Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

People often complain about libertarians being rude and obnoxious. It’s not nearly as widespread a problem as some would make it out to be, and contrary to popular belief, this did not begin with me. To the extent that it does exist, I have become to many this sort of picture of the asshole libertarian who doesn’t give a shit about your feelings or opinions. So I figured I’d put this list together of why libertarians aren’t nice to you. Even libertarians who are nice to you, I think will get a kick out of it, because despite their outward appearances, they are every bit as frustrated with your statism as we are. Feel free to bookmark it and produce it every time you hear someone make this complaint.

Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You Because,

The Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice To You

The Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

10. Ridicule works.

Believe me when I tell you, we would really prefer it if mankind were a rational creature that responded to reason and evidence. If that were the case, we would have already won this debate, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The State would not exist, and there would be no political arguments pertaining to it.

What we have observed from watching your elections and propagandists, is that there’s more of a “that guy sucks so you should support me!” type of psychology behind all of this. Leftists call everybody who opposes them fascists, and racists, and religious nuts, and homophobes, and greedy. Rightists call everybody who opposes them socialists, and enemies of God, they promote fear about homosexuals, and immigrants, and foreign countries that they want to go to war with.

It’s unfortunate that this has become the nature of political discord, but that’s the reality we are met with. You folks have obtained such wonderful political success by being completely miserable towards one another, so we figure this is how to win political battles. Thus, we are sort of compelled to work within it. We make fun of you, because that is the nature of political discussions that we have been met with. We tear down your leaders and your people because they promote terrible ideas, and we don’t want people to take you seriously.

9. If you already have an ideology, we’re actually not terribly concerned with convincing you.

Most people have no concept of politics, economics, or philosophy. If they take an interest in these subjects because of something we said, or because they are genuinely interested in finding some kind of objective truth, then we have some hope of bringing them over to our side. Those are the people we are primarily interested in convincing.

stubbornMost people involved in these things aren’t actually interested in finding any sort of objective truth. As far as we’re concerned, the fact that they aren’t already libertarians is evidence enough of this. They chose a side for whatever reason, and they represent their team for better or worse. Liberals don’t tend to become conservatives, conservatives don’t tend to become liberals, and neither tend to become libertarians. At best for us, they try to get libertarians to assist them in their own anti-libertarian political agendas, and they’ve done an excellent job of accomplishing this. Trying to work with you then, generally ends up hurting us, and we’ve learned this lesson too many times to ignore it.

Having an ideology tends to imply some study of the subject at hand. If you have studied government, and determined that it has any potential to do anything positive, this implies you are really not very good at processing information. The failures of the State are so numerous and ridiculously obvious, that we find it difficult to believe any rational person could justify its existence. Your informed adherence to this absurdity tells us that you are pretty much beyond all hope of rescue.

So when libertarians argue with you, it’s not you we’re trying to convince. We’re doing it for the sake of others who might be watching. It gives us the opportunity to put information out there, and while you reject fact, after fact, after fact, we try to make you look like idiots so that others who may be watching have a negative opinion of you and your ideas, so that they do not join your cause and advance them.

voting8. We’re not trying to win elections

Any libertarian who tells you he is trying to win an election is either lying to you about trying to win the election, lying to us about being a libertarian, or terribly misinformed. As far as we’re concerned, elections are a bad thing. We’re trying to end them, not win them.

The nature of the State is to make false promises to bait support from the people it victimizes. They promise to protect you from boogeymen, they promise to solve your economic problems, they promise to carry out the will of your deity. We see this as completely ridiculous, we know it will fail, and we know that most people are stupid enough to swallow it hook line and sinker, so we can’t compete with it in a popular vote.

Libertarians are anarchists, whether they realize it or not. Even the ones who are delusional enough to think that they are going to get elected and restore the bloody republic, are little more than useful idiots who are repeating anarchist propaganda for us through channels normally reserved for government. The goal is not to win your elections, the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible. So there’s absolutely no incentive to work with you in promoting candidates, which is the primary function of your political activity. You’re right when you say “No candidate is good enough” for us, no matter who runs for office we will tear him down because nobody has the right to be our ruler.

repetitive7. We’ve already had this discussion a hundred times

If you had ever bothered to study the works of any of the great libertarian theorists, you wouldn’t be asking us the questions you are asking. You ask “Who will build the roads?” or “What about defense?” you tell us “There is no such thing as utopia” and a lot of other really tired arguments. It shows us that you haven’t taken so much as 10 minutes out of your miserable life to even make the slightest effort to understand what we are proposing.

In the meantime, we are always staying tuned to the propaganda you consume so that we can counter it. We write thoughtful articles, and make informative videos, and produce compelling audio content that explains in great detail what exactly it is your politicians and propagandists are saying, and why it is wrong.

You don’t pay any attention to any of that content because it’s not coming from “your team”, and everyone on “your team” repeats the same propaganda. So every time we get into a political argument, we already know what you’re going to say as soon as we know which team you’re on. We already know what the proper response to your propaganda is, and we already know that you are going to act irrationally when we respond. This is extraordinarily frustrating, because we’ve actually put a great deal of effort into this, and these repetitive arguments are tiring, especially when they yield no results.

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image198448216. All those “what ifs” you’re so concerned about, they’re called choices.

The nice thing about freedom is, people get to make their own decisions. We’re not entirely sure why this bothers you so much. Every time you ask us “What if X?” we have a thousand different answers we can give you, if you don’t like the first one, we’re happy to give you another. The whole point is, you get to decide for yourself what suits you best in a market environment.

You have become so used to the State being the arbiter of all things, that you seem to panic at every uncertainty. The funny part about this is, the State hasn’t provided you with any certainty at all. There’s absolute chaos in the world, governments have murdered over 260 million of their own citizens in the last century, not including war, and you’re still freaking out about speed limits.

misescharacterlimit5. I can’t teach you economics in 140 characters or less

The nice thing about the internet is, it allows us to communicate with many people very quickly. The downside is that this instant gratification has led people to believe answers will just be fed to them without any effort. If you really think that you’re qualified to walk into a voting booth and decide who will run the world and how, then you should have the common decency to study economics first.

All these discussions we’re having really boil down to economics. Your politicians and propagandists feed off of your prejudices and religious ideas and emotions because that’s the easiest way to manipulate you into acting against your own best interests. These tactics allow them to operate in a soundbite world and oversimplify matters. For us to explain to you what’s wrong with those soundbites actually requires some understanding of how human beings respond to incentives in a market environment. We produce thousands of pages of text, and countless hours of audio and video explaining these things. The best we can hope for in a tweet is to link you to some of it and hope you read/listen/watch, but you never do, do you?

IQ4. We actually are smarter than you

The Triple Nine Society, an organization whose membership is reserved for people with IQ’s in the top one tenth of one percent, even more discriminating than Mensa, did a survey on the politics of its members. The results don’t surprise us. Members overwhelmingly supported legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and gambling. They supported gun rights, and free markets. They opposed government involvement in medicine, and income taxes.

Government is a scam, and like other scams it relies on the gullibility of its victims. We’re not falling for it, but you are, and your support of that system harms us. Your stupidity literally hurts.

morality23. Our moral superiority is justified

We know that you have some pretty twisted ideas on morality that stem from religious doctrines and other ancient texts, but logically speaking, morality should be consistent. If your moral platform can’t be applied universally, then it really doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

That’s why your politicians, religious leaders, and propagandists are always getting caught doing things that go against the words they speak. Priests get caught having gay sex, socialists acquire vast amounts of wealth, “family values” candidates get caught cheating on their wives, gun control advocates murder millions of people. Their moral platforms are inconsistent, this makes them rather meaningless, and so there is no reason for them to adhere thereto.

Our moral platform is basically just the non initiation of force. As long as we don’t rob, assault, kidnap, and murder, we’re perfectly within our moral code. This is pretty easy for most people, since violence doesn’t appeal to us, and so we rarely end up looking like hypocrites.

ron-paul-alone2. We’re not asking for much

If you want to have people threaten you all the time and tell you what to do, that’s your business. We don’t recommend it or anything, but really you’re more than welcome to submit to someone else’s authority in the absence of the State. We might talk to you about the virtues of freedom, but we’re honestly not trying to force you to be free. All we’re saying is you have no right to force us under the same authority.

By contrast, you want to take our property, force us into wars, “educate” our children, and control our business and personal relationships. You have some really weird idea in your head that this notion of “government” makes that okay, but there is no other circumstance in which you would consider that socially acceptable. We don’t believe in government, so we look at this like any other lunatic trying to do these things to us.

Seriously, what the fuck? Just leave me alone.

riot-police_9-2-081. You always resort to violence

Polite discussion in State politics is an illusion. At the end of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.

Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don’t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.

You give us absolutely no option for escaping this violence. We are forced to choose between the violence of you, or the violence of someone else. You tell us “Love it or leave it!” or “Move to Somalia!” like I don’t have any right to be left in peace in my own home. The fact of the matter is, if you give us a choice of violence or violence, eventually we’re going to give some violence back to you, and making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

Subscribe to “Christopher Cantwell Essays” Audio Podcast on iTunes and Stitcher

  • CT Jaynes

    Best article yet… Well done sir.

  • Marc Foster

    I love it!

  • Onlooker from Troy

    This is soooo good. This is up there in the pantheon of great articles on the fundamentals of anarchy, and statists, both. Kudos, and keep it up.

  • Kenneth Moore

    This is a very good article. Sharing it daily!

  • Corn Holio

    May be the “greatest” “manifesto” EVER written. Please keep up the GREAT work!

  • Zionistout

    I used to think libertarians were great once as well. I quickly found out they are nothing but the third head of the Bolshevik Jew globalist snake. Take number 10 for example you mention that Right wing people tend to be xenophobic. You said against homosexuals which is wrong because the definition of xenophobia is an irrational fear of people from other countries. The fact that you would use the term xenophobia tells me you are one of the left leaning libertarians who are pro open borders and illegal immigration and would most likely support amnesty. Also the fact that you mentioned xenophobia against immigrants pretty much solidifies this thought. Also you can’t be that smart because you used the term xenophobia improperly. The word you should have used was homophobia. Also you seem to have no respect for peoples religious beliefs. Again signs that you are leftist libertarian. So you aren’t a libertarian just another leftist globalist. You also seem to forget that people will always flock towards a government and some form of order. It is how people are “wired”. I am waiting for the day the US splits apart. Which will eventually happen. Hopefully a National Socialist state is formed in one of the break away regions. Also no one takes you libertarians serious. You are just carbon copies of the neocon and liberal Jew puppets wrapped in a new package. You all pretty much spew the same kind of tripe.

    • Marc Foster

      U MAD?

      • Bryce Benjamin Silver

        I dunno, the man doesn’t like tripe.

        • Ronald Yunis

          You suppose he keeps Kosher?

    • Bryce Benjamin Silver

      Libertarian, liberal, jew…. leftist-libertarian… I’m sorry but I can’t help but laugh at a racist jackal like you

    • damagecrab

      Xenophobia is fear of someone/something different or alien to you. If you are a sheltered, heterosexual with no introduction to homosexuals, they would be “alien” to you. Literally. So, he’s using the term correctly.

      As for not respecting other people’s religious views… that’s crap. I’m one those “bronze age idiots” who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (read Christian Humanist) and even I don’t buy that. He has clearly stated that if you can prove the existence of a higher power he will believe. Until then, he shall remain an atheist. Sure he pokes fun at us but only when we go out of our way to act like fools in the first place. We put ourselves out there and make choices / take actions that invite ridicule. You can’t get more fair than that. What you are looking for is touchy-feely reassurance that it’s “OK” to believe in a Cosmic Muffin. That’s mollycoddling and no one has a right to demand it. If you need to be constantly reassured in your beliefs, you need to re-examine them.

    • Karl Schipul

      Chris is an anarchocapitalist, so saying he MIGHT support amnesty is like saying an abolitionist MIGHT support more comfortable chains for slaves.

      It misses the point entirely. Abolitionists want the entire system of slavery done away with and anarchocapitalists want all forms of statism to go bye-bye. Logically, there can be no closed borders OR sending immigrants back, except for those on your own private property.

      I suggest you read a little about anarchocapitalism before coming here next time.

    • Disco Biscuits

      B-. Not bad

    • pyrodice

      -He used Xenophobia correctly.
      -I’m all for anti-zionism, just don’t get mixed up in antisemitism, ok?
      -*I* have little respect for religious beliefs… Mostly because tacking on the word “religious” usually means that they use a blind-acceptance called “faith” in lieu of logic and rational thinking.
      -people aren’t illegal, and wouldn’t it be just fine as long as we didn’t have to worry about new snouts in a public trough that we reject anyways?

    • “You also seem to forget that people will always flock towards a government and some form of order” ahhh yes sheep do that.

  • TJ

    Unfortunately, I still strive to be a gentleman while debating people, but for certain reasons, most of them mentioned above, I’ve quickly grown tired of engaging in a Socratic discussion and instead go for the throat, rhetorically speaking (most of the time).

    When it boils down to it, what irritates me the most is that we have spent hours of our free time reading articles, columns, books and even research papers, educating ourselves thoroughly so that when we speak about these issues we do so in an informed manner. And yet we are given no respect for that, or even an acknowledgement of it.

    That is because most of the people who argue with us are as ignorant about these topics as a Medieval peasant. They have not read a single article or book on the topic, and are too lazy or cowardly to do so, yet they think because they went to college and paid $100,000 for a degree they have the right to comment on any topic and then think we’re rude or jerks for having the audacity to point out that their going to college had nothing to do with getting an education.

    Why should I be courteous to someone who doesn’t possess the intellectual honesty to remain silent on an issue they know nothing about? I know nothing about math, ergo I don’t lecture mathematicians on the finer points of Extremal graph theory. If a mathematician pointed this out to me, it would because he’s too honesty to ignore it.

    The second thing that really irritates me is that after being crushed in an argument, these same people then claim they’re playing “devil’s advocate,” which is a polite way of saying “I’m completely ignorant about this subject matter, which makes me feel insecure about myself, but I’m too proud to remain silent and go and research it, so I’m going to avoid defending any position and instead attack the beliefs of someone who actually took the time to learn about it and insult their intelligence by asking a bunch of of stupid questions or making worthless declarative statements, because I have no beliefs, and if I did I’d expose how unlearned I truly am, and that isn’t fair because I have a degree!”

    • gwhosubex

      The love of government had the same root as love for sorts teams, religion, race, college. It’s ego investment into a group that had nothing to do with merit or virtue.

      Until people largely learn their value outside of these constructs designed to manipulate you, it will be much more difficult for them to think objectively in matters that involve their invested ego.

      • pyrodice

        reminds me of a quote that, as far as I know, I originated a few years back when talking to inmates in a rehab program:
        “Respect is for what you DO, not who you ARE.”

      • John Stuart Mill

        Great diction

      • Rajaat99 .

        I wouldn’t say love is correct word to use, I would say blind obediance.

    • Libertarianism may look great on paper and when you study it in a book, but in practice, or at least the version of it that most of us have become familiar with from people calling themselves libertarians, it is useless. It has the social hallmarks of progressivism, but the economic hallmarks of social Darwinism that make the GOP corporatism seem quaint.

      • TJ

        Libertarianism is based on the Non-Aggression Principle: No one may initiate violence or coercion against an innocent person or their property. If you believe this, you are a libertarian, regardless of what else you may believe.

        • But there are shades of gray even with such a dumbed-down description of the ideology, areas for disagreement. It also seems like one big No True Scotsman argument that attempts to discredit libertarians that don’t fit your mold.

          • TJ

            Give me an example of where this doesn’t fit. I require more than a simple declarative statement.

            And out of all the ideologies to attack, why attack the one where its adherents believe you have rights they cannot violate? Or is it because we don’t believe others have legitimate authority over us unless we consent to it?

          • I’m perfectly capable of addressing flaws in any ideology. My main points of contention with libertarinism lie with the economic principles which lend themselves to greed and lack of empathy for others. This article talks about morals, yet I fail to see how one can have any sort of moral system with such a lack of empathy.

          • TJ

            I am not sure how you come to this conclusion. Empathy is an emotion and mindset. Politicians and others donate to charity but they are not empathetic towards those whom they harm.

            You’re perfectly capable but you won’t mention any.

            Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a moral one.

          • Why do I need to mention other ideologies which I have issues with when we’re only discussing libertarianism? What relevance does that have to this discussion? I mean, really, a lot of the issues that the author had with conservatism I agree with.

            You can call libertarianism a political philosophy, yet here you are arguing with me over the morality of abortion as understood through the lens of libertarianism. The two are intertwined, it is inescapable.

          • pyrodice

            And yet, as a libertarian, I’m pro choice for the same reason I want all OTHER prohibitions ended: They get a lot of people killed, reduce the safe use of whatever resource gets banned, and make millions of dollars for the evilest assholes you’ve ever had the misfortune to meet.
            I also see it as a person having the highest claim as to how their body is used, at all times. I think that if I kick renters out of my house, even if I invited them there, even if they tell me they will die, I still HAVE that right…
            I think that anyone who allows a person to die while needing an organ transplant, while they themselves HAVE that organ has proven that they AGREE that they own their body to a higher degree than the needs of another person’s life.
            You see, that’s one issue we all feel strongly about, but don’t have a united ideology for.

          • redmike

            You’re advocating initiating violence against an unborn child. According to the article, that makes you no real Libertarian.

          • pyrodice

            Oh, on the contrary, if you insist on my removing it intact and unharmed, I would. Even more gently than I’d evict my own tenants, in fact. Just for you.

          • I guess I should have specified through the lens of his concept of libertarianism. My point wasn’t really to debate abortion, but to demonstrate that political philosophy and morality are intertwined.

          • Granola Bob

            upon elected president i would leave you alone to live how you want unless it infringed upon the rights of others to do the same.

          • BYODB

            From where I’m sitting you’re just as guilty of hyperbole and blind faith as some of the libertarians you’re arguing against PA. Your constant use of the word ‘civilized’ makes me wonder what you consider civilized; as that word is rather subjective to many people. Cannibals in Africa no doubt consider themselves ‘civilized’ as well, but I doubt you would agree.

            Your overuse of strawmen also make me wonder which ‘libertarians’ you constantly argue with.

            Regardless, our system of government here in these United States isn’t even statism anymore. It’s more akin to a corporate hegemony as corporations are no longer beholden to any nation at all. So even those proponents of a massive overarching state/federal apparatus of control aren’t getting what they want. One could even say that those corporate interests somewhat represent the beliefs of some libertarians. (Although clearly not all and probably not even a majority.)

            I tend to agree that libertarianism has flaws, but the biggest flaw of all is that it is inconsistent in it’s meaning; as are all easily applied political labels so it’s hard to level that charge against libertarians and not say the same of liberal, democratic, republican, or conservative.

            This is the inherent flaw of arguing politics; labels are both ubiquitous and misleading in the extreme. We all have our preconceived meaning of the words that may, or may not, have any real bearing on our own beliefs.

          • I agree that labels are useless for the purposes of political debate, but there are still universal principles that are at the core of any ideology. Every libertarian I’m aware of believes in the free market, and that’s where I draw the line and what I consider makes libertarianism a free-for all.

            Civilized society is one in which people work cooperatively and altruistically. Libertarianism is hardly distinguishable from tribalism, which is what humans had prior to civilization.

          • fantasticrice

            Exactly right: libertarianism is free-for-all. Working together cooperatively and altruistically is exactly what it proposes.

            The part you seem unwilling to accept is that this requires that those who don’t voluntarily cooperate be free not to, provided they are not violating the rights of others. Forcing them to do act “morally” makes everyone complicit neither cooperative nor altruistic.

          • Peter Hauer

            You said, “Civilized society is one in which people work cooperatively and altruistically.” Really? You have just described paradise on earth, and yet you call us libertarians “utopians?”

            Ironically, the political theory which can bring us closest to your dream world is LIBERTARIANISM.

            And what do you propose to do with people who do not share your vision of cooperation and altruism? WIll you tie them up and horse whip them? After all, that’s exactly what the great liberal Rousseau proposed. What a lovely “civilized” society. Don’t you see? “Cooperation” and “altruism” CANNOT BE ENFORCED. By definition, they can only be voluntary. Your vision is really just fascism with a friendly face.

          • BYODB

            I tend to agree with you for the most part, and you are 100% correct when you say there is no utopia. The only true Utopia is one where free choice and thought simply do not exist.

            I especially like the part where you say cooperation and altruism can not be enforced; which is where a lot of liberal political thought starts to break down.

          • Peter Hauer

            You are too kind Sir.

          • BYODB

            So you don’t believe in a free market? Pray tell what alternative to a free market you would suggest? The Union’s and Teamsters of yesteryear? Leninist Socialism? That appears to be your view of ‘civilized’, which is you want to be told what to do by a beneficent dictator who is a largely mythical animal.

            No society on earth is Civilized by your measure Atheist. A society based on Altruism also does not exist, nor has one ever existed on any scale beyond perhaps a city state.

            Laissez-faire has done more to bring people out of poverty than any other single government system or religion on Earth, and that is a fact.

          • GrayCat

            Cooperation and altruism are VOLUNTARY.

            Please look up those words.

            You CANNOT FORCE either one and have anything resembling civilization.

            Why do you not see the blatant contradictions inherent in your philosophy, your choice of words, and your “good intentions”?

          • pyrodice

            Thinking that political philosophy and morality are intertwined will send you tilting at windmills. You can find sociopaths, indeed, even psychopaths, with all sorts of beliefs. There are those who WANT government in charge of everything so they can TAKE control, and abuse it… There are those who want government GONE, thinking it will allow them to run bartertown… There are those who just want to be able to shoot their opponents, be they liberal or conservative…

            But libertarianism seems to stand unique in that the platform isn’t ABOUT an issue, but about the principle underlying. If the same could be said about the Republican or Democrat party, you wouldn’t have seen a 180º turn since the civil war.

          • Peter Hauer

            So we libertarians lack “empathy.” Why should I feel empathy for a woman who has four kids out of wedlock just so she can get more money from the public purse? I feel as much empathy for her as I do for a corporate parasite working at Goldman Sachs. And is it “moral” to force me to work for someone else’s benefit?!? Your socialist state is a polite form of SLAVERY.

          • Sweet hyperbole. Do they teach that in Libertarianism 101?

            You’re literally brushing off being a sociopath. Yeah, I’m thinking we probably shouldn’t let you guys get any power.

          • Peter Hauer

            Your reply is both unfair and ironic. It is unfair because I never implied that your desire to enslave tax-payers is a personality defect,(i.e. “sociopath”). Your reply is ironic because the only people who are dangerous with power are libs and neo cons, because they want want to control their fellow human beings. Libertarians are much safer to entrust with power, because they DO NOT WANT TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE. Is this really hard for you to accept?

          • “Enslave taxpayers”? Again with the hyperbole. While some tax-funded programs may be questionable, there is no doubt that basic infrastructure is a requirement for any productive civilized nation. The concept of completely abolishing taxes and making it everyone for themselves or putting it in the hands of private corporations is a disaster waiting to happen.

            You can claim that libertarians don’t want to control anyone, but the end result of your utopia would be the vast majority of people being in poverty, controlled by the elite few. It’s not a system fit for a civilized nation, it’s more appropriate for the wild frontier.

          • Peter Hauer

            You made a few statements that need correction. First, you assumed that I am opposed to ALL taxes. No sir. I am merely opposed to using tax money to pay certain groups of people (e.g. poor people, people over 65, the UAW, and big banks.) Of course I agree with you that we need tax money for certain public infrastructures, but that is different from “redistributing the wealth.”

            Historically, for most of human history, kingdoms have taxed for only a few reasons: 1 military defense, 2. public works, (canals, walls, roads, etc) 3. to support a state religion. 4. to support the government itself. (scribes, the king’s court, harem, etc.)

            The only exceptions were a few FAILED attempts at socialism in the Hellenspont, and in ancient China (Han and Sung dynasties), That is all.

            It is only recently in human history that socialism (taxing one class to pay off another class) has become widespread and long lived. It will die out as the socialist governments go bankrupt, as their welfare class grows faster than their producing class. According to news.yahoo.com it is already happening in Sweden. They are cutting way back on welfare simply because they are going broke.

            Socialism will naturally take a lot longer to fail in modern industrialized nations simply because we have more accumulated wealth to “burn up” than did the ancient Chinese. History laughs at socialism.
            .

          • Vince Collins

            so when do the elite few control anyone without guns?

          • freedom74

            Government is a disaster now. I don’t care about your nancy boy bed-wetting about the removal of your idiotic security blanket, mommy and daddy government,

            I love how you think that peaceful cooperation will destroy the world, so you want to repress it with nukes and fiat currency and prison systems, because that shows “empathy”.

            The Orwellian doublespeak continues…..

            Next argument.

          • John Stuart Mill

            Why are Gypsies such gentle lovers…?

            Because they have crystal balls.

            Next time you bash anarcho-capitalism, I’ll refer you to taco stands and hookers. Taco stands compete on price and quality, as do hookers. But without the looming tithe of pigs with guns, there are no pimps over the taco stands.

            Force is violence and it’s evil. You are an evil twerp. A Thief. In the good old days, you’d be dead by now.

          • GrayCat

            Have you ever ACTUALLY read any libertarians on these topics? You exactly fulfill #6, #5, #2, and #1 cited in the article.

            You ask about things that have been exhaustively discussed, researched, written about ad nauseum, by libertarians exceedingly qualified in their fields. For instance, have you ever bothered to read the works of Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Michael Rozeff, just for starters? You might do that before repeating your emotional knee-jerk exhibition here.

            Your only aim is to slander and destroy what you know nothing, in reality, about.

            Why?

          • pyrodice

            “Again with the hyperbole. While some tax-funded programs may be questionable, there is no doubt that basic infrastructure is a requirement for any productive civilized nation. ”
            The liberal always makes the leap from the idea that we don’t want the state to do a thing, to the mistaken conclusion that it means we don’t want the thing done at all. I don’t want the state to run my phone company: Does that mean I want everyone to go back to using smoke signals?

          • Jesus, you’re even in there with the :”Utopia” stuff? What a dimwitted troll you are. GTFO.

          • Sorry I haven’t joined your cult

          • Nobody wants you.

          • Apparently not Mensa…

          • letmego

            Do yourself a favor and read “Against Leviathan” by Higgs.

          • Of course it would be endorsed by Ron Paul…

          • Philippe David

            “”Enslave taxpayers”? Again with the hyperbole. While some tax-funded programs may be questionable, there is no doubt that basic infrastructure is a requirement for any productive civilized nation. The concept of completely abolishing taxes and making it everyone for themselves or putting it in the hands of private corporations is a disaster waiting to happen.”

            What do you call taking other people’s property by force or threat of force? Where I come from, it’s called theft and it’s immoral no matter who does it, whether it’s a single person, a group, or a bunch of elected officials.

            What do you call having 100% of the fruits of your labor taken away from you? Some call it slavery. Now tell me, at what percentage does confiscating the fruits of your labor ceases to be slavery?

          • Dylan Griffin

            “The concept of completely abolishing taxes and making it everyone for themselves or putting it in the hands of private corporations is a disaster waiting to happen?”

            You are aware that our income tax isn’t even 100 years old yet right?

          • And what was the state of our infrastructure 100 years ago?

          • Dylan Griffin

            As good as it needed to be. Average standard of living has slowly declined since 1920 (with the exception of the great depression) and income taxes have slowly increased. Thanks to the fed and inflation and taxes it takes a higher percentage of your money to buy the same quality goods than it used to.

          • Right, because correlation = causation. It’s not like economics is complex or anything, clearly this is a direct cause and effect…

            Look what we get when we rely upon private industry to build infrastructure. The ISP’s want to be able to throttle internet speeds and sell access to consumers to the highest bidder. That’s not in the public’s interest. Infrastructure should be a collective, public effort.

          • Dylan Griffin

            You obviously don’t understand networking or how internet bandwidth works. In a city like L.A. for example, NOT throttling peoples internet would be extremely bad.

            The amount of down/up speed is directly affected by the physical cables that connect all of the networks together. Everyone would have laggy internet all the time. Putting prices on different amounts of access is a very efficient way of dividing up the limited amount of bandwidth we have.
            So yes, it is in the public’s interest. I worked for a telecom company for a little while and it was all on the clock, in case something went down. I would get calls at 3 a.m. if a server went down or there were any problems.
            Not to mention the costs of maintaining internet infrastructure is extremely expensive.

            Thanks to competition if AT&T doesn’t do what i like or they charge to much for too little amount of bandwidth then I can switch to, Charter/Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Optimum, Frontier, Century Link etc.

            But you want to hand the reigns over to the state who holds no accountability. Your internet will cut out multiple times a day, and they probably won’t even offer different levels of bandwidth.
            It’s quite nice to have options. Some people don’t use much internet other than to just answer emails and go on facebook. This requires almost nil amount of bandwidth. For other people like myself, need much much more, so i have the option to pay more and get more, which i am WILLING to pay because i get what i want for my money.

          • Nevermind, I forgot you were a libertarian…aka corporate shill. You seem to have the same level of understanding about the internet as people who oppose the ACA have of the healthcare industry. You pretend like the base rate for service would get any lower than it is now. Yeah, and “a la carte” programming is coming soon to cable TV…

          • Dylan Griffin

            Suggesting I don’t understand the internet, is like suggesting a Doctor doesn’t understand how the circulatory system works. My work experience is almost entirely exclusive to Networking and Computers.

            “You pretend like the base rate for service would get any lower than it is now.”

            Pretty sure that’s what YOU did. I did not suggest any such thing. I only suggest that it can and WILL get higher if given to the hands of the state. You’re complaint that ISP’s are overcharging for internet access seems to suggest that it will become cheaper if they weren’t in control of it anymore.

            And I am the furthest thing from a “Corporate Shill” I am a blue collar worker. I am poor and i will probably never break 50k a year as long as l live. I have NOTHING but empathy for other people in the same living conditions as I, but i’m not about to start blaming walmart or Nike because I refuse to do the hardwork necessary to make a lot of money. And actually I’m not really a libertarian anymore, i’ve pretty much gone all the way to anarchism.

          • Plenty of doctors are unfamiliar with the circulatory system. Do you want a neurosurgeon performing heart surgery on you? Or a dentist giving advice on vaccination (*cough* Rand Paul *cough*)?

            It doesn’t matter if you worked for an ISP. You still are demonstrating ignorance about how this works. Net Neutrality is not a government takeover of the internet, it’s simply allowing the government to regulate the internet as a utility, which will stifle attempts by ISPs to screw consumers and web-based businesses. My internet works just fine right now, there’s no need to change anything. The ACA isn’t a government takeover of healthcare, it’s regulation which helps consumers and limits the ability of corporations to screw people.

            If you are espousing these corporate lobbyist arguments, then you are a shill. Internet rates are not going to go up because of this. In fact, if we had national broadband, then this wouldn’t even be an issue. This is why there should always be a public option. That’s what keeps prices low.

            And, while libertarianism is bad enough, anarchism is even worse. Talk about social Darwinism.

          • Dylan Griffin

            Actually, you’re not much of a Doctor if you don’t understand the Circulatory system. It’s one of the most important systems that run your body. Everything that you ingest or breathe or do, is either affected by your circulatory system or affects your circulatory system. They do need to know enough about it just to do their jobs AT ALL.

            Please explain to me. The network admin, how I display ignorance on the subject of networking. Then please call my boss and let him know that every time i’ve ever fixed something, it was just a fluke and i got lucky.

            No the ACA isn’t a takeover of healthcare. It just makes a giant clusterfuck of the whole thing. It makes people like me have to pay MORE money (money I don’t have) to the state. Let me give you a brief explanation.
            I don’t make enough money to afford my companies health insurance policies, so up until the ACA passed I had no coverage. When the ACA passed i decided to give it a look because Obama had suggested that it would be as “cheap as a cell phone bill” Turns out it was more than twice as much as the insurance plans my company were providing. And if the government run Healthcare centers are anything like any of the other government run institutions *cough the DMV cough* (which they are) I don’t want to have anything to do with them. So basically now i’m FORCED to purchase medical insurance just so i don’t have to go to court to pay ILLEGAL fines because i couldnt fucking afford obamacare.
            So now i’m cutting back on groceries and i have no money going into my savings.

            And back to your first paragraph, it’s completely irrelevant to bring up specializations. Just because a Doctor doesn’t have the specific training in removing a heart doesn’t mean he can’t tell you that the heart has four chambers, or that the Aorta is the main artery in the human body, or that veins take carry de-oxygenated blood and arteries carry oxygenated.

          • The point is that being a “doctor” or “scientist” doesn’t qualify you necessarily as an expert on anything in medicine or science. There are many different disciplines which fall under these umbrellas. I didn’t say you were “ignorant on networking”, I said you’re clearly ignorant on how the laws and regulations will impact the internet, and your opinion demonstrates this.

            Your opinion on the ACA also demonstrates your ignorance. What “government run healthcare centers” were established by the ACA? Are you referring to the online insurance exchanges which create competition and help you find the lowest rate for insurance coverage you need? You mean the exchanges that many red states have refused to set up? You mean the red states where governors have refused the Medicare expansion to help people who fall into the income gaps?

            You’re not FORCED to do anything. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to make you buy insurance. However, if you don’t have insurance, and file a tax return, and are do a refund, then they can take the penalty out of your refund. And that’s only if you tell them you don’t have insurance or if you get audited and they find out you don’t. There’s no going to court or paying fines. But keep believing the propaganda. I bet you think there are death panels, too? So, boo hoo, you have to take responsibility for your own healthcare instead of relying upon the rest of society to pay higher costs to cover your expenses when you inevitably need healthcare and don’t have insurance. And, of course, a public option again would be the best scenario here, but people like you rail against that like the plague, so we end up with a system that, while an improvement, is not ideal.

          • Dylan Griffin

            force

            fôrs/
            noun
            2.
            coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
            “they ruled by law and not by force”

            Please see definition 2 above.

            If i do not pay said fines i WILL be jailed, and if i resist imprisonment i am either physically FORCED to go or shot. Please explain to me how i am NOT forced.
            Thanks.

          • Wrong.

            We don’t have debtor’s prisons. You cannot and will not be jailed for not having health insurance. There’s that ignorance again. I already explained it to you. The only way they can enforce this penalty is if you are due a tax refund and they are aware that you don’t have insurance, either by you telling them this or by them auditing your return.

            Both libertarianism and anarchism are fantasies which have not, nor ever could, exist in reality (unless you go back to pre-civilization, but I’m thinking we shouldn’t do that). As much as governments are prone to corruption, either of these systems are worse because they lack the regulation and order which at least staves off total chaos and subjugation at the hands of the plutocrats or sociopaths of society.

            I’m not concerned at all about personal attacks. I’m demonstrating your lack of knowledge on these topics. Your opinion on government is clearly skewed by your misunderstanding of it.

          • Dylan Griffin

            By the way, here’s a little suggestion. Sarcasm over the internet goes unnoticed quite often. You’d probably be better off putting a cap on it.

          • You’d probably be better off stating your opinion more clearly.

          • glashoppah

            No one is safe to entrust with power.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            Yeah, I’m thinking we probably shouldn’t let you guys get any power.”

