Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:00:42 PM
Gold has historically been chosen by the market as being the best money.  But it is not for me to decide.  Perhaps cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will be the best solution in the future.  Bitcoin is tied to an algorithm where there will be a scarce number of bitcoins ever produced.  There can never be more than 21 million bitcoins in existence.  So, bitcoins will maintain there value and won't be subject to inflation.

The thing about being a libertarian is that I don't have to pretend to know the future.  A central planning might say "gold is best!  I'm going to force everyone to use a gold backed currency through threats of violence!"  But libertarians don't do that.  We want people to voluntarily decide what currency is the best. 

It is like you asking me to tell you which smartphone will be the best in five years.  How would I know?  But I can predict that through competition and free exchange the better product will usually win out.

Bro, you just outed yourself with the whole bitcoin thing.

Quote from: Darth Fife on August 01, 2014, 03:51:00 PM
Don't talk down to me junior! I was a student of libertarianism before you were born. I know where the principles of which you speak originate.

I said nothing about pacifism. I also said nothing about a compulsory central government or collectivism.

I'll refer you to that famous quote by Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

-Darth

I don't understand what you are objecting to then.  Weren't you telling me that the non-aggression principle and libertarian anarchy were naive because of human nature, that humans are prone to corruption?  That is precisely the point of libertarianism! 

Lord Acton might well have been speaking explicitly about politics.  In light of his insightful quote, I fail to see what your argument could possibly be in favor of the existence of the State?

a Libertarian Archno Capitalist a Presbyterian Minister with one leg and a duck walk into a bar and they order a beer.......

Hmm.............would any of the wise old heads know if CPF is running
some sort of summer intern program; as at least one lad posting per
day seems to be working on a term paper???
As for the libertarian market anarchist label, it's an oxymoron and
a silly contradiction.
Self-defense is supported in the Book of Exodus. Additionally.
the Church of Rome supports the self -defense of both
person and property, even to the extent that it causes loss of life.
End of story.
Be advised, I'll be sending a bill for any further requests for analysis!!!

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 04:02:15 PM
Bro, you just outed yourself with the whole bitcoin thing.

What is that supposed to mean?  You think it was some big secret that there are libertarian fans of Bitcoin?  I don't personally use bitcoin, I only suggested that it or other cryptocurrencies might be chosen by the market as the best medium of exchange.

If that makes me "outed", fine.  Whatever that means.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:05:09 PM
I don't understand what you are objecting to then.  Weren't you telling me that the non-aggression principle and libertarian anarchy were naive because of human nature, that humans are prone to corruption?  That is precisely the point of libertarianism! 

Lord Acton might well have been speaking explicitly about politics.  In light of his insightful quote, I fail to see what your argument could possibly be in favor of the existence of the State?

Are you Fking serious???? BITCOINS!!! the biggest scam since mood rings.

Humans are not so much prone to corruption as they are VIOlENCE...man is a violent agressive creature by nature....your theory on non agression won't workbecause of that.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:05:09 PM
I don't understand what you are objecting to then.  Weren't you telling me that the non-aggression principle and libertarian anarchy were naive because of human nature, that humans are prone to corruption?  That is precisely the point of libertarianism! 

Lord Acton might well have been speaking explicitly about politics.  In light of his insightful quote, I fail to see what your argument could possibly be in favor of the existence of the State?

Stateless societies don't work. They never have they never will.

Here is why.

Someone is going to want to form a "state" - a government of some sort. Knowing that such organization tend to grow of their own accord, more and more people will get swept up into it - whether they want to or not.

How will you and your Anarcho Capitalist keep from getting overrun by the new "state"? You can run for a while, but eventually you will run out of places to hid.

There is no escape.

The only way to protect yourself would be to form a "government" of your own.

Anarchy is not a stable social or economic society. It is (and always has been) a transition from one form of government to another. Usually it is promoted the strongest by the proponents of the "new" government who want to replace the "old" government. They use anarchy to scare the populace into accepting a government they would not normally have even considered.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken


This is what Obama is doing as we speak.

-Darth

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
What is that supposed to mean?  You think it was some big secret that there are libertarian fans of Bitcoin?  I don't personally use bitcoin, I only suggested that it or other cryptocurrencies might be chosen by the market as the best medium of exchange.

If that makes me "outed", fine.  Whatever that means.

