-59 votes



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Morality can only be chosen

A libertarian form of government allows the greatest potential to express morality under government. When an action is forced on you, you can not express morality by taking that action. When an action is chosen, there is potential for morality.

The republican seeks to tell you what you must not do, restricting choice and limiting the potential for morality.

The democrat seeks to tell you what you must do, restricting choice and limiting the potential for morality.

Both these sides seek morality via government fiat (whether they call it justice, equality, righteousness or fairness). Just as fiat erodes the value of money in a system, fiat erodes the value of morality in a system. This is a core concept. Fiat - Reduces - Value.

Libertarian is not a moral position. The libertarian is simply in position for much greater moral expression than their counterparts advocating other systems. This is why morality is so often discussed among libertarians.


Nothing about fiat (dictate) makes money less valuable, your connection here between concepts is without any merit.

That's a sound argument!

Your only mistake was in thinking there would be less coercion under the anarchy model. There would be far more, and less freedom of voluntary action, Simply assuming the consequence desired by a system is foolish, no less than when a Marxist assumes the consequence of his desired system to actually be social and material equality.

^this comment wins!

I couldn't agree more.

This dog eat dog view of

This dog eat dog view of capitalism is a joke. Look at the homeless now in socialism, there are a lot... poverty was going down historically until the war on poverty. Our poor are richer than the middle class of most countries. Capitalism is mutual trade and mutual benefit.. this whole capitalists stealing labor is a joke.

I didn't mention capitalism at all

or criticize it. You misunderstood the post

Wow...so early in the morning...

a very spirited debate. lol...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

You lose me here:

"Whether there is anything really right and moral, or it's just an eat and kill world governed by a cruel and indifferent nature, I leave to others to decide."

No point in reading further.

Libertarians believe aggression (murder, rape, assault, enslavement, theft, vandalism, fraud) is wrong. If you don't take a position on those things, if you're comfortable leaving "others to decide", then I completely understand why libertarianism is abhorrent to you.

Thank you for commenting

about how you didn't read the post out of fear, knowing you couldn't actually handle it, and then proceeded to make an irrelevant point. I like your style!

Those that believe

The Gov't will take care of them and vote accordingly are the stupid ones.

Ron Paul Was Right

Very stupid

and also right in many cases. Not really relevant to the post, though.

More Gov't

=more stupidity

Ron Paul Was Right


"On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron." ~~biedegarde

That day has come!

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I disagree.

Libertarianism is highly moral. It is not social Darwinism. Economic behavior is separate from social behavior.
Christianity believes in charity and that acts of charity in this life will be rewarded in the next. There is also the belief that if one casts his bread upon the water, it will return to him ten fold. There is also the parable of the servant that buried money in a field while another invested it for a return for his master.
So, what is the point with regard to libertarianism? The non-aggression principle dictates relationships be voluntary.
Let us assume someone is financially unsuccessful to the point of not being able to sustain his own life or that of his family. Libertarianism does not dictate that such a person starve. People will voluntarily support such a person. Churches and other voluntary organizations form when government doesn't force them out. The U.S., before the welfare state was established, had lots of organizations that lent support to their members and charity to others. The Moose, Elks, Odd Fellows, Woodmen, Masons, Knights of Columbus, Shriners, etc., provided retirement homes, medical care, rehabilitation, charitable support, and other help without government dictates.

The assumption in this post is without the state to force people to be moral, society will break down. It will be an "every man for himself" Mad Max world. This outlook is similar to that of Hobbes who wrote the book LEVIATHAN which endorses a totalitarian state as the solution to this dire picture of anarchy. Nonsense. People never have operated like that.

In a welfare state, force is used to take resources from one set of people and given to another. The robbers take some off of the top.
There is nothing moral about that. Those who are robbed get no moral points for contributing to the uplifting of the downtrodden. The robbers get no moral points for robbing or the redistribution of stolen resources. The recipients of stolen goods, rather than being helped are trained to remain dependent by being rewarded for being unproductive. They are not part of mutually supportive group. Instead, they believe the world owes them a living.

You say the free market is not moral nor fair. Quite the opposite is true. It is based on voluntary association and cooperation where those who serve their fellow man the best get rewarded the most. Nothing is more moral than that.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

You've missed the point.

