The Problem with Libertarians...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I don't want my kids to be just like everyone else. I want them to be better. I'm not a baby machine, making babies for the country. I'm having them for me. What's the point of having children if you're not going to raise them and love them?

Good for you, though your desires should be subordinated to the needs of your children regardless of what the government is doing or saying.

[Berzerker]

Monkspider -

You are being terribly rude in your arguements Berserker.

I suggest you go back and read the other posts, including the first one. This thread was created and used by people wanting to insult libertarians, so don't tell me I'm being rude.

I must therefore advise you to take a chill pill, my fellow Kansan.

People get treated the way they treat others.

As for the question of whether libertarianism is a viable economic or political philosophy. I must admit that I join the camp who finds it to be not only unrealistic, but indeed, immoral.

And the camp you've joined is anti-liberty. Does that have something to do with where you find yourself? As for your accusation that libertarians are immoral, I expect you to support it and face rebuttals.

It is an unrealistic picture of how society can realistically function, as decisively demonstarted by the arguements of the vast majority of this forum.

Are you going to cite these arguments?

But it is immoral because it inherently relies on greed to keep the system in line, as advocated by Ms. Rand herself.

Excuse me, but Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, she was an objectivist. As for your assertion, are you greedy for not smiling at a street thug as he robs you? Are you happy to be robbed at gun point? If your answers are no, then why are you not greedy but others who don't want to be robbed by politicians guilty of this greed? I'm always amused to see a thief accuse their victims of being greedy.

Greed, swallowing up the weak, the law of the jungle, etc, these are all basic proponents of any libertarian society.

Property rights and freedom are the basic proponents of a libertarian system. Legalised theft (involuntary servitude) and murdering resistors are the basic proponents of the system you would call "moral".

These are all things that can be objectively seen as immoral, relative to a socialist society which is based on cooperation, sharing, brotherhood, and so on.

"Sharing" and "cooperation" imply voluntary associations. These are what free people do...not people forced to pay whatever "taxes" you decide are "moral".

Much is made by libertarians about taxes equating theft, and thus, the noble libertarians are here to liberate us from this band of robber barons.

You are the robber baron.

The truth of the matter is the concept of taxation inherently equaling theft is no more than an articficial construct used by the libs and bourgeoise and various others throughout history to suit their own purposes.

Gee, if I use "taxes" to take what you've worked for and called it "ideology", would that be an artificial construct used to suit my purposes?

If a society as a whole willingly participated in a system of revenue collection which we'll refer to henceforth as taxation, it no longer becomes theft, but cooperation.

LOL! The very existence of this thread disproves your premise that "society as a whole willingly participates".
What you mean is if a majority (or even a plurality) of those who vote decide to take what belongs to others and call the theft "taxes", then that's okay. But why stop there? Why not just enslave a minority? It's the same principle...one group deciding how much labor to take from another group.

Therefore, the libertarian arguement falls down in this respect.

So stealing becomes moral when the thieves outnumber the victims?

Taxation is no more theft than any other good or service.

The supermarket owner won't shoot me if I don't buy food from him.

In this case, the service is "living in a society".

Why does living in a society morally oblige anyone to hand their money over to those with the most political clout? Feudal lords would agree with your premise, and they too would count their vote as more important than their victims. Two lions and a sheep "voting" on what to have for lunch is not "cooperation".

In this aforementioned society, the people have democratically chosen to live in a system with taxation to pay for various beneficial social services, such as a police department, a fire department, help for the poor, etc.

No, SOME of the people have made this decision. And once again, I reject this phony attempt to equate supporting the local sheriff with handing out money that doesn't belong to you to people who didn't earn it.

This is the will of the people as a whole, and thus a cooperative effort.

Then let us "cooperate" and enslave others who have less political clout. And then we can tell them how they "cooperated" by becoming our slaves.

If an individual chooses to not pay for electricity then he loses the ability to read in the dark, watch TV, and so forth.

That speaks for itself.

In other words, he loses the ability to use electricity.

Unless he can produce it himself, but what's your point? That one group of people is entitled to the labor of another group because we buy electricity? So if I buy a computer, I have to buy you one too?

If he refuses to to pay for the ability to live in a nation-state, then he loses the ability to live in that nation-state.

Ah! So your point is that one group of people owns the labor and property of everyone else and the owners get to decide what, if anything, the owned get to use? Don't you believe in "equality"? Why does one group get to charge others a "living" fee and not pay the same amount?