            We don’t WANT any power, dipshit. That’s the difference between the likes of you and the likes of us. You garble about “empathy” yet worship the use of initiatory force. Those that do, are the sociopaths. Not the ones that want to live their own lives, but the ones ready to use the gun and the nightstick to impose their refuted, emotion-based views on others. You are thieves, slave-takers and murderers hiding behind the veil of “legitimacy” of government force. Legitimacy that has been crushed already as hypocritical and immoral bullshit.

            The irony never ceases to amaze me that people who rationalize using force to impel others to live to their standards talk about “empathy”; that rather than being good filanthropists, they think they are “decent” and “empathic” by robbing OTHERS so they can feel good about themselves.

            “Yeah, I’m thinking we probably shouldn’t let you guys get any power.”

            We’re not going to get any power. But there will be a day that we are taking it away from you. And then you can show just how popular this idea of “empathy” in the way you see it will be, when people have a choice and don’t have the barrel of a gun at their temples.

          • Thanks for the immediate ad hominem, really effective.

            It’s strange how you claim to not want power, because there are libertarian political candidates. It would also be strange how you’d usher in this libertarian utopia without infiltrating the government in order to dismantle it.

            Of course you’re also bringing on the projection pretty hard. What is your proof that I want to initiate force? You guys think you can just repeat that ad nauseum and it becomes true? One of your cohorts earlier suggested that they are being threatened with violence if they don’t buy health insurance. I’m starting to wonder on what plane of reality you all live on.

            Funny how you rail against people using emotion to force their views onto others, yet you conclude by telling me that one day you’ll be taking away my rights. It’s also funny how you consider being a decent human being and being OK with paying taxes to help support the unfortunate ones among us as “sociopathic”, yet consider a complete lack of empathy for those outside your personal “tribe” to be anything but…

          • B D

            If I don’t buy insurance, I get hit with a fine – sorry, a “tax.” If I don’t pay the tax, I get hit with more fines. If I don’t pay my fines, I start getting harassed and intimidated by agents. If I continue to not pay the government, agents will come to steal my property or arrest me. If I resist the theft of my property or the arrest of my person, I get shot.

            This is the chain of events that masks the reality – that all the laws of the State are enforced ultimately through the threat of violence. If any point of this chain were not true, then it would be voluntary. But it isn’t, it’s compulsory, and that compulsion can -only- be achieved through violence.

          • freedom74

            So, anyone that claims “libertarian” is exactly like all other people claiming the same? Also your political candidate question was answered in #8. If you can’t be bothered to even remember the article you are commenting on, no one is going to take you seriously.

            Yes, overthrowing violent regimes is not often done without violence, but libertarians are trying.

            If you believe in the state, you believe in the initiation of force, because that is how the state works and perpetuates itself. Period, end of story.

            You have no RIGHT to get together with other people and vote to tell me what to do you SOB, and then kill or imprison me if I don’t comply! What makes you think you have that “RIGHT”!!!! We are declaring the taking back of our RIGHT to be free. You ignorant little piss-ant.

            We think idiots and fool that think that paying one group of armed goons to take money from people who you deem to have too much and give it to people you deem to not have enough is “charity” or “empathy” or anything except for theft, is beyond me. You have to be a complete dolt.

            “Empathy”, “charity” is giving when not compelled to problems you think you can fix or have some hand in for whatever reason you choose. There was and is charity outside of government, even within the libertarian community, it is on YOU to PROVE government is needed to cover these functions. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE LOGIC.

            Next argument. You are getting dumber every time you post though, you know that right? You are heading down the same fallacy slippery slope that all idiots run down when arguing with informed libertarians.

          • GrayCat

            Two wrongs make a right? It’s sociopathic to decide for oneself how and who to help — or if, but you’re okay with FORCING others to “help” whom YOU choose, by how much, and why?

            How is it not using force to have ENFORCEMENT penalties — including LETHAL force — to MAKE people “pay their taxes” — stick your hand into my pocket to grab from what I EARNED — to “help” those YOU believe we “should” be “helping”? Just how do you rationalize that YOU, using government FORCE AGAINST ANYONE ELSE, are the “empathetic” one and not the sociopath?

          • pyrodice

            “You guys think you can just repeat that ad nauseum and it becomes true?”
            Why not? You’re trying it with “sociopath”!

          • See, this is why you should just shut up already – “It’s strange how you claim to not want power, because there are libertarian political candidates.”

            Because in the very article you’re continuing to dribble your idiocy over, it clearly states, in your own language – “We’re not trying to win elections”. That’s right there, as #8 of 10 points. Clearly that’s higher than your I.Q.

            GTFO.

          • Right, because when a libertarian says something, they are obviously telling the truth. Because all politicians who call themselves libertarians aren’t really libertarians. They’re No True Scotsman…

            Obviously your commentary here speaks volumes about your own intelligence.

          • And still you push huh? Not content with such an error once you make it twice in your comments, then come back for a third? You actually are too stupid to understand that a “libertarian politician” is an oxymoron. It’s like someone calling themselves a “war-mongering pacifist”. But again, this is right there in the article, that talking to people like you is fruitless and your responses nonsensical gibberish. Please, carry on, as you’re such a beautiful example of what this article is about, i.e. idiots exactly like you.

          • You’re too stupid to understand that you are presenting a No True Scotsman fallacy with respect to libertarian politicians.

            You guys are like the creationists of libertarianism.

          • jeffsandychelsea .

            This is just my guess at why you think libertarians are dumb. Correct me if I’m wrong.

            1) You believe a society in the absence of government will rapidly descend into a situation where the poor are left to die, and anyone without the financial means to afford X is just fucked, SOL, forever to remain poor and hopeless.

            2) You believe libertarians accept the above premise and simply don’t care because they lack any form of empathy (i.e. they are are sociopaths), and are also completely sure that they themselves will not be among the suffering poor.

            3) Therefore, you believe libertarians are smug, egotistical, arrogant sociopaths with no consideration for anything but their own bank account (i.e. “Fuck you, I got mine!”), who masturbate every night to a world where the tiny percentage of ultra rich people (i.e. sociopathic libertarians) view the teeming masses of the starving, uneducated, dying poor from their mansion balconies, a la Elysium.

            Am I wrong?

          • I don’t think libertarians are necessarily dumb. There are smart and dumb people in most demographics.

            1) Pretty much, yes, and human existence pre-civilization basically confirms this. Not to mention just observing human behavior and the fact that it only takes a few people to ruin it for everyone.

            2) No, I don’t think that all libertarians accept this premise, otherwise they probably wouldn’t be libertarians. They either haven’t considered the likelihood of this outcome, or don’t think that it is possible. There are many different sects of libertarianism, and some libertarians indeed embrace such sociopathy.

            3) I believe some libertarians are smug, egotistical, arrogant sociopaths with selfish motives, but not all.

          • GrayCat

            You need to either read much more carefully or you need to stop twisting others’ words and tell the truth.

            He did NOT say libertarians would take away your RIGHTS. He said your POWER to force your will on the rest of us would be taken away.

            As in, your precious government could no longer punish people for having empathy on the people of their choice instead of paying the powers that be to force them to “have empathy” on those the powers dictate they must.

            The mere fact that government the way you want it has a monopoly on the use of force means, duh, that only it — with you hiding behind it and cheering it on — can initiate force.

            You support it, you own it, whatever it is, is because of you, because you want it. You state that over and over again. You want others to be taxed, and punished if they resist, because you pay taxes and are happy to do it because you think it expresses your “empathy,” and that therefore, the rest of us must be made to, as well.

            That’s initiation of force, “Prototype.” And there’s NOTHING decent about it.

          • pyrodice

            Did you have some case you’d like to report to us, in which a libertarian candidate took office, and then started using that power to curtail other’s rights?

          • LOL, no, because nobody takes libertarian candidates seriously. Even those who claim to be libertarian, like Rand Paul, oppose personal freedoms like the right to choose and gay marriage. What a joke.

          • pyrodice

            Ok, so “no”, and then you name a republican. Got it.

          • Libertarians are Republican. There’s no Libertarian Party that has any real traction. Libertarians are essentially Republicans who want to let people smoke weed and allow things like abortion and prostitution (although, again, not in all cases, like Paul). Besides, I fail to see how an ideology that doesn’t believe in government would be successful in running for office since they’d then be part of government. Their only aim would be to intentionally break government so it doesn’t work and claim this is proof, just like the Tea Party has done with the sequester and government shutdown and obstruction of everything.

          • pyrodice

            lol. Not even an argument. Just… “no”. There is no way libertarians are republicans. Consider Burning Man. Pot-smoking sexual promiscuants of all walks of life can resonate with the freedom message, but tell them it’s “conservative” and they’ll laugh.

            “There’s no Libertarian Party that has any real traction”

            It’s not a horse race, you don’t get rewarded for picking the one you think will WIN.

            “Besides, I fail to see how an ideology that doesn’t believe in government would be successful in running for office since they’d then be part of government”

            They’re showing you something that gets claimed all over the internet, time after time, as an attempt to actually hold the real freedom movement down: that “You should get elected and change the system from within” is utter horseshit. Both for its hypocrisy (as you point out) but for its futility (as I think you also point out). But where it HAS happened, as with Paul’s congressional district, Gary Johnson’s home state… Things stop being in debt as badly. Stupid ideas actually get called out, or tossed out, rather than hoisted up the flagpole.

            “Their only aim would be to intentionally break government so it doesn’t work”

            they’re way too late for that. They’re just stopping the enabling and excuses, and LETTING it hang itself. A government that claims we need it in order to preserve our rights? Yet it operates by curtailing, abrogating, and stealing our rights? I don’t think Libertarians broke this.

            ” just like the Tea Party has done with the sequester and government shutdown and obstruction of everything.”

            …The government shutdown of everything that DIDN’T have the purpose of violence and destruction you mean. The exact opposite of libertarian principles. Tell me, do you think a libertarian government would go “we don’t have the money to run state parks, so they’ll revert to what they were before government got here: permanently inaccessible”? Hell no. And how do you close such a thing? Are you going to write tickets? Who will? You’re “shut down” right? The only obstructionist in this scenario *IS* government.

          • Jayme LaFleur

            haha they deserved that one :)

          • freedom74

            Whooo, “sweet hyperbole”, hypocrite much?

            Your argument that some people are bad, so that ALL people need to be treated like criminals is ridiculous on it’s face and could only be hyperbole, so of course the person your are speaking to will reply in kind.

            Next argument.

          • GrayCat

            What is a sociopath?

          • pyrodice

            You push that ‘sociopath’ button pretty easily. I should reply to it with the “utilitarian” button, just as often.

          • Ronald Yunis

            “Lack of empathy” is an attribute which YOU and you alone have defined and assigned to the libertarian model. YOUR idea that economic principles of Libertarianism “lend themselves to greed and lack of empathy” in no way supports a causal relationship between Libertarian ideals and lack of empathy. This is akin to stating that feathers “lend themselves” to the ability to fly and therefore all feathered creatures fly.

            Part of having a choice is the choice to help others. Libertarians do not give up their right to that choice. An example of this is evidenced by TJ’s desire to protect the unborn.

          • The most interesting thing that seems to happen any time I engage libertarians in debate is that none of them can seem to come to an agreement on what exactly libertarianism means. However, there does seem to be an overarching trend towards wanting to keep everything you’ve earned and not wanting to pay for any sort of public or collective infrastructure or services. It’s like turning the clock back a few centuries and living on the wild frontier…except that such a thing simply isn’t possible in an already-civilized area.

            The consistent notion that nobody can take anything from you and that you’re under no obligation to help anyone else is, by nature, selfish. Usually in tandem with this notion is the notion that the suffering of others is not your concern, and that’s where the lack of empathy comes in.

            So, unless I’ve somehow misunderstood what almost every libertarian has told me is their economic philosophy, my criticisms are spot-on.

          • Peter Hauer

            Why do you call the forceful redistribution of wealth “civilized?” if you look at the full scope
            of human history, you will see that Socialism is actually a barbaric return to “the law of the jungle.”

            As David Galland observed, in our primitive past, when one cave man wanted another cave man’s property, he would simply conk the other fellow over the head, and take it by force.

            Nowadays, poor people simply vote for politicians who do all the conking for them. Liberals dress up socialism with elections, and they even call it “social justice.” But it’s really just well-organized looting.

          • Nonsense. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You are free to go to any libertarian nation of your choosing.

            What’s that? No such thing exists? Oh, that’s weird, it’s so successful and all.

          • Peter Hauer

            Did you really say that I should leave the country if I don’t like your social welfare policies? Are all liberals as intolerant as you?

            How about if YOU leave the country? I think your emigration would benefit the nation more.

            And you FAILED (as usual) to reply to my argument on the merits.(That socialism is not “civilized”) Liberals love to dodge away from an issue when they get cornered.

          • freedom74

            Ah, the do it my way or get out, or we will shoot or imprison you argument.

            Yup, all you statist, psychopathic, sociopathic nuts always resort to violence.

            Libertarianism is highly successful. People life by the principles all day every day. Thing is there would be no such thing as a “libertarian nation” you dolt, have you missed the whole conversation so far?

            The problem I think really is just that. Can intelligent people that dislike violence actually live peaceably beside low brow, violent, troglodytes such as yourself?

            Next argument….

          • pyrodice

            Yeah, almost like how they used to say “I don’t know how you think any nation can get by without slavery, since it’s never been done anywhere successfully.”

            It just had to be allowed to happen once. It’ll catch on after that.

          • Luke Weinhagen

            You make the assumption that help requires obligation. I pity you for that. I really do.

            What you call morality is the opposite – when someone forces you to do something, you can not call yourself moral for doing it. Only when it is your choice, and your choice alone, can you claim morality for making that choice. As soon as you say – “We need a law for X” you are acknowledging that society in not moral about X and must have it’s hand forced (or law enforced if you prefer). Once again I pity you, for a complete lack of understanding of morality.

            Reading this thread alone it seems like libertarians nearly unanimously agree about a definition: non-initiation of force. Then you claim that will not work so they expand. That is not them disagreeing, that is them attempting to use different examples to describe simplicity to stupidity.

          • Nobody should have to force you to be a decent person.

            Unless you’re a libertarian, of course.

          • fantasticrice

            In other words: your morality is superior and thus justified in forcing others to do what you believe is best. If it’s really best, why not just convince others to do it voluntarily?

          • Andrew Patton

            You can say the same about the non-aggression principle. Your logic is an argument against having any laws at all. Yes, I do believe that murder is evil and thus we are justified in forcing people not to murder under pain of death.

          • GrayCat

            You could educate yourself about what libertarian anarchism REALLY is, rather than demonstrating your ignorance about what it is. Please?

          • fantasticrice

            Seems like you don’t understand the NAP, so I’m not surprised you disagree with it.

          • Andrew Patton

            I’m not saying I disagree with it; I’m saying the logic of libertarians is incomplete.

          • fantasticrice

            I am sure that’s true on a case-by-case basis, but your comment certainly didn’t demonstrate it.

          • freedom74

            If I don’t believe I should have to give to charity at the point of a gun, why does that mean I will never give to charity?

            Your non-sequitur is getting REALLY OLD.

            Next argument…..

          • GrayCat

            You think “decency” can be FORCED?!

            That is nothing more than monstrous.

            So you do not see your own indecency in wishing to force anyone else to your ideas?!

          • Andrew Patton

            Outward conformity to the non-aggression principle can be forced. If you don’t believe that, you haven’t thought it through.

          • GrayCat

            If you’re talking about libertarianism, you are wrong. If by “forced,” in a specifically libertarian society, you mean “regulated” to wise circumspection by peer pressure, then you might be right. The point is, if one wants to live in a libertarian society, with peace, freedom, respect, prosperity, and all that goes with it, one must curb his aggressive and anti-social impulses.

            But it’s VOLUNTARY, not coerced from without by government goons making up phony laws and enforcing them with guns.

            If you want to be so stupid as to try to draw first on a peaceful neighbor who is armed, you’re gonna get ges’ eggsakly what you deserve.

            And no tears shed over you, neither.

            Are you non-aggressive in your day-to-day life because of the law and its consequences, or because you choose not to be aggressive because you respect your neighbors, and think you should live by Christ’s Golden Rule?

            One is “goodness” by coercion, conformity for expediency. The other is voluntary.

            Only God knows the heart. The results of “outward” conformity vs. voluntary choice may be the same, and maybe not discernible to others. And therefore then the heart-set may not matter — to other human beings.

            In that case, much better to be in a libertarian society than in an all-seeing, all-knowing, gotcha NSA government, where even voluntary conformity and innocence can at will be twisted into offenses against the state. Have you read Harvey Silverglate’s book, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent? You might read that.

            Personally, I’ll take outward conformity without threat of or use of violence to enforce it over the alternative, thanks.

          • pyrodice

            Nobody should have to force you to be a decent person.

            Unless you’re a libertarian, of course.

            O irony… In which we see that ONLY LIBERTARIANS actually live by that standard.

          • Witchwindy

            Libertarianism is being PRO_CHOICE on EVERYTHING, every issue; REAL individual freedom (as long as one is not violating the unalienable rights of others to life, liberty and property in what one does with his/her freedom)!

          • freedom74

            The only thing you know about 1800’s history you learned in bad westerns. In those times extreme cooperation and charity was required in the small groups that survived with little technology or others to depend on, or they died. Plain and simple. The fact that you are using TV show arguments just once again highlights your complete ignorance.

            No obligation, except those you set yourself. There is nothing in libertarianism that keep people from having a moral or ethical framework outside the political philosophy of non-violence. Does being a social democrat mean you aren’t allowed to be a Jew, or aren’t allowed to be a Christian? Enlighten me on how a political philosophy of non-violence will be the end all and be all of someones personal philosophy, period, end of story. Do you know ANYONE who wraps their WHOLE moral and ethical framework around being some kind of political party or type?

            The difference between you and me is that you believe that there is some charity threshold that should be enforced by goons with guns.

            I think you have definitely misinterpreted the arguments. You have displayed an amazing depth of ignorance on many subjects so far.

            Next argument…..

          • GrayCat

            If you’d bother to look up any scholarly libertarian works, you couldn’t make the claims you’re making.

            For instance, look up “The Not So Wild, Wild West,” by Thomas DiLorenzo.

            By what you’ve written here, it seems the one who is generalizing, and desperate to make us fit into your preferred stereotype “libertarian,” is you.

            Exactly who, in your vaunted opinion, has a RIGHT to take anything from anyone? Who are YOU to assign obligations to anyone else? Are you aware of the suffering of anyone else outside your chosen arena of awareness? Who gave you the assignment of castigating anyone else for not conforming to your criteria?!

            Your criticisms are nothing more than emotion-based preferences fed by your self-importance. Try reading some real economics literature, from authors such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Woods, Walter Block, Michael Rozeff, Robert Higgs, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and others where you’ll find these scholars. Learn. Please.

          • pyrodice

            “However, there does seem to be an overarching trend towards wanting to keep everything you’ve earned and not wanting to pay for any sort of public or collective infrastructure or services. It’s like turning the clock back a few centuries and living on the wild frontier…except that such a thing simply isn’t possible in an already-civilized area.”

            We’d like to have a chance to GET everything we’ve earned… At that point, we have no problem whatsoever in paying for the services we use. Kinda like how roads work, wouldn’t you say? Those who use the most gas, they pay the most for the roads… Your mistake is in conflating the word “civilized” with the word “governed”. If, with government as with religion, the only reason you do positive things is because the law comes down from On High that you will be punished (either prison or hell, take your pick), and for that reason you do the right thing… That is NOT virtue. That rationale ONLY affects sociopaths, for which reason I gather you throw the term around so …liberally.
            hunh. that makes sense now, actually.

          • cathylz

            Your empathy is YOUR empathy. Look after your own. You have no right to, and short of the initiation of force, you have no option of, imposing it upon anyone else.

          • And if we lived in a society where the very survival of you and your own were dependent on not giving a shit about other people, then you’d be right. But we live in a civilized nation, and espousing such an ideology within this framework is nothing short of greedy and sociopathic. The ones who are struggling to survive are the very ones who get help from our current system. Anyone above that is simply complaining that they can’t live like kings because they have to do the humane thing for other people, who could be them one day by any number of misfortunes.

          • Peter Hauer

            Why do you dislike “greed?” The desire to improve you own material condition is natural AND it benefits everyone. Without “greed” you would not have light bulbs, automobiles, air travel, modern medicine or computers.

            The trouble with your government enforced “compassion” is that it is so easily abused.
            Liberals fail to see the grave dangers (political, economic and moral) they create by letting the government take money from some people and give it to others.

            Most liberals (socialists) have good intentions, but they ignore the negative consequences of their utopian ideas. (Utopian? Yep, LBJ claimed he would “End poverty forever” with his “Great Society Program.” )

            For example, in 1965 liberals started giving federal money to women who gave birth outside of wedlock. Guess what? illegitimate births have skyrocketed. Now almost HALF of kids in American are raised without a father in the home. Honestly now, do you think this is a “good result” for society? No, once again liberal “compassion” has damaged society.

          • My compassion is not government-enforced. I support programs to help the less fortunate not only because it’s the humane thing to do, but because it is fiscally responsible. If people can’t afford to eat, they steal. When people steal, they go to prison. Prison costs far more than food stamps. They are even finding out that giving homeless people shelter first is more cost-effective than trying to help them on the streets.

            Your example of out-of-wedlock births is dishonest. It falls in line with the myth of the welfare queen. Yes, some people will game the system, but the fraud is always a minor percentage of what is overall a good system. To unequivocally state that “liberal policies” are the only result for such societal ills is irresponsible and dishonest.

            Also, not all ambitious people are driven by greed. While we all want to be successful, there are plenty who share their wealth when they are. There is a difference between reasonable wealth and extravagant wealth.

          • freedom74

            Your first paragraph makes you a libertarian. Ha ha, jokes on you.

            Without government enforced participation in mandatory welfare programs the amount of graft will go down. This has been proven repeatedly in the real world, if you would bother to actually study anything you are talking about.

            We all want to be successful, we just don’t all want to work for it.

            Who cares what you think about what wealth should and should not be allowed, you tin pot despot!

            Next argument….

          • GrayCat

            You support programs VOLUNTARILY. That’s WONDERFUL. So you think everyone else should be FORCED to do what you do, for whatever reasons. How is that good, fair, “empathetic,” desirable?

            If you will deign to actually do some studying about the trajectory of welfare programs, the actual statistics, crime reports, census reports, changes is living standards, ultimate effects on the whole society, from the start of LBJ’s “Great Society,” you will see that the example of sky-rocketing out-of-wedlock births is truth, not dishonest, and certainly not a myth.

            Who makes the decision for any others about what is “reasonable” wealth and “extravagant” wealth?!

            Who are YOU to say when and IF I’ve EARNED enough “wealth”?!

            It’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Go help out those you choose to, and leave everyone else alone to make their own choices, too — which is their RIGHT. Or are your rights the only ones that count?

          • pyrodice

            Apparently my comment of moments ago is awaiting moderation, but when approved, you’ll have a perfect example in isolation of how socialist tendencies were killing people, and capitalism saved them at Plymouth colony. One of the pillars of the exchange is the note of the governor of the colony in his own words that those who feigned “infirmity, weakness, or inability” to work, when the goodies were split evenly, gladly went into the fields and produced aplenty when his produce was not taken from him to be divvied up.

          • Philippe David

            “My compassion is not government-enforced. I support programs to help the less fortunate not only because it’s the humane thing to do, but because it is fiscally responsible. If people can’t afford to eat, they steal. When people steal, they go to prison. Prison costs far more than food stamps. They are even finding out that giving homeless people shelter first is more cost-effective than trying to help them on the streets.”

            Your “compassion” consists of using government guns to force other people to be compassionnate in your stead. Helping the poor is a noble deed if you dig in your own pockets to do it. Forcing other people to do it is just bullying lazyness. You don’t get any credit for bullying others.

          • GrayCat

            Who decides what is “reasonable” wealth — especially someone else’s — and “extravagant” wealth — especially someone else’s?

            Who says? Why? Who has a right to say? Who has a right to legislate, regulate, “law” and enforce it?

            Yours is known as the politics of envy. If you want to be wealthy, earn it. No one has a right to say how much is right or excessive for you. If you want to give it away, by all means do. But you do not have a right to expect anyone else to do as you do merely because you think they should. And certainly no one should be forced to!

          • Andrew Patton

            No, greed is the vice that perverts rational self-interest. Figuring out how to produce more stuff at less cost is rational self-interest. Producing more stuff by cutting corners and figuring out how not to get caught is greed.

          • GrayCat

            In today’s society, greed means any profit whatever, no matter how honestly gotten.

            It’s not dictionary, maybe, but it’s the common understanding. And, as you pointed out, that understanding is wrong and misapplied; it’s envious, petty, and evil.

          • Peter Hauer

            You are arguing about mere semantics. Anything can become evil if it gets taken to an extreme.

          • Witchwindy

            Are you even remotely aware that since FDR put that “social safety net” in place, the percentage of truly poor has risen dramatically, subsidizing poverty creates more poverty than was there before; also, private and religious charities have decreased in number during that same period of time because some people don’t have enough left after taxes to give to private charities and many people think that with the government doing it for them they don’t need to give personally. It doesn’t work the way you think it does, it doesn’t really help people become anything but dependent on government largesse.

            “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government.” –James Madison Better to let the individuals contribute to the charities of their choice and forget the government taxing the productive to give to the unproductive.

          • freedom74

            Libertarianism is a political philosophy based on non-violence and freedom of association.

            You have failed to prove in anyway how those tenets would prevent people from cooperating or being humane.

            The obvious history of government, with hundreds of millions killed and jailed, is a very plain argument that government does no such thing, except as maybe a small byproduct of the destruction they wreak.

            Your beating of this dead straw man is distressing in some ways, and just a display of your complete ignorance in others.

            Next argument…..

          • John Stuart Mill

            So which public school did you attend, “sir”…?

          • GrayCat

            Can you please provide independent, objective studies, reports, historical accounts, to support your totally uninformed and unimaginative claims?! Do you REALLY believe all that?

            You believe as long as force is used to make someone “help” someone you think should be “helped,” that’s alright, just, and good?!

            Why?

          • Peter Hauer

            Brilliant and eloquent..

          • Agreed. Brilliant and eloquent. But you cannot give color to a colorblind person. Someone who is convinced that socialism can work is hopelessly devoid of the ability to reason. Socialism CAN’T work because production is finite and need is endless. Yes, it really is THAT simple.

          • Peter Hauer

            I love your statement, May I quote it in the future? And do you want credit or would you prefer to remain anonymous?

          • Peter Hauer

            You are either MISTAKEN (as usual) or lying. You said, “My compassion is not government enforced.” Oh really?? Tell me what you think will happen to me if If I tell the IRS I REFUSE TO PAY the percentage of my tax bill which will go to welfare (both poverty welfare and corporate welfare). They will come to my house and ARREST ME. IRS enforcement agents are ARMED WITH GUNS.
            Is that nor “force.”

            The will also levy my bank account, garnish wages, etc..all WITHOUT MY CONSENT… Is that not “force.” Is that not force?

            YOu called me “dishonest” twice. Your personal insults are both unjustified and borish. Please grow up. I told you that welfare policies have caused an epidemic of unwed births and you offered me NO PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.

            Sir, I am beginning to think you are brainwashed beyond hope.

          • monkeyhouse

            You have made the author of this rant’s point magnificently. You regurgitate the propaganda and messaging you’ve been fed since birth reflexively without even considering its merit. You have NOT stepped outside of that mindset for a single moment to even consider for the smallest amount of time, something to the contrary. Further, as Cantwell points out, you have not sought any information that might challenge your conditioned thinking.

            (Question: How does one know whether a thought or idea is a product of ones conditioning?)

            Adam Smith… He’s a rather well respected dude who had some thoughts about greed and empathy. He argued brilliantly that one need not be motivated by a love of one’s fellow humans or
            concern for their welfare in order to benefit them. He argued that free markets and the unfettered right to choose enabled people to make each others’ lives better regardless of whether
            they care about each other or of what they think of each other. I could go on but you seem literate and getting a library card is kinda easy.

            (Answer: Because we thought it.)

          • Typical nonsensical psychobabble. Yeah, I know, anyone who hasn’t “seen the light” of libertarianism is simply a brainwashed sheep who is just another cog in the machine.

            I’ve conversed and debated with countless self-described libertarians, so I’m well-versed on the main facets of the ideology. I simply reject it because it is an absurd concept for a modern, civilized nation. The free markets will inevitably lead to mass poverty, glorified slavery, and rule by the rich elite. But hey, at least everyone can smoke dope, pay for sex, and drive as fast as they want.

            My arguments aren’t tired, yours are. Go on and keep dismissing me with your invented slanderous terms, like “statists”, who you apply to anyone who isn’t a selfish sociopath. I don’t expect any intellectually honest debate at this point.

          • Peter Hauer

            You said, “The free markets will inevitably lead to mass poverty.” Do you have any proof?

            Historically speaking, poverty is caused by natural disasters, invasions, and government meddling. Poverty is NOT caused by the free market.

            For example, in the first hundred years of US history, (when the credit market was truly FREE, i.e.before the FED was created) we only suffered thru seven recessions.

            Well guess what happened after the FED was created (and the FED started meddling with the credit market)? We suffered sixteen recessions (two were severe enough to be depressions) since the Fed was created. (references available on request)

            Modern LIberalism is nothing but a collection of pretty delusions. I prefer reality.

          • You prefer to be a sanctimonious ass. I’ve never met a more smug group of individuals than on this comment thread.

            It’s called common sense. If there’s no minimum wage, nobody to enforce workers rights, nobody to regulate business dealings, then you’re in a third-world country, or back to the early 20th Century in America. Yeah, those were great times. We should go back to that.

          • Peter Hauer

            You make sweeping generalizations, with NO proof and then insist your generalizations are “common sense.”

            And when I challenge you for proof you call me names. (“sanctimonious ass”)

            When you stoop to personal insults, you have obviously lost the debate.

            The reason the folks on this thread sound “smug” is simply because we are smarter than libs and neocons. We know more history, economics, and political science. Sorry of that hurts your feelings. Sometimes the truth hurts.

          • You said, and I quote, “modern liberalism is nothing but a collection of pretty delusions. I prefer reality”. You lobbed the first insult, I simply responded in kind. It was that very statement that led to my assessment of you as sanctimonious.

            You have also fallen trap to the fallacy fallacy, the notion that simply because I used an argumental fallacy, my argument has no merit. If I say “2+2 =4, dumbass”, it doesn’t mean my point is invalid.

            I cannot even believe that you just even said you’re perceived as smug by listing off the ways in which you’re smug. Amazing.

          • Peter Hauer

            Calling Modern liberalism a pretty delusion is NOT an insult, and you know it. Some of the most intelligent people I know are hopelessly deluded Modern Liberals. HOWEVER, Calling someone dishonest IS AN INSULT, and you know it.

          • GrayCat

            So . . . your name is “modern liberalism is nothing but a collection of pretty delusions. I prefer reality”?

            Do you know what an ad hominem argument is? To attack the person rather than the substance/facts of an argument?

            Mr. Hauer described MODERN LIBERALISM. He was NOT calling YOU a name.

            YOU called him a name, instead of dealing with anything in the argument. You did NOT address what “modern liberalism” is; you did NOT address “a collection of pretty delusions.” You didn’t even address “reality.” You — YOU — lobbed the first insult.

          • Peter Hauer

            #1 You have failed to refute my historical evidence that government meddling in the credit market causes recessions.

            #2. You have also failed to support your outlandish claim that the free market causes poverty.

            Your failure to give specific evidence indicates that you are wasting both your time and mine.

          • freedom74

            “You prefer to be a sanctimonious ass. I’ve never met a more smug group of individuals than on this comment thread.”

            Look in the mirror bud. Flinging poo on everyone you don’t agree with isn’t taking any kind of high ground, kid.

            There is absolutely no proof that all those things you mentioned require government, and many of them were created in opposition to the government of the time.

            You are pissing and shitting on all the people who died fighting governments to secure those rights. You are a deeply stupid and ignorant fool.

          • GrayCat

            You present not one single shred of EVIDENCE for any of your claims!

            PROOF, please? At least an INFORMED, REASONED argument?!

            “Common sense” has almost always proved to be neither common nor sense. And you confirm it.

          • pyrodice

            You don’t even know what a third world country IS. You’ve been shown up here on numerous occasions, but that doesn’t mean it’s ad-hom time. You don’t like his being a sanctimonious ass? Re-read the article, and see why he is.

            Common sense most certainly isn’t common, since this issue clearly takes more thinking than you’ve given it. No minimum wage means people who CAN’T WORK AT ALL right now have SOMETHING coming in. My kid will be encouraged to work from about 14 on… Do you think whatever he knows will be worth $17/hr, or whatever minimum wage will likely be in 2026? You know what makes a third world country, by the definition you use? People who can’t produce any wealth.

            You know what makes a REAL third world country?
            Someone who didn’t side with capitalist countries (1st world) or communist countries (2nd world), half a century ago.

            Who do you think enforces business deals in an anarchy? If this term surprises you, and you have to look it up, then I know YOU’RE the one who’s bluffing this all out… DRO. Tell me what that stands for, and I’ll take you seriously.

          • Waldetto

            ” If there’s no minimum wage, nobody to enforce workers rights, nobody to regulate business dealings”
            Like 86% of people do NOT make minimum wage, WHO enforces their pay rate? So if the MW law was repealed, everyone would instantly drop to $1 an hour? It’s like trying to explain calculus to first grader, you can not even reason for yourself!
            YOU are the reason the entire article was written! You have no idea what you are saying and you only repeat nonsense that is not true!

          • Roy J Lores

            And he has been doing it ever since he got here, repeating the same mantra over and over and over again, LOL

          • freedom74

            Debates with people you decide are experts? So you are an expert now? Talk about babble!!!

            You can’t expect any honest intellectual debate, because it wasn’t what you were looking for here.

            You have violated every fallacy, committed many non-sequitur, rode the highs and lows of hyperbole, hypocrisy and your own BS personal opinions, then stormed off with “WELL I AM GOING TO TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME.”

            Now you are ending it with, “Well, you guys are actually guilty of every sin I have committed, so your bad people, nanny nanny boo boo!”

            What are you, like 12?

          • GrayCat

            You never explain how a non-governmentally regulated free market must inevitably devolve into mass poverty, glorified slavery, and rule by the rich elite. And when you’ve been directly challenged on any of those claims, you just skip on by.

            And you want to be taken seriously?

          • Peter Hauer

            Excellent points Sir. I am just a regular guy (not a genius) . Could you please explain your question and answer. I do not understand.(Question: How does one know whether a thought or idea is a product of ones conditioning?(Answer: Because we thought it.))

          • steve m

            What makes you think libertarians lack empathy? Is it because we think the model of having a militarized tax collector force us to give up large portions of our work to them so that they can pretend to be beneficial to the vast majority while they squander that collected wealth?

            I claim we libertarians have a lot of empathy for people who are being manipulated into supporting a government that is engaged in far too much killing of other people rather then educating our people.

            So if being against killing is lack of empathy then one of us has a really skewed sense of empathy.

          • freedom74

            Your personal appeal to authority on all ideologies is laughable.

            Please cite the libertarian economic principles that say “Economics means having no empathy”. You are creating straw-men.

            I don’t understand what you think morals has to do with economics. I have taken a few economics classes, read a few texts, never seen morals in a equation.

