I wasn't going to touch this because it bores me to tears, but I will just so you don't think that if people don't engage you it must be because they are autoritarians incapable of using their imagination to challenge the current system. The fact that I am not a lolbertarian doesn't mean I haven't carefully considered every one of your arguments.
So, we open up weak and pretty much set the tone for this entire post, namely because you open by with a strawman, because at no point did I say folks that don't engage me "must be because they are autoritarians [sic] incapable of using their imagination to challenge the current system." The fact you open up by accusing me of this pretty much sets the tone of the sort of argument you're going to be making, and the fundamental flaws that are going to run through it. Also note that the fact that you collectivize one person who loosely used the libertarian label with apparently all of them, and call them 'lolbertarian,' which further bodes poorly. But hey, I just got back from work and I'm bored, so might as well go through all of this.
The thing is I considered myself a libertarian about 6 or 7 years ago. And then realized that it is one of those ideas that looks pretty cool on paper and makes you sound smart but it is based on an incomplete, reductionist view of humanity. If implemented, the libertarian dream (especially the an-cap dream really) will make civilized society break down. Most libertarians eventually make it to this realization on their own, which is why the majority grow out of this phase by the time they reach 30. Hence the fedora tipping meme. We use it to laugh at people like an-caps and atheists because they think they are being incredibly smart and usually are just inexperienced.
All of this is just... blatantly wrong. For one, it premises the entire idea that somehow the ideals of libertarianism are based on an 'incomplete, reductionist view of humanity,' and you posit that implementation would make society break down. This is a very bold claim, and one that requires a lot to back up. Before you actually bother to explain this, though, you instead posture and talk about how they're just immature. The irony here being that what you're actually doing is exactly what you accuse them of doing, IE: you're trying to SOUND smart without actually BEING smart.
Incidentally, this is the first time ever I've seen the fedora meme used for libertarians or ancaps, even back when I was significantly actually opposed to them, and spent my teenage years on 4chan.
How do you reach this conclusion? Why do I believe libertarianism is a reductionist view of society? Because many libertarians and every an-cap I have met believe that individuals exist in a vacuum. They also believe that the sum of everyone's self interest will somehow produce an organized and healthy society on its own. They completely fail to see that humans are double-natured. Man has an individual dimension (like dogs or gorillas for example) and they do act on it about half the time, but we also have a communal dimension (like bees and ants) that seek to form highly complex societies in which the individuals get lost. To a libertarian that second dimension is interpreted as an infringement on the individual liberties, since communities do require individuals suppress their individuality in favor of the community sometimes. And doing so allows us to organize and create incredibly complex and successful societies.
And here we get into even greater issues, namely because you make a bold claim that 'many libertarians and every an-cap I have met believe that individuals exist in a vacuum.' Well, this is where your premise collapses. I am an ancap, and I do not think individuals exist in a vacuum, and have never actually seen a single ancap of any note or experience that does either. Thus, we start with yet another strawman, set up to easily be knocked down without actually addressing the core points brought up by any ancap.
You bring up the idea that the sum of everyone's self interest will produce an organized and healthy society, but don't actually address why this is wrong, or somehow how this is different from what is going on now, as if somehow self-interest isn't in play in interactions now, just with power structures that allow some to exert far greater power than they'd have in pursuit of their self-interest otherwise.
You then claim they fail to see that humans are dual natured but, again, I have never seen this. It certainly doesn't apply to me, particularly given my attempt to push as many folks as I can to read Johnathan Haidt's work, where he cites this very idea, the "90% chimp, 10% bee" description of humanity. You claim that the 'second dimension is interpreted as an infringement on the individual liberties,' but this is just... nonsensical, because suppressing individuality in favor of the community does not REQUIRE infringing on individual liberties. Further, your entire premise here just begs the question. At no point do you seem to address if this, even if it WAS necessary, is moral or ethical. In short, you don't bother to address why, EVEN IF what you were saying was true, why the objection would exist. You acknowledge the possibility that they supposedly view it as a violation of individual liberties, which you then acknowledge that in your view, it IS a violation of individual liberties, but then you never address the moral or ethical ramifications OF THAT FACT.
