Why is This Minority Group so Violent?

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

They are basically upfront saying "no True Libertarian state goes to war." That makes it rather convenient to dismiss any state that does go to war as non-Libertarian. Human behaviors and exchanges just aren't that simple.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I also see "let someone else take care of my own responsibilities."

 

[Nakosis]

They are basically upfront saying "no True Libertarian state goes to war." That makes it rather convenient to dismiss any state that does go to war as non-Libertarian. Human behaviors and exchanges just aren't that simple.

There is also the non-aggression principle.
What you should know about the Non-Aggression Principle

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.

In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

So war only in self defense. Otherwise you would be correct. However since there are no "true" libertarian states, the study looks at the libertarian principles of economic and political freedom.

The implications being greater economic and political freedom resulting in less violence between states.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is also the non-aggression principle.
What you should know about the Non-Aggression Principle

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.

In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

So war only in self defense. Otherwise you would be correct. However since there are no "true" libertarian states, the study looks at the libertarian principles of economic and political freedom.

The implications being greater economic and political freedom resulting in less violence between states.

Sounds like a Christian trying to dismiss the Crusaders, Inquisitors, and Conquistadors as "no real/true Christian."

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I would think the head of each family would be the centralized authority. Also likely a lot of political and economic pressure from the head of each family.

Also libertarian does not equal unregulated. Libertarians recognize the need for regulation, based on their principles.

 

[Nakosis]

Sounds like a Christian trying to dismiss the Crusaders, Inquisitors, and Conquistadors as "no real/true Christian."

If you want to point to a "state" which has a system of economic and political freedom, past or present, we can review it.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are basically upfront saying "no True Libertarian state goes to war." That makes it rather convenient to dismiss any state that does go to war as non-Libertarian. Human behaviors and exchanges just aren't that simple.

I don't see that claim being made.
Libertarians believe in the right to self defense,
which allows going to war for that purpose.
But waging war out of belligerence isn't libertarian.
So you're partly right.....if a state attacked another
to steal resources, this would be non-libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like a Christian trying to dismiss the Crusaders, Inquisitors, and Conquistadors as "no real/true Christian."

Christians are defined by their accepting Jesus Christ as their lord & savior.
So long as this is true for one, their behavior is independent of this.
A murderous psychopath who is saved by Jesus is still a Christian,
albeit a very bad one.

To qualify as a libertarian state, it must have a large degree of both
economic & social liberty. In this case, it is all about the behavior of
the state with respect to these liberties.

 

[Nakosis]

But not necessarily less exploitative. Cutthroat, unregulated competition doesn't promote general prosperity within countries, and, internationally, free markets favor exploitation and imperialism.

The libertarian position is the opposite of exploitation. In fact see the government as the exploitative. Big business controlling the government to the benefit of big business, not the free market. Again, libertarianism is not for un-regulation. It is for self regulation.

I suppose you are in favor of Trump imposing tariffs on foreign countries? That's government regulation of the market. You want to government to tell you which products to buy, which not to buy, how much to buy? I suppose if you can't make these decision for yourself, you'd prefer the government to step in and make these decision for you. Governments allow monopolies, regulations allow exploitation. Big business is able to manipulate the government to say how you have to conduct business and who you can conduct it with. The protection people believe in through government regulation is illusionary.

Freedom of choice is scary for some. They may feel safer by having the government make choices for them but that protection is not real.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see that claim being made.

Its in the OP.

I don't see that claim being made.
Its in the OP.

And? That doesn't address how Christians will dismiss their less sabory members as "no real/true Christian. "
.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its in the OP.

I saw.....

• The more libertarian a state, the less its foreign violence.

This is significantly different from your claim.

And? That doesn't address how Christians will dismiss their less sabory members as "no real/true Christian. "

Again, Christians aren't defined by their actions, but by their belief in Jesus as God.
Libertarian states as addressed by the OP are defined by their actions, not by beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

I also see "let someone else take care of my own responsibilities."

There is also the non-aggression principle.
What you should know about the Non-Aggression Principle

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.

In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

So war only in self defense. Otherwise you would be correct. However since there are no "true" libertarian states, the study looks at the libertarian principles of economic and political freedom.

