R. Shackleferd
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 316
- Reaction score
- 117
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Alright, that works for a society we have right now. How about a society where almost all property is private, including roads, and there are no draft numbers or taxes. What then?
Thank you for the post.
A problem I foresee.. it's a feeling mostly. But I have a feeling that more suspicious deaths and investigations there of would occur. Since there's an absence of Government-- I really hate saying this which is why I asked this question because my feeling goes against my principles-- would cause an absence of truth since what we have now, any discovery of an unreported death is criminal (right?). So because of this people are coerced into being truthful(if you can even say that since lying is aggressive) about the death of others. So if there's no mechanism like this, then more deaths would go unreported and more people would be filing for investigation. I guess theoretically in a free society like this, people could afford to report deaths(if that makes any sense) and since in this society, criminal justice would be much smaller so it would be much easier for all of these investigations to take place since the state isn't going after people for drugs and music and transfats and guns and you name it anymore. I suppose I satisfied my own doubt but I wouldn't have if your post didn't stimulate me intellectually to look at the issue more in a more objective and theoretical way.
Thanks again.
If there was any suspicion of foul play, a doctor would look over the body and report to a marshal, or there would be a "coroner's jury" which would consider whether charges ought to be preferred against someone.
What if the body is missing?
now when I say libertarian, I mean the US Libertarian Party whose constituents are much closer to minarchism than the anarchism that libertarians like Murray Rothbard was. I am also not asking as critic of any form of libertarianism because I consider myself to be a principled adherent to nonaggression.
What kind of role should Government have when somebody dies? I would imagine that many problems would arise if there was no oversight over death, as weird as that may sound. I think most of the problems would be civil and only some of the problems would be criminal. As someone who considers themselves to be a classical liberal constitutionalist federalist (haha, sorry) I don't know where to stand because I do not stand at all. All I know is that there shouldn't be a federal system for the dead.
I know of no one OTHER than the Dale Gribble/Rusty Shackleford types that think there should be NO law. Point of fact without a strong foundation and constitution you could have no libertarian rights.
I've seen differently. The anarchist roots in libertarianism are deep and evident. I would love to believe that most libertarians are constitutional minarchists but for the sake of appeasing so called anarcho capitalists the libertarian party likes to be vague about if there even should be a government. Which is why the US Libertarian Party platform says, "where governments exist".
Some people who consider themselves to be adherents to nonaggression view that law and currency are aggressive and they've got silly marxist reasonings behind it. Of course this is ridiculous because there is nothing aggressive about a state having laws that empower defense of our rights and free markets are voluntary trade of not just currency but anything the market values (which would be mostly currency, albiet).
Thank you everyone who has posted. I'm at peace with death in libertarian society.
I was reading up on some more Murray Rothbard and I couldn't understand the anarcho in anarcho-capitalism. Maybe Murray Rothbard knows something I don't or maybe I'm forgetting something but if private property incorporated itself with private defense and dispute resolution organization service contracts, then you've just created a State, rather than abolished it.
Next step for me is to be at peace with the actual term. The more I'm reading about the etymology of the term and the history of the movement and the state creation side effect of anarcho-capitalism, the more I see that the term libertarian has been used to retroactively describe "libertaire" leftists, rather than libertarianism having come from it. Still though, I cannot avoid the fact that Muuray Rothbard is THE so-called anarcho-capitalist and that term, I think, is going to be something libertarians will have to constantly explain.
You're very defensive.
I've seen differently. The anarchist roots in libertarianism are deep and evident. I would love to believe that most libertarians are constitutional minarchists but for the sake of appeasing so called anarcho capitalists the libertarian party likes to be vague about if there even should be a government. Which is why the US Libertarian Party platform says, "where governments exist".
Some people who consider themselves to be adherents to nonaggression view that law and currency are aggressive and they've got silly marxist reasonings behind it. Of course this is ridiculous because there is nothing aggressive about a state having laws that empower defense of our rights and free markets are voluntary trade of not just currency but anything the market values (which would be mostly currency, albiet).
Just wondering what a libertarian society would do about death. Just wondering if there is any reasonable argument about how investigation might be considered aggressive since what we have now in death is very aggressive.
I agree with you but what you call a stereotype is true. What does, "where governments exist" mean in the libertarian party platform? Murray Rothbard was an advocate for the privatization of justice and military, an anarchist who I admire but who also did not see that the policies made by private military and justice when incorporated with a network of people and property, is a creation of a State. The Committee to Form a Libertarian Party in 1971 included anarchists like Murray Rothbard. And then you got this http://www.lprc.org/index.html .
AT one point the democrat party contained open Klansmen...David Duke ran for president as a republican...and Im sure idiots that called themselves Anarchists believed what they were doing was pithy and smart. You might note...idiots like that are responsible for the libertarian party having exactly ZERO influence in American politics.
How many elected libertarians are there in local, state, and federal politics? Why?
Most libertarians who run for office do it for publicity and have no intention of gaining new voter support. They also do a very pisspoor job at communicating their solutions to current problems. Instead they spout libertarian rhetoric and when they come to an unpopular subject like immigration they almost blame libertarianism and hold the political theory accountable for not having a good solution to the problem. And then you have state libertarians parties who have not taken positions on things that would reduce spending, require a vote by the people, and even prevent the creation of a state service because the proposal doesn't handout individual rights out like complimentary candies. This is libertarian history and libertarian platform and libertarian leadership. If the libertarian party platform didn't use words like "where government exists" to appease anarchists, if the libertarian leadership had a tendency to be as you say libertarians are, then I would not have a reason to constantly acknowledge the faults that haunt the party still today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?