Libertarians also believe transactions are not affected by customs and traditions. They believe the only one that can oppress people is the State. In reality people can oppress other people without the State's intervention. The State is useful in those cases as it will act as a barrier to guarantee that one person cannot take advantage of another. Another example of this selective blindness comes with customs. Libertarians don't see custom as an important factor within society. It is what makes them think that "two people can agree voluntarily on a contract, if you don't like it, don't sign it! but why make the State interfere and remove freedoms for the people?". The problem here is you don't understand customs shape interactions every single time, and some customs are incredibly unfair to the point that sometimes the State must regulate them. Same thing happens with power imbalance. To give you an example of this, people who own property have an advantage over people who do not. Everyone needs to live somewhere so landlords tend to have the upper hand. In most states in the US the custom is that the landlord will ask for 1st month, last month, and security deposit. Meaning that you have to give them 3 full months in order to be able to move into the apartment. Then, he can show the apartment to whomever he wants while you are renting it and he can even use his key to enter your apartment while you aren't there as long as he gives you 1 day notice. In my opinion this is incredibly abusive and I hate to sign leases like this. The State doesn't make it illegal for me to make the landlord a proposal to rent giving him only the security deposit and 1st month, and not letting him show the apartment until I am gone. I am free to do it. But guess what? No landlord wants to sign a contract like this with me, because even when it is completely reasonable and it is the way it is done in Europe and elsewhere, in the US this isn't customary. So nobody signs. And since nobody signs with me I need to suck it up and sign these terms or else I will be living in the streets. This is obviously not the worse case of this, just the example I came up with since I discussed this with another lolbertarian recently.
This is yet another bold and blatant lie because no, I've never seen libertarians have some sort of universal view that transactions are not affected by customs or tradition. In fact, I've actually seen many who point out that ethnic groups, due to culture and traditions, can actually engage and form a communal competitive advantage in markets precisely BECAUSE they have custom and tradition, and in group preferences and trusts as a result.
Further, you make this claim that they believe 'the only one who can oppress people is the State,' but this again is blatantly false. Rather, the point is not that only the State can oppress, but by it's nature the State MUST oppress and does so by its very function, and enables oppression that otherwise would be unable or at the very least minimal in capacity. Thus, this entire argument is yet another strawman set up, because you make the claim that the State is useful in cases to act as a barrier, but then use the vague term of "take advantage of another." What does this mean? Does it mean aggressive action, IE: theft or violence? Does it mean fraud? Does it mean simply being smarter in a deal? Does it mean working harder and thus exploiting the other persons lower productivity? What does 'take advantage of another' actually mean? The fact is, thus far you've basically demonstrated you are either ignorant or lying; either you are ignorant of actual libertarian and ancap thinking on subjects, OR you're blatantly lying and misrepresenting them, NEITHER of which look good for you.
You then claim 'selective blindness with customs.' You bring up these behaviors you don't like for landlords and property owners. You express that you dislike these practices, and then somehow say that libertarians or ancaps haven no answers, yet the entire argument is begging so many questions. Firstly, why does you view that it is 'abusive' matter in how they dispose of their property. You merely bring up that we are supposedly 'selectively blind with customs,' yet fail to the acknowledge that maybe we fully recognize, but are waiting for you to make a rational argument as to why somehow your feeling of discomfort at the terms of a contract entitles you to enlist force of arms to bully someone into giving you a preferential contract? You seem to ignore that property regulations and state ownership of land AND restrictions of homesteading increase the value and power of a property owner to dictate terms. You act as if the ONLY options are these sorts of contracts, and there are no other methods of finding a place to live.
But, as I've touched on most of all, you've not once bothered to posit an argument why, if the landlord owns the property, it's therefor wrong for them to dictate the terms. You are not required to sign any contract, that is entirely voluntary. And if it's their property, WHY do you have a right to dictate that it is wrong? Incidentally, if property taxes weren't a thing, if government manipulation of currency wasn't a thing, prices would be significantly less of an issue in the first place.
You merely feel it is unfair. But that is not an argument. At no point do you ever address the argument YOU CITE, ie: "why make the State interfere and remove freedoms for the people?" You simply cite it, then go on to how you feel a custom is unfair, and just leave it at that.
Another example of why lolbertarianism fails in practice is the fact that it considers that every individual is exactly equal and they are all good people. If you think everyone will make the exact same choices you will then it stands to reason that a completely free society will work. But guess what? Not everyone is like you, not everyone is good natured, or bound to the same circumstances, and people take advantage of situations when they can even if it will fuck others over. An example of this is rich young people with no roots like me. I am a nomad. Since I am a nomad and I have enough money to move wherever the fuck I want whenever I want to, I could go into any country, exploit circumstances that will give me an advantage, screw society over and then leave. The consequences of my reckless behavior will be shouldered by the laymen. People who don't have the same opportunities as me, who are tied to a job and a house they bought, who have a family to raise, and cannot move to a different place. They are stuck with the results of my shitty behavior. An example would be this: a person such as me but with 100 times more money could back a socialist candidate who plans to control the currency, donate millions to his campaign, have him win and then manipulate currency to make a shitload of money in the process. Society will be incredibly fucked after when their currency is worth nothing and their savings are halved overnight, but the rich nomad will have made a fuckton and he can then up and move someplace else with the spoils of this. Lolbertarian valhalla can't prevent society from these shit scenarios, and a strong State can.
