The "Law" is Balance:

A few things wrong with the libertarian book, “Law.”

“Try to imagine a form of labor imposed by force, that is not a violation of liberty; a transmission of wealth imposed by force, that is not a violation of property. If you cannot succeed in reconciling this, you are bound to conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.”

First, we see the classic example of the “Non-Aggression Principle” argument, which is completely incompatible with humanity. The “NAP” is a pillar of Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard said it was the primary morality of the system, and it is so ridiculous that it despairs me to think that it needs to be refuted. But, due to the fact that so many people are being bought into this crap I am forced to expose it for what it is! Here’s the short version:

There are a couple of things people need to understand when dealing with this stuff.

The Government is the enforcer of the Law. The Law is the system of organized Justice. Justice is a tricky subject, Plato said that it is easier to define what is not just than what it is. Justice has some universal characteristics but in actuality it changes as cultures change, and technology brings new boundaries to cross and explore etc…

The Law must be written in accordance with that sense of Justice is, this gives you the Legislative; the Law must be interpreted when it has been found to be violated, this gives you the Courts or Judicial; the Law must be enforced, this gives you the Executive, district attorneys, police, F.B.I, etc. Now, that fourth grade government is out of the way…

It is impossible to have, multiple independent Legislative, Judicial and Executive groups speaking for the same population. This institution is trusted, yes, with a monopoly of power; for how possibly could you have a duopoly of power? The question of how to align the Law with the system of Justice is what has occupied the minds of the greatest philosophers of all time. America’s current system is the best that they’ve come up with. Does anyone think that they can come up with a better system? If so, please enlighten me how they did or will do it and how long it will take! Because it took us nearly 250 years.

"When, from the seclusion of his office, a politician takes a view of society, he is struck with the spectacle of inequality that presents itself. He mourns over the sufferings that are the lot of so many of our brethren, sufferings whose aspect is rendered yet more sorrowful by the contrast of luxury and wealth.

He ought, perhaps, to ask himself whether such a social state has not been caused by the plunder of ancient times, exercised in the way of conquests; and by plunder of more recent times, effected through the medium of the laws? He ought to ask himself whether, granting the aspiration of all men to well-being and improvement, the reign of justice would not suffice to realize the greatest activity of progress, and the greatest amount of equality compatible with that individual responsibility that God has awarded as a just retribution of virtue and vice?

He never gives this a thought. His mind turns towards combinations, arrangements, legal or factitious organizations. He seeks the remedy in perpetuating and exaggerating what has produced the evil. For, justice apart, which we have seen is only a negation, is there any one of these legal arrangements that does not contain the principle of plunder?"

This is basic Apologetics 101. This denies that there is anything that could be considered “The Public Good”, or as the US Constitution put it “The General Welfare”. This is simply a brilliant and literarily amazing way to rhetorically criticize and place blame on the victims for any and all injustice. It tells the politicians to not concern themselves with fairness, equality, equity or even the survival of the nation and people; but that everyone is where they are because they deserve it! Tell me is it the pedophiles fault or is it the innocent child’s fault that they got raped?

So in effect, libertarians cannot possibly believe another philosophy that is not “leave me alone” because this is what they whole-heartedly already believe deep down inside. They believe people are always at fault for their own failures and no surrounding circumstances got them there. (This isn’t consistent with their first assertion that “the Law is organized Justice”, but who cares? The essay is filled with contradictions and it sounds good!) This of course implies that all the libertarian elites (or other people they care about) shouldn’t be touched or even considered at fault. What about Ron Paul’s links to various questionable activities and causes? This is ironic because it’s one of the very many things libertarians hate. Elites that cause harm to others and blame the victims themselves. Doesn’t Obama do this every other day? Muslim Extremists? Iran?

In human affairs and social systems you are never starting from a blank slate, but from what presently exists. Libertarian theorists never admit this.

Would a libertarian consider it unjust to imprison a murderer? Does this not deprive them of their property? What if wealth was known to be accumulated from foreign genocide (India) and dope pushing (China)? Is that Just? Is that a right way to make money? And does it help the general welfare of the world and those countries affected by this horrible atrocity? The “leave me alone” mantra is particularly troublesome in dire circumstances and geopolitical interests. Should we just abandon Israel and its known support for US causes while they are surrounded by enemies that hate western culture? Is that right or just? Especially after we helped create the nation, for a safe haven for Jews after the Genocide from the holocaust? Not to mention that we are also connected in a spiritual and religious way! We should abandon all that so that our greedy selves can pay some domestic bills that were spent by Planned Parenthood?

