"[I]ndividualistic rejection of force in the marketplace [is] one of the only real mechanisms of ‘checks and balances’ that actually worked against government."
Honestly, I haven’t done much research into it. However, it would likely be similar to my views on Real Estate. Certainly, your creation is your property. But no, the water beneath it, surrounding it or anywhere else (assuming you didn’t extract the water or mix your labor with it) is not. So long as the Owner of the creation doesn’t use force against others for their usage of his/her non-creations (ie. water, fish, whatever else), then I have no objection to it.
However, I can see States who’ve claimed those waterways as their own having an objection, especially if the seasteading project isn’t allowing a portion of its productions be taken from it as a forced tithe to the holy entity, The State—taxes. So, those types of things would probably become a little interesting. The relationships between sea-Societies and land-States would be an interesting observance.
Egh. I don’t know.
I can’t foresee my family and close friends moving onto a seasteading project. Due to that, I can’t see myself being involved other than for short-term visits and such.
Dear “libertarians,”
We’d like our word back, please. You’ve done enough damage with it as it is.
Thanks in advance,
Libertarian Socialists
I agree that most so-called libertarians do more harm than good to the cause of liberty, but I don’t think we can give the term back until the term “liberal” is returned to us. I’m comfortable with sharing in the meantime if you are =]
I don’t see how the term used in its earliest writing by William Belsham can be claimed to exclusivity by Libertarian Socialists. I haven’t done enough research into the term though.
Regardless: Liberalism was the movement toward individual liberty. The conservatives (statists) sat on the right side of parliament; the liberals (anti-statists) were seated on the left.
(Source: dressedforthehbomb, via man-hastam)
I got into an argument/debate with my parents and uncle today about cops, and police brutality, and the moral hazard that comes with all the special protection afforded to law enforcement. I realized that people like them, who refuse to believe that there is an inherent problem with our system (and not “just a few bad apples”), are the reason that things will likely never change.
They also chastised me for being so fervently anti-authority, and said that I need to “pick my battles,” and “just deal with it” because “it’s just not worth the fight” and someday I’ll get myself into trouble. They also threw in the tired line about how I’m “young and inexperienced.”
I’m sorry but it is worth the fight. If not me, then who will fight on my behalf? Politicians? Am I to wait around for a politician with the balls to put an end to our police state? Am I to believe that at any point in the foreseeable future there will be a majority of legislators in favor of limiting the size and scope of the law and making law enforcement accountable for their actions?
Am I to just wait around for the day that it is a bigger (or, at least an equal) tragedy when an innocent man is murdered by police than when a police officer (who, taking into account the risks, signed up for the job, consented to putting his life on the line, and was generously compensated) is murdered in the line of duty?
Yeah, no. Someone has to do something, and the only ones who can ever do anything are the ones who actually give a fuck. And apparently there aren’t that many of us.
Over Christmas I got into an argument with a mostly-libertarian family member about our foreign policy, particularly the use of torture and its moral and practical problems. He charged that I was “believing liberal propaganda about waterboarding,” mindlessly anti-authority, lacking in perspective because of my age, and (my favorite, given the types of books I read and political figures I respect) “wouldn’t listen to anyone over 30.” Riiiiiight.
On a related note, it bothers me that so many people share the crappy assumption that youthful idealism is automatically invalid. Not being old enough to simply accept the status quo means you can’t have a legitimate opinion? Really?
The “you’re young; you are ignorant” fallacy is likely the most common ad hominem fallacy used against younger generations. Using that as an attempt to discredit someone can nicely be overcome by revealing its fallacious roots.
Most of the time though, discussions like these are with close-minded individuals who hold a predisposition against real freedom. Normally the case is they don’t understand and are unwilling to further educate themselves in the topic.
It’s sad. And, quite often it’s difficult to determine the best way to end such a conversation while still promoting goodwill, without saying “let’s agree to disagree.”
