- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Libertarianism boils down to a unique concept of property assignment rules that serve the purpose of avoiding interpersonal conflict.Government, is in a sense, a propertarian concept. It is a group of people with collective ownership over some territory, historically by right of conquest and defense, agreeing to set up a system where in their morality is enforced in that area and to pool resources for efficiencies sake. Opposing the concept of government means to forcefully deprive people of their right to form government if they so choose.
I suppose this all does come down to how one defines the right to property. If the libertarians have a more true answer than by ability to defend it, I would be glad to hear it. Even my preference that property be use-based is merely a moral veneer, a social construct, underpinned by the collective expression of might to protect property that is the state.
I attached a good paper by Stephan Kinsella which goes into depth on this.
Alternatively, but with the same conclusion, the anarcho-objectivist LiquidZulu gives a concise explanation of why anarcho-capitalism is the solution to law.
If your question is more related to "why" are rights, or "where do rights come from", there exist libertarian and rational approaches that deal with that question, let me know if you need those.
Your entire case rests upon an appeal to authority, you are essentially claiming that law/good can only come from the right people(TM)If there is no state, there is no legal. A contract is a contract is a contract.
This may work with Ferengi, they are cowardly and small by stature.
In fact in a free society, what is crime? Who agrees on it? You? Your clan? Your town? Your city?
This is an ideology that doesn't work with scale. Imagine lolberts trying to build a nuclear reactor.
It is autism as a political ideology where the idealists of it can't ever envision anyone else disagreeing. Perhaps it would work if we could clone and transfer memories. Horatio isn't drivong, he is traveling.
Saying that there are no laws without a state is like saying there are no morals without a state
Sounds very fascist to me
You are not allowed to speak ill of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il. If you do, it is only just to kill you for it.
Plus, you are reaching by insinuating "privately managed communities" == "state"
Plus, what is wrong with being "autistic", what is your point, what do you mean when you say that?
Attachments
Last edited: