Just a small conversation between an anarchocapitalist (AC) and a constitutional libertarian (CL):
CL: “The Non Aggression Principle you AnCaps believe in so much is stupid. How are you gonna force people to abide by it? Better to have a Constitution.”
AC: “We would insist on our NAP-derived rights and liberties through the supreme right to self-defense and by hiring the services of protection agencies that work in the free market, and thus need satisfied customers to flourish. How are you going to force people to abide by a piece of paper written centuries ago by elitists who had no societal unanimity for the document, and who were hypocritical slave owners?” Continue Reading
On twitter, a Gary Johnson fan (whose behavior is suspiciously akin to a cult follower) tweets about an article that allegedly destroys most arguments against a Johnson/Weld ticket.
I offer arguments why this is not the case at all (and can offer MANY more by the way), after which the Gary Johnson fan tweets the following amusing response:
In other words, a minarchist libertarian, who thus obviously believes in both the state itself and in the possibility of limiting the power of the state, through the political process, claims i am an “anarchist nutter” with “deluded opinions”.
The amusing part, however, (because the part that she still believes the state can be both maintained and limited is just sad, precisely because they are deluded opinions, as proven by history) is the fact that she makes an argument that an article has destroyed most of the arguments against a Johnson/Weld ticket, and then calls my counter-arguments “deluded opinions of an anarchist nutter”. Because slinging lazy and cowardly ad hominem, of course, is a much easier way of dealing with inconvenient counterarguments to your own supposed “facts” than to actually address them.
‘Are you trying to prove me wrong? Well, your arguments are just deluded opinions and you’re an anarchist so you’re nuts anyway. So there.’
With this ‘logic’ i find myself forced to understand why such people believe that the state can both exist and still be limited by the voting process. Believing in fairy tales is after all a denial of reality. And with a denial of reality comes a denial of any inconvenient counterarguments.
The following article tries to make some kind of ‘libertarian’ case for state welfare. There are several logical flaws in it which I will point to and explain.
The italic and yellow text is from the author of the piece. My response is the ordinary text underneath.
As a libertarian, I try to judge the abstract legitimacy of any institution or government policy by asking whether it would exist without a state to uphold it.
Libertarianism itself does not ask whether any government policy is legitimate by wondering if such “policy” would exist without it. Libertarianism only concerns itself with the question of the legitimate use of force. Even if some policy could be considered good or even necessary for some people, if it wouldn’t exist without government it would still not legitimize a government policy for it. One very obvious example is non-discrimination laws. Many people abhor discrimination, but discrimination of all kinds, the sole exception to which is discrimination by force, would be allowable. The existence of non-violent discrimination does not legitimize anti-discrimination laws by state force. Precisely because they would be based on force. No government policy whatsoever is morally legitimate, regardless of what it aims to do, because it is based on the initiation of force.
Narcissistic and belligerent toward those not kissing your ass is no way to go through life, son. Especially not if you boast that you are *the* LP candidate that would build bridges and form coalitions (worked well for ya with Steve Deace didn’t it?)
The world wide web does not merely consist of your own propaganda channel “The Libertarian Republic” through which acolytes and sock puppets worship the ground you walk on, and try to take down your much less philosophically dangerous and much more likeable competitors. Note the “World” part in World Wide Web. Thus there are plenty of places where your rhetoric, and performances, can be analyzed. Whether or not through the cultists that do your bidding. Continue Reading