|
Who What Now posted:The
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:09
|
|
over being called names never gets old. Libertarians really do have the thinnest skins.
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
shiranaihito posted:OK, I'm done here. Wasting any more time on you is pointless. Oh you feel like responding to this post by calling me names? .. As if you hadn't been doing that all the time until now? :p Don't throw a temper tantrum because you can dish it out but you can't take it. You didn't come in here with the intent of having an honest discussion with people who disagreed with you. You can in here to wag your dick around, get scolded for jerking off in the middle of an intelligent conversation between adults trying to discuss politics, and then act like the victim because people aren't seeing the wisdom of your arguments. You've been totally condescending from the beginning. Here's a few examples from your very first post. shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. So don't act like you're taking the moral high ground here. Don't think for a moment that we wouldn't listen to you. You came in here, called us insane sociopaths who don't think, and meanwhile, put out the same arguments that we already had, in a much more intelligent fashion, with other people already, and then just dodge every question you could with statements that you pulled out of your rear end. The reason why we're not convinced is because your arguments are weak, unresearched, and don't support the realities of the world. Oh, and PS - here's an example of Molyneux being a sexist misogynist rear end in a top hat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diyuAXzN7yo&t=2297s. I'll even fast forward to the part where he's outright insane. And if you want to know why we won't debate Molyneux, it's that there's no value. He's a cult leader at best. His views are so far removed from reality that to try and engage him is to give him credibility. And with people who hold views that are as delusional as Molyneux's, you end up in a situation where you can't effectively debate him because he's so wrong, you won't cover every possible way that he's wrong, and so he'll counter your counter-argument with some other incorrect statement. He's so wrong, and he's so dedicated to being wrong that there's not really anything you can do to convince him otherwise. He's also a logorrheric bombastic ego-maniac who will talk at you for 20 minutes before you can even begin to get a word in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Seriously though, what is it with Libertarians and always scuttling away after only a few hours in this thread? Praxeology demands rigid adherence to beliefs no matter what, so contradictions must be ignored, permanently (by never returning).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:OK, I'm done here. Wasting any more time on you is pointless. Oh you feel like responding to this post by calling me names? .. As if you hadn't been doing that all the time until now? :p "For some reason, regurgitating Molyneux's talking points didn't instantly convince you, and I don't actually understand the things I am saying enough to defend them. So go call Molyneux and debate him if you dare but you won't because you don't think for yourself like I do. Out!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Seriously though, what is it with Libertarians and always scuttling away after only a few hours in this thread? It's not that surprising. This forum presents an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence to ancap libertarian ideas and questions that might make an ancap libertarian very uncomfortable. In that kind of situation, most people flee. It is easier to reject an argument outright than to engage it and find out that you might be wrong on some things (this is the basis of praxeology) "What, you want me to actually think about the consequences that my bizarro philosophy would have for society, and to think about how such a society would actually work? No way Jose, peace out, Ron Paul End the Fed" QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
It was best for Shirianito to leave when he did, because the path he was heading down was one of bland misogyny and holocaust denial. A real delightful person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:an intelligent conversation between Come on now, let's be honest about what we do in this thread. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
If this thread's usual cycle continues repeating, we should expect to see some libertarians or possibly just conservatives showing up soon to state: "look at all of you libtards arguing against ancap libertarians, you're too dumb to realize that ancap isn't the only brand of libertarianism  " while completely ignoring the previous two pages where the only libertarian present was ancap
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If this thread's usual cycle continues repeating, we should expect to see some libertarians or possibly just conservatives showing up soon to state: "look at all of you libtards arguing against ancap libertarians, you're too dumb to realize that ancap isn't the only brand of libertarianism That literally just happened with Shin, except he thought there never were any libertarians to begin with. He didn't even read the first post! -EDIT- It's amazing he did as well as he did, though, considering he was jerking off both Moylneux's and his own dick the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Motherfucker didn't even bother to use smilies properly. Wait a sec, isn't using none forums smilies against the rules? Edit: HAH, there's a no parting shots rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Come on now, let's be honest about what we do in this thread. Valhalla DRO: Bringing you the finest in drug-fueled violence-based non-aggressive dispute resolution at rock-bottom prices!