Libbies don't watch....

[macdoc]

What we can do when we work together

[JimC]

Bunch of us atheists wouldn't be able to do that.

Ain't got the lord on our side...

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Are the Amish famous for their barn-building skills, or something?
There was a scene about this in The Witness.

[laklak]

Actually it's a perfect example of libertarianism.
-

[pErvinalia]

Don't the Amish have a hierarchical system with some old weird dudes having more say than the younger punks? (This "knowledge" was gained from watching Witness...)

[Hermit]

Actually it's a perfect example of libertarianism.

That's the theory anyway. In reality the Amish are not helping voluntarily at all. They are compelled by unwritten laws, and those who don't obey soon find out what the consequence is. No, they won't be gaoled. It's much worse than that. They'll be shunned.

[laklak]

Again, voluntary association. No one is forcing you to be Amish, and even if you are no one is forcing you to help raise the barn. The consequence of inaction, shunning or whatever, has no force in law. That, IMO, is the essence of libertarianism. They are free to form a voluntary association based on whatever principles they choose, and are free to leave that association at any time.

[Hermit]

When you are a committed member of any community laws, be they written or unwritten, become compulsory. I don't think you'd remain a bona fide member of the Amish community if you were expected to "volunteer" for a barn raising and failed to do so.

[Brian Peacock]

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.

--Thomas Piane, The Rights Of Man. CHAPTER I. OF SOCIETY AND CIVILISATION. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm

[JimC]

I just like to watch...

[Seth]

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.

--Thomas Piane, The Rights Of Man. CHAPTER I. OF SOCIETY AND CIVILISATION. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm

Thank you Brian for that wonderful recitation of Thomas Paine's thoughts. What one ought to take from this exegesis is that what drives men to form and conform to a society is neither the rule of law nor the power of government. Their inclination towards society is, as Paine so beautifully puts it, in the nature of human beings. Their desire for social inclusion and their understanding of rational self-interest, their inherent altruism and charitable instincts, their compassion and concern for the well-being of the community are what form and reinforce the social bonds that cause people to work together in harmony to achieve a common goal, and to do so voluntarily, without coercion by those who would presume to rule others by force.

The video is indeed an absolutely perfect example of Libertarianism in action, as Lak says. While they are drawn to the labor by common interest and the gravitational forces of society, it is their rational self-interest that is the root of their participation, not a duty imposed upon them by any other person or government.

Government legitimately exists only for the purpose of policing the initiation of force or fraud against another that would coerce, compel or fraudulently persuade that person to associate with or labor on behalf of someone else absent their full and informed consent to do so.

Are there social penalties associated with non-participation in the common goals and interests of a society? Yes, of course there are, because it is, as Paine says, man's natural instinct towards inclusion in society that enforces the rational self-interest that persuades them to cooperate voluntarily.

The primary distinction between Socialism and Libertarianism is that Socialism compels participation in meeting the common goals of society using coercion and the threat of force to achieve the desired degree of participation, whether or not the participant agrees to the labor being extracted, whereas Libertarianism uses no force or compulsion to achieve participation, it offers the reward of social interaction and acceptance to those who participate voluntarily, but it does nothing more than decline to associate with or labor on behalf of those who refuse to participate in achieving those common goals.

Whether the impetus to organize a society originates from and is perpetuated by religious beliefs, like the Amish, or it comes from nothing more than the inherent desire of the individual for social acceptance and rational self-interest, is entirely irrelevant to the nature of the social organization.

The Socialist believes that every person owes a duty of labor and obedience to the collective because the collective provides them with benefits, and the socialist is willing to initiate force against those who refuse to undertake labor on behalf of the collective. The Socialist also believes that all members of the society are imbued with a right to an equal share of the benefits of society, regardless of the amount of individual labor involved in creating that benefit.

The Libertarian believes that the individual is sovereign unto himself and owes no duty of labor to anyone other than that labor he has contracted to perform. The Libertarian believes that the fruits of the labor of the individual belong to that individual completely and without obligation to share with others beyond that which the individual agrees and contracts to provide to or for the benefit of another as an act of free and voluntary association. The inherent right of self-ownership, both of the willingness to labor and the fruits of that labor is a fundamental principle of Libertarianism. The corollary of this principle is that just as no other person has a just claim to the labor of another not voluntarily given, no person has a just claim upon the labor, or the fruits thereof, of others if not voluntarily given. In Libertarianism, the sovereign individual has neither a duty to others to labor on their behalf nor a right to expect others to labor on his behalf.

