In 2001, the Free State Project started with a goal of recruiting 20,000 libertarians to move to New Hampshire. The state was chosen, in part, because of its "Live Free or Die" motto and relative ease of getting elected to political office (the state legislature has 424 seats). For the past 13 years FSP has sponsored Porcfest, a week-long camping festival billed as libertarian utopia:
Called "porcupines," the animal that serves as a logo for libertarians, they come to share ideas and be among others who dream of a small government society where taxes are limited, trade is free and people are allowed to eat, imbibe and inhale whatever they please. The festival, officially called the Porcupine Freedom Festival, offers a glimpse into the kind of libertarian paradise Free State Project leaders hope to one day create statewide.
This year's PorcFest comes at a key moment for the Free State Project, a plan devised in the early 2000s to persuade 20,000 libertarians to move to New Hampshire en masse. [...] In February, the movement earned its 20,000th "signer," the threshold that is supposed to trigger a mass move within five years.
[...] Weston Cooke is one signer who hasn't made the move. From under a tarp shielding his hammock from rain Wednesday, Cooke said he currently lives rent-free in Boston and won't move until he can find a similar setup in New Hampshire.
[...] What draws Cooke to PorcFest?
"I think the obvious answer is freedom," he said. "There's nowhere else you can go and get served a cheeseburger by a 14-year-old with an AR-15 strapped to his back."
Guns are indeed allowed freely at PorcFest; a posted flyer reminds gun carriers: "Be respectful. Be careful. Be safe." Marijuana is freely smoked too, as most participants believe the drug should be legal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:53AM
Gonna give you free money until you're in libertarian hell! Muaahahaha.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:54AM
This is not the Somalia I was promised.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @09:53AM
Jokes aren't allowed in Libertarian utopia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @04:17PM
Good joke, made me laugh this morning.
To be fair though it will end up similar to it though.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:36PM
The Socialist Village Of Marinaleda (In The Autonomous Region Of Andalusia) Is So Awesome That They Abolished Their Police Department [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [jacobinmag.com]
Marinaleda, Spain's Socialist Utopia [spookmagazine.com]
The People In The Socialist Village Of Marinaleda Have Jobs, Affordable Homes, Gardens, Parks [archive.is]
.
...and, while these folks aren't self-proclaimed Marxists|Socialists|Communists, they have achieved
one of Marx's goals: No Government (120 years and counting).
Max, Nebraska [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @08:08AM
Population 2,748
My dorm is bigger.
In 1980, 700 people staged a 13-day hunger strike, demanding better pay and stricter regulation of the old system of employment. The success of this action led to intensification of the land struggle, with further occupations of large landowners' estates under the slogan "Land to those who work on it". In 1984, the Cordobilla marsh was occupied for 30 days to demand irrigation for a farm called El Humoso, property of the Duke of Infantado, facilitating its later expropriation.
In 1985, the occupation of estates increased in number, by at least 100, as well as in length, extending to over 90 days. This led to many legal actions.
In 1991, a 1,200 hectare tract of El Humoso farm was handed over to Marinaleda for the use of the population. Demonstrations demanding a life of dignity increased between 1992 and 1994, with many occupations of government buildings and institutions.
Yes, truly a Marxist utopia.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday June 27 2016, @01:34AM
Of course it isn't: New Hampshire still has a functioning government that includes a while bunch of stuff that goes beyond what libertarians believe government should do. There are still all the federal laws and regulations in effect, and more than a few state-level laws that I'm sure libertarians would find horrifying.
For example, RSA 275-A [state.nh.us] says that management isn't allowed to hire known scabs to replace the striking workers, repeat scabs can't apply for jobs to replace striking workers, and all other workers being hired as scabs need to be informed that they're acting as scabs. This, to a libertarian, is an unfair restraint on the business owners, who want management to be able to hire whoever they choose at whatever wage the manager and employee agree upon without government interference.
