- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I'm confused and need some help
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:47 pm
Apparently the Libyan government has no authority in Benghazi (or in the entire country, really), and there are warlords and armed groups popping up and fighting one another for power and the oil revenues. Now I've been told by many libertarians here that this type of stuff doesn't/wouldn't happen. Why are the Libyans not adhering to the non-aggression principle? We finally have a "government" that does not have a monopoly on industrial-scale violence and yet Libya is not turning into this libertarian paradise.
I think all of us here know I'm pretty dense, but I just cannot figure this one out. Any help?
LINK
So we've got the government, Islamist militants, AND renegade generals all looking to assert their authority?? Did someone forget to tell thses guys about the non-aggression principle?
I think all of us here know I'm pretty dense, but I just cannot figure this one out. Any help?
LINK
quote:
The commander of Libyan army special forces said on Monday he had allied with renegade general Khalifa Haftar in his campaign against militant Islamists, highlighting the failure of central government in Tripoli to assert its authority
quote:
Since the end of Gaddafi's one-man rule, the main rival militias of ex-rebels have become powerbrokers in Libya's political vacuum, carving out fiefdoms.
So we've got the government, Islamist militants, AND renegade generals all looking to assert their authority?? Did someone forget to tell thses guys about the non-aggression principle?
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 2:49 pm
8
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:50 pm to boosiebadazz
Well, this is certainly airtight. I'm going to be a socialist now.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:52 pm to GoBigOrange86
Socialism sounds harsh. What if there was a political theory somewhere in between pure libertarisnism and pure socialism?
What if there was a strong central government that also had a mandate to protect certain individual freedoms? That sounds like that would be the best of both worlds.
What if there was a strong central government that also had a mandate to protect certain individual freedoms? That sounds like that would be the best of both worlds.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:53 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
What if there was a political theory somewhere in between pure libertarisnism and pure socialism
Yeah, that type of government would never kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:56 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
there are warlords and armed groups popping up and fighting one another for power and the oil revenues. Now I've been told by many libertarians here that this type of stuff doesn't/wouldn't happen.
what? Libertarianism doesnt suggest what you posit.
quote:
Why are the Libyans not adhering to the non-aggression principle? We finally have a "government" that does not have a monopoly on industrial-scale violence and yet Libya is not turning into this libertarian paradise.
I think your inductive reasoning here is flawed. What ever gave you the idea that violence exists in a vacuum outside other forces in society?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:58 pm to boosiebadazz
I wish Blue Velvet would stop by with his Somalia information.
*off to a meeting*
*off to a meeting*
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:04 pm to boosiebadazz
I think you have libertarianism and anarchy all kinds of mixed up.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:39 pm to CptBengal
I was told that warlord-ism and armed groups would not exist in a libertarian paradise. There would be private contract and NAP-enforcement firms, but this would be orderly and would never, ever devolve into open warfare of armed groups fighting one another. I guess that logic being that an orderly "pacification" of society encourages economic growth and would be good for society as a whole. I was told that the monopoly on force currently enjoyed by the State is an abomination to true free men everywhere and that if we could only get centralized governments out of the equation, we could then enjoy an ideologically pure, orderly society whereby the non-aggression principle is followed and we don't have to withstand the horrors of state-sanctioned violence.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:46 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The commander of Libyan army special forces said on Monday he had allied with renegade general Khalifa Haftar in his campaign against militant Islamists, highlighting the failure of central government in Tripoli to assert its authority
Watched this unfold over the weekend. Craziness.
Also seems to have the support of many secular Libyans.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:54 pm to boosiebadazz
I think your confusing libertarians with anarchists. Something a lot of the "libertarians" on here do as well.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:28 pm to boosiebadazz
Why do you equate the political leanings of the US with a foriegn nation with America.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:31 pm to CITWTT
I'll be honest: I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to convey with that post.
Use your words and try again.
Use your words and try again.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:47 pm to boosiebadazz
Libya is not even a real country. What you are calling Libya is just a bunch of tribes that occupy a segment of N. Africa that were grouped together and given independence after WW2.
The people's allegiance in this area is not to Libya, but to their tribe. The ruling tribal alliance rules the 'country.' They are just working out the alliances to fill the vacuum. 'Libya' could even become more than one country and maybe that is the way it should be.
The people's allegiance in this area is not to Libya, but to their tribe. The ruling tribal alliance rules the 'country.' They are just working out the alliances to fill the vacuum. 'Libya' could even become more than one country and maybe that is the way it should be.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:50 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
boosiebadazz
The answer is free market.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:52 pm to Lakeboy7
I think we're seeing free market forces clearly at play. In a way, I guess these armed groups are the private security forces I was told would develop in a purely libertarian society. shite seems awesome and incredibly efficient!
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:37 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
s are the private security forces I was told would develop in a purely libertarian society
Private security forces can't work in a free and just society. That just leads to vigilantism. Rule of law governed by an elected body is a must for a free society.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News