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If this thread's usual cycle continues repeating, we should expect to see some libertarians or possibly just conservatives showing up soon to state: "look at all of you libtards arguing against ancap libertarians, you're too dumb to realize that ancap isn't the only brand of libertarianism None of those people are libertarians. They're all conservatives who, faced with the abject failure of conservative policies in the 2000s, have reconciled this to themselves by repackaging the exact same beliefs as "libertarianism" and claiming they were never tried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Ok, someone needs to fess up to buying that guy an account. That was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:If Shiranaihito was here, he would defend my right to be a belligerent dumbfuck. I really hope he is still with us in spirit, because I feel the need to dump some more retarded Stefan Molyneux quotes on you all: quote:On Megalomania - When I recognize that if it's not for this show and me, right now, for all that I can see, people might have to wait another 2000 years, or 2500 years, for someone to come along who's willing to take this stand... [...] It is a big responsibility, one I take very seriously, but it is one I have to manage. If you're a surgeon, there's always somebody that needs surgery, ... so when do you sleep? Well, its a challenge." quote:On Physicists - I frankly don't care. [About unknown phenomena] Physicists kind of piss me off, 'cause they've always got their loving pale hands in my goddamned wallet, and stealing from my child's future, indebting her. You know, go be a loving engineer, you lazy, pasty bastards. Go do something useful that people wanna buy. Stop loving around with the essennce of who gives a crap and go make me a loving iphone. You guys are worse than academics. quote:On 'Female Sadism' - I assume your mother, right, I mean, she was attempting to achieve some sort of grim, ungodly, bloody satisfaction through her cruelty. [...] When you realize that your caregiver is deriving intense, possibily orgasmic satisfaction over beating you, you can't feel safe ever again. [...] Yeah, female sadism is at the icy root of so many of the world's problems; It's so unacknowledged. This is to me why women, when women pretend to be victims in the world... it is so deeply offensive to so many hundreds of millions of us who were victims of extreme female sadism. The idea that women... cry victim, victim, victim... gently caress! Try being one of these bitch's kids, and see what kind of patriarchy we had access to. quote:On Megalomania AGAIN - This show, it is not going to fail. It is not going to fail because it is not up to me whether this show succeeds or fails because I don't have the option of failure. Because the kind of communicator who can turn complex philosophical concepts into emotionally actionable to do lists for people is so rare that they come along every couple hundred years if they are lucky. I don't have the choice to fail, I don't have the option to fail. Not because I want to be front and center in the moral progress of the species, but because the moral progress of the species is aboslutely essential and because I have a child. Okay... that is enough for today. I feel the vomit coming on. Bonus Edit: My favorite Molyneux story is actually the one about how he got an A in philosophy. The short version is that he badgered the poo poo out his teacher with his bulshit beliefs, including abusing the school's academic infrastructure and complaining to people higher up until the teacher just said gently caress it, fine, you pass you goddamned retard. Caros fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Let's talk about Stefan, the misogynist. I hope that this post will serve as a future repository for anybody who wants to go and say that Stefan isn't that bad, or it's a minor thing about him, or anything like that. His misogyny is a core part of his beliefs, and he does a terrible job of hiding it. Now, I know what you'll say: "what's the big deal. I don't have to support everything a person believes." And while I ignore the irony of somebody saying that while saying "my tax dollars go to something I don't support, that's extortion," I'll address this directly. Stefan sells his worldview. That is the product he is offering. And when somebody's worldview includes views that are as backwards an insane as his view on women, it is a legitimate concern to bring up in regards to his other views. Is he really the best voice for AnCaps? At some point, can you really completely separate his views on women from his views on how society should be organized? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o0euhM6bjg&t=479s - Hey Women. Stop pretending like you don't sometimes cause your own problems! Just because men are typically more likely to be a position of power than women are doesn't mean that men have to make the world a more equal place! You get paid less because you're the perpetrator! It gets even better at 9:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o0euhM6bjg&t=758s - Here's him talking about how hard it is to be a man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MejkH61o_U&t=295s - Women, your job is to look sexy. And I'm done. Seriously. This is his worldview. I spent like 10 minutes on this post and I had to give up because it was too easy. He has a whole loving series dedicated to his misogyny. So please, stop pretending that Molyneux's misogyny is something you can push away and excuse. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything someone says in order to quote them, but you should look at the their worldview. His views on women are so core to his beliefs and philosophy that he has a whole section dedicated to it. This isn't just somebody who said something a little hosed up once. No. This is somebody who spilled the entire beans and really showed how much respect he has for women as a whole. You should look for somebody who doesn't express those views to be your poster child. If you're looking to him as an intellectual guide, then you are saying that his views on the world are generally good, and in the areas where you disagree, there isn't some massive moral gap. You can't say "Yeah, his views on how society is structured is great, but you just have to get past his total hatred of women." And if you're asking us to do that, then we have to question whether or not you have a hatred of women.