|
"Should we ally with these people who say they hate war" "They don't hate war they keep voting for it" "Aha you are not serious about opposing war, unlike me, the big smart boy"
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
polymathy posted:If libertarians vote for aggressive war, then they are not libertarians. I'm all for having a big tent, but at bare minimum you have to be anti-war to call yourself a libertarian. drat, it's just so hard to find yourself a true Scotsman when you need one! Also, how's that coalition working for you on the national stage?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I should ally with Pat Buchanan, the guy who said we should have supported the Japanese colonial empire in China and continued shipping oil to the Japanese war machine to fuel their mass murder campaign, in order to stop empire and mass murder? Pat Buchanan was terrible on war during the Cold War. But he's been (relatively) good since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Buchanan thought we needed our Empire and military expansion because he was so afraid of the spread of Communism. However, if the threat of communism no longer existed, he believed we no longer need to have an empire and we can have peace and bring the troops home. This is one of the differences between paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives. Paleo-conservatives felt that imperialism was a temporary response to the "existential" threat of communism, which can be dispensed with when that threat no longer exists. Neo-conservatives on the other hand love war and imperialism for it's own sake. After the cold war the paleos said "let's have peace now", while the neo-cons said "great, now we can go gently caress with the Muslims for twenty years!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
polymathy posted:If libertarians vote for aggressive war, then they are not libertarians. I'm all for having a big tent, but at bare minimum you have to be anti-war to call yourself a libertarian. Or do you go all the way and say that there are no libertarians anywhere in the world?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
You actually don't have to be anti war to call yourself a libertarian because, amazingly, there is no force monopolizer that's going to make you, so you can actually call yourself whatever you want and if people believe you, there's nothing anyone else can do about it  Nor should they, of course, because the market has decided that that's what libertarian means. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
polymathy posted:I knew that would be your answer, but why not? Wait what, how would a struggle against the Welfare State be improved by a coalition with leftists, liberals, and greens who want to expand it. And lol at conservatives ending imperialism, literally the thing conservatism exists to justify
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Pat Buchanan was terrible on war during the Cold War. But he's been (relatively) good since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Like even in this weird trolley problem where I have to vote for isolationist Hitler to kill gay people and immigrants at home because he will theoretically save more lives abroad by ending the wars, you're still saying "oh and by the way he'll still do the wars but only against communist countries"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
I know the game gets brought up a fair bit, but I just want to say how much I appreciate this thread coming back to life just as I start to replay Bioshock thanks to it beeing PlayStation Plus's free game last month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
polymathy posted:My point is that we know, by definition, that government "owned" land can never be legitimate since it had to be stolen. However, private land can be legitimately acquired through homesteading or peaceful trade. This just keeps being crazy, because privately owned land and publicly owned land come from the same drat place with the same drat method of arbitrarily declaring dominion over X amount of space and exerting the claim by using force upon those who would dare disagree. There is no extra legitimacy to whatever random circumstances that lets people inherit land based upon the accident of their birth. Inheritance of land ownership is literally the basis upon which all class was built, feudalism was founded upon it. And of course, if you want a demonstration as to how the essentially random distribution of land ownership steadily empowers those who lucked out into having better property over those who have worse property until those with more can acquire more as those with less are driven into debt, go play Monopoly, a game designed to demonstrate that principle (before being stolen and copyrighted by Parker Brothers). You don't choose what properties you get, and after a while everything just turns into a death march to finally reach the winner and the whole process sucks. There's also the whole thing where declaring the legitimacy of private property over communally owned land was one one of the key ways that hacendados destroyed villages in Mexico, because united communities can resist but divided ones can be more easily taken over. It's the imposition of one way of life over another, it's the heart of imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
polymathy posted:I knew that would be your answer, but why not? Conservatives have a tendency to arrest and execute lefties when they acquire power: HUAC, "First they came for the communists" etc. So I will not help them acquire power out of pure, rational, self-interest. If we bring the troops home, and conservatives are in power, McCarthyism will reign. Do libertarians acknowledge that capitalism is a form of hierarchy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
