• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is This Minority Group so Violent?

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Based on theory and previous results, three hypotheses are posed:

  • Libertarian states have no violence between themselves.
  • The more libertarian two states, the less their mutual violence.
  • The more libertarian a state, the less its foreign violence.

The direct and indirect tests given here provide strong, positive support for the three hypotheses and thereby for the Joint Freedom and Freedom Propositions, and thus reinforce the conclusion of my Understanding Conflict and War. A necessary condition of violence between two states is that at least one of them be partially or completely nonlibertarian. Or, to turn this around, violence does not occur between libertarian states. Moreover, whether states are considered individually or dyadically, the less free--libertarian--a state, the more violence it engages in.

Contiguity is not an intervening variable: Contiguous or not, libertarian states do not exert violence on each other; and whether having common borders or not, the less freedom in states, the more violence between them.

Whether libertarian is defined by political freedom or freedom, the data are highly supportive of the propositions. However, while economic freedom does not significantly detract from the Joint Freedom Proposition, it is clearly important for the Freedom one. To add economic freedom to civil liberties and political rights is to reduce significantly the level of violence for a state overall, or between particular states. For the Freedom Proposition, the libertarian's (or classical liberal's) faith in the peaceful effects of economic freedom appears" according to these data, well justified.
LIBERTARIANISM AND INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Without centralized and vicarious dispute resolution, I'd expect libertarian states to be hotbeds of competition and vendetta.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Based on theory and previous results, three hypotheses are posed:

  • Libertarian states have no violence between themselves.
  • The more libertarian two states, the less their mutual violence.
  • The more libertarian a state, the less its foreign violence.

The direct and indirect tests given here provide strong, positive support for the three hypotheses and thereby for the Joint Freedom and Freedom Propositions, and thus reinforce the conclusion of my Understanding Conflict and War. A necessary condition of violence between two states is that at least one of them be partially or completely nonlibertarian. Or, to turn this around, violence does not occur between libertarian states. Moreover, whether states are considered individually or dyadically, the less free--libertarian--a state, the more violence it engages in.

Contiguity is not an intervening variable: Contiguous or not, libertarian states do not exert violence on each other; and whether having common borders or not, the less freedom in states, the more violence between them.

Whether libertarian is defined by political freedom or freedom, the data are highly supportive of the propositions. However, while economic freedom does not significantly detract from the Joint Freedom Proposition, it is clearly important for the Freedom one. To add economic freedom to civil liberties and political rights is to reduce significantly the level of violence for a state overall, or between particular states. For the Freedom Proposition, the libertarian's (or classical liberal's) faith in the peaceful effects of economic freedom appears" according to these data, well justified.
LIBERTARIANISM AND INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE
Well when you oppress people, take away their freedoms, ban this ban that, create hideously restrictive nanny environments, people are going to get all pent-up and that has got to release sometime somewhere.

There's something to said about people when anger is held in and pent up over a period of time.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Such systems (like the free market) tend to be self-regulating and to isolate and inhibit conflicts and violence when they occur.
Since when has the free market regulated itself and done away with conflicts?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Overall, I'd say this article is a prime example of Libertarian naivety. They basically set the bar so high that there will never be a truly Libertarian state.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Overall, I'd say this article is a prime example of Libertarian naivety. They basically set the bar so high that there will never be a truly Libertarian state.

I suppose an example might be some kind of old frontier region where the inhabitants might have followed some rules of civilized order, but without any real practical or timely enforcement mechanism.

Or it could be something like the Hatfields and the McCoys, which would probably be how libertarian states would operate in practice.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
How would you define a "libertarian state"? Or more specifically, are there real world examples of such?

It is defined in the link provided. Basically each state considered is assigned a value based on political and economic freedom.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Without centralized and vicarious dispute resolution, I'd expect libertarian states to be hotbeds of competition and vendetta.

Sure, a judicial system which supports economic and political freedom.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It is defined in the link provided. Basically each state considered is assigned a value based on political and economic freedom.

I skimmed through it (it appears rather long), and I noticed a reference to Freedom House, whose measures of freedom I'm familiar with.

Although they're claiming that they're looking as far back as 1816, whereas Freedom House started up in the 1930s or 40s, if I recall correctly.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Since when has the free market regulated itself and done away with conflicts?

This is the initial theory, not a statement of fact. It takes a state with a freer market system and compares it to states with less free market systems.

For example take the interaction of two "states" with freer market system such as the US and Canada. Then compare the interaction of two states with less free market systems such as Iran and Iraq.
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Overall, I'd say this article is a prime example of Libertarian naivety. They basically set the bar so high that there will never be a truly Libertarian state.

They are not setting a bar they are setting a curve and placing existing "states/countries" on that curve. States which have freer market/political systems tend to have less violent interactions with each other.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I suppose an example might be some kind of old frontier region where the inhabitants might have followed some rules of civilized order, but without any real practical or timely enforcement mechanism.

Or it could be something like the Hatfields and the McCoys, which would probably be how libertarian states would operate in practice.

What economic and political system were employed by the Hatfields/McCoys and how would each rate in terms of freedom?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well when you oppress people, take away their freedoms, ban this ban that, create hideously restrictive nanny environments, people are going to get all pent-up and that has got to release sometime somewhere.

There's something to said about people when anger is held in and pent up over a period of time.
The trick is to maintain the maximum freedom compatible with safety and prosperity. Without regulation society will stratify into a small, predatory elite exploiting a large, impoverished majority, and people will exploit resources for short-term benefit.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is the initial theory, not a statement of fact. It takes a state with a freer market system and compares it to states with less free market systems.

For example take the interaction of two "states" with freer market system such as the US and Canada. Then compare the interaction of two states with less free market systems such as Iran and Iraq.
I'm not familiar with the degree of economic freedom in the middle East, but it doesn't have a reputation for general prosperity, equality or stability. It doesn't compare favorably with the highly regulated, prosperous, happy Scandinavian regions.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
They are not setting a bar they are setting a curve and placing existing "states/countries" on that curve. States which have freer market/political systems tend to have less violent interactions with each other.
But not necessarily less exploitative. Cutthroat, unregulated competition doesn't promote general prosperity within countries, and, internationally, free markets favor exploitation and imperialism.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What economic and political system were employed by the Hatfields/McCoys and how would each rate in terms of freedom?
The region was isolated, unregulated and "free." With no reliable centralized authority to rely on. People settled their own affairs. There was fear, insecurity, vendetta and violent competition.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The trick is to maintain the maximum freedom compatible with safety and prosperity. Without regulation society will stratify into a small, predatory elite exploiting a large, impoverished majority, and people will exploit resources for short-term benefit.
I don't disagree with that. It's clear there is a need for a proper balance between freedom and societal stability.

It would be exceedingly nice to see a renaissance occur where that happy balance is met. Sadly , it's going to take a very skilled leader to accomplish that and I can't remember the last time this country had somebody like that.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"This country?" Aren't you American?
Americans aren't supposed to have leaders, we're supposed to have representatives. We're supposed to govern ourselves.

This craving for leaders strikes me as immaturity; a childlike need for a strong-father figure to take care of us. It leads to authoritarian, police states.
 
Top