U.S. Libertarianism: Of the Left or of the Right?

Post Reply New Topic

If one does not work, one can not obtain products to be used for their own survival. I work somewhere, in order to be able to pay for food, clothing, housing, and whatever else. Therefore I'm forced to become labor to someone, otherwise I just rot cold in the street and die from starvation and disease.

But I still have a choice, right?

Right, and this does kill idealist libertarian positions, but it does less against more pragmatic forms of libertarianism. After all, any idealistic political theory is easy to squash. All of them will react oddly to situations that are not very good for them.

Well, right, I mean, particularly if one is just holding to propertarian libertarianism. That being said, could a contract require that a person sign another contract?

The Randian notions brought up aren't of a pragmatic type, though. They are notions of absolute moral truths, and ones which are rather easily shown to be incoherent at that. Friedman's laser beam and flashlight example comes to mind.


Sure, and plenty of contracts do, eg "by signing this you also accept the terms in [some other document]." This is fairly common practice for most privacy policies, which you don't actually expressly consent to, but you do agree to something that references that policy.

As a general principle, a contract requiring that you sign another contract is no different in effect from simply a longer contract that includes all the terms of both contracts.

And that is why I love David Friedman! Any person willing to question his ideology's rhetorical tools has to have some value.


Sure, and plenty of contracts do, eg "by signing this you also accept the terms in [some other document]." This is fairly common practice for most privacy policies, which you don't actually expressly consent to, but you do agree to something that references that policy.

As a general principle, a contract requiring that you sign another contract is no different in effect from simply a longer contract that includes all the terms of both contracts.[/quote]
Well, what I mean is that if you could have staggered contracts. That is to say that in your slavery agreement for 7 years, you also require as part of that signing a slavery agreement for the next 7. Even if ruveyn's irrelevant point were granted, if this were possible, then it still wouldn't be relevant if this could be done.

(That being said, if slavery is a property agreement, then it would be valid in perpetuity anyway, which completely smashes anything ruveyn could be talking about, which I still do not know what it exactly is)

The problem is that in the real world this whole debate is moot. When all the wealth and resources are horded by the few and the majority are struggling just to survive (and this is the ultimate realization of a "libertarian" society), eventually the majority see the unfairness of the situation and begin to demand their share.

Then the whole idealistic notion of "no forced coercion" goes down the toilet as class warfare ensues. It doesn't matter whether the minority acquired thier wealth and ownership of resources through legitimate non-coercive contracts or through force. When people are on the verge of starving they're always going to demand their fair share, through force if necessary. Force and coercion are part of the human condition as existence itself means struggle. Economic anarchy will only lead to more violence and less freedom until change is forced by the majority.

In the past governments were always on the side of the aristocratic minority and they employed force to crush any peasant uprisings. Government that acts on the behalf of the majority is a recent invention that didn't really come into fruition until the 20th century.

Lovely, so we all starve to death or become criminals or slaves. Fantastic choice that one. I have noticed that the choice of dying generally is only chosen by the suicidal (or martyrs). Of course we all have that choice every day and I don't see most people opting for it. Given that most people would probably choose the middle one, I'd look out if you are one of the lucky ones.

If you want to live then you will steal food or beg for it. No one is obliged to give you any unless you are a dependent child. Do you think others live to fulfill your needs?

ruveyn

You depend on others to fulfill your needs. Otherwise go off into the wild and hunt for your own food instead of relying on others to manufacture and stock it for you at the store. Maybe then you'll have some humility.

Also, you don't have the slightest clue as to the detailed micro-processing technology that went into the computer you're now typing on. You have these luxuries due to all the ingenuity of people who came before. If it weren't for society you'd be tromping around unclothed with a fig leaf covering your man-parts looking for berries to eat.

So do we all. The specialization of labor and the collectivization of defense is how the human race has survived and prospered. This is a far cry than the slavery you propose.

ruveyn

how true. i think the most hardcore fundamentalists or traditionalists might actually support anti-western cultures (with the exception of communists) before they would support social libertarians.

religious fundamentalists of different faiths might dislike each other, but they are commonly interested in freedom from secular intrusion, while at the same time beleiving that individualists are deranged anarchists. social libertarianism is antithetical to conservatism in any place, not just in the u.s.