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Let's talk about Stefan, the misogynist. I hope that this post will serve as a future repository for anybody who wants to go and say that Stefan isn't that bad, or it's a minor thing about him, or anything like that. I mentioned this in passing upthread, but I really can't decide just how much of Molyneux's hatred for women is real and how much is bought and paid for. Based on what he says about his backstory, Molyneux had a very bad childhood, with a supposedly abusive mother. This reflected itself in his early 2005-2011 work mostly in anger about parents and about mother figures in particular. Usually however this really only had much to do with his hatred of what he sees as child abuse, which is for him like 'force' is to a typical libertarian. The start of his really heavy Misogyny is a relatively recent thing. For example, I stopped being a libertarian in 2008, and I largely stopped paying attention to Molyneux around 2010-2011, and before that time it was at best the occasional thing. It got mentioned but only in passing or quite subtly enough that I barely remember it. I missed most of 2010-2013 for his stuff, And even going back its hard to pinpoint the specific date, but somewhere around mid-2013 (by my best guess) he started getting... angrier. This is when you started to see a lot of the meaner, more blatant stuff. Before 2013 most complaints were about him being an idiot/cult leader, but more recently he has been getting a lot of flack for the blatant Misogyny. Now it has been really good for his business. As I mentioned, he has nearly doubled his viewership since 2014, and I have absolutely no doubt that there was any driving cause more important than the shift from voluntarist stuff, to the women hating stuff. There are a lot of people out there who hate women, and having someone who posts weekly videos detailing why women suck this week makes him a superstar in their circles. Molyneux is making a lot of money off of these people. And that is where the problem is. I straight up cannot tell whether he actively believes that women are as bad as he says, or if he is just pretending that women are lovely because it gets him a ton of viewership. I suspect its a mixture of both, but he has a background in stage acting, so I wouldn't be surprised either way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
I'd like to think, having stated my arguments clearly, politely, and succinctly, he would have at least tried to explain the difference between aggression to enforce property rights and aggression to enforce taxation policy. It's not really rocket science, he just dislikes the answer. And he assumes that smarter people have answered this sort of very obvious question, which is adorable  Too bad about the misogyny thing, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
It's a violation of property rights if you refuse to pay me for use of my road, and then it's okay for me to try to force you to pay, but it's an INITIATION OF FORCE if the government tries to do the same thing for its roads. Because you see, statism
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Here's what I originally said; Surgeons cut people with knives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Murderers cut people with knives. shiranaihito posted:You're conflating behaviour that poses no threat at all The question is which would he think is which?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Caro & Cemetry Gator posted:Popped a Molyneux, I'm sweatin. Haha, why in God's name would anyone cite the grab bag of mommy problems as a way to run the world?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. It does not matter, your "rights" only exist because we as a societal whole have allowed them to exist. If you were raised someplace else you would not even think that being expected to contribute was immoral, or that the final arbiter of a society is immoral. Your entire conception of the world is because the united states society has convinced itself that allowing a madness to grow is perfectly rational. I say no likley this society despite allowing your madness to fester, is not insane enough to allow you to refuse to ignore its directives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The question is which would he think is which? The thing that makes it all just a game of amusing myself for me is the moment that I decide I am suffering coercive aggression I get all sorts of super powers that I shouldn't otherwise have, because objective truth is only envisioned through anarchy to them. The bottom line is I see their same "coercive" oppression as protecting the human biome from their virus and I don't really think it's being unfair to characterize libertarianism as a virus: Wikipedia posted:A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms. Viruses can infect all types of life forms, from animals and plants to bacteria and archaea.[1] Effects on the host cell posted:The range of structural and biochemical effects that viruses have on the host cell is extensive.[103] These are called cytopathic effects.[104] Most virus infections eventually result in the death of the host cell. [...]Some viruses cause no apparent changes to the infected cell. Cells in which the virus is latent and inactive show few signs of infection and often function normally.[107] This causes persistent infections and the virus is often dormant for many months or years. This is often the case with herpes viruses.[108][109] Some viruses, such as Epstein–Barr virus, can cause cells to proliferate without causing malignancy,[110] while others, such as papillomaviruses, are established causes of cancer. Which if that doesn't describe libertarianism in America very generously I don't know what does. There's a reason to meet it with hostility, it's apocalyptic thinking, at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