You need to do some research on that a little more, son.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 01, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
Are you Fking serious???? BITCOINS!!! the biggest scam since mood rings.

Humans are not so much prone to corruption as they are VIOlENCE...man is a violent agressive creature by nature....your theory on non agression won't workbecause of that.

Totally!

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 04:44:24 PM


Totally!

I guess our new friend is unawares......

http://www.cultofmac.com/257976/bitcoin-hoax-dupes-apple-users-destroying-macs/

Welcome to the board!

I am no longer the only anarchist!

Regarding the question of national defense, we have but to consider the idea of insurance firms, which hold assets against some known risk, and collect premiums for covering it.

http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

The private production of defense chapter begins on page 43.

I do not claim that this is an answer that decides the issue once and for all, but it is the foundation of the alternative paradigm.

Quote from: Darth Fife on August 01, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
Stateless societies don't work. They never have they never will.

Here is why.

Someone is going to want to form a "state" - a government of some sort. Knowing that such organization tend to grow of their own accord, more and more people will get swept up into it - whether they want to or not.

How will you and your Anarcho Capitalist keep from getting overrun by the new "state"? You can run for a while, but eventually you will run out of places to hid.

There is no escape.

The only way to protect yourself would be to form a "government" of your own.

Anarchy is not a stable social or economic society. It is (and always has been) a transition from one form of government to another. Usually it is promoted the strongest by the proponents of the "new" government who want to replace the "old" government. They use anarchy to scare the populace into accepting a government they would not normally have even considered.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken


This is what Obama is doing as we speak.

-Darth

By this logic we should just give up on any idea of limited, Constitutional government as well since history has proven that limited government is impossible.  We might as well just roll over and accept tyranny, Corporatism, central banking and military empire because that is what States inevitably devolve into.

If we were arguing in the 19th century about slavery, you could just as easily have argued that slavery is inevitable.  It has always existed and will always exist.  You might argue with me and complain that an economy cannot sustain itself without slave labor.  Why, it's never happened before! 

There is a reason that the abolitionists didn't argue on utilitarian grounds.  The abolitionist didn't have to explain exactly how the economy would work fifty years after the abolition of slavery.  The task of the abolitionist was to argue that slavery is immoral.  If slavery is immoral then all decent people should support its immediate abolition. 

And all countries eventually got rid of slavery.  It turns out that slavery was NOT inevitable and periodically humanity makes a leap in consciousness or in ethics and we don't slide backwards.  Human sacrifice was once a common practice among societies around the world.

If aggression is immoral and cannot be justified, then we should oppose aggression and therefore oppose the existence of the State.

If you have a cancerous tumor, you don't say "you know, I was going to remove this tumor surgically, but since there is a possibility that the cancer could return in the future, I'll just leave the tumor there!"  That would be a ridiculous position to take.  You would remove the tumor and then take ever possible precaution to make it unlikely that the cancer would return. 

If centralization of power and growth of the State are truly inevitable and there is nothing we can do about it, why not just start advocating for a one world dictatorship?  That is the logical implication of your reasoning.

Anarcho-capitalism is really only fifty years old or so, at least as a coherent and developed political ideology and philosophy.  We have means of communication that were never before seen in human history.  It is always a fallacious argument to say that since something hasn't existed before in history, it can't exist in the future.

With technology and the internet, we are in a new paradigm in human history.  I would argue that the internet itself is the greatest experiment in anarchy that has ever existed.  Technology advances at such a blistering rate, that the slow moving behemoths called "States" can't keep up to regulate and control it. 

The internet is a model of the self organizing power of individuals. 

If sufficient numbers of people educate themselves on market anarchism, read Rothbard and Hoppe, and learn about the moral arguments in favor of non aggression, then not only is anarchy possible, I believe it is inevitable.  Human beings can and will make States obsolete in the near future. 

It would be wise to get on the right side of history.  You don't want to have people look back and see you as one of the last defenders of slavery.  Or the last defender of Statism.

Every new idea has previously been untested.  If you can persuasively argue against the principle of self ownership, or you can somehow justify the use of aggression, then you can logically hold a view I consider entirely untenable.

Otherwise, you should join us and work to remove parasitic States from the human experience.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 01, 2014, 05:00:41 PM
I guess our new friend is unawares......

http://www.cultofmac.com/257976/bitcoin-hoax-dupes-apple-users-destroying-macs/

That is a funny but mean prank to pull.  But what does that have to do with the validity of Bitcoin as a currency? 