polymathy posted:To fall that far down in a few years tells me one of two things. Either the methodology of the 2013 data was extremely flawed or there were various reforms in those countries in the early 2010s that made some people very bullish on their prospects for development that rapidly got reversed in a few short years. So, uh, I dug into the reports, and... there's actually a lot more to the story here. The primary issue isn't the the methodology changed, it's that the reports are measuring entirely different things. The old report is just ranking Economic Freedom, while the new one is looking at the Human Freedom Index. What's the difference? The HFI is calculated by taking the Economic Freedom and the Personal Freedom for each country and averaging them. When we just look at Economic Freedom, Qatar is ranked 69, and the UAE is 62. That's still quite a drop from the old report, but not nearly as bad as it looks at first glance. Here's the historical data for the Personal Freedom index for the UAE. They suck, and they've always sucked.  But wait! There's more! Why exactly did the economic freedom go downhill? Here's the ranking page for the UAE in the 2015 report:  And here's the 2019 report.  You can see that the Personal Freedom index is entirely new, it's not reported at all on the old one. And the UAE sucks at personal freedom. The economic freedom has also gone downhill, it's scoring 7.17 rather than 8.15 in 2013, which is (presumably) a pretty big drop. So let's dig into the sub-categories to compare where that drop comes from. There's been one minor change in the categories: State Ownership of Assets has been added to Size of Government. Other than that, all the categories are the same. Here's a comparison for all the categories.  To review their methodology: " Each indicator is rated on a 0–10 scale, with 10 representing the most freedom. We average the main components in each category to produce a rating for each of the categories. To produce the Human Freedom Index, we average the final country ratings of the economic and personal freedom subindexes." All categories for economic freedom are weighted equally (this is not the case for Personal Freedom.) So the big changes we can see affecting Qatar's economic freedom are: * A massive 2 point drop in Size of Government, caused by government consumption, enterprises, and state ownership of assets, * A big 1.11 point drop in regulation caused by credit and labor market regulations (I might dig into this later, but at a first glance it seems to suggest that not allowing slavery is less free), and * Another massive 2.05 drop in Legal System and Property rights caused by... huh. That's weird. Yup, the value for Legal System and Property Rights is calculated wrong. The calculated score is lower than the minimum value for any of the subvalues. That's not how averages work. I have gone through and calculated out the scores for several other countries (UK, USA, Phillipines, Nicaragua, and Qatar, I tried to hit a variety) to check this. All of them check out within 0.2, which I'm going to chalk up to rounding. Except Qatar. Qatar has a score for LSPR of 6.1, but the score based on its subsections is 7.47. There is something seriously wrong here. So the UAE should have a score for LSPR of 7.62, and Qatar should have 7.47. That means that the UAE should have a total Economic Freedom score of 7.54, rather than 7.17, and Qatar should have 7.334 rather than 7.07. That means that Qatar should actually be ranked 54th, and UAE should be 38th.  And most of that change is because of government consumption. If the UAE's government consumption score hadn't dropped from 8.21 to 4.1, that by itself would jump them up to 7.71, tied with Austria for 26th. With all those put together, they'd get 7.83, edging out Germany for 20th. The rest of the change is because of credit and labor market regulations. TLDR: This report is garbage. Not only is it totally arbitrary, there are values that are actually miscalculated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
polymathy posted:If libertarians vote for aggressive war, then they are not libertarians. I'm all for having a big tent, but at bare minimum you have to be anti-war to call yourself a libertarian. Interesting. So Gary Johnson, and the Libertarian Party are not libertarians? How many libertarians are there, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
polymathy posted:New Zealand Um. JRod. I live in New Zealand. This is utterly wrong. Please explain why New Zealand was on the list. Specifically New Zealand. Please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:This just keeps being crazy, because privately owned land and publicly owned land come from the same drat place with the same drat method of arbitrarily declaring dominion over X amount of space and exerting the claim by using force upon those who would dare disagree. There is no extra legitimacy to whatever random circumstances that lets people inherit land based upon the accident of their birth. Inheritance of land ownership is literally the basis upon which all class was built, feudalism was founded upon it. But if it gives that exact same land to a baron well then it's private property and it would be the grossest injustice to give it back now. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
polymathy posted:First there is the constant conflation of libertarian advocacy of free markets, property rights and a Stateless society predicated on libertarian law (self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, etc) with a defense of Capitalists as a class of people. polymathy posted:If you choose to work for an employer, you're choosing to abstain from the risk-taking and forecasting game and opt for a guaranteed regular salary. This is a perfectly rational choice for many people. You won't necessarily see a full return on your productivity should the company be successful and turn a profit, but you also don't have to accept the risk of loses and delay in seeing any return on your investment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Like the only thing that could possibly put New Zealand on that list is the lack of a capital gains tax and the ease of getting around income tax via exploitation of trusts, everything else that Libertarian thinkers could care about, New Zealand is doing "wrong" We've passed legislation respecting and enforcing indigenous peoples' claims to primary resources for gently caress's sake
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
That can't be all it was can it JRod You keep saying that Libertarian thought is complex and worthy
