| SamuelRSmith said: I have found that there are several problems with the libertarian philosophy. Namely, the contradictions. Libertarians argue that the free markets are the best way of organising society for 95% of all cases, and not for the last 5% (the things listed in that passage, for example). Libertarians also believe in the primacy of the individual over the state, and yet to fund Government for that final 5% the only logical and consistent means is through taxation... taxes fundamentally assume that the state takes precedent over the individual. My other issue with Libertarians is that they still monopolize law creation and law enforcement into one institution with the ability to infringe on rights, and assume that they will never abuse this power. This seems a little naive, even the greatest Constitution ever composed by humanity (the US Constitution) was unable to prevent abuse from this power. Hell, even the first few Presidents/Congress' showed evidence of acting outside the authority of the Constitution... and they included the people who wrote the bloody thing. I can see the allure of the libertarian philosophy... I called myself a libertarian for a long time, however, these very fundamental flaws in the philosophy eventually caused me to reject it. |
I don't think that's correct at all. Libertarians know very well that all power will be abused, but as Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigiliance. I'm not even really sure what the alternative is to a monopoly on law enforcement, as it seems inevitable that you will always end up with territorial monopolies. Ultimately, having two or three major (that is, viable) competing law enforcement agencies wouldn't be significantly different than having two or three political parties, all of whom want to fuck you over as soon as attain take power. It's just easier to vote out political parties than it would be to dislodged an entrenched, semi-militarized police force. The real problem is that abuses of power will occur under any system as long as people are willing to put up with them, and it seems that people are generally willing to put up with them to varying degrees - usually a depressingly large degree as long as it isn't actively affecting them personally and they are basically able to get along with their lives.
I can see the allure of anarchism, but ultimately it seems to me but an adolescent pipe dream. But you're a smart guy, and I'd be interested to hear any compelling arguments you might have for it.
