Libertarians need candidates - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14987840
Agorism is the very antithesis of practical government. It literally denies humanity in all of its faults. Its basis flies in the face of observed human behavior for millennia.

One only has to look at Konklin's notion of intellectual property to see the complete impracticality of the idea.

So you see VS. It won't work because.....humans.
#14987843
Drlee wrote:Agorism is the very antithesis of practical government


Well obviously, but I didn't claim otherwise, I said that it is practical regarding one's lifestyle, but it is indeed the antithesis to engagement in "politics" as it regards the state. Intentionally so.

Drlee wrote: Its basis flies in the face of observed human behavior for millennia.


How so? I tend to see it in the opposite light.

Drlee wrote:One only has to look at Konklin's notion of intellectual property to see the complete impracticality of the idea.


I don't see why, especially since "intellectual property" is the greatest justification for the unjust notions of "copyrights" and "patents" which are themselves the grounds for the vast majority of corporate monopolies in the United States and abroad.

Perhaps you can explain your position better.

Drlee wrote:So you see VS. It won't work because.....humans.


Opting out of voting and instead doing business on the grey and black markets is in-human? :eh:

That might be the weirdest objection I have ever heard to Agorism (as well as the most counter-intuitive).
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 13 Feb 2019 17:42, edited 1 time in total.
#14987844
B0ycey wrote:. If you stand by your assertion that a Libertarian Party can get elected,


I never said this either. :eh:

I don't think they can get elected, but whether they can or cannot get elected is entirely irrelevant to my objection to a Libertarian party.

B0ycey wrote: And deficit spending is not absolute requirement FYI. Germany can balance the books.


https://commodity.com/debt-clock/germany/

:lol:
#14987848
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I never said this either. :eh:

I don't think they can get elected, but whether they can or cannot get elected is entirely irrelevant to my objection to a Libertarian party.


Well then I don't really know why argue my assessment of your thinking when I said a Libertarian Party cannot get elected on a Libertarian Manifesto - which was what I gauged from your text. Not that it matters. I wasn't addressing most of you post because I agree with most of it - but for a completely different reason with a completely different conclusion. I only addressed why you would think a Libertarian Party is an oxymoron, when it isn't.

https://commodity.com/debt-clock/germany/

:lol:


Your clock is out of date. :lol:

http://www.staatsschuldenuhr.de/
#14987850
I would like it if the US had a viable Libertarian party. Primarily so that they could take votes away from the two main parties.

There would also be a significant increase in world peace if the US adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy.
#14987851
B0ycey wrote:Your clock is out of date.


It doesn't negate the point. Germany is still running debt.

B0ycey wrote:I only addressed why you would think a Libertarian Party is an oxymoron, when it isn't.


I didn't see any critique of my point on this whatsoever.

My strongest point in my post on this, was #2. That representative government is itself a contradiction of Libertarianism's cardinal doctrine (the NAP).

You never discussed this at all, and that point demonstrates without a doubt that a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron.
#14987852
Pants-of-dog wrote:Primarily so that they could take votes away from the two main parties.


That would be nice to see.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There would also be a significant increase in world peace if the US adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy.


That would also be nice.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I would like it if the US had a viable Libertarian party.


Won't happen, and it wouldn't really be libertarian anyway, it would be a minarchist classical liberal party, but it wouldn't be libertarian.....but I don't think you give a fuck about the internal squabbles of libertarianism anyway, so.......
#14987854
Victoribus Spolia wrote:It doesn't negate the point. Germany is still running debt.


Every nation has to have debt because something needs to hold the liability to keep Capitalism functioning. But it isn't essential to spend more than your tax receipts to get into power. Not that this matters, I wasn't addressing this point either.

I didn't see any critique of my point on this whatsoever.

My strongest point in my post on this, was #2. That representative government is itself a contradiction of Libertarianism's cardinal doctrine (the NAP).

You never discussed this at all, and that point demonstrates without a doubt that a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron.


I didn't critique your post VS because most of your points are accurate. In fact, I would love to copy and paste them to make an entirely new thread on why a political party essentially operates the same way as their opposition when elected into office because they need to win votes to keep power. But that doesn't stop a Libertarian Party having Liberal values, a liberal manifesto and Liberal policies. As Liberal Party can exist with its values, it cannot be a contradiction and as such never an oxymoron. But to maintain or win an election is completely different to pledges FYI.
#14987856
B0ycey wrote:As Liberal Party can exist with its values, it cannot be a contradiction and as such never an oxymoron.


