Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rat, that doesn't seem to answer the problem of individual selfishness and greed.

Well of course not. One of the things I liked about the Non-Euclidian politics class was that RAW explicitly stated that we have yet to find any system that works for all issues. The Mutualism, anarcho-socialism etc options simply put the responsibility on the individuals and their voluntary associations.

So, if someone is selfish and greedy, they can choose not to associate with any other group of individuals in a collective etc. Of course, that means they must be entirely self-sufficient. If they are, good for them. If they are not, then they would want to find the collective group that most closely aligns with their aims/goals etc. For people that want to be in a collective, with a leader/leaders and rules etc then they can join that group. There is no requirement that says there are no rules, or there is no ruling entity, the only requirement is that ANY rules, ruling entity, leaders etc are followed voluntarily by the people following that system.

So if a group wanted a socialist collective, no worries. If another group wanted an anarcho-capitalist system, good for them. If some people said Fuck Off I'm John Galt, well thats ok too... but when their ranch burns to the ground and they're homeless, they might decide having some other humans to rely on is a good idea.

Is it possible, I dunno... However, I do think its the only sort of system that could legitimately claim to be ruled by the people, or legitimately claim to be a nation of free people.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The "you can't tell someone what to do" thing seems ridiculously unrealistic, though.  If the individual in question wants to rape babies and steal from the old...do you just let them?  I think not.  If no one tells anyone what to do for the perfect world, then the people inhabiting it need to be fucking perfect themselves.

We all know that just isn't going to happen.

Which is one reason I'm not a libertarian.... I'm a rational anarchist. In the above example, I would just kill the bastard that wanted to rape babies. Of course, that act comes with consequences. Maybe people would say "You killed someone, you should die" or maybe they would say "Dude deserved it, motherfucking baby rapist!"

[LMNO]

Sometimes it seems to me that all political ideas kind of collapse when more than 1000 people are involved.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sometimes it seems to me that all political ideas kind of collapse when more than 1000 people are involved.

I agree 100%

In fact, from what I've read, many of the people who started this country kind of agreed and thought that States would help alleviate the issue...

[Cain]

Infinite habitable land would help the issue.

[navkat]

Infinite habitable land would help the issue.

Until there formed a group of people whose idea of "freedom" is to invade, conquer, rape and pillage other people's inhabitable land just for shits and giggles, not for actual want of something.

[navkat]

Infinite habitable land would help the issue.

Until there formed a group of people whose idea of "freedom" is to invade, conquer, rape and pillage other people's inhabitable land just for shits and giggles, not for actual want of something.

Did I accidentally just stumble back to discordianism?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Infinite habitable land would help the issue.

Until there formed a group of people whose idea of "freedom" is to invade, conquer, rape and pillage other people's inhabitable land just for shits and giggles, not for actual want of something.

Let's remove the emotional tags of rape and pillage and re look at this. Imagine if you were born in a 'free zone' of some sort. Nearby is a powerful government that decides it is in your best interests that they tell you what you will and will not do, demand tribute and tell you 'for the good of everyone' that you have to give up your land or guns or dope or tobacco etc.

Sounds pretty horrible.... except that is precisely where we are today. We are all born free, but because of the idiotic system we live in, the group of people that hide behind the label government think they can tell you what to do, because you were freely born on some piece of land that they claim as part of the United States. They hold you to a contract signed by some asshats 200+ years ago, probably before your family was even around... and if they were around, its unlikely that anyone bothered to get their opinion on the contract.

[BabylonHoruv]

This whole discussion is why I really loved the "Non-Euclidian Politics" class that RAW taught before he died. It was the most sane look at politics I had seen up to that point. Indeed, RAW's 'libertarian' views that he promoted in that class were based far more on anarchistic philosophy than classical libertarianism. Particularly Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker etc which espouse a view of anarcho-socialism, mutualism or something more along those lines.

Indeed, I think his main thrust was to examine how politics might work if 'force' was simply not an option for the powers that be. RAW put a lot of focus on the idea that open and clear communication between citizens and politicans, and between higherups and lowerdowns within goverment is necessary for any government to succeed. However, for any real communication to work, it must be between equals. Otherwise, the powerless will simply tell the powerful what they want to hear.

In short, he seemed to feel that the idea that a government has some right to force an individual to do something that they don't want to do is absurd. If its not ok for one man to tell another what to do by force, its not ok for 1000 men to tell another what to do by force.

Anarchism IS classical Libertarianism.  The sort espoused by LPUSA is the radical offshoot, not the classical version.