The implications being greater economic and political freedom resulting in less violence between states.

So your upstream neighbor raises pigs on one shore of the river and uses copious fertilizer, insecticides and herbicides on his cornfields on the other. You fish in that river, and your kids swim in it. As a libertarian, you support his freedom to use his land as he wants, but his freedom is negatively impacting you. With no coercive authority, what options do you have to resolve this?

 

[Valjean]

The libertarian position is the opposite of exploitation. In fact see the government as the exploitative. Big business controlling the government to the benefit of big business, not the free market. Again, libertarianism is not for un-regulation. It is for self regulation.

Freedom of choice is scary for some. They may feel safer by having the government make choices for them but that protection is not real.

Ideally the government should be us -- the people. "The Government" should be a co-op, not an oligarchy of corporate special interests.
Libertarian? Options include back to the Pleistocene and Somalia.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So your upstream neighbor raises pigs on one shore of the river and uses copious fertilizer, insecticides and herbicides on his cornfields on the other. You fish in that river, and your kids swim in it. As a libertarian, you support his freedom to use his land as he wants, but his freedom is negatively impacting you. With no coercive authority, what options do you have to resolve this?

I'm not a Libertarian, but as Revoltingest would say, the upstream neighbor is swinging on the downstream neighbor's nose, which violates the "my rights end where you nose begins" thingy he says. And, indeed, many Libertarians do support a similar mindset, but it's also true that many don't.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not a Libertarian, but as Revoltingest would say, the upstream neighbor is swinging on the downstream neighbor's nose, which violates the "my rights end where you nose begins" thingy he says. And, indeed, many Libertarians do support a similar mindset, but it's also true that many don't.

Wags will say that libertarians oppose all regulation, but
is this just a straw man? Perhaps they believe that libertarians
are anarchists who oppose all regulation & even government.
If that were so, we'd call ourselves "anarchists"

Maximizing social & economic liberty means establishing boundaries
such that crossing them begins to harm others. This is better than
anarchy, wherein on has no redress of grievances except for personal
action against the transgressor. We know that can turn violent.

To such wags, I ask....
Which libertarians oppose such useful environmental regulation?
Name & quote them, & I'll address their claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ideally the government should be us -- the people. "The Government" should be a co-op, not an oligarchy of corporate special interests.
Libertarian? Options include back to the Pleistocene and Somalia.

Why do you think Somalia is libertarian?
You should become familiar with their constitution....
Somali leaders back constitution
That'll change your mind.

I swear....anti-libertarians & their loopy straw men.
If we aren't pouring used motor oil down our neighbor's
wells, we're all praying around an Ayn Rand statue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wags will say that libertarians oppose all regulation, but
is this just a straw man? Perhaps they believe that libertarians
are anarchists who oppose all regulation & even government.
If that were so, we'd call ourselves "anarchists"

Some libertarians are like that. "Ultra-minimal-state," "minarchist state," some such as Nozick believe the state should not even provide for defense, with the only role the government serving being to enforce ownership and contract agreements.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some libertarians are like that. "Ultra-minimal-state," "minarchist state," some such as Nozick believe the state should not even provide for defense, with the only role the government serving being to enforce ownership and contract agreements.

Every group has its fringe elements.
Tis erroneous to elevate them to the norm.
But minarchy is long way from anarchy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Every group has its fringe elements.
Tis erroneous to elevate them to the norm.

And, indeed, many Libertarians do support a similar mindset, but it's also true that many don't.

some such as Nozick

How is that elevating them to the norm?

 

[Revoltingest]

How is that elevating them to the norm?

Our friend described libertarians in general as allowing upstream pollution.
Tis a mistake to presume that we favor doing anything we want, so long
as it's on our land. He ignores our awareness of the problem that water
on that land travels downstream to our neighbor's nose...& gullet.
Does any libertarian argue that pollution of neighbor's water is a right?

Such extreme culling of fringe thought...unsupported, btw...could be
used against others too.
Do feminists generally believe that Newton's Principia is a "rape manual"?
Do Democrats generally send pix of their junk to children?