The reasons why, which libertarians back up their claims are lacking and politically motivated.

“You say, “There are men who have no money,” and you apply to the law. But the law is not a self-supplied fountain, whence every stream may obtain supplies independently of society. Nothing can enter the public treasury, in favor of one citizen or one class, but what other citizens and other classes have been forced to send to it. If everyone draws from it only the equivalent of what he has contributed to it, your law, it is true, is no plunderer, but it does nothing for men who want money–it does not promote equality. It can only be an instrument of equalization as far as it takes from one party to give to another, and then it is an instrument of plunder. Examine, in this light, the protection of tariffs, subsidies, right to profit, right to labor, right to assistance, free public education, progressive taxation, gratuitousness of credit, social workshops, and you will always find at the bottom legal plunder, organized injustice.”

So here are libertarians saying: the fictitious system of money should be effectively above the will of the people, the wisdom of the culture, the traditions and entirety of the past labor, creativity, infrastructure of the society and all its people should be slaves to whomever happens to dominate the system of money at the time? IE the people who want money? Everybody wants money! That’s the main problem today! The government is giving too much money away. This is another reason why Barack Obama won again. He is seen as the modern day Robin Hood! How about the evil elites atop the ladder in the Republican Party? You know the ones who have the money and are “blocking the grassroots??”

Or is he saying that the good things that the progressives and the liberals have passed in our society today Labor laws, Equal Pay laws, certain environmental regulations, discrimination laws, other gender stuff, certain tax laws are all bad for society?? No! It’s not organized injustice! It’s a system of balance.

This also applies to my lobbyist example before. If every social program is bad then why are lobbyists bad? Or is it both? Do you want a fair shot too? Even though politicians shouldn’t care about giving people fair shares? (I know Obama hijacked that term) Lobbyists are the kings of the free market. They use their money to push what they believe in. Some say, lobbyists buy and even train politicians. Some say lobbyists are the puppet masters. The illuminati! But under “the law” they just want money, so they’re not the plunderers. You are!

The only way this philosophy will work is if we start over again, and even so that’s a big if that nobody will have or know about some type of gold mine laying around somewhere. It’s completely contradictory and you need to be wearing blinders not to see it.

Goodness. I don’t know how you draw the conclusions you do. I don’t even know how to respond to what you just wrote. It’s all twisted about. It’s almost like you think libertarianism is an anarchist free-for-all where kill or be killed is the order of the day, take all the cash you can from whomever you can get it – the complete opposite of what “The Law” suggests.

Do you believe rights exist, jjf? And how do you justify them? What are they? Do you believe in self-ownership? Do you believe in free markets at all? Do you understand what NAP is? Do you accept that free people buying and selling as they will is the most likely way to achieve social justice?

I see your snide, badly misplaced condescension is in place too, so this conversation is probably going to go just as sideways as the other; but thanks for the fourth-grade civics lesson, which is probably appropriate to the discussion despite your condescension.

Let’s maybe take the passages you dislike one by one:

"Try to imagine a form of labor imposed by force, that is not a violation of liberty; a transmission of wealth imposed by force, that is not a violation of property. If you cannot succeed in reconciling this, you are bound to conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice."
Can you imagine a form of labor imposed by force that does not violate liberty? Can you imagine a transmission of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property? Please try to do it.

  1. Then prove me wrong! Don’t just say it. That’s the fault in most of your “arguments.” You never even try debate the points I make. Telling me I am wrong and then boasting about how right this concept in your philosophy is is not a debate. Analyzing my facts and trying to rip them apart is at least trying.

  2. Um did you even read what I wrote or did you just glaze over it? Please read it again and tell me again how I do not believe in rights…sighs.

  3. See, this is why I cannot take you as a serious moderator you are not. You only add to the division. I came back with better coherent thoughts and you just automatically dismissed them because it came from me as the person. Not that you even read or understood what I wrote and what I am talking about. I am trying to make this discussion better. I am trying to debate the inconsistencies in this philosophy. You can’t prove me wrong so you use the blame the everybody else but ourselves mantra. You will never be satisfied if you continue to be inconsistent in wishing a better debate and then demonizing others for trying.

  4. This is a question that has little or nothing to do with what I talked about in my review of law. Please answer all my questions from the review and then maybe I’ll play your silly little imagination utopia game.

