centrist viewpoints, often multiple times.

 

[Rome vs Judea]

fail to see the logic behind these ideas

It's not hard to follow your logic at all, it's just based on nonsense you make up out of thin air. That's the entire problem.

The idea that every person has the right to their own life, property, and to make their own choices is not something that was fabricated by some abstract philosopher
It's a principle that has been central to moral and ethical thinking for millenia.

You don't have an innate right to life in this world.
You don't have an innate right to property in this world.
You don't have an innate right for any personal liberties in this world.

I don't care if people have had these fancy little ideas for millennia, it doesn't make them real or even valuable. This is nothing more than an appeal to consensus and tradition. Gee, what a rock solid "foundational basis of human rights and freedom" you got there. They had to form states to enforce these ideas because they are actually contradicting to the natural order of things since the beginning of time.

You can argue that you like these principles and ideas all day, but to act like they are fundamental laws of nature is DELUSIONAL.

 

[The Ugly One]

I want to ask the question is Libertarianism worth it now as a Political philosophy because as it stands more people are going for more populist candidates like Trump while he was booed at the Libertarian party convention and won bigely in November so is Libertarianism is it worth it or do you throw it in the bin?

In the bin. Libertarianism sounds nice when you're operating under the illusion that the world is full of people who are white, upper-middle-class Americans at heart. What we've realized over the past ten years is that before everything else, your society must be able to decide who's out and who's in, and who's out needs to be kept out by force, whether that means a well-policed border or a well-guarded prison. This requires a government that executes its role effectively. The left does everything it can to curtail government's proper role, and it has made everything worse.

 

[Party Hat Wurmple]

You can argue you like these principles and ideas all day, but to act like they are fundamental laws of nature is DELUSIONAL.

People often forget it took millions of years of evolution for humans to evolve this far. They forget it took thousands of years to create the type of society we have today. It took hundreds of years for America to emerge as a bastion of law and order. It's not natural. Modern society is a glimmering beacon at a pinnacle of millions of years of blood, violence, and struggle against nature itself. Might makes right. Yet people still act like none of that ever happened because they don't experience it.

My parents were appalled that people were happy Luigi killed that CEO and people were rooting for it. I told them, young people see these CEOs as faggots who destroy their lives and futures. It doesn't matter if you think murder is wrong. The law of this world is and always has been: if you piss off enough people, eventually someone will kill you. This guy, pissed off thousands. They asked what this world was coming to that they root for murder, and I told them "What are you talking about? It's always been this way. The fact you think it wasn't, is delusional. This is just what people are like deep down".

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

If you can make a convincing argument, be my guest

I don't think it's necessary to convince you of anything when humanity isn't really on your side here. But one last thing, I think your understanding of slavery is very limited. People who live in North Korea and China certainly don't live in conditions that could be considered anything other than modern slavery. But ignoring that, even in capitalist societies the need to be a slave doesn't require physical restrictions. It happens in the form of money, drugs, public education and even media consolidation by particular actors. The reason why physical slavery is unnecessary is because society invented better ways of control to the point you are oblivious to it. That's also why you don't really get it, and that's fine. The world already solves the problem of solipsism by being harsh towards its believers.

 

[Verdun_Salient]

Completely serious question, are we arguing about libertarianism like we have now, libertarian ideals, or things like Hoppeanism

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'll critique libertarianism. Libertarianism is a doomed political ideology. It's a middle of the road, milquetoast ideology. Centrist ideals are and will always be doomed to lose because centrists aren't strong enough to stand by their morals like right wingers. They aren't crazy enough to make radical changes like leftists. In the face of two stronger ideologies, the centrists will always lose. Libertarianism will always fail to make big changes in society, because by nature, centrism and centrists by proxy cannot make changes in society. Libertarianism has existed before, just under other names, and all were doomed ideologies that fade into something else with a new name as time goes on. Worst of all, because of libertarian's centric nature, in times of crisis, libertarians will be forced to abandoned their principles and choose a side. Being a centrist is great until one side's shitty policies comes to your doorstep and destroys your livelihood. I used to be a diehard libertarian. Then Obama cut my paycheck in half. Twice. I will never be a centrist or libertarian again.

The reality is Centrism by nature is weak, it's always been weak, and the day will come when you'll be forced to pick a side. Libertarian policies and ideologies are great and nice thoughts to think about, but they're not congruent with the 40-90 years of life and politics you experience. Life will force you to abandon centrist viewpoints, often multiple times.