This is simply untrue, if your core value is that its immoral to violate the NAP, and if being a part of the state REQUIRES you to implicitly support such, then that means that the idea of the party is oxymoronic, as its predicated on an inherent contradiction.

Let me sum this up for you; barring 100% voluntary consent to do so; all taxation as it currently stands is a violation of libertarian values; thus, a libertarian party running on anything other than requiring 100% voluntary assent for every single tax, or banning such altogether, is violating its own principle of the NAP. PERIOD.

You couldn't get a better example of an oxymoron, even from a textbook. :lol:

B0ycey wrote:I didn't critique your post VS because most of your points are accurate. In fact, I would love to copy and paste them to make an entirely new thread on why a political party essentially operates the same way as their opposition when elected into office because they need to win votes to keep power.



I appreciate the compliment, and I do think that is an interesting topic as well, I am just defending what I wrote that's all.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 13 Feb 2019 18:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14987857
@Victoribus Spolia

This whole debate seems to be about the definition of libertarianism; i.e. the role of the state.

What you see as an oxymoron seems to be merely a pragmatic concession to reality.
#14987858
Pants-of-dog wrote:This whole debate seems to be about the definition of libertarianism; i.e. the role of the state.


Its not unlike the dispute between revolutionary socialists and Fabians; in point of fact.

I feel the same way about a libertarian party as most revolutionary socialists feel about fabians; they are at best misguided pursuers of futility; or at worst they aren't really socialists at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What you see as an oxymoron seems to be merely a pragmatic concession to reality.


Concessions in the name of pragmatism can still be contradictions.

That being said, I don't see futile endeavors as all that pragmatic. There is nothing "Strategically valuable" about wasting one's time and violating your cardinal value in the pursuance thereof.
#14987861
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is simply untrue, if your core value is that its immoral to violate the NAP, and if being a part of the state REQUIRES you to implicitly support such, then that means that the idea of the party is oxymoronic, as its predicated on an inherent contradiction.

Let me sum this up for you; barring 100% voluntary consent to do so; all taxation as it currently stands is a violation of libertarian values; thus, a libertarian party running on anything other than requiring 100% voluntary assent for every single tax, or banning such altogether, is violating its own principle of the NAP. PERIOD.

You couldn't get a better example of an oxymoron, even from a textbook. :lol:


I have no issue with anyone defending their position. If you don't, who will. But I digest...

OK, so why is paying taxes aggressive?
#14987864
B0ycey wrote:OK, so why is paying taxes aggressive?



I did address this under point #2 in my post on this, but I will answer your question briefly anyway;

Because its not voluntary; if I refuse to pay taxes they will make me by force (violating the NAP).

Libertarianism's core doctrine of the NAP implies that all exchanges/agreements be made voluntarily.
#14987866
@Victoribus Spolia

This thread seems to be about libertarians working within the current liberal system. Speculative musings about libertarian purists does not seem to be relevant.

What I find interesting is that the existing Libertarian party in the US does not seem to receive enough corporate funding to make a difference. If libertarianism was so good for business, whu does business not support it?
#14987868
Pants-of-dog wrote: If libertarianism was so good for business, whu does business not support it?


Isn't this obvious?

Its because libertarianism is NOT good for business. Libertarians oppose state-funded and supported monopolies; which most corporations basically are.

Libertarians also oppose things like patents and copyrights laws; which are likewise the basis for most corporate power.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This thread seems to be about libertarians working within the current liberal system.


Yes; just like there are so-called socialists who think they can work within the system to implement Marx's vision democratically; as if the bougie-controlled state would just allow socialism to happen. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Speculative musings about libertarian purists does not seem to be relevant.


Whatever.

Why you even care is the only thing I'd like to speculate on, as its quite beyond me.
#14987871
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I did address this under point #2 in my post on this, but I will answer your question briefly anyway;

Because its not voluntary; if I refuse to pay taxes they will make me by force (violating the NAP).

Libertarianism's core doctrine of the NAP implies that all exchanges/agreements be made voluntarily.


