Theocracy w/ Single-Payer & Free College, or Libertarian w/o EPA, public school?

[DavidB.]

Inclined to say option 2. Being a Jew in a Christian dictatorship... nah. Unless there would be very good rights for Jews (including education rights) + a culture in which Jews are respected, so that these rights are guaranteed to stay.

I never posted that non-religious people wouldn't have rights in the first one?

I just said they ban abortion and have religious ed in public schools.

Lol, are you seriously implying Jews are non-religious people? And I definitely object to compulsory Christian religious education for Jews. Also, err... unless stated otherwise it doesn't seem much of a stretch to assume other religious groups do not enjoy the same rights as the ruling group in a f-ing theocracy.

[Enduro]

I'd love to live in an actual Libertarian Society.

[Blue3]

Inclined to say option 2. Being a Jew in a Christian dictatorship... nah. Unless there would be very good rights for Jews (including education rights) + a culture in which Jews are respected, so that these rights are guaranteed to stay.

I never posted that non-religious people wouldn't have rights in the first one?

I just said they ban abortion and have religious ed in public schools.

Lol, are you seriously implying Jews are non-religious people? And I definitely object to compulsory Christian religious education for Jews. Also, err... unless stated otherwise it doesn't seem much of a stretch to assume other religious groups do not enjoy the same rights as the ruling group in a f-ing theocracy.

How in the world did you get that? I said it's stated that all religious groups have the same rights, the only thing is abortion and religious ed.

[Mercenary]

I generally sympathize more with libertarian thought at a federal level but I voted option one. I actually favor all the points outlined except whatever you mean by it having elements of martial law.

[ElectionsGuy]

You people really love to take the word libertarian and fill it with anarcho capitalist policies.

[Hammy]

Voted option one. Can't find a single redeeming item in the second.

[dead0man]

And my point is it's NOT POSSIBLE IN 2016 to NOT have traffic laws in a nation with 210 million drivers.  (and I'd also mention you technically said we wouldn't have food either but I assume that's just an extra comma that fell out of the comma bag when you were typing)  You don't have to have a lot of the other things on the list, you could certainly have private prisons and do away with several layers of tax, social security and consumer protection sh**t...it might not be the best way, but it's plausible.  You have to have environmental laws and most libertarians agree.  You can't dump toxic waste in a creek, that literally harms other people.  That's a big deal for libertarians.  It's why we mention it so much.  You've got to fix roads and bridges and that has to be paid for.....a use tax of some kind makes perfect sense.  Energy, miles, tolls, others probably....some might work better than others here, another way might work better there.

You can call it "a minimalist libertarian society" if you want, but you'd be wrong.  Any place without traffic laws that allows someone to dump nuclear waste in the local stream is anarchist, not libertarian....no matter how many qualifiers you dump in front of it.

What in the world are you getting so worked-up about?

And anarchy is lack of any government.

Indeed.  If you have zero traffic laws there would be no govt involved in traffic.....anarchy.  It's good that you understand that, I'm not sure why you went on though...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, no government for these things, anarchy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, on one side you have "massive" and the other you have "none".  Seems it should be "minimal" for many of your options.

[Blue3]

And my point is it's NOT POSSIBLE IN 2016 to NOT have traffic laws in a nation with 210 million drivers.  (and I'd also mention you technically said we wouldn't have food either but I assume that's just an extra comma that fell out of the comma bag when you were typing)  You don't have to have a lot of the other things on the list, you could certainly have private prisons and do away with several layers of tax, social security and consumer protection sh**t...it might not be the best way, but it's plausible.  You have to have environmental laws and most libertarians agree.  You can't dump toxic waste in a creek, that literally harms other people.  That's a big deal for libertarians.  It's why we mention it so much.  You've got to fix roads and bridges and that has to be paid for.....a use tax of some kind makes perfect sense.  Energy, miles, tolls, others probably....some might work better than others here, another way might work better there.

You can call it "a minimalist libertarian society" if you want, but you'd be wrong.  Any place without traffic laws that allows someone to dump nuclear waste in the local stream is anarchist, not libertarian....no matter how many qualifiers you dump in front of it.

What in the world are you getting so worked-up about?

And anarchy is lack of any government.

Indeed.  If you have zero traffic laws there would be no govt involved in traffic.....anarchy.  It's good that you understand that, I'm not sure why you went on though...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, no government for these things, anarchy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, on one side you have "massive" and the other you have "none".  Seems it should be "minimal" for many of your options.

You don't seem to understand anarchy. There is a government, military, ambassador/embassy system, police, courts, national currency and treasury system.