So it could easily be that the difference between New Hampshire and Somalia is all those laws that are still on the books, plus the decidedly socialistic police forces that roam the entire area.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:00AM
Think of getting high and raping the children with guns in Libertarian Paradise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @09:36AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @04:45PM
I only feel safe if the kids have grenades. Wake me up when that happens otherwise I'll be staying right here in my bunker.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday June 27 2016, @05:04PM
No cheeseburger for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @06:51PM
Syria.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:00AM
Why oh why did i read that as Porkfest?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 26 2016, @05:30PM
Yeah -- they could have called it PineFest and avoided this whole issue.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:38AM
Just another cunt movement.
When men ruled, men took female children as brides.
See: Deuteronomy (hebrew), or pre-cuntified USA:
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by VLM on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:53PM
As the website claims:
PorcFest is a diverse festival
LOL ha ha yeah about that, the only way libertarianism works is when the average IQ of the general public is at or above 120 if not higher (in fact it being about 120 and not winning would imply it needs to average 140 or 160 or something higher not a mere 120), and you get one guess the racial makeup of the every picture. There's three people-of-color in the entire pix set on the site and facebook combined, at least that I've seen so far. And two of the PoC are labeled as being African libertarian political activists (I mean literally from Africa trying to raise funds, not Detroit). I'd throw them some money but campaigning for libertarianism in Africa must be like campaigning for Republicans in Detroit. As Mr Trump said "my african american supporter" as in, a single individual. Maybe its "the" same black guy who likes Trump, which would be pretty funny. Or its a white dude in blackface. The D party always gets 99% of the black vote so they're politically neutered and neither party caters to them because neither side has anything to gain. If black americans voted 50/50 they'd be a hell of a lot better off, but this is not exactly the first time they're intentionally self destructive so you can't act surprised. Likewise libertarianism being more white than the klan, means in racial oriented politics they're not likely to get any power.
Smart XYZ race people, where XYZ is any dang thing, are in my experience pretty awesome people regardless of any value of XYZ. Just realize that unless you heavily affirmative action the group, the higher the intelligence requirement, the whiter and more asian the racial makeup until the crowd averages out to whiter than white paint.
I just thought it was funny that a profoundly non-diverse group has bought into the mainstream progressive ideal of "diversity is good" such that they self promote as diverse, because if they're good and diversity is good therefore they must be diverse because they're good, after all they got their one token afroamerican. Assuming he was an attendee, not a catering employee or whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:15PM
Could have sworn that IQ was "normative". Meaning that the majority will be 100.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:40PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:41PM
Actually I've found if you describe libertarianism as being able to open up a business without a ton of red tape, many blacks get extremely interested as that is one of the primary reasons for poorer neighborhoods: lack of options to make a living without a government checkbox at every point.
They certainly understand what the drug laws have done to black communities. And they certainly get that social justice really follows making money.
Fact of the matter most aren't even aware of the libertarianism, and while the social aspect chafes heavily with the black church (something that goes unmentioned is they actually have many points in common with the extreme right), they do understand all manner of government intrusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @09:01PM
...which will allow:
Poverty wages
No benefits for workers
Abusive labor practices (e.g. not telling workers what their schedule will be until the day before)
Unsafe workplaces (e.g. the West, Texas fertilizer plant that exploded)
Easily exporting jobs
...aka The Race to the Bottom
[Libertarians] have many points in common with the extreme right
When it comes to the workplace, Tea Partiers and their like are Plantation Capitalists exactly like Reactionary Republicans.
Now, why a member of The Working Class would find this ideology appealing is baffling to me.
Oh, right, there's
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." --John Steinbeck
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @09:37PM
As opposed to North Korea. It has to be all or nothing: Total anarchy or absolute government control.
It's the idiocy of these types of arguments that are just as bad, if not worse than the "all taxation is theft" libertarians. Government isn't some panacea to every problem under the sun.
Now, why a member of The Working Class would find this ideology appealing is baffling to me.
