I believe in this guy : Libertarian

That's not libertarianism, that's anarchy. I don't know if you mean that quite so literally, but that's what would be the case. For me, I'm going to vote third party this year, and I know it's not a grand gesture, or even going to change anything. But it's the fact that I voted for someone I feel will make positive change, even if no one votes with me. Not voting, or turning in an empty ballot does literally nothing. You become a statistic of "non voters", of which politicians really don't give a crap. Even the good ones.

I would really encourage you to vote for who you think is BEST suited for the job, even if it's a write in. Just to have that level of personal civic responsibility. Because a vote for nothing isn't even a vote for anarchy or saying you don't want anyone in power, it says you don't care, it says that you aren't upset enough to even use the rights provided to you by the blood of those who care about freedom above all else. What it says is that you have absolutely no bite, the lowest level threat to the status quo, It makes you the most likely person for the government to trample on next, because they know you don't care enough to wake up early 1 day every 4 years to make your voice heard.

TL;DR Rock the vote!

[–]hexapus 10 points11 points12 points 20 days ago

Take a look over there. --------->

See "anarcho-capitalism"? That's there because anarchism (or voluntarism, if you wanna avoid the term that is often associated with left-anarchists and marxists) is fundamentally libertarian. Libertarianism is not a fringe element of the republican party...it's a distinct entity with its own principles and philosophy.

When one applies libertarian philosophy (such as the Non-Aggression Principle) consistently, they conclude that government cannot exist without violating it. Government cannot exist sans taxes, taxes are coercive and not voluntary, government cannot exist without threatening and initiating violence against nonviolent people.

Go give For a New Liberty a read. It will, if nothing else, help you understand the philosophy that forms libertarian thought, and strengthen your arguments for freedom...even if you don't agree with all of it.

[–]Kalfira 1 point2 points3 points 20 days ago

Thanks for the reply! You clearly put a lot of thought into it and I definitely will check out that text you supplied. My thoughts on the subject is as follows, the core of libertarianism is "You can do whatever you want so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others". I think we can all agree that's a good guideline right? You are right that anarchy is libertarian, however libertarianism isn't anarchy. In my opinion anarchy / voluntarism is the extreme / idealist version of libertarianism, it definitely CAN work but only if we live in some sort of utopia where everyone subscribes to the same beliefs and sticks to it. But in reality that will never happen.

For my "version" of Libertarianism there must be some form of an organized government, to establish justice, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, that sort of thing. The reason for this is because those issues are very important to the survival of the individual and the group. Unfortunately with those things, in the real world the people doing those jobs need to be paid so they can you know, live. And with that comes taxes. It's an unfortunate but in my opinion necessary ill.

Now am I saying our current tax system is ideal? Hell no! It's over complicated, bureaucratic, and honestly just ruthless. Ideally since the government would be doing much less than they are doing now the taxes will be much lower and would be as manageable as possible. Taxes would be as fairly distributed as possible making the burden relatively equal to all classes of people. The reason for this is because to ensure the right of everyone are upheld there has to be some form of organized body to protect it, because in my observation any time there is the opportunity for the individual to act without fear of reprimand, someone will do it. Without some form of government you would see a lot of what we had in the "wild" west. While yes corporations could fulfil that role it would be realistic impossible to have a "subscription based" road infrastructure or justice system.

I agree with the ideals you espouse, in an ideal world that would be a great way for things to run. However you and I both know we live in a far from ideal world. I think my vision for the world is a bit more of a "realist" perspective and yours is more of an "idealist" perspective. There is nothing wrong with idealism, and I would be proud to stand beside you in the fight for freedom and call you my brother. But I don't believe humanity is capable of successfully implementing such a system in the long term, at least not now in our societal evolution.

[–]hexapus 3 points4 points5 points 19 days ago

[–]Kalfira 3 points4 points5 points 19 days ago

Hrmm well that is a very valid point, and I will have to think on it more. But the core assertion there is that we would be better off in anarchy than under government "oppression" (I use the quotes there not to mock but to indicate the level of oppression is variable based on the government). I am not sure I agree.

The guideline behind that assertion is based on "if men are bad than the government of men shall be bad" and while that makes sense, I would like to believe that the number of "good people" outweigh the number of "bad people" so a government run will, most of the time, make good decisions. Yes their will be bad ones, but what democratic government does is give a method for the good people to speak equally to the bad. Unfortunately in order to make this work the good people have to actually get out and vote, which returns to my original statement. Voter participation is necessary for a good and viable democracy, and with it comes good government.

However I also realize the downside to this, the "average" person is colossally stupid and easily swayed. So even if they are fundamentally a good person they can still make bad decisions. But that's part of the accepted risk. Personally, I would rather pay taxes and deal with some bad decisions than face the risk of bandit attack. I realize that's an extreme version of the system you propose, but it is still a real possibility.

Now, if my assumption is wrong that most people are fundamentally good or that people are just too colossally stupid to do what is best for themselves then that system falls apart, and in that circumstance your solution would be the preferable one. But if that's really the case than humanity is pretty much doomed anyway, and I like to believe that's not the case.

Either way, it doesn't affect my original point. A blank vote or a non vote isn't a vote for either Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism, it's nothing. It doesn't send a message or make a gesture, it's just apathetic nothing. My suggestion would be vote for the candidate that is closest to your ideals (not sure if there IS an Anarcho-Capitalist candidate) and then write them a later explaining what you just told me and why you voted for them. They may not ever read it, you may get a form letter back, but you did what you could, and that is what counts.