I will spare this forum the theological arguments I have frequently made against libertarianism and for communism for now.

I can already see you telling us that God wants us to steal from each other in the name of morality.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
The central problem for Libertarians is that thinkers like Plato and Hobbes are right and they are wrong. Large and complex social institutions like markets don't just naturally spring up as "free individuals" associate with each other, they are created slowly and over time, just as "free individuals" are not born, they are merely acculturated into a certain mode of belief and expectation.

After all, if you think about the repugnance most of us show towards the sale of bodily organs, then you can appreciate how long it took our ancestors to work themselves up to such things as selling land.

Moreover, exchange economies require a huge bureaucratic apparatus to keep track of who owns what and who owes what to whom. A system of voluntary taxation would quickly destroy the market mechanism because it would generate a "prisoner's dilemma" situation in which self interest would reasonably lead to a worse outcome for everyone.

In fact, if any libertarians are reading this, how about you tell us how a Libertarian polity would solve "prisoner's dilemma" problems without either destroying itself completely or compromising its own principles? I'd really like to know...

Of course all the libertarians could do the decent thing and get real...

You are making a mistake if you think that:

A) Libertarian purists are ever going to be able to form a society completely to their liking. Aside from whatever structural impediments might make their philosophy untenable in its pure form, there is the fact that there will always be people who are against the entire enterprise and will fight it in whatever way they can. Finally, the more a particular model fits into one Libertarian purist's own value system, the less it is going to do so for another Libertarian purist's values system.

B) Everyone who professes to be a Libertarian is a Libertarian purist. I vote Libertarian most of the time, but I realize that there are some things put forward by purists that I don't agree with. This doesn't make me less of a Libertarian, any more than a disagreement about abortion etc. makes a Republican less so. I also realize that Libertarians are going to share this country with people who disagree with them, and are going to have to make compromises that satisfy no one completely far more often than they are going to get eveything they want. This is the nature of Democracy, and I am ok with it. That said, I want my country to move more toward a Libertarian position on most issues, and many people agree with me on each issue whether they adopt a general Libertarian philosophy or not.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Monkspider -

I suggest you go back and read the other posts, including the first one. This thread was created and used by people wanting to insult libertarians, so don't tell me I'm being rude.



People get treated the way they treat others.



And the camp you've joined is anti-liberty. Does that have something to do with where you find yourself? As for your accusation that libertarians are immoral, I expect you to support it and face rebuttals.



Are you going to cite these arguments?



Excuse me, but Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, she was an objectivist. As for your assertion, are you greedy for not smiling at a street thug as he robs you? Are you happy to be robbed at gun point? If your answers are no, then why are you not greedy but others who don't want to be robbed by politicians guilty of this greed? I'm always amused to see a thief accuse their victims of being greedy.



Property rights and freedom are the basic proponents of a libertarian system. Legalised theft (involuntary servitude) and murdering resistors are the basic proponents of the system you would call "moral".



"Sharing" and "cooperation" imply voluntary associations. These are what free people do...not people forced to pay whatever "taxes" you decide are "moral".



You are the robber baron.



Gee, if I use "taxes" to take what you've worked for and called it "ideology", would that be an artificial construct used to suit my purposes?



LOL! The very existence of this thread disproves your premise that "society as a whole willingly participates".
What you mean is if a majority (or even a plurality) of those who vote decide to take what belongs to others and call the theft "taxes", then that's okay. But why stop there? Why not just enslave a minority? It's the same principle...one group deciding how much labor to take from another group.



So stealing becomes moral when the thieves outnumber the victims?



The supermarket owner won't shoot me if I don't buy food from him.



Why does living in a society morally oblige anyone to hand their money over to those with the most political clout? Feudal lords would agree with your premise, and they too would count their vote as more important than their victims. Two lions and a sheep "voting" on what to have for lunch is not "cooperation".



No, SOME of the people have made this decision. And once again, I reject this phony attempt to equate supporting the local sheriff with handing out money that doesn't belong to you to people who didn't earn it.



Then let us "cooperate" and enslave others who have less political clout. And then we can tell them how they "cooperated" by becoming our slaves.



That speaks for itself.



Unless he can produce it himself, but what's your point? That one group of people is entitled to the labor of another group because we buy electricity? So if I buy a computer, I have to buy you one too?



