“Yes the State fundamentally infringes on personal liberty and yes libertarianism is about maximal personal liberty but we still need some guberment” said no actual consistent libertarian ever.
🇳🇱
@Liberty4Masses Can't say I agree. In fact I know of no libertarian who advocates for no government at all. They are just anarchists.
Libertarianism, at least in its only effective form, is more practically about shifting the power to the local level.
@freemo @Liberty4Masses
>In fact I know of no libertarian who advocates for no government at all. They are just anarchists.
You're confusing "government" with "State". Principled libertarians are against the State, not government in general.
>Libertarianism, at least in its only effective form, is more practically about shifting the power to the local level.
If you advocate for any coercive State at all, then you can't rightly call yourself a libertarian.
@gunkslinger
I disagree Libertarianism is about maximizing each persons individual rights to self determination and to exercise their will power.
This can not be done without a coercive government of some kind since the will of one person to kill another would be odds with their will to live. The government theefore plays the mediator to resolve such matters in a way to maxmize overall freedom of will as much as possible.
@freemo @Liberty4Masses You really don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you read Rothbard's "Anatomy of the State". As for your consequential argument I would recommed David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom."
@gunkslinger
You really dont know what you're talking about. Already read both of them.
@gunkslinger yup the problem is you dont seem to understand the historic and current definition of non-aggression.It only forbids the initiation of aggression, it allows for defense against aggression through the use of violence however. Which is exactly what I stated, that the state should act, and with coersion, should it be to prevent some other greater form of aggression, for example to prevent a murder. All of this is well established in the definition of the term.
@freemo No, I DO understand that. You can't have a State without it violating property rights beginning with self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle.
You are advocating for an organization to violate individual's property rights in order to support it. That's what a State is. It's collectivism and social contracts, the socialist idea of "collective good".
@gunkslinger Nope, im advocating for a state which NEVER breaks the aggression principle. In which is primary role is to provide defense against those who break the non-agression pact. This would be called a defense against agression and thus completely allowed within any group operating under nonaggression principles.
Which was what i said the first time
@freemo How will this State of your be funded? Will it take people's money without regard for their individual consent ? Will it draft individuals into its army? Will it have a monopoly on justice?
@gunkslinger That depends, lots of ways to do each of those options. Depends on which proposed libertarian system you want.
@freemo Yes, but what's YOUR preferred option?
@gunkslinger Well your assuming that I'd argue for a pure libertarianism. I dont think pure ideologies taken to their extreme iteration is a useful or healthy goal for governments, even though I see libertarianism as the best form of the choices.
So while I would be happy to answer that question im not sure it would be relevant to the discussion.
@gunkslinger Well if you want my opinion on how to run a government how can that be useful to what is or is not a libertarianism then if my own view is not a pure libertarianism. If, for example, I liked the current system (I dont) how would that help us in our discussion of what a libertarianism is?
@freemo
>I dont think pure ideologies taken to their extreme iteration is a useful or healthy goal for governments, even though I see libertarianism as the best form of the choices.
Libertarianism is all about principles. It's an individualist system of ethics. What you arguing is consequentialist rather than deontological.
Do you think taxation is theft? Do you think military conscription is slavery? Does your ideal State do those things to support itself?
@freemo
>Well your assuming that I'd argue for a pure libertarianism.
I AM?? All you've been doing is arguing against principled libertarianism here. Not only that but you just finished saying that there are multiple "libertarian systems," so if there are multiple systems then how could any of them be pure?