            All your arguments are a demonstration of the known fallacies.

            Next argument.

          • GrayCat

            Which “economic principles” do you claim “lend themselves to greed and lack of empathy for others”?

            What do you specifically mean by “a lack of empathy”?

          • glashoppah

            I love it when a tyrant talks about someone else’s lack of “empathy”. A cursory examination of their argument invariably reveals their idea of “empathy” is “support for an army of thugs to force you to pay for things that make me feel good.” This is “empathy” to the tyrant. It’s pretty simple to see who the real sociopath is in this setting.

          • There’s little doubt in my mind that libertarianism is a religion. It’s cult members cling tightly to its tenets, and anyone who dares challenge them is subject to immediate labeling as the enemy, a supporter of tyrants who wants to force am army of thugs onto them.

          • Great! If libertarianism can be classified as a religion, then under the first amendment government can’t regulate us! Wheee!

          • Don’t worry, I still think that churches should pay taxes

          • I’m not surprised. But who needs a church when freedom is your religion?

          • GrayCat

            And who, pray tell, other than your army of thugs, will enforce that taxation?

          • There is plenty of room for morality in a free society. It’s just that arbitrary moralities aren’t enforced at gunpoint. The basic principles of respecting rights and restituting violations of those rights are the only things that force can be used to protect or compel. Beyond that, people can choose to follow their own moralities and encourage others to do the same – voluntarily of course.

            If one can’t trust people to be charitable voluntarily, can we really trust a group of those same people to violently force everyone else to be charitable? Either we trust in the power of free people or we admit that we need “smarter” people to rule over us.

          • Philippe David

            Greed and lack of empathy?

            What the libertarian philosophy is all about is the exact opposite of that.

            What it all boils down to it property, the main item being your life and your person. Do you believe you own your own life and body, or do you believe that someone else has a higher claim on your life and body. If you believe the latter, then you believe we are all slaves of some higher authority and you condone slavery, which would be immoral.

            if you believe the former, then no one else has a higher claim on your life than you do and no one can legitimately force you to do anything against your will, nor can you force anyone else to do anything against their will. That’s the only moral stance in a truly free society.

            Libertarians don’t send people to wars. Libertarians do not steal other people’s property directly through theft or inderectly through voting and taxation. We don’t force people to go to shitty schools or buy heath insurance they don’t want. And we don’t keep people in poverty by inflating the money supply to worthlessness and trapping them in welfare.

            But statists do all those things. So tell me who the sociopaths really are, because it’s definitely not us.

          • Andrew Patton

            I object. I believe that our lives belong to God, who created them. Therefore, they are not ours to do with as we please; we have a moral obligation not to recklessly endanger our own lives.

          • GrayCat

            And God, especially through His Son, as His Word emphatically and clearly says, gave us freedom. Did you miss the part where He refused all the kingdoms of the earth, because they belong to Satan, who was offering them all to Jesus if Jesus would fall down and worship him?

            Did you miss that God Himself objected to His people having human rulers/government over them, instead of just Him? 1 Samuel 8. They didn’t care for Him as their King, because He is invisible; they wanted to be like the other nations! Did you miss that?!

            Did you miss that for almost 500 years the Israelites had freedom from rulers? The account is the Book of Judges. There were no kings, no rulers. There were simply local judges, who arbitrated personal disputes. They did not make up “laws,” and did not lord it over the people.

            Did you miss that Jesus emphatically and sternly told His disciples that they must NOT rule over, “lord it over,” anyone, as the Gentiles DO?

            When Jesus declared the Shema and the Golden Rule, who was He declaring it to: the plain people around Him, or the Roman occupiers?

            Why was Jesus arrested, tortured, and executed as a criminal? Do you remember what they said His crime was?

            God gives us each freedom to rule over our own lives, not anyone else’s.

            Haven’t you ever noticed that the Ten Commandments are all and only about what you must not do? Nowhere does any of them say that anyone is to rule over others, or that anyone has any obligation to human rulers at all. Only to God, parents, and to honor and respect each other and others’ property. That’s the freedom we have: to honor the freedom He equally gave all other human beings.

            To recklessly endanger our lives is to slavishly and blindly worship and obey human rulers. Otherwise, how do you read Matthew 5 – 7; 25:31-46; 28:17-20; Romans 12; 13:8-10; Galatians 5 – 6; 1 John?

            Are you aware of why King David — that man beloved by God, a man after God’s own heart — was not allowed by God to build the Temple? 1 Chronicles 28:3

            How does God characterize Nimrod? What about the Tower of Babel? Do you know that Israel won no wars unless God gave them specific, direct command to do so, even if their human kings told them to fight?

            Recklessly endangering our own lives is to put the state on equal footing with or above the throne of God and make a mockery out of the very freedom and rights He endows each of us with by the sin of presumption to rule or be ruled by other human beings.

            While unbelieving souls may be lost in going away from Him, still, He gives all of us that freedom. Just as He never revoked the freedom He gave the Israelites under the judges, even though they sinned egregiously many, many times, so He does not revoke any human being’s innate rights and freedoms to this day. Only in death is the final accounting made, and it’s not for any of us to decide. Only God knows the heart, and He alone is Judge.

          • XComplacent

            I agree for the most part with what you wrote here, I want you to read my comment and reply with what you think, I think you’ll appreciate it. I’m pretty sure I hit the common sense obvious truth underlying the whole thing that you’re subconsciously aware of, and most people are blatantly ignoring because of that very lack of empathy and morals you speak of.

          • Right

            The NAP is a platitude. Aggression is the natural order of the world you are in. In the absence of government, there is chaos. There is nothing morally superior about advocating for an ideology that leaves people defenseless and recourse for justice against violent crime, hiring paid militias to exact force on one’s behalf, and the genocide of tens of thousands of the poor and needy because you don’t like social services, police, the military, welfare, or collective healthcare for the handicapped, mentally infirm, or impoverished people. You clowns need to get down from your moral high horses and snap yourselves into reality.

          • Peter Hauer

            Who says we don’t need police or a military? And in most of American history, voluntary charity took care of the truly deserving poor. Government welfare has pretty much killed that. You liberals need to educate yourselves about history, economics, and political science.

          • Right

            And you anarchists need to learn that we statists will violently stomp you all out of existence if you ever try to engage in armed insurrection. Against ALL ENEMIES foreign AND DOMESTIC.

          • Peter Hauer

            Who are you talking to? True libertarians are indeed anarchists, but they are NOT violent. They want to end the state through education and civil disobedience.

            And many libertarians do not want the state totally ended, They just want the government cut back down to the size that our founding father intended.

            IF you want the government to be as big and powerful as the federal government is now, then (by the standards of our founding fathers) YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. Please read the last few paragraphs of Federalist Paper #45.Thanks.

          • Peter Hauer

            Mr. “Right,” your first rant contained a huge jump in logic. You state that without government there will be chaos. OK, I am not a pure libertarian, so I agree with you that we need to pay taxes to fund a police force and a judicial system.

            But then you made a huge jump by assuming that in order to avoid “chaos” we must also have all the other massive government programs that liberals love, such as welfare and socialized medicine. That is totally unsupported jump in logic. And yet you call us “clowns.”

            Ironically, your statements merely confirm all of Mr. Cantwell.s original assertions! Liberals know very little about history or economics. Liberals never bother to do any research into libertarianism. Everything they know comes from the NY Times or NPR. Liberals believe socialism works because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE that it works. WIshful thinking (self-delusion) is the very heart of Modern Liberalism.

          • GrayCat

            What you said about “liberals:” DITTO for “conservatives.”

            And minarchists who don’t bother learning about how a truly free market would take care of all those pesky “tax-funded” infrastructure and “protection” “problems.”

            Have you ever read Walter Block? Hans-Hermann Hoppe? Thomas Woods? Murray Rothbard? Llewellyn Rockwell? Ron Paul? Robert Murphy?

            Please do.

          • Right

            I am referring to anarchist; I think that is apparent from
            what I wrote. If you are not one, then it is not you that concerns me. But it sounds
            like libertarians that don’t want to end the state are actually statists and
            are diametrically in opposition with those who do. The former are acceptable, and the later are
            a threat to civilized society and order. Aligning yourself with those who lobby
            for chaos – whether knowingly or out of naivety — is not exactly a brilliant
            move either. I have no problem with reducing the size and scope of government
            on a per-issue basis depending on the topic being discussed. But Cantwell and
            his cronies here are generally full-on anarchists that lobby disbanding the
            government in it’s entirety. If you align yourself with them, then you put
            yourself in opposition against the overwhelming majority of all rational,
            logical people – not only in THIS country, but the world.

          • Peter Hauer

            I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but when you said “You anarchists” (plural) I assumed you were speaking to everyone on this thread.

            Yes you are correct, true libertarians espouse anarchy, and in that sense I disagree with them.

            However, I think libertarians are NOT dangerous to society for two reasons:
            First, society will never adopt all of their anti-state ideas. For example, society will never do away with the military, police, and courts,

            Second, libertarians only endorse non violent means. Even though some of them think violent revolution is morally justified, even those folks know they are a small minority who would be squashed if they attempted a violent coup.. Hence (out of necessity) they advocate educating people, hoping for a gradual mass conversion to libertarian thinking.. .

          • Right

            No worries, I don’t take internet political banter
            seriously. Sometimes it is necessary to verbally slap the other guy to get his
            attention and have him render a response.

            In general I’d agree with you, except for the part about
            taking violence off the table. Violence, or the threat of violence, serves
            multiple functions. It is first a deterrent (as you recognize by your response)
            to undesirable behavior. Second, it is the fundamental essence of the natural
            order (i.e. we are born into a violent world). While humans use intellect to
            guide in the application of violence, it is the underlying violence (or threat
            thereof) that maintains the status quo or shifts the equilibrium. The point is,
            while anarchists and libertarians claim to be non-violent, it is because they
            have little choice (as you acknowledge). They are outgunned. Should the
            equilibrium shift such that they were the majority, rest assured they would not
            be above using violence to maintain the new status quo. In a world where we have
            controllable government there is a path to justice for a victim. Not only does
            the criminal have to face the violent backlash from his victim, he has to face
            the violence that could be inflicted on him by police, judge, jury, and prison
            cell. In a world without government all of the later is removed, and all that
            remains is what the victim is capable of mustering to resist. In a situation
            where a victim is outgunned, there is no path to justice in the aftermath.

            Time for a beer. Cheers.

          • Peter Hauer

            Agreed Sir.

          • GrayCat

            When’s the last time YOU controlled government?!

            Try learning something about libertarianism.

            Who do you think would carry out all that violence against us? Obviously you’re right there at the head of the line.

            How rational and civilized of you.

          • pyrodice

            Don’t assume that people are only peaceful because they’re outgunned. We should have learned in the past 13 years that a bunch of stone-aged theocrats with 50 year old rifles, severely outnumbered by the best funded military in the world are still to be reckoned with… Or that one guy, sufficiently pissed off, can blow up an entire building, with a uhaul truck, or a single-engine plane. For the most part, those who are peaceful are not peaceful because they “must be”. Remember: those who are NOT peaceful face the same outgunning.

          • Right

            Sounds like a bid for organized crime to enslave the handicapped. No thanks.

          • GrayCat

            Actually, that is EXACTLY what your wonderful state is doing. Quite without and against anarchist libertarians.

            You might enjoy the book, Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth, by Thomas DiLorenzo; also, Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s The Private Production of Defense, and, The Myth of National Defense: Essays On the Theory and History of Security Production. Also, online and free, “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?”, by Robert Murphy; just plug that title into your search engine.

          • Right

            I tell ya what, I’ll read those books. Provided you can tell me just 5 significant things that anarchists have achieved that can compare to the accomplishments of statism. You know, things like the great wall of China, the Pyramids, the lunar landings, the international space station, the Mars rover, the interstate highway system, the largest and most powerful military in the world, nuclear power, the Internet … you know, stuff like that.

          • GrayCat

            Well, since anarchists are by definition not part of the hierarchy of the state, here goes:

            The printing press
            The computer — 1936, Konrad Zuse
            The telephone
            The automobile
            The internal combustion engine
            The steam engine
            The toilet and indoor plumbing
            The light bulb
            Sewing machines
            The telephone
            The radio
            TV
            Sky scrapers
            Penicillin
            Antibiotics
            Anesthetics
            Antiseptics
            Sterilization for operating implements and procedures
            The camera
            The cotton gin
            The factory production line
            Paper
            Beer-making
            Wine-making
            Farming
            Animal husbandry
            The saw mill
            Shoe making
            Clothes making
            Ship building
            The airplane and aviation
            The electric furnace
            The diode
            The transistor
            High speed steel alloys
            Moving pictures
            The phonograph
            The cyanide process for extracting gold ore
            The Nikola Tesla induction motor
            The Linotype machine
            The electric welding process
            The Charles Parson turbine engine
            Trade
            Banking

            Need more?

            Please do look up those materials I recommended. Thanks.

          • Right

            LOL! Pathetic. Exceptionally
            presumptuous of you to allot credit to anarchy for inventions that are patently
            known to NOT have been created by anarchist. There’s not even one item in that that
            was developed or produced by a known anarchist. In fact, the overwhelming
            majority of items you listed were created by statists.

            Although, I didn’t expect much more than intellectual
            dishonesty from you, considering you don’t have a move here and are essentially
            checkmated. What you’ve done is the intellectual equivalent to knocking the
            chess pieces off the board.

            No, anarchists have never done anything worthy of note,
            unless you count harangue, temper tantrums, hyperbole, intellectual dishonesty,
            and the public mental masturbatory practices of juvenile delinquents whining
            about cops and “the man” on the internet as significant.

            I think I’ll pass on your recreational reading list
            recommendations. I suspect, much like your presumptuous list, there will be
            nothing substantive or worthy of commendation in them.

          • GrayCat

            I did make it clear that none of these inventors were part of any state hierarchy. They may have lived under a state, but that does not make them statists — otherwise I also would be a statist.

            And I’m not.

            All those things were invented apart from the state; they did not involve state coercion or permission.

            Unlike most of the things you cited, and left unmentioned the coercion and outright slavery that went into them.

            You believe slavery is to be preferred to freedom simply because it produces the largest military and empire in recorded history? Why?

          • Right

            Crediting inventions to anarchy that were not created by
            anarchists is the hallmark of intellectual bankruptcy. Just because things are invented without laws
            mandating that they be invented does not equate to “anarchy invented them”. In
            fact, if you do your research on those inventions I am certain you will find
            that they’re inventors did not advocate for anarchy, quite the contrary.

            You anarchists love hyperbole … LOL “slavery” and “freedom”!
            If you’re a slave, it’s all in your head, bud. Get a new dictionary, and start
            looking up words. You see, words have **meanings** and you anarchists don’t
            seem to get that. Your definition of freedom and slavery differ greatly from
            those of the overwhelming majority of logical, rational people who speak
            English.

          • GrayCat

            So for you anarchy does not mean individual, independent, and without direction or permission “from above.”

            How is it not slavery to be forced to pay taxes? How is that in my head?

            I don’t believe you even read my reply.

            For you, majority rules. And that even makes wrongs right if the majority says so, and “authority” makes it so through force of “law.”

            Do you support the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?

          • Right

            Anarchy means what the dictionary says it means.
            Lawlessness. Or, if you prefer, a utopian philosophy of life without
            government. Which would devolve into Lord of the Flies chaos and disorder.

            To claim that it’s “slavery to pay taxes” is a slap in the
            face to the history of ACTUAL slavery. It’s like saying you’re a slave to your
            lungs because the force you to breathe.

            I support RULES (LAWS) and ORDER. You support LAWLESSNESS
            and CHAOS. Fortunately, there are far many more rational people that agree with
            me than you.

          • GrayCat

            IF anarchists were left alone to try to create their utopias, how is that skin off your nose? How does that hurt you or the state? Whatever happened to people succeeding or failing on their own merits? IF anarchist societies were to devolve into Lord of the Flies, how does that impinge on the state?

            By the way, Lord of the Flies was an account of children who hadn’t achieved solid moral maturity (yet there were a few of the boys who actually did recognize right from wrong and were willing to stand up for it) that elders and parents teach and are supposed to set the example of. Are you likening mature adults to those children, and the state — composed of no better qualified adults — as the legitimate role of parents and elders?

            So, a nice comfy slavery is good because it’s not blatant? If you’re held up and robbed at an ATM, and the robber gives you a really good excuse for doing it — his mother is near death unless he can pay for critical medical treatment — does that justify the theft? Who’s the master and who’s the slave? Who’s the criminal — or is there one? Who’s the victim — or is there one?

            If it’s wrong for a private person to assault and rob at gunpoint, what makes it suddenly moral and right for government to do it?

            I own my lungs; they cannot exist if the rest of me doesn’t exist. You claim the state thus owns me, that without me it cannot exist? But you’re willing to murder me if I do not go on supplying it with oxygen; so what happens when I’m dead, eh?

            I nor any other Rothbardian ararcho-capitalist libertarian supports lawlessness and chaos. In fact, the opposite, as the state is every day in every way the biggest culprit in those crimes.

            Have you bothered to look up “democide” yet? Please do.

            And I promise, none of the works I’ve recommended will hurt you one bit, and it’s not nearly as hard reading them as it is learning Swahili, thus there is no real reason to put it off.

          • Roy J Lores

            (Yeah) Right posted “To claim that it’s “slavery to pay taxes” is a slap in the
            face to the history of ACTUAL slavery. It’s like saying you’re a slave to your
            lungs because the force you to breathe.”

            It really takes a special kind of stupid to make such an absurd analogy I assure you state worshiper that we all can live without your legalized extortion and die of ripe old age where as we would not last for more than a few minutes if less without the other.

          • Right

            WTF? So you advocate lawlessness then? Gotcha.

          • Roy J Lores

            Your idiocy is such that I took the liberty of screencapping your previous post for everyone to see and laugh at you on the internet, this one though is so dumb is not even worth it shit or spit.

            That is such a weak and pathetic comeback LOL

            When kids go and play basketball or baseball do they have an overlord with a stick or a gun telling them to follow the rules of the game? No they do not and yet they follow the game rules none the less Anarchy means No rules not no rules, only there would be no stupid victimless crime as it does exist under you deity.

            Try again state worshiper

          • Right

            You can’t possibly be as stupid as you make yourself out to
            be. This is your bulletproof analogy? Little league baseball? That’s the
            stupidest fucking thing I think I’ve ever heard an anarchist say, and believe
            me, you dimwits say some pretty damned stupid things on quite a regular basis.
            But yours takes the cake. You must be a blithering idiot. Your parents
            obviously should have had an abortion rather than giving birth to yet another
            vile mouth breather such as yourself. Of course they have an adjudicator in
            little league baseball, you fucking idiot, he’s called the “umpire”. What a
            smelly dolt you are. What a poor dumb bastard. Please spare the rest of
            humankind the misery of your genetics and please don’t ever breed.

          • Roy J Lores

            Unless you have lived under a rock all your life and apparently you have you would now that kids do play sports without having to join any league or team just for fun, something that apparently given how uptight you are, you never had. In fact it would not surprise me if in your mind you are concocting a law, another sacred decree by your god the state forbidding kids to play without being sanctioned by a official team.

            And just FYI your colorful plethora of ad-hominem attacks do not validate your inane baseless argument whatsoever, it just further proves and validates the article’s author description of how decrepit and totally insane you state worshipers all are.

          • Right

            Wow, I really gave you too much credit with my last response.
            I thought you were contrasting the complex socio-economic systems of civilized societies
            with organized little league baseball. At least that would have made some
            miniscule degree of sense, considering in little league there are at least
            consequences for winning and losing. But apparently you think life is more like
            a spontaneous game of stick-ball organized by three gutter trash kids in an
            alley using “ghost man” rules. What a blithering idiot you are.

          • Roy J Lores

            LOL So only only gutter trash kids spontaneously play sports! Can I take that quote to sports illustrated and ESPN? Man they’d love to hear from you! :D

          • Right

            You’re an idiot.

          • Roy J Lores

            LOL so says the one that thinks that if humanity stopped paying taxes they would die of asphyxia as if they stopped breathing.

          • Right

            Goddam you are slow on the uptake. No one ever made such a ludicrous claim you intellectually disingenuous reprobate. I just don’t think you’ll find too many people that would prefer paying “insurance premiums” to “private protection agencies” that enforce their versions of arbitrary rules they created to bolster their own profit margins with paid militias doing the dirty work for them … in lieu of paying taxes under the system we have now. Factor in the fact that there’d be toll booths on every road at 100 ft intervals in Ancapistan, as well as the fact that you’d have to pay someone to use beaches, forests, camp grounds, lakes, libraries etc etc etc as there’d be no such thing as public property in AnCapistan and rest assured life would become a living hell. You think the corporations own your fucking ass now? Watch the movie Idiocracy … that’s AnCapistan. A world where you’re literally owned by Carl’s Junior, Budweiser, and Walmart.

          • Philippe David

            Right. We humans are so bad that wee need to put a group of other humans (who are also inherently bad) in charge of running our lives with the monopoly of legalized violence to keep us on the straight and narrow path of righteousness.

            Only statist can believe that such an arrangement is not going to be a magnet for the most power-hungry sociopaths and that the lack of such psychopaths to rule us would equate to lawlessness.

            As Cantwell stated in his article, in the 20th century alone, 260 million people were murdered by their own government and countless others died in wars and other government actions throughout history. But of course all those murders were “legal”, so they don’t count, right?

            If you think that in absence of goverments, individuals or small groups could actually cause as much death, destruction, mayhem and chaos, you’re the one who is delusional.

          • Right

            P.S. An “anarchist” is someone who advocates LAWLESSNESS.

            By definition.

            Get a new dictionary, son.

          • GrayCat

            Perhaps you should pay attention more to your dictionary’s documentation of the roots of words. And check down the list of definitions; the most-used attributed meanings are usually first and second; the original and usurped are usually lower on the list, and/or noted after the etymological origin.

            Use doesn’t determine original or absolute meaning. Unless the caterpillar Through the Looking Glass was correct, in your opinion.

            On the other hand, it is amply documented that governments are lawless and murderous to the extreme; it’s actually what characterizes them.

            You like looking up words; look up “democide.”

          • Right

            Obfuscation. If we can’t even agree on the definition of
            simple words then we’re speaking different languages and attempts at
            communication are a waste of time. I have no desire to learn to speak Anarcho-retardese.
            That has priority right after my desire
            to learn Swahili somewhere in the year 2947.

          • GrayCat

            So . . . you’re so threatened by truth you have to resort to name-calling and insult.

            Why is freedom from government/rulers/the state such an unimaginable catastrophe in your eyes?

            If someone peaceable does not want to live under your preferred system, why is that so awful, so much so that you’re willing to murder them for it?

            Hasn’t it been made clear to you that none of us wants to commit bloodshed to destroy your vaunted state? Why does that upset you?

            If your system isn’t a system of masters and slaves, why MUST I be forced to be under it, such that you are willing to murder me if I choose not to be?

          • Right

            Threatened? Hardly. I just despise stupidity, extravagant
            exaggeration, an inane illogical thought.

            “Freedom” from rules and order isn’t unimaginable, but yes,
            it’s a catastrophe. It has manifested itself innumerable times over the course
            of human history. As a result, societies have instituted systems of governance
            and the rule of law.

            If someone “peaceable” does not want to live in our
            organized, civilized society, the he should go live in isolation. I refuse to
            entertain the notion that we should abandon our organized existence because a
            few marginalized fringe people want it abolished and advocate for general
            disorder and chaos.

            It’s a good thing that you’re peaceable. Because we statists
            can get quite violent when someone threatens our freedom, livelihoods,
            stability, and the general tranquility afforded to us by our system of order
            and justice.

            PLEASE FLEE THE PLANTATION, SLAVE! I think you’ll find that
            your masters won’t even come looking for you. You are the freest little slave
            ever! Your island or jungle utopia awaits! True freedom! Lord of the Flies
            style! Show us statists how it’s done! Build Ancapistan! Meth labs,
            prostitution, gambling, drunk driving, with no public schools, no minimum
            wages, where the poor, starving, handicapped, and invalids perish because they’re
            obviously lazy deadbeats undeserving of existing in the first place, with
            infomercials on every TV channel twenty-four seven, and toll roads on every
            privately owned road ever one hundred feet. What a paradise! FLEE!

          • GrayCat

            Without the state, you would lose none of your freedom, except the freedom to initiate violence just because you don’t like someone else’s “stupidity, extravagant exaggeration, an inane illogical thought” — especially when it absolutely doesn’t threaten you or a peaceful, voluntary society.

            There’s nothing lawless or threatening about living in a peaceful, voluntary society.

            Is there?

          • Right

            The society you advocate has never been and is not now. It’s fiction. It’s contrary to human nature and to the natural order. Perhaps with some grand genetic reprogramming it might be plausible in a thousand years. As men are, absent government, there would be chaos.

            Now, if you’d like to get off the anarchy pompous high horse and speak rationally, we can continue this conversation like adults.

            Please delineate how you hypothetically propose to keep people from devolving into chaos and disorder tomorrow when, for instance, the government decides it is no longer going to enforce traffic regulations. Drive on the left or the right, whichever you choose. Hell, drive on the median or the shoulder for that matter, there are no rules. Drink your fifth of Jack Daniels and let loose at 150 mph through that school district if you like. Stop sign? Fuggem. Traffic lights? Red now means go. Road rage got you down? Demolition derby or pop a cap in their asses! The government is out! FREEDOM BABY! YEAH!

          • GrayCat

            If you’re truly interested in adult rationality, please look up at least the materials I’ve recommended.

            You might even be surprised to learn that up until the last 5,000 years of humankind’s history, we really did live in voluntary peaceful communities. There were no conquerors to aggrandize themselves with monuments and epic poems or written accounts, so very few people today are aware of the reality.

            And it is definitely not in the interest of the state to teach this, is it?

            Please especially see Robert Murphy’s article, “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?,” Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “The Idea of a Private Law Society,” and his “What Must Be Done;” “If Men Were Angles,” by Robert Higgs; Michael Rozeff’s work on panarchism; Walter Block’s work on how a stateless society in modern times would work; James Scott’s book, The Art of Not Being Governed, and the Web site, notbeinggoverned[.]com (which is not Scott’s, but an independent offshoot of the issues he raises); articles and books by Murray Rothbard; Thomas DiLorenzo; Thomas Woods; and the YouTube documentation of Detroit Private Police for a real-time, living example of peaceful statelessness in one of the worst government-destroyed areas of the country . . . there are so many.

            I do hope you do, and find enjoyment with refreshing new ideas and possibilities.

            No libertarian wants to take anything from you except the force of rulers to initiate lawlessness and violence under any pretext.

          • Right

            Are you kidding? Did you just advocate a return to the days of the ancient Sumerian society? You want to go back to the days before humans walked upright and began to eat meat and slithered around on all fours scrounging for nuts and berries to survive, while beating each other to death over scarce resources with sticks and rocks? Are you fuggin’ delusional?

            Why is it whenever you ask an AnarchoCapitalist a simple question like “How would the roads and highways function under anarchy?” they always sigh and refer you to some book they read as if you don’t just want a simple answer that they OUGHT to be capable of giving but apparently can’t so they refer you off to a book. Or more often a series of books. Like everyone else wants to get trapped in the mental canard that is the sophistry of anarchocapitalism. You guys are almost all clones of each other. Ask a normal person what would happen on the highways and roads if the government no longer enforced traffic regulations and I bet you’ll get some entertaining answers. Ask an AnCap and get his recreational reading list for the library from the fiction section of the philosophy isle.

          • GrayCat

            Well, I certainly have a more geologically- and archaeologically-based idea of how long it’s been since humankind “slithered around on all fours.” And it’s painfully obvious you don’t.

            You’ve made it clear you do not respect me — or anyone else on this site. Why do you demand that I supply you with information? Even if I did — or anyone else did on this site — you would reject it out of hand.

            The point is, there ARE qualified people whose expertise is in fields different from my own, who have exhaustively studied these subjects for decades, some their whole lives, and have published their conclusions and the reasons for them.

            If you cannot be bothered to intelligently consider them, it is simply a matter of wasting my time and effort on someone willfully manifesting invincible ignorance. I’ve supplied the route to the best fishing grounds, the equipment to fish with, rudimentary instruction on how to use it, but it’s up to you to actually do it.

          • Right

            Exactly. You are incapable of answering very simple questions about the ideology you espouse in your own words, so you point to the supposed expertise of the sophists in charge that duped you into this bullshit and throw your hands up in frustration.

            Ask me what happens in the real world when a mugger holds you at gunpoint and takes your wallet. I can answer that question simply: he faces not only the violent backlash of his victim, but that of the police, the judge, the jury, and the jail cell. Probably not in his interests to steal $50 from his victim.

            Now you. What are the consequences for a mugger stealing $50 from you at gunpoint in Ancapistan?

            I will hold my breath while the crickets chirp.

          • GrayCat

            Well, I wouldn’t want you to turn blue and keel over, especially since where I am the crickets won’t be out for hours yet . . .

            What is sophistry about the freedom to compete — as in road building, private security, etc.? What is sophistry about having a non-monopoly independent local justice system?

            When a mugger holds someone at gunpoint and takes a wallet, usually he gets away with it in our present system. Most crimes are never punished; most murders never solved. Under the current government/state system. And that’s not counting the crimes of government committed against citizens. So what’s your point?

            And if that mugger is caught, usually there are deals made by the state with the criminal for lessened or commuted sentences in exchange for any number of reasons, from snitching to good behavior; it is routine for the case never to reach a jury trial. And reparations are never made to the victim, but to the state — which was not mugged or robbed. And taxpayers are forced to house, feed, guard, and promote criminal lawlessness in the so-called “correctional facilities.” So what’s your point?

            A competitive private insurance company has a vested interest in apprehending and bringing to justice such a mugger. And making him pay reparations to the victim, as well as reimbursing the insurance company and the arbitrators and/or courts. But you KNOW that, right, from all your reading and weighing?

            What is my recourse against your beloved state that daily and with impunity robs me at gunpoint, and calls it “taxes,” and has the effrontery to class me as a criminal — a presumed domestic terrorist who merits constant surveillance to protect the state — before any crime has been committed, as the NDAA, the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, DHS, TSA and myriad other “agencies,” “rules,” and “laws” do?

            Well, those crickets can start chirping any time. But I don’t think I’ll hold my breath; the whole “death and taxes” thing, you know.

            Because the only part of the founding documents of this state you recognize is the one about “against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Enemies defined by you and the state, not its supposed founding documents; the U.S. Constitution stating: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States [meant the voluntary federation of individual, independent states, not the fed gov], shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            Ahhhhh, . . . but that was a long time ago, when the individual states were a loose confederation, and could freely secede if they disagreed with unconstitutional “laws.” So that Constitution-protecting-and-defending oath to protect it — and our inborn, in/unalienable rights — actually means nothing but the essence of violent tyranny today, and in your use of it.

            It would be a very good start getting back on the road of individual freedom to at least go back to the original intent and limitations of the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But that would be anathema to you.

          • Right

            “When a mugger holds someone at gunpoint and take s a wall et,
            usually he gets away with it in our present system. Most crimes are never
            punished; most murders never solved. Under the current government/state system.
            And that’s not counting the crimes of government committed against citizens. So
            what’s your point?”

            I think what is more important here is underscoring YOUR point.
            What you’ve just said is that since you personally believe that in your
            delusional mind the overwhelming majority of criminals get away with their
            felonious assaults, you imply that government should just be done away with.
            You would prefer chaos and anarchy to justice. That is just juvenile.

            There is absolutely no evidence that most violent crimes go
            unpunished under the current system.

            My point is just the opposite and quite clear: due to the deterrence
            of the violent backlash of the government, MOST violent crimes that would
            otherwise be committed never happen.

            You see, violence (or the threat thereof) is the greatest
            deterrent to violence. If someone bigger than you tells you to shut your mouth or
            he’s going to beat the crap out of you, odds are you’re going to shut your
            mouth. Violence is a very useful tool that should not be taken off the table.

            The
            rest of your response just further underscores my point. I predicted everything
            you were going to write before you wrote it. It’s the typical claptrap boring
            idiocy that you people spew, and a waste of my time to debunk it. You’re just
            another AnCap drone that does the same old thing. Instead of backing up your
            ideology with objective evidence and dealing with it’s shortcomings in a methodical
            and logical manner, you harangue the current system and generate hyperbole and
            just make shit up and LIE (i.e. most felonies go unpunished!) in order to make
            the present system look worse so you don’t have to deal with the fact that the
            snake oil you’re trying to sell to the people is essentially having them turn
            over their lives fully and entirely to INSURANCE COMPANIES (provided they could
            even afford to pay the PROTECTION INSURANCE) to be ruled by them and their PAID
            MILITIAS and HIRED MERCENARIES. This is what YOU WANT. No one is buying what
            you are selling, bud. You want a world of EXTREME SCARCITY, where everything is
            OWNED. Public property would not exist. You want to go to a public forest,
            lake, beach, park et. al? You can’t because there would be no such thing. Now,
            if you’d like to pay the property owner to use HIS beach for the day, it’ll be
            fifty bucks. Want to fish here? Gimme twenty five bucks. Want to drive on this
            road? The toll is eighty bucks. Of course drive as fast as you like and drunk
            if you want because I couldn’t afford my protection insurance premiums this
            month and therefore my insurance company won’t bother sending it’s paid goons
            who subscribe to the NAP somehow after you.

            What
            a fuggin joke.

          • Right

            And for the record, I’d studied AnarchoCapitalism extensively. I’ve heard all of the memes you guys pass around. I’ve seen you all re-spout that same line about the Greek etymology of the word “anarchy” when you point out to them it is defined as “lawlessness”. Yep, you all do that. I’ve been referred to books by Rothbard, Mises, and on and on, as well as youtube videos galore. I know about the “insurance companies” that will have the “hired militias” for the voluntary rule enforcement. Basically, in Ancapistan as well as I can gather, the insurance companies would make the rules, and the rules would be enforced by hired militias/mercenaries. Oh, and then there’s the whole NAP thing where you all disavow violence. I haven’t figured out how a member of a paid militia could reconcile his moral obligations to the NAP while simultaneously getting a paycheck to go out an inflict violence on others who have committed violent acts against him personally. But these are just some of the gaping holes that is the NAP. But yeah, I’ve weighed measured and found wanting the whole Ancap sophistry thing. It’s like a dogmatic cult more than anything. If you’d like to take up the torch and show me how you guys have it all figured out, feel free.

          • GrayCat

            I think you just secretly went out and scanned a few of the articles I recommended, because you certainly did not espouse any knowledge of any of those things before now.

            And scanning without careful reading enables you to say the untruthful things you do. You entirely misunderstand the concept of private law society and what private law insurance is, can do, who it employs and why, what it is not, and why.

            It is in your statist interest to “misunderstand.”

          • Right

            “I think you just secretly went out and scanned a few of the
            articles I recommended, because you certainly did not espouse any knowledge of
            any of those things before now.”

            I haven’t looked at anything you’ve recommended, and further, I
            have no intention of doing so. I already know the bullshit those sources are
            going to convey. It’s a canard and an extreme waste to time. If you want to
            elucidate and think you can tell me something I haven’t already heard from your
            ilk a million times before, feel free. Odds are I’ve heard it and found it to
            be malarkey. On the other hand, I’m betting I can teach you a thing or two.