Ah! So your point is that one group of people owns the labor and property of everyone else and the owners get to decide what, if anything, the owned get to use? Don't you believe in "equality"? Why does one group get to charge others a "living" fee and not pay the same amount?



I can already see you telling us that God wants us to steal from each other in the name of morality.

If you want to pursue an honest dialectic on this subject, I'm sure I speak for the rest of the forum when I ask you to not break arguements down into unrelated, out of context statements. It's generally considered poor form. May I suggest you look into the Socratic method one of these days

[Th0mas]

I don't understand?????

Originally posted by Albert Speer
...But much of your arguement is centered around the idea of someone should have the right to do what they want with their body... the problem with this is that such things as drug use do not simply effect the user... they result in vast consequences to family, friends, and society as a whole...

Drug use should not be prohibited because it is a sin and it is not good for the user... but because the user, by abusing drugs, will greatly harm society. What about the children of an abusive mother, for example?

What can I say Albert, you demonstrate a clear reasoned understanding of the problem......

Originally posted by Albert Speer
... we need to develop a stronger moral code among the population in order to end poverty and end the cycle of poverty and sin...

....and then ruin it all with some cookee unworkable right-wing solution.

This seems to be a theme in most of your posts...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by monkspider


If you want to pursue an honest dialectic on this subject, I'm sure I speak for the rest of the forum when I ask you to not break arguements down into unrelated, out of context statements. It's generally considered poor form. May I suggest you look into the Socratic method one of these days

Translation:

I can't seem to come up with a reasonable retort to anything you have said. Let's change the rules!

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Sikander
Translation:

Define translation

I can't seem to come up

Coming up with things is irrelevent, you're advocating theivery.

with a reasonable retort to anything

So in other words you want to give up liberty?

you have said.

Link?

Let's change the rules!

It amuses me when a rule changer advocates changing the rules. Give up your thieven ways, commie scum.


Now can you symapthize?

[Ramo]

Why is enforcing a law against stealing "magical"?

Because as I have just said, law is a reflection of power. A law exists only because the people with power want it to exist. If millions starve because the lack of welfare or a powerful corporation cannot legally maintain its monopoly, you can rest assured that the law will bend or permanently change. The growth of wealth disparities have always meant the destruction of libertarianism, starting with the transition of hunter-gatherers to farmers continuing onto today.

We've had this debate before. How will the workers own the means of production if I as a landowner and producer don't want to sell my land off to the workers and the people I employ want to work for me?

Indeed we have.

The workers could use their labor power - strikes and so forth - to force you to sell your farm, they could organize a boycott against the products you make with the community to force to you sell your land, etc., etc. Or they could take the land by force if you don't have a reasonable claim to it.

Because the poor demand that their stealing be legalised? Why is that any more moral than the rich legalising stealing for themselves?

You'll note that I have referred to both the rich and the poor in the prior statement. And I was referring to practicality, not morality.

[Ted Striker]

Doc - Here you can read about the potato famine and the British intrusions into the marketplace that helped cause it.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=88

Just a little "background" on the Mises Institute, which featured the article explaining the "causes" of the Potato Famine:

It is the mission of the Mises Institute to restore a high place for theory in the social sciences, encourage a revival of critical historical research, and draw attention to neglected traditions in Western philosophy. In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and social science generally in the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

Berzerker:

Are you aware of the millions that migrated out of the Dust Bowl and into the California? Most of them moved there TO AVOID STARVING TO DEATH. This is widely documented, and the Grapes of Wrath is about this very phenomenon.

Where were the charities then? The Red Cross was the ONLY relief force around and they were overwhelmed.

You might want to look up the Arkansas Food Riot and read up on the efficiency of charities in dealing with the food problems in that state during the Depression.

The Dust Bowl is a prime example of lassiez faire gone wrong, due to greedy free for all land mismangement, there was nothing to save the farmland when the drought and subsequent flooding washed it all away.

Now we have a smarter system of land conservation that keeps that from happening.

Secondly, PLEASE supply me ONE EXAMPLE of a successful implementation of a libertarian society in this whole world.

Just one will do it.

[Ted Striker]

Here's some more gentlemen who are benefiting from this efficient system of charity relief.

That tree on the left? Is a CHRISTMAS TREE.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


Translation:

I can't seem to come up with a reasonable retort to anything you have said. Let's change the rules!

