"Currants Bw..."

[Letters]

You have no answers, as usual.

You need a new act, fella

[Niall_Quinn]

My point is your beliefs would necessitate me being too comfortable in the prison of government, taxation, voting and other facets of the system. It's not an accusatory remark suggesting you think that i am less than, and i have never been offended by any of your assertions. I'm just saying that one set of values cannot exist without the negation of the other in the same way you cannot be both alive and dead.

For what it's worth, what you have said is manifestly true......the state cannot exist without some form of coercion (concepts of crime and punishment) and that choice and liberty can never be fully universal within that model.

But Absolute Liberty for one person can only for me exist with the curtailment of Liberty for someone else (the man vs the germ again)

You believe you can do whatever you want, I believe that this has to be contingent on you doing what you want having no detrimental consequence for me

Nobody is talking about absolute liberty. Absolute liberty is survival of the fittest, an expression of the animal kingdom. A bit like what we have now once you strip away all the convoluted filters. Not the liberty bit, but the absolutism.

Libertarianism strongly supports the notion of laws. The primary law being cause no harm. Provided you cause no harm there are no restrictions placed upon the individual. But when you cause harm then the aggrieved party has a right to self defence and a right to see that harm repaired or compensated. Force is not denied under libertarianism. But, unlike in a modern democracy, it cannot be used merely to dispossess the minority.

[Niall_Quinn]

You need a new act, fella

Me? I make my own way in this world pal. Nothing is handed out to me except the shite I don't want but am forced to consume so pretend jobs can be created and maintained.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Nobody is talking about absolute liberty. Absolute liberty is survival of the fittest, an expression of the animal kingdom. A bit like what we have now once you strip away all the convoluted filters. Not the liberty bit, but the absolutism.

Libertarianism strongly supports the notion of laws. The primary law being cause no harm. Provided you cause no harm there are no restrictions placed upon the individual. But when you cause harm then the aggrieved party has a right to self defence and a right to see that harm repaired or compensated. Force is not denied under libertarianism. But, unlike in a modern democracy, it cannot be used merely to dispossess the minority.

Libertarianism doesn't actually have a consensus as to where the upholding of Liberty ends and the encroachment of the state begins.
Pure Libertarianism is as I described it the total undiluted Liberty of the individual which would be as a result a state of social anarchy.

What you seem to wish for (in your Argument for pensioners left without winter fuel) an element of redistribution in order to protect the rights of the individual not to die from hypothermia. I would state that another libertarian would argue that in a fair society everyone starts out from nothing and is free to take their chances and if you end your days freezing or starving to death that would be a consequence of not making the right choices.

[Niall_Quinn]

Libertarianism doesn't actually have a consensus as to where the upholding of Liberty ends and the encroachment of the state begins.
Pure Libertarianism is as I described it the total undiluted Liberty of the individual which would be as a result a state of social anarchy.

What you seem to wish for (in your Argument for pensioners left without winter fuel) an element of redistribution in order to protect the rights of the individual not to die from hypothermia. I would state that another libertarian would argue that in a fair society everyone starts out from nothing and is free to take their chances and if you end your days freezing or starving to death that would be a consequence of not making the right choices.

The pensioners would not have to rely on a handout if the state had not robbed them in the first place, or placed endless restrictions on how they may or may not live. And if the state had not championed the destruction of the family unit then nobody would be freezing. I think people greatly underestimate how detrimental the state is to the prospective wealth of a nation and the what an impediment it is to individuals creating their own destinies. Prior to the mega state, human charity was widespread (the non-fraudulent variety). It has long been understood that as a society we look after each other for the mutual benefit of all. The state has attempted to quantify and monetise human dignity, character and purpose, in its arrogance assuming the general human condition cannot be trusted and must be coerced into cooperation and compliance. As a result we now have massive social fractures, great deprivation and little prospect for favourable outcomes. So hopeless is the situation following such duration under the heel of the state most victims can't even conceive the very obvious alternatives.

[Niall_Quinn]

BTW, of course libertarianism doesn't have a consensus. It would be pointless if it did.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The pensioners would not have to rely on a handout if the state had not robbed them in the first place, or placed endless restrictions on how they may or may not live. And if the state had not championed the destruction of the family unit then nobody would be freezing. I think people greatly underestimate how detrimental the state is to the prospective wealth of a nation and the what an impediment it is to individuals creating their own destinies. Prior to the mega state, human charity was widespread (the non-fraudulent variety). It has long been understood that as a society we look after each other for the mutual benefit of all. The state has attempted to quantify and monetise human dignity, character and purpose, in its arrogance assuming the general human condition cannot be trusted and must be coerced into cooperation and compliance. As a result we now have massive social fractures, great deprivation and little prospect for favourable outcomes. So hopeless is the situation following such duration under the heel of the state most victims can't even conceive the very obvious alternatives.

If you read people like Nozick who is a libertarian, even he basically admits that lost groupings formed for protection now if the human creature was inately good why would human beings need even that.

And isn't the family model also a rather encroaching tactic, either that or you are suggesting that human beings are naturally monogamous and heterosexual and only the state has perverted that.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

BTW, of course libertarianism doesn't have a consensus. It would be pointless if it did.

Well in order for any efficacious libertarian project to be anything other than theoretical surely there would have to be some level of consensus. Any society you would think is fair, would be dangerously restrictive to another.

[Niall_Quinn]

If you read people like Nozick who is a libertarian, even he basically admits that lost groupings formed for protection now if the human creature was inately good why would human beings need even that.

And isn't the family model also a rather encroaching tactic, either that or you are suggesting that human beings are naturally monogamous and heterosexual and only the state has perverted that.

That's an illogical leap. But humans are biologically family oriented, that just makes sense in terms of environment and survival. A post state environment needs to be analysed beyond the tight and imposed state framework. It's like that silly question, if there was no state who would build the roads. Another red herring is the notion we must instantly switch from a state system to an alternative. My objections arise from the consolidation of the power of the state. I'd be all for a progressive walk away from the state. It might take hundreds of years. But we should at least stop walking in the wrong direction. Just look at what the scumbags are up to now. Their definition of human progress is global government. I guess they think national government and continental government hasn't fucked things up enough.

Simple issues could be liberated to begin with. We've already talked about a few, for instance the state getting the fuck out of marriage. Ultimately though the state would have to have its capacity to enact violence curtailed and removed. There can be no real and lasting progress until that is achieved.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well in order for any efficacious libertarian project to be anything other than theoretical surely there would have to be some level of consensus. Any society you would think is fair, would be dangerously restrictive to another.

Who said anything about fair? Is that what we have now? Fair? And why would my desire to exist as I please, provided I didn't cause harm to others, be dangerously restrictive to somebody else? Do you mean I'd be infringing the rights of those who refused to live their lives as they pleased without causing harm to others? Aren't those the very people who abuse rights I the first place? Do I need to worry if I am infringing the rights of somebody trying to punch me in the face or rob my home?