            Here’s the point where you throw in the towel.

            “It is in your
            statist interest to “misunderstand.”

            I don’t
            misunderstand. I understand exactly. It’s not even logical to claim that its in
            my interests to misunderstand. Logically, if I felt you had something
            substantive to offer and a noteworthy substitute for existing conditions, it
            would very much be in my interests to agree and to come on board. But you don’t
            have anything substantive, rational, or logical to substitute for government.
            You offer sophistry, that’s it. Hollow, worthless tripe. And yes, I’ve
            thoroughly considered it. The world does not behave as you delusional ancaps
            seem to think. You’re all a bunch of deluded, pompous nitwits that think
            everyone else is stupid and “misunderstanding” you, and that you have some sort
            of superior grasp of economics that the overwhelming majority of all other
            human beings are incapable of grasping. DELUDED!

          • GrayCat

            So . . . if Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist libertarians are no threat to you, they’re only a delusional fringe, marginal bunch of sophists who have no possible chance of achieving their utopia, you KNOW they won’t violently throw the first punch to usurp the government, and the cardinal principles are the NAP and live and let live, why do you so obsess over it?

            Oh, yes: you do not believe others have the inviolable, in/unalienable, inborn, innate, inseparable right to make their own peaceful choices.

            I call that pathetic.

            Do you know what “democide” is? Do you know what panarchism is?

          • Right

            I’ve already answered the question of why I’m here interacting with you nitwits several times, but you’re obviously slow on the uptake. Squashing inane political and socioeconomic memes with logic and cogent thought is somewhat a hobby of mine. I do it when I get bored. It’s fun verbally bitch-slapping AnCaps with overwhelming logic. And perhaps I’ve spared a few teenagers the frustration of taking you clowns seriously and having to suffer stunted mental development up and into they’re 30’s.

          • GrayCat

            And you’re telling ME to get a life?!

            LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

            Rather, the intelligent young people who may be perusing this site will question, and will search out exactly what each of us is talking about, and come to their own conclusions.

            And that is how it should be.

            Thanks for the exchange.

          • Guest

            an extent that gets
            them excoriated by their peers. Christopher Cantwell, for instance, has been excommunicated
            from the Free State Project and banished from Porcfest because of his
            propensity for violence. It would seem that you are not ALL, nonviolent.

          • Right

            I’m sure the more
            observant ones will take note of how some in your ilk repeatedly claim to be
            non-violent, somehow imagining that entitles them to victim status in the
            world, while others of your ilk espouse violence to such an extent that gets
            them excoriated by their peers. Christopher Cantwell, for instance, has been excommunicated
            from the Free State Project and banished from Porcfest because of his
            propensity for violence. It would seem that you are not ALL, nonviolent.

          • Right

            “Voluntary rule enforcement” LOL talk about an oxymoron. But this is the kind of nonsense you ancaps espouse.

            And please, for Christ’s sake, get off your pompous high horse and quit thinking we afraid of you. New’s flash, we’re not! We know you’re not going to take anything from us, because you’re an insignificant marginalized powerless fringe minority.

            We talk this way to you because you’re talking stupidly and advocating utopian nonsense that is a canard and a waste of your life. Get your head out of the books and go out and start living your life for Christ’s sake. Learn to ride a motorcycle or brew beer, skydive, jetski, kiteboard … whatever. Just go outside and play! Quit wasting time on this nonsense! I talk this way to you because yes, I want to break your spirit on the subject. I think if I succeed I’ll be doing you a favor.

          • GrayCat

            I’m sorry, but I can’t find where I said “voluntary rule enforcement.” Are you attributing something to me you made up?

            If you’re not afraid ancaps are going to take anything away from you, why are you so worked up and threatening violence against ancaps simply for being ancaps? It doesn’t make rational, logical sense.

            Shouldn’t I be the only one to decide whether and how I’m “wasting my life”? Who appointed you my nanny?

            Do you believe in individual inviolable, inalienable rights?

          • Right

            I’m sorry, but I can’t find where I said “voluntary rule
            enforcement.” Are you attributing something to me you made up?

            “Voluntary rule enforcement” is my term for what AnCaps
            typically espouse when pressed for details. While they don’t call it that, that
            is what it is. Basically they want to bind all parties to transactions with
            contracts and agreements that everyone voluntarily enters into without “coercion”,
            and then when disputes arise, have some third party (supposedly unbiased)
            arbitrator adjudicate. The flaw in this logic is that there is no definitive
            mechanism for dispute resolution when a part reneges on a contract. There is no
            legitimate mechanism of force that is allowed to ensure compliance. For
            instance, if I borrow “X” dollars from you under the agreement that I am going
            to pay it back in “Y” amount of time with “Z” interest, and the note matures
            and I don’t have the money to repay the loan or just don’t want to pay, I can
            tell you just to bugger off. You can go to the arbitrator and get a verdict
            against me, but in theory, since AnCapistan is a voluntary society and I am a
            sovereign individual, I can claim that the arbitrator has no authority over me
            and tell them to bugger off as well. You’re out, and the arbiter is out. Since
            the NAP dominates and I have not engaged in violence against you, logically,
            violence can not be exacted against me.

            Of course many AnCaps will rationalize this as property
            theft and claim that violence against me would be justified to force
            compliance, but others would say not. Regardless, how would the violence be
            carried out?

            This is where paid militias enter the picture. In some
            version the arbiters would hire goons to ruff me up. How it would be moral for
            an individual who supposed subscribes to the NAP to collect a paycheck for
            exacting violence against people who have not exacted violence against anyone
            else or the goon member personally is ironic and anyone’s guess. But
            surprisingly, this is the most common answer given by AnCaps.

            Then there is the “insurance premiums” answer. Apparently,
            to many Ancaps in Ancapistan, you would “buy insurance” for everything from the
            noisy neighbor to the miscreant rapist that could wrong you. The “insurance
            company” would reimburse the victim (because we all know how willing insurance
            companies are to dole out wads of cash when a person files a claim) and then
            sends they’re goons to ruff the culprit up. No judge, no jury, no trial, just a
            supposed “impartial” evaluation by the insurance company and then the
            application of violence as they deem justified.

            Here’s where you go off on a rant about “reputations” and “market
            principles”, claiming that the defaulting party would suffer bad credit and no
            one would want to lend to him in the future, or that the insurance companies
            that want to stay in business over the long haul would be forced to give good
            service to it’s customer or else go out of business. Right. Ever get bad service
            or food from McDonalds? Everyone has. It happens quite frequently actually. Yet
            they are probably the largest and most prominent “restaurant in the world. But
            they suck. Try boycotting them out of business, not gonna happen. Same with
            Budweiser, Coca Cola, Walmart, JP Morgan Chase, BP etc. etc. This is the kind
            of service you can expect from your “insurance companies” in Ancapistan.

            I have no urgings to turn my life over to “contracts”, “insurance
            companies”, and “paid militias”. Sorry. Your ideology has been weighed,
            measured, and found to be inane bullshit.

            If you’re not afraid ancaps are going to take anything away from
            you, why are you so worked up and threatening violence against ancaps simply
            for being ancaps? It doesn’t make rational, logical sense.

            I’m not worked up, and I haven’t threatened violence against
            anyone.

            “Shouldn’t I be the only one to decide whether and how I’m
            “wasting my life”? Who appointed you my nanny?”

            If you want to spend your life dealing in sophistry, have at it.
            But expect people to make fun of you for it. It’s inane, illogical, hollow, and
            just bullshit. I find it entertaining to verbally backhand stupid people for
            espousing and spreading stupid memes.

            “Do you believe in
            individual inviolable, inalienable rights?”

            No.

          • GrayCat

            So you did not write: “And you anarchists need to learn that we statists will violently stomp
            you all out of existence if you ever try to engage in armed
            insurrection. Against ALL ENEMIES foreign AND DOMESTIC”?

            And you cite a U.S. Constitutional oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but do not believe in individual, in/unalienable rights, as protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

            And you want me to take you seriously?

          • Right

            Obviously you need to look up yet another word in the dictionary, namely “threat”.

            I’m a statist, and this government affords my family safety, security, peace, and in general a prosperous civilized society in which I am generally free and can pursue happiness to a significant extent. So yes, if anarchists attempted to violently usurp that and replace it with chaos, organized crime, rule by insurance companies and paid militias, yes, I would gladly and willingly take up arms to subvert you and your ilk. Not a threat, a promise. And I am sure we’d have the numbers and the guns on our side.

          • GrayCat

            And so you admit that anarcho-capitalist libertarians aren’t about to violently usurp the government. Yet you threaten — “warn,” “promise,” — “anarchists” the violence you’ll do to them if that ever happens. Chase your tail much?

            And forget the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights — but fancy yourself the rightful nemesis of all “enemies, foreign and domestic.”

            Even the ones made up by you in your own head.

            Uh, huh.

          • Roy J Lores

            Chris Christy clone wrote “‘I’m a statist, and this government affords my family safety, security, peace, and in general a prosperous civilized society in which I am generally free and can pursue happiness to a significant extent. ”

            Generally free to be spied by the NSA and molested by the TSA and to unquestioningly obey your ruling elite masters. Only a moron thinks such thing is freedom Yeah North Korea is just as free.

          • Roy J Lores

            The residet Chris Christy clone wrote “if I borrow “X” dollars from you under the agreement that I am goingto pay it back in “Y” amount of time with “Z” interest, and the note matures
            and I don’t have the money to repay the loan or just don’t want to pay, I can
            tell you just to bugger off. You can go to the arbitrator and get a verdict
            against me, but in theory, since AnCapistan is a voluntary society and I am a
            sovereign individual, I can claim that the arbitrator has no authority over me
            and tell them to bugger off as well. You’re out, and the arbiter is out. Since
            the NAP dominates and I have not engaged in violence against you, logically,
            violence can not be exacted against me.”

            Why it doesn’t surprise me that you do not see theft as violence!

            Lending does not mean giving away whether is money or a fucking lawnmower whoever lent you the item expects it back so if you keep it and never return it it is theft

            Since theft is an act of violence whether you like to admit it or not, you were the one that initiated violence against the lender therefor he or she is in the right to act against you in return.

          • Right

            You’re an idiot that needs to get a fucking dictionary and look up some of those bigger words you don’t seem to have ever learned. Like “theft” and “violence”. Perhaps English is not your first language? Theft is the “unlawful” taking of property. In AnCapistan there would be no laws and therefore no “theft”, technically speaking. Secondly, theft is NOT violence. The assertion is patently absurd.

          • Roy J Lores

            You have just proven that you really have no clue what Ancap, voluntarism, the NAP and natural rights are.

            And theft is not an act of violence huh? maybe you ought to put a banner in front of your home inviting thieves to rob you since you think is perfectly acceptable behavior. LOL

            I got news for you state worshiper it isn’t and not because of a law in a book by your god the state says so but because it is is simply immoral and unethical to do so same as with rape, extortion etc.

          • Right

            You god damned moron, your daddy should have pulled out and sprayed you all over your mother’s damnable back.

            Theft is illegal, fuckwit. Therefore it is NOT acceptable in the society in which I live. So sayeth the rational people.

            Now take your childish, prepubescent illogic somewhere else. You have all the sound reasoning skills of a child insisting he’s a helicopter.

            Buffoon!

          • Roy J Lores

            That is unless your god the state does the stealing for you then it’s just fine LOL.

            If your god the state decreed stealing is fine no matter who carries it you’d probably abide by it too anmd if not it still makes you a hypocrite

          • Right

            Taxation is legal, and therefore by definition is not theft. Rational people believe a civilized society requires rules, organization, and provisions for the common welfare and the common defense. It is up to the citizenry to pay for these things, hence taxation. If you don’t like our system then feel free to expatriate yourself to the jungle or deserted island of your choosing. We will not subject ourselves to a world of chaos just because you think you ought to be exempted from paying for services that you use.

          • Roy J Lores

            Chris Christy clone wrote “Taxation is legal, and therefore by definition is not theft. ”

            Bwhahaha! over a century ago african slavery was legal is that your argument state worshiper?

            You fail at logic big time

          • Right

            Slavery is illegal dimwit. In case you missed it in your public school history class, we fought a war over it.

          • Roy J Lores

            LOL Your argument is that whatever your god the state decrees is automatically just and moral I just proved to you that that notion is absurd.

            The irony is that you are no different from those that were in favor of slavery back then.

            Your arguments of who will build the roads it’s no different from “who will pick the cotton?” if slavery was abolished back then.

            So try again state worshiper!

          • Right

            Agreeing with the legitimacy of taxation does not equate to the agreeing with the legitimacy of slavery … you fucking ass clown.

          • Roy J Lores

            How so? In both cases people are forced to do something against their will hypocrite.

          • Right

            You’re only forced if you choose to stay on the plantation, little slave. Flee! Your master won’t even come looking for you.

          • Roy J Lores

            Well at least you are finally admitting that you advocate slavery after all.

          • Right

            Is that your comeback? Not very convincing. Looks like it is you conceding that your slavery metaphor crumbles under the weight of introspection. I’ll take this lack of a substantive response as concession of you admitting defeat. Have a nice weekend, lil slave.

          • Roy J Lores

            Only in your twisted mind it does state worshiper,in reality your posts showcase to the world how dangerously psychotic you statists are. You have proven all of the points in Cantell’s article beyond any reasonable doubt.

          • Right

            That’s right, anarchist, we’re psychotic and we outnumber you. Don’t forget that. It could get really ugly if you and your ilk ever decide to get uppity and revolt.

            But we don’t worry about it considering you’re mostly all effeminate sissies without the courage required to stand up to us.

          • Roy J Lores

            Really now? Ever heard of Lysande Spooner? What about Larken Rose ad Stephan Molynaux to name a few?

            Truth is your threats mean nothing to me or to any libertarian and voluntarist because we are ready to stand, defend and if necessary die for our principles.

            And the point is the more you threaten the more you convince anyone that come to read this blog that the cause of liberty we spouse is morally superior to your evil deity in every way.

            You are adding converts to our side by doing so so by all means knock yourself out and spare no gory details on how you intend to kill all those that cherish liberty along their entire families and their little or big dogs or cats too.

          • Right

            yeah, we pretty much locked all those guys in cages at one time or another.

          • Roy J Lores

            Did it stop them? Did their beliefs changed as a result No! You could put all of us in coliseums and feed us to the lions as your predecessors did to Christians long ago and we would not relent still.

            You could kill every single liberty loving individual posting on this website and you will still never kill the ideal of liberty that you hate so much, as V in V for Vendeta said You cannot kill an idea, ideas are bulletproof.

            So again knock yourself out statist, puff and howl all you want it will not make a difference.

          • Right

            I bet Larken Rose files his 1040s every year now after he and his wife got locked up for 15 months for willful failure to file. Getting locked in a cage may not change your mind, but it sure as hell will change your behavior.

          • Roy J Lores

            Someone called Nelson Mandela would disagree with you wholeheartedly and mind you he was a statist.

          • Right

            Regardless, you only have 3 choices. Leave, stay and abide by the rules, or get locked in a cage. It’s up to you.

          • Roy J Lores

            Actually there is a 4th option which is to spread the message of liberty far and wide and to showcase how sick and revolting statists like you really are, which is something you have done splendidly through your posts.

            Truth is if you really felt as you say you do you would not have bothered to post here but the ideal of liberty scares you statists to death.

            And the fact that liberty is now more popular than ever not just nationwide but worldwide scares you even more.

            Try as you might you will never stop the ideal of liberty statist so bring it, bring all your rage and hatred as it will not make a difference for your dark side but t makes all the difference for mine as it gains converts to our cause.

          • Right

            You’re delusional. I don’t think there’s even the slightest chance that you marginalized fringe nitwits will be ever given any credibility by society. Nope, you’re destined to remain stuck in your pitiable status. I come here because I find it extremely gratifying underscoring people’s stupidity for them, especially AnCaps. You guys are the dumbest of the dumb. And this is a target-rich environment.

          • Roy J Lores

            You keep giving us more and credibility with each of your posts state worshiper, the more you post the more people realize just how sick and depraved you statists are and how far morally superior the ideal of liberty is over yours..

          • Right

            Keep telling yourself that, anarchist. The reality is that no one cares about you dolts and you idiots only exist on the internet.

          • Roy J Lores

            Yeah porcfest only takes place on the internet ROFL, you just showcased how much of a moron you are as well, keep up the good work , the more converts for us. :).

          • Right

            *Porcfest? Again, you’re delusional. Nobody outside your
            little internet echochambers have ever even head of that event. And from what I
            understand, guys like Cantwell and Larken Rose are essentially unwelcome at
            that event and claim that it’s in it’s death throes not likely to make it
            another year.

            I’ve engaged with you clowns enough to know there’s no
            chance your schtick is ever going anywhere. You fuckwits can’t produce a coherent
            explanation for your own bullshit, nevermind a convincing argument. Hell, I’ve
            been dialoguing with you all day and haven’t seen a lucid thought come from
            that pea brain of yours.

          • Roy J Lores

            And again that coming from someone who equates not paying taxes to stop breathing, ROFL yup we have a luminary among us indeed, in the shit for brains category anyway.

          • Right

            Yawn. I’m bored as fuck with you now. Time for me to go out and grab a beer and mingle with real people that actually have thoughts that aren’t completely inane and idiotic. Enjoy your weekend jerking off on the internet, anarchist.

          • Roy J Lores

            Promises,promises you said hours ago that you were not going to reply to me any longer, remember?

          • Philippe David

            And how do you explain our ideas getting wider and wider recognition, even in mainstream media?

            If we’re such marginalized fringe nitwits, why are you wasting time here? It’s not as if you’re likely to change our minds…

          • Roy J Lores

            Actually as Philliphe pointed out the master will look for you even if you move to Antartica to force your beloved legalized extortion upon anyone who wants liberty.

            In other words there is no place in the planet or the universe to escape your violence.

            And you and I both know that if we were to create a separate Ancap society your god the state would not tolerate it’s existence and neither would you, because you need everybody enslaved and under you control.

            So that leaves only one recourse which is to reply in kind so guess what you convinced me motherfucker so if you ever come to Puerto Rico please post a big picture of yourself and where you are at drinking a piña colada so I can come up to you and shoot you in the face to show my gratitude to at least one of my jailers, how about it are you game?

          • Right

            Ass hat, you would not even be a challenge for our heavily armed and highly trained police forces. They’d put you six foot under right quick like if you ever even thought about armed revolution. Let me know when you decide to do it though so I can watch the cops mow you down on CNN.

            And trust me, I will never go to that third world stye known as Puerto Rico, so no worries there.

          • Roy J Lores

            Puerto Rico is a U.S territory and not the third world you ignorant piece of fecal mater. And I do visit Florida since I have family there as well as Houston so if you ever drop by anywhere near and I happen t be there and I know who you are I will kill you that’s a promise, and your vaunted police forces won’t protect you from the likes of me so stop bragging and start scurrying

          • Right

            Internet tough guy ooooo I skeered!

            Fuck you dirt bag. Enjoy the third world.

          • Roy J Lores

            Enjoy looking over your shoulders from now on, toodles….

          • Right

            Actually you’re the one making death threats, so you should probably be looking over your shoulder. I’m sure the police will have a few questions for you shortly.

          • Roy J Lores

            LOL In your dreams Exlax and you are the one that has been smugly threatening to kill everyone who disagrees with you using state force, do you really think Libertarians only exist in the internet do yo? Sorry to burst your bubble but you probably have libertarians working close to you attending the same sports events and the same bars you do and if you run of your mouth as you do here it will only be a matter of time before you end up dead behind an alleyway.

          • Right

            Enjoy prison shitbag don’t bend over for the soap

          • Roy J Lores

            LOL I’m not going anywhere,the ruling elite that run the state you adore don’t give a flying fuck about you, the FBI is not going to bother over your statist diatribe and it’s inevitable response. You are as disposable to them as crapped out pampers. Toodles.

          • Right

            Watch out for your cornhole bud

          • Roy J Lores

            LOL talk about a delusional power trip, still waiting for your state death squads that the ruling elite are going to send because a motor mouth useful idiot like you bit of more than he could chew, sorry bud not gonna happen.

          • Right

            You gonna be gay for the stay?

          • Roy J Lores

            Still waiting…

          • Right

            I suspect the plan is to arrest you at the gas station tomorrow.

          • Roy J Lores

            I suspect you are full of shit

          • Roy J Lores

            Psst! Hey motor mouth! Still waiting…

          • Right

            Yo! Idiot! The scent cakes in the bathroom urinals of the gas station you work at need changing. Get off the internet and get busy!

          • Roy J Lores

            It never had urinals, still waiting…

          • Right

            And I’m still waiting for you to come shoot me in the face like you promised. Guess lil miss is going to stand me up!

            Don’t worry. I’ve screen capped your murderous threats and emailed them both to the FBI and the human resources offices of Texaco. You might end up losing your little piss ant minimum wage job over this. They do pay minimum wage in Puerto Rico don’t they?

          • Philippe David

            You mean the same half-assed police forces who tucked tail and ran at the Bundy Ranch? Or the ones who burned out women and children in Waco?

          • laineypc

            “neither would you, because you need everybody enslaved and under you control.”

            What you call “enslavement” I call “consent of the governed”. Tomatoes, tomahtoes…eh? I hope you will pardon me in wildly speculating that the libertarian ethos, in part stems from bad experiences trying to get along with others. I get it, I grew up Mormon. Talk about enslaved and under control of the group. Did not work for me, and I left. But I recognize we can’t just live for ourselves. We have to suck up some loss of personal autonomy and liberty to get the needed benefits of being social creatures. We have to accept that we have to live in groups and groups have to exert control over their members. The best we can do is strive for democratic, egalitarian and non-hierarchical (and of course non-theocratic) processes to achieve control.

          • Philippe David

            Again proving Cantwell right. See reasons #1 and #3 above…

            Keep showing the gallery what an immoral dick you really are…

          • Right

            Lol follow society’s rules or else bugger off to the jungle or deserted island of your choice.

          • Philippe David

            Gee, I didn’t realize exercising free speech was a crime now. Land of the free indeed!

            Keep going! You’re sinking really fast!

          • Philippe David

            There will come a day where we will outnumber you. Enjoy it while you can…

          • Philippe David

            Actually, if you are a US citizen, the US governement will tax you wether or not you live on US soil, and do try not to pay those taxes and see if they won’t try to put you in a cage with a big bald guy named Bubba who’ll want to make you his girlfriend.

          • Right

            Okay then. Given that why don’t you just sit there and keep whining to everyone on the Internet rather than trying to solve your problem. That seems like a good plan…

          • Philippe David

            I’m not whining, I’m educating. See point #10 in the article…

          • Right

            Sounds like whining to me.

          • Philippe David

            It’s a good thing I don’t give a fuck what you think, or else I’d be sooooo offended…

          • Right

            Of course you don’t care what others think. Whiners seldom care what others think of their incessant whining.

          • Philippe David

            No,

            Why should I give a rat’s ass about someone who condones mass murder, slavery and theft and thinks that social cooperation must come from the barrel of a gun?

            I don’t really care about the opinion of the morally bankrupt.

          • Right

            You’re a fucking idiot. The only one’s condoning mass murder, genocide and chaos are you dimwitted anarchist. You are a marginalized fringe group of cheetos eating basement dwelling neckbeards that no one takes seriously. Bugger off now, you poor dumb bastard.

          • Philippe David

            Really?

            What was behind the Shoah. What starved 7 million ukrainians and 23 million chinese. What emprisonned and killed thousands in Chile? What killed thousands of women and children in drone strikes?

            Answer? The state. All genocides and mass murders in history were caused by only one thing: bad governments.

            And to think that 70 years ago hundreds of thousands young men died fighting a megalomaniac who led people just like you, who thought the state could do no wrong and justified themselves by saying “I was just following orders”.

            Murder is wrong, whether an individual or a government does it. Same goes for theft and slavery.

          • Right

            What built the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China? What put
            man on the moon, the Mars rovers, the International Space Station? What is
            responsible for the largest economies in human history, the greatest
            technological and medical achievements, the longest human life spans ever
            recorded? The Interstate highway system, the internet, the largest and most
            powerful military, the largest food production, the most prosperous civilizations
            ever known to mankind??

            It sure ain’t anarchists bub.

            Regardless of your protestations, you’re still a fringe lot … and the market has
            spoken. People prefer civilized order to anarchic chaos.

            Consider your lunch eaten. Now go cry.

          • Roy J Lores

            Only a dimwit moron like you would believe that government is what grew the economy or created the largest food production which by the way is a tittle we no longer hold the US. currently does not produce much of anything anymore, farms are going extinct chocked by regulations from your deity but we currently hold the largest imprisoned population in the whole planet which for slavery, death and misery loving statist like you is something to be prod and brag about.

          • Right

            Only a dimwitted gas
            station attendant in a third world cesspool who spends his days making death
            threats on the internet would be too idiotic to understand that all of the
            things I cited were achieved at the behest of government.

          • Roy J Lores

            Bwhaha! Your deity produces absolutely nothing everything it does must be forcibly extracted. The economy grew thanks to the market not thanks to your deity same for food production, the very few things your deity ha done let’s recap.

            1. you cited ancient over hyped and over glorified tombs built for the ruling elite of that time period wow!

            2. You cited a defense structure that repelled successfully as many invasions to China as the Maginot line did to the french LOL

            3. A little RC car on mars. ROFL I assure you state worshiper that if space were truly open to the market we would have colonies on the moon and the red planet by now.

            And now for the bottom line:
            For 2 months now for what I see yo have been trolling this blog quipping about how great authoritarianism is but you hold no power whatsoever of your own in this scheme.

            All you really do is lick the boot of your masters the ruling elite, suck their dicks in the hope that they will somehow allow you into their exclusive elitist club, I got news for you, they NEVER will.

          • Right

            I ask you again, Billy Badass of the internet … what has anarchism ever accomplished? Name one single solitary thing.

          • Roy J Lores

            If you mean the free market just about everything from the printing press to cell phones were all created by entrepreneurs without a government commissar breathing down their necks, now again why do you think that by licking the boots of your masters and sucking their big fat dicks that they will somehow allow you in their exclusive elitist club?

          • Right

            Since you conceded that anarchists have never accomplished a single solitary significant thing, I’ll answer your question.

            You see, unlike you, I am not a slave. I get up when I want, sleep when I want, travel freely, and have lots of “property” of my own that keeps me happy. Unlike you, I don’t work at a gas station and am therefore not a disgruntled failure. I went to college and got a degree in a technical field where I command a six figure salary. I own my own home and have lots of recreational toys that make my life worth living. I don’t particularly like paying for deadbeats like you with my tax dollars, but I realize that the services government provides makes my life easier and I am able to enjoy life all the more. So instead of sitting in my mother’s basement making the gratuitous daily blog entry like that fat idiot Cantwell, or working at the gas station in a third world cesspool for chump change, bitching and moaning about how terrible the elite are that are keeping me down … I actually went out and succeeded in life. There’s a method to success, and it doesn’t include pissing, whining, and moaning about being a “slave” and “the elite” and how you think you’re an uber cool anarchist. And it doesn’t include making death threats on the internet. But you’re young, you’ll eventually figure it out. Let’s hope it’s not too late by that time for you to actually make a real difference.

          • Roy J Lores

            Chris Christy clone wrote “Since you conceded that anarchists have never accomplished a single solitary significant thing.”

            On the contrary moron all the examples I gave prove that your god the state is not necessary at all as none of those inventions owe their existence to your god.

            Yo claim that you travel freely off course that is after being molested by the TSA LOL

            You claim that you have property of your own even though you have to pay rent to your god forever for said property.

            You poor sap you have to blindly obey the whims of the elite if they decide that you can no longer own cars then that’s it you can’t, if they decide that you cannot drink soda anymore then you can’t either period but worst still you think of all that as freedom.

            I got news for you freedom is not asking permission to your master to do this or that.

          • Right

            An effeminate gas station attendant that threatens to kill
            people on the internet wrote: “The cotton gin and the cell phone were invented
            by anarchists.”

            Nonsense.
            The cotton gin was invented by Eli Whitney who was definitely NOT an anarchist.
            Had you have graduated from eighth grade public school you’d probably have
            known that he lost most of his profits over his invention in legal battles over
            patent infringements on his intellectual property. That he believed in
            intellectual property rights underscores the fact that he wasn’t an anarchist,
            you dimwit. And then of course there’s the fact that afterwards Whitney spent
            the remainder of his years as a businessman selling muskets to the American
            government.

            I won’t even
            bother touching the idiocy that the cell phone was invented by anarchists. You
            are just so full of nonsense that I don’t really feel compelled to waste time
            debating your hooey. No wonder you’re such a frustrated little anarchist that
            feels compelled to threaten people with murder on the internet. No wonder you
            work at a Texaco gas station in Ponce, Puerto Rico.

          • Roy J Lores

            Ahem, I never mentioned the cotton gin Bubba you did as one poor piss example to trying to justify statism. And the fact that all of the inventions I mentioned were created without any kind of government meddling nor assistance of any kind proves that your tin god is both worthless and unnecessary.

            Even so called intellectual property can be better protected by the market than by your tin god, ironically patents create monopolies which you statists profess to be so much against. LOL

          • Right

            Fedora-wearing neckbearded anarchist that works at a Texaco
            gas station in Ponce, Puerto Rico and threatens to murder people on the
            internet wrote: “People who invent things are anarchists by definition, and
            everything that was ever created was due to anarchy.”

            You’re a fucking idiot. There really isn’t much more to say
            here. You’re an intellectually dishonest sociopath that threatens people with
            murdering them on the internet, misrepresents the definitions of even the
            simplest words and phases (like anarchy), and then is baffled and bewildered when
            no one takes your little anarchist schtick seriously. I really have nothing
            more to dialogue with you about. I think you’re a blithering idiot, a
            miscreant, and you have failed to make even a modicum of a lucid argument. No
            wonder you work at a fucking gas station for minimum wage. I doubt very
            seriously you will ever achieve much more in your pathetic life. You suck.

          • Roy J Lores

            LOL no one here wear fedoras, your geography sucks. And seriously after over 2 months of you threatening everyone that does not blindly worship the state or Obama as you do with extermination through state force now yo go cry to mama after someone finally bites back ROFL, you are a mama’s boy a pathetic loser with no real authority that loves to feel the boot of the ruling elite telling him what do, think and say, you feel content in your serfdom and giving your hard earned money to your masters thinking they will go to good works when they end up mass murdering women and children abroad, to spy on you and to molest you at airports but then again yo probably love their anal probing,

          • Right

            Oh, that’s right. Your example of an anarchist invention was the “printing press”. Unfortunately you were wrong again there to, since that was invented by Wang Chen, a government magistrate of the Yuan Dynasty in 1300 AD.

          • Roy J Lores

            Ahem! I never mentioned the cotton gin that was you Bubba in another inane attempt to defend statism and the fact that none of the inventions I mentioned required any involvement by your deity proves that we have no need for your tin god at all.

            You want to be under the boot of authority go do it, don’t force everyone else too. Is not much to ask.

          • Right

            If you don’t want to be part of our society and follow our rules, then leave. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

          • Philippe David

            “What built the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China? ”

            Kings off the backs of slaves. (How many of them died building them?)

            “What put man on the moon, the Mars rovers, the International Space Station?”

            Government did with our money. Now do try to calculate what it cost vs what we got out of it (aside from a cheap thrill). I bet you come out short. And then what did we use since 1980 to build the space station? The space shuttle. What are we using now? Crappy russian Soyouz designed in the early ’60s

            “What isresponsible for the largest economies in human history, the greatest

            technological and medical achievements, the longest human life spans ever”

            Capitalism, ie free enterprise. And this despite governement’s leeching.

            “The Interstate highway system, the internet, the largest and mostpowerful military, the largest food production, the most prosperous civilizations ever known to mankind??”

            Governement may have built the interstates, but turnpikes are private highways, which answers the question “who’ll build the roads”.

            As far as the internet is concerned, the government may have put the first few stones, but it was private enterprise that made something actually useful out of it.

            For the world’s strongest military, I’m not too surprised at you being proud of several billion dollars worth of death and destruction. How do you feel about the US being $17 trillion in the hole for subsidizing the defense of all NATO countries, Israel and a handfull of petty dictators? I’m sure your great grand children will be very thankful when they’ll be paying for it all. Those other countries are sure grateful for allowing them to spend money on other things than defense.

            As for the largest food production and the greatest civilisation part, again, that’s capitalism, not government.

            And guess what? Capitalism would be the main component of a free society.

            Give it up! You’re no match. I can out-debate you in my sleep.

          • Right

            The question begs … what has anarchism ever accomplished? Name one single solitary thing.

          • Philippe David

            Check this out. This guy thinks he’s got me cornered because there is no stateless society to point at and tally accomplishments from, right?

            Wrong! (In fact, I might just start calling you that, Mr Wrong. I think it fits you to a tee.)

            Since governement always stunts creativity and initiative, everything it does turns to crap. If you don’t believe me, check out the USPS, Amtrak or any DMV office. The only thing governement is really good at is cracking the whip.

            By definition anarchy is just absence of state control, therefore, anything that is outside of state control would exist in an anarcho-capitalistic society. And since anything that the governement can do, private enterprise can do better (again, aside from whipping), just about everything Mr Wrong attributes to the state, would still come about in an anarchist society, it would just be built by private companies, if the market actually needs it. (Markets might just decide that there are higher priorities than space travel or making enough missiles and bombs to blow the whole planet 40 times over, just for example.)

            So, it can easily be said that anthing that happens outside of governement control is anarchistic in nature. Therefore, most everything that ever came out of the minds of inventors and entrepreneurs like Edison, Ford, Jobs and Gates could fall under that category because they certainly would thrive in such a society.

            Another good example is just about everything that happens on the internet, a true example of anarchy.

            I will now accept your insults, Mr Wrong, as I’m sure that’s all you’ll be able to come up with as a reply.

          • Right

            I am
            flabbergasted at the sheer magnitude of bullshit you just spewed and yet still
            managed to avoid and fail to answer he question of “What have anarchists ever
            accomplished?” Speaking in circular hypotheticals does not answer the question,
            and therefore the question still begs. I am forced to give you an “F” for
            abject FAILURE on your eighth grade level essay. You can correct your work now
            and resubmit for partial credit if you like, but you had better address the
            question next time.

          • Philippe David

            Doesn’t take much to flabbergast you.

            But with all your bullshit about attributing successes of capitalism and free enterprise to the state, you’re the pot calling the kettle black.

            For your education, here’s a short list of anarchists who contributed pretty much to society:

            Inventors:

            Wordsworth Donisthorpe – Movie camera
            Josiah Warren – Rolling press

            Authors:

            Henry David Thoreau
            Kurt Vonnegut
            Robert A. Heinlein‎
            Aldous Huxley
            Leon Tolstoy
            JRR Tolkien
            George Orwell
            Albert Camus
            Oscar Wilde

            Politics:

            Ghandi
            Ron Paul

            Celebrities:

            Woody Harrelson
            Penn Jilette
            Charlie Chaplin

          • Right

            You’re high. None of those people were anarchists. Not one.

          • Philippe David

            I supposed you actually looked it up? Because I did.

          • Right

            You’re an idiot.