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Like the only thing that could possibly put New Zealand on that list is the lack of a capital gains tax and the ease of getting around income tax via exploitation of trusts, everything else that Libertarian thinkers could care about, New Zealand is doing "wrong" You also have a low murder rate, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, nobody jails or kills the press, good management of terrorism, decent gay rights, and most important of all: access to cable TV! You know, things that all libertarian countries are famous for. Your government is kinda big, though, you might wanta get on that. That's really dragging down your score.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Karia posted:You also have a low murder rate, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, nobody jails or kills the press, good management of terrorism, decent gay rights, and most important of all: access to cable TV! You know, things that all libertarian countries are famous for. And massive taxpayer funded healthcare, transport networks, and benefit programs. If I get sick it'll usually cost me five bucks to pay for whatever drugs I need. If I get hit by a car a vast government system called ACC will cover my injury and subsidise my lost income while I recover and my boss will find it very, very hard to fire me due to protective employment law. If a product goes wrong before its time the teeth provided by the Consumer Guarantees Act let me demand that the retailer repair or replace it, superseding warranties and guarantees. Wellington's centre is a travesty of shut down buildings that can't be reopened without severe structural enhancement due to regulations and the public need for buildings that won't collapse in an earthquake and kill people, the red tape is making the city worse, the cost is scaring off development, and no billionaires have stepped up to charitably foot the bill out of the kindness of their hearts. Our government doesn't even have a right wing party as far as Americans would understand it. It can't just be the tax thing, though, that would suggest that the whole list is stupid and narrow minded
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Like I said: your government is too big. I think all of that's gonna be bundled under Size of Government (6.6/10), in the subcategories Government Consumption (5.1), Government Enterprises (8.0/10), and State Ownership of Assets (6.8/10). Those are by far the lowest scores for NZ, but the section is only 10% of the final score. If those got fixed, your total score could go up to I'd bet the tax thing is why you get a perfect 10 on Credit Market Regulations, and not being able to fire people for injuries might contribute to your 8.8 on Labor Market Regulations. If you dumped all of that, I think your score would go up from 8.88 to 9.21. Put another way: a country could get a zero on the entire Size of Government section and still get a 9 on the HFI if you aced everything else (that'd be first place in the world.) In short: Somfin posted:the whole list is stupid and narrow minded Bonus! I randomly opened up to Seychelles. They don't have scores for a lot of the stuff. Rule of law gets a 5.3, but there's no scores for any of its subcategories. There flat out is no number for Association, Assembly, and Civil Society. There's no grade for legal integrity. So they just left those out when they calculated the averages. Seychelles is ranked 62/169, despite the fact that they apparently don't know anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Entirely appropriate given that libertopia doesn't exist but they're certain it would be the best place ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
I think the issue raised a short time ago about Libertarian arguments being US-centric can explain this. They need to justify their inability to be Great Captains of Industry in one of the most corporate-friendly western nations (the US), so they pick metrics the US is weak at to judge how libertarian a place is then claim the US is just Too Statist for them to flourish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Karia posted:Like I said: your government is too big. I think all of that's gonna be bundled under Size of Government (6.6/10), in the subcategories Government Consumption (5.1), Government Enterprises (8.0/10), and State Ownership of Assets (6.8/10). Those are by far the lowest scores for NZ, but the section is only 10% of the final score. If those got fixed, your total score could go up to I'd bet the tax thing is why you get a perfect 10 on Credit Market Regulations, and not being able to fire people for injuries might contribute to your 8.8 on Labor Market Regulations. If you dumped all of that, I think your score would go up from 8.88 to 9.21. Put another way: a country could get a zero on the entire Size of Government section and still get a 9 on the HFI if you aced everything else (that'd be first place in the world.) Women's safety and security gets a 10/10 for NZ. Weird. NZ's domestic violence stats are obscene. 1 in 3 NZ women experience physical and/or sexual violence from a partner in their lifetime. Must be that this institute doesn't consider domestic violence or rape to be part of women's safety?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
I think the main reason that libertarian framing is US-centric is because the modern libertarian movement wouldn't exist without a literal handful of ultrarich bastards funding it. Its' grassroots support is vanishingly small.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Women's safety and security gets a 10/10 for NZ. Weird. NZ's domestic violence stats are obscene. It's probably because the women they've interacted with in the past decade are sex workers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
