Thursday, June 11, 2015

"You libertarians want a 'Lord of the Flies' world!"

Odd to me that the fears over "Lord of the Flies" scenarios resulting from Rightful Liberty all center around people acting like government. Killing, stealing, raping, etc. You know, living by the "political means" rather than by the "economic means".

This is why "we need government"? To protect us from people behaving like "government" employees behave?


What other fantasies do you entertain?




  1. People are selfish and stupid. They cannot think beyond their egos or what they're told to think. What they're told to think is that peace and order requires they are enslaved by a dominant force. And their egos are firmly attached to it. This is their 'reality'. You have to destroy their 'reality' in order to change their minds, or kill almost everyone. Destroying their reality probably would kill almost everyone.

    1. I agree with you: people are selfish and stupid. At the core people do act in their own SELF INTEREST (what they perceive to be best for them). They have been taught to not think and do what "authority" tells them to do--so they can just as easily be taught TO THINK and to do what their conscience tells them to do. Our job isn't to throw up our hands and quit: it's to TEACH EVERYONE with whom we come in contact that they do not need someone to tell them what to do...and to teach morals so that people do have a personal conscience.

      Thus, if the government were to suddenly disappear for whatever reason, I believe people would be confused and yes some would loot and steal because they could get away with it.

      But after the initial shock and confusion, fathers would still be fathers and want to find food and shelter for their families. Mothers would still be mothers and want to take care of their families. People who are not evil and violent would more likely choose to cooperate--not because we're all "altruistic"--but because it's more selfish. We would get more and be better off if there were TWO families working together: one providing this and the other providing that.

    2. I don't disagree, and I think you have a pretty good handle on things. Ideally and practically, what you describe is very accurate. The issue is belligerence. They won't listen, nor do they care. You just have to kill them to stop them. And there are LOT of them.

      I am more interested in obtaining a really nasty deadly bio-weapon and starting a global pandemic than I am in wasting my life trying to teach people who are incapable or unwilling to make peace.

      Their idealism isn't my responsibility anyway.

    3. "I am more in in obtaining a really nasty deadly bio-weapon and starting a global pandemic."
      1 There's no such thing. 2 You're a raving loony.

    4. How do you resolve billions of people who insist on violating and enslaving you and your progeny forever?

    5. Self defense is the only way to resolve aggression and theft. It doesn't always work, but the reason so many feel safe in being violators is that so many people have rejected self defense due to it being "left to the professionals"- who are the worse violators. The price of being a bad guy has been lowered through the superstitious belief in "authority". That price needs to be raised again. People will start behaving better when being a violator comes with more certain penalties.

    6. I have no problem engaging in self-defense and killing statists. But were some kind of magic bullet bio-weapon actually to exist, how would you use it to kill the ones who deserved killing?

      Maybe I'm not being creative enough here. Perhaps you post a public warning giving people a week to abandon their aggressions and obey the NAP, or face extermination. Then if they didn't cease their predations, you kill them.

      I still don't see how this works. Who wants to live around a guy who killed millions of people. Wouldn't you be worried he might use his weapon against you at a later date. Who's going to stop him.

  2. A comment was emailed to me, because the commenter can't get it to post for some reason (if anyone has any suggestions for that commenter, I'd appreciate them):

    "This realization also came to me recently. At the core of every 'anti-liberty' argument is the notion that individual people would suddenly act like government ALREADY DOES. Which defeats their own argument.


    "How about billions of uncoordinated experiments in behaving reasonable and humanely?
    Rather than centralized imposed single template that benefits the wanna-be slave master...

    "Surely the billion experiments would include a wide range of outcomes, many bad, many good. But the better outcomes create more and more better situations. Regions of success could flourish. And regions of inhumane behavior would fail.

    "EXCEPT, the failed brutal folks will see successful neighbors and gang up to steal the neighbor's stuff. This always happens when successful individuals are not willing to quickly and efficiently kill in defense of their liberty and property (which is how we get to where we are today). Considering history and current circumstances: The instinct to necessarily quickly kill the threat- is what makes Liberty possible.

    "The meek inherit the gulag.


    1. To Sofa,

      I would point out that in all true Libertarian philosophy that I know, the core concept is the Non-Aggression Principle: Do No Aggression against another person or group of people.

      This means I don't start the violence. I don't start the fight. If I can live peacefully and voluntarily with someone, I do so. If I can not, I don't start aggression--we agree to separate!

      But note that nowhere in the Non-Aggression Principle does it say "no violence"! 100% it absolutely is my personal responsibility to protect and defend those I love!! If the failed brutal folks see the success of my neighbors and I, then I can make an agreement with my neighbors to participate in a neighborhood watch and we all guard each others' things. We can gang up too! If the brutal folks attack me, my family or my property, I can defend it, and the moral goal is to react equivalent to the threat. If they use deadly force, it is moral defense to respond with deadly force.