There are very few of us who have both the time and energy to commit to going through Berzerker's obsessive line by line responses which often include several unrelated asides. It takes forever just to read and respond to one of those posts, and half of it ends up being arguing about arguing.

Instead of actually having a interesting debate it turns into some sort of life or death moral and personal cause that at the end of the day has completely lost its value and ends up being about hitting the Submit button the most times.

I don't blame monkspider for not getting into that boring old game.

Monkspider,

I liked your parody!

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Because as I have just said, law is a reflection of power. A law exists only because the people with power want it to exist. If millions starve because the lack of welfare or a powerful corporation cannot legally maintain its monopoly, you can rest assured that the law will bend or permanently change. The growth of wealth disparities have always meant the destruction of libertarianism, starting with the transition of hunter-gatherers to farmers continuing onto today.

Trying to ensure economic equality is anti-thetical to libertarianism. The inventors and producers who create wealth will have to be restrained from keeping the wealth they create and the fruits of their efforts syphoned off to enrich those who don't invent and produce less. Diverting resources from the efficient to the inefficient is not better than the marketplace. Sure, many people seek the use/power of government to take what belongs to others, that isn't a justification for allowing that to happen.

The workers could use their labor power - strikes and so forth - to force you to sell your farm, they could organize a boycott against the products you make with the community to force to you sell your land, etc., etc.

And if they strike, I can hire people who will honor their contracts.

Or they could take the land by force if you don't have a reasonable claim to it.

If I stole it, yes, but they would have to have a better claim to the land.

You'll note that I have referred to both the rich and the poor in the prior statement.

Yes, that's why I asked how stealing by either group is justified.

And I was referring to practicality, not morality.

Morality matters more.

Ted Striker -

Just a little "background" on the Mises Institute, which featured the article explaining the "causes" of the Potato Famine:

Yes, we already know about your use of ad hominems, so I'm not surprised you now imply the information is invalid because the Mises Institute published the article. But I also see you didn't refute anything in the article either...

Are you aware of the millions that migrated out of the Dust Bowl and into the California?

Yes.

Most of them moved there TO AVOID STARVING TO DEATH.

Then they sure went a long way considering they could have gone to nearby states and cities. My folks lived through that period right here in Kansas and there was no mass starvation.

Where were the charities then? The Red Cross was the ONLY relief force around and they were overwhelmed.

Why don't you answer my question? How many people died of starvation?

You might want to look up the Arkansas Food Riot and read up on the efficiency of charities in dealing with the food problems in that state during the Depression.

Why don't you provide a link?

The Dust Bowl is a prime example of lassiez faire gone wrong, due to greedy free for all land mismangement, there was nothing to save the farmland when the drought and subsequent flooding washed it all away.

We weren't under a laissez faire system. Geez, you people keep citing government induced calamities and blame the marketplace. That's no different than blaming drugs for all the violence caused by drug prohibition.

Now we have a smarter system of land conservation that keeps that from happening.

Yeah, like we have a smarter system of forest conservation that leads to bigger fires. Let's hope we don't see another decade long drought to test your claim.

Secondly, PLEASE supply me ONE EXAMPLE of a successful implementation of a libertarian society in this whole world.

Just one will do it.

Those states that outlawed slavery up until the Civil War era. I believe Nordic Iceland had a largely libertarian system. Many "primitive" societies commonly called "hunter-gatherer" would have qualified. We basicly went from these systems to monarchs which lasted right up until recent times. If we were living 250 years ago, would you say democracies were invalid because there weren't any we could point to?

There are very few of us who have both the time and energy to commit to going through Berzerker's obsessive line by line responses which often include several unrelated asides.

And it's so much easier ignoring effective rebuttals.

It takes forever just to read and respond to one of those posts, and half of it ends up being arguing about arguing.

If your posts weren't so full of inaccuracies, my responses would be shorter.

Instead of actually having a interesting debate it turns into some sort of life or death moral and personal cause that at the end of the day has completely lost its value and ends up being about hitting the Submit button the most times.

You're a fraud, Ted, you weren't interested in debate when you dismissed my comments about theft and force with an accusation of drug induced paranoia.

I don't blame monkspider for not getting into that boring old game.

If you will not or cannot debate, don't respond, real simple...

Monkspider,

I liked your parody!

