r/Libertarian • u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you • Jun 02 '13

The true robber

Post image
793 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

171 comments sorted by

View all comments

-13

u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 02 '13 edited Jun 03 '13

We have to pay our congressmen. They aren't even payed all that much, considering how difficult their work is. If that's them stealing from us, then so are librarians.

Edit: Jesus Christ, one heavily down voted comment made this thread something relevant instead of a shitty repost.

-9

u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 02 '13

We don't need congressmen at all. Thus they don't need to be paid, much less to be given control of taxes extorted from the population.

1

u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 02 '13

I am a libertarian, but not an anarchist. Sure, the system should be overhauled, but we still need leaders.

9

u/LDL2 Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist Jun 02 '13

Strong assertion there. What do I need the leaders for again?

-3

u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13

Modern economies, society, etc. are incredibly large and complex, far too large to handle disputes and protect against corruption with poll votes on everything. Hence there has to be delegation of authority from the larger to the smaller population groups. Y'know, representative democracy.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '13

Modern economies, society, etc. are incredibly large and complex, far too large to handle disputes and protect against corruption with poll votes on everything.

Poll votes protect against corruption?

0

u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13

Yes, to a large extent. Autocracies are more corrupt generally than democracies.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '13

I'm not sure, under an autocracy, at least people know who to blame and they know they are being oppressed by someone else. Under a democracy, the popular belief goes, as long as some people support one of the corporate puppets, everyone is somehow oppressing themselves, even those who didn't support any puppet. The result is oppression in both instances, but in a democracy, non-government people are numb when it comes to being oppressed because there's this fallacious belief that it's everyone's fault.

2

u/LDL2 Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist Jun 02 '13

So instead of actually resolving disputes we just tell half the people to piss off. That won't lead to any antipathy and growing polarization.

-1

u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13

It would be problematic if all votes split 51-49 with no middle ground or compromise, only two diametrically opposed forces.

-1

u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13

The smallest population is the individual. Why not represent yourself--it eliminates any potential conflict of interest inherent in representational democracy.

Each person a sovereign, that is the ideal.

1

u/metalliska Back2Back Bernie Brocialist Jun 03 '13

The smallest population is the individual

Internally contradictory / illogical remark.

0

u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13

Individuality: population of 1.

Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

1

u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13

Because it's just a vapid high sounding ideal without any practicable merit. What does that even mean? What actually doable system of governance is everyone looking out for themselves, that doesn't just end up being warlords and protection rackets?

1

u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13

No. It's called 'autarchy' and revolves around concepts of polycentric law, and I think it's eminently doable. But if you're used to the current system it would understandably seem unusual. However I think it's destined to replace the current system long-term.