Because the left has completely abandoned the interest of the working class, as even ultra-lefty Chris Hedges has pointed out time and time again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:40PM
the left has completely abandoned the interest of the working class
The Democrats aren't "The Left".
Never have been.
The Democrats are Liberals (doing redistribution of Capitalist wealth).
They are Right-Center (notice that I put Right first)--and the Donkeys continue their Rightward drift.
Your binary thinking is obvious--and very limited.
You're ignorant of half of the political palate. [politicalcompass.org]
Note that while Nader's dot is colored green, he wasn't the Greens' candidate that year (Cynthia McKinney was--and she isn't shown there; the Greens' nominating convention is VERY late in the primary season).
Actual Leftists are ALL ABOUT The Working Class.
Try reading The World Socialist Web Site [wsws.org] for a bit.
They constantly set the record straight on entities who call themselves "leftist" but who clearly are not.
the idiocy of these types of arguments
...he says as he gets the appellations completely wrong.
Yeah. Thanks for playing.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @12:02AM
Your argument isn't with me, but Mr. Hedges. You can pontificate to him how you are so much more informed than he on such matters. I'm sure he will be waiting with bated breath.
Not to mention no true Scotsman, and when you are left arguing definitions instead of the main points, it's wiser just to concede.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @05:24AM
Not to mention no true Scotsman, and when you are left arguing definitions instead of the main points, it's wiser just to concede.
When you're telling someone else who disagrees with you to concede because of Arbitrary Reason X, it's wiser just to concede.
I like how people view these little 'debates' in terms of winning or losing, and how people will proclaim victory (or tell their opponents to concede) for completely arbitrary reasons. Since your opponent has failed to argue in a way that you like, they've lost.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:53PM
Poverty wages
No benefits for workers
Abusive labor practices (e.g. not telling workers what their schedule will be until the day before)
Unsafe workplaces (e.g. the West, Texas fertilizer plant that exploded)
Easily exporting jobs
Yes! Except for the 4th one, libertarian ideas allows for all of these. If you want to work on the cheap, or even work for free, you have that option. You can have a hobby of making wine and selling it to your friends, you don't need to prove that you are making a certain amount of income for it to be legal. Yes, people should have the freedom to work for lower wages if that is what they want, that's what internships, apprenticeships, charity work, and hobbies are.
And yes, if you want to work for a place with "no benefits", you would be free to do that also. Want to buy your health insurance on a market, rather than be forced in to your employer's plan? Libertarians say that you should have that freedom. Want to get paid more rather than have the benefit of paid leave for childbirth (single, or stay at home spouse)? Sure, libertarians think you should be allowed to be paid more money.
Are you ok with doing day jobs, just coming in to work when you are needed and otherwise being left alone? Not having the government force your boss to choose between making a schedule and firing you? Libertarians believe you should have that freedom also. You can be "on call" if you want, so libertarians believe.
And the "West, Texas fertilizer plant that exploded", well last I heard west Texas was not a libertarian location. And libertarians believe that you should be quite allowed to sue for injury, rather than statists who believe that CEOs should be protected if they provably made negligent decisions.
And yes, you should be able to buy foreign products, including labor, at least according to libertarians. For every dollar lost to an exported job, 2 dollars are gained from cheaper products. So maybe you have to work on a farm, rather than your dream job of assembling crap in a factory. Libertarians believe that it is immoral to tell foreigners that they can't be employed, and point out the additional economic benefits. Some xenophobes may have problems with that though. "My country first", right? Well, libertarians generally don't believe in double standards like that.
So yeah, that's a race to the bottom. That is, if the bottom is a really awesome place with lots of freedom, cheap groceries, employees having more leverage over their employers, and no one putting peaceful people in jail. If that is the bottom, then let's get there quickly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @02:36AM
People who think that a country with the majority of its population in poverty is a recipe for stability or is desirable in any way are either stupid or are sociopaths.