In the first paragraph I didn’t see the NAP refuted and then you go on to describe Lockean government.

In the second paragraph you put words in Bastiat’s mouth.

And I am completely lost by the third paragraph.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:3, topic:37901”]

  1. Then prove me wrong! Don’t just say it. That’s the fault in most of your “arguments.” You never even try debate the points I make. Telling me I am wrong and then boasting about how right this concept in your philosophy is is not a debate. Analyzing my facts and trying to rip them apart is at least trying.
    [/quote]It is difficult to address what you said. It is difficult to follow from the start. I’ll do it point by point later (unless we tackle it the way I suggest below and already suggested in my previous post – I’m not sure it’s worth it for either of us trying to untangle the whole of it all at once when any common ground we may have is a mystery to me). That response was my reaction to what you wrote.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:3, topic:37901”]
2. Um did you even read what I wrote or did you just glaze over it? Please read it again and tell me again how I do not believe in rights…sighs.
[/quote]That’s the first defense against criticism on the Interwebz, “Did you even read what I wrote?” Yes. Of course I did, and I had a hard time making heads and tails out of it. I asked whether you believe in rights in order to develop some common ground to work from. I never stated that you do not believe in rights. I asked if you did. This is the problem with discussing anything with you, you read something entirely different.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:3, topic:37901”]
3. See, this is why I cannot take you as a serious moderator you are not. You only add to the division. I came back with better coherent thoughts and you just automatically dismissed them because it came from me as the person. Not that you even read or understood what I wrote and what I am talking about. I am trying to make this discussion better. I am trying to debate the inconsistencies in this philosophy. You can’t prove me wrong so you use the blame the everybody else but ourselves mantra. You will never be satisfied if you continue to be inconsistent in wishing a better debate and then demonizing others for trying.
[/quote]I contribute to division? Naturally, when one argues, one contributes to division. So what? It happens. You seem to thrive on division. I applaud you trying. If I can untangle your ideas, I’ll attempt to address them later.

As for my moderator status, that’s just more of the same attitude you always bring. Number one, I don’t care whether you take me seriously as a moderator. I’d have to respect you more than I do to care. Number two, it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:3, topic:37901”]
4. This is a question that has little or nothing to do with what I talked about in my review of law. Please answer all my questions from the review and then maybe I’ll play your silly little imagination utopia game.
[/quote]Umm, dude, you want to actually have a discussion. You quoted it and then criticized it. Let’s start with it. If we break it into smaller chunks, I can play this game a little tonight. In fact, it might be a bad idea to try to address the whole thing at once because there’s so much of it going every which way.

This “silly little imagination utopia game” was raised by you. So let’s talk about it.

The “Law” is Balance:
A few things wrong with the libertarian book, “Law.”
*“Try to imagine a form of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transmission of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot succeed in reconciling this, you are bound to conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.” *

**First, we see the classic example of the “Non-Aggression Principle” argument, which is completely incompatible with humanity. The “NAP” is a pillar of Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard said it was the primary morality of the system, and it is so ridiculous that it despairs me to think that it needs to be refuted. But, due to the fact that so many people are being bought into this crap I am forced to expose it for what it is! Here’s the short version:

There are a couple of things people need to understand when dealing with this stuff.

The Government is the enforcer of the Law. The Law is the system of organized Justice. Justice is a tricky subject, Plato said that it is easier to define what is not just than what it is. Justice has some universal characteristics but in actuality it changes as cultures change, and technology brings new boundaries to cross and explore etc…

The Law must be written in accordance with that sense of Justice is, this gives you the Legislative; the Law must be interpreted when it has been found to be violated, this gives you the Courts or Judicial; the Law must be enforced, this gives you the Executive, district attorneys, police, F.B.I, etc. Now, that fourth grade government is out of the way…

It is impossible to have, multiple independent Legislative, Judicial and Executive groups speaking for the same population. This institution is trusted, yes, with a monopoly of power; for how possibly could you have a duopoly of power? The question of how to align the Law with the system of Justice is what has occupied the minds of the greatest philosophers of all time. America’s current system is the best that they’ve come up with. Does anyone think that they can come up with a better system? If so, please enlighten me how they did or will do it and how long it will take! Because it took us nearly 250 years.**