I don't know what kind of libertarianism you've been following, but it's certainly not the one people like me argue for.
Libertarianism is a radical and revolutionary philosophy. The fact that you can even compare it to centrism reflects a misunderstanding of its core values.

If libertarianism is "dude weed lmao" and the USA "Libertarian Party", then I'm afraid that's not what I'm advocating for

The failure you experienced under Obama was not a result of libertarianism being weak, it was the result of a system that doesn't respect individual rights or autonomy. The fact that you had to watch your paycheck get cut is exactly why libertarianism is necessary to push for a world where no one has a right to take what isn't theirs.
Saying that libertarianism will always "fade into something else" is to dismiss the ongoing human struggle for freedom and self-determination. Ideologies that embrace coercion and force may rise and fall, but the principles of liberty will always remain relevant. You say life will force you to abandon your principles - maybe, but that is precisely why holding onto these principles in times of adversity is what matters. A "stronger" ideology that relies on coercion isn't strength, it's a weakness of moral character.

It's not hard to follow your logic at all, it's just based on nonsense you make up out of thin air. That's the entire problem.


You don't have an innate right to life in this world.
You don't have an innate right to property in this world.
You don't have an innate right for any personal liberties in this world.

I don't care if people have had these fancy little ideas for millennia, it doesn't make them real or even valuable. This is nothing more than an appeal to consensus and tradition. Gee, what a rock solid "foundational basis of human rights and freedom" you got there. They had to form states to enforce these ideas because they are actually contradicting to the natural order of things since the beginning of time.

You can argue that you like these principles and ideas all day, but to act like they are fundamental laws of nature is DELUSIONAL.

You claim that these principles aren't "real or valuable", but the fact that they have been central to ethical thinking for thousands of years speaks to their relevance and truth. Just because something isn't convenient to the current order of things or doesn't align with your worldview doesn't make it any less valid. Human rights and personal liberties aren't based on the existence of a state, they're grounded in the idea that individuals are autonomous beings with the capacity for reason, and therefore deserve the right to live their own lives free from coercion.

Your dismissal of these ideas as "fabrications" ignores the reality of human autonomy. The state enforces coercion, not because rights are unnatural, but because the state thrives on violating those rights for its own power. If we followed your logic, we'd be resigned to a world where might makes right, where only those who can impose their will on others have any claim to what's theirs. This is exactly what libertarianism rejects: the notion that some people, by force or manipulation, have a right to violate others' rights.
These ideas aren't delusional, they're a challenge to the current order of things, an order built on the subjugation of the individual for the sake of the state, masqueraded as "the sake of the collective". The true delusion is believing that such a system is justified just because its iterations have been around for a long time.

In the bin. Libertarianism sounds nice when you're operating under the illusion that the world is full of people who are white, upper-middle-class Americans at heart. What we've realized over the past ten years is that before everything else, your society must be able to decide who's out and who's in, and who's out needs to be kept out by force, whether that means a well-policed border or a well-guarded prison. This requires a government that executes its role effectively. The left does everything it can to curtail government's proper role, and it has made everything worse.

Your argument is built on the premise that coercion and the use of aggressive force are necessary to maintain a functioning society.
Look at Hans-Hermann Hoppe's arguments here. The state, regardless of its form, has an inherent interest in increasing its power and infringing on personal freedoms. You claim that a government "effectively" executing its role is necessary, but what this really is is an excuse for the expansion of coercive power - an authority that decides who is "in" or "out", who can live where, and who gets to dictate the terms of society.
Your stance is essentially textbook authoritarianism, the acceptance of the delusion that people must be kept down by force for the "greater good". What these ideas always lead to is perpetual conflict and injustice.

People often forget it took millions of years of evolution for humans to evolve this far. They forget it took thousands of years to create the type of society we have today. It took hundreds of years for America to emerge as a bastion of law and order. It's not natural. Modern society is a glimmering beacon at a pinnacle of millions of years of blood, violence, and struggle against nature itself. Might makes right. Yet people still act like none of that ever happened because they don't experience it.

My parents were appalled that people were happy Luigi killed that CEO and people were rooting for it. I told them, young people see these CEOs as faggots who destroy their lives and futures. It doesn't matter if you think murder is wrong. The law of this world is and always has been: if you piss off enough people, eventually someone will kill you. This guy, pissed off thousands. They asked what this world was coming to that they root for murder, and I told them "What are you talking about? It's always been this way. The fact you think it wasn't, is delusional. This is just what people are like deep down".

