The CPAC presidential poll

March 10th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Kentucky Senator won the conference’s presidential preference straw poll, a symbolic victory that reflects his popularity among conservatives who typically hold outsized influence in the GOP’s presidential selection process.

Not really. Here’s a list of poll winners, and most of them never became the party nominee:

  • Ronald Reagan (became nominee)
  • Jack Kemp
  • Phil Gramm
  • Steve Forbes
  • Gary Bauer
  • George W Bush (became nominee)
  • Rudy Giuliani
  • George Allen
  • Mitt Romney (lost nomination in 2008, won it in 2012)
  • Ron Paul
  • Rand Paul

Rand Paul is more politically acceptable than his father Ron Paul, and is a serious contender. But I wouldn’t call him the front runner.

Tags:

85 Responses to “The CPAC presidential poll”

  1. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    Senator Paul has to take a ‘softer’ public approach because people such as DPF, if my memory serves me correctly, in the media simply just laughed at Ron Paul’s sensible concepts; that policing the world has been a failure for the US of A, that welfare/warfare state has left the US flat broke, that the Central Banking monetary system is broken and so on. According to the media class, these ideas are mad where as continual war (not that any of them have ever served in the military, where as Ron Paul did) and Central Banks manipulating the price of money is good.

    If you judge Rand by his voting record, it’s good – more or less the same as his principled father. If Rand can play this right and win the GOP nomination, then America at least has a hope.

    Meanwhile the establishment ‘conservatives’ in the media who know who butters their bread will continue to back psuedo-conservatives such as John Key, David Cameron, Mitt Romney etc whilst denigrating real Conservatives like Colin Craig/ Nigel Farage or Libertarians like Ron Paul/Jamie Whyte.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    Ive only skimmed a couple of articles on this guy, but I like him.

    At the risk of incurring the wrath of redbaiter, I think a more libertarian approach from the GOP will pull in a ton of young voters.

    Get the US back to being a free market and watch it kick ass economically.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    I have a lot of respect for both Pauls, and agree with them on most things. However the strict non-interventionist approach to defense policy would be impossible in practice, and is morally questionable.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ChardonnayGuy (1,232 comments) says:

    Giuliani seems to be the most electable and the most pragmatic choice. As for the Pauls, one US libertarian/individualist friend pointed out to me that they’re both rabid anti-abortionists, so how exactly do they get themselves described as “libertarians”? Fiscal conservatives, sure, but libertarians? Ayn Rand was pro-choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy,

    “As for the Pauls, one US libertarian/individualist friend pointed out to me that they’re both rabid anti-abortionists, so how exactly do they get themselves described as “libertarians”? Fiscal conservatives, sure, but libertarians? Ayn Rand was pro-choice.”

    Ayn Rand never called herself or her philosophy libertarian. Many early 19th-20th century US libertarians were also social conservatives and/or Christians.

    Libertarianism rightly speaking is simply the political philosophy resulting from the non-aggression principle. That principle states that it is wrong for any individual or group of individuals to initiate force against any other individual. For me, and a number of other libertarians, abortion violates that principle. Obviously many other libertarians disagree, and the issue has been debated now for a few decades.

    Part of the problem is that in recent years libertarianism has become popular with many who do not really understand it. They have read a few articles online and that’s it. They equate it with ‘fiscal conservatism plus social liberalism’. Or worse, they are the kind of pimple faced youth who discover that libertarians want to legalize pot and then start calling themselves libertarian.

    Here is the anti-abortion Libertarian site, Libertarians For Life, with plenty of debate and relevant articles: http://www.libertariansforlife.org/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    Mr Guy – I think using words like “rabid” does you a disservice but that’s for another day. Also as a separate note, much of America’s elections are clouded by the 3 “Gs” (Guns, God, Gays) that raise strong emotions and drive a big wedge in the populace but in all reality shouldn’t even be issues concerning in electing the Executive Branch of Government.

    I think Ron Paul’s position on abortion is perfectly consistent with being a Libertarian. Dr Paul was a practicing Doctor who delivered more than 4,000 babies and it is his belief that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life. A rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?

    If you believe that life starts at conception, then his anti-abortion views are perfectly consistent with his libertarian values, as if you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?

    As for his views on defence, I think it is best summed up by the phrase “Speak softly and carry a big stick”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Zebulon (125 comments) says:

    I prefer Ron Paul, but either Paul could be the saving of America and good for the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    dime, when was the US actually “free “market and what makes you convinced that a dose of Libertarian ideology will kick start the US economy and pull in the young voters.?
    Shawn ,Libertarianism become popular with those who don’t understand it..?
    Well do you understand it.?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (220 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 11:02 am

    Ayn Rand never called herself or her philosophy libertarian.

    Indeed.


    The libertarianism we oppose is a specific set of ideas, the essence of which is a dedicated, thoroughgoing subjectivism. Libertarianism in this sense was spearheaded by Murray Rothbard and his followers in the 1960s and 1970s. Its political expression is anarchism, or “anarcho-capitalism” as they often term it, and a foreign policy of rabid anti-Americanism (which they pass off as “non-interventionism”).

    The “libertarians,” in this usage of the term, plagiarize Ayn Rand’s non-initiation of force principle and convert it into an axiom, denying the need for and relevance of philosophical fundamentals — not only the underlying ethics, but also the underlying metaphysics and epistemology.

    This is the anti-objective, anti-philosophic position that, in 1985, ARI’s then-chairman of the board, Peter Schwartz, properly denounced in his essay “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.” That comprehensive critique of libertarianism exposes the movement’s essence: nihilism. (A condensed version of this article is published in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought under the same title.) We agreed with and continue to agree with the essence of Peter Schwartz’s analysis.

    As Mr. Schwartz demonstrated at length, this libertarianism declares that the value of liberty and the evil of initiating force are self-evident primaries, needing no justification or even explanation — leaving undefined such key concepts as “liberty,” “force,” “justice,” “good,” and “evil.” It claims compatibility with all views in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics — even subjectivism, mysticism, skepticism, altruism, and nihilism — substituting “hate the state” for intellectual content.

