[ExI] Social right to have a living

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Tue Jul 5 16:15:16 UTC 2011


On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 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.

No confusion on that here.

> It does not mean chaos though most may have difficulty
> imagining a stateless society that is not chaotic.

I certainly have trouble imagining a stateless society that is not
chaotic, particularly if there are states organized with different
strategies nearby. I have difficulty seeing an anarchy defending
itself against, say a neighboring totalitarian dictatorship.

> 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.

Sorry NAP is not in the Wikipedia disambiguation page... is my
ignorance showing? ;-)

>  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.

While I am a big L Libertarian, all I really know about big L
Libertarians is that it's not Democrat and it is not Republican, and
it's closer to what I believe than either of those. All I did was
donate $20 to the party, and I'm IN! I meant to learn more...

>> 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?
>

Bastiat is the best person to state my principles. He's the man.

>> So government yes, absolutely you need government.
>
> No, you don't.

Processing.... processing... processing... nope, still does not compute.

>>  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.

I cannot, as an individual, effectively protect myself against an
armed foe consisting of a large group of individuals. Nor can I assume
that my anarchistic brethren will suddenly fall in line and start
following orders to repel such an invasion.

>> 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.
>

To me, it means Bastiat was right.

-Kelly




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list