          • Philippe David

            I said earlier you were all insults and no arguments. Thanks for proving me right.

          • Right

            That you still think that you’ve put forth any elucidations worthy of debating only further underscores the fact that you are an idiot. Perhaps delusional. Possibly both.

            If you wish to debate something other that your idiocy status — which at this point seems a foregone conclusion — you’ll have to make a cogent argument. Otherwise … you’re still just another internet idiot to me.

          • Right

            Know why you hate the government so much? Because you are a failure at “capitalism”.

          • Philippe David

            Just shows how much you know.

            1- The 99 problem quote is from Rothbard, not Mises and capitalism can do just fine without government. So whoever made the meme knows dick about both libertarianism and economics

            2- Those who suck at capitalism, love the government because they get free ‘bama phones that those who don’t suck at it pay for (quite involuntarily).

            Thanks again for making me look good…

          • Right

            Delusional.

          • Philippe David

            Again, all insults and no arguments.

            Ain’t my fault you can’t match a quote with the right picture and you’ve provern all by yourself that you don’t know the difference between capitalism and cronyism.

            Keep going. You still make me look good…

          • Right

            Delusional.

          • Roy J Lores

            Congratulations you just broke the idiot meter.

          • Roy J Lores

            Let’s put your argument the test here is what Gandhi had to say about your deity.

            “The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form.The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine,
            it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.”

            Wow so much love for your deity ROFL.

            Let’s see what Chaplin had to say.

            “Man as an individual is a genius. But men in the mass form the headless monster, a great, brutish idiot that goes where prodded.”

            “I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician.”

            Oh yeah one can feel the love he had for your deity right there. LOL

            Here his best quote though.

            “The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

            So in short argument refuted loser, NEXT!

          • Right

            My argument has been and continues to be that anarchists have never achieved anything even remotely comparable to those achievements of the state. This argument still stands, regardless of what out-of-context snippets and historical misquotes you pull from Googe … you dumb idiot.

          • Roy J Lores

            Bwahaha! The laptop or cell phone or tablet you are using is a product of the free market you fucking moron not your deity, again you fail at logic.

          • Right

            Well, at least you’ve finally conceded we have a free market. You seem to be making progress.

          • Right

            You can’t possibly be such a fucking moron as to think cell
            phones were invented without any government oversight whatsoever. I mean, the
            government mandates:

            What frequencies cell phones can transmit on

            Where cell phone towers can and cannot be located

            What the OSHA and HAZMAT requirements are for the construction
            processes of the semiconductor, batteries, etc used to produce cell phones

            What the limits are for the electromagnetic radiation that
            are produced by cell phones, and cellular communications towers

            Government provided the currency used by suppliers of cell
            phone materials in order to do trade with one another

            It provided the highway infrastructure and roads that the
            distributors used to bring their goods together

            It provided postal services and the internet used by the
            manufacuterers

            I mean, we could go on all day.

            You are just a fucking idiot though, and I don’t feel compelled
            to even try hard here ……..

          • Roy J Lores

            Actually when the first cell phone was invented there were no cell towers at all and no zoning laws for them, either, something a private arbiter could ave done and way better than your deity.

            Google Underwriter Laboratories they are a private entity with a far better record of testing product safety than your deity as well. Most electric and electronic products bear their label UL Listed.

          • Right

            I’m a fucking Electrical Engineer, not a gas station
            attendant like you. I know what the UL is and does. And what they contribute is
            a drop in the bucket compared to what the government does to facilitate
            production of goods and services. Trust me there, gas station worker, you’re
            out of your league here.

          • Roy J Lores

            I don’t care if you work at NASA itself, the fact remains that you keep choosing to ignore facts. That your deity quote unquote provides this or that big fucking deal, it matters NOT when is all done at gun point. The point is that if your deity was not present firms like UL and others would pick up the slack and do a far better job.

          • Right

            Well, there’s absolutely no proof that that is true.
            Further, it’s impossible to accomplish. You see, you, like all AnCaps, you are
            employing the “sky hooks” argument. You’re claim is that “only if we would just
            use skyhooks and sky cranes we could greatly improve the efficiency of building
            skyscrapers!”. Sky hooks, if you don’t know, are imaginary hooks that you can
            hook on clouds up in the sky, or perhaps the ionosphere, so that you can hook
            cables to them way up in the sky … it’s an imaginary technology that doesn’t
            exist. If it did exist, or perhaps if someone would invent an anti-gravity
            machine, it most certainly would improve the building of skyscrapers. But much
            like your proposition of trying to organize a complex civilized socioeconomic
            society without government … it’s imaginary. It doesn’t exist, never has. You
            AnCaps could all expatriate yourself to an island or a jungle somewhere and
            show the rest of us how it’s done … but alas, none of you seem to have the
            balls to try. Nope, all you ever do is whine on the internet. Whine whine
            whine. The rest of us don’t give a fuck.

          • Roy J Lores

            The market is not an imaginary skyhook at all, in the 2 months you have been trolling this blog all you have done i spout the same tiresome statist propaganda that the sun would not rise in the morning if your deity was not present and threaten with extermination through state force all those who disagree with you. And you know very well that even if we moved to Antarctica your deity would still pursue us there and extort us an cage us or kill us if we do not comply, so there is no escaping the violence of your damnable deity anywhere on this prison planet.

            So again that being the cse the only option left is to kill shitbags like you, that way we can at least pay back our gratitude to little dipshit jailers such as yourself

          • Right

            Bring it, dirtbag. You’re outgunned. You wouldn’t even be a
            challenge for our highly trained and heavily armed police forces and SWAT
            teams. You’d just be another lone idiot with a gun that woke up hating the government.
            I only wish you’d try. I’d love to watch you little pricks get exterminated
            from the compfort of my Lazyboy recliner on CNN on my 60” HD LED television
            set.

          • Roy J Lores

            Your deity will not protect you from the likes of me, as far as I’m concerned I”l kill you if I ever run into you as there’s no other choice at least I get to kill a little arrogant jailer or any libertarian or anarchist that gets you does.

          • Right

            Like I said, bring it. Anytime you’re ready. Would you like
            me to pick you up from the airport? Personally, I don’t think you have the
            balls to kill anyone. You’re surrounded by people that advocate government.
            Outgunned and outnumbered. You’re just an Elliot Rodger wannabe. All talk, no
            action. One thing I’ve learned in life is that those that talk the biggest game
            are the biggest losers.

          • Roy J Lores

            Actually most people just go with the flow, wherever the current will take them, only very few fervently advocate authoritarianism as you do, many advocate to limit government power as the founding fathers did making the mistake that government can be controlled when it can’t is just like a black hole tat sucks everything in. And just a soulless, the thing is you relish absolute power of government over you and everyone else and most people actually don’t want that at all sorry.

          • Right

            [email protected] founding fathers … talk about rich white slave owning elitists! I oppose totalitarianism as fervently as I oppose anarchism. But between minarchism and anarchism is still an infinite void … and we minarchists are ultimately just statists that are pissed off that you anarchists have co-opted and disgraced the Libertarian name, principles,and ideology in general.

          • Roy J Lores

            Dude you are not a Minarchist, minarchists want no government involvement in either the market or their private lives, they are anti Federal reserve which you are not. But most importantly you have made it crystal clear yo are very happy with how government runs now, so stop pretending! You are as pro totalitarianism as they come.

          • Right

            Minarchists want simply the least amount of government necessary. Everyone is a minarchists. They’re only debating what that “least amount” is …

          • Roy J Lores

            “Everyone is a minarchists. ”

            Bwhaha! Yes Castro and Stalin were all minarchists LOL

          • Right

            Whacko!

          • Right

            And what you really need to keep in mind is that I know who
            you are, where you work, and where you live. While you haven’t the slightest
            clue about me. I’ve got the advantage here. When you least expect it … you
            should probably expect it.

          • Roy J Lores

            All that you know is that I live in Ponce, you have no clue to my area of residence, and I no longer work there as Texaco was sold out to another company over a year ago, try again.

          • Right

            Ashley Lores might have something different to say about that. Perhaps you should ask her what I know. And perhaps Ricky.

            I’m pretty sure I could track you down if I ever felt so inclined. Might be a good idea the next time you start making death threats to people on the internet that you don’t know that you do it in a little be more anonymous way.

          • Roy J Lores

            I very much doubt that she would provide you a total stranger with any information, Try again.

          • Roy J Lores

            As I said she will never provide you with any personal info of mine and even if you manage to find my home address and come here to kill me I do not care, I stand by my principles an will die by them if necessary. Is better to die standing free than to live on one’s knees as a slave you have been threatening everyone here with extermination through state force for over 2 months now, time to cut the middleman and try to do the violence yourself.

          • Roy J Lores

            Even in jail a free clandestine market exists you are missing the point which s there is no need for your deity whatsoever.

          • Right

            Either we have a free market or we don’t. Which is it? And I’m not missing the point. Your reasoning is shoddy, lazy, hollow, and superficial. The government has a hand in EVERYTHING the market does, whether you understand this or not. In the absence of government, the market becomes chaos.

          • Roy J Lores

            No it doesn’t, even your currency argument is inane.The only reason the worthless US fiat currency is given value is because people chose too, just as they can choose gold, Bitcoin or any other trading exchange tool. everything that your beloved deity does by force the market can do way better.

          • Right

            Like I said, I’ve never seen any proof that the “free market” could or would do things “better” in the absence of government. Bitcoin is an imploding imaginary fringe “crypto” currency whose 15 minutes are just about up. If you want a UL rating for your product you have to pay an inordinate sum to the UL to have testing done, and most people don’t do this unless it’s mandated by their customer (most often THE GOVERNMENT). You go on and on with you hollow superficial claims, but you’re not proving anything or convincing anyone. You’re misguided, immature, and wholly under-educated. Give it another 20 years, bud, and you’ll grow out of this nonsense.

          • Roy J Lores

            No dude they do it because it gives their customers a sense that their product has been safety certified so they would do it even with your deity absent

          • Right

            If you say so, Roy. I give up on trying to get through to you. You’re impervious to logic, reason, facts, evidence, experience … there’s nothing else I can do for you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. My parting suggestion to you is to get into college, study something technical, get a good job, earn a fat paycheck, and put all this ancap nonsense behind you. You’ll live a much happier life. Good luck to you bud. In the future, it’s probably not a good idea to threaten to murder people on the internet.

          • Roy J Lores

            Your deity does it all the time, it’s the source of it’s existence murder or the threat thereof remember?

            And since there is no escaping this anywhere on this planet or this universe replying in kind to those that want to impose their will on everyone no matter were on the planet or universe they may go too, it’s the only logical alternative.

            As Kennedy said “those that make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” and your kind has doe just that

          • Roy J Lores

            Let’s put your argument the test here is what Gandhi had to say about your deity.

            “The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form.The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine,
            it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.”

            Wow so much love for your deity ROFL.

            Let’s see what Chaplin had to say.

            “Man as an individual is a genius. But men in the mass form the headless monster, a great, brutish idiot that goes where prodded.”

            “I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician.”

            Oh yeah one can feel the love he had for your deity right there. LOL

            Here his best quote though.

            “The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

            So in short argument refuted loser, NEXT!

          • Right

            Cuckoo!

          • laineypc

            Interfjecting: I don’t see how anarchy could be sustainable. Someone will always get the upper hand. They will have to defend their advantages against raiders and invaders. They will need weapons. There will be weapons traders. Markets will always be integral to bomb making. Unless we get so digital that everything is happening in chips implanted in our brains.
            Isn’t sustainable anarchy dependent on people not taking advantage of others? This “non-initiation of violence” And how realistic is that?

          • Philippe David

            Hi,
            Sorry for the late reply.

            You ask a good question so here’s an answer I hope you’ll find satisfactory.

            First, much as I and other voluntaryists would like to flick a switch and see a stateless society come about, we’re not foolish enough to think it’s going to happen that way. We just want to see society evolve in that direction over time. You’re quite right in saying that an anachist society would probably not be sustainable in the short run, what we’re shooting for is to lay the foundations for it to be viable in the long run.

            Do you agree that humanity has come a pretty long way in the past 2 or 3 hundred years? We’ve shed the absolutism of kings and most of the obscurantism of religion. Although we haven’t gotten rid of our violent nature, we have tried to tame it. As humanity has gotten collectively richer, our need to use violence for mere survival is getting progressively smaller. I see a voluntary society as the end goal to that evolution. We still have a long way to go, but that’s the direction I see us taking.

            The non-agression principle is simple: you are free to live your life the way you wish, as long as you don’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do the same. Now imagine, if humanity one day becomes wise enough to adopt that as a general core belief, what kind of world that might make.

            It wouldn’t be one of lawlessness, since although you would have the liberty to live your life as you wish, you would also not be allowed to interfere with anybody else’s right to live their own life as they wish.

            There would be rules, just not so many. And they would be enforced, just not by a government, but competing private agencies.

          • laineypc

            Thanks for the response. I like “voluntarists” vs “anarchists”, because it shows what you want to do, not what you don’t want to do. A positive formulation is clearer. If you remove government, as implied by “anarchy” then there would seem to be chaos and Mad Max world would take over. And nobody wants THAT, right? So with voluntarism, there still is an acknowledgement of human intentionality, people are striving toward a common goal, that some rules remain, that people will need to live by some principles for it to work. Speaking of, doesn’t Glenn Beck want to create such a place? Curious what you think of his plans.

            I agree we have become less violent over time and it’s a good thing. I also agree with the general idea that we can “evolve”- not in the biological sense, in the social sense, toward less violence. I think we are messing with evolution too much to talk about biologically evolving to be less violent.
            Voluntarists/anarchists/libertarians place a very high value on autonomy, the right to live your life as you wish as long as you don’t interfere with others. It’s an important ethic and who could disagree with the need for autonomy, the pursuit of happiness. Western culture places a higher value than Eastern cultures do, many of which consider living in community with others, belonging to a family, a group of some kind, to be essential to happiness. Curious what you think of that.

            Finally, in terms of non-interference, right now I hear conservatives complaining that same-sex marriage is interfering with their rights. How do voluntarists view this? Is the only way around this atheism? Does voluntarism require evolution away from religion? (I am an atheist so I have no problem with this, but don’t think it’s ever going to happen.)
            Well thanks for the response, appreciate your thoughts.

          • Roy J Lores

            Well the only solution given the fact that the whole planet is a prison by your god the state and there is no escaping it, is for u to go and kill shitbags like you to the very least kill one of the jailers.

          • Right

            Hell, the overwhelming majority of the slaves on the plantation don’t even have taxable income. They’re suckling on the master’s teat from cradle to grave. I’d bet you’re one of those.

          • Philippe David

            They didn’t have any taxable income because their masters “appropriated” all the fruits of their labor without proper wages (Clothing, food and board hardly qualify as just wages). That’s what slavery is by definition. Keep going. You are just sinking deeper and deeper.

          • Philippe David

            The US governement takes on average about a third of all income. So everybody works 33% of their year for the government. That’s 33% of the fruits of their labor taken by force.

            If slavery is having 100% of the fruits of your labor taken from you, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?

          • Right

            You retards and your slavery metaphor. SMH. Flee the plantation little slave! No one is standing in your way.

          • Philippe David

            Why don’t you go? Sounds like North Korea is just your kind of place…

          • Right

            Because I’m essentially satisfied with the way things are in the USA for the most part.

          • laineypc

            Slaves didn’t vote. Slaves didn’t obtain benefits from the profits of their masters. I find it perplexing that libertarians claim taxation is involuntary. We live in a democracy where we elect people to pool our resources for shared goals. Do we all get each and every one of our goals met through this process? Well of course not. Are there some pretty heinous examples, like going to war on a dishonest pretext, that we vehemently disagree with? Absolutely. But do we fully recognize the benefits? Do we understand what would be lost? We could and should make government do what it was meant to: pool our resources to achieve shared goals through a democratic process that values fairness, equality, and liberty. It depends on the people being informed, educated and enagaged. It depends on mechanisms to prevent corruption and promote transparency and accountability. I think for that to happen we have to work within smaller contexts, community-level civic participation and a communitarian spirit that exists outside of government. We need to be accountable and interdependent with each other. I think where libertarians fail is their emphasis on the individual. We don’t live that way as humans. We need our groups.

          • Philippe David

            “Slaves didn’t vote. Slaves didn’t obtain benefits from the profits of their masters.”

            True, we now get to vote to choose our masters every four years. That doesn’t mean we’re not slaves. Slaves in the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire enjoyed some limited freedom, yet they were still slaves. A gilded cage is still a cage.

            Our masters just figured out, as ranchers did, that free ranging cattle is more productive than if you keep it penned up in a corral.

            ” I find it perplexing that libertarians claim taxation is involuntary. We live in a democracy where we elect people to pool our resources for shared goals.”

            There were hardly any taxes in the US before 1913, yet things still got done. But if taxes are voluntary, why do we land in jail if we fail to pay them? Wouldn’t that mean that we’re free not to pay them? But in reality, if you refuse to pay taxes, you wiil be fined. If you refuse to pay the fine, armed men will come to arrest you. If you resist arrest, you will be assaulted. If you try to flee, you may be shot. So taxes are anything but voluntary.

            Now, do you really believe that the best way, or indeed the only way, we can get people to cooperate in reaching a common goal is to threaten them with a gun?

            You see, people like me do believe in getting together as a community to work on common goals, I just don’t think we most people need to be forced if the goal is worthy enough.

            Good ideas don’t require force, only bad ones.

          • laineypc

            I know you folks talk about this stuff all the time and I get the sense it is tiresome to have to go over this with people. I hope somehow to cover new territory. If not, oh well. I appreciate the exchange of ideas.
            Roman slaves to my knowledge didn’t vote. Cattle don’t vote. If we don’t like how politicians spend our pooled resources, then we can get rid of them. As I said, I think one reason why this isn’t working for us too well right now is that the electorate is simply not educated or engaged enough to choose people who will properly represent them. That and big corporate money corrupting politicians.
            But I get the “here’s the new boss, same as the old boss” lament. I tend to agree, and right now the average person feels we don’t have much say in who our masters are and what they spend our money on.

            There are penalties for failing to pay taxes because of the free rider problem. I don’t know anyone who is in jail for failing to pay taxes, and I sure don’t know anyone who was shot trying to evade tax enforcement. I do feel bad for libertarians who on principle think our whole system sucks and they are stuck in it and they can’t just drop out and not participate. That must feel just awful.

            I don’t pay my taxes because of threat of force, I pay my taxes because I value much of what they pay for, and I think what they mostly pay for are goods subject to market failure. I think that the free market is absolutely the preferable way for goods to flow through a society. However, because of externalities, monopolies and inequalities of access to things that should ethically be provided to all citizens (like education and health care) some level of government seems the best way to deliver certain goods.

            And even if there was no government, and people worked together as a community, we are still stuck with the free rider problem, as anyone who has ever lived with roommates can attest.

            Let someone else take care of the poor. It’s just hard to see how in the libertarian world the poor aren’t screwed over. Even if enough people manage to care about the poor, wouldn’t the benefactors of the poor begin to resent the fact that while others benefit from the lack of beggars in the street, they aren’t paying for it?

          • Philippe David

            “I know you folks talk about this stuff all the time and I get the sense it is tiresome to have to go over this with people. I hope somehow to cover new territory. If not, oh well.”

            We do talk about it all the time, but we don’t mind discussing it with people who are curious about it. How else can we get our ideas out there­. I’m a little short on time, but if I can’t reply to everything in one shot, I’ll come back to reply to the rest a little later on.

            “Roman slaves to my knowledge didn’t vote.”

            Voting and democracy don’t guarantee freedom. People have been known to literally vote themselves into serfdom. Pure democracy can be a tyranny without the rule of law. Beside’s if you look really hard, you’ll see that there aren’t many differences between republicans and democrats.

            “There are penalties for failing to pay taxes because of the free rider problem. I don’t know anyone who is in jail for failing to pay taxes, and I sure don’t know anyone who was shot trying to evade tax enforcement. I do feel bad for libertarians who on principle think our whole system sucks and they are stuck in it and they can’t just drop out and not participate. That must feel just awful.”

            This is werre we come in to the realm of morals and ethics. Libertarians don’t believe in forcing other people. That’s what the NAP is all about. Taxes are not just an inconvenience, ethically, they boil down to taking property by force. Taking property by force is theft. Some people do go to jail for tax evasion, but they seldom get shot because few will resist paying their taxes to that point. This is just to illustrate that taxes really aren’t voluntary.

            Be back later.

          • Philippe David

            I’m back.

            As I was saying, The chain of events of resisting to pay your taxes resulting in getting shot is mainly to illustrate that force is being used. When an armed robber pulls a gun and asks for your money, it’s usually not necessary for him to shoot you. Just the mere threat of being shot is sufficient, but it’s still theft and theft is immoral.

            Why is it immoral? Because by using force to take someone’s property, since property is the product of one’s labor, your are violating this person’s most fundamental rights. Because property is part of self-ownership. Now, if it’s immoral and, indeed, illegal for you or me to take someone’s property this way, why would it be any less immoral for the government to do it? Because we supposedly voted for it? Does the vote of the majority trump individual rights? Better not, because none of those rights would be safe and then we would really have a tyranny, wouldn’t we?

            If then, the weight of numbers isn’t a moral justification for forcibly taking another’s property, what is? So you see, to us, it doesn’t really matter how laudable your goal is. Theft is just theft. Government officals have no more right to take people’s property by force than any other individual. Again, we’re talking about morality and ethics, not legality.

            Do you ever wonder why governement is the only thing in the world that is allowed to extract it’s revenue this way? Give it some thought.

          • laineypc

            Sorry, you just can’t equate an individual theft with government “theft”. I am trying to understand your POV. You don’t invite a thief to steal from you, and you sure can’t expect him to give you anything in return from what he takes. To hold the view that taxes are immoral, you have to take the position that nothing the government does- no laws it enacts, no enforcement of laws, is moral or legitimate. The existence of a government is by definition illegitimate. Would that be a fair description?

          • Philippe David

            “Sorry, you just can’t equate an individual theft with government “theft”.”

            And why not? Theft is theft, isn’t it? Is it more acceptable when government does it? Why the double-standard. But you still think that taxes are a fair payment you make voluntarily for services rendered, don’t you?

            Let’s assume for a moment that you’re right about that. When you buy stuff on the market, let’s say bread from a baker, you’re actually trading value for value. If you buy the bread, it’s because you value it more than the money you have to spend for it, otherwise you wouldn’t buy it. Inversely, the baker sells you the bread because he values the money more than the bread. This makes it a win-win deal, right? No baker can force you to buy bread that you don’t need, or too expensive or stale, can he? Otherwise you just go to the other baker down the street,

            Now let’s examine your relationship with government. First, contrary to your relationship with the baker or the butcher, where you get to decide to a certain extent how much you’re willing to spend on that loaf of bread or that cut of meat, and shop around to get the best price, you don’t get to decide how much taxes you have to pay, nor do you have the ability to shop around. Government services are all monopolies because government is not interested in offering value and hates competition. You don’t even get to decide which services you get to pay for and which you don’t want to pay for. Here’s a few examples of stuff you probably don’t want to pay for, but do anyway:

            – When both Bush and Obama decided to bail out Wall Street banks so their executives all escaped the consequences of their bad decisions and pay themselves fat bonuses instead, did you want to pay for that?
            – When Bush decided to invade Afghanistan and Irak, and then Obama continued to maintain troops there, did you want to pay for that?
            – When both Bush and Obama sent drones in Yemen and Pakistan (technically an ally) to drop bombs that killed thousands of civilians while sometimes missing the terrorists they were actually aimed at, did you want to pay for that?
            – How about all those services you will never use, but others will enjoy for free (because 47% of americans don’t pay taxes – You were worried about freeloaders in a stateless society?), do you want to pay for those?

            Still think taxes are fair payment for services rendered? When dealing with the baker, you win because you get fresh bread and the baker wins because he gets your money. Where’s do you see a win-win situation with governement? Does it seem like a fair trade to you, or is it starting to look more like a street gang running a protection racket?

            Do you begin to understand my point of vue now?

          • Philippe David

            Now, let’s address the freeloader issue. In a world without governement. nobody pays any taxes, so we all get to keep hwat we earn and then we purchase the services we need. If we need to pool our resources for some infrastructure project (let’s say, new sewers). It would be done through free associations. Let’s say sewer pipes need to be replaced in a given area. Residents of that area can get together and form an association to replace the pipes. They hire contractors to do the job ans split the cost amongst themselves. One way of avoiding freeloading would be to simply not connect the residents in the area that refuse to share the bill. If you want service, you should pay for it, right?

            They would be free to install sceptic tanks instead, or anything they want instead of the sewer.

            This way, you can pay for what you really approve of. Personnally, I don’t much appreciate my tax money being used to kill civilians indisciminately with predator drones. Do you?

          • laineypc

            First, I don’t know much about sewers and how communities handle sewage. That said…
            There isn’t a free rider problem when the benefit, like a sewer, is easily controlled. As long as you have a good and inexpensive way to enforce payment and a straightforward way to know who is getting the service and control who it goes to, then it’s a non-issue. I imagine it could be that way for waste water management, but I don’t know enough about it.
            What about the example I gave, of disease surveillance. I know something about health care, so that’s why I used that example. Currently we have a government agency that works with local health agencies, also taxpayer funded, and also that works with other countries’ health agencies, to track infectious diseases, which do not know borders. Having someone collecting data about infectious disease outbreaks helps protect the public by directing resources to those places to provide treatment and prevent the spread.
            In the voluntary society, one would presume many people would value this type of service and it would be funded by some of them. So my neighbor pays for disease surveillance, but I do not. An infectious disease breaks out. The public is informed about it through various notices payed for by the surveillance agency. Medicine is sent to doctors in the area. Measures to prevent and contain the outbreak benefit everyone, including me and my family, but I never payed a cent for it. Is there a way to deny me the benefit of reducing the risk of catching an infectious disease? If not, I am a free rider. How would this be prevented?

          • Philippe David

            First, it amazes me you don’t seem to worry abour the 47% of americans who already are freeloaders. Do you think it would actually be so much worse in a free society?

            As far as your disease control example goes, you also have to allow for the fact that things might work a little differently in a world without government, down to the very structures you’re familiar with.

            Now in the absence of government agencies to track diseases, whose interest would it be to do that job? Don’t you think parmaceutical companies might have an incentive to track and study disease to find cures they can sell? Don’t you think then, that the cost of that research would probably be passed on to their customers? Those who would benefit from the cure? Could there be freeloaders then?

          • laineypc

            Bonjour Phillipe,
            OK I am getting tired of the theoreticals. How about we talk about area(I think) we agree: spend less, a lot less, on the military and going to war? Also NSA spying. Could liberals and libertarians work together on this? We could split the difference on the proceeds. You get half the proceeds on tax breaks and we get half for social programs and the environment? How could we make that happen? Would there be such a candidate and would they be electable?

          • laineypc

            Is caring for the poor a good idea? If so, how does it happen through voluntarism?

          • Philippe David

            But it was legal before, wasn’t it? But being legal didn’t make it legitimate, did it? Just because the state corrected it’s own mistake in that particular case doesn’t mean it won’t legalize other immoral acts it does.

            The only thing that distinguishes the state from other criminal organizations, is the fact that it can legalize whatever it does and expects you to believe that make it moral. It doesn’t.

          • There have been a lot of things in this world that were “legal” but not right. Theft is wrong because it is a violation of someone rights, not because a law says so. Taxation is taking someone’s wealth through the use of force or implied force, with or without someone’s consent. Pretty much the same definition as theft, it’s just that taxation is wrapped in legal “justification”. If murder or rape were legalized, would you defend it with the same vigor?

          • Roy J Lores

            Yes he would Marcel he has made it very clear that whatever his god the state decrees is lawful period.

          • laineypc

            Hello. Humans figured out that it sometimes makes sense to pool our resources to accomplish a shared goal that free markets don’t easily give us. Like universal education, interstate freeways and support of science research. We get to agreement on what areas to pool our resources through a process that involves electing people to make those shared goals happen. We do this on small and large scales, from our homeowner’s associations to the federal government.
            One reason why humans tend to work in community is we see our dual natures. We are individuals with immediate, short term needs that favor immediate survival, but some survival actions do not favor thriving or sustainability in the long-term. If we want to live around other humans for a while, if we want to avoid trashing our planet, if we want our children to prospe, we have to deal with the fact we don’t always act in our long-term best interest.

            I think this is why we use government, to save us from ourselves and to carry out actions that take time to achieve that would otherwise break down without the force of law behind them. Until we figure out how to discipline ourselves, we have to collectively agree to have a state to help us. Our task is to ensure government is democratically elected and remains accountable to the people. The people must be informed, educated and engaged for it to work. There must be constant vigilance to and suppression of corruption in government. I agree with libertarian sentiments about the limitations of the government into personal liberty and to solve social problems. The people must absolutely lead. We need a more communitarian ethos to take hold where matters of justice and equity are concerned. Maybe there is room for common cause between liberals and libertarians: community activism.

          • Right

            It never ceases to amaze me at you anarchists whining about “taxation is theft!” but never having the balls to expatriate yourselves. Where is the courage of your convictions?

          • Roy J Lores

            Why the hell should we when is your mass murdering god the state that sucks?

          • Right

            You’re all too pussified to strike out on your own and build your own society. Just a bunch of loud mouthed whining ass keyboard warriors. Especially you. You’re a coward. You and your ilk garner no respect from the rest of civilized society. I’m done giving you credence by even responding to you further. You’re a pussy. Just STFU and do what you’re told. You don’t have a choice. You are society’s little bitch boy. We will have our way with you and you can do nothing about it but whine and whimper. Violence always prevails. We win, you lose. Game, set, match. Checkmate bitxch!

          • Roy J Lores

            Come and make me shut up if you dare you’ll end up a corpse if you try I assure you of that.

          • Philippe David

            This is getting tiresome. Just see point #1 in Cantwell’s text for the reason why we won’t move to Somalia.

          • I guarantee you that if there were a truly free society in the world, people would flock there. Like they used to when the United States was much more free. As it stands, the United States still enjoys a level of freedom that most other countries don’t. But the trend has been less and less freedom over the years. At what point do we say enough and start to move back towards freedom?

            It does seem contradictory to call the United States the “land of the free” and then tell people they should leave if they don’t like legalized theft from the government.

          • Andrew Patton

            So go find some island and make your free society there if you have to.

          • GrayCat

            Since this is just as much, if not more, our home — for which we’ve been forced to pay taxes on — as yours, we have AT LEAST as much right and legitimate claim to be right here as you have.

            What is with you people who cannot hold a cogent argument in your head, but instead have to resort to schoolyard bullying to chase away those cogent and rational arguments you can’t refute?!

          • Philippe David

            Ah, insults. The last refuge of those who have no argument left.

          • Philippe David

            “Theft is the “unlawful” taking of property”

            And what makes it unlawful? Was that just decided arbitrarily or was there some moral reason behind it? Theft is immoral because it’s the act of taking someone else’s property by force without their consent, therefore we made laws against it.

            On the other hand whether something is legal doesn’t necessarily make it moral. Slavery used to be legal in the US, as was apartheid in South Africa, but were they moral?

            Taxation may be legal because governement says it is, but morally, it’s still theft.

          • Roy J Lores

            Chris Christie clone wrote “I want to break your spirit on the subject. I think if I succeed I’ll be doing you a favor.”

            So we can be good obedient little slaves like you, and having parties over mas murder and genocide 24/7/ 365 by you beloved deity as you do? No thanks we partake in everything from rock concerts to sports without relishing mass murder and genocide anyway.

          • GrayCat

            You’ll be doing me a favor?!

            Please.

            Only in your mind — truly revealed.

          • Philippe David

            “The society you advocate has never been and is not now. It’s fiction. It’s contrary to human nature and to the natural order. Perhaps with some grand genetic reprogramming it might be plausible in a thousand years. As men are, absent government, there would be chaos.”

            Actually, Ireland has managed to survive a thousand years without a king or any formal governement.

          • GrayCat

            And, uh, it was you who wanted inventions not done by the state: “that anarchists have achieved that can compare to the accomplishments of statism.”

            Statism did none of those things I listed. Independent human beings, despite living under states, accomplished those things. And then, typically for hide-bound unimaginative statists, in many cases those independently invented accomplishments were simply appropriated.

          • Philippe David

            Anarchy actually means absence of government, that’s what the actual greek etymology means, not lawlessness.

            You’re the one in need of a new dictionnary.

          • pyrodice

            Wow. I not only don’t have any idea what you think you read that “sounds like” that, but can’t imagine how you think organized crime would stick around if it was stupid enough to attempt to derive slave labor from literally the least capable sector of society.

          • Right

            “I agree we should eliminate all those tens of
            thousands of the poor, but unlike government, I won’t be marking them as
            “illegal” and locking them up. I’ll be HIRING them, and including
            their talents in ventures that I’m no longer disallowed from pursuing.”

            Sounds to me like you want to employ desperate people to peddle drugs, loan shark, and pimp out at your command. Not a very desirable solution from my point of view.

          • pyrodice

            Uhh, YOU have a pretty dark mind. I was thinking about finally being able to have the neighborhood kids do my lawn for $5/hr, or pay some guy with palsy for the work he’s actually able to do, even if it’s half a normal production, normally worth $12/hr or so…
            But if you didn’t already know, drugs and prostitution will be a lot cheaper under libertarianism, (you know: NOT victimizing the poor with them, anymore) and loan sharking only happens because government makes more moderate methods of money logistics illegal. Example: Here in AZ they outlawed payday loans. Funny they’d want to drive an entire industry out of business in such a bad economy, but they did, and all it did was become auto title loans, where they hold onto your car’s title until you paid them back… And now you lose your CAR if you don’t.

            So you and I have different modes of observation, when it comes to undesirable outcomes.

          • Guest

            Uhh, YOU have a pretty dark mind. I was thinking about finally
            being able to have the neighborhood kids do my lawn for $5/hr, or pay some guy
            with palsy for the work he’s actually able to do, even if it’s half a normal
            production, normally worth $12/hr or so…

            But if you didn’t already know, drugs and prostitution will be a lot cheaper
            under libertarianism, (you know: NOT victimizing the poor with them, anymore)
            and loan sharking only happens because government makes more moderate methods
            of money logistics illegal. Example: Here in AZ they outlawed payday loans.
            Funny they’d want to drive an entire industry out of business in such a bad
            economy, but they did, and all it did was become auto title loans, where they
            hold onto your car’s title until you paid the m back.. . And now you lose your
            CAR if you don’t.

            So you and I have different
            modes of observation, when it comes to undesirable outcomes.

            I’d say I have a cautious mind. I don’t want to legalize
            drugs, prostitution, loan sharking and other illicit activities across the board.
            I may consider certain sectors on some of those things on a case by case basis,
            but certainly not across the board legalization. As far as putting children to
            work for less than minimum wage, I’m against that too. Child labor laws are
            there for a reason, namely, to prevent opportunists looking for cheap labor from
            taking advantage of kids. Most of the things you want and lobby for have been
            done previously in the history of America and have been found to be
            undesirable, immoral, debilitating, and in general society has determined that
            we don’t want to enable them. I frankly don’t care how expensive crack cocaine
            and heroin are. I don’t want my neighbors cooking meth in the house across the
            street from mine, and I don’t want drug pushers handing out free samples on the
            school playgrounds. As far as the Pay Day loans getting outlawed, I’m sure like
            everything else it was due to increase clamoring by the public to regulate that
            market sector. People we’re probably getting ripped off left and right, both
            those making the loans and those borrowing. Very few laws are made without
            significant demand by the populace. The world we live it and the rules we are given
            to live by are the result of society in general wanting to regulate such behaviors.
            I know of very few regulations that exist that have no redeeming value, and
            even fewer that I’d rationalize have less redeeming value than would be otherwise
            obtained by striking them down. Legalizing illicit activities across the board
            as you want pose far more detrimental consequences to the fabric of society
            than they purport to resolve.