To begin, you have laid out probably one of the first instances in your long line of rants that actually stayed on topic for more than 2 sentences. I would like to thank you for being this consistent. It is so much easier to talk to you when you stay on topic.
You have outlined a pretty clear picture of our current government structure. Each one with a specific task to prevent the collapse of unified society. Please bear in mind that there is of course a difference between Libertarianism and the complete collapse of a government structure. That philosophy is known as Anarchism. I believe it is Hobbes who wrote of Man prior to government being in a state of anarchy. Though complete freedom was available, it came at a cost. To those who you could, without prevention, rob, plunder, or kill, another could easily do so to you. As such, whether by natural event or a gradual, mankind volunteered to come together as a community and relinquish certain freedoms to the central authority in exchange for collective security. This is known as the Social Contract. BUT, just as the Social Contract was an agreement to give up freedoms, it was assumed that the central authority existed only as far as the people wished it. And that, if the central authority overstepped its bounds, it was the obligation of the people to replace that central authority with one that better fit their wishes.
The above statement regarding the NAP is, of course, not speaking about the formation nor the function of a central authority, but rather the central authority’s role in the daily lives of those it rules over. The above statement refers to a labor by force, that is you have to do something or else you will be punished. A simple example of this would be slavery, another more contemporary example of this would be Obamacare, wherein you MUST BUY something whether you want to or not. In and of itself, this action is not overly devastating to the fabric of society, but a dangerous precedence on where to go from here. For example, all Americans must buy a car, or all Americans must open a bank account, or, in the spirit of Obamacare, one must join a gym, exercise 4 days a week, and eat 8lbs of broccoli per week. These are example of a break from NAP, which speaks about the central authority giving orders to those whom they are supposed to safeguard. That is a violation of Liberty as stated above.
The other example was forcibly taking your money. This hardly requires an explanation as there are laws against theft in this country. The government cannot simply take money away from people without their consent. That would be taking property. This is regardless of the use of that money. Benevolent acts of a thief do not justify their actions. The taking of these funds are known as taxes, and they are required to run a country. I will not sit here and promote the abolition of taxes all together, that would not work in a logical sense. However, our tax system should not be a mechanism that transfers money from half the country to give to the other half. Not only does this violate basic principles of the Constitution, it has shown to be the core of our current situation in what I’d like to call “Welfare Slavery”
What is “Welfare Slavery” do you ask? It is an insidious action and approach which may not have been the original intent of the program here in the United States, but has been used in the past to control the people and it is in fact a perfect way to keep a people from removing the central authority, even when that authority has proven to not have the best interest at heart.
The example I will provide was a policy of Ancient Rome known as panem et circenses (to you Hunger Game fans out there, why do you think the author chose Panem as the name of the setting?). This translates to “Bread and Circuses”. The policy was one of control and diversion to keep what would be an intolerable central authority in power over its people. The Emperor spread food to the people and funded lavish public events in order to appease the Romans, while behind the curtain he ruled with an iron fist, did as he wished, and what was once a Republic became an absolute monarchy under the Praetor.
How does this correlate with the current American society? Currently, as Mr.Romney pointed out, 47% of the people are some form of welfare. These individuals are now in an extorted position when it comes to their voice in government. He can vote to expand the welfare state, giving himself more, or he can vote to do away or shrink these programs and be in a position where he may have to work to get what he/she needs. The decision hardly requires a thorough analysis, that person has no choice. Thus, in this situation the Democrat Party, can almost to the man rely on these votes. Thus, Welfare Slavery
But, FL, I still don’t get it, how is this slavery? Quite simple the government takes money from somebody else, and buys you with it. It provides all the basic necessities given to any other slave, food, housing, and health care. They then set limits on your personal activity in order to get this free stuff just as a master denied his slaves the right to literacy. You must not work, or work a good paying job. You must not have a savings. You must not invest in anything. But, if you expand your family, they will give you more money. So what is the message here? Stay in poverty and have as many future Democrat voters as you like, and remember to vote Democrat because if you don’t you won’t get this free stuff either. Hence the forced labor.
Instead of the spirit of the social contract, where the people hold the government in its power, welfare makes the people’s very lives dependent on the central authority making it next to impossible to defy it. The concept of justice, as you spoke of, is what the people deem right and wrong. In the confines of the social contract, when the central authority acts in an unjust way, it is replaced. In our current situation, the government can act in unjust ways as it now controls the livelihood and destiny of half the population. Thus does a democratic system become tyrannical.

