[ExI] Social right to have a living

[Samantha Atkins]

On 07/01/2011 11:45 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> 2011/7/1 Stefano Vaj<stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
>>> Wrong. You seem to equate corporate state-ism with libertarian views.
>>> Corporate state conglomeration is fascism, not libertarianism.
>> This might well be the case (actually, "state corporativism" IMHO describes
>> better fascism, rather than the other way around, but this is not the issue
>> here), even though this scenario need not be neither more, nor less,
>> totalitarian than our average State today.
>>
>> My real point however is: how a radically libertarian view could ever
>> prevent a company from going down this path? And if the end result is
>> neither better nor worse than our average State today, what's the point?
>>
>> I am referring to the kind of libertarian view which postulates that we can
>> go without a State legal system at all, not to more moderate ones.
> Stefano, There you go again... :-)
>
> The "kind of libertarian view" you are speaking of in Anarchy.

I am an anarcho-capitalist.  Anarchy, in case anyone is confused, means 
without the State.  It does not mean chaos though most may have 
difficulty imagining a stateless society that is not chaotic.   I am 
libertarian (small l) in the sense that I hold the NAP as one of the 
most concise correct statements of proper human interaction ever 
conceived.  I am not a Libertarian in that the party is no longer the 
"Party of Principles".   Nominating an ex drug czar as presidential 
candidate was the final irrevocable proof for me.


> Libertarianism is no more anarchy than it is fascism. If you define
> libertarianism as anything that seems dangerous, then you aren't going
> to like it. My definition of libertarianism is most closely
> approximated in the real world by the VERY early United States. That
> is, there are very few laws, but the laws that exist are followed by
> the majority of the citizenry, and are respected. In part, the law is
> respected when it is understood by the citizen. When the law is so
> voluminous that not only the citizen can not read it, but even the
> lawmaker is challenged, then this is FAR from the libertarian ideal.
>

Where is the "principle" in that?  Is it merely very few laws or the 
proper kind of laws adhering to the missing and not mentioned principles?


> So government yes, absolutely you need government.

No, you don't.


>   But the very
> smallest amount that can possibly do. Just enough to prevent invasion,
> and protect me from my fellow citizens when they run amok.

I can protect myself. So can you. The rest is a matter of voluntary 
agreements.

> So no, I am not an anarchist. I am a libertarian! (As a libertarian, I
> get to define what that means to me, this being one of the greatest
> benefits of being a libertarian... ;-)  (kidding, just a little bit
> here.)

Unfortunately it is only a little bit as libertarian now means very 
little you can pin many libertarians (and certainly not the Party) down on.

- samantha