I don't want to divert this thread into a Bitcoin thread since I haven't personally used it and I don't claim to be any sort of expert.  All I said is that I want the market to choose the best currency.  That means I want a Stateless currency that people voluntarily choose to transact with. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:06:25 PM
Can you define "troll" for me?  I am arguing in good faith and am genuinely curious as to what specific critiques you have of libertarian philosophy.  I didn't know there was a litmus test for posting on these forums?  Are people who dissent in any way not welcome?  What do you hope to learn by excluding dissenting voices?

Troll=jrodefeld! 

This forum promotes unity of conservatives/TEA movement.  We've already
studied the other philosophies and determined that they are not practical for our needs.  To try to undermine our philisopy by sticking yours in our face is hateful and quite frankly of no benefit to either of us.  If you like the libertarian view, then stay with it. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:22:48 PM
Hello,

I am a new member here and I am posting because I want to compare and contrast our different political views.  I find great value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions.  I have spent some time debating leftists on various forums, and I wanted to do the same with a conservative group.  I don't mean to "troll" or be rude in any way.  I don't exactly know how much we might agree or how much we might disagree.  I hope to find that out through discussion.

I'm sure you are aware that libertarianism is a growing political movement in this country, with plenty of influence taking root within the (grassroots) GOP, as well as outside of organized politics.  I want to state my views and I look forward to thoughtful critiques.

I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as "anarcho capitalist", though I have some issues with that label.  What this means is that I believe in individual self ownership.  As a purposeful independent human being of intrinsic worth, I reject the idea that any other individual has the right to commit aggression against me without my permission.  And similarly, I don't believe I have any right to use aggression against anyone else.  Aggression is the initiation of force.  This principle is otherwise known as the non-aggression principle.

I believe that aggression cannot ever be justified.  And the State, as an institution, necessarily must use aggression.  Therefore, the State is illegitimate and immoral. 

As another justification for this view, I understand that any rational ethical principle for human behavior must be universal.  If, say, murder is determined to be immoral and unjustified, then it must be immoral and unjustified for all individuals in a society.  We cannot have different standards for ethical behavior based on class, wealth, or any other superficial distinction.

By tolerating the existence of the State, you must concede that you do not accept any universal moral principles for human behavior.  Because those that hold office in government, or are granted special privileges through the State, necessarily are permitted to commit acts of aggression whereas all those individuals who are outside of the State as expressly forbidden from committing these very same actions. 

You are not permitted to steal your neighbors money and property and call it "taxation".  You are not permitted to counterfeit money and call it "central banking".  You are not permitted to secede and disassociate yourself from the State.  You cannot decide to murder people and call it a legitimate "war" or a "targeted drone strike".

Conservatives are supposed to believe in moral absolutes.  There are certain actions that are immoral and unjustifiable.  To arbitrarily make exceptions to the moral law for politicians is to reject ethics and philosophy outright.


Could you explain to me why aggression is justified?  And if you have a broader issue with libertarianism in general, I'd like to hear your best critiques.

Well, for what its worth, I am of the opinion that there are only two political parties right now, namely the Democrats and Republicans.  Unfortunately, Washington is so corrupt that there really is not a whole lot of difference between those affiliated with either party.

As for aggression ... I would say right now that is a major problem as the Obama administration has been aggressively attempting to destroy this country by disregarding the Constitution with his blatant overreach of power. 

The only snowball's chance in hell that his country has is to stop that aggression is by holding our elected officials responsible and demanding that they adhere to our rule of law; however when you have an Attorney General who obstructs justice and a president who acts without the consent of Congress it does become concerning that we may not make it to another election before this country becomes completely unraveled.

We have but a few in Congress that are trying to hold this country together; they happen to be labeled "hard core conservatives".

With that being said, and you certainly are entitled to label yourself and affiliate yourself with any party/belief that you want ... but  this country is clearly hanging on by a very thin thread.

To try to persuade or garner support for a third party or "purposeful independent" as you call it at this point in time is futile and will only continue to "fuel"  the already existing inferno in Washington.

Either we stick to the principles, morals and the Constitution upon which the country was founded upon or we crumble.  Right now, the liberal progressive leftists are pushing towards socialism and we have a Marxist in the oval office. 

And you want others to consider/discuss libertarian anarchists why?