The working poor example guy isn't out for charity. The point is, if we support market principles and rules, it is a practical decision. There isn't a moral content in why the smart and lucky should get the property over the dumb and unlucky. The libertarian or anarchist moralist is just obnoxious and naive.

Most of your comment had nothing to do with the post, so I'll leave it be.

I still disagree

There is definitely moral content in the outcomes in a free market. It is not a matter of luck. Those that provide goods and services to the market that improve the lives of consumers with the greatest efficiency are rewarded the most. People who cheat and steal, when not protected by the government, are punished in a free market. It is all done as a result of voluntary interaction. That is what makes it moral.
There is not going to be equal outcomes based on a person's sincerity.
It is all based on the value the market puts on a good or service.
Does equal outcome mean moral to you? Should a teen with few work skills behind a checkout counter be rewarded equally to a skilled mechanic or a physician? Should a manufacturer with thousands of employees be rewarded by the market the same as a babysitter if the babysitter was as intelligent and lucky? Would it be moral to use force to engineer that outcome? Statists are monsters with moral pretenses who believe the ends justify the means. They want to use evil methods to do good. They want to create a fair outcome for all by being unfair to the envied.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson


Without a government, force rules, and with a government, force rules. We can try to balance force and adhere to rules, but these rules tend to sort people by their brains and reward those with more brains over less, just as an earlier social system tended to reward the stronger and more robust. Neither has a moral content that is particularly valid or compelling.

The idea that in a world without government people would just rise based on the quality of their goods in services, while certainly a silly notion, is also not a moral system, since it would just sort brains and talent and the stupid and dull would perhaps often be miserable. That may be the best system, but it's hardly moral.

As to your questions, I don't pretend any social system is especially moral either in outcome or basis, so I am not forced into contradictions or to try to pick the most moral system.

I can support whatever system I think afford the best outcome based on my own interests and a preponderance of interests of others. Only those who imagine their system to be founded in moral absolutes tend to cause major damage to others.

Unfortunately, you're wrong

Unfortunately, you're wrong on every count.

Your main premise starts out as wrong and it only gets worse from there. As a libertarian, I donated many thousands to charity last year and I know many other libertarians that do the same. Very few of us believe that anybody "deserves" to be poor. It is simply not a libertarian ideal. You are conflating the fact that Libertarians believe that people should not be "forced" to help others with your completely wrong impression that they somehow don't want to help those people.

The moral basis of libertarianism is that it is wrong to initiate force or aggress against another. Libertarians do not believe that any one person "deserves" more than another. They do however, believe that everyone deserves to be able to live their lives without force or the threat of force from anybody.

Your first example is pure fantasy with no supporting evidence at all.

Your second example is also pure fantasy and shows that you have never worked as McDonalds manager. It is quite possible to work as a fast food manager and have a decent car, a decent apartment, and eat decently. I did it while working my way through college for over three years.

In your third example, you start from the premise that anyone working for Goldman Sachs is "fleecing" their clients. This could be more wrong. Despite the horrible actions of some of their employees, the vast majority of their employees provide a service to their clients and those clients are quite happy with it. Many of Kyle's bosses may be doing disreputable things, but at $250K, Kyle is likely a low-level flunkie who manages accounts and doesn't decide where to invest.

And your last point that they all got what they had from chance is pure class warfare BS. If you take Kyle and stick him in as a McDonalds manager, he will be back to earning quite a bit more within a few years. If you take Fred and give him $2 million, he will likely be penniless and working the same kind of job as before in two years. We've seen it time and again.

What do you mean the first

What do you mean the first example is fantasy? Did you think it was a real event? Do you mean its unrealistic. Why? From all I know of that period of history among savage tribes, seems close enough.

Your objection on the McDonalds guy misses the point. If you think he is too well off, I can just shift to a lower paying job and a dumber fellow.

Libertarian rules may be the best we can offer, as I said in the beginning, but there is no moral content in these outcomes, and behaving morally is only minimally related to market outcomes. Being lucky and born smart are much more important.

Being stupid

and lazy is a choice. In the libertarian world you can be both and get away with it. But probably not going to make much money without the union.

Being dumb is hardly a choice.


Wrong on so many fronts. Ill

Wrong on so many fronts. Ill just point out that Fred chose His job and His lifestyle. Fred could have went into the oil field and made 100k a year and ate healthier. I dont feel sorry for Fred one bit because He chose His lifestyle just like I chose mine. Oh btw I work in the oil field now and though its hard sometimes I do realize I made the choice.