    This is why Ayn Rand opposed it from the start.

    http://ari.aynrand.org/faq

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Stephieboy,

    Yes. I have been a Libertarian for a very long time and have read a large number of libertarian writers and philosophers, including most of everything by Murray Rothbard. At last count I have read about 80+ books on the subject.

    Iv’e even read most of Ayn Rand’s work, though strictly speaking she was an Objectivist not a Libertarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    I think Rand Paul wants to kick a lot of things back down to each state. Where they belong.

    The fed govt over there is outta control.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    stephie – there is a famous saying along the lines of “the revolution will not be televised”

    While you spend all your time getting your rehashed arguments from hack media and the MSM, there is a quiet revolution going on as people are waking up and seeing the emperor(Big Government) has no clothes.

    The Media practically ignored or mis-represented Ron Paul’s campaign but use 3 minutes of your time and see it with your own eyes as Ron’s Rallies attracted hundreds of thousands of impassioned young people chanting “President Paul”, or “End the Fed”. When you have thousands of people at each rally calling for an end to the Federal Reserve, you better believe people understand what Freedom means and that Liberty is rising.

    Or better still, read one of Ron Paul’s excellent books either “The Revolution – A Manifesto” or “End the Fed”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Huevon (231 comments) says:

    I don’t understand the MSM narrative that the Republicans are in decline and crisis. To me, they are producing some of the most outstanding political figures in the English-speaking world right now (Rand Paul being a leading example). Of course, to a populace dependent on state entitlements and demoralised by several decades of liberalism, the message is not finding enough fertile soil in which to flourish.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Just my opinion, but the go-to book for anyone wanting a good intro to real libertarianism is ‘For A New Liberty’ by Murray Rothbard. It can be downloaded for free as a pdf file from the Mises Institute.

    https://mises.org/

    For those wanting an in-depth look at the relationship between social conservatism and libertariansim I cannot recommend highly enough Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s ‘Democracy–The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order’

    http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765808684

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Shawn, Libertarianism surely has to be one of the most fatuous and fallacious political and economic philosophies of our time,

    “Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardised, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned “freedom” into an instrument of oppression.”

    http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/19/how-freedom-became-tyranny/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free”

    Less free how?

    “It denies the need for the state to curb them”

    Hmmmmm….. ‘Hi, I’m the armed State, and I am going to take away your freedom in order to protect your freedom.’

    In reality libertarians have been fiercely critical of crony capitalism in which corporations use the power of the state for gain, and certain banking practices, such as fractional reserve banking and fiat currency.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    By the way stephie, quoting far-left George Moonbat is not going to win you any credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    heh

    GOOD NEWS: If we elect #CPAC2014 winner Rand Paul President, we’ll be able to buy weed at the Whites Only Lunch Counter! #GOP

    https://twitter.com/GOPunplugged/statuses/442443248028508160

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    @ stephie – you pick a hardline Guardian Columnist as your authority or did you just do a quick google search and happen to find an article from December 2011 that supports your hackneyed worldview?

    I had a very brief look at what this guy writes about and also in 2011 I found this article:
    http://www.monbiot.com/2011/01/03/home-rule/

    In short he is saying that the State employ National Socialist policies on home ownership and force people to accept lodgers into their home if the state deems it to be too large for their needs. In his own words “While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality.”

    So good ol George thinks that YOUR home is part of a common resource which should be used ‘wisely’ and ‘fairly’. That you own it appears essentially irrelevant.

    The only way such a policy would work of course is through force. If you live by yourself in, say, a four bedroom house (essentially a crime of inequality in Georges view) and do not wish to have lodgers, then the great ‘we’ (I’m sure George and Stephie are in this category) will have to impose it upon you, ultimately through force. To enact Communist/Fascist/Socialist/Green policies, force is usually a prerequisite.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Shawn, I don’t care a hoot if you think George happens to be far left or far right. Focus on the arguments he raises.,

    “Last week, on an internet radio channel called The Fifth Column(5), I debated climate change with Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas, one of the right-wing libertarian groups which rose from the ashes of the Revolutionary Communist Party(6). Claire Fox is a feared interrogator on the BBC show The Moral Maze. Yet when I asked her a simple question – “do you accept that some people’s freedoms intrude upon other people’s freedoms?” – I saw an ideology shatter like a windscreen. I used the example of a Romanian lead smelting plant I had visited in 2000, whose freedom to pollute is shortening the lives of its neighbours(7). Surely the plant should be regulated in order to enhance the negative freedoms – freedom from pollution, freedom from poisoning – of its neighbours? She tried several times to answer it, but nothing coherent emerged which would not send her crashing through the mirror of her philosophy.”

    There is nothing far Left about that. Common sense really. I think Libertarians like you hold the mistaken assumption that your freedom to act unrestrained will not at some point affect the ability of others to act likewise or are more constrained. This is a fact and reality of life. Its almost childish to think that thing that acts to limit your unfettered actions amounts to tyranny.!
    I do note the supreme irony that the founding guru and prophet of modern Libertarianism ,Ayn Ran in her declining years ended up on Medicare and social security.

    EAD, Your evidence that Monibot is hard line left, Communist etc, etc.Where did he say adopt NAtional Socialist policies re housing.??
    Like Shawn focus on his arguments against Libertarianism.!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “GOOD NEWS: If we elect #CPAC2014 winner Rand Paul President, we’ll be able to buy weed at the Whites Only Lunch Counter! #GOP”

    ah the left, desperately trying to hang onto the black vote. must paint the GOP as racist at all times. without the 95% of the black vote, the dems are fucked. that is, until they can ship in enough illegals and give em the vote.