drat it, you scared them off. We need to get more coordinated and build up a flock of a couple libertarians before sending them in, so they don't just come in piecemeal and give up. I was really hoping some libertarian would tag my points, I figured they'd be really softball and everything. It's like, I'm not even going to yell and attack their principle, I want to know how they map to the real-ish world. And I mean, it's not even hard stuff like "Okay stateless society, what do you do when the Freikorps come knocking?" like everyone else is asking, it's poo poo like "What is the status of historical feudal contracts" and "What do you do about current property that's been obtained through evil" and "What do you do about people who disagree with you?", stuff that actually bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
I think it is really important for anyone who advocates an anarchist society to at least try to answer the question of "What do you do when the Freikorps comes knocking?" It's a pretty important question!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:drat it, you scared them off. I don't know how asking someone how the finite resource of the electromagnetic spectrum being managed is a "hard" question to anyone except those who advocate having no government. When I point out how badly I want them to feel my aggression toward them, refer to myself as a statist and whatnot I'm doing so because it will provide the answer to the question you're looking for. They will whine, they will run away, they will insist that you're changing the subject or as most recently observed, you're incapable of comprehending the truth they have so vigorously embraced. I'm not trying to call you out but the whole point of what many people in this thread advocates is they're so categorically wrong about basic facts about reality that snide "What happens when an outside actor attacks you?" is just the ironic pin to stick in their side because their utopia requires a unified world order, One World
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You think there's something that can be produced and sold for money that no one will bother doing, not even if there would be massive profits to be made because he'd be the only one producing the thing? Hmm? Not at all. Obviously I'm saying that in cases like that it's highly economically efficient to enslave people. An-Cap societies would probably host a flourishing trade in human chattel. quote:I have no idea where you're getting that from, History. quote:I doubt it's true (without state involvement), Well, it's true whether you doubt it or not. And this caveat is meaningless, because slavery has disappeared in most of the world precisely because most states have banned it. Historically its quite common in stateless areas or areas with weak states. quote:and I don't want to bother investigating. This tendency is probably how you became a follower of Molyneux. quote:The bottom line is that people working for their personal gain are just massively more motivated than people who are working to avoid punishment. Nope. Once a free laborer has earned enough to provide for his necessities of life, he can begin to weigh the value of additional earnings against the value of added leisure time. Slaves are not permitted to make this economic calculation and must work for as long as their master demands, and in fact it was very common for them to be forced to work so hard without sufficient rest that they expired from exhaustion. How many people would choose to work that hard without heavy coercion? Not many. quote:There are countless people serving as examples of this. You can force someone to work, but you can't force anyone to be creative, for example. You can't force anyone to be good at running a business, at figuring out ways to increase productivity and to decrease costs. True, but how many creative management types do you actually need for society to function? And in fact slave labor frees the minority of masters from the necessity of work and allows them to pursue whatever creative or intellectual endeavors they want. Thomas Jefferson is a good example there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I think it is really important for anyone who advocates an anarchist society to at least try to answer the question of "What do you do when the Freikorps comes knocking?" And maybe put a little more thought into it than "Well we'll just assassinate the leader and then it's all over. Real life works just like Civ IV, right?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I think it is really important for anyone who advocates an anarchist society to at least try to answer the question of "What do you do when the Freikorps comes knocking?" My best friend has been getting into left anarchism lately, and his answer to that question is "Well if hierarchical government defeats us I would rather die than live as a slave." ...which is AN answer...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I don't know how asking someone how the finite resource of the electromagnetic spectrum being managed is a "hard" question to anyone except those who advocate having no government. When I point out how badly I want them to feel my aggression toward them, refer to myself as a statist and whatnot I'm doing so because it will provide the answer to the question you're looking for. The EM Spectrum one is a pretty good question, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
So again the thing that hardcore libertarianism requires ignoring history. Slavery may or may not have been the most efficient thing, but it was certainly profitable enough to become a massive part of numerous economies for several centuries, and for that matter to continue to this day despite being outlawed in most of the world. By the way "shiranaihito" would be 知らない人, which idiomatically means "stranger," but if you take it overly literally it could also be "person who doesn't know." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:I have no idea where you're getting that from, I doubt it's true (without state involvement), and I don't want to bother investigating. This and the post where he just dumped a bunch of links was a little too on-the-nose for me to think this guy was real. Sorry buddy, you're gonna have to be less of a caricature of an angry white suburban teenager if you wanna run with the jrodefelds of the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