          • Right

            I’d say I have a cautious mind. I don’t want to legalize
            drugs, prostitution, loan sharking and other illicit activities across the board.
            I may consider certain sectors on some of those things on a case by case basis,
            but certainly not across the board legalization. As far as putting children to
            work for less than minimum wage, I’m against that too. Child labor laws are
            there for a reason, namely, to prevent opportunists looking for cheap labor from
            taking advantage of kids. Most of the things you want and lobby for have been
            done previously in the history of America and have been found to be
            undesirable, immoral, debilitating, and in general society has determined that
            we don’t want to enable them. I frankly don’t care how expensive crack cocaine
            and heroin are. I don’t want my neighbors cooking meth in the house across the
            street from mine, and I don’t want drug pushers handing out free samples on the
            school playgrounds. As far as the Pay Day loans getting outlawed, I’m sure like
            everything else it was due to increase clamoring by the public to regulate that
            market sector. People we’re probably getting ripped off left and right, both
            those making the loans and those borrowing. Very few laws are made without
            significant demand by the populace. The world we live it and the rules we are given
            to live by are the result of society in general wanting to regulate such behaviors.
            I know of very few regulations that exist that have no redeeming value, and
            even fewer that I’d rationalize have less redeeming value than would be otherwise
            obtained by striking them down. Legalizing illicit activities across the board
            as you want pose far more detrimental consequences to the fabric of society
            than they purport to resolve.

          • Philippe David

            That’s actually what the US government is doing with illegal immigrants. Round them up in detention camps to use them as cheap labor.

            If anything in society resembles a gang of criminal thugs, it’s the government.

          • GrayCat

            Sorry, but you’re wrong about any libertarian thinking violent revolution is justified. That’s the point: non-violence is the only justifiable method of revolution. If you violently force someone to your ideas of “freedom,” who are you really? That’s against the very basis of libertarianism.

            It’s not “out of necessity” that we advocate educating people peacefully. That’s the whole point of libertarianism: non-violence, peace, prosperity.

            You can’t have libertarianism AND use FORCE to MAKE others do what you want them to do. It’s oxymoronic, and defeats the purpose of freedom, peace, and prosperity. It makes you a hypocrite, a liar, a monster.

          • Peter Hauer

            Nope. SOme bona fide “libertarians” do indeed believe that violent revolution IS JUSTIFIED. For example, look at the original article here by Chris Cantwell: Quote:

            “The fact of the matter is, if you give us a choice of violence or violence, eventually we’re going to give some violence back to you, and making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns…”

            Also, the great early libertarian Algernon Sydney certainly thought violence was justified (regicide for example). Please do not assume that ALL libertarians (or that libertarians by definition) are opposed to violence. They merely claim to use force IN DEFENSE of their rights. In this way I actually agree with them.

            No, I have read none of the authors you mentioned. But I have read many (over a hundred) books on political science, including the complete works of Will Durant. I do not claim to be an expert on libertarianism and from what I know about it, I am NOT a libertarian. I am merely a status-quo conservative who agrees with libertarian views about protecting property rights from socialists.

          • GrayCat

            You don’t see that what Chris wrote is a RESPONSE to violence — SELF-DEFENSE, not the initiation of violence by us libertarians? That it’s NOT us throwing the first rock?

            Isn’t self-defense JUSTIFIED violence? Isn’t that the point?

            Isn’t self-defense a RESPONSE to someone initiating violence against one’s self?

            I don’t see any way in reality Sydney could be called a “libertarian.” He may have fought for the “liberty” of the common man, but as he himself stated, “This hand, enemy to tyrants, by the sword seeks peace with liberty.” No libertarian or classical liberal ever sought “peace with liberty” by the sword.

            Do you really believe that if we libertarians weren’t a minority we’d be using violence to effect our ideas — forcing others to do our will — whatever that would be, it would NOT be libertarianism? Really?

            Wouldn’t that then make us something radically OTHER THAN libertarians?

            After all, there are plenty of other political choices that actually do believe in using force to effect their goals we COULD have chosen. We CONSCIOUSLY, deliberately CHOSE non-violence.

            Please do look up and read the authors and works I have suggested. Libertarianism wasn’t born in a vacuum; it’s not some pie in the sky. Thanks.

          • Peter Hauer

            Did you not read what I wrote? QUOTE:

            Please do not assume that ALL libertarians (or that libertarians by definition) are opposed to violence. They merely claim to use force IN DEFENSE of their rights. In this way I actually agree with them.

            That is basically what you just said in your last message. How are we in disagreement?

            Oh yes, we disagree on one thing. You claim that libertarians would refrain from initiating a violent revolution against their statist enemies because libertarians “CONSCIOUSLY, deliberately CHOSE non-violence.”

            Well that statement sounds a bit naive because it makes libertarians noble to the point of not being human. I am personally willing to commit violence in defense of my rights. It is hard for me to imagine somebody who is UNwilling to do so (aside from some Buddhist monks or other super religious pacifists), HOWEVER you obviously know more about libertarianism than I do. So when I get time (a rare occurrence) I will read ONE of the libertarian authors you suggested. Which one would you recommend?

          • Philippe David

            “Oh yes, we disagree on one thing. You claim that libertarians would refrain from initiating a violent revolution against their statist enemies because libertarians “CONSCIOUSLY, deliberately CHOSE non-violence.””

            We do conciously choose non-violence, but none of us deny the right of self-defense. We aren’t naive, that’s why one of our favorite mottos is the “Don’t tread on me” of the Gadsden flag. Because if you do, you will definitely find us responding in kind, unlike pacifists.

            BTW, boudhist monks actually do believe in self-defense, that’s why they invented Kung fu, but they too conciously choose not to harm anyone unless attacked.

            So yes, we do believe we are morally superior because of this.

          • pyrodice

            As Gray says, Chris makes clear that “back to you” refers to defensive violence.

          • Philippe David

            If statists give us the choice between violence and violence, the “giving violence back” would fall under “resistance to tyranny”, therefore self-defense not first strike agression. That’s how the founding fathers felt justified in overthrowing british tyranny.

            That, however is the only moral means by which you can justify violent revolution.

          • Michael Giza

            Our Founding Fatherss may have not been libertarian, but they were damned sure smart. What was the saying..forgive me for this, but its almost 0700, something along the lines that in order to overthrough a tyranical government is through bloodshed? We do have majority of the military that will not harm US citizens if there were to be an order to do so. Also, US citizens have more arms than the feds. Have you been inside a NG armory? There are enough weapons in them to arm evert citizen in the area. Thats not some coincidence. Other than this, I agree with everyone but Right and that Atheist dude.

          • GrayCat

            Have I argued that the Founding Fathers weren’t smart? And they weren’t libertarians. You might be interested in some history surrounding how the U.S. Constitution was really drawn up and the controversy — the objections to it, especially by Patrick Henry, were very well founded, as history has proved — of its ratification.

            Libertarianism is against unnecessary violence; that was the point of what I wrote. Tyrannical government doesn’t necessarily have to be abolished through bloodshed, and if there is any possible way to do it without, that should be done.

            I wonder today if there really are those majority in the military who would refuse an order to harm their fellow Americans. Have you heard of Jade Helm-15? Do you know there are foreign troops training in our cities? There are no guarantees that any soldier will be ordered to his own city or town or village under martial law or to quell any “insurrection.” Intelligent generals will deliberately not send military to their hometowns, and many foreign troops will be ordered against Americans, if it comes to that. Firepower isn’t everything. There is nothing in civilian arms to combat air attacks, drones, off-shore shelling.

            Do you know there are “Continuity of Government” plans, but NONE for saving civilians in any kind of revolution, insurrection, or foreign invasion? Don’t be too quick to think bloodshed is the answer.

            And even if you “won,” what would you replace “government” with? Where would be peace? Based on what? With infrastructure destroyed, and manufacturing capabilities, and fuel shortages, and masses of people dead and dying, with hospitals overwhelmed and commandeered by military and government, what then? No way to get back up on our feet for decades, if then.

            Rational persuasion is the only truly workable option. Against people like “Right,” who’s changed into “SmashAnarchy,” and “that Atheist dude.”

            There’s a lot of work to be done if we’re ever to have freedom. Peace.

          • You are entirely correct. However, I think some people have a difficult time understanding the difference between forcing others to do things (i.e. first-strike violence) and the use of violence in self-defense. Because of this misunderstanding I think people confuse issues like the Bundy ranch situation where armed people came in to protect the ranch. They see this as using violence (analogous to a “violent coup” as described above, but don’t understand that it was self-defense against an initiation of violence by the government.

            It would be completely against libertarian philosophy (i.e. people who believe in freedom) to have a violent revolution to force people to live in a certain way. But I think it would be well within the rights of free people to resist tyranny when it is thrust upon them. At what point, however, does resistance turn into first-strike force? And is it ever justified to “defeat” a tyrant? That is the messiness of violence and why we should strive to avoid it.

          • pyrodice

            I’d like to interject: Anarcho-capitalism allows for, and even offers incentive for, neutral courts, security (call it police or not, as you please, but they won’t be a monopoly), and mass-defense. Robert Murphy has an hour long lecture on HIS hypothesis of how it might work on the Mises channel of youtube.

          • Peter Hauer

            interesting. thanks.

          • Philippe David

            Murray Rothbard has also written at length on market supplied security, justice and military in his book “For a New Liberty: a Libertarian Manifesto”. A must for every libertarian’s book case.

          • GrayCat

            So . . . your statism trumps peaceful secession? Your statism is justified in usurping individual freedom and inborn, un/inalienable, innate, inseparable, inviolate RIGHTS supposedly PROTECTED by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and NOT “granted” by ANY human being or human government?!

            You’re willing to kill people just for not wanting you to kill them?

            “Anarchy” DOES NOT mean chaos. Look it up and get past the statist definition. It’s a Greek word that merely means “no (an-) [external] over-arching government (archy).” It simply means self-government, self-rule, freedom FROM others ruling you.

            And you’d kill to prevent people from this?

            To be “in opposition against the overwhelming majority of all rational, logical people” is something to KILL them for?!

            “Majority rule” is nothing but blind, mindless mob. Does might make right? Do the ends justify the means? Does a “majority” of people’s preferences make a wrong a right? Does popularity make injustice justifiable?

            Who among human beings has a right to rule other human beings? Does voting make it so? Does a “majority” opinion make it so?

            Who among human beings is qualified to rule other human beings? Does voting make confer qualification? Does a “majority” election make it so?

            Who has a right to hold a gun to anyone’s head to force them to do what they otherwise peaceably, willingly, mutually, would not have chosen to do?

            Please do some serious reading on world history; states have only dominated mankind for about the last 5,000 years; for most of humanity’s history before that, civilization, peace, prosperity, trade, thrived. I’ve posted elsewhere on great sources for this historical research. Please see works by Murray Rothbard, Regine Peroud, James Scott, Thomas DiLorenzo, Robert Higgs, Robert Murphy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and many others. You’ll be surprised at what you’re not taught in our wonderful “free” government schools.

            Do you know what the word “democide” means? Please look it up online. GOVERNMENTS are the greatest threat to mankind and civilization that exist. In just the 20th century, governments have murdered over 260,000,000 of their own citizens — and that not in wars.

            If you read the writings of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, you’ll find much more in common with what you wrote than any late19th century/early 20th century political Anarchist ever dared propose.

            Please.

          • Philippe David

            And according to people like this one, we’re the anti-social psychopaths with no empathy.

            Statists are so funny!

          • pyrodice

            In other words, you’re ok with shrinking the (government)tumor, but think it needs to stay in there, because it’d be bad to remove it.

          • Andrew Patton

            There are such things as tumors that are so tightly bound to blood vessels or vital organs that removing them would kill the patient. Such tumors must remain in even if they are malignant, because they can’t be removed without killing the patient in the process.

          • GrayCat

            Which is where the analogy of a medical tumor ceases to be relevant to inalienable human rights as inborn in every human being vs. presumptive human rulers of other human beings.

            Nothing in the Bible about God’s will being for mere created human beings to presume to rule other human beings. If you’d read your Bible VERY closely, you’d see that.

          • Andrew Patton

            All authority is from God. Whoever is in authority received it from God.

          • GrayCat

            And God created every human being in authority over himself alone.

            Read closer, and please read works on the original meaning of such often taken-out-of-context passages as Romans 13:1-7 — which is the lone seeming “justification” for human government in the Bible!

            It’s not really what you’ve been taught it is. Please see the Web site I gave for you earlier; you’ll find much about this subject there.

            Peace.

          • Andrew Patton

            On the contrary, He set husbands as authorities over their wives, parents over their children, and priests over their flock. He even said, “If anyone curses his father or mother, he shall be put to death,” and “If anyone shows contempt for the priest or the judge, he shall be put to death.” He raises up kings and casts them down. He even allowed Moses to permit polygamy and divorce, even though they were contrary to His design.

          • GrayCat

            Is there a difference between allowing something, permitting something, and actually establishing and promoting it?

            How is a husband to exercise his authority over his wife, and a father over his children, especially in the Christian Scriptures?

            How did Christ exercise His authority? Especially toward women and children?

            What happened when the sons of the high priest preyed on the people? What about Jesus’ responses to the high priest? What about Paul’s? What about Peter and John’s?

            Can you count how many times people were put to death for the crimes you cite against priests and judges?

            How did Moses honor Pharoah, his king? Or the priests? Joseph was essentially “Pharoah,” yet how did he treat those who had disrespected him?

            There are many contradictions to the accepted, supposed absolutes of “authorities” in the Bible, and as I pointed out, it doesn’t mean what American preachers in the pulpit teach it to mean at Romans 13:1-7.

            Jeremiah defied the high priest; the high priest took orders from King Jehoshephat (2 Chronicles 20); Elijah defied the king and his high priest; almost all the kings of Israel and Judah defied, ignored, or corrupted the high priests, yet there were no official formal trials or capital punishment executed.

            Where does it say in the Bible to not confront or defy corrupt, evil, kings, priests, judges? Is the Bible much more than a chronicle of the corruption of those who presumed to rule, and their being overturned? Why did Jesus lament “Jerusalem”? What did that actually mean? And why did He rebuke His disciples at Matthew 20:20-28? Where did He say for His followers to found any nations and/or establish their rule over their fellow human beings? What does He actually say at Matthew 28:17-20? Where does Paul say a Christian’s citizenship is, in reality? What were Paul and Peter, the rest of the Apostles, and many Christians of the first three centuries executed for?

            Were they ignorant, stupid, or did they in fact defy the “authorities” “established” by God? Would they, being closer in time and place to Christ than we are, maybe understand what He and the Apostles actually taught and meant, better than modern American Christians do — choose to — today?

            I think so.

          • Andrew Patton

            My point is that God said, “If anyone sins deliberately, he shall be cut off from his people.” By authorizing a death sentence for contempt of court and contempt of parents, even if it was never used, God was declaring such actions to be mortal sins, thus cutting the sinner off from God and stirring up God’s wrath against the sinner, such that unless the sinner repents and rends his heart before God, he will have no part in the World to Come, and even his mortal life may be cut short by God’s wrath.

          • pyrodice

            And there are governments who would gladly kill every living person they rely on rather than relinquish power. Amazingly, this makes the analogy even BETTER, and the cure for cancer… er… government… even more important.

          • pyrodice

            How’s that working in Nevada? I don’t think you understand who’s got all the guns.

          • GrayCat

            Plug in “Detroit’s Private Police” at YouTube and see how libertarianism works in the absence of government coercion in the real world.

            Then you might read works by Murray Rothbard, Thomas Woods, Walter Block, Michael Rozeff, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

          • pyrodice

            It’s very strange. All the horrible predictions you’re making happen now, under a State. I agree we should eliminate all those tens of thousands of the poor, but unlike government, I won’t be marking them as “illegal” and locking them up. I’ll be HIRING them, and including their talents in ventures that I’m no longer disallowed from pursuing. Maybe if we weren’t sucking thousands of dollars per year out of working families, and allowing the AMA to artificially inflate the cost of medical care, those mentally infirm individuals would be perfectly fine being cared for at home. Or, heck, maybe without the 20 year waiting period on new medications, maybe we could CURE dementia-granny! Now wouldn’t that be nice?

          • Roy J Lores

            Oh I’m screencapping this too the idiocy is just sky high

          • Right

            Your accolades are duly noted.

          • cathylz

            There is no FIT. There is only one thing (non-aggression). You either are that thing, or your are not that thing. If you disagree about the initiation of violence, you are not a libertarian regardless of what lies you tell yourself. If you don’t disagree, then be that thing, mind your own business, and let the rest of us do the same.

          • No libertarian I’ve ever talked to simply believes in the Non-Aggression Principle without corresponding belief in a selfish and sociopathic stance on economics. To claim that libertarianism is nothing more that accepting non-violence is dishonest. By that definition, the vast majority of people would be libertarian, and thusly, being libertarian would lose any useful meaning.

          • B D

            This “sociopathic” stance, as you put it, stems from the Non Aggression Principle. I assume you mean “not taxing people to give the disadvantaged help.” Well, how are you going to tax people, if not from the barrel of a gun? Otherwise it’s just charity – and you’ll find that Libertarians are quite in favor of charity. But you cannot levy meaningful sanctions except by the threat of violence to force taxation.

            If I don’t pay my taxes, I get hit with fines. If I don’t pay my fines, I get hit with more fines, and a visit from the IRS. If I continue to resist paying my taxes and fines, they send agents to arrest me. If I resist arrest, they shoot me. If any point in that chain does not occur, then the “taxes” are purely voluntary. They are only compulsory because of the ultimate threat of violence from the State.

          • cesium62

            How will you enforce a contract, if not from the barrel of a gun? So, you’re saying that the Non-Agression Principal requires that there be no contracts. There can be no cooperation between people. Every person must operate on their own.

          • B D

            Yes, contracts should be enforced through the barrel of a gun. There are very few things that we should actually be using the threat of violence to enforce, and contracts are one of those things.

            It is not a violation of the NAP to enforce a contract. The person violating the contract is violating the NAP, and the enforcement is the response, in this case.

            Failure to uphold a contract amounts to fraud. This is one of the very few areas where a government would be justified in the use of force. It is a defense of the liberty of the individual who was defrauded. Defense of individual liberty is the ONLY valid use of force by the government.

          • freedom74

            Your appeal to your personal subjective views of conversations with people you believe to be libertarians means absolutely nothing in the context of an actual debate using logic and reason.

            None of us have participated in any of those conversations, and your lack of understanding could just be that, a lack of understanding.

            Next argument.

          • John Stuart Mill

            Nigga pleaze. A Universal (have you HEARD of Aristotle) followed by a massive PROJECTION.
            It doesn’t matter WHY … go back and read the article … it’s WHAT you support, Hitler. Just make me obey, yeah, right? Or else what? Shove it right up your ass, Psycho.

          • GrayCat

            Please define what you mean by “selfish and sociopathic stance on economics.” It could mean many things. What do you mean specifically?

          • pyrodice

            It’s funny but I’ve had to adopt a new word to deal with this nonsensical one. My reply is to consistently refer to liberal economists as “sociophiles”. The term Libertarian doesn’t become the “big tent” by grasping nonviolence (nonAGGRESSION: we’re fine with violence in response to violence). One has to be aware of the consequences AFTER the action. Much like someone throwing a soda out his window should know that it could impact the car behind them, and set off a chain reaction; one person voting for a law should know that it would cause victimless actions to be responded to by police, whose actions command not respect, but fear, through presence of arms. Since the vast majority of those in prison are non-violent offenders, it stands to reason that the real world refutes your interpretation of this definition.

          • Karl Schipul

            “without corresponding belief in a selfish and sociopathic stance on economics.”

            This is what psychologists call “projection”. In other words, you accuse others of things that you yourself are guilty of.

            Libertarians only want peaceful trade and interaction. People like yourself want to use thuggish police power to threaten others into doing things your way.

            Tell me, in your own personal life, is the guy who wants to deal with you through negotiation more likely to be a sociopath, or is the guy who threatens you with his fists more likely to be one?

          • Don’t worry, I’m quite familiar with what projection is. And this isn’t it. This is truth.

            See, you’re content with claiming that I support “thuggish police power”, when I’ve never stated such a thing. In your deluded mind, you believe that anyone who doesn’t buy your fairy tale political stance supports tyranny.

            First, like I stated, most libertarians espouse the unregulated free market. So, even if you claim you don’t support social Darwinism, the end result of the free market is going to be that in fairly short order. Look at the regulation we have now, and we’re still not far off from it. Humanity once had libertarianism. It was called pre-civilization.

          • Karl Schipul

            “Don’t worry, I’m quite familiar with what projection is. And this isn’t it. This is truth.”

            Why? Because you say so? See, I actually made my point with supporting reasons. You have not done so with yours.

            Please tell me what is sociopathic about a win-win exchange (the kind which libertarians advocate for).

            “See, you’re content with claiming that I support “thuggish police power”, when I’ve never stated such a thing.”

            You did not have to directly say this. You logically support it through your support of the state. The state by definition is a group of people who assert the right to do things to people that others would go to jail for. Not only that, they describe it as the highest good.

          • No, because the reality bears me out. Expecting every single person in a society to respect one another and not try to take advantage of gullible people is to ignore human nature. Under libertarianism, people would form into competing tribes and seek dominance over others. Like I said, just look at the income inequality now, and how many corporations are merging and combining to form near-monopolies, and that’s with existing regulations. Remove the regulations, and the proletariat are at the mercy of the ruling elite.

          • You get more stupid with each comment. Quit while you’re not too far behind.

          • Right, because we all know that the pinnacle of human intellect here, Alan, is the arbiter of all things stupid.

          • And you missed the bit about the bell curve too, huh? I have an I.Q. if 130+, tested 4 times, my best was 144, but hey, keep projecting your own stupidity, because you are indeed the most perfect possible example. You’re such an example I almost suspect you’re Cantwell himself, trolling his own blog – but alas I’ve also spoken to dickwads like you far too often; you’re real. A real, in the flesh, statist idiot.

          • This is hilarious, because not only are you bragging on about your superior intellect on an internet forum, but you perfectly make my point: that libertarians may be high on intellect, but they lack severely in emotional quotient. Your ideology completely disregards its impact on humanity and promotes social Darwinism.

          • So it’s not a free, libertarian-style society you fear, it’s the society that you predict freedom would devolve into that you fear? Perhaps that is why there is such a disconnect between what you are trying to explain and what others on here believe.

            For what it’s worth, most people who believe in freedom don’t assume that bad people would disappear in a free society. In fact, it is because of bad people that freedom would be the best society. In a free society there would still be the expectation that people respect others’ rights and those who infringe them would be held accountable. In current systems, bad people can leverage the power of government for their own benefit and there is little accountability.

            It is because of regulations that companies can do what they do now with the help of government. Truly remove all regulations and competition increases dramatically. Big corporations love big government because they know that most regulations won’t hurt them at all, while they tend to harm small businesses the most. The same small businesses that tend to find ways to compete with big businesses once a market is established, essentially eliminating monopolies from truly taking hold.

            It’s ironic that your solutions are actually that which will perpetuate your fears. Using the big business example, without a big government, businesses actually have very little power over consumers. Businesses can not force people to buy what they are selling. However, government can. The greatest example of this is ObamaCare, with it’s unprecedented requirement that forces people to buy health insurance. But there are many other smaller examples with tariffs and other forms of regulation and taxation that tend to favor businesses that are in favor with the current political powers. The proletariat are not business owners. It is government.

            The problem with advocating government solutions to the problems of government is that it is the fox in the henhouse. What on Earth makes us think that those who enjoy abusing their power are going to willingly reform themselves? No, they will make it seem like they are doing something, such as campaign finance “reform”, which in fact all it does is make it harder for potential challengers to unseat incumbents. Or they’ll claim healthcare reform against those “evil” insurance companies, when it is the insurance companies who benefit the most from forced participation. Government won’t fix itself. It will require people taking back their freedom and power from a government that is too large. That is the essence of libertarianism. How far can we take it? How small of a government will we whittle it down to? Those are questions to be answered, but the direction is clear. We need LESS government, not more.

          • I think you nailed it when you said “what others here believe”. It is a belief that has no basis in reality. It’s a great idea on paper, would never work on a planet with 7 billion+ people.

            I agree that government is not perfect, and that it can become overreaching in some areas. I do not tacitly support our current governmental infrastructure just because I think some of it is necessary. As I have mentioned previously, it is typically the free market/unregulated/libertarian economic principles with which I disagree. You claim that it would encourage competition, I think that removing what oversight we have now would simply cause instant monopolies, even across industries. It’s already happening, even with the regulation we do have. There’s no reason to think this would change for the better.

            Corporations only love big government when they can use it to their advantage. If our government was acting on behalf of the people as they should be, instead of being purchased by corporations and the wealthy, then they wouldn’t be liking it so much. It isn’t the system that is the problem, it is the corruption. You may argue that this is the inherent problem with government, but I disagree.

          • You must question your own assumptions if you are to argue that an idea would “never work”. How exactly do you know it wouldn’t work? And what exactly is “it”? As I mentioned, the idea of libertarianism is smaller and smaller government. Are you saying that smaller government wouldn’t work? A lot of people didn’t believe that people could self-govern, that kings would always be needed. Yet, we’ve managed to find a way to make it this far. We found a way to reduce the size of government from one that had absolute power over people to one that at least on paper claims individuals are the sovereigns. So if smaller government will work, then the question is just how small can we make it? That’s a question I’d like to explore. Maybe zero government wouldn’t “work” if we dropped it in place right now today, but who’s to say that if we took the path of smaller and smaller government, society wouldn’t adapt to virtually zero government one day in the future?

            As far as no basis in reality, I would say that everyday reality is the solid foundation for freedom/libertarianism. In our every day lives, we tend to behave this way when dealing with our own interpersonal relationships. We teach our children to not lie, cheat, steal, or hurt others. And if we do, then we should make up for our actions. We know instinctively that cooperation works a whole lot better than coercion. So why wouldn’t it work on a larger scale? In reality, every interaction is personal, so I’d say there is plenty of evidence to point to success. But again, my assertion is that we should be working towards smaller government, not towards larger government. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Every step we take will bring us either towards smaller or bigger government. I simply know which direction we should be moving in.

            Monopolies can not exist without government intervention. Maybe for a short while, but competition tends to even the playing field better than any bureaucrat. Only when government regulations stifle the economy do monopolies tend to maintain hold. For all the “evil” of the monopolies they teach us about in school like Standard Oil, the greatest monopoly ever was AT&T, which was wholly a function of big government. And today the whole Net Neutrality issue is only an issue because of local government-sanctioned monopolies on cable TV and phone services. Government tends to make things worse, not better.

            Of course corporations love big government when they can use it to their advantage. And if government was acting on behalf of the people we wouldn’t be where we are today. But the problem isn’t that government can be purchased by corporate money. The problem is that there is power to be abused. If government were truly acting on behalf of the people, if they actually followed the Constitution, government would be a lot smaller in the first place (like I advocate) and there wouldn’t be the power to abuse. Without power to abuse, there would be no reason for big money to flow into government. Now that we’re in the situation we are now, do we really believe that government will fix itself? No way. It will take people downsizing government to make any real progress.

            You may not agree with the idea that government tends to corrupt itself, but a quick study of history should show example after example of this. At what point do we learn from history? There is a reason the saying is “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Each of us needs to make a choice on whether we want smaller government or bigger because it never stays the same. And cherry picking where one wants larger government only works as long as the people you want are in power. As soon as other people are in power, then you are the one getting cherry picked. And usually those with power aren’t looking out for the little guys.

          • Victor Moreno

            You make several good points. You also seem to concede the fact that it is unclear whether a society fully devoid of government could work, and that perhaps the optimal point is a much more minimalist government than we have, but still some government. Finally, you also very intelligently recognize the fact that social evolution towards this optimum is a process that takes time.

            Is it not fair to say, then, that even though the reduction of government might be the end goal, that in the interim, while that social adaptation takes place, it may be necessary to still enforce, expand and fix SOME aspects of legislation? Pollution laws would be a good example. Until we have finished that social evolution you speak of, I would be extremely reluctant to simply drop all oversight and let companies have free reign over how they dispose of their toxic waste. We KNOW that the majority of the time, if they do this it ends poorly. The most cost effective option (which is what corporations are exclusively concerned about) is rarely the most environmentally friendly one.

            If you tell me that for each new law we make we should be dropping 20 or 30 laws, I would be in utter and complete agreement. However, it is rare to see reasoning as sound as yours coming from the libertarian base. It’s usually a fanatical rejection of government and a push for abolishing every aspect of government immediately regardless of consequence.

            One last little point, going back to the whole pollution issue. The thing here is that companies are too shortsighted BECAUSE of the way corporate governance works. So in order for companies to take a longer view and do the right thing, they’d need to stop being so concerned with quarterly earnings. But in order to stop being so concerned with quarterly earnings, the stockholders (and the board of directors they elect) need to be people who have enough appetite for risk and the ability to withstand long term losses. But in order for the shareholders to be like this you’d have to somehow stop regular people from investing in companies which are too risky for them, which would entail more government. Otherwise, shareholders would just panic and dump the stock, then the company’s capital position suffers and we’re back to square one, with them needing to micro-manage quarterly profits. So one of the adaptations that needs to happen in order for less government to work is that lay people who don’t understand the markets need to stop wanting to have access to it – and they need to stop wanting to buy shares. But this in turn devolves our financial intermediation system and wipes away some of the progress that’s been made in this regard – leaving our capital markets at the sole mercy of quant funds. Although I concede that it could be possible for us to one day be ready for a very minimal government, it would entail a lot of change in many other places, starting with our capital markets and financial intermediaries.

          • I appreciate your approach to discussion. It’s nice to be able to talk to someone without personal insults or disparagement (not that others haven’t been).

            “while that social adaptation takes place, it may be necessary to still enforce, expand and fix SOME aspects of legislation?”

            This is a very interesting thought. My overriding philosophy would be that should constantly be working towards a smaller government – in other words, working towards true freedom. With that mindset, then the more we hang on to government legislation, the more we concede that we aren’t capable of getting along and aren’t capable of being free. How comfortable are we with that? We should be very uncomfortable with that way of thinking and so we should work as quickly as possible towards smaller government.

            Should we enforce current legislation? Perhaps, if it is legislation that is designed to encourage freedom rather than restrict it. For example, laws that restrict government power would be acceptable in my mind. But what about things like pollution laws that purport to protect people? Again, the more we agree to enforce them, the further away we stray from freedom. I personally would not be in favor of enforcing pollution laws (because I think that they mostly end up allowing government to play favorites, hurting smaller business, and not actually helping the environment much) and would not support them. But if we are making progress towards smaller government overall, then I can be satisfied to focus my efforts on bigger items with the knowledge that we will get back to them soon enough.

            Should we “fix” current legislation? Again, if it encourages freedom rather than restricts it, then that’s ok. But it would be hypocritical to encourage the changing of legislation to the detriment of freedom if our goal is to expand freedom.

            Should we expand legislation? If I believe that smaller government is the road to freedom, wouldn’t that be completely antithetical to what I am trying to accomplish? About the only thing that I would support again are laws that restrict or remove government power, but I think most of that can be accomplished by repealing laws, rather than creating news laws to cover up other laws.

            So let’s get back to pollution. If one believes that big corporations are the biggest polluters (which I would argue that governments actually are, but that discussion can be for another time), then what is it that makes them this way? Perhaps it is the separation of accountability from the shareholders? I won’t argue that, but keep in mind that corporations can only exist with charter from a government only – making my point that smaller government is the best solution. But perhaps it is the separation of responsibility from the polluting actions that really are the core of the issue here? If companies, even corporations, were truly held liable for the damage they caused, then that would definitely affect shareholders, as well as executives and even employees. The problem isn’t that there isn’t enough regulation keeping polluters at bay. The problem is that there isn’t a good way for polluters to be held liable for pollution. Since our government doesn’t recognize the rights of landowners to own the airspace above their land, or doesn’t allow private ownership of things like rivers, then there is no one that can claim property damage for large scale polluting.

            Let’s use a simple example. If your neighbor throws trash on your yard, it is simple to make your neighbor clean it up, or pay you for the reimbursement it takes for you to clean it up. If a company did the same thing, then you’d have the same recourse as well. But what if no one owned the land? If no one owns the land, then there is no infringement, is there? As free individuals, we should be able to sue polluters for what they do to our land, air, and water. But truly it is government that gets in the way of this. We allow the government too much control over environmental issues to our own detriment.

            Your last paragraph shows the danger in getting caught up in the minutiae of any “system”. Things can get very complicated when trying to centrally plan because humans don’t always behave in expected ways. The more we attempt to plan for every contingency, the more we end up in a tangled web of rules and regulations. My personal view is that we humans have a drive to innovate and create. In fact, oftentimes, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. I don’t believe that humans will stand still if regulations are removed (at least not for long). The drive we have to better ourselves and our society will still drive investments, even if they aren’t necessarily “protected” in some way. In fact, I believe that in trying to set up protection, we actually open the door for more corruption, which ultimately hurts investor confidence in the long run more so.

            But like you said, if we can agree that we should be removing 20 or 30 laws for each new one that is enacted, then we are ultimately working towards the same goal and the little things we can work out along the way.

          • Victor Moreno

            Fair enough. All i want is for otherwise smart people to not take a dogmatic approach to thinking. While it could be the case that our systems and societies may evolve to the point that would render government obsolete altogether, and while certainly there is a need for much less government in the US, it is not wise to reject every bit of new policy out of dogma and idealism. Evolving to a society without government is a gradual process and while the majority of laws are pretty parasitic, some are pretty useful, at least with the current state of affairs. I believe there are many laws that have benefits which outweigh their costs, with matters being what they currently are. To reject these for the sake of idealism is not very intelligent, and all I want is for people to see that. Let’s worry about stopping the gratuitous writing of new laws first, the repealment of useless anti-competition laws (like agrarian subsidies and such) second, and then let’s worry about trying to find an alternative to useful competitive instruments like the federal reserve. Let’s not do things ass backward like we have been.

          • Fair enough as well. Here’s the thing though – if we change the underlying way of thinking, then I think the speed at which change will occur will be quite rapid. So the details we are discussing are fairly moot. I think this is why many freedom advocates are so “dogmatic.” We can swing at the leaves all day long but they grow back. The only real cure is to attack the roots. Take the roots out and you take the leaves with them.