Of course, it suits your attention span. Keep posting images of people starving to death. Oh yeah, you haven't yet.

Monkspider -

If you want to pursue an honest dialectic on this subject, I'm sure I speak for the rest of the forum when I ask you to not break arguements down into unrelated, out of context statements.

When I accuse someone of taking arguments out of context, I try to show them, not make unsupported allegations. How am I to defend myself from your accusation when you provide no examples? Furthermore, I break down posts so I can thoroughly respond to what has been said. Notice a difference between our responses? I addressed what you said, and you completely ignored what I said.

It's generally considered poor form. May I suggest you look into the Socratic method one of these days

Did Socrates spout off about other people and ignore their rebuttals too? Btw, complaining about me taking your arguments out of context only to do the same thing in response to Sikander is "low form".

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ramo -

Trying to ensure economic equality is anti-thetical to libertarianism. The inventors and producers who create wealth will have to be restrained from keeping the wealth they create and the fruits of their efforts syphoned off to enrich those who don't invent and produce less. Diverting resources from the efficient to the inefficient is not better than the marketplace. Sure, many people seek the use/power of government to take what belongs to others, that isn't a justification for allowing that to happen.



And if they strike, I can hire people who will honor their contracts.



If I stole it, yes, but they would have to have a better claim to the land.



Yes, that's why I asked how stealing by either group is justified.



Morality matters more.

Ted Striker -

Yes, we already know about your use of ad hominems, so I'm not surprised you now imply the information is invalid because the Mises Institute published the article. But I also see you didn't refute anything in the article either...



Yes.



Then they sure went a long way considering they could have gone to nearby states and cities. My folks lived through that period right here in Kansas and there was no mass starvation.



Why don't you answer my question? How many people died of starvation?



Why don't you provide a link?



We weren't under a laissez faire system. Geez, you people keep citing government induced calamities and blame the marketplace. That's no different than blaming drugs for all the violence caused by drug prohibition.



Yeah, like we have a smarter system of forest conservation that leads to bigger fires. Let's hope we don't see another decade long drought to test your claim.



Those states that outlawed slavery up until the Civil War era. I believe Nordic Iceland had a largely libertarian system. Many "primitive" societies commonly called "hunter-gatherer" would have qualified. We basicly went from these systems to monarchs which lasted right up until recent times. If we were living 250 years ago, would you say democracies were invalid because there weren't any we could point to?



And it's so much easier ignoring effective rebuttals.



If your posts weren't so full of inaccuracies, my responses would be shorter.



You're a fraud, Ted, you weren't interested in debate when you dismissed my comments about theft and force with an accusation of drug induced paranoia.



If you will not or cannot debate, don't respond, real simple...



Of course, it suits your attention span. Keep posting images of people starving to death. Oh yeah, you haven't yet.

Monkspider -

When I accuse someone of taking arguments out of context, I try to show them, not make unsupported allegations. How am I to defend myself from your accusation when you provide no examples? Furthermore, I break down posts so I can thoroughly respond to what has been said. Notice a difference between our responses? I addressed what you said, and you completely ignored what I said.



Did Socrates spout off about other people and ignore their rebuttals too? Btw, complaining about me taking your arguments out of context only to do the same thing in response to Sikander is "low form".

Berserker - The main problem with your replies is not the fact that you are breaking down posts per se, almost every breaks down posts into two or three when replying. But the nature in which you break them down is bad form, debate-wise. Replying to each and every sentence as it's own autonomous arguement with short, strange little sentences, that may or may not be related to the subject at hand, is simply poor form, debate wise.

[Berzerker]

Umm...quoting an entire discussion I'm having with different people only to ignore the quote and repeat an earlier criticism is hardly a valuable debating skill. I see you still haven't provided examples of me taking your arguments out of context. Frankly, I'm tired of responding to the arguments offered by you and Ted only to see my rebuttals ignored. You accused libertarians of having an immoral ideology but never challenged my rebuttal. Strange that you two are the one's complaining about me not trying to have a discussion here.

Btw Ted, would you care to explain how a bunch of people on the brink of starving to death could pack up and make the trip to California? I'd think they would have headed to the nearest big city and soup line.

[Agathon]

What’s wrong with Libertarianism – A Guide for the perplexed.

There are two basic problems with Libertarianism as a moral theory (there are more, but either of these is sufficient to destroy it).