[–]BroccoBaba -2 points-1 points0 points 19 days ago

If we had anarcho-capitalism, someone would invent a private company (lets call it The State Company). The State Company would provide public goods such as security and infrastructure to all its paying customers. As there are no competition-regulations, The State Company doesn't have to charge everyone the same price, and uses maximum price differentiation, meaning all customers pay a percent of their income.

If you don't like the price-quality offering provided by The State Company, you are free to move away. Afterall, there may be many states/state companies competing to attract good customers.

If you have kids, while being a paying member of The State Company, your kids will have the right to membership automatically. If you are not a customer, but would like to move here and be a customer of The State Company, you can apply.

Some customers are noisy, make 0 income and are unprofitable to The State Company and are annoying to its other customers. Seeing as The State Company has the largest security force, and these lousy customers are not welcome in any other states/state companies, the State Company is able to do with them, what it wants - e.g. throw them in jail or out of the company premises.

TLDR: If the state didn't exist, someone would invent it.

[–]hexapus 2 points3 points4 points 19 days ago*

[–]BroccoBaba 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

[–]hexapus 1 point2 points3 points 19 days ago

continue this thread

[–]zip99 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

[–]NicknameAvailable -5 points-4 points-3 points 20 days ago

[–]hexapus 3 points4 points5 points 20 days ago*

[–]ocealot 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

[–]hexapus 5 points6 points7 points 20 days ago

[–]rancemo 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

[–]pinchealeman 1 point2 points3 points 19 days ago

[–]rancemo -1 points0 points1 point 19 days ago

[–]pinchealeman 2 points3 points4 points 19 days ago

[–]rancemo -1 points0 points1 point 19 days ago

[–]pinchealeman 2 points3 points4 points 19 days ago

[–]rancemo -1 points0 points1 point 19 days ago

[–]pinchealeman 1 point2 points3 points 19 days ago

[–]rancemo -1 points0 points1 point 19 days ago

continue this thread

[–]Malkav1379 3 points4 points5 points 20 days ago

permalink

[–]unforeseeable 1 point2 points3 points 20 days ago

[–]rb_tech 1 point2 points3 points 20 days ago

[–]hexapus 0 points1 point2 points 20 days ago

[–]Zifnab25 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

[–]Kalfira -1 points0 points1 point 20 days ago

I posted this as a comment to someone else, but I felt it worthwhile to address to OP as well. That's not libertarianism, that's anarchy. I don't know if you mean that quite so literally, but that's what would be the case. For me, I'm going to vote third party this year, and I know it's not a grand gesture, or even going to change anything. But it's the fact that I voted for someone I feel will make positive change, even if no one votes with me. Not voting, or turning in an empty ballot does literally nothing. You become a statistic of "non voters", of which politicians really don't give a crap. Even the good ones.

I would really encourage you to vote for who you think is BEST suited for the job, even if it's a write in. Just to have that level of personal civic responsibility. Because a vote for nothing isn't even a vote for anarchy or saying you don't want anyone in power, it says you don't care, it says that you aren't upset enough to even use the rights provided to you by the blood of those who care about freedom above all else. What it says is that you have absolutely no bite, the lowest level threat to the status quo, It makes you the most likely person for the government to trample on next, because they know you don't care enough to wake up early 1 day every 4 years to make your voice heard.

TL;DR Rock the vote!

permalink

[–]ocealot 4 points5 points6 points 19 days ago

[–]Lightfiend 1 point2 points3 points 19 days ago*

[–]Kalfira 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

Honestly, I had never thought of the connection before earlier this evening. To me, anarchism has been kids in black hoodies throwing rocks at the police. Never as a serious social option. Hell even in Civilization, Anarchy is the lowest form of government. I had not ever associated the two movements. That's a TIL for me and I think I understand Libertarianism a little more now, even had some opinions changed. But the primary intent behind my post was not to attack the lack of desire for government, but the fact that not voting does not send that message. Not voting gives up your voice to the government, even if it's small and insignificant in the large scale. Because you owe that to yourself and to those that have come before you to count yourself among this nations policy makers, even in your own small way. I by no means wish to force people to vote if they don't want to. But not voting takes away one of the very few vestiges of power you really have in the government, and by not voting you are passively accepting the status quo. If you like how it is now, well I'm happy for you, but this post does not indicate that at all.

[–]Lightfiend 5 points6 points7 points 19 days ago

[–]NicknameAvailable 3 points4 points5 points 20 days ago

permalink

[–]ArchZodiac 4 points5 points6 points 20 days ago

[–]speex 3 points4 points5 points 19 days ago

[–]NicknameAvailable 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

[–]speex 0 points1 point2 points 19 days ago

I'm not sure why you say this presents no solutions of any kind. Maybe you could clarify.

"Stop doing that" is usually considered a valid solution when "that" means something percieved as negative. "Stop hitting me!" is a proposed solution to someone hitting you, for example. In such cases, nobody says "you're just pointing out the problem, but not proposing any solutions." Discontinuing destructive behavior is a solution to the problem of destructive behavior.

It looks to me like the solution suggested in the image is "stop supporting politicians". Or more broadly, "Stop pretending that politicians do all these things, and stop giving them the power to boss all of us around." I'll grant that those specific words aren't written in the graphic. Are those suggestions not apparent from the image?