            And I wouldn’t reject idealism either. Why wouldn’t we want an ideal situation? If there is something worth fighting for, why compromise one’s beliefs? The thing is that one must truly believe in what they are fighting for, 100%, “balls to bones”. If there is any doubt at all, then it isn’t worth fighting for. That’s why as I explain in our other thread, freedom is such a simple concept. If it wasn’t, it would be very hard to fight for. So when some new policy comes up, it’s very easy for me to reject it if it doesn’t meet my criteria for freedom. To some that may seem “idealistic”, as if that was a bad thing, but it is because they don’t believe as I do, so it is a simple dismissal from them. There is nothing wrong with being idealistic if you have the right ideals. Which again, is why it is so important to believe in something very simple, as I have defined freedom in our other thread.

            As an aside, the problem with attacking things like agrarian subsides and the federal reserve (as much as I agree), is that in our current state too many people are “addicted” to those things. If we try to remove those things without enough people understanding the underlying concept of freedom, then there will be significant pushback as we are accused of favoritism, and not caring for farmers or babies or whatever. Not that it isn’t worth the fight, but it is going to be very hard to win this sort of thing without enough support from the people. And the only way to truly get that support is for enough people to understand why these policies are bad for freedom. So there must be a certain amount of “idealism” if we are truly going to make any progress.

          • Andrew Patton

            Only God-fearing people are capable of being free. All others will destroy themselves with freedom, not necessarily right away, but within a few generations.

          • GrayCat

            And you base your statement on . . . what, exactly?

            Certainly not on God’s Word.

            But you do parrot pretty good the government’s propaganda as some blaspheming pulpits teach it.

          • Andrew Patton

            Actually I do base it on the Bible. Observe Israel, whose lack of trust in the Lord led them to install Saul as king and to form untrustworthy alliances with pagan kings. I also know from the Bible that “The heart is deceitful, and desperately wicked,” so those who do not fear God need to be restrained by outside force, else they will abuse others.

          • GrayCat

            “Those who do not fear God.”

            Like . . . all those who presume to rule over other human beings, and like the ancient Israelites, install and maintain those who do not fear God to rule over them? You mean, like them?

            Genghis Kahn, the Caesars, the kings of Israel and Judah, Alexander the Great, Lenin, Stalin, the various warring kings and religious factions of Europe, Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, the pharaohs of Egypt, and at least the vast majority of presumptive rulers everywhere in recorded history . . . these were put in authority by God, and are there to “restrain those who do not fear God,” . . . but He’s okay with that?

            Where do you find that in the Bible, please?

            On the other hand, Jesus specifically said this: Matthew 20:20-28. And God Himself objected to the ancient Israelites setting up human rulers over themselves — and He was right: 1 Samuel 8

            Jesus refused to take rule of the kingdoms of the earth when they were offered to Him by their rightful ruler, Satan: Matthew 4:1-11

            How many times must people who claim to belong to God demonstrate they do not actually fear Him, by setting up mere human beings to rule over other human beings, and by presuming to themselves rule over their fellow human beings, before they finally “get it”?

            The abuse is believing that human rulers are there to restrain “those who do not fear God.”

            You might look up libertarianchristians[.]com and begin reading there for the truth of what you’ve been told Romans 13:1-7 means.

            Peace.

          • Andrew Patton

            Yes, He installed them, and He judges them according to how they ruled.

          • GrayCat

            Isn’t there a difference between “allow” and deliberately mandate?

            Of course God judges them according to how they ruled. But that does not mean that He approved of their being presumptive rulers over others in the first place!

            God judges Satan and his minions, too. Does that mean that He deliberately created Satan and his followers to vex us, rule us, destroy us, tempt us, and challenge His sovereignty?

            Jesus refused Satan’s offer to make Him King of the World. Jesus warned His disciples NOT to presume to rule others. Where does that leave us, since His ascension? When did He give permission for His followers to rule and exercise violence of any kind against any other human beings? (Even husbands over wives, and fathers over children? — Ephesians, especially chapters 5 and 6)

          • Andrew Patton

            The Apostles understood quite well the authority that Jesus was giving them over the Church. He was charging them to be pastors of His flock, and even promised them that they will judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel. More bluntly, God installed David, a man after His own heart, as King of Israel, with all that entails. He appointed Moses as prophet and judge of Israel and Aaron as High Priest, and if anyone attempted to usurp this authority, God Himself put a swift and ugly end to that person (e.g. swallowed by the Earth). What Jesus did say was that the greatest among them must be the servant of all; He was not denying the authority He was giving them; rather, He was telling them that the ones who have authority in His Kingdom have a duty to serve those they have authority over, just as He, the King, became a suffering servant.

          • GrayCat

            Hi, Andrew.

            This is getting really juicy, and I will get back to you, but won’t have the time for about a month. Please don’t be offended. I hope in the meantime things are going well with you.

          • GrayCat

            Hi, Andrew; if you still check back here, I’ve written a couple of rebuttals to your comments that used to be here. Sorry; my summer was REALLY busy; no time to do this. To wit:

            My point is that God’s system leaves room for repentance; as long as there’s life, there’s the opportunity to repent. James 2:8-13. We are all only worthy of death and eternal spiritual condemnation and separation from our Creator and King. Yet He Himself allowed us, bloodthirsty ingrates that we are, to murder Him. So that He could save us from the just punishment for our sins – ALL but one of them – to spend the rest of eternity with Him as His beloved. Anyone who wants to be saved, any time they want to be and come to Him in repentance and humility of heart, knowing they don’t deserve it, as long as it’s before their death (Luke 23:27-46, esp. vss. 39-43).

            It’s up to God, not man. Jesus Christ Almighty God is Judge, and His Word is Judge, and it is by every idle word we will be judged, He says. No man has been delegated that office by Him. Haven’t you noticed that the whole Bible is God pleading with us to repent and turn back to Him?! That He continually offers grace and forgiveness and mercy, with eternal punishment and banishment as ONLY a last resort ONLY for those who don’t?! It’s one great love letter of entreaty by the One who, John says, loved us FIRST (1 John 4, et al.).

            There is only one unforgivable sin, Christ says, and it’s “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” (Mark 3:29). It means those who profess to follow Him and belong to Him must not deny His grace and love, gentleness and mercy, presuming to be God in His place, yes? As He says in His Word, only He knows the heart, and therefore has the RIGHT to judge. The rest of us are called to at the very least give the benefit of the doubt (Matthew 18:21-35). There are no rewards given by Him for being a presumptive “judge” of others’ hearts, but ONLY for this: Matthew 25:31-46.

            The place to start to know and emulate Him is with the example He rebuked His other followers with: Luke 10:38-42.

            And,

            Where in Genesis 9:6 does God say who among men shall shed other men’s blood in vengeance? And then, where in the Bible does God say that it is right and proper, much less command any men to take vengeance on others? Doesn’t God say, in both the OT and the NT, that vengeance is God’s, alone?

            As the PARTIAL witness list in Hebrews 11 attests, and actually reading the Bible attests, most of those prophets who did dare call out wicked rulers paid with their lives; Nathan is one of the very few I can think of who didn’t (along with Elijah and Elisha), and my reading is that Nathan represented God Himself, and David recognized that. All that self-righteous hypocrisy and murder (Matthew 23) by the wicked rulers of the prophets who dared call them out sure looks to me like THEY knew their “authority” was being challenged.

            God only “allowed” rulers to have “authority” over the ruled because they ALL rejected HIM as their one true King!

            1 Samuel 8

            I hope this is allowed to stand here, and I hope you see it.

          • kootzie

            what mechanism would you advocate for settling “intractable” disputes/grievances
            between competing entities (not relying on governmental corruption) ?

            how about “corporations” ? essentially responsibility- and liability- evasion mechanisms which provide layers of abstraction isolating people from the consequences of their actions ?
            would corporate structures be dissolved and all “freemarket entrepreneurs” operating as sole/multi-partner proprietorships with full personal liability back to owners/”investors”?

            how about starting-point ? it is relatively safe to advocate/promote a hypothetical operating environment coming from the

            presumption that one will bring along the assets/resources/networks one has acquired through power/priviledge/luck/single-handed-individual-personal-ingenuity within the system one intends to dismantle/downscale…
            would it not be logically/morally/ethically consistent to implement (voluntarily of course) an equalization – at the beginning of the new game (and possibly periodically within it say… every 51 years) so that the contamination of GovBIG is minimized?

            surely there are enough resource-rich libertarians to setup a demonstration project – in a jurisdiction where external interference could be pre-emptively precluded, and into which an assortment of variable-performance-libertarians along with some slackers, ne’er-do’wells, and assholes would be invited to participate – basically a science-experiment to verify one’s theories and develop a refined implementation methodology ?

          • letmego

            It’s kind of strange that you mention problems with a free market, and that you say there is not enough regulation-I guess 4000-5000 new pages a year isn’t enough? At any rate, you say “corporations only love big government when they can use it to their advantage” and yes, that is why a libertarian advocates for the free-market which means getting the government out of the way-no cronyism, no special favors, no monopoly granting. Those are all hallmarks of government interference. “If our government was acting on behalf of the people….” EXACTLY-but they’re not. Are you thinking that they’re going to someday?

          • Not with Republicans who espouse libertarian economic principles which help continue this cycle of corporate control and oligarchy, no. But if we can defeat this libertarian-style interference into the economy, then yes.

            We had plenty of good regulations that have been repealed, like Glass-Steagall and tariffs on imported goods, which shifted manufacturing overseas. It’s not about the number of regulations, it’s about the quality, and keeping them in place instead of allowing banks and corporations to seek massive profits at the expense of the people.

          • Do you not see the discrepancy in your statement “libertarian-syle interference”? Libertarians do not want interference in the market! That is what big government does! One day you may see that much of what you fear in the market is BECAUSE of government interference, not the absence of it. One day you may understand that you either believe in freedom, or you don’t.

            And again, the idea of “good” regulations is completely dependent on benevolent politicians. Do we really think that politicians in this day and age are concerned with what the little people think, or are they more concerned with getting re-elected and continuing to live off the taxation gravy train? Some people talk about libertarianism as if it is some sort of fantasy, yet they don’t have any problem advocating the fairy tale of government fixing itself. Begging politicians to “fix things” is not going to work. They are controlled by big money and that is who they will listen to. The only thing that will work is for people to take back their power from an overly big government. Only by taking away the keys to the car can we ever hope to get control of it again. We either move towards freedom or we move away from it. What is your choice?

          • You can argue the No True Scotsman fallacy that “True Libertarians” are not involved in politics, but the fact is that there are politicians today who call themselves libertarians. Additionally, even those who do not consider themselves libertarians still espouse the libertarian economic principles which enshrine all of the problems we have today in government with corporate control of our system. If we got corporate money out of politics and stopped shilling for them and deregulating them, then we could actually work towards a less corrupt system. It is indeed this libertarian economic policy which is sabotaging our government, but this works to their advantage. If they can give the appearance that government is corrupt, government doesn’t work, etc., then people will become disenfranchised with government and they can work towards dismantling it. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You guys are trying to blame the corruption on government itself when that is not the case.

          • I see your point. There are in fact people in politics with libertarian claims and in fact the Libertarian party exists (“big L”). The main difference between what I consider a true libertarian and anyone else is their view of the size of government. Do they believe in reducing government or expanding it. If they advocate expanding it in any form or at any time, then I would question their core values and libertarian label.

            The bottom line is do you believe that big government is the solution to our problems, or do you believe in freedom and free people? That really is the only question we need to answer. Everything flows from that. However, I would ask, that if you don’t believe that free people can govern themselves, then why would you think these same free people when given power and authority in government would do any better? If you fear “bad” people, wouldn’t you fear them more when they have the power of government?

          • I think that there is a difference between the rights of individuals to liberty and choice to make their own decisions, and the privilege of owning and operating a business.

            I’m pretty much a social libertarian. I think that weed should be legalized, that gay marriage is acceptable, that prostitution should be legal, etc. The government should not be the arbiter of morality, so long as an individual’s actions are not causing harm to another against their will.

            However, owning and operating a business is a privilege, not a right. As such, I feel that the government is necessary to regulate them to protect individual citizens. Too many companies behave unethically and still achieve success. I think the ability of the consumer to reign in such companies on their own is overstated. When you look at a company like Wal-mart, they still have to comply with regulations, yet are paying glorified slave wages, buying most of their products from overseas, and many consumers have no choice because they must shop where they can afford things or it is the only store in town. Meanwhile, it is funneling massive wealth into the hands of a few individuals who did nothing but have the luck of being born into the right family. If the government would raise the minimum wage to a reasonable level, reinstate tariffs on imported goods, etc., then the people would benefit rather than the few wealthy elite.

          • See, we all can find common ground! We completely agree on the social freedom part. Just as you say, the government should not be the arbiter of morality. The government is only there to protect people’s rights and should not police people’s actions as long as they aren’t infringing on another’s rights.

            So now we must ask why do you think operating a business is not a right? What is a business, really? Let’s throw aside corporations, as they only exist as government-chartered entities which is a whole debate on to itself. Let’s start at a basic level. If I’m a farmer and I sell off some of my crops to others, that’s basically a business. Or if I can make tools and sell those to others. Or if I hunt and sell my extra meat to others. Are you saying that people don’t have the right to engage in commerce with others? Because if that is the case, how can anyone survive? You would basically be saying people don’t have a right to work, which I’m sure you don’t believe in that idea. How is engaging in commerce any different than getting married? Or actually, you give the example of prostitution, which is definitely a business – in fact called the world’s oldest profession! Who decides what is and isn’t a right? Just like you said, as long as people’s actions aren’t causing another harm, why couldn’t they do whatever they want. You’ll need to reconcile with yourself why you think certain things are rights and privileges and if they are privileges, who exactly is granting them? And if they have the power to decide what is and isn’t a right, don’t you fear that they will decree certain things privileges that you think should be rights?

            The problem with cherry-picking what should and shouldn’t be rights is that not everyone agrees. You said the government shouldn’t be the arbiter of morality, so either you believe that or you don’t. Because if you really believe that the government shouldn’t be the arbiter of moralities other than your own, then you’re being hypocritical and ultimately put your own freedom in jeopardy. Just as I said above, if you think government should have the power to choose what are and aren’t rights, then that’s fine as long as people that think the same way you do are in charge. But as soon as power shifts, those things you hold dear will be in danger of being declared privileges as well. Government power is double-edged sword. It will cut you just as quick as it will others. Government power is like fire. It will burn down your house just as quick as it will firewood. As soon as you lose control of either a sword or fire, you are just as likely to get hurt, even if you never intended it to happen.

            The Wal-Mart example is complicated, because for as bad as Wal-Mart is at times (and I’m not a particular fan of their work model), they have done a lot of good for consumers by bringing down prices quite a bit. Yes a lot of their stuff comes from overseas, but don’t people in other countries need to work too? I’m no fan of “slave wages”, but unless people in other countries are actually being forced to work, then they choose to work in factories and while their wages may seem low to us, they must obviously be better than other jobs they could be doing. Just like people working at Wal-Mart here, if the job sucks that bad, find another job or start working for yourself (assuming we think they have that right, of course – are you starting to see the ripple effects of government intrusion?). In the same way, Wal-Mart isn’t forcing people to buy from them. People buy there because they choose to, ultimately. There is plenty of competition for Wal-Mart in the form of other mass retailers in almost all situations.

            And even if we assume Wal-Mart is a completely evil organization, guess what – the Internet has given small businesses a fighting chance and is even undermining Wal-Mart’s business model. Do you think it is coincidence that Wal-Mart is becoming more of a grocery store than anything else? It’s because brick-and-mortar stores still work very well for grocery sales while the Internet is eating away at the sales of other goods. Natural competition evolves and even if Wal-Mart had it good for awhile, the market will push back eventually. Just like it did with Microsoft.

            The other thing about vilifying companies like Wal-Mart is that usually any government regulation tends to hurt the little companies more, as well as consumers. So let’s enact all these laws like minimum wages and high foreign tariffs and we might as well throw in great benefits and all this other stuff. All that has a cost. And of course, laws apply to everyone equally, right? Or else there are bigger problems. Big companies can try to absorb that cost or they will pass some of it on to consumers. Little companies can’t absorb these costs as easily and/or if they try to pass on some of the costs to the consumers, then they play right into the hands of companies like Wal-Mart who can price lower. So all regulations tend to do is make it easier for big companies to stomp on the little companies. This doesn’t even take into account all the time and energy companies must devote to complying with all these regulations, which again big companies can easily deal with, but with small companies are a significant drain on productivity and profitability. And all of this really hurts the ability of people to start their own businesses, as higher cost of living and stifling regulation make it hard to leave the “safety” of a job and risk it out on one’s own. Government regulation only helps the rich get richer, which is exactly what you don’t want.

            For me, it’s very simple. I support the freedom of everyone in every situation. As long as there is not force or fraud involved, people should be left alone to freely associate. Whether that means drug use, gay marriage, or running a business. You are actually right in one sense. Government regulation does help keep the wealthy down, but it also keeps everyone else down as well. What I would love to see is rather than a wealthy few is a wealthy lot! The rich get richer and the poor get richer too. Rather than an us-vs-them mentality, we should have a win-win mentality where the growth of wealth should not be at the expense of anyone. Everyone should have a chance to generate new wealth and government regulation hurts the poor the most, even if it was intended to hurt the rich.

          • You kind of prove my point, though, when you freely admit that workers in third-world countries aren’t “forced” to work but “choose” to anyways. Third-world countries then become the model for what deregulation looks like, since they have little to no regulation. This is why I sincerely believe that if government does not regulate business, then business will take the opportunity to exploit people.

            There was once a time when corporations had to be a net benefit to society, and couldn’t just focus on profits and making shareholders wealthy. The government had the ability to dissolve corporations who weren’t serving the greater good. While people have the right to operate a business, if they are doing so in the interest of personal greed to the detriment of society, then I would consider that as being harmful. This is why I think that government regulation is necessary to prevent harm against others.

          • The part you miss, however, is that many third-world countries are no where near as free as we are (or used to be). So a lot of the time those countries are run by oppressive governments and foreign jobs are a blessing. Or they used to be run by oppressive governments and they are still recovering. So maybe the regulation isn’t there on some business aspects, but dig a little deeper and you’ll see the boot of government keeping the country down.

            To take your point further, if you think heavy government regulation is all that great, then why isn’t China a shining star of a people’s paradise? Or the former Soviet Union? Why are Chinese people so often working in sweatshops if they should have it so good with government involvement in every aspect of business and society? Government regulation is not guaranteed to make things better, no matter how much is added, as the extreme examples of the USSR and China prove.

            There will always be bad people who try to exploit others, whether they run businesses or not. But not everyone will, and I sincerely believe that there are more hard-working, ethical people in the world then there are bad. Is it better to stifle an economy and keep poor people poor in the name of trying to stop some people from behaving badly, especially when it doesn’t work anyway? Bad people still do bad things even with regulation, whether it is here in the US or in China, but with government they can do even worse things.

            Businesses that focus only on the bottom dollar will never be as successful as companies that focus on serving their customers. Greed is ultimately self-destructive and we don’t need to regulate that (aren’t we trying to not regulate morality?). Greedy people for all their ills can not force people to buy from them, so there is no force involved, and if they perpetuate fraud, they should be held accountable for that, with or without regulation since they are infringing on people’s rights. Greedy people are not a detriment to society as much as they are a detriment to themselves, unless they are perpetuating force or fraud, which again they should be held accountable for regardless of regulation or not.

            Let me ask you this: let’s assume that all that regulation accomplishes is simply keeping the wealth of the entire economy down, especially keeping poor people poor – is it worth it?

          • Philippe David

            I’ll put the “No true Scotsman” argument to rest. You can’t be a libertarian unless you hold libertarian core beliefs, just as you can’t be a catholic if you don’t believe in the resurrection of Christ.

            Just advocating fiscal responsability and free markets doesn’t necessarily make you a libertarian.

            Libertarians believe in the non-initiation of force which we consider immoral. We stand against government regulations on the free market because they consist of applying violence against people and serve generally to favor one company or group of companies to the disadvantage of everyone else.

            We are in favor of drug and prostitution legalization because they are victimless crimes and thus the use of force isn’t justified against people engaging in peaceful activities and exchanges.

            We are against gun control because we believe in property rights, of which defending your own life and property is a cornerstone.

            So if you don’t believe in the non-agression principle or property rights, then you definitely are not a true libertarian.

            Can someone be a libertarian and a politician? One might think that engaging in politics is a betrayal of libertarian core beliefs, unless one allows there is more than one way to kill the Leviathan. Some believe they can kill the beast from within its belly and as long as they use their positions to work at the goal of shrinking governement or at least slowing its growth and abolishing unjust laws, then they are acting as libertarians. If they act otherwise, but still claim to be libertarians, then they are misrepresenting themselves, which wouldn’t be a first for a politician.

            Ron Paul is the best example of a true libertarian in government because he has consistently voted against bills that grew government and unjustly initiated force against individuals, which earned him the nickname of “Dr No”.

          • Roy J Lores

            since when is operating an owning a business a privilege? So for someone to operate a farm, a restaurant a bakery etc to earn a living is a privilege, so the right to live depends on your deity gotcha

          • Professor

            Wall mart could not function as it does without the largess of government. Zoning laws determine where and when anyone can build a store. Wall Mart is a corporation so its owners are free from Wall Mart illegality. etc.

          • Right, because of libertarian policies put into place which allow this to happen. This is not what progressives want. Typically, you make the assumption that all “statists” are content with the current state of affairs with respect to our government.

          • Gordon Blakeburn

            “However, owning and operating a business is a privilege, not a right. ”
            What drivel to say the least! Owning and running your own business and supporting your family and self is a right in as high an order as freedom of speech and self defence in my mind, without the right to care for yourself there is no freedom.

          • It’s hardly drivel. If you do not comply with all applicable laws and regulations for a given industry, you cannot operate a business in that industry. Laws and regulations are in place to protect the environment, the consumer, etc. There are good reasons for this.

          • Gordon Blakeburn

            Laws with out a victim create victims with enforcement and any business that mistreats it’s customers can never survive. The vast majority of business has no need for regulation at all never mind laws specific for that business. Regulations environmental or otherwise are in place to allow corporations and government to profit by monopoly and growth of government, either of who could care less about the environment other then what they can gain from it. I have read all of your posts on this link and have never read such BS. You want the environment protected you give Canadian citizens back the right to own property and sue government and corporations for all damages their policies do. I could careless what business anyone has but should I hire any business they better make sure I’m happy ..their business depends on it!

          • Sigh…

            Of course there are people in government who care about the environment, that’s why we have regulations and agencies like the EPA. Just because (largely Republican) politicians are puppets of corporations that put short-term profit over long-term environmental destruction doesn’t mean that government doesn’t care. You’re essentially taking worst of government and presenting it as representative of the government as a whole, and further, asserting that all “statists” approve of this.

            There are plenty of areas in which businesses which discriminate and behave badly would not only continue to exist, but which would thrive. The “free market” dictates that tyranny of the majority rules locally. Basically, right now, you’re approving of things like business owners being able to discriminate against people based on race or sexual orientation or other immutable traits. These businesses would thrive in certain pockets of our country, but we strive for an egalitarian society and don’t put up with such nonsense.

          • Gordon Blakeburn

            So much bull, and it would take far to much of my time laying waste to your straw man arguments.

            As a privately owned and run business, NO ONE can tell me who I have to work for, anything less then the freedom to work when and for who I want is simply a ridiculous concept and goes against the basic human rights of each and every human on earth.

            “Basically, right now, you’re approving of things like business owners being able to discriminate against people based on race or sexual orientation or other immutable traits.”

            A private business can work or not work for whom ever they chose just as we all have the right to use or not use that business for our needs. Any business that would turn down business or work because of any of your reasons given would and should fail, thats how a free market works.

            You seem to be advocating slavery because we own a business we must do what you tell us.. I am no ones slave!

            Going to guess you are employed by a government and probably a job steward for you local public sectors union? The sheeple is strong in you…

          • Bye now. Have fun lamenting the fact that you weren’t born before civilization began and that you have to share a planet with 8 billion other people.

            I’m privately employed by a Fortune 500 company, thanks. Just another thing that you’re wrong about today.

          • Professor

            It is absolutely the case. Corruption of government is the cause of nearly every ill in the world from starvation, income inequality, to terrorism. Doing some research you could find many scientific papers to support this cause.

          • Men are selfish by nature. Government at least gives us some measure of protection against sociopaths who would trample the rights of the masses in order to secure prosperity for themselves. Yes, this happens in government, too, but to a lesser extent because we have a means of addressing this since the honest people actually have a chance to do something about it.

            Please, tell me more about how abolishing the minimum wage is going to result in businesses paying higher wages and decreasing the income inequality.

          • Victor Moreno

            “you either believe in freedom, or you don’t.”

            An extremely disappointing, simple-minded statement coming from someone with so many other good ideas and arguments. Dichotomies seldom exist in the real world, and this is no exception.

          • I believe there are some things that truly are that simple. As you say yourself, dichotomies “seldom” exist, but you do allow for them. If so, how do you know when you find one? Are they “self-evident”, as Thomas Jefferson wrote?

            I concede that for many, some “unlearning” is required to get to that understanding. A lot of people need to whittle down what they think they know and try to understand what is truly important. The “I think therefore I am” method of getting to the core of what truly is, for reference.

            So allow me to explain this statement, although if you follow the thread that it was used in the context of, you will see that I didn’t start with that statement, but was using it as (hopefully) a wrap-up to a long chain of back-and-forth conversation. It should be a little more understandable in this context, although I understand if it is a bit of a long read.

            While most of us have a vague understanding of “freedom”, I honestly believe that most people don’t understand the simple concept that truly is freedom. Everything else stems from this core concept and if one doesn’t believe it … well, then they don’t believe it! While one may say they believe in freedom, they may really only believe in certain concepts that sound like freedom, or in freedom only for what they believe is right … which isn’t truly believing in freedom but rather something else.

            So what is this core concept? My personal definition, which I believe most freedom-minded people/libertarian/anarchists/etc. would likely concur with, is that people have the absolute right to do anything they wish, so long as the exercise of that right does not interfere with anyone else’s rights. That’s it. If you don’t believe in that, then you don’t believe in freedom. Again, you may believe in freedom for certain things, but that’s not a belief in freedom itself. If you only believe in freedom for certain things, then ultimately you are conceding that someone in power will decide who gets what freedoms and ultimately that will destroy all freedom.

            If one believes as a stereotypical “conservative” believes, that government should stay out of economic matters but not social matters, or as a stereotypical “liberal” believes, that government should stay out of personal issues while controlling business, they fail to see that giving government the power to control one group of people gives government the power to control them as well. Government power is rarely used like a surgeon’s knife. It is more like a runaway elephant. It doesn’t know or care the difference between controlling one group or another. Eventually that power will be turned against you. One big problem with government power is that once gained, government rarely gives it up voluntarily. That is why it takes a determined, focused effort to gain back freedom. But if people don’t truly understand the core concept of freedom, then we all are just spinning our wheels. Instead of fighting for freedom, we are just fighting for control. And that’s what has gotten us into trouble up to this point.

          • Victor Moreno

            So tell me, do you believe humans need food to survive? You either believe that or you don’t, right?

            Wrong.

            If you are chained to the bottom of the ocean and are starting to suffocate, you do not need food to survive. In fact, you can live out your whole life expectancy of 2 minutes without any food! So, in that case, that particular human does not need food to survive.

            Similarly, policy is (or SHOULD be) about what we need in the here and now, to avoid or rectify further violations of people’s rights, coercion by force of money/power, fix the errors which led to a financial crisis, etc. Most policy is made to address current needs, not the needs we would have if everything as optimal.

            I’ve yet to see a case where black and white thinking of that kind lead to anything useful. The only reason I say “dichotomies seldom exist” is because saying “dichotomies can’t exist” is an axiomatic statement which demands proof, and I would lose logical rigor if I said that. It’s he same reason why Gravitational pull is a theory – we can’t prove it. Logically sound dichotomies exist as much as apples which don’t fall from trees when plucked by the wind.

          • Your question about humans needing food to survive is a classic case of both answers being right and wrong simultaneously. The context of the question determines how right or wrong the answer is. Most people would assume that you mean a reasonable expectation of survival. However, you didn’t specify and as such, the assumption would cause them to be wrong in particular circumstances. Of course, most people would object to being “tricked”, which is actually a lot more relevant to this discussion that at first glance.

            Your idea that policies should be about what we need in the immediate sense is a very common way of thinking. It is also very dangerous and easy to abuse. Common wisdom tells us that we should think of the big picture, not just what seems right for the moment. Similarly, I believe government policy should be made in the same way as well. Too often politicians use the excuse of an “emergency” to rush through legislation that ultimately ends up being very bad for us (USA Patriot Act and the NSA, anyone?).

            Similarly, the idea that “policy” is needed at all (i.e. we need to do “something”) is very common and very dangerous. As you might guess, I believe when it comes to government, no action is often the best action. If government can’t “solve” something without infringing someone’s rights, then they shouldn’t force that policy on everyone.

            Politicians love to use emotion to further their agenda. They will say things that will pull our heartstrings and promise that they will fix everything. When those promises don’t pan out, people don’t like the fact that they were tricked into believing them. However, the problem is that they’ll believe the next politician who claims they will fix the mistakes of past politicians. They simply add another layer of problems and then the next politician will repeat the process.

            Perhaps you are right, that like gravity, my idea of freedom is just a theory. But like gravity, it seems to be pretty self-evident to me. But that’s probably because I’ve been studying this thing called freedom for about 20 years now. Plus I’ve always had a pretty independent streak about me even as a kid. So I’m pretty well-versed on this topic and so I can say I’m pretty confident in it. Of course I can’t conclusively prove that freedom “works”, but I can attempt to offer an abundance of examples. And hopefully you will continue to ask questions and do your own study as well. Just like gravity, at some point we can accept that while maybe we can’t yet prove freedom works, it is almost certainly a reality.

          • Victor Moreno

            The bit about needing food to survive was meant to illustrate how dogmatic thinking can make you miss the forest for the trees. If that guy who;’s chained to the bottom of the ocean was concerned with his need for food instead of air, and started making a spear to go spear fishing, he would die.

            Similarly, putting one value above all others in all circumstances can lead to that same scenario, where your decisions to uphold an idea can have immense costs, all because you dogmatically declined anything that could contradict the ideals. Times of war come to mind. Decisions which are made without a cost/benefit analysis tend to be bad decisions.

            I am in full agreement that short sightedness is a big problem we have as a society, I even alluded to it in the context of corporate governance before. But acting on immediate needs does not preclude having a long term strategy. You weigh your options, do a cost/benefit analysis, weigh your conclusions against your long term strategy, and then decide. With reasoning like this, the patriot act would have never passed. The whole thing was enabled by a fear mongering publicity stunt anyway.

            Yes, political rhetoric is based on emotions and uses logic exactly zero percent of the time. This is why it pains me even more that the few people that are capable of actually discussing policy and making meaningful contributions usually don’t.

            Finally, I am really glad that you made that point about gravity, where you made the implication that your twenty years of study has convinced you of the irrefutability of freedom as a guiding principle for mankind, just like your many years of observing apples falling from trees make you confident that gravity should be a law rather than a theory. Let me go ahead and tell you that we’ve actually already discovered that gravity doesn’t always work. It doesn’t apply on the interstellar scale nor on the quantum scale. Just like hiring bodyguards for protection, some things aren’t infinitely scaleable. Studying the same material for 20 years without seeing it actually applied to its full extent creates only the illusion of knowledge – confirmation bias is something we humans are all too prone to. We could have observed and studied gravity for 300 years starting on the 17th century and not discovered it breaking down until we finally put a satellite into space. I could comment on confirmation bias for days, actually. Did you know that they did a study where they compared MDs with 30+ years of experience vs new MD’s and looked at the accuracy with which they diagnosed the flu. Although experienced MD’s felt far more certain of their diagnoses, they actually couldn’t diagnose any more accurately than new MDs. Without a feedback mechanism for learning and quantifying your progress in learning, experience shouldnt give you a reason to be more certain of anything.

          • I’ll concede that your points are valid if we’re talking absolute proof, 100% of the time, no wiggle room whatsoever. I’ll give you that there are certain times freedom should be restricted – those times only being when one person has violated the rights of another and needs to be held responsible for their actions. If they don’t voluntarily comply with restituting the person whom they infringed upon, then sadly the last recourse is to force the person to comply, but only to the point where the victim is fully restituted. At which point the balance of freedom returns.

            But let’s be real. The extreme example of a person chained underwater is pushing the sanity test. It begins to lose relevance as an analogy when it’s taken too far. There are certain principles upon which there can be no wiggle room, or else you don’t truly believe in those principles. Weighing options and doing a cost/benefit analysis is all well and good, but not when you’re dealing with other people’s freedom. You have no right to treat other people’s freedom as a chess piece, as something that can be manipulated for some agenda. The cost benefit analysis is very quick and simple: intentionally infringing someone’s rights (who has not infringed upon another’s) is destroying the very foundation upon which this society rests upon. There’s no benefit that can outweigh that cost. If that’s dogmatic, then it all comes back to my original point: you either believe in freedom or you don’t. It’s not necessarily a bad thing if one doesn’t believe in freedom, but at least they should know where they stand.

            Now, truly believing in freedom and actually practicing it are two separate things. I can allow that someone truly believes in freedom but isn’t applying it. However, they must know that they are violating their own principles. Besides being hypocritical, a person who voluntarily violates their own principles must begin to question if they truly believe in those principles. This is different than someone who stands up for their principles even if they aren’t successful in convincing others. I think this is where you have the most issue. While many libertarians talk a great deal about their idealism and will not waver on those ideals, other people talk about “practical” changes and working within the current system. In practice, applying the principles of freedom would result in a gradual change in towards smaller government, as Rome wasn’t built in a day. However, moving towards smaller government requires steadfast adherence to the principles of freedom. If one were to waver from those ideals, then they will significantly reduce their effectiveness. With so many politicians giving lip service to freedom and then promoting policy that is decidedly anti-freedom, perhaps you can see why some people will not waver from their positions. They see that those who don’t really believe in freedom are too easily manipulated into destroying it. Maybe you haven’t considered the scenario where people can hold on to their ideals without compromise, yet change still happens in a more gradual way. Libertarians don’t want to force YOU to change, they simply want to remove the power of government from forcing you and everyone else to conform.

            The thing about gravity theory not working in interstellar space or on a quantum scale is that we humans don’t live in interstellar space or deal with quantum physics in the real world. So perhaps freedom wouldn’t work with some other alien race, but we are talking about humans living on the planet Earth. After enough observation and analysis of a situation, a conclusion can be made. Perhaps it isn’t 100% right for every other situation possible, but it is most likely right for the situation being observed. You’ve probably heard the joke about the scientist vs the engineer where each has to take steps exactly half the distance to reach a goal. The scientist never makes it to the goal, where the engineer finally says “close enough”. At some point we must get out of the realm of the theoretical and start living.

            You bring up the example of times of war. If we as a country are fighting a war to defend freedom, isn’t it hypocritical to destroy freedom in order to “win” a war? You seem to be aware that “times of war” are often conveniently used by politicians to justify any number of freedom-destroying new laws and policies. So I’m not sure how you can use a crisis situation to both justify and invalidate the idea that values can be compromised. Yes, government decisions must sometimes be made quickly, but those decisions must be restrained within some sort of bounds.

            I’m sure you must have some principle that you would never waver from. Is murder ever something that can be justified? I’m talking about killing people in a non-self-defense situation – premeditated if you will. How about stealing? Is rape ever acceptable? If everything is subject to a cost/benefit analysis, then how do we function as a society?

