Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:41 AM
Jamaal510 (8,291 posts)
Sam Seder vs. Libertarian caller
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
4 replies, 1713 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Sam Seder vs. Libertarian caller (Original post)
Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:37 AM
JDPriestly (49,080 posts)
1. Libertarians see human interaction as two-dimensional when in fact there are many
dimensions to human interaction.
One of those dimensions is the set of social rules that governs how we interact. Government is the expression of those social rules. That's all it is.
Language is a rule. We all agree on what words mean. That makes human communication possible. Different societies have different languages, but all languages have rules. (Chomsky was a linguist. He attempted to identify the universal rules of language. Maybe that is why his views on government and society are so interesting.)
The minute you agree on language, you agree to be governed by that language. There is no escaping that linguistic government.
The minute you agree with others to speak a language that is mutually understood, you have implicitly agreed to an entire series of rules that eventually become government in one form or another.
Whether you are enslaved by the government that controls your society or are freed by it, you are governed and are a part of government, in the form that organizes your social interactions and therefore your society. Like it or not, admit it or not, you cannot communicate without the agreements that comprise language, and you cannot exchange goods or live with other humans without some set of agreements that constitute government. You can call it something else, but you have to have government if you are going to interact with others.
The libertarian utopia could only exist in the extreme version of Rousseau's society of misanthropes who live entirely without contact with other human beings. A true libertarian is a wild man with no language. Which is a funny thought because most people I have known who thought of themselves as libertarians were pretty egotistical. They were always among the first to want the approval of other human beings, among the first to want to tell others what to do, among the first to start advocating for imposing social rules on others.
Libertarians think they want to live in a society without rules. So do two-year-olds. The cure for libertarians might be to teach a class of two-year-olds for 24 hours a day. They would soon understand why we create governments to impose and enforce social rules.
Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:16 PM
Glaisne (129 posts)
2. Consent of the governed
Legitimate govt has the consent of the governed. Our government is supposed to be made up of the people. We are the government. We form governments to have a set of agreed upon rules and processes to live by to protect the general welfare and provide for the common defense. To claim that the best way to organize ourselves is through the voluntary interactions between individuals is to advocate not only eliminating government but business as well and any other organization. Otherwise just getting rid of govt leaves an opening for business, or the church, to fill in the gap and become the government. Then you no longer have a government of the people. Yes govt has corruption, but so does business, churches and other organizations. When the level of corruption becomes untenable you don't get rid of govt or business you replace it with something better and the whole cycle begins again.
A society of voluntary interactions between independent individuals has never existed and never will. Even back in our stone age hunter gather days there were hierarchies within tribal groups and family bands and there were rules within and between these groups that governed individual interactions. Don't follow the rules and you would be an outcast.