    ““It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free””

    not sure you know what youre talking about. the goal is to take away the tools the rich use via govt to keep people down. barriers of entry into markets etc.

    the banks need their asses kicked, they dont need to be given 80 billion a month by your hero obama

    corporations also need their asses kicked.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “I used the example of a Romanian lead smelting plant I had visited in 2000, whose freedom to pollute is shortening the lives of its neighbours(7). Surely the plant should be regulated in order to enhance the negative freedoms – freedom from pollution, freedom from poisoning – of its neighbours?”

    lmao

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Libertarianism is a vehicle for those who fear the political collective of democracy – an outreach beyond mere opposition to socialism.

    There are two strands, the liberal and the religious (a vehicle for opposing any order of rule/form of group identity not sourced in religion).

    It’s a form of meritocratic elitism and thus its appeal to aspirational students.

    It’s notable for the gods that many of its adherents serve – for some its the gold standard money (end to fiat banking), for others it is the sanctity of life and no force against life can be applied (thus pro life with limited capacity for government to re-distribute wealth to those in need), for others its the freedom to do what they want, for others its simply a vehicle to constrain a majority acting in their common interest via the political process.

    The fear of demographic change in the USA has revived the founding fathers fear of the popular mob of the urban area dominating government (the gerrymandering of the House electorates, that superceded reliance on the Senate as the means to veto this urban majority, will soon no longer be sufficient). The rise of libertarianism is both the refuge and the false god hope of this fearful minority.

    It’s the political equivalent of the religious who await God rule of the earth advent to save them from democracy (and decline of American/Christian control of government in the world).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Why I fled Libertarianism and became a Liberal from a former Ron and Rand Paul fanboy,

    ” I don’t think regular Americans have any idea just how crazy libertarians can be. The only human corollary I can offer is unquestioning religious fervor, and hell yeah, I used to be a true believer. Libertarians think they own the word “freedom,” but it’s a word that often obfuscates more than enlightens. If you believe the Johann Wolfgang von Goethe quote “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free,” then libertarians live in a prison of their own ideology.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/

    Amen to Edwin Lyngar.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (226 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 11:43 am

    Hmmmmm….. ‘Hi, I’m the armed State, and I am going to take away your freedom in order to protect your freedom.’

    What is freedom though? The concept is so broad that it’s hard to see how it gets a proper treatment when used as a mere rhetorical device.

    For the libertarian the government taking away “freedom” to protect “freedom” is presented as a contradiction in terms. However, correctly viewed it is not a contradiction but a trade-off. You are in effect trading certain limitations for privileges elsewhere and hoping that on balance you are better off.

    These sorts of trade-offs are inherent in nature. Are you better off sticking with your tribe? Or telling them to go screw themselves and walk off into the wilderness by yourself? Is a woman better off with her husband even though he’s smelly and rude? Or does she fend for herself?

    It’s hard to imagine these tradeoffs precisely because the role of the state is so ingrained in our lives that it becomes difficult to conceive that once upon a time these were realistic choices and that rejecting those relationships may result in significant threats to your welfare and freedom. But certain freedoms are now guaranteed for us, by virtue of the government’s monopoly on force and the institution of modern standards on human rights.

    But the state hasn’t taken away the fundamental trade-off. The only difference now is that the “social contract” is not with your husband or your tribe, but with a nation. On the whole I think we are better off.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    dime, thus you believe that your so called” freedom” entitles you trample unrestrained over the rights of others. Your utterly deluded in thinking that your “freedom” gives you one to do anything at will ,including poisoning and polluting your neighbours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    dime (8,520 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    “GOOD NEWS: If we elect #CPAC2014 winner Rand Paul President, we’ll be able to buy weed at the Whites Only Lunch Counter! #GOP”

    ah the left, desperately trying to hang onto the black vote. must paint the GOP as racist at all times. without the 95% of the black vote, the dems are fucked.

    95% doesn’t sound so desperate. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    dime (8,520 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    [insert group here] need their asses kicked.

    I see you’ve thought long and hard about this. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Stephie,

    “Focus on the arguments he raises”

    I would love too. They are bogus. He clearly does not understand the subject he is talking about. If a far left Gaurdianista wants to debate libertariansim, he should actually read actual libertarians. He clearly has not.

    Have you?

    SPC,

    ‘Hi, we are the democractic collective, and we are going to rob you and strip you of your freedom for the good of the collective”

    And where have we heard that before?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Freedom is the right to live my life as I see fit, so long as I respect that same right in others. There is no confusion needed here Weihana.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, you mean when the state sought to imprison people who were engaged in consensual acts because of the morality code of the religion of some of the people?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    ShawnLH – I think we may have had differing points of view re, Ukraine but good to know there are other KiwiBloggers out there well versed in the principles of Libertarianism and have read Rothbard. His book “Anatomy of the State” is one of the best short books I’ve read.

    Through him I’ve essentially come to understand that the State mainly benefits Large Corporations (especially Banks) who they use it to give them special privileges so they can maintain their wealth and power. The State buys off the Underclass with bread and circuses and keeps them poor (poor education, min wage laws, generous welfare) so they defend the status quo. That leaves the Middle Class working like dogs to pay for it all without the numbers to make any changes.

    The trick is to convince the Middle Class that it’s worth continuing to graft for that promotion, that new car, that bigger house, the dream holiday, the latest tablet etc and that the things the State provides are worth the taxes we pay. If the State turns the screw too much the Middle Class starts to opt out, which I’m doing myself as much as I feasibly can.

    You may have read this little fable also by Rothbard that get’s to the truth of the matter. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard22.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    SPC,

    “ShawnLH, you mean when the state sought to imprison people who were engaged in consensual acts because of the morality code of the religion of some of the people?”

    If you read my post on the Ugandan laws concerning homosexuals you would know that I oppose that totally.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “dime, thus you believe that your so called” freedom” entitles you trample unrestrained over the rights of others. Your utterly deluded in thinking that your “freedom” gives you one to do anything at will ,including poisoning and polluting your neighbours.”

    dude, you have no idea what youre talking about.

    id debate you but i just plain dont like you. someone else can waste their time with the dude who thinks we are all racist and hate obama cause hes black.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Monbiot brings up the issue of externalities; what happens when someone else’s freedom, or a corporations freedom, impinges on my own, such as a factory poisoning my land.