*"When, from the seclusion of his office, a politician takes a view of society, he is struck with the spectacle of inequality that presents itself. He mourns over the sufferings that are the lot of so many of our brethren, sufferings whose aspect is rendered yet more sorrowful by the contrast of luxury and wealth.

He ought, perhaps, to ask himself whether such a social state has not been caused by the plunder of ancient times, exercised in the way of conquests; and by plunder of more recent times, effected through the medium of the laws? He ought to ask himself whether, granting the aspiration of all men to well-being and improvement, the reign of justice would not suffice to realize the greatest activity of progress, and the greatest amount of equality compatible with that individual responsibility that God has awarded as a just retribution of virtue and vice?

He never gives this a thought. His mind turns towards combinations, arrangements, legal or factitious organizations. He seeks the remedy in perpetuating and exaggerating what has produced the evil. For, justice apart, which we have seen is only a negation, is there any one of these legal arrangements that does not contain the principle of plunder?" *

**This is basic Apologetics 101. This denies that there is anything that could be considered “The Public Good”, or as the US Constitution put it “The General Welfare”. This is simply a brilliant and literarily amazing way to rhetorically criticize and place blame on the victims for any and all injustice. It tells the politicians to not concern themselves with fairness, equality, equity or even the survival of the nation and people; but that everyone is where they are because they deserve it! Tell me is it the pedophiles fault or is it the innocent child’s fault that they got raped?

So in effect, libertarians cannot possibly believe another philosophy that is not “leave me alone” because this is what they whole-heartedly already believe deep down inside. They believe people are always at fault for their own failures and no surrounding circumstances got them there. (This isn’t consistent with their first assertion that “the Law is organized Justice”, but who cares? The essay is filled with contradictions and it sounds good!) This of course implies that all the libertarian elites (or other people they care about) shouldn’t be touched or even considered at fault. What about Ron Paul’s links to various questionable activities and causes? This is ironic because it’s one of the very many things libertarians hate. Elites that cause harm to others and blame the victims themselves. Doesn’t Obama do this every other day? Muslim Extremists? Iran?

In human affairs and social systems you are never starting from a blank slate, but from what presently exists. Libertarian theorists never admit this.

Would a libertarian consider it unjust to imprison a murderer? Does this not deprive them of their property? What if wealth was known to be accumulated from foreign genocide (India) and dope pushing (China)? Is that Just? Is that a right way to make money? And does it help the general welfare of the world and those countries affected by this horrible atrocity? The “leave me alone” mantra is particularly troublesome in dire circumstances and geopolitical interests. Should we just abandon Israel and its known support for US causes while they are surrounded by enemies that hate western culture? Is that right or just? Especially after we helped create the nation, for a safe haven for Jews after the Genocide from the holocaust? Not to mention that we are also connected in a spiritual and religious way! We should abandon all that so that our greedy selves can pay some domestic bills that were spent by Planned Parenthood?

The reasons why, which libertarians back up their claims are lacking and politically motivated.**

In this area you speak of two issues, foreign policy and public good. Let’s first discuss the public good. The public good is exactly what the word says it is; public. That is all can benefit from it or utilize it. The examples of public good policies are the military (which protects everyone rich and poor), the roads (which the rich and poor can drive on without differentiating the contribution), the library system (which rich and poor can enjoy), parks (which rich and poor can enjoy), and to some extent education (which you can utilize whether you’re rich or poor).

Now, how does that differ with the current idea of public good. Not everyone benefits from welfare, only half the people do. The other half are not defunded by this policy but then they often become the target of those who claim that poverty exists. You stated above that you compare a poor man to a rape victim, and that the poor man is not to blame for his predicament, the rich people are, just like a rape victim is not responsible but the rapist is. The second half of this logic is correct. The first is taking the ever-prevalent belief that behind every great wealth is a great crime, in that no one can get rich without first doing harm to others. That is a flaw in this argument. Maybe poor people are not always to blame for their poverty, but there are other avenues of rising out of poverty than relying on a rich guy to give you his table scraps. Instead of waiting for that first of month check, go out there and find a job or learn a trade. Might take a while, but it is a hell of a lot better than relying on uncle sam. But that is not the attitude. Instead, my idea of the Welfare Slave comes into play here too. In addition to being kept in slavery for votes, they are discouraged subconsciously from being self-sufficient. They are, again, discouraged from bettering themselves by the limits of the system, then giving subliminal messages like “the rich stole your money. It is his fault you’re poor. Sit down, accept my gift, and vote, for that is your place in this rich white guy society”. The other message comes from affirmative action “see that white guy over there. He is so much better than you are. In fact, he is so good and you so bad that, unless I step in and intervene on your behalf, you will never get anywhere in life. Vote for me”

