Posts by driftingjackal5

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

Libertarianism views freedom through the lens of property rights—basically, it’s all about tiers of privilege. Who owns what, and why? Who gets to claim a life, and based on what? The inevitable conclusion here is that the individual actually living that life holds the ultimate right to it. If you don't see it that way, then Objectivism really doesn't have much to do with libertarianism at all. Besides, Ayn Rand openly despised libertarians like Murray Rothbard... so I'm not sure why you're even bringing him up in the same breath unless you're just trying to discredit libertarian "references"...

Look, let’s get one thing straight—I'm not trashing this as some revolutionary new idea I'm dismissing *a priori*. That’s not how I roll. The reality is that every single capitalist state—from around 1870 right up through the end of WWII—hit a wall where they were forced to roll out social programs. They had no choice... it was inevitable. They ended up expanding that whole "minimal state" liberal concept just because they had to. So, calling the concept flawed isn't just my opinion—it's an *a posteriori* fact... it actually happened.

Honestly, you’re pretty far off here—libertarianism, by this modern definition, is actually a relatively recent addition to political theory. You could argue that the real starting point for modern libertarianism was Murray Rothbard's manifesto "for a New Liberty" back in 1973... that's where he breaks down the core concepts that really separate libertarianism from classical liberalism. First off, it comes down to the philosophical foundation. Classical liberalism is essentially built on utilitarian philosophy. Those guys argue that capitalism and individual freedom are good mainly because they produce the best results compared to other ideologies. Libertarianism, though? It's based on two moral pillars—individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle. In plain English: libertarianism pushes for individual freedom because it's the most moral position to take, whereas classical liberalism just sees it as the most useful one. That's a massive distinction...

Before the whole "state-run education" thing took over, honestly, hardly anyone even went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were sitting somewhere between 1% and maybe 10% at most in some developed areas. Whatever schooling actually existed was tied directly to the Church—which, let’s be real, is about as far from a libertarian institution as you can get...

Look, your whole argument completely ignores the fact that the 19th century was the era of the Industrial Revolution. Before that kicked in, most people were illiterate simply because they were stuck doing backbreaking labor every single day—they didn't have the time or the capacity to even think about sending kids to school. Farm kids—who made up basically everyone back then—were out in the fields working alongside their parents instead of sitting in a classroom. It was the Industrial Revolution itself, which massively spiked productivity, that finally allowed kids from poor families to actually get an education instead of spending their entire lives working the land. For example, look at the stats in the US... between 1850 and 1900, literacy rates shot up from 20% to 95% in a tiny window of time, and that was BEFORE public schooling even existed. In fact, once public schools were actually introduced, literacy rates actually DROPPED by a few percentage points and just stayed stuck there ever since...

I already laid out my basic objections—like how people insist that all personal wealth is just the direct result of one's own labor. It’s obviously not... anyone sitting on capital can hire others and profit from their work—that’s literally the core of capitalism. Honestly, it'd be pretty funny to see some libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that principle, just so some kid doesn't get a head start in life thanks to their ancestors' hard work.

This is pure socialist logic. Seriously, do you even know how to define what capital actually is or where it comes from? What are people without capital supposed to do to get some? Is labor itself a form of capital? Since you're throwing these questions around, maybe try defining your terms properly before we keep going.

You wrote a ton of stuff here, but you haven't actually explained why you think taking liberty so "literally" is a bad thing. Is it because sick people won't get care? How can you even know that? Before medicine was socialized, there were fraternal organizations—like the mason, the Rosicrucian, the Elkov, and a million others—where you got top-tier healthcare just by paying a small annual fee, and it was all completely voluntary. Check out this video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFoC1gkExI

Is it because kids won't go to school? Do you seriously believe nobody went to school before the state took control of education? There was an entire network of private institutions, from religious groups to charities, that ran their own schools and educated kids for free...

Or is it because you'd feel "less secure" in a free society without coercion? Here’s what David Friedman has to say about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

We can talk about whatever you want, but when you just dismiss an idea as "unrealistic" out of hand without making a single concrete argument... it doesn't work.

Ryan Nelson5 said:I expected this to be more about societal freedom—democracy, really—rather than individual liberty, especially since this forum is flooded with sentiments like "the people have no say and can't change anything."

Otherwise, the quoted text in the opening post sounds noble; I doubt anyone here would disagree with it. However, once you try to apply those ideals to real-world scenarios, everyone will just interpret them however they please.

