/r/libertarianunity
A place to discuss various forms of liberatory politics and discuss what level of cooperation should be done with those of differing goals and views of liberation.
Apes together strong :3
/r/libertarianunity
For example, minarchist Robert Nozick asks whether "a free system would allow [the individual] to sell himself into slavery" and he answers "I believe that it would." [Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 371]
There is also ancap Walter Block, who, like Nozick, supports voluntary slavery. As he puts it, "if I own something, I can sell it (and should be allowed by law to do so). If I can't sell, then, and to that extent, I really don't own it." Thus agreeing to sell yourself for a lifetime "is a bona fide contract" which, if "abrogated, theft occurs." He critiques those other right-wing libertarians (like Murray Rothbard) who oppose voluntary slavery as being inconsistent to their principles.
Block, in his words, seeks to make "a tiny adjustment" which "strengthens libertarianism by making it more internally consistent." He argues that his position shows "that contract, predicated on private property [can] reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts." ["Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein," pp. 39-85, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 44, p. 48, p. 82 and p. 46]
And most right libertarians get their base their theory on ones of Locke, who also supported voluntary slavery, but the key difference between him and nozick/Block is that Locke refused the term he term "slavery" and favoured "drudgery" as, for him, slavery mean a relationship "between a lawful conqueror and a captive" where the former has the power of life and death over the latter. Once a "compact" is agreed between them, "an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other . . . slavery ceases." As long as the master could not kill the slave, then it was "drudgery." Like Nozick, he acknowledges that "men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service." [Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Section 24] In other words, voluntary slavery was fine but just call it something else.
Not that Locke was bothered by involuntary slavery. He was heavily involved in the slave trade. He owned shares in the "Royal Africa Company" which carried on the slave trade for England, making a profit when he sold them. He also held a significant share in another slave company, the "Bahama Adventurers.
So question to right libertarians: Do you believe voluntary slavery is compatible with right libertarianism, or it's not and self proclaimed libertarians who support this idea are not true libertarians
Remember to keep discussion civil, the purpose of the post is help revive our subreddit, not to divide libertarians, if you have any idea for new discussion post, post it yourself to help our subreddit.
I'm curious, because at one point I was all for liberty, because I hated corrupt political figures and authoritive figures, and still do honesty. What changed is that I considered that people can be really dumb, and people might live back with individual freedom, so maybe we do need authority, to preserve nature and keep wild insividuals down, so people wont ruin life of others by living back with their freedom.
Over time I developed nationalistic tendencies. I love my culture, I love the nature around us, I love my people (even if they can be rather dumb), I love my language (I'm not American). But as I looked into how governments are doing the exact same thing that I was worried that individuals would do, and sometimes even worse, I lost my interest in strong governments that are supposed to protect us.
I mean, I have to pay taxes to pedophile politicians who make rules and laws that fuck with my life and the economy and nature, the cops that get their salary from my and everyone else's tax money don't help is (like when my mother's bike was stolen, they documented it and than went back to doing absolutely nothing) only ever doing something when we try to deal things ourselves (where I live it's actually illegal to do things that cops are supposed to do, even fucking defending yourself until you are ganged up on) or when I refuse to contribute to the system (how dare I not wanting to give them one third of my living just so they can do absolutely nothing or things that are bad for me and others?)
But I still like my culture and nature and all that, but I hate these parasytes who do little to nothing and when they do things, it's often bad for me. And over time I found out that there is this thing called "national anarchy" (though it has a pretty bad reputation, plus from what I saw it's mostly just nazis but without the totalitarianism) and "national libertarianism" (no idea about any real life practice of it).
Is libertarianism and nationalism mutually exclusive or possible to combine under certain conditions?
I am not asking this to irritate any people. I am sorry if I come off that way.
Libertarianism generally means the idea that the state should be minimized and efficient at what it does. I am sorry but I cannot wrap my head around how society can form social protection and dismantle monopolies without a state.
Humans are inherently social creatures. And within these social structures pyramids of power form. I'd hate to make an argument from nature but something resembling a state structure exists on almost every social animal on earth. When I make this argument it always goes to the chimp-bonobo divide for some reason. Humans closest relatives, chimps, are one of the fiercest primates there are. They live up north of the Congo River. South of the river is inhabited by bonobos, a relative of chimps that diverged from them not so long ago. While chimps are characterized by their aggressiveness and patriarchal social structures, the bonobo is unique that they have a very peaceful and matriarchal social structure. I am having this tangent because bonobos are used to justify that if left alone human society can have peaceful and cooperative societies. This is usually paired up with the noble savage archetype. French enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire believed that human societies that predated farming were peaceful and happy. This bizzare belief somehow remained in the Western mind for centuries. This even influenced the French Revolutionary thinkers. They believed that if only Europe was left uncorrupted by Christian influence they would have been a liberty-loving, equal and free society.
Perhaps one of the biggest intellectual tragedies of our modern times is the idea that the "Communitas" is always better than the "Structure". Todays societies that are the most conservative and also limiting of personal accumulation of wealth are the societies of "Communitas".
I don't know if I am being deranged when I say that maybe we shouldn't organize our society in the image of bonobos.
But this is all theory. I have other more grounded worries about Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho Communism.
I knew someone who was kind of a Libertarian Socialist. We both loved to debate politics. It is just that all of his beliefs were self-justifying in a way. He always talked about how these "councils" would govern everything democratically. When I asked who appointed these councils he said of course it was the people. When I asked who would watch over these councils he said that they would wath over themselves. Am I the only one who finds this really weird. Who fills this power vacuum? Who are these councils how in the hell are they going to organize? What stops a Napoleon from gaining power and conquering other concils. The people? Well we allow them to have guns. That just makes it so that people have all the resources they will need to gain power. It is just this really bizzare way of thinking that I cannot get over.
Also my friend was reluctant call himself a Libertarian Socialist proper. As where I am from it is strongly associated with a certain terrorist group.
But anyway. Can someone in the comments expalin to me why I am wrong.
I think technology is the mean tyranny rise in silent
Majority of libertarian platforms, sites and places are so sectarian, I will appreciate if anyone knows ones that aren't.