Now onto foreign policy. This is a difficult one to express with fidelity because it requires one to look from multiple angles. First, we as America have become accustomed to being the Global Police. We have inserted ourselves in every major conflict zone and have provided security and safety in the global community. An admirable thing, to be sure, one that we should be proud of for not many nations in history have used their power for the good of others. That being said, we are just one nation. Is it our responsibility or our place to be putting ourselves in other people’s business? In addition, are we WANTED there or do we push ourselves onto other nations? Should we protect those who can protect themselves just fine without us? That being said, Libertarians do not promote complete isolationism but the cessation of involvement in overseas conflicts. Do we fight on Israeli soil or do we provide the weapons for the Israelis to fight themselves? Since it is the latter, it fits into the Libertarian mantra of “leave me alone” because we are not doing the job for them, but answering a request for support. The same premise is used between a guy buying a baseball bat from the store to smack a robber in the head. The store owner did not go to that man’s home and do the bashing for him.

Should America be an international force for good? That is at best philosophical and begs the question, does the world want or need America to do that job for it?

1 Like

*“You say, “There are men who have no money,” and you apply to the law. But the law is not a self-supplied fountain, whence every stream may obtain supplies independently of society. Nothing can enter the public treasury, in favor of one citizen or one class, but what other citizens and other classes have been forced to send to it. If everyone draws from it only the equivalent of what he has contributed to it, your law, it is true, is no plunderer, but it does nothing for men who want money–it does not promote equality. It can only be an instrument of equalization as far as it takes from one party to give to another, and then it is an instrument of plunder. Examine, in this light, the protection of tariffs, subsidies, right to profit, right to labor, right to assistance, free public education, progressive taxation, gratuitousness of credit, social workshops, and you will always find at the bottom legal plunder, organized injustice.” *

S**o here are libertarians saying: the fictitious system of money should be effectively above the will of the people, the wisdom of the culture, the traditions and entirety of the past labor, creativity, infrastructure of the society and all its people should be slaves to whomever happens to dominate the system of money at the time? IE the people who want money? Everybody wants money! That’s the main problem today! The government is giving too much money away. This is another reason why Barack Obama won again. He is seen as the modern day Robin Hood! How about the evil elites atop the ladder in the Republican Party? You know the ones who have the money and are “blocking the grassroots??”

Or is he saying that the good things that the progressives and the liberals have passed in our society today Labor laws, Equal Pay laws, certain environmental regulations, discrimination laws, other gender stuff, certain tax laws are all bad for society?? No! It’s not organized injustice! It’s a system of balance.

This also applies to my lobbyist example before. If every social program is bad then why are lobbyists bad? Or is it both? Do you want a fair shot too? Even though politicians shouldn’t care about giving people fair shares? (I know Obama hijacked that term) Lobbyists are the kings of the free market. They use their money to push what they believe in. Some say, lobbyists buy and even train politicians. Some say lobbyists are the puppet masters. The illuminati! But under “the law” they just want money, so they’re not the plunderers. You are!

The only way this philosophy will work is if we start over again, and even so that’s a big if that nobody will have or know about some type of gold mine laying around somewhere. It’s completely contradictory and you need to be wearing blinders not to see it. **

