Here’s a VERY LONG article on the subject. Those of you that insist it is (you know who you are) would be wise to read it.
https://mises.org/wire/libertarianism-utopian
https://mises.org/wire/libertarianism-utopian
Is Libertarianism Utopian?
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Fine
What happens when one violates these ethics by committing an act of incursion against someone without their consent?
“You simply have to refrain from initiating any act which interferes with the physical integrity of another person’s body or property – something which you can do, right now, sitting in your armchair.”
How would have Bundy, Dahmer, etc have been avoided? How about MS-13? How about the random purse snatcher? What makes them not do such things?
What is the recourse for victims of those who do such things in your non-utopian system where these things don’t happen?
“Thus, it is within the power of everyone here on Earth, right this very moment, to bring about a world free of violence and aggression simply by not moving one’s body towards committing such acts.”
Not that I disagree that it’s within each individual’s power to not show aggression but what makes everyone accept such a proposition?
How does this play out with human nature? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance. So as soon as some individual recognizes they can just steal some shit and be happy what prevents that?
What happens when one violates these ethics by committing an act of incursion against someone without their consent?
“You simply have to refrain from initiating any act which interferes with the physical integrity of another person’s body or property – something which you can do, right now, sitting in your armchair.”
How would have Bundy, Dahmer, etc have been avoided? How about MS-13? How about the random purse snatcher? What makes them not do such things?
What is the recourse for victims of those who do such things in your non-utopian system where these things don’t happen?
“Thus, it is within the power of everyone here on Earth, right this very moment, to bring about a world free of violence and aggression simply by not moving one’s body towards committing such acts.”
Not that I disagree that it’s within each individual’s power to not show aggression but what makes everyone accept such a proposition?
How does this play out with human nature? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance. So as soon as some individual recognizes they can just steal some shit and be happy what prevents that?
Read it to the end. It will answer your questions. If you still have the questions ask me again.
What you, and this article, fail to address is how we ended up with the social and political systems that exist today. What about Libertarianism failed in the early formation of social and political norms, especially given the first principles of the doctrine?
You seem to be directing posts at someone you supposedly have on ignore.
Which is amusing.
I’ll save you the time @DrunkenViking .....
I doesn’t come close to answering your questions.
And neither will @Ponca Dan.
Yes, the essay is a philosophical counter to the usual critique that libertarianism is utopian and therefore not to be taken seriously. It is not an historical document.
Absolutist libertarianism absolutely is utopian, and that article does nothing to counter that.
Incremental pragmatic libertarianism, however, is not utopian.
Incremental pragmatic libertarianism, however, is not utopian.
Just an aside, me nor the D/Bros will ever put you on ignore, no matter what we might think of some of the shit you post.
Just an aside, me nor the D/Bros will ever put you on ignore, no matter what we might think of some of the shit you post.
Right back at you fellas.
I love you, too, JimmyBobJust an aside, me nor the D/Bros will ever put you on ignore, no matter what we might think of some of the shit you post.
I’m just going to add on here
What, in our society, was the basis of our laws and and played a key role in what was acceptable vs illegal?
The essay is a philosophical defense against the contention that libertarianism is utopian. It is not a screed against the state per se, but rather an explanation that society and the state are two separate things, and that it is not utopian to say society can exist without a state. He goes into great detail explaining his position. You are bringing up topics that are not pertinent to his argument. Did you read the essay?
The questions absolutely are pertinent to his argument.
I know you have me on ignore, but questions of how absolutist libertarianism will deal with those questions is absolutely relevant to the question of whether or not society can live without a state of some sort.
I know you have me on ignore, but questions of how absolutist libertarianism will deal with those questions is absolutely relevant to the question of whether or not society can live without a state of some sort.
They are absolutely pertinent.
As soon as you bring in “philosophical statement” you’ve fallen into a utopian realm
No different than socialists and communists.
Pretty much any absolutist philosophy is by its very nature utopian.
The arguments are perfectly pertinent. If indeed, the first principles of Libertarianism are true and the assertion that people can/will live peacefully in the Libertarian utopia, then why did we skip right past a free society as we emerged from small villages of 150 into our modern age? Society created the state. The state is not distinct from society - they are in fact two sides of the same coin.