[BabylonHoruv]

The "you can't tell someone what to do" thing seems ridiculously unrealistic, though.  If the individual in question wants to rape babies and steal from the old...do you just let them?  I think not.  If no one tells anyone what to do for the perfect world, then the people inhabiting it need to be fucking perfect themselves.

We all know that just isn't going to happen.

And if someone is in charge of telling people what to do, they need to be perfect.  The people aren't perfect arguement cuts both ways.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

1) Rat, i think the fact that you have to postulate an extremely radical shift in society to even begin to answer Cain's question more or less invalidates Libertarianism from the get-go.  It seems you could also say, "none of that would be a problem if we were all nice to each other."  [edit: Cain just said the same thing.]


2) Adam, when someone is diagnosed with cancer due to smoking, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat.  The individual smoker doesn't pay that entire cost.  The rest of the public does.

depends on where you live, here in the UK the NHS actually profits from smoking, because the money made from taxes is greater than the money spent in treating the illnesses caused by smoking (obviously, 'cause thats what profit is...).

That's still money FROM the general public TO the healthcare system. Also, the healthcare system's profit margin is not relevant to the cost of treatment.

 

Or another way of looking at it, smokers are basically paying for their own treatment.

It was hard for me to not just facepalm this. I can hardly believe anyone who can clearly read and write would say something this transparently daft.

What you said would ONLY be true if EVERYONE WHO PAYS TAXES is a smoker. Can you please apply a little basic logic? A ten-year-old could figure this out without prompting, for fuck's sake. Don't make me spell out for you how, exactly, nonsmokers end up subsidizing healthcare for smokers.

[Thurnez Isa]

My problem with Libertarianism is the same big problem I have with most political philosophies
and that is that is makes specific claims on how people will act within a certain situation. As soon as someone does not act as the philosophy dictates the philosophy becomes no different then the any other idealistic political ideas in the graveyard of idealistic political ideas.

[Cain]

Infinite habitable land would help the issue.

Until there formed a group of people whose idea of "freedom" is to invade, conquer, rape and pillage other people's inhabitable land just for shits and giggles, not for actual want of something.

Let's remove the emotional tags of rape and pillage and re look at this. Imagine if you were born in a 'free zone' of some sort. Nearby is a powerful government that decides it is in your best interests that they tell you what you will and will not do, demand tribute and tell you 'for the good of everyone' that you have to give up your land or guns or dope or tobacco etc.

Sounds pretty horrible.... except that is precisely where we are today. We are all born free, but because of the idiotic system we live in, the group of people that hide behind the label government think they can tell you what to do, because you were freely born on some piece of land that they claim as part of the United States. They hold you to a contract signed by some asshats 200+ years ago, probably before your family was even around... and if they were around, its unlikely that anyone bothered to get their opinion on the contract.

Thats why we have theories of popular consent and right of revolution.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Infinite habitable land would help the issue.

Until there formed a group of people whose idea of "freedom" is to invade, conquer, rape and pillage other people's inhabitable land just for shits and giggles, not for actual want of something.

Let's remove the emotional tags of rape and pillage and re look at this. Imagine if you were born in a 'free zone' of some sort. Nearby is a powerful government that decides it is in your best interests that they tell you what you will and will not do, demand tribute and tell you 'for the good of everyone' that you have to give up your land or guns or dope or tobacco etc.

Sounds pretty horrible.... except that is precisely where we are today. We are all born free, but because of the idiotic system we live in, the group of people that hide behind the label government think they can tell you what to do, because you were freely born on some piece of land that they claim as part of the United States. They hold you to a contract signed by some asshats 200+ years ago, probably before your family was even around... and if they were around, its unlikely that anyone bothered to get their opinion on the contract.

Thats why we have theories of popular consent and right of revolution.

And Spooner would counter that, in the US at least, such theories were ended with the Civil War. The south didn't consent, they revolted and they were mercilessly put down by the federal government. Up to that point they had the theory of voluntary association, that each state voluntarily joined with the Union and could leave if they felt the need. Hell, he was an abolitionist and felt that the Civil War was a horrible atrocity against the freedom of citizens in this country.

[Requia ☣]

2) Adam, when someone is diagnosed with cancer due to smoking, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat.  The individual smoker doesn't pay that entire cost.  The rest of the public does.

Yes but it also costs hundreds of thousands if you die from something not related to smoking too.  Pretty much everyone will rack up a massive hospital bill towards the end.