“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.
@Liberty4Masses You would seem to be the first in all my years.
I mean odd that you know of none when even Gary Johnson, who seemingly represents the majority of them, has expressed we need government.
@gunkslinger
Agreed as a libertarian I believe the government should have some level of coercion over people. But only the minimum amount needed and applied as a force whose intention is to reduce the coercion others have on each other (for example one person murdering another).
@gunkslinger
Nope, nothing in the definition of libertarian that would suggest such non-sense. You really dont know what your talking about.
@gunkslinger
Take your pick really. A dictionary is usually a good start.
@gunkslinger
Nah, just figured how you went straight to be condescending as a substitute for substance that you're probably going to have to start easy. Thankfully a dictionary is usually pretty easy for most people to get their feet wet with an idea before you try to dive too deep.
Bwuhahahahaha, lol. Best parody of an american yet! You win the internet for today.
@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.
@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.
@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
@gunkslinger That depends, lots of ways to do each of those options. Depends on which proposed libertarian system you want.
@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?
@gunkslinger agreed, although government and State have become so synonymous that I typically just use the term “governance structure/organization” to refer to voluntary governance.
@freemo I know of no libertarian who doesn’t. But, agree to disagree.