Giving up Libertarianism...

A series about growing up politically.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• is
• government
• necessary?

[blackacidlizzard]

Fuck your condescending description. No political stance is any more "mature" than any other (though most people hold their political position for "immature" reasons, cest la humains)

[CadicusTheDamned]

@blackacidlizzard

I think that the government is evil, corrupt, and has few sterling qualities, but generally governments have been competent about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen. What free market solution is there to prevent nuclear holocaust?

[quietthomas]

Yeah, couldn't watch past your scare mongering in the first minute: "The news told me a truck driver tried to build a nuclear bomb, ergo without the current political structure everyone would have nuclear weapons."

[Yewon2001]

Good video! I'm glad to see you're growing up politically.

Good luck,,

Starmexus84

[shlockofgod]

This is so preposterous. Christians are going to secretly build nuclear missiles with launch capability and launch them? No one will notice the resources being used? No one will put 2 and 2 together? All of these Christians will keep it hushed? All the people who supply the materials will keep quiet???

Christians can't keep their gay rent boys quiet, ffs.

This is just the last stand of desperate statism. Create fear or a threat and declare the state is needed to save us from it. Nonsense.

[shlockofgod]

@CadicusTheDamned "but generally governments have been competent about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen."

George Bush is sane? The soviet union was sane?

"What free market solution is there to prevent nuclear holocaust?"

Are you serious? Governments created all the nuclear weapons and brought us to the edge of nuclear annihilation. What market demand is there for tens of thousands of useless nuclear weapons? Nuclear proliferation is symptom of states, not free markets.

[aphorism100]

Even in the US and the developed world, we have pockets of anarchy. The illegal drug trade is one example. Another example pertaining to the developed world is any contract where the cost of using the government to enforce the contract is prohibitively high. If you want to understand the course of human history and the world today then you should understand anarchy. Lack of government does not mean lack of governance.

[aphorism100]

The video poster also poorly understands anarchy. In a global scope the world is anarchic. No entity has a legitimized monopoly of the use of force on the whole globe. International commerce takes place in anarchic conditions and accounts for 25% of world GDP. As for developing nations in Africa and most of the nations in the world, the governments are so weak that they are not effective at enforcing a territorial monopoly on the use of force. Most developing nations exist in a state of anarchy.

[aphorism100]

Look at the history of government, most have been embarrassing failures that have lead to wars, famine, and genocide for the benefit of some individuals at the expense of many others. Anarchy breaks the government monopoly on the use of force giving people more options and creates a society where competing state-like entities are more accountable to individuals.

[aphorism100]

People would be incentivized in such a society to discourage the use of force especially because of the large and devastating impact nuclear weapons directly and indirectly have on everyone in the world.

I will note that anarchy does not guarantee that people act ethically. It certainly incentivizes it though. There is nothing that guarantees that states act ethically either and look at where that has gotten the world.

[aphorism100]

It is easy to understand how that gun wielder is incentivized to abuse his power or at least how he will be viewed as an oppressor by at least some members of the group who cannot do anything to preserve their liberties.

To continue with that analogy, anarchy would be the same as giving everyone in the group a gun. It evens the playing field and encourages voluntary cooperation within the group. Nuclear weapons are not to be feared since they would only encourage cooperation within a society.

[aphorism100]

What is a state? It is a legitimized (though not legitimate) territorial monopoly on the use of force. To understand what behavior is encouraged of an entity that gains that monopoly a simple analogy is all that is necessary. Consider a group of people where one individual wields a gun. Consider how that gun holder might choose to act. He might act like an African dictator and exploit the group for his own benefit. He might also attempt to promote the "common good" through majority vote.

[aphorism100]

All libertarians and even anarcho-capitalist/anarchist libertarians are fundamentally against the initiation of force. Ethically using nuclear weapons or any other type of force from people is wrong. Those of us who do advocate anarchy do so specifically because governments by definition must initiate force in order to exist. Taxation is the initiation of force and even if it is possible to voluntarily fund a state, a state would be an aggressor if it forcefully prevented competition.