In some cases, both descriptors apply.
People who think that The Race to the Bottom is a good thing are undesirable for a society.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 27 2016, @04:21AM
...which will allow:
Poverty wages
No benefits for workers
Abusive labor practices (e.g. not telling workers what their schedule will be until the day before)
Unsafe workplaces (e.g. the West, Texas fertilizer plant that exploded)
Easily exporting jobs
...aka The Race to the Bottom
Libertarianism allow workers to choose not to settle for any of those things or to become employers themselves. The problem here is a case of a temporary weakness in pricing power of labor due to globalization exacerbated by a really poor, top-down reaction which makes employment even more costly than it should be. That's something that libertarianism can address, but it would not be uniquely capable in this regard.
My view is that these complaints above have nothing to do with libertarianism, but everything to do with disrupting the balance between employer and employee. When you make it very hard to employ (and fire) someone, then only the largest employers can afford this barrier. Thus, we should see an accumulation of power in the hands of the employers who can survive the environment - which I believe we see throughout the developed world. Employers should enjoy freedom just as the worker does.
Apparently, it's not intuitive for certain people to encourage one of the more beneficial economic transactions we can do, namely, employ another person. This results in worsening the very problems that they claim to care about (such as increasing wealth of the wealthy whose wealth isn't dependent on labor or more people working at the poverty level or not at all).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @04:53AM
wealth isn't dependent on labor
It's clear that you've never seen a general strike and the panic that causes among Capitalists.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 27 2016, @03:52PM
It's clear that you've never seen a general strike and the panic that causes among Capitalists.
Well, I can say that I've never seen a general strike cause panic among "Capitalists".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:43PM
Except the whole idea of libertarianism is opposition to centralized power, making the idea of actively promoting and desiring centralized power (capitalism) antithetical to libertarianism. Libertarians desire economic democracy, not economic dictatorships.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @04:53AM
One of the problems with any -ism is people appropriate the trappings for their own self-interest while swearing up and down that it is for the benefit of all human kind.
Also, there are several different flavors of libertarianism and while the factions may have similar philosophies, the manifestations are radically different.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @05:27PM
Wrong on so many levels.
The key problems with libertarianism isn’t the intelligence of the participants - it is the willingness to put long-term common / team interest over short-term self interest.
Look up “tragedy of the commons.” ex: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp [investopedia.com]
I know lots of smart, selfish, self-absorbed putz’s and con men (Can you think of any?).
The reason why people use a democracy / republican form of government is that some things are best managed at the group level, as otherwise the individual’s power is outweighed by the powerful - wealthy, corporations, gangs, etc.
You do realize that most town governments formed in the US when people got together and voted to incorporate? Often because it was better than being dominated by the rich ranchers, miners, rail roads, corporations, criminal gangs, etc, and/or to provide for the common good more effectively? Citizens /voters have some control over their government. Do you think the people in the US would have been better off as 13 separate colonies?
What control does an individual have over a large muti-naitonal corp that dumps toxic sludge in the local water, so they can sell expensive things to the big city a 100-miles, or a continent away?
The idea that is you are smart you are white/asian is not only racist, it is just factual wrong.
How about you provide 3 or more objective criteria that define “smart”? I can then show a myriad of examples of smart, non “white” people. In the US at least, there are a whole lot more dumb white people than non-white people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @09:24PM
Wrong on so many levels.
Et tu. I find most of the criticisms of libertarianism either composed of stawmen, or have such a facile understanding, they don't address big, gaping holes in the sensibility (the most obvious being those who can't advocate for themselves, such as the retarded or insane or people who otherwise are wards of the state).
it is the willingness to put long-term common / team interest over short-term self interest.
As opposed to short-term common interest (rhetoric surrounding the war of terror) vs. long-term personal interests (preservation of personal rights).
