Re: Why relative inequality matters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is blatantly false. Libertarianism is about minding your own business and letting people live how they want to live. If you impose a libertarian system on those who don't want it, you are doing exactly the opposite of libertarianism. This is why the only way to structure a "libertarian government" (assuming you don't believe that to be an oxymoron) is through extreme decentralization without telling the local communities a single thing about how to run their affairs except that people have to be allow to leave freely.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think, though, that you're misunderstanding my point--I'm not saying that if, say, a group of people want to practice communism by voluntarily pooling their resources, that they can't. Clearly this is consistent with libertarianism, and imposing "libertarian" free markets on them or whatnot would not be very libertarian at all.

However, "letting people live how they want to" can never include aggressing against others. So person X couldn't rob Y and then say, "I don't believe in libertarian property rights" or "I refuse to abide by your laws". Basically I'm saying that libertarian rights exist independently of whether an individual or group accepts them, and thus a person in an anarchic society who beleives that they can't be held accountable to any law that they don't consent to are still accountable if they aggress against another (where aggression is a violation of basic libertarian property rights).

[/ QUOTE ]

What about something greyer, like a local community that wants to make freedom of speech, drugs, or the color pink illegal?

Re: Why relative inequality matters
 

Define "community that wants X"

Re: Why relative inequality matters
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about something greyer, like a local community that wants to make freedom of speech, drugs, or the color pink illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, so long as their is voluntary consent.