It was the demand that an internet stranger call into his favorite radio show to debate some lunatic that tipped me off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
You know that joke a lot of people used on Bush? "He was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple". I feel like that describes all libertarians/Republicans honestly (though you could probably switch "third base" to "first" or "second" depending on their economic status). Every single one of them has used and benefited from public infrastructure in one form or another, which helped them become successful, but then turn around and pretend that OBVIOUSLY the situation would have been the same, if not better if we removed all those things. I've asked this before, but what country do libertarians actually like that serves as an example of libertarianism being wildly successful? I know we joke about Somalia all the time, and while libertarians sometimes get pissy at that suggestion, I have yet to hear an actual named alternative. It sure as hell isn't any first world country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:The most productive slave is one who doesn't realize he is a slave. That would be the vast majority of people on the planet, of course. If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken away from you, you're obviously a slave.. so if 50% is taken away, you're a .. "50% slave"? You're not an outright slave, but you are enslaved. See, this is why engaging with Libertarians is a bad idea. How are you supposed to engage with someone who thinks this way - that a vast majority of the people on this planet are enslaved. Slavery has nothing to do about the fruit of your labor being forcefully taken away from you. Really, it's reducing people down to property. It's about taking away their agency. The slaves on the plantations weren't slaves because they weren't getting paid, they were slaves because they couldn't choose to leave. They couldn't choose to go elsewhere. They had no agency. If they were told to do something, they had to do it. They had no rights. I mean, volunteers don't get paid, but we don't say that the Red Cross or Houses for Humanity utilize slave labor, because the people there willingly chose to spend their time helping these organizations. (As an aside, I'm not trying to say that paying someone low or no wages is not wrong, nor that it isn't a form of enslavement, but I think that's a much deeper and broader conversation). If you were a slave, you'd be beaten for saying what you just said. Instead, we can rip you a new one online because... we're not slaves. The reason why you pay taxes is that you live in and benefit from the society, and taxes are our way of ensuring that we can continue to support this society. For example, we produce a stock of educated people who can take on jobs like being a doctor or being a plumber or being a software developer, and many of these people have benefited from having access to schooling and education, much of which is supported by the state. You benefit from having roads and an international highway system. You benefit from having access to clean water and electricity, and you can't have these turned off on the weekend too! You also benefit from having police and fire departments, emergency services, and a whole litany of other things that make your life survivable. And even if you don't directly benefit from these programs, you benefit because there is less strain on society. So since society is providing you a service, society is saying "Hey look, you need to pay." It's like when I get my car fixed. I pay my mechanic after the work is done. If I refuse to pay, isn't my mechanic threatening to shoot me, by Libertarian logic? I mean, he has the gun in the room. The police will shoot me! Right? Right? Oh wait. It's okay because in that case, no matter how much of an entitled shithead I am who thinks it's appropriate to say that I'm a slave, I recognize that I stole someone else's labor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Who else thinks that we should crowd-fund SA memberships for, I dunno, reason.com commenters? jrodefeld is like carbon fuels; once he gets used up it takes millions of years for him to come back. But the last day or so has shown that investment in alternate outrage sources should be completely viable if we band together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
I propose a cheaper alternative of picking out the weakest member of the group for cannibalization during the dark times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I propose a cheaper alternative of picking out the weakest member of the group for cannibalization during the dark times. I have often thought that the world should be modeled after Lord of the Flies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:See, this is why engaging with Libertarians is a bad idea. How are you supposed to engage with someone who thinks this way - that a vast majority of the people on this planet are enslaved. This is actually a perfect example of the 'Implicit' aspect of the social contract. As you mention, when you go to the doctor, or the mechanic, or even a resteraunt you don't sign a contract, or even necessarily make a verbal agreement to pay. Instead the fact that you choose to go there implies that you intend to exchange money for services. The social contract is likewise an implied in fact contract, one that is agreed to first by your parents, and then later by you continuing to live in the country that is taxing you, or by doing business in the country that is taxing you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I've asked this before, but what country do libertarians actually like that serves as an example of libertarianism being wildly successful? I know we joke about Somalia all the time, and while libertarians sometimes get pissy at that suggestion, I have yet to hear an actual named alternative. It sure as hell isn't any first world country. There is no such country. They don't need an example, and even if there were a bunch of examples that all turned to poo poo that wouldn't matter, either, because of praxeology
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:30
|
|