    While this is a legitimate concern, Monbiot ignores the fact that corporations operate the way they sometimes do because of the support of the State, which is able to pass laws in favour of corporations and/or polluters. A good example would be the State using eminent domain laws to strip people of their property so a business or cooperation can use the land, or shielding businesses and corporations from any consequences of their actions.

    Thus the basic problem is not genuine free trade, but the State. Monbiot want’s a large and intrusive State, he just wants it oppress people in ways he approves of.

    SPC, libertarians do not remotely believe what you claim. You clearly do not understand what Libertarian philosophy actually teaches, thus your critique is based on a factually challnged strawman

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (231 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Freedom is the right to live my life as I see fit, so long as I respect that same right in others. There is no confusion needed here Weihana.

    And does this state of freedom exist as a default, natural state? In the absence of government does this “right” flourish naturally? If so then surely we could look at the historical record, note an originating and natural state of freedom that was subsequently supplanted by unnatural and oppressive government. As far as I know this doesn’t exist in any historical record we are aware of. And this is the essential point: to live as we want to is not a default state, it is something that is enabled.

    One could say that it is a normal desire to want to have a home, have some children and raise them well. But this home requires protection, as do the children and to raise them well requires access to resources that will enable that. This is more effectively achieved within a tribe, as part of an extended family than one person setting out in the wilderness to “do as I like and respecting others to do the same”. The tribe provides protection from other tribes. It enables a division of labour to enable more effective utilization of the resources that are available. It also grants access to those resources. But the tribe also requires sacrifice. We must conform to the rules of the tribe. We must value the interests of the tribe as balanced against our own interests.

    So to live as we like is not something that exists merely by respecting others, it is something that is enabled through social relationships and these relationships require sacrifice as much as the benefits they provide. The nature of those relationships can evolve of course. There is no reason to retain old customs merely because they are old. In that respect, one might argue that libertarianism is a state society should evolve towards as an ideal.

    The problem though is that the ideology negates the value of government despite the evidence indicating that government has often been instrumental in providing many of the social norms that we take for granted. Slavery for instance was abolished by government. Equality for women was provided by the government. The Nazi’s were defeated by other governments with the military means to do so.

    Whatever one thinks of the size of government, it seems hard to dispute that some government is needed and equally hard to see how that government can exist without a monopoly on the use of force. Therein lies the inherent trade-off between doing whatever we like and giving an authority the power to permit us to do what we like and to protect that right from those who might take it away.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, when I responded to your question

    ‘Hi, we are the democractic collective, and we are going to rob you and strip you of your freedom for the good of the collective” – “and where have we heard that before”

    with

    you mean when the state sought to imprison people who were engaged in consensual acts because of the morality code of the religion of some of the people?

    I was making no comment on what libertarians believe, but simply answering your question.

    Perhaps you could answer mine, when “the democratic collective acts to rob and strip people of their freedom”, does it do so with this goal in mind? If not, what justifications are used and are they ever good enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “Slavery for instance was abolished by government.”

    and before it was abolished. did govt help keep it going?

    eg – irish slaves sent to the US by the brits..

    in the US – how about the govt enforced slave patrols? where guys would have to do their turn patrolling the south looking for slaves, doing inspections of slave houses etc they werent paid. if they didnt due their “duty” they were fined. rich slave owners lobbied the govt for this to happen. without these patrols it would have been far easier for a slave to run away.

    what about the govt laws in the US saying runaway slaves had to be returned? also making it bloody hard for a slave to escape and ensuring slavery went on and on

    but yeah, eventually they ditched slavery. yay govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    your confusing the family and the tribe with the modern leviathan state. They are not the same thing.

    For a start, libertarianism cannot possibly be described as “living in the wilderness” without social relationships. That is a strawman.

    Nor do libertarians decry social relationships, or the need for some kind of mutual cooperation. That too is a strawman.

    The question is, what kind?

    The individual and the family are natural, part of the Natural Order. The tribe is a very small unit, essentially an extended family. A group of individuals and/or families choosing to cooperate for mutual benefit is not at all the same thing as the modern State.

    If I or my family choose, note that word ‘choose’, to cooperate together with others for mutual benefit, that is a good thing, and no libertarian would decry that.

    The modern leviathan State is not at all the same thing. The State imposes by force it’s monopoly position and fines, imprisons or kills those who choose not to obey it’s dictates. That cannot be described as voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. It is slavery.

    The Sate legitimatizes it’s oppression through the illusion of choice called democracy. But democracy is not choice when the only choice on offer is the very same State. Democracy is merely the rubber stamp the State uses to impose it’s monopoly and oppression.

    Weihana trots out various things the State has done that were supposedly good, ignoring that the bad things were themselves a result of the actions of the State in the first place. Saying that the State is the answer to evil actions carried out by other States is like saying that the cure for cancer is more cancer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    dime, slavery laws were defended as defence of a property right. Some saw emancipation as stripping the owner of a property right. Today people serve employment contracts and can be bought out of them and then transfer to other employment – a new contract.

    The issue is now coloured by the objection to people as property than can be owned rather than just their working life/labour. The cell phone contact and work conditions such as drug tests are blurring the lines.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    FFS Stephie boy,

    The ultimate job of government is to balance individual rights with the good of society, they can do this by either permitting someting, prohibiting something, or by NOT promoting something that is permitted, such as smoking, promiscuity, alcohol, no faults divorce, homosexuality ect.

    Promoting what is good for society and not promoting which is bad for society is where most of the conservtive arguements are currently at in a ‘liberal society’.
    Act and the Conservatives CAN work together. The cost of smoking, promiscuity, no faults divorce, and the health cost of sexual perversion is unaffordable to society. All should not be publicly promoted.