I fear perhaps you misunderstood the premise of the above statement. The statement says the government cannot make money nor can it create or increase wealth in this nation. It has only the power to take from one person to give it to another. That means that for every public sector job created, 1 (or with the current bloated government of regulations and fees 2) private sector job(s) must be destroyed. The idea of money is in fact not even an American thing, but a global thing. We set our money based upon the fiat system which allows government to print money without hesitation, but that does not keep money at the same value. The global market sets and controls is above not just the people but government as well. It is the invisible hand of the market system.
protection of tariffs, subsidies, right to profit, right to labor, right to assistance, free public education, progressive taxation, gratuitousness of credit, social workshops
This did not say anything about gender or racial equality. I thought I’d point that out.
Tariffs- Is this not taking more money from another country’s people and discouraging trade which will lead to other countries either robbing our people of money or trade?
Subsidies- Picking and choosing winners and losers based upon what the political rather than economic forces deem the people to want or need.
Right to Profit- Quite frankly I’ve never heard of a law that demands someone makes a profit. Not sure where this one statement is going.
Right to Labor- Is this saying everyone must have a job, or that there must be rules on how you treat labor? If it is the latter, then I concede the necessity of providing a minimal guideline for the treatment of those who work under you. This, however, has created a lot of problems from organized labor which have risen to become extortionist and political machines that threaten the continuation of a democracy. Thus do I support labor laws about equal protection, limits on work hours, safety within the business, but I do not condone the continual existence of Labor Unions, which have proven to have outlived their usefulness and have led to their conversion to political and economic bullies.
Right to Assistance- Note my belief above on Welfare Slavery
Public Education- I will concede this as well, I think that since it benefits all, it fits into the philosophy of investment and return with tax money.
Progressive Taxation- Punishes success and rewards apathy
Gratuitousness of credit- I guess this means interest. Would you say that banks are out to help people or make money? So when a government gives a loan, what do you suppose their purpose is?
Social Workshop- I think this is referring to a grand communist utopia and I need not remind you why this is bad.

So I think I have covered everything. I want to point out I spent about 2 hours writing this. I hope this satisfied the desired reader.

1 Like

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:1, topic:37901”]
They believe people are always at fault for their own failures and no surrounding circumstances got them there.
[/quote]I’ll leave the heavy lifting to RWNJ and FL . . . IF they can follow some of this convoluted thinking.

Meanwhile, I’ll just highlight the snippet above and ask the same question I did in the other thread: And you know what “they believe” because . . . ?

Anecdotal only?

Sound evidence supported by questioning . . . libertarians across the country?

(A small sample wouldn’t pass the laugh test.)

If you want to legitimately debate the issues you brought up here, then first you need to establish a reasonable foundation for making the above statement.

jj, will you agree that any law infringes on the freedom of a man to do as he wants? I’m not arguing whether a law is just or not, only whether you will agree that a law, by it’s nature, limits what a man can do without fear of reprisal.

I am glad you guys are beginning to understand that if you break apart your philosophy it is incomprehensible. Ever think that is the fundamental flaw in your own philosophy and not my trying to understand it? The reason, my posts seem all over the place is precisely the reason libertarianism makes no sense!

I try to think about libertarianism logically in my posts.

I’m sorry you cannot comprehend my small paragraphs ripping apart the theory in the law essay. Probably because you are too emotionally connected to this philosophy. I believe I answered your silly question in my first paragraph. Asking if I believe in rights insists that I don’t believe in rights and it’s a straw man trying to avoid all that I have already written as my own opinion.

  1. If the central authority’s role is supposed to be limited and/or non-existent, how could they rule over a nation of 300 Million people? The truth is the reason we have some government systems is to keep track of fall these people. How could every person be expected to do good all the time and not need central authority to tell them what to do? I think, laziness is a disease. I think it is a mental condition. Though, many people have different definitions of laziness. My father thinks working with computers is lazy because he grew up as a blue collar auto mechanic. All he sees me doing is sitting on the computer all day “pecking away,” as he says. Too many people think it is right to go on ObamaCare, and have the government pay for everything! This is currently the majority thought. We are now a center-left country. Are they wrong? Why are they wrong and you right? Is that not forcing your views upon the majority of the population? However, a portion of our country is actually mentally unstable. Is it right to just toss them aside and let them Fend for themselves? Ron Paul said that a hospital should not treat a patient if he doesn’t have health insurance. Is that really right?

  2. No I never said that. I merely pointed out examples from both sides of the aisle. Some rich people do indeed take advantage of others, and rapists do indeed take advantage of others. Under libertarian doctrine, the rapists and the thieves are never accused. They are automatically assumed innocent even if they are proven guilty. In the libertarian mind it would a conspiracy to get the perpetrator. Despite all rational evidence pointing to the fact that the perp broke the law!

  3. I thank you for writing those words about foreign policy. We disagree about America’s role in the world. I do not believe that we “police the world.” The question I have for you is that if America doesn’t “police the world,” as you say. Who else but America? China? Russia? Germany? Iran? Because those systems worked so well. Communism Stalinism, Nazism, and Sharia is proven not to work. But America is still here. America is a pretty good place. America is pretty fair. You never addressed any of my specific questions. Like the one I had about your non-interventionist policy. Please tell me how you plan to set up such a system without starting over from scratch. How could anything better exist than what we have now in America? The land of opportunity!