Nature has no feelings or morality. We are all dumb animals and only the smartest dumb animals survive. Evolutionary darwinism beeotch.


The premise of the OP's argument is that individuals aren't endowed with a conscience, there is no karmic balance, and virtue provides no satisfaction.

While theoreticals can rarely be scientifically proven, by a similar token the role of the Divine as the source of Love within a meaningful life is just as difficult to disprove

PS after claiming that others have forfeited debates
how about answering my directed questions

I liked your...

...jumping from era to era in your examples, for comparison. Reminded me of Cloud Atlas in a way. (Have you read/watched that yet?)

To me, morality is everything that derives from Love as greatest. The fundamental component of this is the individual person humbling himself in service of others, giving them space to be, to exercise their wills, to learn, grow, just as the Creator does for us.

This gracious recognition of the freedom others should have is what drives me to uphold ideas such as free markets, stewardship of land as 'private property', etc.

BUT, you're absolutely right, the existence of this 'elbow room' is not itself a complete fulfillment of morality. It remains for the people within the free market, or on that land they've claimed, or within that mind, body, spirit they have been given, to then decide how to use it -- either for Love or not. And with that decision will come either increased strife, suffering, chaos in the world, or increased peace, harmony, fellowship.

This doesn't address the seemingly random nature of one person being born under one set of circumstances and social influences, in one time or place rather than another, that you bring up. Why was one child born only to end up abused, or in a heap of corpses in a concentration camp? Why was another born to have the luxuries of a loving family, an idyllic childhood on a New Zealand farm? Why were Job's children raised only to be swept away from him in tragedy?

I think this whole aspect you bring up is connected to the question of the problem of pain, and the problem of evil.

The only way this can make any sort of sense to me is either:

a) life is a nihilistic absurdity, with random/deterministic events just rearranging meaningless stuff-- there is no morality. The Holocaust was neither better nor worse than the Declaration of Independence or the painting of the Sistine Chapel. Free markets are not really any better than communism or slavery. Nothing matters in the end, after all our short, brutish illusions of personhood dissipate into death and darkness.

b) This earthly life is only the beginning phase, a foundational reference point, for an unfolding journey of development. The cascading results of human free will left to its devices brings the pain and suffering and injustices we see all around us. Either the Creator is a cruel tyrant or eugenicist, with no intention of resolving all of this -- only breeding a favored few specimens -- or the Creator is Love, and all of these injustices and cascading consequences of non-Love will be reconciled in the ages to come, beyond this earthly launching pad for all our journeys.

The God is Love idea is the only thing that rescues any of this for me. Nothing else results in any real morality. Only a hope in Bob, Phil, Fred, Kyle one day realizing their destinies as the children and heirs of the living God, through Love, makes any of the seeming randomness of this life bearable for me.

Free markets and the NAP and land ownership are all dead trivialities, without the higher reality, the higher Love to breathe life into them.


...on what is inside the head of the down-voter here:

- do they not like that I support free markets, property rights, non-aggression, voluntarism?

- do they not like that I derive such things from a theistic worldview that hinges upon Love?

- do they not agree that it's not enough to just have a free market, property rights? Does it not matter how people then use these things?

- do they disagree that things really boil down to either nihilism and no real morality, or theism and genuine meaning and morality?

- or is it just a random drive-by down-vote? :)

I don't mind -- it's just mysterious to me...

I don't know who downvoted you first

But I make it a point to downvote any comment that complains about downvotes.

You missed where I said...

... I don't mind -- it's just mysterious to me...

Reflecting on my comment and what someone might object to is not a complaint; it's more of a request from someone trying to learn.

I sense a growing hostility here :| I apologize for any disrespectful tone I might have had occasionally in our recent conversations on voluntarism. As much as we might disagree on some things, I do appreciate your provocative posts and topics.

No I still like you Micah

though I'm less prone to getting into a long fruitless back and forth. I was being serious, I always downvote downvote complaint comments just for fun.


...back and forths haven't been fruitless, at least for me -- has helped me eye my core philosophy and my flirtations with voluntarism and identify what needs to be addressed in order for me to see them as compatible.

Again, though -- this wasn't a complaint; just a curiosity.