    The costs of STD medicines and treatment, and pre-natal healthcare for those who then later ‘choose’ an abortion, should be bourne by those who choose to be ‘liberal’.
    People going without ‘expensive advanced medicine’ because NZ Health ‘can not afford it’ – is morally wrong when NZ Health is all to willing to treat the irresponsable sexualists. And unlike smokers and drinkers the ‘sexualists’ don’t pay those high tax rates.

    Healthcare should not be a free service for the irresponsable – even Liberal ACT knows that! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “slavery laws were defended as defence of a property right”

    not that many southerners actually owned slaves. it was the rich protecting their way of life, which is what they always do. fair enough. but the govt did their dirty work.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    SPC,

    “when “the democratic collective acts to rob and strip people of their freedom”, does it do so with this goal in mind?”

    No, the goal is usually some other claimed good, such as eliminating poverty.

    “If not, what justifications are used and are they ever good enough?”

    NO, never. The ends do not justify the means.

    ” slavery laws were defended as defence of a property right.”

    Was this happenning in a Libertarian society based on the non-aggression principle? No. In fact, slavery was being carried out in democracies, not libertarian societies. When people can vote, they can make “property” mean anything they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, it can be argued that the UK was not a democratic society then as most men were excluded and all women from the vote while they allowed slavery (trade of labour property). As for the USA no women voted when slavery existed (on the basis that slaves and their descendants born in America were not Americans with a right to be free but were imported labour property).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    SPC – yeah that’s great. The US govt meant slavery continued. They enforced it.

    That is the bottom line.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    SPC, our current democracies till exclude some people. So not really a relevant issue. Yes they were democracies regardless, not libertarian societies.

    Do you really think women having the vote would have made any difference? I seriously doubt it.

    The point is that they were not Libertarian societies, so the issue of slavery then is not remotely relevant to the issue of Libertarianism.

    Libertarianism is not a philosophy based on property rights, but a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle. Property rights flow from the non-aggression principle, but the principle is the basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    dime. as they also enforce immigration laws. How would a libertarian regime deal with long term migrants from the south of the USA who arrived without visa entry etc?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Shawn, the UK was not democratic at the time. The independent USA was established long after slavery and with existing labour property rights.

    What is the libertarian position on the state ending property rights – with compensation and compensation funded by who?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    If anyone wants to debate libertarianism, they have to debate the non-aggression principle, not what joe blogs did with his property or towards other humans in a non-libertarian society, and not silly nonsense about individuals going off into the woods to live alone.

    So, is the non-aggression principle right or wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “Shawn, the UK was not democratic at the time.”

    Yes it was, a form of it anyway. They had a Parliament in which people voted.

    “What is the libertarian position on the state ending property rights”

    The State has no right to do so. But if your referring to chattel slavery, owning other human beings is not a property right no matter what slave owners claimed. And again, slavery did not occur in a Libertarian context.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, having a parliament is not a definition of democracy. Parliament was an oligarchy reserved for men of land/property for most of its existence. For much of parliament’s history the Crown was dominant in government.

    So you see no compensation as liable if the property right is not recognised.

    An interesting loophole – copyright/patent and the duration thereof recognised or not …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “I do not like this Uncle Sam. I do not like his healthcare scam,
    “I do not like these dirty crooks or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress stalls. I do not like their crony deals. I do not like the spying man. I do not like ‘Oh yes we can.’
    I do not like this spending spree. We’re smart we know there’s nothing free. I do not like reporters’ smug replies when I complain about their lies.
    I do not like this kind of hope. And we won’t take it, nope, nope, nope. Hat tip the Internet.” -Sarah Palin at CPAC

    Palin received 2% of the CPAC straw poll vote.

    All in all, a typical performance from the former Alaskan governor. Plenty of red meat and Obama bashing, while spending an equal amount of time carrying out her own version of the Inquisition against fellow Republicans. She seems to want to lead the effort to unseat a lot of Republicans that she doesn’t consider pure enough, although Ted Cruz is also bidding for the position of Chief Establishment Republican Basher. The Texas Senator just signed a fundraising letter for a group trying to defeat Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the GOP primary.

    Republicans would be mad to leave their conservative past and base – as it will just be more of the same in Washington. And there’s no money in that. Or friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “ShawnLH, having a parliament is not a definition of democracy. Parliament was an oligarchy reserved for men of land/property for most of its existence.”

    Which was a form of democracy. It may have been limited democracy, but it was democracy. Ours is also limited in some ways. Certain people cannot vote. So what’s the real world difference?

    Our own democracy is also an oligarchy of sorts.

    But again, I am still waiting for an answer to these two issues. Did slavery occur in a Libertarian context? No. So what is the relevance? And is the non-aggression principle, the basis of libertarianism, right or wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Paul outlines potential 2016 platform, fresh off CPAC straw poll victory.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/09/paul-outlines-potential-2016-platform-fresh-off-cpac-straw-poll-victory/?intcmp=latestnews

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, you are confusing contest for seats in parliament, by a small proportion of the people who were land owners, with democratic government. For most of parliament’s history there was no parliamentary government, but direct Crown rule and even later Crown still Crown choice of Ministers continued.

    Government of the people, by the people is a recent development.

    I suspect you see the people as unable to be trusted to ensure freedom, and you think this freedom can be realised/sustained in the absence of the people having a vote/say. Thus you see the people as capable of corrupting government and being corrupted by government and thus you seek to save the people from themselves.

    Thus the idealism of a throne and a Crown that reigns as it does not rule, some perfect order of government of this throne and Crown that reigns and yet does not rule and thus cannot be corrupted by power – of course some Americans look to the constitution and limited government and some the past when there was a just King (one they would not rebel against but serve loyally) or the future when a more just King comes to offer to fulfil the sought qualities of rule they seek for their America.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “ShawnLH, you are confusing contest for seats in parliament, by a small proportion of the people who were land owners, with democratic government. ”

    They are merely different forms of the same thing.

    “I suspect you see the people as unable to be trusted to ensure freedom”

    Who are “the people”? Individuals, real human beings, are able to ensure freedom for themselves. But “the people” is just a meaningless abstract, much as “the peoples Republic of North Korea.”

