[Rich]

Thinking about it, the problem with the Non Aggression principle is not that virtually no one agrees with it, but that virtually everyone agrees with it. Not every one focuses on property like Libertarians do but it seems that virtually everything gets justified in terms of non aggression. I'm sure if you look at the most primitive tribal war fare, you'll find that virtually all aggressions get justified as non aggressions as justified responses to aggressions. For many Muslims if you criticise or disparage the Koran you are engaging in an act of aggression. So I would say hiding behind the Non aggression principle which so many people do not just Libertarians is kind of dishonest.

You are correct Eran to point out that society doesn't just function by fear of State retribution. An overarching moral ethos is required and it is in fact the breakdown of the Christian moral system that is causing us great problems in the West. I'm not arguing for going back. Once you've seen its a load of contradictory bullshit, you can't pretend to believe. I can see that there are a few genuine Libertarians, who really are willing to be inconvenienced by their commitment to Libertarianism, but they are few. The market has brought us many wonderful things, but so much of business is not competing on price and quality, but on manipulating, decieving and defrauding ones customers. So many transactions are not a mutual gain to both both parties.

i am particularly interested in what has happened in the financial service industry in recent decades. Unfortunately its very difficult to study this at this intelligent level, beyond cheap sloganeering. But it does strike me there has been certain breakdown of market functioning. That part of the reason that financial services, banking etc worked in the past was because the people managing it at the top were trying to perform a service for others. For the share holders, for the depositors for the borrowers. They received generous compensation for this, it was not pure altruism, but it was very different from the manager purely trying to maximise their own economic welfare which seems to be happening much more now and is demanded by classical economic theory. You get this to a less extent in computing. Maximising ones income and the success of ones career is not necessarily that well correlated with producing value for ones empolyer and customers.

What I'm trying to say is that for society to function one needs a certain level of ethics form the citizenry, beyond even a strict legalistic adherence to the Non Aggression Principle, even assuming the meaning of that could be agreed. I would suggest that Libertarianism is contributing to the dissolving of the remaining ethical bonds that hold our societies together. Libertarianism is just another culture of entitlement. I'm entitled to not pay taxes, to not be bound by regulations. Its disgraceful the way companies and individuals will avoid paying taxes completely but are quite happy to consume government services and infrastructure and benefit form the rule of law, security etc.

There is always hypocrisy but I think in the past there was also a certain level of genuine noblesse oblige which went deep into the Middle Class. I'm not sure that society over the long term will function easily without it.

[Eran]

Libertarianism is, I find, very often misunderstood by its critics.

The libertarian Non Aggression Principle is very specific, and admittedly doesn't always coincides with the notion of "aggression" as understood by non-libertarians.

Thus aggression, for libertarians, is strictly defined as the physical invasion of another person's legitimate property (with "legitimate property" enjoying similarly careful definition). Disparaging the Koran, thus, would never be considered "aggression" by libertarians.

The market has brought us many wonderful things, but so much of business is not competing on price and quality, but on manipulating, deceiving and defrauding ones customers. So many transactions are not a mutual gain to both both parties.

Outright fraud or deceit are, for libertarians, on par with theft, considered aggression, prohibited by the NAP and legally-actionable under a libertarian legal order. "Manipulation" is, of course, much more vague, and wouldn't be considered aggression until it reaches the level of fraud.

Voluntary transactions are always beneficial to both parties based on the a-priori judgement of those parties. That judgement may, of course, turn out to be mistaken. But the libertarian view is that normal adults are more likely to make good judgement with respect to their own affairs than would be strangers.

To the extent that the judgement can be aided by information not available to the transacting person, non-coercive means are available to make that information available, and such means are always preferable to an outright prohibition.

i am particularly interested in what has happened in the financial service industry in recent decades. Unfortunately its very difficult to study this at this intelligent level, beyond cheap sloganeering.

There are a number of excellent books covering the topic. One of the first was Thomas Woods' Meltdown which presents the classic Austrian perspective.

More recently we have seen David Stockman's comprehensive The Great Deformation and Arnold Kling's more concise Not What They Had in Mind: A History of Policies that Produced the Financial Crisis of 2008.

A free market isn't, in and by itself, a guarantee against fraud, abrogation of duty or mere stupidity. However, it is the best possible system for minimising their effect. In particular, it gives both customers and owners the tools they need to address the actions of others. Customers in a free market can choose between available providers or desired services (including financial services). Without artificial barriers to entry, moral hazard and false sense of security promoted by central banks and financial regulators, customers, over time, will shift their business (and deposits) to more and more trustworthy and stable institutions.

I would suggest that Libertarianism is contributing to the dissolving of the remaining ethical bonds that hold our societies together.

The only think libertarians unite in opposing is aggression, mainly nowadays emanating from government. To support your view, you would have to show that government coercion is somehow helpful or supporting of those ethical bonds. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

The ethical bonds of human co-existence are best encouraged in a society within which cooperation is voluntary.

Libertarianism is just another culture of entitlement. I'm entitled to not pay taxes, to not be bound by regulations. Its disgraceful the way companies and individuals will avoid paying taxes completely but are quite happy to consume government services and infrastructure and benefit form the rule of law, security etc.

Libertarians invariably recognise that scale-down of government services would require direct payment for those services currently provided by government which they would still like to consume.

We libertarians resent taxes because they at best funded wasteful provision of useful services and, at worst, fund useless or even harmful activities.

[Travesty]

Fuck I can't take them seriously No you are not the "Communists of the 21st Century" Communists get things done and have the capability to do so. Until Anarcho-Capitalists take, seize, get elected to power err, we cant have those so gloriously ascend to (power?) and implement their kooky policies so that they can be observed and scrutinized on their merits or lack of them, (its great to promote a theory all the the time isn't it? makes you beyond criticism) Until then, I live in the real world bitches.

[Joe Liberty]

Funny how "the real world" is invoked when principles become inconvenient.

[Paradigm]

Funny how "the real world" is invoked when principles become inconvenient.

Principles that have no bearing on the real world can indeed be quite inconvenient.