"Freedom" thread or something

The T wrote: It's been a while since I asked a question. . I was going to use another nation as the hypothetical case but let's bring it closer. Let's suppose one day finally government is reduced to almost zero (or zero depending on your flavor of libertarianism). Liberty reigns supreme. No central organization has force over nobody.... And after a while, let's suppose that this generates really abject poverty, horrendous inequality, and that, proving those who oppose libertarianism correct, only a few extremy wealthy powerful barons have control over the rest of the people, force them to work for miserable wages with no benefits, while they accumulate all the power of wealth. All without infringing the non aggression principle. Would then be acceptable to start proposing equalizing measures? Would that be a time where it would be justified to ask for the "return of the state"? Would then be justifiable to take from the "makers"? Or should liberty reign supreme even if most everybody is starving? How supreme can this principle be? All of this hypothetical.

Anyone who has ever watched Revolution the tv series will see what happens after a collapse or a non existant government. You end up with regional overlords/despots who are worse than the govt one had before.

I just did.

My bad, I thought you had missed it seeing as it was the last one on a previous page.  

The T wrote: It's been a while since I asked a question. . I was going to use another nation as the hypothetical case but let's bring it closer. Let's suppose one day finally government is reduced to almost zero (or zero depending on your flavor of libertarianism). Liberty reigns supreme. No central organization has force over nobody.... And after a while, let's suppose that this generates really abject poverty, horrendous inequality, and that, proving those who oppose libertarianism correct, only a few extremy wealthy powerful barons have control over the rest of the people, force them to work for miserable wages with no benefits, while they accumulate all the power of wealth. All without infringing the non aggression principle. Would then be acceptable to start proposing equalizing measures? Would that be a time where it would be justified to ask for the "return of the state"? Would then be justifiable to take from the "makers"? Or should liberty reign supreme even if most everybody is starving? How supreme can this principle be? All of this hypothetical.

1) The situation you describe does not negate libertarian theory. Isolated instances will not do that. A lot of factors could contribute.

2) With that said, it could be the case that a libertarian society cannot work for this landmass at this time. I would have no problem with attempting to fix what seems like a horrific situation.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: dr wu23 wrote: humans are basically a nasty lot when left unregulated. This is said a lot, but it has never actually been shown.

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: dr wu23 wrote: humans are basically a nasty lot when left unregulated. This is said a lot, but it has never actually been shown. If by unregulated he means "total absence of laws and limitations", I'd say yes. If he mean "absence of a government", that is more debatable.  The question is if it is really possible to have a complete (not just in specific cases) system of private laws without some sort of supra organizational body overseeing this.  As far as human nature itself, nobody can really say if humans "are born good" or "naturally evil" or "neutral" (that also depends on your definition of those terms). But even if you accept that all humans are born good or neutral, society is not made of just toddlers but people who have grown up and experienced millions of different conditions and environments leading to complexes and character traits that in many many cases are negative in their nature and dangerous/detrimental (in many different levels and degrees) to others.

Can you point me to the study?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: dr wu23 wrote: humans are basically a nasty lot when left unregulated. This is said a lot, but it has never actually been shown. If by unregulated he means "total absence of laws and limitations", I'd say yes. If he mean "absence of a government", that is more debatable.  The question is if it is really possible to have a complete (not just in specific cases) system of private laws without some sort of supra organizational body overseeing this.  As far as human nature itself, nobody can really say if humans "are born good" or "naturally evil" or "neutral" (that also depends on your definition of those terms). But even if you accept that all humans are born good or neutral, society is not made of just toddlers but people who have grown up and experienced millions of different conditions and environments leading to complexes and character traits that in many many cases are negative in their nature and dangerous/detrimental (in many different levels and degrees) to others. Can you point me to the study?

Regardless of what history says, no, I can't. Just as you can't point me to one proving the contrary. Hence my it's all purely hypothetical claim. 

Edited by The T - January 24 2014 at 16:13

^And I agree with that. I don't humans are good or bad or whatever. They just are. Studies are conflicting but they also have shown what humans are capable of (like the Milgram one) and we can agree that since all humans are somewhat different (I don't believe we are all that different), and many end up full of traits and characteristics that align with what simplistically we can call "bad", the lack of regulation (again, not intended as government regulation) can lead to abuse, chaos, those with specific traits taking advantage of those who are not expecting those behaviors, etc. And since spontaneous order I feel is difficult to establish under normal conditions, a governing body has to take care of that. The nature of that body is to be defined. I feel that having multiple bodies representing multiple interests only can lead to a reproduction of the same phenomenon. That's why I favor one single body that in theory at least can represent all. In theory.

The T wrote: ^And I agree with that. I don't humans are good or bad or whatever. They just are. Studies are conflicting but they also have shown what humans are capable of (like the Milgram one) and we can agree that since all humans are somewhat different (I don't believe we are all that different), and many end up full of traits and characteristics that align with what simplistically we can call "bad", the lack of regulation (again, not intended as government regulation) can lead to abuse, chaos, those with specific traits taking advantage of those who are not expecting those behaviors, etc. And since spontaneous order I feel is difficult to establish under normal conditions, a governing body has to take care of that. The nature of that body is to be defined. I feel that having multiple bodies representing multiple interests only can lead to a reproduction of the same phenomenon. That's why I favor one single body that in theory at least can represent all. In theory.

Well, what we have right now (thinking globally) is multiple governing bodies with different interests.  And despite efforts to establish global cooperation, we still have wars and rivalries and corruption and whatnot.  The anarchist argument is not that these things would disappear in lieu of the dissolution of the state but that they would: 1. Become partially obsolete due to the absence of the coercive element of state control, the freedom to align oneself with whatever group one sees fit, and the quasi-capitalist incentive of competing entities to attract instead of repelling people, and  2. Happen on a smaller scale and be less destructive due to decentralization.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: dr wu23 wrote: humans are basically a nasty lot when left unregulated. This is said a lot, but it has never actually been shown.

Are you kidding.....?