"Statism"

If state power is "innately bad", then why not have any government at all?  Why not abolish all government completely, and its sister institutions of law, property, and currency?  Why not reduce everything to a state of darwinian struggle to survive? Would that not fulfill the gist of capitalism, to create a society where the strongest live and the weak perish? 

The answer is thus: Those in the current system use government and its institutions to protect themselves from the world, they need property, they need law, they need to have some semblance of society to sleep at night, they are all too afraid of a world where individual struggle is the only constant, where they can know that anything can be taken for any reason, that quarter will not be shown to them, and that no one has any outside force compelling them to aid their fellow man.

Those who ask for a reduction of state power, without its abolition, are cowards.

>>1
"If state power is "innately bad", then why not have any government at all?"

The idea behind libertarianism and a reduction *BUT NOT* an elimination of state power is that you sacrifice a small amount of liberty to ensure the safeguard of all the others.  The idea is to sacrifice as little as is necessary to keep your other liberties safe from the common forms of attack. 

-Attacks by foreign governments (military)
-Attacks by criminals (court system)
-Can't think of anything else, but you get what I'm saying.

As you can see, the proper function of government is thus to protect liberty, and to sort out disputes between individuals in the fairest manner possible so that they can continue to go about their lives, being relatively free. 

"Why not abolish all government completely, and its sister institutions of law, property, and currency?"

Because we need government to defend our most essential liberties from intrusion and invasion by other governments.  If we don't have some degree of organized society, we will then be overrun by enemy governments and have no freedoms.  Thus, we sacrifice as small an amount of liberty as is possible, so that the government can exist - but only to protect our liberties from the threats I mentioned above, such as governments, and criminals.

"Why not reduce everything to a state of darwinian struggle to survive?"

...

"Would that not fulfill the gist of capitalism, to create a society where the strongest live and the weak perish?"

That isn't the gist of capitalism.  Capitalism is an economic idea based around the ideas of individual rights.  Granted, libertarianism and minimal government (but not anarchy) is not pure-capitalism, but it is likely as close as we can reasonably get to it while still more-or-less defending our basic human rights from the various types of invasions and attacks mentioned above.  The problem is that without a government to defend our liberties, they wouldn't exist for very long before a foreign government came in and took them away.  Since we want to keep them, we sacrifice the smallest degree of property rights possible to provide taxes so that a small, but adequate government can exist to defend our freedoms from foreign and domestic threats.  This compromise ensures that the rest of our freedoms will be there for the future, while still leaving us more or less 'free'.  Thus, to conclude, the functions of a good government are to defend life, liberty, and property.

"Those who ask for a reduction of state power, without its abolition, are cowards."

No we aren't.  We are acting in a practical manner to increase our freedom without jeopardizing its safety.  It is the most sensible ground possible possible between Anarchy and Statism. 

>>2

Mencken: "It is a basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free."

>>2
You know those "basic human rights?" NEWSFLASH: YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THEM!!!
If people actually had "basic human rights", Genocide wouldn't exist, racism wouldn't exist, starvation wouldn't exist, crime wouldn't exist, and a plethora of bad things.
"Basic human rights" are what your government "gives" you, and then tries to protect them by taking them away from you.  You're giving up your freedom for security, which is a process that eventually snowballs.

Look at the 1780's in American history, thats about as "libertarian" as it gets, and you know what? We moved increasing ly statist over the last 200 years. Why? Weren't we at the people's paradise of social and political balance?
The biggest problem with libertarianism, is when shit hits the fan, it can't do a motherfucking thing (within it's doctrine) to stop the effects.

In such a situation, "Weak government" can't stop the fallout of economic crashes, violence, crime, death because it's so goddamn powerless to control it's constitutents, which is why government power was expanded to rectify the symptoms.

"But thats not the doctrine of libertarianism, they would leave the market alone and let it fix itself" Absolutely, if they didn't care about their lives or getting reelected.  Should they take that stance, I guarantee you that they'd be sacked for someone who'd do something, as they are not fulling their "duties" to protect "basic human rights" in the event of catastrophe.

The arguement for anarchy is that no matter how little freedom you give up for security, it will inevitably grow, and you'll need a revolution to reset the whole damn process over again.  If you give a government NO power, i.e. Zero, it cannot take your freedoms away.  Sure, you have nobody in your corner should a bunch of thugs come to rape your wife, but maybe that's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL (Now it sounds like capitalism, doesn't it?) to defend yourself and your family and ensure your survival.

Bascially, when you say that you are "giving up freedom in a practical manner to ensure the safeguard of rights we don't even have" you are saying that you are too much of a gigantic crying pussy to accept total responsibility for your life and those you care about.

>>4
"You know those "basic human rights?" NEWSFLASH: YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THEM!!!"

Right.  They are being eroded regularly, and libertarianism is the solution and the necessity to fight for and safeguard them in the future.

"If people actually had "basic human rights", Genocide wouldn't exist, racism wouldn't exist, starvation wouldn't exist, crime wouldn't exist, and a plethora of bad things."

Basic human rights can be violated.  I can violate another human being's basic right to his life by murdering him.  This doesn't mean that it is not a 'right' he should have protected by the government.

"Basic human rights" are what your government "gives" you, and then tries to protect them by taking them away from you."

Then vote for the libertarians.

"You're giving up your freedom for security, which is a process that eventually snowballs."

Unless people are vigilant.

"Look at the 1780's in American history, thats about as "libertarian" as it gets, and you know what? We moved increasing ly statist over the last 200 years. Why? Weren't we at the people's paradise of social and political balance?"

No, because we ran out of Reagans.  The people loved Reagan, and I'm sure if, somehow, he was alive and could run in 08, and in good health, they'd vote him in again in a landslide.  Reagan was one of the greatest american presidents ever, and was very popular.  People like liberty and freedom.

"The biggest problem with libertarianism, is when shit hits the fan, it can't do a motherfucking thing (within it's doctrine) to stop the effects."

Yes it can.  What do you mean by 'when the shit hits the fan'? A world war? Libertarians acknowledge the necessity of a strong military. 

"In such a situation, "Weak government" can't stop the fallout of economic crashes,"

It isn't the purpose of the government to manipulate the economy.  Up until the 1900's, we had a pretty 'libertarian' country, with the exception of a few injustices, but it worked for hundreds of years in this manner with no significant problems.  The great depression was a result of government manipulation of the money supply.  Go read Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal, and read the section about capitalism and depressions.  I have other links I can direct you to on this subject if you'd like as well. 

"violence, crime, death because it's so goddamn powerless to control it's constitutents,"

Controlling violence, crime, and death is actually the proper function of a libertarian government.  I guess you don't know much about libertarianism.

"which is why government power was expanded to rectify the symptoms."

See above.

"Absolutely, if they didn't care about their lives or getting reelected."

The market can handle itself if left alone.  Reaganomics works.  Reagan brought economic prosperity with libertarian-leaning values, and was one of the greatest american presidents of all.

"Should they take that stance, I guarantee you that they'd be sacked for someone who'd do something, as they are not fulling their "duties" to protect "basic human rights" in the event of catastrophe."

You fail for not knowing anything about libertarianism.  Imagine a socially tolerant republican.  Here, we have your average moderate libertarian.  If you are going to critisize something, the least you could do is know what you are talking about first.

"The arguement for anarchy is that no matter how little freedom you give up for security, it will inevitably grow, and you'll need a revolution to reset the whole damn process over again."

That depends on how vigilant and principled the people are.

"If you give a government NO power, i.e. Zero, it cannot take your freedoms away."

That's right, but then *other* governments can.  Thus we sacrifice only what is necessary to preserve this relatively free state. 

"Sure, you have nobody in your corner should a bunch of thugs come to rape your wife, but maybe that's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL (Now it sounds like capitalism, doesn't it?) to defend yourself and your family and ensure your survival."

Yes, pure capitalism is anarchy.  They are very closely related, if not pretty much the same thing.  It should be noted, anyways, that for people who live out in the country, the police aren't of much help as is anyway, since they are so far away.  Often, they can take over 30 minutes to arrive, depending on how far out you live.  Clearly, the government can't be your personal nanny.  Firearms are an absolute must, and so are self-defense rights.  This shows itself in that more rural areas vote for more conservative candidates, and are far more pro-gun and tolerant of firearms than liberals from big cities.

"Bascially, when you say that you are "giving up freedom in a practical manner to ensure the safeguard of rights we don't even have" you are saying that you are too much of a gigantic crying pussy to accept total responsibility for your life and those you care about."

We do have said rights.  Governments violate them.  If the population is vigilant enough, and willing enough, we can have government protection, and a relatively free AND safe society.  This is why I try to spread these ideas on these boards - to wake people up so they can defend whats left of their freedoms, and who knows, maybe get some old ones back.

>>1 Bad for whom? Who decided this?

>>5
You seriously don't get the fucking point, you're thinking in a box. I'm saying that human beings DONT HAVE THE RIGHTS, when you 're born, you don't have the bill of rights! They are ficticious  , you don't have them, and nobody ever has.  Government shouldn't exist to protect something that it created as a justification for it's existence.  Please, prove that they exist to me, or just spout some garbage over why they "should".
Your understanding of history is also seriously lacking, there were many difficult problems the country went through, such as boom/bust cycles and horrific treatment of labor and inner city poverty.  Lots of people lived in poverty, the economy crashed every 20 years.  You seem to forget another piece of americana, the motherfucking civil war, which was only solved through Lincoln's broad use of Executive power, and btw, he violated those beloved human rights by arresting anyone who talked shit about him.
"Unless people stay vigilant"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH This is just what I'm talking about, you stupid shit, people don't fucking care about protecting their "freedoms" when a government is there offering to bail them out of their hardship. Let's take the Great Depression, you know, that consequence of a free market? What happened after the crash of 29? What happened in 32? Who got elected? What did he say he'd do? What programs did he start that people thought would solve their problems? What did that President do that took away the people's freedoms?

Bascially, you're expecting people to act rationally, and endure hardship for an indefinite time just to safeguard their freedoms while they are afraid, hungry, poor, or unemployed.  You silly libertarians, you expect people to vote like robots, rather than beasts.

"Then "Other" governments can" Really, I'm quite sure another nation could subjugate an entire nation through military might and keep us in perpetual slavery, hrm, we have a nation of roughly 300 million people, Tell me how they'd control that many people, and the logistics of suppling the army, and the positive income they'd recieve for taking us over, sorry dude, not going to fucking happen.

Social tolerance, here's the big one, socially tolerant people don't exist in America, you have a national gay-marriage ban in the works, you don't elect women to office, you have drug bans everywhere, and won't let a woman buy fucking pills without a doctor. I think you have our country mixed up with Sweden.

I'll reiterate for the last part, Libertarians forget which nation they're in, they ignore the evidence that people will vote for a savior more often than themselves, they think that it's possible to keep government clean (good one), and they (you) seem to totally ignore the question of whether or not they have the balls to accept absolute responsibility for themselves, and whether or not they need a big brother to watch them should big bad France come around to invade us.

You fail for:
1. Ignoring the questions asked.
2. Not citing your historical evidence.
3. Spouting party commercials.
4. Claiming the existence of mythical beasts (socially liberal republicans)
5. Thinking that a doctrine will be adhered to more than impulses.
6. Ignoring the big insult that libertarians are still pussies because they want a military to shoot the citizenr..er, Frenchies.

>>7 Almost points, almost. Then again, I think the worst excesses of Statism (a double whammy of economic tweaking and social interference by government) always follow chaotic and horribly unfair times. Russia before the revolution, Haiti, Cuba, Iran et al. I guess there would be statist countries everywhere if America wasn't the coward that it was, and used the terrorist organization CIA to slaughter, torture and abase fledgling left-wing *Democracies* by the... Well I think they were up to a dozen before IX XI. Revenge is suppposed to be cool (although Al-Qaeda didn't do it, of this I am quite sure by now) after all.

Liberals suck anyways.