Speaking of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, he published a book literally called A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline, available here for free, in which he examines the millenia of evolution. I recommend it.
Nevertheless, your argument is rooted in a tragic misunderstanding of human potential and the role of a society. The fact that violence and oppression have been a part of human history does not make them the natural or inevitable state of humanity. Quite the opposite, it's because of these violent and unjust systems that the principles of liberty and non-aggression are so essential.
If you accept "might makes right" as a foundation, you endorse a world where the strongest exploit the weak, where rights are dictated by power and not justice. This view denies the possibility of genuine moral progress.
Believing that society is inherently violent and oppressive (and must therefore remain so) does nothing but justify more violence. But a society based on voluntary exchanges and mutual respect is not a fantasy. Hell, the fact that we are discussing instead of beating each other up is literally proof of this.

I don't think it's necessary to convince you of anything when humanity isn't really on your side here. But one last thing, I think your understanding of slavery is very limited. People who live in North Korea and China certainly don't live in conditions that could be considered anything other than modern slavery. But ignoring that, even in capitalist societies the need to be a slave doesn't require physical restrictions. It happens in the form of money, drugs, public education and even media consolidation by particular actors. The reason why physical slavery is unnecessary is because society invented better ways of control to the point you are oblivious to it. That's also why you don't really get it, and that's fine. The world already solves the problem of solipsism by being harsh towards its believers.

You misunderstand the concept of slavery if you think it's merely about economic constraints or social system. At its core, slavery is about forced labor and the complete subjugation of one person to another. I agree with you that we still live in slavery - under the state. One form of very evident slavery, whipping negros, has been abolished. The next step is abolishing the hidden, indirect slavery of the state. If you refuse to "pay tax", eventually uniformed men show up and cage or kill you.
Libertarianism seeks to eliminate exploitation by advocating for systems where peaceful people are free from coercion, where force is only used in defense against aggression. If you think modern "slavery" is just about economic disparity or media consolidation (both problems exacerbated by the state!) you are misidentifying the source of this coercive power.
For your point on solipsism, it's not about ignoring harsh realities, but recognizing that peaceful individuals should have the right to determine their own lives without being forcibly controlled by the state or other people. That's the opposite of solipsism, it's a commitment to real human freedom.

Completely serious question, are we arguing about libertarianism like we have now, libertarian ideals, or things like Hoppeanism

If you ask me, I am talking about hard and uncompromising radical libertarianism. Whether you call that anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, Hoppeanism, be my guest.
Any self-proclaimed "libertarian" who is not against abolishing the state has failed to understand libertarianism. It's essentially as if someone claims to have learned math in school and will die on the hill that 2+2 equals 5.
One counter argument can be "oh but we can't abolish the state right away" or "but what about the people" or "it's never going to happen" should never ever change the fact that the state is illegitimate, unethical, and therefore impermissible by libertarian standards. As I have said in this thread already (or somewhere else, I don't keep track), it is perfectly possible to be a "pessimistic" anarchist.

 

[The Ugly One]

Your argument is built on the premise that coercion and the use of aggressive force are necessary to maintain a functioning society.

It is. A few thousand years of the history of civilization has taught us that.

Look at Hans-Hermann Hoppe's arguments here.

I have. I spent my twenties as a libertarian, like most right-leaning graduate students who have yet to get out into the real world and see how reality actually works. Reality is more convincing to me than libertarian thought experiments.

For your point on solipsism, it's not about ignoring harsh realities, but recognizing that peaceful individuals should have the right to determine their own lives without being forcibly controlled by the state or other people.

There's no such thing as a "peaceful individual" who lives in total abstraction from society, because individuals live lives embedded in society whose formal law and informal social rules enable him to live and act as he does. If a "peaceful individual" wishes to bring a thousand Haitians to live on his land and work on it at pennies on the dollar compared to everyone else, the rest of society has the right to say, "No, because the boundaries of your land, your title to it, the infrastructure it's connected to, and the courts you use to resolve disputes surrounding it come from us. Moreover, the unwritten social conventions we have, such as keeping your yard clean, not sacrificing chickens in the street, not eating all the geese that migrate to our pond every year, and so on, are not kept by Haitians, and they'd do damage to our community just by being here and living the way they do. The peaceful, orderly society that enables you to have your nice farm, your clean streets, and your orderly marketplaces are enabled by the very same people you refuse to hire. So no, Mr Peaceful Individualist Lolbert Farmer, you don't get to bring Haitians here. Hire from the local community or sell your farm and move to Haiti."