And as we are speaking of tragedy of the commons, can you name ANY government (not culture) that has been effective in combating this that hasn't also been totalitarian? Or has been marginally effective at defanging corporate interests? Seems to be a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or, as is often the case, the same power to control corporate power can also be used to enhance corporate power. The invisible hand of the market is about as irritating an argument as the invisible hand of government. And as libertarians often make the case, government has a greater track-record of committing atrocities, and throughout all of human history never has that been adequately controlled.
The majority of criticisms against libertarianism never address their charges: mainly how do you create such a perfect government that never devolves into despotism?
That is the true tragedy of the commons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:49PM
One of the biggest problems is that most "libertarians" aren't pushing libertarianism, they're pushing laissez-faire capitalism and calling it "libertarianism" to confuse everyone who doesn't know better (the aforementioned problem of the participants' intelligence). Libertarianism is about opposition to centralized power, any and all centralized power, including economic power (capitalism). This does not mean "small/no government" or any of that bullshit, it means "democracy", both in government and economics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @03:11PM
One of the biggest problems is that most "libertarians" aren't pushing libertarianism, they're pushing laissez-faire capitalism and calling it "libertarianism" ...
Thank you. As a corollary, a friend pointed out years ago that many successful "capitalists" hide behind talk of free market competition and secretly want to be monopolists -- they don't want to compete, they want to control the market. Current example -- Bezos and Amazon, and before that Sam Walton & Walmart, etc...
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:29PM
must be they are using the old meaning of the word diverse, instead of the newspeak meaning ("we got blacks and gays")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @07:03PM
they're claiming diversity credits due to the 1:1 gay to "people of color"(no cracker-ass cracker, white ain't no color) exchange ratio. obviously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:24PM
I self identify as libertarian, and I think this sounds dumb.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:38PM
Typical libertarian: he can't move out of his Mom's basement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:43PM
A lot of NH folks make fun of neighboring "Taxachusetts", as they commute to their jobs in greater Boston. I used to work with some of those guys.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday June 26 2016, @05:21PM
I did notice most libertarians are wither (a)billionaires or (b)living off someone else.
(Score: 3, Touché) by CirclesInSand on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:18PM
That describes just about anyone active in politics, from Marx and the Koch brothers and Hillary and the Buffets, to Occupy to Black Lives Matter shills. Generally if you are doing a 9 to 5, or a midnight to 9, you aren't going to to spend your free time in politics. That is, unless your job itself is political.
Generally, libertarians are people who want to be left alone. They don't want to give you their paycheck, don't want to hear your opinion on morality, don't want to answer the police's questions, don't want your help negotiating their paycheck or working conditions, don't care what your opinion on seatbelt safety is. The libertarian motto may as well be "go fuck yourself, leave me alone".
That said, before you think libertarians aren't cordial people, just take a look at this forum. You can see exactly what the people who are afraid of libertarians are like. They are so afraid of losing their government charity that they'll make allegations of child rape towards libertarians.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:20PM
Oops, I put Marx in the list with the rich people. He should have been in the list with those who lived on the charity of others. Apologies~
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:51PM
...but that doesn't keep him from repeatedly demonstrating his immense ignorance.
Karl Marx was the son of a Jewish lawyer.
He made money by writing. [wikipedia.org]
What you don't know could fill volumes.
In fact, it does.
You should try READING for a change instead of repeating the ignorance that you hear on Faux Noose.
libertarians are people who want to be left alone
Libertarians are people who think that the rules shouldn't apply to them.
They are 13 year olds who never grew up.
Clearly, they never heard or simply refuse to grasp the concept that "No man is an island".
If you want to live by your own rules, there is plenty of wilderness where you can do that.
If you want to live in society, there are norms by which you must live your life.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @01:30AM
What you don't know could fill volumes.
Speaking of which...
In 1848 he co-authored The Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, though he also authored and co-authored (primarily with Marx) many other works, and later he supported Marx financially to do research and write Das Kapital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels [wikipedia.org]
Anything else to o' fount of knowledge and platitudes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @02:15AM
As I already said, he wrote and got paid for that.
