-5
Libertarianism is the perfect balance between individual freedom and social coordination
(self.libertarianism)
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
-5 points (36.8% liked)
libertarianism
398 readers
1 users here now
About us
An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.
- Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
- Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property.
- In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships.
- If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed.
- Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force.
Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.
Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism
Rules
1. Stay on topic
We are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.
2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.
Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.
3. Stay constructive and informational
In general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!
4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.
This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't give a fuck about the balance between individual rights and positive rights. I'm not entitled to any determination of your options, values, or ideals, and I'm against anything or anyone that does.
I can piss on the bathroom door... I don't need the bathroom, it's a courtesy that we use the bathroom (ask San Fran..), and I have the right to wait a little while out of courtesy.
What you're missing here is the responsibility that an individual has in a completely free environment to not break the unwritten rules of not being that one fucking asshole that's always gotta fuck it up for everyone else...
Fuck positive rights. That's what I think :)
Haha you got me wrong. I reject the notion of positive rights too. I want to approach this topic based on the natural law and the NAP (from left). But I'm no anarchist. I think that a minimal "state" (whatever this may be is up to the people) can be beneficial in contrast to a completely privatized society without any public spaces or inatitutions. I do say that these should have minimal competences and should only be there to transparently control that these minimal rights should stay in place. In an anarchist state you don't have any courts that may protect you and anything has to be managed/protected by yourself. In any other case, you automatically hand over your own competencies to someone else.
An anarchist society likely would have courts. Read Bruce L. Benson’s The Enterprise of Law. There are plenty of ways to have a privately-operated system of justice.
But then you effectively give the courts some kind of competence over you. Even if it is absolutely minimal. And thats what I'm talking about: How much is justifiable?
What is this notion of “competence?” If you mean authority, it is an inaccurate description. All participation in the justice system in an anarchist society would obviously be voluntary because there would be no state to coerce people to participate. Nevertheless, there are numerous incentives that would entice people to peaceably cooperate with one another, including on matters of respecting life and liberty that would be handled via a justice system.
But why should I abide to the decisions of said justice system if it is voluntary? What if I build up my own totalitarian state and start forcing people to obey me? Of course the others can organize themselves to a militia and start building their communities to better defend themselves and cooperate with each other. But who will be leading this militia? And isn't that already the beginning of a state?
I can try to answer some of this, but I found that books like Benson’s The Enterprise of Law and David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom do a great job.
Basically, cooperation is incentivized by the manifest economic benefits. War is extremely expensive, and it’s much more profitable to trade with others than to fight them.
As to compliance with voluntary judicial decisions, most of that will be in the context of mutual aid societies and private protection organizations, all of which will know that all-out armed conflict is not profitable for them. They will thus be incentivized to put compliance with judicial decisions as a term in their membership agreements. There you have an enforceable contract which will push people toward peaceful compliance with judicial decisions.
Since a state is a monopoly on violence, the existence of many different private protection agencies (ipso facto not a monopoly) does not approach a state.
Thanks!