You then bring up this claim that somehow it is a principle of libertarianism or ancap views that every individual is equal and that they are all good people. This is so blatantly wrong I don't even know how you'd get it. On the contrary, the idea that people are both inherently good or blank slates, and/or equal is the principle of statism and, to a degree, communism, and the recognition they are not is precisely why many folks become libertarian. I know it's in large part why I was led to it, because I recognized that folks are NOT inherently good, and therefor giving them the power of the state is inherently dangerous because that power either will corrupt those who are good, or attract those who are already corrupt, because that is the nature of such power, and that such power can only be amassed in a centralized state. Further, the basis is that folks are NOT equal, they are NOT interchangeable, and that is why complex markets exist and why central planning and government manipulation of markets and the economy as a whole is thus disastrous, because they cannot comprehend the vastness of human variety in capabilities and desires and thus will always fall short when attempting to dictate from on high.
Thus, this entire spiel once again reinforces that you are either ignorant or a liar; you either have no idea what you're talking about yet are still pretending to, OR you're blatantly setting up a strawman rather than addressing real arguments made.
The entire premise of libertarianism and particularly in anarcho-capitalism is actually to assume that everyone, at their basis, is self-serving and selfish, because that is the lowest common denominator and building your system around that fact means that you are prepared for worst case scenarios. It does not require everyone actually BE self-serving and selfish, it simply accounts for it and is build on the idea that selfishness is best tempered when your best interests are resolved by acting in an honest and direct manner, respecting contracts, and providing products and services to the highest standard as agreed upon between two parties. IE: society functions best when both parties are served by the interaction, and it is voluntarily chosen by those parties.
Your entire premise falls flat because it is premised on the idea that your reputation will never follow you. First off, how did you amass these riches? You had to have done something to provide a service folks were willing to pay for, and thus you earned your income. This also premises that your exploiting circumstances and 'screwing over society' will somehow be in your best interest, but this is a nonsense argument. Why would it be? It's not even in your best interest, even if it was possible. The further irony of the argument you make is you literally talk about someone who apparently is somehow super rich (you don't establish how they gained this money,) and then how they exploit state power to screw people over. Then you say a powerful state can prevent this...
what.
Your entire argument here is that libertarians/ancaps, who want a minimal/no state, have no answer to a corrupt rich person buying a strong central state and manipulating currency, and thus a strong state can stop someone from exploiting a strong state to screw people over.
This goes beyond strawman into the realm of asinine nonsense. The entire premise requires that a strong state exists to exploit and manipulate the currency in the first place! Yet you claim somehow libertarians don't have an answer? Libertarians who hate the idea of state controlling currency in the first place don't have answers to someone buying off and manipulating the currency through the state.
What.
I could go on and on about this and explain how a libertarian society would completely break down, but like I said it is boring cause it is going over issues that I consider to be tired and this post is already a boring brickwall of text that I doubt more than 2 people would read.
You could go on and on, but you'd have to actually bring up a point that isn't a strawman or nonsense, and I'd love to see you try because this entire post simply marks you as an ignorant idiot or a malicious liar, or possibly both. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and have mustered no actual attack on any sort of libertarian or ancap principles. You've made no ground-up argument why YOUR position is right, you've merely begged the question several times over.
Grade F, see me after class, and apply yourself next time.
First of all, referring to taxes and enforcement as "theft and violence" is ridiculous. I have taken this view myself in the past; but it paints you as an idealogue, an extremist, or dare I say, an idiot. It tends to tarnish the good points you occasionally make.
You say it is ridiculous but fail to make an argument of why it is.
So you're saying taxation is theft and violence, right? Just making sure we're all on the same page here.
A large organization who seizes wealth from the unwilling on threat of force, and who, should you resist, will drag you off or seize MORE of your wealth. If you buy something, they require a fee for that transaction. For some items, you must continually pay a fee to them ore they will seize the property.
Yes, taxation is theft. It's the use of force to seize property from the unwilling. Dressing it up in a uniform doesn't somehow make it less theft.