You never worked for one person and gotten paid by that one person?
You aren't even picking nits here.
You're just showing your ass.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:18PM
I'm not talking about those active in politics. Just every person I've met who identifies as a libertarian.
I grant that that the people involved in politics tend not to have a 9-5 )or similar) job.
Generally, libertarians have an exceedingly high opinion of their own abilities. These are either justified (billionaires) or delusional because they have never been tested in the realworld (those living off others).
And, I would say that these are libertarians in America. Apparently, in Europe it means something different.
I have no idea what your last paragraph is referencing./p
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday June 26 2016, @10:36PM
Generally, libertarians have an exceedingly high opinion of their own abilities.
Yes, this does generally tend to be true. People who believe that they don't need to be told to put on a seatbelt tend to be libertarian. People who believe that their best choice when faced with a dangerous situation (home invasion, for example) is to call the government for help tend not to be libertarian.
Your sample though seems perhaps a little silly. Can you actually name any prominent libertarians who are billionaires? Generally billionaires are fiercely against libertarianism because it is so hard to retain ill gotten wealth in a free market. You aren't going to hear the CEO of a tech company arguing against patents, or hear an American pharmacy arguing for open borders and free trade. Both would invite so much competition that it would be the end of their fortune.
And well, you say young people are "untested" and thus support libertarian ideas by delusion. Well, I say old people are whipped and oppose libertarian ideas because of Stockholm syndrome. Do you expect the old generation that spent the wealth of future generations, that made it policy to put peaceful people in jail for morality crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc), to just suddenly say "oops, we were wrong about that"? Obviously a large number of libertarians are going to come from young people who haven't accepted the idea of "the government is right because they'll beat me up if I oppose them". Older people can act like beaten dogs, that doesn't make the quick to be delusional.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday June 26 2016, @11:06PM
I didn't say young. I said untested. There are plenty of people who are living off charity while quite old. People who show up homeless to sleep on couches of old friends, but refuse government handouts. Or people who are convinced they're about to break through professionally. Also, statistically, young people are far more likely to be socialist than libertarian.
Libertarian billionaires include Mark Cuban, the Koch Brothers and that guy who funded the anti-Gawker suit, (Theole?)
Patents are a form of property, just like real estate.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 27 2016, @05:17AM
Patents are a form of property, just like real estate.
Except when you realize that you're trying to control what other people do with their own resources and property simply because they followed some series of steps to make something happen. That's what makes patents unjust and unlike other forms of property (if you wish to call it that). And no, the ends don't justify the means.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday June 27 2016, @06:56PM
It seems no more arbitrary to prevent my from using resources lying around because a sheet of paper gave them to a guy who has never seen them, and might never see them, in a different country.
What's the difference?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:42AM
What's the difference?
The difference is that there are boundaries to real property. Humans generally like the idea of privacy and having personal belongings, so it's no surprise to see the concept of private property in human societies. With patents, you try to take control of other people's personal belongings, even if that control is somewhat limited. Patents interfere with my ability to make full use of my personal belongings, even if that use doesn't really harm anyone in any tangible way; that is unjust.
All property is arbitrary in the end, but patents and the like go beyond the effects of normal property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:50PM
Its not an either/or situation between the two, you can be both. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:19PM
I wear a seatbelt because it is a sensible thing to do and I would be happy if this was a condition of vehicle insurance rather than government regulation. (The merit of vehicle insurance can be debated separately.)
Regarding home invasion, I favor natural justice. For example, being able to shoot a trespasser dead. However, I balance the libertarian ideal that everyone should be equal and reasonable with the Machiavellian concept of discouraging vigilantism. So, while I believe that I would be reasonable in all circumstances and would be able to resolve many problems in 10 minutes or less, not everyone is in this situation and not everyone sees it this way. Therefore, it is with reluctance that I empower the state when I could more easily resolve matters myself.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:02PM
Tarpman lives!!! Please send snacks and don't tread on me! http://fark.wikia.com/wiki/File:Gadsden_Flag_Please_Send_Snacks_thread_8985751.jpg [wikia.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @09:14PM
...as do many TARP men. Troubled Asset Relief Program [wikipedia.org]
Those would be failed Capitalists who received hundreds of millions in bailouts (Thanks, taxpayers) and weren't required to change their practices one little bit.