The first is that any reasonable application of its own principles will result in it violating them (in other words it cannot be applied coherently).

The second is that “prisoner’s dilemma” situations show that rational self maximisation often leads to worse outcomes for everybody.

So (1) in this post (2) in the next.

Some background is required. The various forms of Libertarianism all have the following in common – they are deontological systems. This means that they are not so much concerned with the consequences of actions as they are with the intrinsic value of actions. In other words, the rights of persons (e.g. property rights or the right to free speech) cannot be trumped because of purported good consequences that would accrue from their violation. For example, a Libertarian would think it was wrong to redistribute food against the wishes of the food’s owner even if it would cause immense benefits to everyone else or even to the owner himself.

Libertarians are very clear on this point – rights cannot be violated. Indeed, most go much further than this and say that there is no situation in which it is ever justifiable to violate individual rights. This is what gives it its appeal – it has “simple moral guarantees” e.g. “if you earned it, you can keep it and that’s all there is to say about it”.

Let’s see how this stacks up against a decent Socrates:

Socrates: So, Eleutheros, you Libertarians say that it is always wrong for anyone to remove a man’s property or coerce him.

Eleutheros: That’s right, we do say that.

Socrates: Presumably you think that violating such rights is bad.

Eleutheros: Yes that’s why.

S: Which do you think is the worse overall situation: one in which there is but a single violation or the one in which there are fifty violations?

E: Obviously the latter.

S: because fifty are worse than one?

E: Yes.

S: Don’t you agree, my friend, that, when people live in communities, there will sometimes arise situations in which a choice has to be made between fewer or more rights-violations?

E: I don’t understand.

S: Well say, for example, that a man’s village is under threat from brigands who are hell bent on stealing all the villagers property. The village smith has in his shop enough weapons to repel the brigands but the harvest was bad and none of the other villagers can afford to buy them and the smith is an obstinate man and refuses to part with his property for anything except cold hard cash. Is the smith right?

E: Of course he is, it is his property and he has the right to be completely obstinate regarding it if he wants to – it is his.

S: But if the smith does this, the brigands will loot his shop and he will lose his goods anyway.

E: So what, the smith has a right to be irrational, it is his decision to make and not anyone else’s.

S: But if this is the case then the brigands will overwhelm the village and steal everything. They might even kill some of the villagers and rape their wives. Do you still think it is wrong for them to force the smith to give up his weapons?

E: Yes or nobody would be free.

S: Did you not say a short time ago that fifty rights-violations are worse than one?

E: Yes I did.

S: And if the brigands storm the village and are not repelled there will be more rights-violations than if the villagers stormed the smithy?

E: Yes.

S: So not stealing from the smithy leads to a worse overall situation?

E: It seems so.

S: And we should always prefer the better over the worse.

E: Yes.

S: So it is right for the villagers to steal from the smith.

E: Heavens no! How can you say that Socrates?

S: Because you speak against yourself.

E: No I don’t.

S: You said that not stealing from the smith leads to a worse situation, did you not?

E: Yes.

S: But you also say that we should not steal from the smith.

E: Yes, I hold to that.

S: But aren’t you thus saying that we should permit the worse and forbid the better.

E: Yes.

S: Thinking that it is worse and not better.

E: Yes.

S: Is that not absurd?

E: It seems so.

S: Then you must be mistaken. It must be right in this situation to violate the rights of the smith to preserve those of the others – so there are no “simple moral guarantees”.

E: No! I see what you are trying to do, you communist! It is the brigands’ fault not the smith’s. They are wrong not he. The brigands will owe all the villagers and the smith compensation because of the stealing. So no one should steal from the smith – the brigands should just lay off.

S: But they won’t, my friend. It is a sad lesson to learn, but people are often bad, so situations like this will arise more than we hope. We often can do little or nothing about the bad people so this means that choices like the one I just described will arise in countless situations. We will have to violate rights in order to secure the better result over the worse – thus sometimes it is permissible to violate individual freedom in pursuit of the greater good.

E: It looks like you are right, Socrates.

S: But if it is right to violate individual freedom to pursue the greater good then Libertarianism, saying just the opposite, must be false, or not?

E: It must be. How could I have been so stupid?


So in a nutshell, since in the real world rights violations are often consequences of rights respecting behaviour the simple Libertarian prohibitions cannot work - without them the theory fails.