There's no laws regarding time travel. Does that mean that we're living in anarchy?

It just seems to me that you don't like this brand of libertarianism that's extremely minimalist, and you don't like it being associated with your brand of libertarianism that's a little more moderate. There is more than one type of libertarianism, who'd have thought?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Inclined to say option 2. Being a Jew in a Christian dictatorship... nah. Unless there would be very good rights for Jews (including education rights) + a culture in which Jews are respected, so that these rights are guaranteed to stay.

I never posted that non-religious people wouldn't have rights in the first one?

I just said they ban abortion and have religious ed in public schools.

Lol, are you seriously implying Jews are non-religious people? And I definitely object to compulsory Christian religious education for Jews. Also, err... unless stated otherwise it doesn't seem much of a stretch to assume other religious groups do not enjoy the same rights as the ruling group in a f-ing theocracy.

How in the world did you get that? I said it's stated that all religious groups have the same rights, the only thing is abortion and religious ed.

Then it's not a theocracy it's just a social conservative country 

[Blue3]

Inclined to say option 2. Being a Jew in a Christian dictatorship... nah. Unless there would be very good rights for Jews (including education rights) + a culture in which Jews are respected, so that these rights are guaranteed to stay.

I never posted that non-religious people wouldn't have rights in the first one?

I just said they ban abortion and have religious ed in public schools.

Lol, are you seriously implying Jews are non-religious people? And I definitely object to compulsory Christian religious education for Jews. Also, err... unless stated otherwise it doesn't seem much of a stretch to assume other religious groups do not enjoy the same rights as the ruling group in a f-ing theocracy.

How in the world did you get that? I said it's stated that all religious groups have the same rights, the only thing is abortion and religious ed.

Then it's not a theocracy it's just a social conservative country 

But, as I said, a branch of Christianity (like Catholicism or Episcopalianism or something else that's not radical) would be the state religion. You'd still be able to choose your own religion, but expect more public prayers, state funding of churches, priests blurring in with politicians, etc.

[2952-0-0]

But, as I said, a branch of Christianity (like Catholicism or Episcopalianism or something else that's not radical) would be the state religion. You'd still be able to choose your own religion, but expect more public prayers, state funding of churches, priests blurring in with politicians, etc.

But wouldn't that describe Britain, where the Anglican Church is the state-established church, Anglican ministers preside at public ceremonies, the Anglican Church runs schools, etc, yet the society is deeply non-religious?

Or would Option 1 resemble Iran where the Ayatollahs are front and centre, and indeed are higher than any elected politician? Where quotes from the Koran are posted on public billboards, and where even the evening newscast begins with the newsreader saying "In the name of God, the most gracious and merciful". In Iran, Christians and Jews are permitted to observe their religious practices and are exempt from sharia law, but absolutely cannot proselytize towards Muslims.

[Leinad]

This version of libertarianism that lies only in the minds of lefties is weird.  Do you guys actually know a libertarian that wants to get rid of traffic laws?

I suppose if someone actually believes their strawmen are real might answer "yes."

[Blue3]

This version of libertarianism that lies only in the minds of lefties is weird.  Do you guys actually know a libertarian that wants to get rid of traffic laws?

I suppose if someone actually believes their strawmen are real might answer "yes."

I know libertarians and non-libertarians who would like to do this, and have the only punishment be if there's actual damage (to property or persons) as a result of driving.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This version of libertarianism that lies only in the minds of lefties is weird.  Do you guys actually know a libertarian that wants to get rid of traffic laws?

Why would you need traffic laws in the absence of public roads? I know a lot of libertarians who argue adamantly against the latter.

More appropriately, how would you have traffic laws without cars? Obviously, not only would libertarians have denied is our precious manufacturing subsidies, but their stewardship of humanity would have ensured we never reach the point where cars are invented!

[Grey Owl]

My point is it's not anarchy, it's a minimalist libertarian society, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

But would such a society be necessarily socially liberal? The freedom of speech, the freedom of contract and the freedom of association would be unrestricted, I suppose. That means social conservatives would be free to persuade others that certain lifestyles are harmful. They would establish their own schools to educate their children. They would form their own communities within this society. They would be free to discriminate against whomever they wished.

I imagine that in such a society people would mostly associate with those who shared their values. There would be a fierce competition between various communities. Perhaps, in the end, the social conservatives will become a majority. If they have more children, promote hard work, thriftiness, they can succeed...

[Coolface Sock #42069]

2, but narrowly, and only because 1 is so awful.