    “Thus the idealism of a throne and a Crown that reigns as it does not rule, some perfect order of government”

    There is no perfect order of government. All forms of governance are imperfect, because human beings are imperfect. Some forms of governance however are certainly better than others.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, the government protects property rights, but it requires contribution to that collective effort. Once one requires of government this protection, there are obligations to it.

    The protection of life requires the action of health treatment, this also requires a contribution to enable.

    How is taxation to serve either goal wrong?

    Or is it only taxation for the purposes of redistribution to provide the necessities of life to all that is wrong about democracy – education and housing, food stamps and low income family tax credits?

    Libertarian appeal is to those tired of the complexity (and imperfection of the process and outcome – no one is happy at compromise) of government decision-making and process and those who oppose re-distribution as socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,789 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    Typical of Pallin,? She’s being normal i e behaving as politicians often like to behave ,full of bombast and rhetoric especially ( in her case ) , the Tea party nutty libertarian kind.
    Helps explains why she helped loose the 2008 Presidential race and why ,with her ,it will happen again.
    If it ever came to it Ron Paul would be crazy choosing her as a running mate.!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “ShawnLH, the government protects property rights”

    LOL…seriously???

    Democratic governments and/or big overnment of any sort, have an appalling track record on property rights.

    “The protection of life requires the action of health treatment, this also requires a contribution to enable.”

    Health can be provided privately with no government needed.

    “Or is it only taxation for the purposes of redistribution to provide the necessities of life to all that is wrong about democracy”

    ALL compulsory taxation, for any purpose, is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

    Libertarianism appeals to those who believe that initiating coercive force against other human beings is ethically wrong.

    And all forms of theft, which you call re-distribution, are wrong. Stealing is wrong, no matter the justification.

    Government re-distribution has created more poverty, not less and destroyed the family unit which is the best defense against poverty.

    Private charity is the best way to deal with poverty, not self-serving government which uses welfare as a vote bribe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else. As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed out that it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, and so on. Predictably, under democratic conditions the tendency of every monopoly – to increase prices and decrease quality – will be only more pronounced. Instead of a prince who regards the country as his private property, a temporary caretaker is put in charge of the country. He does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his proteges’ advantage. He owns its current use – usufruct – but not its capital stock. This will not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it will make exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock, i.e., short-sighted. Moreover, the perversion of justice will proceed even faster now. Instead of protecting pre-existing private property rights, democratic government becomes a machine for the redistribution of existing property rights in the name of illusory `social security.’”

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Shawn, democracy ( government by the people for the people )a soft variant of Communism.???

    Tell me, in what specific ways is this democratically elected government personally oppressing your personal and property rights,??
    Or is the National coalition in reality a Dictatorship.?

    Hans- Hermann Hoppe. ? Highly presumptuous of him leaving everything up to the dictates and whims of the “invisible hand.”

    Again ,don’t you find it rather comical and ironical the founding mother of modern libertarianism ended up herself surviving on State funded medicare etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “Again ,don’t you find it rather comical and ironical the founding mother of modern libertarianism ended up herself surviving on State funded medicare etc.”

    almost like she had no choice but to succumb to the system.. imagine if you will, the glorious state hadnt taxed the fuck out of her. there may have been a bit of cash to pay for her own health care?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    So dime, how much did she earn?.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    cha – at least $75

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Don the Kiwi (1,821 comments) says:

    stephieboy.

    You spend a lot of time bagging the Tea Party in the USA. But if you really listened to what they are saying, all they want is a return to proper constitutional government, which is what created American exceptionalism and made the country great.

    They can see that the path that O Bumbler is leading them on – socialism, scrapping or overriding the Constitution, massive and corrupt government – like the Soviet Union and other socialist countries – and the impoverishment of the nation.

    You really need to get away from your left wing obsession and fascination, and reallise what makes people free and wealthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    Apparently doctors cost a lot more money than books earn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “…..If it ever came to it Ron Paul would be crazy choosing her [Palin] as a running mate.!…..”

    She probably won’t stand as running mate.

    However Ted Cruz will probably be the Republican nomination for President. – Ted will stand his ground, whereas Ron won’t as he is too liberal.

    There is a rising tide of conservatism in the West – and the astute politicians are getting on the best boats. The rest are tied to the ‘old moors’ and will drown.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    cha – so youre saying a libertarian took free shit when on offer.. is that like someone from the far left accepting tax relief? or using trusts to limit their tax exposure? :O :O

    why the fuck wouldnt she?

    i benefited from interest free student loan bullshit. but i hated it. i would have been a fucking moron to insist on paying interest though “no no, its only fair” lol

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    So dime, you’re like those pricks at parties who drink other peoples beer rather than their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Stephieboy

    “Again ,don’t you find it rather comical and ironical the founding mother of modern libertarianism ended up herself surviving on State funded medicare etc.”

    There is no founding mother of libertarianism.

    “Tell me, in what specific ways is this democratically elected government personally oppressing your personal and property rights,??”

    Read the thread on the Auckland councils proposals to force property owners to consult Maori before doing anything on their own property.

    In general, eminent domain, restrictions on trade, compulsory taxation, regulations and taxes on anything and everything….the list of ways the NZ state restricts and violates property rights is almost endless. That was a remarkably silly question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    If your talking AlterNet’s lies about Ayn Rand, read this:

    http://freestudents.blogspot.de/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “So dime, you’re like those pricks at parties who drink other peoples beer rather than their own.”

    more like the guy who pays enough tax to support 2 skanks with 3 kids each on the DPB.

    oh, i go to the doctor once a year so i guess im getting my tax back that way eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    dime (8,533 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 1:40 pm
    “slavery laws were defended as defence of a property right”

    not that many southerners actually owned slaves. it was the rich protecting their way of life, which is what they always do. fair enough. but the govt did their dirty work.