So I know this is rude but I've asked libertarians many times about this exact problem and none of them have ever managed to give a good response of how to handle an issue like this. It's always just been 'dispute resolution organizations' and that's just been held up as the magic fairy wand that makes everything bad about this garbage heap of an ideology go away. There's no idea of how these DROs would *handle* this dispute. There's literally just 'well we have an acronym and that makes everything good again'. (This also ignores that the DROs would become defacto states because they're the ones enforcing rules and 'laws' selectively but that won't happen because *farting noises*) Jrod, let us have a hypothetical. In this hypothetical, there are two land owners. One lives north of the other, on a river. Said river flows through the northern property, and then into the southern property. According to libertarianism, they both own their respective properties and thus are free to do whatever they wish or will to with them. Land Owner Arron is the owner of the northern property and he begins a tanning business. This involves things like acid and several nasty byproducts. But lucky for Arron, he simply can dump the byproducts into his river, and it's no longer his problem. After all, he is the owner of the river where he's dumping it thus he can do whatever he wants to on his property. Land Owner Bert is a rancher, he raises and farms cattle. His cattle survive by drinking the water from the river on his property. However lately his cattle have been dying. He tests the water and finds out that the water has been polluted by the owner up the river, Arron. Arron has been using his property as he saw fit. Thus under libertarianism thinking has done nothing wrong, and yet Bert is suffering due to the actions of Arron. Bert's family also begins to get sick because Arron is using the river as his garbage dump, and it is infecting their water well. Again, Arron is doing nothing more than making use of his property as he sees fit. How can Bert attempt to rectify this situation? Is he just completely and utterly hosed? Is he just doomed to watch his family and cattle slowly die from the poisons that Arron doesn't have to dump into the river, but has every right to, being that it's his property? (The answer to this is whichever one has the most money pays off whatever DRO in the area and the poorer of the two are murdered in their sleep, with the DRO laying claim to the property. Which is fine because it isn't a *government* doing that, a DRO is a company after all.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
DROs, because an organization with the monopoly on the use of force within a given territory is somehow magically not a government if we say it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
libertarianism is a slave ideology, desperately chasing the approval of the wealthy and powerful
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:I think the issue raised a short time ago about Libertarian arguments being US-centric can explain this. They need to justify their inability to be Great Captains of Industry in one of the most corporate-friendly western nations (the US), so they pick metrics the US is weak at to judge how libertarian a place is then claim the US is just Too Statist for them to flourish. The US is ranked 15th. The only major differences are crappy courts and more controls on "movement of capital and people". Other than that they are nearly identical. We all know the courts are crappy, but let's look at controls. This is based on: * How prevalent is foreign ownership of companies in your country? (World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report) * How restrictive are regulations in your country relating to international capital flows? (World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report) * 13 different international capital controls defined by the IMF. The rating is based on the percentage of the controls that are not implemented. (IMF) * Freedom of foreigners to visit, based on the percentage of other countries for which your country requires a visa to travel from, normalized against all other countries. (Lawson and Lemke, Public Choice) They don't tell me what of those values is causing the difference. But together, they account for 70% of the difference in economic freedom between the US and NZ. Somfin posted:Women's safety and security gets a 10/10 for NZ. Weird. NZ's domestic violence stats are obscene. It is based entirely on female genital mutilation. "A continuous score ranges from 0 to 10, where a rating of 10 was assigned to countries with no prevalence of female genital mutilation and a rating of 0 was assigned to countries with complete prevalence of female genital mutilation." EDIT: Wait, poo poo, there was another one that I missed on the next page. It's also based on inheritence rights for widows and daughters. That's averaged together with the previously mentioned metric to get Women's Security, Safety. EDIT EDIT: Just to expand a little more: inheritence rights as defined in law. They're looking solely for laws discriminating against women in inheritence, averaged between the rights of widows and the rights of daughters. There could be a country where there's a cultural rule that everyone follows where women can't inherit anything, but so long as it's not written down and called a law, it's A-OK. They get data from the OECD. Karia fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Mar 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:DROs, because an organization with the monopoly on the use of force within a given territory is somehow magically not a government if we say it isn't. I think the idea is they aren't a monopoly, there are multiple DRO's with roughly equal parity of armed force, so instead of having a gang fight when the rancher and the tanner each call their DRO's, the leadership of each DRO have all mutually agreed on a court system that will adjudicate these disputes and issue judgments which the DROs are all sworn carry out. Somehow this uniform court system that all enforcement gangs have mutually set up and unanimously obey is not a monopoly on force nor is it a state
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:I think the issue raised a short time ago about Libertarian arguments being US-centric can explain this. They need to justify their inability to be Great Captains of Industry in one of the most corporate-friendly western nations (the US), so they pick metrics the US is weak at to judge how libertarian a place is then claim the US is just Too Statist for them to flourish. I've met a few Canadian libertarians that seem to use a lot of US-style language. It's especially annoying when a good percentage of what they're talking about just doesn't apply to us at all. I know that freemen on the land exist, and they also rip off a lot of US bullshit, but they also like to cite things like incredibly obscure 17th-century British legal scholarship that no one cares about at all. I think one guy even tried to get the queen (in her role as the technical head of state) subpoena'd in a Canadian court. In either case, it really seem like they act as if it's some kind of magic spell. Just recite the correct words as an incantation, and they win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