If you read that text and decide you're totally on board, you gotta ask yourself: do the people you call "leaders" actually believe what they wrote? And if they don't, why the hell are you following them? I’m convinced the only way to shift the political and social vibe is to start with the individual, not by shouting opinions from some political soapbox. It’s about getting individuals to realize that begging the state—or whoever’s in power—for handouts is straight-up immoral, and actually understanding *why* it's wrong.

Take the last census, for instance. Almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. Isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality built on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live like that? Why is it that kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday are out on the streets tomorrow screaming for "free education"? Let's break down what "free education" actually means for a second. There are really only two options: either they think teachers should work for zero pay, or they think the state needs to provide them with fair compensation. But can the state pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Obviously not. The state is just a monopoly on the legal use of force. When they respond to this demand for "free schooling," they’re going to use coercion—using taxes to snatch property from one person to give it to another. In this case, they’d strip all taxpayers to fund the education of the people demanding it. That’s the state initiating force on their behalf. Yet, the people demanding "free school" would never dream of breaking into their neighbor's house and grabbing a few thousand bucks to pay for their tuition. So why is it okay when the state does it for them?

The whole philosophy of liberty boils down to self-ownership—you know, individual sovereignty, autonomy, whatever you want to call it.

The core principle is dead simple: you own your life. Period. Saying otherwise is just a fancy way of claiming someone else has a bigger stake in your existence than you do. No person, no group, no government... nobody owns you, and you don't own them.

You exist through time—past, present, and future. That temporal stretch is your life, your freedom, and everything you've built with it.

Lose your life, and you lose your future. Lose your freedom, and you lose your present. Lose what you've earned, and you're losing the very history that shaped who you are.

Your life and your freedom represent your property. Your stuff is the result of your work—it's the literal product of your time, energy, and talent. Property is just nature that you’ve transformed into something useful through labor. It also includes stuff owned by others that you acquired through voluntary trade and mutual consent.

Voluntary exchange means both sides actually benefit from the deal—otherwise, why bother? Only the people involved can legitimately decide to make that swap.

Sometimes, people use force or fraud to snatch property without consent. Using force or fraud to take a life is murder. Using it to take freedom is slavery. Using it to take property is theft. Simple as that.

It doesn't matter if it's one guy acting alone, a mob ganging up on one person, or a bunch of "authorities" using their power to crush you—the outcome and the immorality are exactly the same.

Everyone has the right to defend their life, their freedom, and their rightfully earned property from aggressive interference. You can ask for help defending those rights, sure. But nobody has the right to initiate force or aggression against someone else's life, liberty, or property. And because of that, you can't delegate to some third party the right to go out and initiate aggression on your behalf.

You have the right to find your own leaders, but you damn well don't have the right to impose a ruler on anyone else. No matter how they get picked, leaders are still just humans—they don't have any special rights or privileges that put them above anyone else.

I don't care what fancy titles they hold or how many people cheer for them—officials and leaders have zero right to kill, enslave, or steal. You can't hand over rights to someone else that you don't even possess yourself.

Since you own your life, you're responsible for it. You aren't renting your existence to people demanding obedience, and you aren't a slave to anyone demanding you sacrifice yourself for them. You pick your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure—both are necessary for learning and growing. Actions done for others, or by others for you, are only moral if they're based on voluntary, mutual consent... because morality can't exist without freedom of choice.

That's the bedrock of a truly free society. It isn't just the most practical and humane way to live—it's the only ethical one.

All those global messes caused by governments initiating force? There's a fix. The fix is to stop demanding that officials use force on your behalf. Evil doesn't just come from bad people—it comes from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a way to solve problems. That's how, throughout history, the good guys have kept handing power to the bad guys...

Trusting a free society means focusing on the market process of discovering moral values—not some forced vision or preordained goal shoved down everyone's throats. Using the state to force a specific vision on people is just intellectual laziness, and honestly, it almost always ends in unintended, messy consequences...

Building a truly free society takes guts—guts to think, speak, and actually act. Especially when doing nothing is the easy way out.

This whole thing is based on the epilogue from "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" by Ken Schoolland. If you ask me, it’s one of the most punchy texts ever written explaining the political philosophy of libertarianism—or even more accurately, voluntarism. Just two basic principles:

1. You own your life. Nobody has a greater claim to your life than you do. Life isn't just existing physically; it's a timeline stretching from your past into your future.

2. Initiating force against peaceful people—for any reason whatsoever—is morally disgusting and totally unacceptable. The only time force is okay is in self-defense, after someone else has already crossed the line against you.

I don't see anyone on this forum—or even in broader American society—having a serious conversation about this stuff, so I'm hoping for a more concrete discussion here. 🙂