    Many didn’t own slaves, not because they were opposed to the idea, but because they couldn’t afford them. But this doesn’t mean the population at large did not benefit from the economic productivity of slave labour.

    dime (8,533 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    SPC – yeah that’s great. The US govt meant slavery continued. They enforced it.

    That is the bottom line.

    Slavery has existed throughout history. It existed in ancient Rome and it exists today. It is not a policy of a particular government but a sad feature of primitive human culture that has expressed itself in societies all across the world and throughout history, even when those cultures are isolated from one another. Therefore it is ridiculous to say slavery exists because of the government. It exists because of people and ridding it from society takes concerted effort best provided by an authority that exercises a monopoly on the use of force.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (265 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 1:35 pm
    Weihana,

    your confusing the family and the tribe with the modern leviathan state. They are not the same thing.

    No, I was making an analogy, not confusing them. The analogy is apt for the purpose I employed it.

    libertarianism cannot possibly be described as “living in the wilderness”

    You miss the point. I was not attempting to describe libertarianism as “living in the wilderness”. The wilderness is simply where we live absent some social order. “Freedom”, as imagined by a libertarian, is not a default state of human existence, is my point.

    If I or my family choose, note that word ‘choose’, to cooperate together with others for mutual benefit, that is a good thing, and no libertarian would decry that.

    Tribes exist to secure human survival. To regard membership in them as a “choice” is meaningless.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Weihana

    ” I was making an analogy, not confusing them. The analogy is apt for the purpose I employed it.”

    Not at all. The analogy falls over because your describing radically different things and then claiming similarity, except the similarity does not exist.

    “The wilderness is simply where we live absent some social order.”

    The issue is what social order is just, and what is not. You have not answered that but instead made meaningless comparisons.

    ” “Freedom”, as imagined by a libertarian, is not a default state of human existence, is my point.”

    Which is a false point, as freedom is the default state of human existence. The compulsory coercive state is an unnatural distortion of human existence.

    “Tribes exist to secure human survival. To regard membership in them as a “choice” is meaningless.”

    Nonsense. I can leave a tribe, or join another, or have none at all, just my own family. Tribes are useful, but not necessary. The leviathan modern State destroys that choice by imposing an unnatural, artificial and coercive monopoly that slowly but surely destroys tribes and families, because they are competing sources of independent power, and the modern State will not abide any power other than itself, which is why our State is progressively nationalizing the family, using excuses about welfare, child abuse, human rights, or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (272 comments) says:
    March 11th, 2014 at 12:04 am

    The issue is what social order is just, and what is not.

    What is just should also be practical. That is one reason libertarianism (at least the kind advocated by Rothbard) doesn’t work, because reality involves trade-offs and “freedom” as imagined by a libertarian is not something that exists by default in the absence of government.

    Which is a false point, as freedom is the default state of human existence. The compulsory coercive state is an unnatural distortion of human existence.

    A position for which you have no empirical evidence to support you. Moreover, you seem to regard the “state” as something seperate from human nature despite the fact that every government that has ever existed has been the work of people. If aliens imposed the “state” then you might have a point but I find it hard to consider the state as unnatural given that it is the work of humans and has existed in one form or another throughout history. The libertarian paradise, which is apparently the “default” state of human existence, seems strangely absent from the historical record. Though I suppose that’s because John Galt has this magical land hidden from us with fancy laser beams. :)

    Nonsense. I can leave a tribe, or join another, or have none at all, just my own family. Tribes are useful, but not necessary.

    None at all… just your family. I’m sure your family would make a delicious meal for the other tribes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “What is just should also be practical.”

    Libertarianism is eminently practical. “Trade offs” of the sort your advocating have nothing to do with reality or pragmatism, they are just excuses.

    “A position for which you have no empirical evidence to support you.”

    An objective understanding of human nature is empirical evidence.

    “Moreover, you seem to regard the “state” as something seperate from human nature despite the fact that every government that has ever existed”

    Governing authorities are not the same thing as the State in it’s modern form. Moreover, anarcho-capitalism does not reject governance or authority, simply the coercive State.

    “The libertarian paradise, which is apparently the “default” state of human existence, seems strangely absent from the historical record. ”

    Then you have no clue about the historical record. Medieval Iceland and Ireland had no State. Both had rule by law and judges, but no governing State. Most tribal peoples have no State. Your repeatedly confusing authority and leadership with the modern State. They are not the same thing. My own tribal group never had a State until one was imposed on us by force. In fact NONE of the tribal groups related to mine had any kind of State. Leaders yes, the State, no.

    “I’m sure your family would make a delicious meal for the other tribes.”

    You haven’t met my family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (275 comments) says:
    March 11th, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    An objective understanding of human nature is empirical evidence.

    The understanding appears more faith based than fact based.

    Then you have no clue about the historical record. Medieval Iceland and Ireland had no State. Both had rule by law and judges, but no governing State. Most tribal peoples have no State. Your repeatedly confusing authority and leadership with the modern State. They are not the same thing. My own tribal group never had a State until one was imposed on us by force. In fact NONE of the tribal groups related to mine had any kind of State. Leaders yes, the State, no.

    The thing I notice about libertarians (and this comes from personal experience being one) is that there is an entire lexicon that goes with being a libertarian. Words don’t necessarily have their normal meaning but have a meaning for the purpose of reinforcing libertarian ideology. Words like “choice”, “force”, “state” have an a priori defintion consistent with what libertarian dogma requires and so a debate with a libertarian generally goes nowhere because the people debating are speaking two different languages.

