ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Then those people aren't libertarians? Just because somebody agrees with somethings an ideology backs, does not make them backers of that ideology. Again, you don't seem to understand libertarianism.
Your critique of libertarianism is that "Most people only follow some parts of libertarianism, and they don't care about freedom". No duh, because they aren't libertarians. Libertarians, in contrast, are those who value freedom from government in both social and economic life.
Again, reality over theory.
See? Here you are arguing that the average user of the forum isn't a classical liberal (true). But my response to this is that a) the forum gets one of its founding principles directly from classical liberalism, and b) all views (other than Nazis, Stalinists, and Maoists) are welcome here, so lets not tell someone that they aren't welcome.
You're engaging in borderline sophistry by misquoting me. I never said he wasn't welcome. I said that this wasn't the right forum for trying to restore classical liberalism. Which is entirely true. It also has nothing to do with him being welcome or not.
Its merely a matter of the fact that he's not likely to find much success here, so this isn't really the place. If you want to drill for oil, you go to an oil field. If you want to restore classical liberalism, you go to a place where classical liberalism is espoused and seen as a good thing.
Not really. If there is a consistent practice of not interfering, people don't feel entitled to help.
Actually, we can't know that, because nothing like "not interfering consistently" has ever happened on the government level before.
So first, the federal government in the 1800s was actually pretty limited, and if slavery wasn't a thing, it would have likely stayed that way.
But way, way beyond the "just defense and preventing crimes" that you're describing. You're also forgetting the informal corruption and connections that existed then that was still essentially a part of the government back then. Pretending that the Federal government was under a RAW (rules as written) system back then is not really accurate.
Second, the filling the gap thing you talk about. The reason that it's not a problem when a non-government entity fills a gap is because a) competition exists, so people have choices to choose what they want, b) people are free to leave if they don't like it, and c) they don't need to last for the civilization to endure, so many collapse and die or shrink and become irrelevant. With competitors, coorporations lose most of their power (but not their profit). Basically, they become less able to fix prices and conditions on people as competitors appear, and they get disrupted. What stops competition? Usually government.
Again, humans naturally form power structures and power vacuums don't stay empty. That's a rule far greater and more innate to human nature than any invisible hand.
If the government isn't controlling and directing society, some other major force will rise up to it. Whether that's through corporate run cities with virtual monopolies on everything or literal Bishoprics where the Church is practically equal to the government is irrelevant. The vacuums will be filled.
Many people will quickly trade some of their liberties for security.