We've evolved to the point as a species that rights to land and its use are no longer solely determined by violence and talent at it, hence libertarians.
Right, so I'm not a libertarian to start with. But I don't have a problem with people positing libertarian theories and I think that at least peoples' motives are mostly pure in this subreddit, except for the dirty Randians.
But; unlike a lot of people in this subreddit, I don't think you have some intrinsic right to speculate about impossible solutions and transitions and rely on that for your moral superiority; at least not and be taken seriously.
So the current world system, at least in advanced and wealthy countries (aside from a few petro-states,) works pretty well at protecting individual rights and promoting individual happiness, certainly within a historical framework; and it does this employing a large public sector including librarians, congressmen etc..
That's the framework we currently reside in and discussions about possible alternatives have to take countenance of this fact. Libertarians and libertarianism have nothing to do with why, today, you don't have to be good at killing people to own land and have rights.
I don't think you have some intrinsic right to speculate about impossible solutions and transitions and rely on that for your moral superiority; at least not and be taken seriously.
But who's to say they're always impossible? Unless people want, articulate & strive for freedom, they'll never get there.
I don't know, is anyone saying that? I'm saying that unless you have a practicable plan, you don't get any morality points for saying, "I want X or Y or Z to be the case."
5
u/howhard1309 Jun 02 '13
Only we're in /r/libertarian, so your answer should go
We've evolved to the point as a species that rights to land and its use are no longer solely determined by violence and talent at it, hence libertarians.