Should radical libertarians move to Bir Tawil?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:39:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Should radical libertarians move to Bir Tawil?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Poll
Question: Should radical libertarians move to Bir Tawil?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 16

Author Topic: Should radical libertarians move to Bir Tawil?  (Read 12048 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: October 22, 2009, 12:09:27 AM »

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government. Roll Eyes

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

Without a government, how would they be prevented from taking over?

Without violent coercion, who's going to prevent people from exercising violent coercion? Roll Eyes

This is a very good question. Would you mind answering it?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: October 22, 2009, 06:09:06 PM »

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government. Roll Eyes

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

Without a government, how would they be prevented from taking over?

Without violent coercion, who's going to prevent people from exercising violent coercion? Roll Eyes

This is a very good question. Would you mind answering it?

It was a rhetorical question. The point is that you're making violent coercion inevitable by if you seek to utilize it to stop others from exercising violent coercion. It's akin to asking "If I don't chop off my leg,who's going to stop someone from chopping my leg off?"
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2009, 06:20:19 PM »

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government. Roll Eyes

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

Without a government, how would they be prevented from taking over?

Without violent coercion, who's going to prevent people from exercising violent coercion? Roll Eyes

This is a very good question. Would you mind answering it?

It was a rhetorical question. The point is that you're making violent coercion inevitable by if you seek to utilize it to stop others from exercising violent coercion. It's akin to asking "If I don't chop off my leg,who's going to stop someone from chopping my leg off?"

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2009, 10:20:08 PM »

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: October 23, 2009, 12:21:54 AM »

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.

Do you feel all government is the same, then?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: October 23, 2009, 07:04:58 PM »

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.

Do you feel all government is the same, then?

There are varying levels of oppresion between governments. However, as far as the institution itself, they all function the same way. The only difference is in degree. For example, if we were in antebellum times, would you consider "If the slaves were freed, then someone might capture them and bring them into slavery" to be a valid argument against abolitionism?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: October 23, 2009, 07:29:14 PM »

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.

Do you feel all government is the same, then?

There are varying levels of oppresion between governments. However, as far as the institution itself, they all function the same way. The only difference is in degree. For example, if we were in antebellum times, would you consider "If the slaves were freed, then someone might capture them and bring them into slavery" to be a valid argument against abolitionism?

It's not a matter of "might". What safeguards would an anarchy have against takeover?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: October 24, 2009, 09:37:46 AM »

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.

Do you feel all government is the same, then?

There are varying levels of oppresion between governments. However, as far as the institution itself, they all function the same way. The only difference is in degree. For example, if we were in antebellum times, would you consider "If the slaves were freed, then someone might capture them and bring them into slavery" to be a valid argument against abolitionism?

It's not a matter of "might". What safeguards would an anarchy have against takeover?

You've already asked this. Please refer to what I said the first time.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: October 24, 2009, 10:52:15 AM »

Put quite simply, it's ridiculous to have 600 men and women decide what's right and wrong. Excessive government causes more problems than it solves.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: October 24, 2009, 10:54:54 AM »

Put quite simply, it's ridiculous to have 600 men and women decide what's right and wrong. Excessive government causes more problems than it solves.

Yes, but we have those 600 men there to ensure that we don't have a society where six men decide what's right and wrong.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: October 24, 2009, 10:59:57 AM »

Put quite simply, it's ridiculous to have 600 men and women decide what's right and wrong. Excessive government causes more problems than it solves.

Yes, but we have those 600 men there to ensure that we don't have a society where six men decide what's right and wrong.

Why not have 60 million people decide what's right and wrong instead?
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: October 24, 2009, 11:10:46 AM »

Put quite simply, it's ridiculous to have 600 men and women decide what's right and wrong. Excessive government causes more problems than it solves.

Yes, but we have those 600 men there to ensure that we don't have a society where six men decide what's right and wrong.

Why not have 60 million people decide what's right and wrong instead?

Maybe one day that will be possible, but at the moment, it's not, so we use representative democracy to approximate those 60 million people deciding what's right and wrong. It's hardly a perfect system, but it's better than all the rest.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: October 24, 2009, 11:12:39 AM »

I think the internet could make more forms of direct democracy possible.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: October 24, 2009, 01:06:19 PM »

I think the internet could make more forms of direct democracy possible.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I agree with you, but it will never happen.  We trust technology with our lives everyday, but we'll never have the balls to trust it with our vote.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: October 24, 2009, 01:21:56 PM »

Great, let's let hackers decide elections.

Good thing electronic voting is completely illegal in Minnesota. It should be completely illegal EVERYWHERE.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: October 24, 2009, 02:09:52 PM »

BRTD, you just failed once again.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: October 25, 2009, 10:13:19 AM »

Put quite simply, it's ridiculous to have 600 men and women decide what's right and wrong. Excessive government causes more problems than it solves.

Yes, but we have those 600 men there to ensure that we don't have a society where six men decide what's right and wrong.

That would arguably be an improvement. If one out of 600 votes the wrong way, than they bear little responsiblity for it, since it will most likely not affect the outcome. If one out of six votes the wrong way, than they have much more responsiblity for it, since it has a good chance of affecting the outcome. I'd rather have six people without moral hazard than 600 people with moral hazard.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 15 queries.