/libertypol/ - Libertarian General

>>168
I mean by human beings the fear of some people simply incompatible with the idea of laissez faire, not only economically but also socially.

I have another question though, as I never read any serious book about libertarianism, could we have libertarianism and direct democracy with weekly votes from the people to legislate?

>>176
but I do despise my government's action right now, you aren't proving anything.


>Probably not. I also feel that people are simply incompatible with the idea of laissez faire, but in the sense that the vast majority of people actually would vote themselves security in exchange for freedom. That's the problem.

Yeah, but if they voted it and as long as they have the right to counter-vote it, I believe it is close enough to freedom, freedom to have more control (even if that sounds weird). If you still disagree, what kind of politics would you call this?

>>178
>Yeah, but if they voted it and as long as they have the right to counter-vote it, I believe it is close enough to freedom, freedom to have more control (even if that sounds weird).

Yeah, sure. More control for 51% of the population to impose their will on 49% of the population, and they get to do it on a weekly basis. There's a reason why direct democracy isn't popular anymore, and why, say, the American founding fathers didn't choose it for their country built on liberty and personal rights.

> If you still disagree, what kind of politics would you call this?

It's called "mob rule."

>>180
I guess there's that, but in this case are you stopping people from voting? How would you find a leader? The appropriate reforms on some critical field of law (police, justice)?


Switzerland applies the mob rule and is a capitalist country, the only one in our deeply socialist europe. Is that a step to more freedom to your eyes or not?

>>181
>Switzerland applies the mob rule and is a capitalist country, the only one in our deeply socialist europe. Is that a step to more freedom to your eyes or not?

Switzerland is a special case. Their direct democracy works because the population is educated, loves their freedom and sovereignty, and live in a society that became prosperous because of their freedom. If you can have that in your society and culture, then by all means have direct democracy. The Founding Fathers themselves admired Switzerland and the Swiss. Unfortunately, this isn't the case in most countries.

Imagine if you had direct democracy in your country right now without trying to change their thinking to value freedom and/or without letting them experience a society that's directly benefited from laissez faire policies. Would they vote for more government for themselves, or less? I'd bet on the former.

>>182
Is this bad, though? I'm still European, voters here aren't third world. I'd rather see people vote for their loss of freedom than enforce freedom on people, if they aren't ready to embrace it. Don't get me wrong, i'd love to see my country as libertarian. But that won't happen soon.

>>183
> Is this bad, though?

Yes? This is like saying that Communism or Fascism are okay as long as the population approves. Freedom is always good, because life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are inalienable human rights.

>>185
Point taken

Back, I'm >>168

>>173
>could we have libertarianism and direct democracy with weekly votes from the people to legislate?
I hesitate to comment because I'm a voluntaryist. I view democracy as coercive, at odds with the non-aggression principle. http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
That principle is the golden standard of whether or not something is compatible with libertarianism.

If 5,000,000 people get together and decide that they want to amputate one man's leg with a hacksaw, and that one man decides he'd rather keep his leg, then it would still be a crime to remove his leg.

There are those who view government as a necessary evil. The question I would ask is, by what mechanism can a direct democratic system restrict the legislative power of the masses so as to protect the rights of those under such a system? If no mechanism can be found, then I would have to say that it's incompatible.

>>178
>as long as they have the right to counter-vote it
That's the problem. No government will ever willingly relinquish power. It's self-interested, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

>>180
>the American founding fathers didn't choose it for their country built on liberty and personal rights.
And then the Federalists happened… Thanks Obama.

>>181
>but in this case are you stopping people from voting?
People can vote on anything they want as long as they don't presume the authority to jail people that don't want to go along with it.
>How would you find a leader?
Why is a leader important? What kind of leader are you talking about? A business leader? A religious leader? A sports leader? Or do you mean some guy in a suit that says a lot of things that a large chunk of people find agreeable, so they emotionally invest themselves into them in hopes that they can improve society by force of will? Somebody that they'll wait a few hours to bubble in some sheets of paper at a local building that they never go to otherwise? Somebody that they can regard as an authority figure because they see them a lot on TV making promises and speaking with confidence, in the end only to discover that the guy can't follow through on a single thing that he said? And then they completely forget and repeat the whole thing all over again four years later as if somehow, some way, this time will be different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ5cGYBV2TQ
>The appropriate reforms on some critical field of law (police, justice)?
See what I said about non-aggression. That is the law. It's the place of judicial courts to enforce it. As for police… Well I think business can do it better. Some people view that as a nightmare situation, but I like the idea of competing security firms keeping each other in check. To see why, I invite you to read up on something called the blue wall of silence.

>>192
I'm impressed of your answers anon, and sorry I can't really deny most of your point of view except one:
How would you enforce criminal law? I believe the bandit wont wa

>>199
Want to go to jail, is he still free to choose?
Sorry for double post, also get.

>>201
Thanks for all the explanations.

About the cage example, I'm not american and the Talion law seems very outdated in my opinion, as I am myself a lawyer. I'm not for or against alternative means of punishment or damages as you seem to explain them, but how would you deal with involuntary infractions? Such as a car accident, where one car runs into a canyon and the driver dies, another driver is partially responsible but has suffered an injury himself because the other driver was also responsible? Should he be killed for his mistake? Isn't it too much? For this, modern justice is still more competent than a justice based on "an eye for an eye" way of thinking. But I agree with you on some point: sometimes modern justice isn't fair enough and this has to evolve.
The judges need to be the most independent as possible though, this isn't a matter of private or public police in my opinion.

Thank for the book suggestion, but I have so much to read in my own field that for the moment I can't dedicate myself to political subjects, but I'll keep the name somewhere.

>>203
>Should he be killed for his mistake?
No, of course not. An accident is not murder. Then again if it's found that they were being reckless, that's what manslaughter is for and there must be compensation of some kind. Not their life though. I think we're usually talking monetary compensation in most incidences, or otherwise expulsion from participating properties.

>For this, modern justice is still more competent than a justice based on "an eye for an eye" way of thinking. But I agree with you on some point: sometimes modern justice isn't fair enough and this has to evolve.
Perhaps it's better suited in certain ways, I'm sure you've got more examples to draw on than I do. However I'm not sure modern justice can evolve, at least not in the US. Too many laws, I'm surprised breathing deeply without a prescription is still legal. Then again, that's why it's good to hammer out the details of an alternative system now, for when we need it later. Even if later doesn't happen for centuries.

>The judges need to be the most independent as possible though
Judges which are elected by general vote are just the ones with the biggest advertising budget. This probably means they're the ones with the most, "friends", with powerful people. Judges which are appointed by bureaucracy are… Appointed. Self explanatory. Judges which are chosen by those that require the services of a judge are those with enough integrity and a solid enough reputation to be able to remain in business.

>Thank for the book suggestion
He has a lot of lectures and things available on youtube as well as mises.org, if you'd prefer something you can casually listen to instead.

>Thanks for all the explanations.
It's a pleasure. Thank you for sticking around and chatting. I'll be around.

>>205
So yeah, judges should be more like free ombudsmen or so. Or institutional judges, not elected nor appointed, but selected by an exam (french system), with a freedom of ruling that must be maximum (Court of The Hague).
In my opinion, we have the tools to rebuild at least the government, police and judicial system.

lel board is dead