See, I find this claim suspect. Yes, the reality is that corporations exist to make money. But I'd argue that it's bad corporations that exist to make money; corporations ought to exist in order to provide value.
But then again, that's what marketing is, no? It's about the corporations claiming to provide value without actually doing so. Isn't that as bad a deceit as that you claim for the state? No business fails to lie, even if their lies are no larger than those of their competitors and they have to do it to stay in business.
We all know it and accept it, but we also all know that public roads aren't free and are paid for by taxes. I don't think I've ever heard someone "pretend to give it for free".
> no libertarians don't necessarily assume there's just a state and everyone else. However they emphasize state so much because of its violent and deceiving nature.
Can you point me to a libertarian who doesn't focus on the state?
Take, for instance, feminism. Feminism is ridiculously multifarious, with hugely different groups going after hugely different instances of patriarchy. That's hard to deny, regardless of whether or not you agree with feminists. Libertarianism has existed longer than feminism has (depending on how you count), but I've never heard a libertarian discuss the implications of their philosophy on the conduct of something other than the state.
It's not as if there aren't a wealth of opportunities. Groupthink is a major problem, but libertarians don't concern themselves with that. They don't call it a moral failure. You don't see libertarians talk about bullies except as analogies. Is there any kind of libertarian movement trying to address schoolyard bullying? I haven't seen it.
Your words say that the state is just one problematic actor out of many. Your actions say that the state is the only actor that matters to you.
You may want to check out Stefan Molyneux, he's a libertarian (ancap, actually) and he addresses a lot of the things that are not directly related to state. He talks a lot about children and bullying too.
He's built his software business. Radio show started as a hobby, I suppose. The thing is, he's very talented at constructing arguments. The presentation may seem a bit eccentric, but get through this. If he can't convince, I don't know who can.
Well, his software business wasn't an outgrowth of his libertarian views on affairs unrelated to the state, I imagine. I'm not saying he's an indolent sloth; I'm just saying he hasn't put much action down next to his words, as recorded by Wikipedia.
I'm just sort of unsettled that a single radio-talk host is your entire hope for libertarianism as a philosophy larger than "government bad individual good".
See, I find this claim suspect. Yes, the reality is that corporations exist to make money. But I'd argue that it's bad corporations that exist to make money; corporations ought to exist in order to provide value.
But then again, that's what marketing is, no? It's about the corporations claiming to provide value without actually doing so. Isn't that as bad a deceit as that you claim for the state? No business fails to lie, even if their lies are no larger than those of their competitors and they have to do it to stay in business.
We all know it and accept it, but we also all know that public roads aren't free and are paid for by taxes. I don't think I've ever heard someone "pretend to give it for free".
> no libertarians don't necessarily assume there's just a state and everyone else. However they emphasize state so much because of its violent and deceiving nature.
Can you point me to a libertarian who doesn't focus on the state?
Take, for instance, feminism. Feminism is ridiculously multifarious, with hugely different groups going after hugely different instances of patriarchy. That's hard to deny, regardless of whether or not you agree with feminists. Libertarianism has existed longer than feminism has (depending on how you count), but I've never heard a libertarian discuss the implications of their philosophy on the conduct of something other than the state.
It's not as if there aren't a wealth of opportunities. Groupthink is a major problem, but libertarians don't concern themselves with that. They don't call it a moral failure. You don't see libertarians talk about bullies except as analogies. Is there any kind of libertarian movement trying to address schoolyard bullying? I haven't seen it.
Your words say that the state is just one problematic actor out of many. Your actions say that the state is the only actor that matters to you.