Topic: Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you (Read 3830 times)

There are libertarians and Libertarians. The one with the capital L are the ones I am concerned about. They represent the majority of this forum and are the people who preach "free market capitalism" which is just radical Neo-Liberalism.
I think the initial discrepancy still stands: Libertarian concept of ownership is not justified. (not according to justice). Economic Inequality can only be maintained using unjustified authority (again justice, not justification!), of course within limits. Libertarians (capital L!) do not strive after a classless society, but Anarchists do.

But quite frankly I don't see any use for either term, with l or L.

I think the initial discrepancy still stands: Libertarian concept of ownership is not justified. (not according to justice). Economic Inequality can only be maintained using unjustified authority (again justice, not justification!), of course within limits. Libertarians (capital L!) do not strive after a classless society, but Anarchists do.

But quite frankly I don't see any use for either term, with l or L.

Plot-twist: he was an anarchist all along!

If it would only take one sentence my concept of justice is that no individual has power over another. Your sense of justice is a subset of mine.

My concept of justice doesn't involve one group having special rights over another; however, my concept of justice isn't popular.  Your concept of justice, however, is, and the states of the world do have sovereignty over the people, which is understood to be morally consistent, as I pointed out.  Once we agree that this isn't justice, we can talk about what is.

Well... LOL!

Look, I'm an anarchist because I don't think people should be giving all their power to one entity who is then capable of controlling everything.

I don't want people to suffer at the hands of those who can only take (as opposed to produce).

I do what I can to maintain my individual freedom. I use money that puts the power back in my hands. I own weapons to protect myself from those who would do me harm. I avoid conflict with those who have a monopoly on power while doing my best to avoid contributing more to their power.

No one should have the power to "own the world". My hopes don't prevent that from happening. Individuals need to take power for themselves in order to prevent it!

It seems you Libertarians have some problems with ethics if that is your concept of justice.

Better that than:

This is true; they do own you and I, because we give them the means to own us.  Once we agree that it's better for each of us to own ourselves, this comes to an end.

I may agree with "might makes right", although not "right" as in "correct" or "moral".

I do not agree with "to each according to his need" especially because it conflicts with "might makes right". It does not matter how much you need something, if you can't protect it, you can't have it (ultimately).

I consider myself an anarchist in the purest sense of the word. No rulers. I won't bow to anyone. So, I'm not sure how a libertarian defines anything. Don't they allow for small government to protect "rights", thus ownership?

I'm also not familiar with "classical anarchism". As I said, the definition of anarchy is very simple in my book, no rulers.

Justified ownership, ultimately, comes down to whether or not you can prevent someone else from taking your possessions. Bitcoin, for example, makes it very clear. If you are not the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins. You need to have a method to prevent others from taking your possessions if you want to truly claim that you "own" them. This method does not need to employ might, but it needs to protect against it. If the only way to protect against might is might, then so be it. Might could be a social agreement to protect everyone's belongings, as I've tried to explain with the concept of "rights".

I don't care much about how people think things should work, I'm more interested in how things actually work.

Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership over you.
It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha

Justified ownership, ultimately, comes down to whether or not you can prevent someone else from taking your possessions.

I think we have a hard time discussing things because we disagree on the very definitions of the words we are using!

I'm a liberal gun rights activist. And I could care less about how the world views me. 

I just want to understand what your point is. These "phrases" are what you've said boils down to.


Might makes right.


To each according to his need.

And again, explain "anarchist rule of law" to me, as that has me completely baffled. Explain who's law for starters.