Anthony Gregory Said in June 2nd, 2008 @2:39 pm  

Enforcibility does not make rights. Sometimes, rights cannot be effectively enforced. If we all relied on violence to protect our rights, we’d be doomed. All it would take is a determined, large minority of criminals, and society would have a hard time surviving at all. What protects rights, mostly, is culture. It was culture that allowed the world’s first real stock market, in the Netherlands, to thrive – contracts were almost never enforced, and certainly not by the state. Is is a culture that prevents people from murdering each other. Without a classically liberal culture, modern civilization is impossible. With it, no state is necessary, and self-defense is rarely even needed. If someone is determined to violate your rights, he probably will. Unfortunately, our freedom does depend on the attitudes of other people. Fortunately, the culture around you can improve to respect individual rights ever more. The Iraqis fighting to defend themselves have plenty of force and weapons, as do the Americans trying to pacify the nation. But not until the American people sour on the war will it end. Ultimately, social attitudes protect rights far better than guns, even in the hands of private individuals. The only reason we need not worry that the government will nuke America is ideology and some degree of self-interest. There is no weapon that can defend against nuking, yet thankfully there have been no nukings in 60s years. Ideology, culture and social norms are what matter most. You can say without force there are no rights. Actually, history has had plenty of force and plenty of violations of rights. What matters above all else is a culture that respects rights, grounded in the natural law.

The case for abolishing the state is the same as the case that people shouldn’t steal from or murder one another.

brian Said in June 2nd, 2008 @4:04 pm  

fry,

before i post criticizing an issue, i try to make sure that i have at least a working knowledge of the issue. anyone with only a cursory understanding of libertarian philosophy and natural rights theory would never make the claims you’ve made above.

i recommend making an objective study of libertarianism and natural rights first, then returning to make reasonable criticisms.

Erich Said in June 2nd, 2008 @4:19 pm  

Interesting conversation, particularly about Marxism poisoning the Left. (Personally, I think Vladimir Ilyich administered the fatal dose.)

I’ve often thought that Libertarianism is an orphan from the Left, it appears that Anthony Gregory agrees.With this in mind, I’d like to see a dialogue between you or Mr. Gregory and someone from a Bakunist Anarchist or an Anarcho-Syndicalist perspective.

How does a Radical for Capitalism differ from a Wobbly? Where do you converge? Did you dream of seeing Joe Hill last night?

Do you fly the Black Flag?

Oscar Goldman Said in June 2nd, 2008 @8:49 pm  

If natural rights are exercised universally, people remain alive, trade freely, engage in creative wealth building, travel freely, and do not harm one another.

If the rule of force is practiced universally, eventually we all end up killing one another. And the last one left standing is the biggest, the strongest, and the most sadistic.

Where are humans most human? In small groups of hunter gatherers, or as cogs in the machinery of the state and its neverending meat grinders?

Michael J. Palmer Said in June 4th, 2008 @12:20 am  

Anthony Gregory sounds like a left-libertarian!

As for the “millionaire murdering a homeless person” problem, it’s easy to solve. Some people think that the millionaire can avoid punishment in a market anarchist society by bribing all the private arbitrators, but there’s a counterbalancing force - people who are greedy enough to take the bribe are also greedy enough to use the murder as an “excuse” to confiscate all of the millionaire’s property. Since the millionaire’s bribe offers can’t possibly exceed the value of all his property, nearly all private arbitration agencies would prefer the “convict him and confiscate his property” option over the “take the bribe and shut up” option.