GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:

What's the One True Libertarian doctrine say about returning stolen American land to its legitimate owners?

rudatron posted:

[/list]It's difficult to tell whether if you're a self-aware troll or an oblivious true believer, but that's might be more due to the kind of people libertarians are.

Cemetry Gator posted:

jrodefeld posted:

Even Foreign Aid has proved disastrous. It would be better in the long run to teach people in the Third World about free market economics and private property where they can reform their societies along the lines of laissez-faire and follow the example of Hong Kong and other small nations who grew very wealthy even surrounded by authoritarian States.

Literally The Worst posted:

and what loving internal wealth is there in that poverty stricken country jrode you ignorant cocksucker

paragon1 posted:

i thought laissez-faire was the natural state of man jrode. Why would Africans need us to "teach them" about it? Shouldn't it just come naturally?

jrodefeld posted:

Define "oppression". There's no reason to respond to a post like this but it makes a clear point nonetheless. You know the libertarian ideology fairly well by now after all that I've posted. You obviously cannot think that any libertarian would support a fascist police state. Remember the loving non-aggression principle I remind you of every other post?! It is literally the starting point of libertarian ethics. Have you ever heard of a fascist police state that doesn't aggress against people?

A discussion in a waste of time if you are not arguing in good faith. You state something you know is not true because you are hell bent on impugning the character of libertarians. You think we all just have a secret desire to oppress people and are using this high-minded rhetoric as a license to do it.

This is not a good faith debate tactic.

jrodefeld posted:

You know, I could say the exact same thing about any one of you.

jrodefeld posted:

I mean, I've spoken with you a whole lot and you STILL don't agree with me? The reality is that smart people have lengthy discussions and debates with each other for literally DECADES without either party changing his or her mind on their core ideology. So, you just come off as obnoxious with this type of post.

jrodefeld posted:

gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore.

You are the coward. You wouldn't dare speak to me that way in person but, surrounded by 25 of your like-minded internet buddies and made anonymous by your IP address you act like a tough guy.

jrodefeld posted:

I guess I should talk to you like I would a loving child because that is about the level of your economic literacy.

Do you understand that governments can't conquer the reality of scarcity through official decree? The only things that actually cost zero dollars are those things that are available in superabundance and thus supply far outstrips human demand. For everything else, there is a price. Medical services have to be produced in a costly way which means that the price for a surgery cannot be "zero". In State welfare systems, you are only given the impression that something is free because the bureaucracy is so convoluted and complex that the actual cost is not immediately apparent. You ARE paying a price for healthcare services in Great Brittain and in Canada, the laws of economics demand that this be so.

jrodefeld posted:

To again quote the great Frederick Bastiat:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Andrast posted:

Isn't the libertarian argument for an area having laws you don't like usually "you can just leave if you don't like it"?

Why doesn't that apply to leaving a state?

jrodefeld posted:

What do you think?

faxlore posted:

Imagine what he could accomplish if he put all this tenacity into something productive.

Seriously. I've never seen anyone as willing who wasn't a blatant troll sit there and throw themselves into the lion's den over and over again. Jrod, pick up art, music, dancing, whatever. Just do something besides this.

jrodefeld posted:

Sadly, the slavery issue became an afterthought as "saving the Union" became the nationalistic battle cry. The only good outcome of this conflict of course was the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, but given the level of sincerity Lincoln and the Republicans showed towards the slavery issue, it should hardly be surprising that they didn't push further for just compensation given to the newly freed Africans as Justice would demand.

GunnerJ posted:

Please note: in the face of white southern opposition, even violent opposition, the federal government was willing to force the governments of the southern states to accept black political participation. There was the will to fight for this for a time. Why was there not the will to fight for economic reparations for freed people? It's not like nobody talked about it. It's not like it was never tried. Why was that measure a bridge too far?

YF19pilot posted:

States Rights! What about individual rights?