Perhaps you are reading some form of doctrine I am not familiar with. The NAP from what I am aware of is to do with equality, liberty and rights. By being part of the social contract means you give consent for the state to tax you. If you don't agree to this, your alternative option is to become an outlaw. Either way, whilst you remain a citizen, a Libertarian Party has a obligation to tax you and as such is not an oxymoron.
#14987872
B0ycey wrote:By being part of the social contract means you give consent for the state to tax you.



This was ALSO ADDRESSED under point #2 of my original post where I specifically answer that objection.

Namely, I never consented to this arrangement or social contract; nor would giving up my voting privileges allow me to no longer pay taxes anyway; hence I am being forced to an obligation that I did not voluntarily assent to.

Here was my argument from my original post (that you claimed to have read):

Victoribus Spolia wrote:For instance, the federal government taxes me at gunpoint, if I don't pay taxes they will make me do so under threat of force. This is a violation of the NAP and therefore invalid. Now, you might object that I can vote and am therefore complicit in this thievery via representation; however, I never agreed to this arrangement, nor did my father, nor did his father's father. We are born under this obligation and must abide by it against our will or consent. Indeed, if it were truly voluntary and consistent with the NAP, then we could surrender our privilege to vote in exchange for no longer having to pay taxes; however, we all know what would happen then now don't we? Everyone would surrender their voting privileges in order to be tax free and the government would entirely collapse.


B0ycey wrote: If you don't agree to this, your alternative option is to become an outlaw



Agreed, which was the whole point of my post; as an advocate of Agorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

B0ycey wrote:a Libertarian Party has a obligation to tax you and as such is not an oxymoron.


Its following this obligation that makes them non-libertarian in practice and requires them to punish ACTUAL libertarians; which I discussed with the example of poor Stan in #3 of my original post.

WHICH IS WHY I SAID SUCH A PARTY IS AN OXYMORON!!
#14987873
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This was ALSO ADDRESSED under point #2 of my original post where I specifically answer that objection.

Namely, I never consented to this arrangement or social contract; nor would giving up my voting privileges allow me to no longer pay taxes anyway; hence I am being forced to an obligation that I did not voluntarily assent to.

Here was my argument from my original post (that you claimed to have read):


Well my point was that you could become an outlaw and not pay taxes. You couldn't then rely on the state to look after you. Hence by being part of the social contract you by default give consent to be taxed.

Nonetheless let us look at this another way. You could become just like Anarchist23 and become a drain on society. Claim all the benefits the state would provide and not pay a penny in taxes that you don't agree to as you do so. This is legal but perhaps not moral. Again a Liberal Party could promote state aid and not violate the NAP under your argument to give the idle a free pass without any aggression being needed.
#14987875
B0ycey wrote:Hence by being part of the social contract you by default give consent to be taxed.


That's absurd. I never agreed to this contract, so its not really a contract at all.

B0ycey wrote:Again a Liberal Party could promote state aid and not violate the NAP under your argument to give the idle a free pass without any aggression being needed.


This isn't true either; because they only get these funds through taxation; which are theft.

B0ycey wrote:You could become just like Anarchist23 and become a drain on society.


No, I instead become self-sufficient and avoid government inasmuch as its possible for me to do so without jeopardizing my family by exposing them to direct harm at the hands of an angry state.

Read the link on Agorism to get an idea what this entails.
#14987880
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That's absurd. I never agreed to this contract, so its not really a contract at all.


You agree to it by being part of society. Again you could become an outlaw. They are your choices.

This isn't true either; because they only get these funds through taxation; which are theft.


This is true. But the government only get taxes from people who want to work and as such are prepared to be taxed by doing so. You on the otherhand can choose not to work and not get taxed. As such by working you agree to be taxed. So again not against NAP.

No, I instead become self-sufficient and avoid government inasmuch as its possible for me to do so without jeopardizing my family by exposing them to direct harm at the hands of an angry state.

Read the link on Agorism to get an idea what this entails.


I am only addressing the Oxymoron suggestion here. I am very aware of your belief.

People get banned from Pofo for violating rule 2. […]

Election 2020

Yeah we all know how this is going to go. Trump d[…]

Atheism is Evil

The reality is that women evolved to be sex objec[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

And who do I "blame" at Wells Fargo or […]