Messages

1

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Re: Is the state truly necessary?

« on: July 26, 2016, 10:07:54 AM »

Wow bob_rob, that was incredible condescending. Next time you try to convince someone, don't talk down to them. So you basically said in your response "you don't know whats best for society" and "morality is totally objective and you shouldn't impose your will on people."

You realize the point of ethics and political science is to come up with a way of structuring culture and society to create the best outcome for the greatest number of people. Now you're gonna respond, "well who is the arbiter of what is good and what isn't." Well, I'll point you to the work of people like Stefan Molyneux about universally preferable behavior. He logically proves that rape and murder can't be universally preferable behavior. It's a logical proof of how rape, murder, theft, and assault are all logically inconsistent, because if I am forcing something on you without your consent, then it can't be universally preferable, because there's someone in the interaction who doesn't prefer it.

By your logic, if someone murders someone we should just let it go, because "we shouldn't force our morality on others." I think that's bullshit. We can determine at least what is basically best for people, like them not getting stolen from, murdered, raped, etc. People also need clean water to leave and non-poisonous food to eat. So how do we make sure that these things will be available in the market place? We give a monopoly on force to a representative body called the government. Theoretically, this government should represent the mind of the people as best as possible, so it can impose the will of the people to the point of making sure people are upholding their contracts and not killing people.

2

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Is the state truly necessary?

« on: July 25, 2016, 11:41:36 PM »

Very recently did I come across the ideas of people like Stefan Molyneux and Adam Kokesh about voluntaryism and the political theory that follows. Soon after, I became an anarcho-capitalist. But recently I converted to a more classical liberal approach after listening to people like Sam Seder give arguments against libertarianism. I've come to realize that anarchists seem to have an underlying assumption about how people will self-organize when you abolish a state. We have seen examples of free markets in the past, but to say that they were any sort of utopia would be disingenuous. China for example has a very free market. They have minimal regulations on food quality and factory regulation. When workers were committing suicide at an incredibly high rate in factories in China because of the terrible working conditions, the companies didn't make conditions better. They instead mandated that workers sign a waiver that they will not commit suicide. WTF. Also, how could you enforce a contract if you didn't have a government. I just don't see how this could work.

If this is how the free market organizes itself, then I don't think that it should be allowed to exist at all. Of course philosophically, the non-aggression principle is sound. However, if we have to compromise a significant amount of the average person's quality of life just to uphold a philosophical principle, then as a pragmatist I don't think that's a good idea. I'm still very much in favor of a smaller government. But, regulations are what allows our economy to function properly.