"A Time for Choosing"

[Matt James]

As a political system ? Laissez Faire capitalism. Complete separation of state from economics. All property privately owned. A Government strictly delimited to the defence of individual rights.

Where did I say I want rid of libertarians ? I can only try and persuade people that capitalism is the most moral system and that Anarchy is not compatible with capitalism. If your intention is to argue against capitalism then OK that’s your position.

You've mentioned this a couple of times in this thread, but unless I've missed it, you haven't explained the supposed morality behind the capitalist system.

To my thinking, libertarianism is eminently moral, in that it derives from the idea that a man should be his own master. Is that at odds with capitalism? I'm not convinced.

[Mark Le Comte]

Physical force is what I meant. I don’t know of any other time.

As I quoted you:

If everyone is running around shooting everyone because they have decided their property rights have been violated where does that leave us ?

This is not going to be productive if you cant remember what you wrote even when its quoted back to you.

Of course you can destroy a moral case. Just sit by and do nothing, compromise or act immorally.

That does not destroy the moral case - the case still exists. Acting immorally is not the same as destroying the moral case, do you really think that I can destroy any moral case you care to present by acting against it? This is not going to be productive if you draw flawed conclusions like that.

Haven’t you picked up my name yet, it isn’t accidental ;-)

Of course I had, why do you think I choose that particular example. So you are well aware that Libertarians did not plagiarise the idea, and that it existed well before Rand. Sorry if I was being too subtle.

Rand was the first person to take the idea that no man should initiate force against another out of the mystic.

That is a very different statement to you saying Libertarians plagiarised the idea. Most libertarians don't argue the basis the NAP, they just accept it as a core principle. So as the NAP existed before Rand, and Libertarians dont use Rand's derivation of it they are not plagiarising Rand (at least in this instance). This is not going to be productive if you make sweeping statements that are mis-applied.

I'm hard on objectivists because many of them fall into applying Rand's statements in the wrong context, which leads to them being considered dogmatic.

[Mark Le Comte]

If your intention is to argue against capitalism then OK that’s your position.

I live in New Zealand, and I'm pretty right wing by local standards (noting that most here would say NZ is a socialist state). My only bone is with Laissez Faire capitalism, it just cannot work fully as man is not rational enough and there is too much missing information and knowledge for any one individual.

In your ideal system, what is governments role in physical property rights? Can I build whatever I want on my own land?

[Jovan Dragisic]

Anarchy is rule by force

This is quite an arbitrary statement. Really weird to base a whole set of beliefs on this, but don’t take this as a complaint

[Nockian]

You've mentioned this a couple of times in this thread, but unless I've missed it, you haven't explained the supposed morality behind the capitalist system.

To my thinking, libertarianism is eminently moral, in that it derives from the idea that a man should be his own master. Is that at odds with capitalism? I'm not convinced.

I don’t intend to argue the moral case here. I’m saying that libertarianism isn’t compatible with capitalism because it anarchic.
‘Man should be his own master’ - thats your assertion, why would you ask me ?

I live in New Zealand, and I'm pretty right wing by local standards (noting that most here would say NZ is a socialist state). My only bone is with Laissez Faire capitalism, it just cannot work fully as man is not rational enough and there is too much missing information and knowledge for any one individual.

In your ideal system, what is governments role in physical property rights? Can I build whatever I want on my own land?

Depends on your interpretation of capitalism. I don’t understand your question. Reason is our means of integrating knowledge.

The Government defends property rights. You could build whatever you wanted as long as it didn’t violate someone else’s property rights. The application would be contextual. Is what you are building dangerous, polluting, hazardous in some way ?

This is quite an arbitrary statement. Really weird to base a whole set of beliefs on this, but don’t take this as a complaint

Anarchy means no government. Government is the appointed group protecting rights by preventing the initiation of force, which is consistent, by law, across the entire country. What happens when you don’t have a Government ? That picture is clear enough surely ? Failed states prove it. Warlords and gangs- Mad Max. Who will be free to trade and who’s property will be safe ? Capitalism cannot flourish without a Government. Trade will still occur, but it will be down to the whims of the gangs and warlords.

[Mark Le Comte]

I’m saying that libertarianism isn’t compatible with capitalism because it anarchic.

Only some forms of libertarianism propose a full anarchic solution.

You could build whatever you wanted as long as it didn’t violate someone else’s property rights. The application would be contextual. Is what you are building dangerous, polluting, hazardous in some way ?

For the sake of discussion, lets go with something quite 'soft and fluffy'. Say my property has nice sea views. You own a property that is between my property and the sea. How much can you build and block out my sea views, what redress is available to me if your new build impacts my perception of the value of my property, and who decides?

[Nockian]

Only some forms of libertarianism propose a full anarchic solution.


For the sake of discussion, lets go with something quite 'soft and fluffy'. Say my property has nice sea views. You own a property that is between my property and the sea. How much can you build and block out my sea views, what redress is available to me if your new build impacts my perception of the value of my property, and who decides?

Ask Rip and Satch. I assuming they are anarcho-capitalists, so you can question them as how it all works in a Libertarian state. I think they just get their guns out and go at it in order to settle any dispute ?

You don’t appear to be what I would describe as a Libertarian-more for a conventional, compromised statist mixed economic model. That’s a valid position. I know what that is and how it works, but it isn’t anarcho-capitalism. It wouldn’t fit into Rothbards manifesto.

I’m not selling here, it’s the Libertarians that are boogying their stuff. If this was a thread about objectivism then you’d certainly have a case in interrogating my model, but libertarianism isn’t my model, it’s supposedly yours.

[Mark Rippetoe]

How about you telling us what you think libertarianism is, so we can decide if we agree?

[Mark Le Comte]

Nockian, correct, Im not a libertarian, but I think I at least understand the view point. I wad interested in your strong reaction to it and its very rare to meet an objectivist in New Zealand and have a chance to discuss their views.

[Jovan Dragisic]

Anarchy means no government. Government is the appointed group protecting rights by preventing the initiation of force, which is consistent, by law, across the entire country. What happens when you don’t have a Government ? That picture is clear enough surely ? Failed states prove it. Warlords and gangs- Mad Max. Who will be free to trade and who’s property will be safe ? Capitalism cannot flourish without a Government. Trade will still occur, but it will be down to the whims of the gangs and warlords.

Yeah, no government. That is what it means. The rest is conjecture. I don't mind it though, carry on.