I can't help but think that money is being redirected in the worst possible directions. [shadowstats.com]
(Do note the fraudulent numbers of USA.gov.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:38PM
Call me Old School, but I'll stick with good old fashion anarchism.
Instead of whining about "red tape," let's just get rid of the State all together.
Somehow I suspect that all of these freedom loving libertarians would go nuts if I started a lead recycling facility beside their house, or began spraying patchouli oil over the fence into their back yard.
Suddenly all of that "red tape" would seem pretty appealing.
Every time I hear a libertarian, it seems to turn out that what they want is the right to piss on everyone else, while being protected from being the pissee.
{OB: insert comment about Ayn Rand here}
(Score: 3, Informative) by Justin Case on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:56PM
Somehow I suspect that all of these freedom loving libertarians would go nuts if I started a lead recycling facility beside their house
Actually, libertarians support the right of self defense, so the minute your lead harms your neighbor, he's going to come looking for restitution. And he'll probably be carrying a gun, instead of pleading with the government to send out some cops with a truckload of red tape that accomplishes little, if it ever even shows up.
Perhaps that's what you meant by "go nuts". Freedom doesn't give you permission to harm others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @09:35PM
your neighbor [is] going to come looking for restitution. And he'll probably be carrying a gun
...aka "The law of the jungle".
I've criticized The Mighty Buzzard multiple times for his support of this notion.
(My comment to the GP would have been "Who runs the courts after you've dissolved gov't?")
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @01:38PM
Violence is not in and of itself evil. Killing a person in the middle of their attempt to murder you cannot be a crime.
When a trespass has occurred, restitution can be sought. If you're spraying lead vapor into my windows from your factory next to my house, you are trespassing.
The libertarian society would be notable for its electric (or otherwise zero-emission) motor vehicles and emission-free nuclear power plants. We now have the technology for a libertarian society, but there is still a multitude of people that believe that wanton tresspass and issuing fiat edicts at gunpoint is the way to go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @03:29AM
Actually, libertarians support the right of self defense, so the minute your lead harms your neighbor, he's going to come looking for restitution. And he'll probably be carrying a gun, instead of pleading with the government to send out some cops with a truckload of red tape that accomplishes little, if it ever even shows up.
Perhaps that's what you meant by "go nuts". Freedom doesn't give you permission to harm others.
Thomas Hobbes had an answer to that argument:
Nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himselfe any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himselfe.
...
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
Leviathan [gutenberg.org] (1651)
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday June 27 2016, @04:30AM
Someone walking onto someones property, armed, can expect to get shot. That's the thing about self-defence, it can quickly escalate.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 27 2016, @07:01PM
Actually, libertarians support the right of self defense, so the minute your lead harms your neighbor, he's going to come looking for restitution. And he'll probably be carrying a gun
Great, so now our neighborhood is a poisonous war-zone. What an improvement!
(Score: 2) by EQ on Monday June 27 2016, @07:06AM
If you wanted a true anarchy, as with most anarchists, you'd be the first against the wall. Wake up. That neighbor doesn't like what you're doing, he is free to shoot you. Just because, after all, there is no law enforcement to hold him accountable. So there is a need for government. Hobbe's observation to life under ultimate anarchy applies (solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @07:59AM
This is a rather dire view of human nature. So the only thing that keeps your neighbor from shooting you is the threat of law?
Hobbs made his observations about anarchy through the lens of governments going to war without any clear line of succession.
Truth of the matter is most of the world lives under anarchy at any given moment.