I’m sorry you spent so much time on breaking down that paragraph for me. I did that all in my mind already, and asked you specific questions relating to that paragraph. You just said I am wrong and this is what he meant. Believe me, I know what he means when he talks about the various laws he is talking about. But once again you didn’t address any of my points or answered my specific questions. You basically wasted your time spouting off your opinion about what you think he meant while ignoring everything I said at the same time.

Public school system did its job well. Uncle Sam loves sheep like this.

2 Likes

I will ask again.

jj, will you agree that any law infringes on the freedom of a man to do as he wants? I’m not arguing whether a law is just or not, only whether you will agree that a law, by it’s nature, limits what a man can do without fear of reprisal.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:10, topic:37901”]
I am glad you guys are beginning to understand that if you break apart your philosophy it is incomprehensible. Ever think that is the fundamental flaw in your own philosophy and not my trying to understand it? The reason, my posts seem all over the place is precisely the reason libertarianism makes no sense!

I try to think about libertarianism logically in my posts.
[/quote]jjf: Flaw in your philosophy makes me incomprehensible.

Got it. And I thought you were trying to discuss something seriously.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:11, topic:37901”]
I’m sorry you cannot comprehend my small paragraphs ripping apart the theory in the law essay. Probably because you are too emotionally connected to this philosophy.
[/quote]Your confusing rant is incomprehensible because of my emotion as well as my philosophy?

jjf: Flaw in your emotions makes me incomprehensible.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:11, topic:37901”]
I believe I answered your silly question in my first paragraph.
[/quote] Your answer was to describe a government. Your criticism was to describe a government. You never said if there was a way to transmit wealth or impose labor by force without violating a man’s liberty. Your answer did not match the question or the passage you criticized.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:11, topic:37901”]
Asking if I believe in rights insists that I don’t believe in rights and it’s a straw man trying to avoid all that I have already written as my own opinion.
[/quote] Clearly you are not interested in a conversation that makes sense. You’re shoving a straw man into my mouth right now. Asking does not insist you don’t believe in them. It would be pertinent to this conversation if you didn’t mean for this conversation to be silly right from the start.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:13, topic:37901”]
I’m sorry you spent so much time on breaking down that paragraph for me. I did that all in my mind already, and asked you specific questions relating to that paragraph. You just said I am wrong and this is what he meant. Believe me, I know what he means when he talks about the various laws he is talking about. But once again you didn’t address any of my points or answered my specific questions. You basically wasted your time spouting off your opinion about what you think he meant while ignoring everything I said at the same time.
[/quote]I’m sure glad I didn’t spend any time writing a serious post back your way. It would have been a complete waste of my time. I won’t suggest such a thing again. It was silly on my part. Carry on and good luck to you.

1 Like

Just wondering. Can you guys read without cherry picking??? Try to read my entire response to the silly law essay. Without stopping, without pointing out anything you disagree with. Then, go back and read the paragraphs that I took out which I had problems with.

The way you are responding makes me think that you do not have the capacity to actually sit down and understand what I wrote. As I said before. I believe I explained why I cannot simply answer your question in my first paragraph! What don’t you understand about what I wrote? Please point it out. The NAP is incompatible with our system and our current way of life and cannot be separated from those that wish to push a political agenda. After all Obama thinks his gun laws are moral and right.

In effect your question, “do laws infringe on liberty?” is a straw man. A distraction. It is repeating something over and over again, until the I try to answer it when I already did! I cannot answer your question without pushing some type of ideology. Since everyone has their own definition of liberty.

Can you? Your response last night.

I am currently reading law right now and jotting down a few notes. I will respond when I have them all sorted out.

Touche but you guys asked me to critique it. What did you think was going happen? I would give up my centrist ways say ah ha and agree with everything you say? Part of me thinks this was nothing but a bunch of libertarians trying to trap me. Then, you get mad when I actually challenge your ideas.

No, we asked you to read it so you might have some insight into the way we think. Instead, you “cherry picked” what you thought were going to be your “touche” moments. You asked for justification for what we believe in and we gave you a piece of the puzzle. Instead of reading with an open mind, you chose to try and use one piece of a puzzle to say the entire picture is wrong. Even if you disagree with someone’s belief system, if your going to attack it, you should know it. Not the MSM version, but the real facts. My last words for you on this subject is a quote from from Sun Tzu. See if you can pick out the significance of it.

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”