This is where Socialism comes quite close to Libertarianism in philosophy, but fails completely when the concept of an enforceable obligation to labor on behalf of others enters the picture.

In a Libertarian society no such obligation is inherent nor can it be created or imposed by anyone upon another absent that individual's express consent. On the other hand, a refusal to participate in the necessary labor that keeps the society together merely means exclusion from the benefits produced by that labor, not compulsion to labor or punishment for failing to labor on behalf of others.

So long as the associations and agreements are completely voluntary, as they are with the Amish, it's Libertarianism. But when one person or a group decides to coerce or force another to labor on their behalf against that person's will, it's tyranny and involuntary servitude, which is what Socialism champions.

[rainbow]

Actually it's a perfect example of libertarianism.

That's the theory anyway. In reality the Amish are not helping voluntarily at all. They are compelled by unwritten laws, and those who don't obey soon find out what the consequence is. No, they won't be gaoled. It's much worse than that. They'll be shunned.

I thought Libertarians just shot people that don't agree with them.

[Hermit]

I thought Libertarians just shot people that don't agree with them.

You don't have to disagree with a lolbertardian for that to happen. It suffices for Lolbert to feel a little discomfort you might cause by your presence. Then he'll shoot you dead and claim that you just standing your ground. That defence works really well. So well, in fact that oftentimes you won't even be charged with anything whatsoever.

Back to the Amish. It's somewhat ironic that Seth holds the Amish up as a shining example of lolbertardianism. WTF? The Amish consist of communities that eschew individual wealth, status and power and in which the individual is subservient to family and society under God's law. That's what their Ordnung is for. It comes in two manifestations: written and verbal.

If you do not "volunteer" to participate in such activities as a barn raising, you're fucked. As Thomas Paine, as quoted above, mentioned that nobody can live without being part of a society, that makes the "volunteering" activities rather more compulsive ones. I suppose you could always buy your way into Galt's Gulch, but looking at the so far sole attempt to establish that sort of thing, all that can be said is: good luck to you. You'll live in truly interesting times.

[Seth]

Actually it's a perfect example of libertarianism.

That's the theory anyway. In reality the Amish are not helping voluntarily at all. They are compelled by unwritten laws, and those who don't obey soon find out what the consequence is. No, they won't be gaoled. It's much worse than that. They'll be shunned.

I thought Libertarians just shot people that don't agree with them.

You thought wrong. That's what Marxists and Socialists do.

[Seth]

I thought Libertarians just shot people that don't agree with them.

You don't have to disagree with a lolbertardian for that to happen. It suffices for Lolbert to feel a little discomfort you might cause by your presence. Then he'll shoot you dead and claim that you just standing your ground. That defence works really well. So well, in fact that oftentimes you won't even be charged with anything whatsoever.

Back to the Amish. It's somewhat ironic that Seth holds the Amish up as a shining example of lolbertardianism. WTF? The Amish consist of communities that eschew individual wealth, status and power and in which the individual is subservient to family and society under God's law. That's what their Ordnung is for. It comes in two manifestations: written and verbal.

Yes, of course they have codified rules of behavior. So what? No one is compelled to be Amish or hold to the rules.

If you do not "volunteer" to participate in such activities as a barn raising, you're fucked.

By "fucked" I expect you mean you will be the subject of social opprobrium and exclusion. Yes, you might be, but so what? Why should you not be shunned for not participating in society? You're in the community by your own will and you're free to leave at any time, and no one will demand that you labor on their behalf. You are free to live the life of a pariah and an outcast if you wish and do everything yourself. Or you are free to participate based on your own rational self-interest and help build the barn for your neighbor today so that he will pull your buggy out of the ditch tomorrow. Do you think you have a right to expect others to aid you if you are unwilling to aid them? That's not how life works.

As Thomas Paine, as quoted above, mentioned that nobody can live without being part of a society, that makes the "volunteering" activities rather more compulsive ones.

There are plenty of people who get along fine without being part of a society, and that's their right to choose that rather isolated and lonely lifestyle if they want. People are indeed driven by their instincts to band together, but that doesn't make your shunning by society a "compulsion" or an act of force or fraud against you if you choose not to behave in a socially acceptable manner. It merely means that others are under no obligation whatsoever to accept you in society if you decline to play by the rules. So you're still wrong.

I suppose you could always buy your way into Galt's Gulch, but looking at the so far sole attempt to establish that sort of thing, all that can be said is: good luck to you. You'll live in truly interesting times.

Indeed. And I'll live them as a free man. You won't.