The definitive document on sovereign citizens (Meads v Meads) was written by a judge in Alberta, after all. Among other things, he did point out how baffling it was that Canadian citizens think that the Uniform Commercial Code is some kind of universal law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think the idea is they aren't a monopoly, there are multiple DRO's with roughly equal parity of armed force, so instead of having a gang fight when the rancher and the tanner each call their DRO's, the leadership of each DRO have all mutually agreed on a court system that will adjudicate these disputes and issue judgments which the DROs are all sworn carry out. And of course the DROs will never manage to achieve a localised monopoly because that doesn't happen because McDonald's, despite all of its power and backing, doesn't have a localised monopoly on food anywhere - an actual Libertarian argument I've encountered in the wild
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
polymathy posted:You're making a lot of assertions with no evidence. You say "libertarian thought encourages by its very essence a stratification of wealth, a moneyed elite with all the property and thus all the power." No it doesn't. Once you accept that this is the case, the idea of a completely voluntary society falls apart. There are plenty of other substantive objections I can make to the ideal you espouse, but the simple fact that pure voluntarism is utterly impossible is the key one you need to understand. (There's an argument you could make that if we structured society such that everyone has all their basic needs met, people's choices would become more relevant and important, but that sounds suspiciously like a social safety net and we all know how much you despise those.) quote:Imagine a scenario where the thought of Noam Chomsky becomes widespread and popular. Suppose people decide that the best way to organize business is through co-ops and democratic decision-making in the workplace. quote:Imagine a different scenario where people who live in, or around, the Bay Area in California decide to implement a large-scale social safety net where all people choose to pay a certain amount of money each month that goes to funding a health care service that provides health care to all people who live within 30 square miles, even or especially the poor. quote:Sort of like a Health Sharing account or a large-scale mutual aid society. like seriously we've torn you a new one on your obsession with mutual aid societies plenty of times, why do you think we're gonna bite for it this time uuuuuuuuuggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh quote:This would be a social safety net similar to the one you imagine that government should provide, except it would be privately funded and provided. Seriously. What makes you think, if we suddenly somehow managed to decentralize and disperse everything, that new power centers would not immediately coalesce? Why do you assume that people would only ever form hierarchies and power structures under the big spooky State? What is the mechanism that prevents the wealthy from consolidating power in your ideal world? Answer this! Answer it! It's the utterly obvious follow-up question! You have to have an answer if you're not an utterly contemptible, deluded fool!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
theshim posted:First off: define "voluntary". Is it voluntary for me to eat? If not, is it voluntary for me take a course of action that means I cannot eat? Not every decision people can make is purely voluntary, existing in a perfect frictionless vacuum where they will only ever make the best possible choice, and never mind things like asymmetry of information and power imbalances. People have basic needs that must be met for them to survive and thrive, and while you may have certain available options in how you go about this, you do not have the option to not participate if you want to continue living. But following from that, no society past a single generation could ever be fully voluntarist, because it has people within it who did not consent to be there. They didn't sign the social contract, man. And should they chose to leave, what if all the surrounding societies use their freedom of association to refuse them entry? That's why the whole thing begins to crack at the seams when you factor in families, dynasties, and clan dynamics. Maybe if you pushed reset every 50 years to prevent accumulation/consolidation, otherwise you risk ending up with states again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
E: Skipped a page, somfin already covered it.
Weatherman fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:E: Skipped a page, somfin already covered it. I'm intrigued by what my garbage-tier posting could have covered so comprehensively
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
I think the idea is that states cause accumulation and consolidation of private power through interference in the free market and picking winners and losers or whatever. So you just have to abolish the state and it will be impossible for it to ever be recreated because that accumulation of private power couldn't happen. But you don't have to abolish the existing accumulated and consolidated private wealth and power because, uh, hmm. And don't think about how states came to exist in the first place, bringing that up isn't allowed because it's too devastating to libertarian ideology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I'm intrigued by what my garbage-tier posting could have covered so comprehensively I was just calling him the wrongest boy in the world for his howler about Perfectly Libertarian And Decentralised NZ. You brought up more evidence to contradict him than my post, which boiled down to "you loving idiot"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Would Libertarians voluntarily live in a perfectly libertarian society, or would we have to violate their NAP to have them put their money where their mouth is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 23:11
|
|