    Now you seem to be making some distinction between “the modern state” and tribes which have mere “authority” and “leadership” which are somehow presumed to not be coercive. Yet when I look at the historical record I see tribes which practice cannabalism, believe in all sorts of ridiculous and primitive mythology and demand adherance to such, and in none of them do I see a system resembling the tenets of the libertarian faith, which at its core is adherance to the non-agression principle. I’m not sure how Medieval Iceland, for instance, demonstrates that the non-agression principle is fundamental to human nature. It only seems to demonstrate a system in which criminal punishments were enforced by sanctioned retribution carried out by victims (reflecting a small executive function in its governance). I fail to see that it shows a lack of “coercion”. Moreover, although I can’t say I am that familiar with the history of Iceland, I note Wikipedia suggests that this system was not overly effective at preventing fueds which goes to my point that the concept is not practical… and that’s in a society where everyone came from the same place and had the same background. Trying to apply that to a very diverse modern society would likely amplify the system’s shortcomings several fold.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “The understanding appears more faith based than fact based.”

    Really? Faith or fact, do human beings need to eat food?

    AS far as the rest of the post goes, I note that your own definitions of words seem to have multiple meanings.

    Yes many tribes practiced coercion and did bad things. But they were generally small tribes, so the resulting evil was limited, and it was usually easier to escape them. As the modern State, the largest and most powerful organisation in human history, grows at alarming rates, the scope and scale of that evil is exponentially compounded and the ability to just get out and move elsewhere is gone.

    Now this is partly to do with population growth, but it is far more the result of big government, which is an unnecessary evil with no practical value.

    So a tribe of several hundred may go to war against another tribe of several hundred. But now, compare that to WW1 or WW2. What was limited evil now becomes global evil on a massive scale, resulting in tens or even hundreds of millions of deaths and destruction of life and property on an almost incomprehensible scale. A small tribe may oppress it’s own people. When the modern State does so, millions can die, as they did in the Soviet Union.

    There is nothing at all practical about that. It’s insanity, not pragmatism.

    Moreover, your claim to “pragmatism” actually makes that kind of evil more likely, as justice can be so easily trodden over in the name of “being practical”.

    It was Stalin who said you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. He was being practical of course.

    Justice cannot be sidelines for whatever is “practical” in your mind. Justice must be absolute, or it is not justice to begin with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (287 comments) says:
    March 11th, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    Really? Faith or fact, do human beings need to eat food?

    Fact. And despite all the perils of modern civilization you cite, access to food is greater than ever and standards of living are also greater than ever, even in the third world. This is despite the “global evil on a massive scale”.

    Justice cannot be sidelines for whatever is “practical” in your mind. Justice must be absolute, or it is not justice to begin with.

    In a general sense I agree with your sentiment. But in terms of my original point, what is practical is also what is natural and human history is populated by civilizations that reflect the practicalities of human existence. So even if we hold libertarianism up as some sort of ideal (which, as an aside, I don’t) it is not something that exists naturally. It is something that has to be enabled, and enabled by some force that is greater than the forces against it. Therein lies the difficulty. Libertarians want these ideals to be an “authority” but have limited means to make it enforceable.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “Fact. And despite all the perils of modern civilization you cite”

    I said big government. And you missed the point.

    If humans must eat, then they must be able to hunt or grow food. There you have the relationship between property rights and human nature.

    “In a general sense I agree with your sentiment.”

    Then in fact you do not agree at all. Saying “in general” is just a fig leaf to hide the fact that you really think justice is secondary at best to “being practical”. This has been the excuse of tyrants throughout history. It was the excuse of slave owners.

    And lets clear up some other bs.

    Libertarians are not advocating any kind of “paradise” or “perfect order”, they are advocating a clear principle of justice for regulating human interaction BECAUSE there is no perfection or paradise in this world. And as freedom is natural, flowing from the needs of human nature itself, it is the utterly impractical and evil nature of the modern Leviathan State that is unnatural and historically abnormal. The very fact of imperfection means that trusting in big government is blind faith at it’s worst.

    Libertarians do have the means to create a better society, though advocacy and teaching and political activism. According to your argument, because slavery was seemingly the norm for so much of human history, it was natural, and those opposed to slavery were fantasizing about an impossible ideal.

    That is a remarkably dumb argument that reveals your myopic and very convenient historical reductionism.

    The truth is that your just making excuses for oppression and tyranny, based on your blind faith in big government. Stalin would have liked you, and probably made you his minister of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (288 comments) says:
    March 11th, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    According to your argument, because slavery was seemingly the norm for so much of human history, it was natural, and those opposed to slavery were fantasizing about an impossible ideal.

    Not seemingly… it was the norm. And indeed that goes to my point. To get rid of it required effort and an authority with the power to do so. Government is and was necessary to enforce prohibitions against it and that is also my point with regards to libertarianism. If it is held as an ideal, it requires govenrment to enforce it. The lack of government will not result in libertarianism, it would result in the kinds of systems that have populated human history. And therein lies the paradox.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “If it is held as an ideal, it requires govenrment to enforce it. The lack of government will not result in libertarianism”

    Who said anything about a lack of government? Libertarians, including Anarcho-Capitalists, do not reject governing authorities. The question is, what kind? And pointedly, what kind are just?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Slavery would never have existed in a Libertarian society precisely because the governing authority (or authorities) that exist to uphold the non-aggression principle would never have allowed it in the first place.

    Your staggeringly myopic understanding of governing authorities is your problem. You assume, wrongly, that if we have a government, it must be a democratic big state. That is absurd.

    For someone who claims to have been a libertarian, you clearly have no understanding of what libertarians actually believe and are proposing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    For Weihana’s education:

    What Libertarians actually believe;

    INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
    Each individual is the owner of his own life and has the right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same right in others.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY
    Each person has the right to create or lawfully acquire property – real, and intellectual – and to control its use.

    VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION
    All interaction among adult human beings, in all spheres of life, should be voluntary. Voluntary societies are civil societies, coercive societies are not.

    NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE
    Physical coercion must be removed from human affairs. The only acts that may properly be banned in a free society are those that involve the initiation of physical force or fraud by one party against another.

    COMMON LAW
    In a free society, laws protect people and property from the initiation of physical force or fraud, and uphold voluntary contractual agreements.

    LIMITED GOVERNMENT
    The only legitimate function of government is to uphold these principles.

    CAPITALISM
    The only economic system consistent with these principles is the free market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote