Kent Mcmanigal

[Ash]

According to your illustration, conservatives like Burke, Jay Nock, Guizot or Hoppe are on the side of authoritarism too…

[A.B.]

So I guess that conservatives like Burke, Jay Nock, Guizot or Hoppe are on the side of authoritarism too…

Hoppe is Rothbardian so he's clearly not.

[Ash]

Pour Rothbard ce n'est pas aussi évident que cela. D'ailleurs c'est un ancien débat :

http://www.liberaux.org/index.php?showtopic=30605&hl=

De plus il a été fortement inspiré par Nock.

[Kent McManigal]

In my view it can be distilled down to whether you believe that someone else has the authority to control your life. I believe that you own your life, no one else does.

This is why I don't get too concerned with what famous thinkers believe about political theory. Either you believe you own yourself (libertarianism/anarchism) or you believe someone else owns you (authoritarianism/socialism).

Government is evil. "Evil is as evil does"; government bears the fruit of death and destruction.

[Roniberal]

Roniberal, would you please stop translating 'libéral' as liberal… it's probably confusing for our guest.

I don't think that it is confusing for our guest.

For my part, I refuse to let social democrats encroach on this word.

Either you believe you own yourself (libertarianism/anarchism) or you believe someone else owns you (authoritarianism/socialism).

OK, socialists and authoritarians have nothing to do with our ideas.

But I am more circumspect with regard to conservatives.

As for me, I consider myself libertarian AND conservative because I think that the progressive ideology has contaminated a number of liberals (in the classical meaning of the term) and that, in acting like this, they have opened the door to socialism.

But it is a long debate and, generally, that only provokes quarrels!

[Nico]

But it is a long debate and, generally, that only provokes quarrels!

Are you sure ?

If you visit France you must go to the Southwest, it's a strange place where you will be able to see prehistorical politics like the Roni friend, John Lasalle !

[h16]

Are you sure ?

If you visit France you must go to the Southwest, it's a strange place where you will be able to see prehistorical politics like the Roni friend, John Lasalle !

He's not prehistoric, though. He's just plain stupid.

[Jesrad]

I don't think that it is confusing for our guest.

For my part, I refuse to let social democrats encroach on this word.

OK, socialists and authoritarians have nothing to do with our ideas.

But I am more circumspect with regard to conservatives.

A better distinction I read earlier was that socialists try to make people materially better off through use of force, while conservatives try to make people moral through use of force.

[Kent McManigal]

A better distinction I read earlier was that socialists try to make people materially better off through use of force, while conservatives try to make people moral through use of force.

It is as L. Neil Smith says: "Liberals think everyone is a little bit stupid while Conservatives think everyone is a little bit evil." I think that trying to control others is a bad thing. This is why I usually call myself "libertarian". The word is misunderstood in America, but not as much as the words "conservative" and "liberal" are. I have a card I hand to people which says I am a libertarian. Poeple often ask if it says I am a "librarian"!

[h16]

It is not as bad as in French in which libertarian (libertarien) is often confused with libertine (libertin, pronounced almost the same)

[Kent McManigal]

If Americans know the word "libertine" they assume it is the lifestyle which "libertarians" promote. I will not condemn someone for seeking pleasure as long as they do not hurt anyone else in its pursuit. I think there is much good in libertinage.

[A.B.]

I think there is much good in libertinage.

N.B. in modern French, "libertins" mostly designate swingers, rather than a free sexual life out of wedlocks.

[Kent McManigal]

N.B. in modern French, "libertins" mostly designate swingers, rather than a free sexual life out of wedlocks.

I would take it to mean both. As long as no one is being hurt, that is fine with me.

[h16]

In fact, this is fine with most of us, here. However, "libertarianism" cannot be reduced to just this (sexual-)dimension as much as it cannot be reduced to only an economic point of view, for instance. The broadness of liberalism (political, philosophical, economical, etc…) makes it difficult for mainstream media to present this doctrine, where most of the time, they play oversimplification by systematically opposing left and right wing policies, leaving not much space for any "perpendicular" view of the problems.

[Kent McManigal]

We cannot distance ourselves from things that make the rest of society uncomfortable. We may as well stand up for even our most radical principles; publicly and loudly. Don't let the public opinions intimidate you into silence. I find this hard sometimes.

A few weeks ago I gave a man one of my cards. He looked at it and said "You are a libertarian. I knew a girl who was a libertarian once." He then went into a tirade about how she thought taxes were too high. I stated than most libertarians think all taxation is wrong. He asked how I expected the government to purchase jet-fighters without tax money. I told him that I didn't believe the government should own jet-fighters, but that a private militia financed through voluntary contributions would be much better for defense. He didn't like that statement at all. I finally excused myself as he ranted and raved. I did not become rude with him, but I almost felt as though he "won" the discussion because I walked away.

[h16]

We had and have quite a few discussions about this problem here.

In fact, starting with the taxes to explain liberalism can lead to some reject precisely because the State and its government have done a deep job of making themselves "pervasives". People just cannot adjust to the idea of "no government at all". Such a thought is utterly impossible for them to make. Almost everybody think there has to be some sort of rulers somewhere up above otherwise everything will go awry.

I think however a better approach would be the moral side of liberalism : for instance, forcing people to pay, coercing them to fill the bill in order to make soldiers blow other humains up (mostly civilians) at the other end of the globe just cannot be moral…

Starting with the taxes, one question could be : "ok, let's suppose taxes are fine for jet-fighters. How can you be sure, politicaly and moraly speaking, that these crafts will be used only for self-defense ? How can you be sure, since humans are fallible, that no powermonger democraticaly elected will take over and send these "vectors" to bomb some place down ?"

[Kent McManigal]

How can you be sure, politicaly and moraly speaking, that these crafts will be used only for self-defense ? How can you be sure, since humans are fallible, that no powermonger democraticaly elected will take over and send these "vectors" to bomb some place down ?"

The VERY sad thing is that many, maybe most, Americans see nothing wrong with bombing villages in other parts of the world. They think of it as "get them before they get us". I run into this attitude a lot when I speak out against the war on Iraq. People do not care that Iraqis did not attack the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. "Someone has to pay for what happened" is the attitude.

My belief is that eventually most people will see that libertarians are right. About taxation, self defense, the Zero Aggression Principle, self medication, free trade, and consentual sex. I will hold my ground on my principles; not backing down even if they act like barbarians instead of listening to me. I try to not be rude or abrasive, but I know we are right.

I try to recognize when it is pointless to speak my mind. There is no point in trying to communicate with some people. Others I try to tell them just as much as they can absorb. Perhaps they will think about something I said later, or even wonder what makes someone not believe the government's official story. It is an uphill battle in America. I can't even imagine how hard those of you in France have it. To know that you can still hold libertarian principles against such odds gives me a lot of respect for you.

[Jesrad]

My belief is that eventually most people will see that libertarians are right. About taxation, self defense, the Zero Aggression Principle, self medication, free trade, and consentual sex. I will hold my ground on my principles; not backing down even if they act like barbarians instead of listening to me. I try to not be rude or abrasive, but I know we are right.

The difference between THEM and us is that we know why we hold these beliefs, and they don't.

I try to recognize when it is pointless to speak my mind. There is no point in trying to communicate with some people. Others I try to tell them just as much as they can absorb.

When someone won't listen, make him or her speak instead Ask 'why' ? When they cannot justify themselves, they tend to start listening. I hear Socrates had tremendous success this way.

It is an uphill battle in America. I can't even imagine how hard those of you in France have it.

Well, I don't know about others, but I feel like a time traveller back into XIXth century at the peak of socialism thought and propaganda

[Kent McManigal]

When someone won't listen, make him or her speak instead Ask 'why' ? When they cannot justify themselves, they tend to start listening. I hear Socrates had tremendous success this way.

This is something I really need to start doing. Thank you for the reminder.

[h16]

By the way, I suppose you know this book :

(if you don't, get it !)

Jesrad is right : if people just cannot seem to understand, let them speak, develop & so on. At some point, they will just strike, one way or the other, on the root of fascism, either by pretending propaganda is good, violence is necessary, or majority can indeed oppress minority…

I must reckon that this is nowhere as simple to do as to write, but you get the picture.

And as far as France goes in this "battle", I sourly think it is a lost one on this ground. Statism and collectivism is so ingrained in the mind of people here that you just cannot turn your tv, your radio or read any kind of paper without seeing it everywhere. The depth of color changes, not the hue : always red. A "Matrix" like experience, if you like.

sob

sob

sob

[phantom_opera]

Hey, what a topic! I didn't understand why suddenly everybody was talking in english, I thought it was just a stupid game but it is not! It's the first time I see an american guy in the forum!

I read all your posts and I think that h16 summed up the main problem: humans are faillible. As long as humans are unpredictable, entrust a monopoly of violence to the State is dangerous, even if there are strong institutions to control it, because institutions are just human conventions. Nothing is more effective than a strong moral, libertarian moral, of course

[Kent McManigal]

humans are faillible. As long as humans are unpredictable, entrust a monopoly of violence to the State is dangerous, even if there are strong institutions to control it, because institutions are just human conventions.

Yes, that is a good way to counter statists' arguments. When they say that humans can not be trusted to run their own lives, point out that they surely then can not be trusted to run the lives of others. I have not had many people be able to come up with a retort for that. If they do it is by saying that laws are designed to keep bad people from doing bad things. Something I do not believe, since I think laws are not for preventing crime, but only for punishing criminals after it happens (IF they get caught; IF they get convicted, IF, IF, IF…).

[A.B.]

Yes, that is a good way to counter statists' arguments. When they say that humans can not be trusted to run their own lives, point out that they surely then can not be trusted to run the lives of others. I have not had many people be able to come up with a retort for that. If they do it is by saying that laws are designed to keep bad people from doing bad things. Something I do not believe, since I think laws are not for preventing crime, but only for punishing criminals after it happens (IF they get caught; IF they get convicted, IF, IF, IF…).

By the way what is your position on punishment. It is easy to agree on what constitute right infringement or not, but once rights are indeed what is to do? I am not convinced at all by Rothbard's approach on reparation+"committing at most the same infringement" which seems arbitrary.

[Kent McManigal]

By the way what is your position on punishment.

I think every situation is different. Of course I think most things that cause people to be imprisoned should not be "crimes" at all. In real crimes where restitution is possible it should be made. In some cases imprisonment is the most sensible punishment. I also agree with the statement that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be unjustly punished. I do not trust any government with the authority of "life and death"; therefore I don't believe in the death penalty except at the scene and time of the crime; at the hands of the intended victim or a rescuer. I think that if you catch a criminal in the act you should be able to defend yourself and your property with whatever amount of force you think is necessary. I do not feel pity for thieves who are killed while committing a crime. Your money and property represent time which you spent working for the money to buy those things; time which you can never get back. A thief is stealing part of your life if he tries to steal your property just as surely as if he kills you. I know this is harsh, but no one is forced to become a thief. It is a conscious choice to do the wrong thing and should come with a heavy risk.

[h16]

Yep.

The best way to educate children is to clearly state the limits, the Do and the Don't. This extends to life in society in itself : the limits have to be clearly stated, and clearly enforced by every individuals. As long as the risk to get caught and punished increases steeply, every and each potential thief will do a comparison between the act and the risks taken doing it.

By the way, a very high probability to get caught is a very good detterent, whether the punishment is hard or not. A harsh punishment and a low probability doesn't do much in the way of reducing crimes whereas a high probability of failure/getting caught, even with a soft (albeit proportionnal of the crime) punishment works good.

[Patrick Smets]

Hi, Kent

Now, for something very important.

What do you think of this joke ?

[Invité Arn0]

I don't believe in the death penalty except at the scene and time of the crime; at the hands of the intended victim or a rescuer. I think that if you catch a criminal in the act you should be able to defend yourself and your property with whatever amount of force you think is necessary.

The right to use deadly force in order to protect people or property as nothing to do with death penalty. It's not a punishment, it's a protection ! This right stop when the danger stop, and is restricted to the necessary (of course the benefit of the doubt benefitting defense).

(Sorry for my english.)

[Kent McManigal]

What do you think of this joke ?

I like it. What do you think of this one?

[h16]

[Nico]

It's the Modem of François Bayrou !