            I’d be happy to discuss any scenario you can come up with and explain how freedom principles can be applied. But why not start with more relevant scenarios first, before we get out into the weeds with hypothetical and/or highly unlikely ones?

          • Philippe David

            I can’t imagine a higher level of idiocy than advocating that since the human race is so bad, we need to choose men who are just as bad as we are, give them the monopoly over the use of force, and put them in charge of running all our lives and not think for a moment that such a job would not be totally appealing to the worst psychopaths.

            Only statists could be so stupid.

          • Only a libertarian could be so devoid of critical thought as to lump all people who don’t share their beliefs into the same pool as “statists”, as if there is only one form of government. This is why I consider libertarianism to be a religion without a god.

            There are good and bad people in all walks of life. Government is no different. The police are no different. You choose to be a pessimist.

          • Roy J Lores

            You still don’t get it do you bonehead?

            Your god the state only exists through the initiation of violence it does not matter if the violence if the violence is intended to have a good outcome you could personally threaten somebody to give his beach ball just so you can repaint it and improve it and you would still be a bully and an asshole, same goes for forcing people to pay for X or Y get it?

            And no charity is not borne at the point of a gun either, charity is when you give money or clothe or feed the poor or cure the infirm voluntarily out of the kindness of your heart, not because the state is forcing you too.

          • Have fun with your delusions. I’ve once again become inundated with responses on this page and don’t have the time to keep responding. I’ll leave you guys to your fantasy.

          • Roy J Lores

            The only one who is deluded that state violence is the answer to everything it’s you.

          • cesium62

            You’re the one who said the state has the right to be violent in response to someone who is infringing on the rights of the innocent. Make up your mind. Provide a self-consistent argument.

          • Philippe David

            Actually, I just reserve the term “statist” to that special kind of morally bankrupt person who defends the state tooth and nail.

            And my point, which you missed, is that power attracts psychopaths, which is how we wind up with such charming fellows as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pinochet or Pol Pot holding the reigns.

          • kootzie

            not to mention Kissinger, Cheney, Bush_Shrub-gang, LBJ, et al et al et al
            no less psychotic, just less theatrical

            and somewhat more efficient

          • cesium62

            So, corporate CEOs are psychopaths, but we shouldn’t have any regulations to control them?

          • GrayCat

            The point is, without the state/government, there could never exist such corporations and CEOs — or sociopathic politicians — as we have today. Only the state can grant businesses the monopoly power they have. And only those huge corporations can buy the fellow sociopaths to legislate their monopolies.

            Researching history, of the U.S. government and its crony big businesses and industries that grew up such monsters at the turn of the last century, can you show how this is not so?

            I’ve given recommendations to look up these issues in several other posts. Please look them up and see the truth.

            Consider this: only states — and their supporting and crony business “interests,” can wage wars. In private life, anyone who wants to mass murder or serial murder — sociopaths/psychopaths — are tracked down, captured, convicted of their crimes, and locked away for good.

            What makes states/rulers immune from the prosecution and punishment for their even worse mass murdering crimes? Are you familiar with Hermann Goring’s explanation of his and his boss’s mass murder? If not, perhaps you should look it up and see the stark truth for yourself. It’s at wikiquote[.]org; look for the paragraph that begins “Why of course the people don’t want war. . . . ”

            Who has a right to rule fellow human beings?

            Who is qualified to rule fellow human beings?

            Who has a right to hold a gun to your head and force you to do anything you wouldn’t willingly, freely, peaceably, have chosen to do?

          • DrGreatCham

            Prototype Atheist has been kind enough to demonstrate the truthfulness of Point 7:

            “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to
            permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these
            organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed
            agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they
            themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”


            Frédéric Bastiat,

            The Law

          • “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”.

            -James Madison

            We’ve seen “libertarianism” before. Like in the Old West, or before civilization began.

          • DrGreatCham

            Did you say, “The Old West?”

            Golly gee, more proof of the article writer’s correct thesis:

            “Old West violence mostly myth

            Cooperation valued more than conflict
            Jul. 17, 2005 12:00 AM from azcentral-dot-com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0717hill0717-dot-html

            Old West violence mostly myth

            Cooperation valued more than conflict

            Jul. 17, 2005 12:00 AM

            Once again as summer progresses, tourists are trying to recapture the romance of the West.
            Recalling the violent images fostered by Hollywood, they seek out ghost towns, ride horseback at dude ranches and take part in exciting re-enactments of conflicts among vigilantes, sheriffs, cowboys and Indians.

            What they don’t realize is that the violence of the West is largely a myth.

            Yes, there were isolated examples of violence, but the true story of the American West is one of cooperation, not conflict.

            My colleague Terry Anderson and I have been studying the history of the West for nearly 30 years. We found that wherever “people on the ground” got together, they generally found ways to cooperate rather than fight.”

          • Yeah, good luck with that. We have a planet approaching 8 billion people that is increasingly more diverse within local populations. I’m not sure you can point to the Old West as a valid model for instituting libertarianism today.

          • pyrodice

            you aren’t making a case against it by pointing out that there are MORE trading partners, opportunities, and viable technologies all the time. I just wish one of them would make government IMMEDIATELY obsolete, so we wouldn’t have to be here through its death throes…

          • The point in mentioning the population is to drive home that this type of society is unviable. You may be able to gather a small group of individuals together to live in such a system, but if it gets too big, it cannot be sustained. Hell, there have been several attempts at creating such a society, and they all fail miserably and end up in fighting and discontent.

          • pyrodice

            Pretty much ALL societies are anarchic. You’re possibly conflating society and government still, but consider this: An anarchistic trading society is the black market. It’s mutual beneficial exchange with no taxation and the rates set by the participants… And the biggest governments on earth cannot destroy them. In the end, they only wind up making them stronger, to the point where the black market expands to the buying and selling of government employees’ loyalties. Hell, organized crime only has violence because it cannot set up a legal system of its own without having the government come kick down their legos.

            In fact, I would point out that the vast majority of GOVERNMENTS which have ever been set up have collapsed, so if you want to be intellectually honest about it, it just shows that entropy busts most endeavors, over a long enough timeline.

          • There’s a reason governments exist, because human societies before them didn’t work. Anarchism and libertarianism is social Darwinism. Great for sociopaths, not so great for decent humans.

          • pyrodice

            Human societies work just fine until the sociopaths show up, but I’d much rather deal with having to put down a Ted Bundy than a Joseph Stalin.
            The thing is, we’re never going to get rid of the sociopaths completely… I’m going to advocate for the paradigm where there ISN’T a belief that they have some divine right to be followed.
            Besides, the evolution of human societies must acknowledge improved survivability, and defense. Originally your tribe needed to band together because big things are meat, and we’re made out of meat. Then rival groups practiced human sacrifice, until one learned that enslaving them was more cost-effective, slavery continued until our tech made our morals viable, and our slaves obsolete… And now we do the same for government, which is nothing more than universally distributed slavery.

          • Please, the “free market” is glorified slavery. Just abolish the minimum wage and people will have to work for whatever scraps they can get instead of getting nothing at all.

          • pyrodice

            lol. What percentage of people actually work for minimum wage? If the OTHER like, 97% of jobs are already priced above minimum wage, they’re unaffected. The only thing the minimum wage changes is setting a price floor, and denying entry level jobs to teens and the disabled.

            *edit: I see you’d prefer people get nothing at all than a little bit?*

            As for ‘glorified slavery’, well…

          • Sorry, but working full time and still living in poverty is glorified slavery.

            What does it matter what percentage of workers make minimum wage? If anyone works full time, they should be able to afford the bare minimum to survive. We shouldn’t have people working and still needing assistance to have shelter and food. And your argument about “teens and the disabled” is an old canard. There’s a lot of able adults making minimum wage. If everyone had an education or job training, we’d still need people to do things like mop floors and flip burgers, right? And they should just suck it up for having the bad luck to not get a better job?

          • pyrodice

            The ‘poverty’ bit is just as much of a canard… So is “luck”. You don’t stumble and fall into an education or skill: you develop them. Want to know the fastest thing government can do to change how many people are living in poverty? They change the definition of poverty. They already have, several times. It’s how they can raise the alarm, as H.L. Mencken predicted, regarding a never ending stream of hobgoblins of their own making. Minimum wage jobs aren’t intended to live on. They’re intended for school-aged children, and folks otherwise too disabled to perform SKILLED work. All a minimum wage does is decree that you can’t get paid at all, unless the job you’re going to do is worth over a certain amount to the guy needing it done… You’re allowed to give away your services charitably for nothing… And you’re allowed to sell them for minimum wage… but not anything between these two. Yes, we’ll always need people to mop floors and flip burgers. They’re jobs to give you a bullet on your résumé that shows that you have a work ethic, that you’re trainable, and show up on time. They’re NOT jobs one is expected to sustain a family on, alone. They’re income supplements, or after school work. You think it’s bad luck to have one of those jobs? Compared to what? See, the same people don’t STAY in those jobs: they move up. I have a friend who started out with a minimum wage McDonalds job, and she’s the assistant manager now, less than 2 years later. She earns about 30% more, at an estimate, and has ‘management experience’ on her résumé, at 21.

            Yes, if everyone got a PhD, we’d still need someone to dump the trash, or change our oil. But that’s an argument against government pushing higher education until its costs quadruple… Not the minimum wage.

            Of course, the presumption that one must take a job from a corporation is also flawed. If you’re willing to turn labor DIRECTLY into money, self-employment allows one to take a lower than minimum wage for a time to get established, and keep the fruits of your labors… At least, until the tax man shows up.

          • You’re being idealistic, not realistic. There’s no reason the minimum wage should not be at a level where a person can work full time and not even come close to being able to being self-sufficient. If you work, you should be able to afford basic sustenance, period. This argument about minimum wage jobs being “entry level” is nonsense. There are many people who will never be able to get a job more than “entry level” because they lack skills or education. On top of that, there are many people with skills or education who are left to take a minimum wage position because there are no jobs available in their field. You act like we have this great economy where we don’t have enough educated people to fill good jobs and it’s just teenagers and the handicapped left to fill in all the minimum wage jobs. That’s just not the reality. If a person works full time and still needs government assistance to cover basic living expenses, while businesses are raking in obscene profits, that’s corporate welfare.

          • GrayCat

            PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!

            DO SOME READING OF THE HISTORY OF MONETARY POLICY AND POLITICS IN THIS COUNTRY!!!

            You can even find relatively truncated but accurate film documentaries on the Internet. Look up the 1999 PBS special, The Monopoly Men, on YouTube or the Web documentary sites. It’s a great starting point. Then set aside 3+ hours for The Money Masters; you can also find that free on the Internet. Also see “Detroit’s Private Police” on YouTube.

            For more documentation and detail, get G. Edward Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, at your local library, or buy your own copy; it’s a great reference!

            Also PLEASE read Murray Rothbard, Robert Higgs, Thomas DiLorenzo, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas Woods, Ludwig von Mises, Ron Paul, James Scott, John Taylor Gatto, Paul Rosenberg, Jacob Hornberger, Jacob Heubert, . . . and so many more!

            There is a cogent, rational, logical, FACT-BASED and supported answer to every single one of your “objections.”

            The only reason I can think of that you wouldn’t is because you don’t want to know the TRUTH. Prove I’m wrong. Take a chance. Actually learn something about economics and political reality, and political and social possibility.

            PLEASE. Thanks! :-)

          • You’re appealing to corruption and abuse in government as an argument for doing away with government. Sorry, but abuse and corruption are always going to exist, because we’re humans. As I’ve clearly laid out, government may not be perfect, but it’s the best system we have.

          • GrayCat

            You prove your invincible ignorance — and WORSE, your chosen PREFERENCE FOR IT.

            The only thing I’m appealing to is any tiny spark of truth and honesty in YOU. You cannot HONESTLY reply to me or anyone else with ANY CREDIBILITY while you stubbornly REFUSE to LEARN anything FACTUAL and TRUTHFUL.

            You have no shame, and demonstrate your own sociopathic inability to feel either compassion for those who disagree with you on FACTUAL, SUPPORTABLE PRINCIPLE, or intellectual cleanliness. Oh, yes, “atheist,” you do believe in using violence against those who don’t conform to your desires. You just prefer the cowardly stance of hiding behind others to do your dirty work for you, and turn your back, to pretend you “can’t” see it.

            Until you actually admit someone else may be at least a little correct, and there may in fact be some merit to their position, you are one of the worst deliberate hypocrites I’ve ever encountered.

            PROVE — WITH FACTS, UNASSAILABLE FACTS — that I and the other rational, intellectual, INFORMED libertarians here are wrong. Until then, you deserve the utter contempt of every THINKING, REASONING, INFORMED person.

            Thanks for establishing for all of us just how malevolent you really are.

          • And now you’re projecting your sociopathy.

            FACT: There’s not a single libertarian society in existence.

            Can’t imagine why…

          • GrayCat

            Well, there’s your problem: lack of imagination.

            And yer jes fine with that, ain’tcha?!

            The fact of the matter is there have been such societies, and you could easily learn of them through many of the authors and resources I’ve recommended, but you’re too afraid to learn about them; your whole world would shatter around you — and you know it!.

            I understand: It’s hard when cherished lies are dashed, for all the world to see, and you have to scramble to try not to sputter out.

            Tough.

          • And where are these societies now?

            Not afraid to learn anything. Afraid that you have far too high an opinion of humanity.

          • GrayCat

            You know, PA, you do yourself a great disservice. It’s hard to figure out exactly why free people being free is so horribly frightening to you.

            You couldn’t say the things you do if you knew better — or maybe you’re just so inculcated with the idea that ruling humanity is so good you’re afraid of losing their protection. Surely you do know better?

            I can only appeal to your charitable side, where hopefully curiosity, open-mindedness, and that famous tolerance liberals claim they have, that you will finally deign to at least read Robert Higgs, Murray Rothbard, Regine Pernoud’s book, Those Terrible Middle Ages!: Debunking the Myths, and James Scott’s book, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History, at least.

            Then look around you, please. More small communities — especially “gated communities,” but definitely not limited to them — are dissolving their local governments for voluntary “governance,” and getting rid of government police departments, and hiring private security. If you would deign to look up “Detroit’s Private Police” on YouTube, you’d see exactly how this works.

            Are you aware that a little over 10 miles from Ferguson is such a community, where the rioters (poor widdo babies!) dared not go, because they knew the state and fed gov forces would not protect them there, and so they would be risking their lives to spread their mayhem and violence.

            Then just stop and think for a few minutes about your own life. Even as much as you believe dear old daddy gov is necessary, do you have a government guide or supervisor ride around with you in your car, choose your groceries for you, tell you where you can go with his/her approval, tell you what you can do with her/his approval, what you can read, what you can buy (other than health insurance!), where you can live, what neighbors to be nice to, what charities to give to, what charitable work you can do, how you must fix your hair, whether or not you can paint your nails, use cosmetics, which soap you must use, and deodorant (or even, whether to use deodorant), where you can take your morning constitutional, and with whom, what pets you may own, what vet to use, etc.?

            Whether you’re aware of it or not, THAT is called ANARCHY. It’s LIBERTARIAN. To make your own decisions and associate with whomever you want, or choose not to. Or do you not violate and rob your neighbor personally only because you know government tells you not to, on threat of personal harm, even death? If government were removed, would you go out and rob and shoot your neighbor? Do you believe your neighbor would do that to you? Or, really, are there other, more reasonable, pleasurable “restraints” on our behavior toward one another? (And doesn’t that involve “compassion,” “empathy,” respect, “equality,” and all within society and voluntary cooperation — in FREEDOM?)

            The FACT is, you and the rest of us manage to live most of our lives without some government passbook or supervision. Yet that very FACT is what they’re trying to overcome by mounting surveillance cameras every few feet, monitoring your phone conversations and e-mails and online activities, forcing you to get their permission (“permits” and “licenses”) to do simple add-ons or remodels to your own home — which, even after you pay off the mortgage, you STILL don’t own it, but the government DOES — “property taxes” and “zoning restrictions” — or even if you can do a freind’s hair in your kitchen and she might offer you a few dollars to cover the expense of the shampoo, curlers, scissors, blow drier, etc.

            This is what you’re blind to. This is what we object to, and are trying to help others see before it’s too late and we find ourselves in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Soviet, or virtually living under the Saudis.

            I can understand anyone not wanting to see this truth. What I cannot understand is why anyone would still insist that everything’s fine, if only we libertarians would just shut up about pointing out the truth of all the things that are wrong, and getting worse, and what it means.

            The reason I don’t want to be ruled — even by such as you — is precisely that I have an appreciation and experience of how low most humanity is — and the rulers get worse the more population there is for them to control.

            Who has a right to rule other human beings? Who is so virtuous that they have a right to control others’ decisions and relationships, and whether they may live or die?

            Who is qualified to rule other human beings? Who is so virtuous that they are qualified to control others’ decisions and relationships, and whether they may live or die?

            Robert Altemeyer, in his book The Authoritarians,
            describes the authoritarian in ways that resemble the
            typically unprincipled prohibitionist: “They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority and
            conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times and are often hypocrites.”

            “We are forbidden to use force to defend our rights when confronting the state, under pain of death. That is the contradiction of the state’s claim to be our ‘protector.’ If we can delegate to the state a permission to protect, we must have the right. We cannot lose the right by delegating. If we have no right to resist the state, where does the state get its authority? It has no moral/legal authority.It rules by threat/use of force.”

            Robert Higgs: “Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

            “In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”

            “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” ― Senator Daniel Webster

            Please deeply, objectively consider: who is motivated to rule his fellows? Psychologically, why would anyone want to govern others?

            Thanks.

          • The fact is that you’re cherry-picking the worst of government to represent governance as a whole. By all means, invent a time machine and head back to before civilization began so that you can live in your libertarian utopia.

          • GrayCat

            Are you really so disingenuous?!

            Did you pick up that there’s a difference between “government” and “governance”? It matters.

            And you can really say that there was no civilization during the Middle Ages?! REALLY?!

            How do YOU define “civilization”?

            Since you know so much, can you please point out ANY government that hasn’t been “the worst”? At ANY point in time, please? Please?

          • Can you please point out one example of a successful society using your ideology, and how this would be relevant to a planet with 8 billion people on it?

          • GrayCat

            You know I and others on here have done that many, many times.

            Did you even read my long post of a day ago?! Doesn’t sound like it. >:-(

            It’s your turn to point out any SUCCESSFUL states using YOUR ideology.

            And just because when old ones collapse and die because of their own rot and unwieldy weight, and are replaced by “new” ones in quick and violent succession, that is NOT a measure of “success” in the way you want us to think of it. It merely means — and history attests, if you were honest and bothered to read and learn history — that more violent, malevolent rulers are poised and ready to fill in the gap — even bring it about.

            So try.

            ESPECIALLY with such a global population. I specifically HAVE
            responded to your fallacious contention on that subject. Go back;
            reread; learn.

          • It’s hilarious to me that libertarians think that the rejection of their utopian fantasy must be the result of ignorance.

          • GrayCat

            Then prove it’s not.

          • That’s like a religious person demanding that I read their entire holy text before declaring that their beliefs are bullshit. You know, like Reza Aslan does.

          • GrayCat

            No, it’s a purely dishonest dodge to avoid doing the pertinent research for yourself.

            You ALWAYS dodge these most basic questions:

            Who has a right to rule other human beings? Who is so virtuous that they have a right to control others’ decisions and relationships, and whether they may live or die?

            Who is qualified to rule other human beings? Who is so virtuous that they are qualified to control others’ decisions and relationships, and whether they may live or die?

            Who has a right to hold a gun to your head and force you to do anything you wouldn’t willingly, freely, peaceably, have chosen to do?

            Psychologically, what kind of person desires to rule others and make their decisions for them, to take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots,” and live off the earnings of the “haves? Psychologically, who presumes to judge whether someone else has “too much,” and grants himself the power and the “right” to cut that “too much” “down to size”?

          • Nope, it’s not a dodge. I don’t have the patience to deal with the childish hyperbole of libertarians.

          • GrayCat

            Yet here you are.

            Yes, it is a dodge.

            Simply answer my questions, please.

          • GrayCat

            Oh, wow.

            I just found you posted this little gem, at the same time you wrote the reply I’m replying to now: “Atheists who are outspoken about religion are often skeptics about other things and advocate for evidence-based thinking.”

            So . . . where’s all your “evidence-based thinking” on this particular subject? No more dodging. You made the statement about how atheists are all about “evidence-based thinking.” Show us. How about even just answering those little questions I asked you — politely — to answer? We’re all waiting with bated breath for your “evidence-based thinking.”

          • I told you, I’m already quite familiar with the claims of libertarians and have dismissed them. I’m not ignorant or lacking some crucial argument that’s going to bring about some epiphany. I already told you, your demand that I read more on this topic because it will surely convert me is akin to the claims of religious people who tell me if I just read some more apologists, I’ll realize the hidden truths of their mythology. Libertarianism would only be feasible in small populations, and even then, it’s questionable. It has no chance in a country of hundreds of millions or on a planet with 8 billion people.

          • GrayCat

            I’ve never “demanded” you read anything; I plead with you and appeal to your open-minded, tolerant, “evidence-based thinking” side, and certainly not “because” it will surely convert you.

            All I’m asking you to do is simply answer my questions above with factual evidence. All fanatical religionists disingenuously refuse to do this. It’s a mark of the pure faith.

            But okay; that seems to be too much all at once. So begin with just one basic one: Do you believe there is such a thing as a human right to rule other human beings?

          • More libertarian projection. If anything is a religion here, it’s libertarianism. You worship the free market. You label anyone who doesn’t agree with your dogma a “statist”. You have zero evidence of any successful libertarian societies existing, yet claim they are not only possible, but utopian.

            No, there is no right to rule over other human beings, and dictatorships or other totalitarian systems are not something I support. However, many humans have decided that the best way to achieve an egalitarian society is through electing leaders democratically, and even better, with an underlying set of rules (like the Constitution) to prevent a tyranny of the majority from ruling over others. Sorry, you’re on a planet that has largely been claimed and developed and that you share with 8 billion people. You can’t expect to be left alone or that there won’t be any opposition to your dream of social Darwinism (which, by the way, would lead to humans ruling over other humans…).

          • GrayCat

            So you admit there is no right of some humans to rule other human beings. Yet you believe that a bunch of people, with no such right, can confer that right onto others they “elect” to rule them.

            How do you explain that, logically?

          • There’s no right for humans to unilaterally rule over others. However, if humans decide democratically to elect leaders, then they are conferring that right onto the leadership.

            There are no perfect systems. Every system has flaws. It’s about choosing the least flawed system.

          • GrayCat

            How do you, in honesty, “confer” a right to anyone else that you don’t have?

          • There’s no such thing as “natural rights”. All rights are what any society agrees upon. Before human civilization began, you didn’t have a right to not be killed, that was just nature at work and the dominant members showing their power. We still see this in other species. If a society wants to grant the right to govern to members of their society, then the right exists. Most human societies have decided that this is the best approach. This angers you.

          • GrayCat

            Well, that certainly explains Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, the Ils, and all their ilk throughout recorded human history, and all the “soft dictators” in “democracies.” And you are so cognitively dissonant — or plain disingenuous — you think this is the only and natural way of “civilization” and “society.”

            No wonder the Flat Earth Society perseveres: There’s no way we could have gone to the moon, because it’s never been done before. Everything possible has already been tried, and the only thing that’s been proven to be possible is what we have and our chosen history shows us we’ve ever and only had. So nothing else, obviously, is possible.

            Murder is what humans do to each other; other animals do not.

            Which other animals in all of nature deliberately prey on and extort their own kind? Which raises armies to conquer everything around them, and extort “tribute” and “taxes” from their subjects? Which uses tribute and taxes to “redistribute” to those they deem “worthy” in their midst? And who says who those are?

            Chimpanzees horrified us when we discovered these wonderful peaceful apes, models of working society, that we tried mightily to claim in our family tree, were scheming, murderous, bloodthirsty and depraved toward their own kind and other primates. Horrified. Why do you think that was?

            And so now we tie ourselves into pretzels to try to unanthropomorphize them and distance ourselves from them. (But we still want to claim the bonobos . . . )

            Why do you think that is?

            Which then really is more human and humane: human beings who recognize the same right to his own life in every one of their fellows, and respect that, in peace and mutual liberty, or mere brute animals that think coercion and force, and murder, are natural and legitimate to use to break the daily monotony, vent frustration and anger and petulance, keep fellows in subjection, beholden, in line and compliant? And, oh, get the best mating privileges.

            If “rights” are privileges granted by those in power, we are indeed a species of depraved monsters. Might makes right, in your view, and all the rest of us should just shut up and welcome that boot on our necks.

            Yeah, you’re REAL compassionate and empathetic.

            By whose definition? “Society’s”? “Civilization’s”? “Benevolent Dictators”? “Democratic mob rulers”? “You”?

            By what right and authority?

            There is no such thing as crime, wrong, or society if rights are whatever someone in power says they are — even if those in power are the choice of the “majority.” There is no such thing as compassion or empathy; there is only whatever the mob say there is, and the rest be hanged.

            Anyone who sees that as our highest good and only possible system and supports it, just because it has been the dominant practice for centuries, is a monster.

          • Cool, Godwin’s Law.

            There’s nothing more to be said here. Your libertarian dogma cannot be altered with logic or reason, like any other religion.

            Yep, I’m the one who seeks the best way for billions of people to live harmoniously. You’re the one angry that you don’t have the Earth to yourself.

          • GrayCat

            Yet again you deliberately ignore the questions while disingenuously and dishonestly smearing me.

            “Godwin’s Law” does not negate the truth of pointing out the examples of those men and the people who followed them and what they did to those who didn’t want to.

            But it’s a very convenient fig leaf to try to hide your intellectual vacuity with.

            Uh, sorry, but we can all still see you’re nakedly dictatorial.

          • You’re not worth my time. Nothing I say is going to convince you. When you trot out Nazi Germany and gulags as representative of all governments, you’ve lost all credibility.

          • GrayCat

            Yet, once again, here you are.

            Exactly why should anyone be “convinced” by you of anything moral, social, or political?

            And please, where did I claim Nazi Germany and gulags are representative of all governments?

            You need to be honest, evidently not just with everyone else, but with yourself: where do a group of people get a right they don’t have to give to someone they “elect”?

          • They don’t. Rights don’t just exist, they are social constructs, just like morals. And any “rights” that you’re now going to claim are “natural” are going to be things which are very primal, which exist even in the absence of civilization, and that’s why libertarianism is social Darwinism.

          • GrayCat

            So . . . you don’t have a right to your own life and body? I can arbitrarily decide I own you and it, and have a right to do with you and it whatever I please — but ESPECIALLY if a bunch of us get together and claim that right, conferring it on ourselves because we decide to?

          • No, I don’t have those rights, because what, other than myself, is going to protect them in the absence of agreement amongst all those in my population? Again, there’s no way to stop me from protecting myself, but there’s also nothing that objectively declares that punishment must be meted out to anyone who harms me against my will unless others agree. In a primitive human existence, dominating over others and killing others is a survival strategy. It’s only if the group decides to be altruistic that such actions become an infringement on “rights” granted by the group.

          • GrayCat

            So . . . whether or not you have a right to your own life and body boils down, for you, to whether or not you can protect them?!

          • In the absence of civilization, you don’t have any rights. Rights from where? Floating in the ether? Do zebras have the right to not be eaten by a lion?

          • GrayCat

            So you’re a zebra? LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

            By the way, I’ve never seen a zebra that waltzes up to a lion and says, “Go ahead, kill me. I have no right to run for the preservation of my life from you. You have a right to kill me, because you’re equipped to do it, and you have the altruistic backing of your pride. Therefore, I am yours to banquet upon!”

            The fact of self-preservation is the inviolable proof for the right to life of any creature capable of avoiding being killed and actively living to preserve its life. Nowhere is that more apparent and adamant than in human beings — who are ALSO capable of voluntarily banding together to effect that survival and life-preservation of each of the group.

            But even in a voluntarily solitary existence, every human being has that intrinsic, inborn, inviolate right to life, to live, to survive, thrive, and preserve that chosen life.

            Without that, there is no possibility of “civilization.”

          • Sure, you have the right to defend yourself. Again, nobody can take that from you. You’re taking it further, though, to claim that there is an intrinsic right to “preserve a chosen life”. We live on a planet with finite resources, 8 billion people, and billions of other species of life. To expect that each individual’s chosen life is not going to conflict with the chosen life of others is absurd. Humans have collectively determined that the best way to manage these conflicts is to work altruistically to come to an agreement about what works best for the majority. We’ve decided collectively to put selfishness aside and to make some sacrifices for the overall benefit of everyone. Again, there are no perfect systems.

          • GrayCat

            If it’s MY chosen life, I have the ABSOLUTE, INVIOLABLE RIGHT — as you just CONCEDED — to preserve it, any and all ways I can.

            “Society” has NO RIGHT to infringe on that NATURAL right to life. I will defend MY life against all such UNRIGHTFUL and CRIMINAL, IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, and ultimately tyrannical INHUMAN INFRINGEMENTS.

            If you CHOOSE not to, that’s YOUR right, your NATURAL right. But you nor ANY amount of others has any right to choose FOR me about MY choice to PRESERVE AND PROTECT MY LIFE.

            Your hiding behind “we” of collectivism to dictate by “popularity” what rights you will infringe on and try to declare null is the very epitome of SELFISHNESS. You nor any amount of people in your collective has ANY right to do so.

            Exactly how does my deciding for myself how to best live my chosen life infringe on yours or the collective’s? If I’m not harming you or anyone else by so doing, why does it matter so obsessively to you?

            Exactly how does you and your collective needing to control me and my life equate to not being selfish? How is it your sacrifice?

          • And how, exactly, does one determine precisely what is “criminal, immoral, unethical, tyrannical, and inhuman”? Sounds pretty subjective to me. Sounds like any given group of humans could have different ideas about what those might mean. Sounds like you think that only your opinion matters with respect to these.

            Yes, when you share a planet with 8 billion people, what any given population of people decides is going to be how things operate. You’re simply demonstrating my point that libertarians are upset that they don’t have the planet unto themselves.

          • GrayCat

            You determine precisely what is “criminal, immoral, unethical, tyrannical, and inhuman” by whether or not it infringes on anyone simply minding their own business, peacefully, voluntarily, who is not infringing anyone else’s right to his own peaceful life. That’s not “opinion,” but seems to be quite beyond your ability to grasp.

            I’ve already debunked your stupid Malthusianism. Please stop it.

            Murder and theft and fraud are never not criminal just because any given population decides they’re not. You demonstrate over and over again, ad nauseum, that you somehow believe yourself to be in the majority of who does what to whom — and that you’ll always be there, and not among those targeted for attack and annihilation just because you did or thought something the collective arbitrarily just decided was not acceptable, but you didn’t get the memo in time.

            At least I recognize the idiocy and demonstrated injustice of what you want to enforce on me and everyone else who isn’t you.

            Welcome to your just desserts.

          • But that’s the whole point. You don’t have a right to a peaceful life. You’re an intelligent primate on a rock hurtling through space around a mediocre star. Nothing is promised to you. You’re taking modern, civilized society and attempting to assert that this exists without humans agreeing to it. You don’t have the right to a peaceful life or to anything else unless you live amongst others who share your view.

            You demonstrate over and over again that you don’t grasp this simple concept. There is no god. There is no universal law of human rights floating around in the ether. Your rights are what those living amongst you say they are, and this is true whether or not a government exists.

          • GrayCat

            Oh. So, okay.“You don’t have a right to a peaceful life.”

            If memory serves, elsewhere on this thread you claim to not agree with war. Yet “society” and its “leaders” approve it, and wage it, most lustily, most religiously, with all possible justification. And this cannot then be anything but just fine with you, as your definition of “society” is whatever the majority decide, because “natural rights” don’t exist.

            So who are you to disagree with “society’s” love and approval of war, taking part of what you earn (with your permission?) to pay for it?

            Do you realize that your description of humanity as merely “intelligent primates” with no intrinsic natural right to life – even granted by nature – unless granted to you by the rest of the “intelligent primates” is exactly social Darwinism? Have you ever read anything about social Darwinism and how it came to be and who its true proponents are, and why? “Social Darwinism” concerns itself not at all with opposition to a free market, but to forced social engineering, ridding the population of its weakest and non-productive members “for the good of mankind” — eugenics. Just FYI.

            So exactly what is “compassion” and “empathy” according to you? And then, please, according to “society”?

            If you and I do not have an intrinsic right to life, and only “society” may determine if and who may be protected from harm, where do those “poor people” get such a right that you and “society” may bully, violate, coerce, threaten, and murder me if I’m not willing to show the requisite “compassion” and “empathy” for them by handing over what I’ve earned so that you can feel good about yourself, and the state – your wonderful “society” – can give it to those “it” and you determine are more deserving of what I earned than I am?

            Do you actually believe and agree that “society” can claim that the lives of “poor people” are more valuable than mine, so that if I disagree, “society” and you can coerce me and harm me?

            Definition of “social justice” by Walter Willliams: “I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. If you believe that you [or those you and “society” choose] deserve some of what I earn, please explain why.”

            And, uh, just FYI (again), to have the right to my own life, liberty, property, and labor, does nowhere require a god or gods. I exist. Therefore, I have all of that by virtue of my existence. And it’s not dependent on you or your group, no matter whether just you and your family or you, your family, and the other 8 billion people on this earth – of which I am also a part.

            You never answer my question: if I’m not bothering or harming or threatening you by living my peaceful, voluntary life, by my choice, why does it concern you in any way? By what authority? And who says? And why should I respect that?

            And, uh, at least thank you for recognizing that I’m at least an “intelligent primate.” ;-)

            In addition to please specifically answering my previous questions, can you also find anything naturally, societally, morally, ethically, logically, or reasonably wrong with the points in this essay:

            THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY
            By Ken Schoolland

            The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you have. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others.

            You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.

            A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

            At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and titles.

            You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

            You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

            Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.

            This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical.

            Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.

            Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving the free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act — especially when it is easier to do nothing.

          • No, I don’t agree with war in most cases, especially pre-emptive war. Again, you’re creating a straw man argument, as well as once again taking the worst of government and holding it up as representative of all government.

            Social Darwinism has nothing to do with actual evolution. Just because I accept the fact that we’ve evolved from less complex organic life, and that there is no objective or ultimate moral authority, that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of having morals. In fact, I most frequently find social Darwinism being supported by religious fundamentalists. Look at the Christian evangelicals in the United States. These people argue that you need to pass a drug test to get food stamps or that you shouldn’t eat if you don’t work. They vociferously oppose universal healthcare. Basically, if you can’t make it on your own, go die in a gutter. Survival of the fittest. That’s the opposite of what I stand for.

            I’m done wasting my time addressing the hyperbolic claims that you continue to present, including this libertarian manifesto. Rights are conferred by mutual agreement. A democracy with 3 equal branches of government bound by a charter document which can be changed by the will of the people is not tyranny. You do not have the right to be “left alone” if you wish to reside in and participate in this society. If you want to live off the grid, that’s entirely possible. If you want any of the modern luxuries or protections offered by a first-world country, then you can live by the established rules.

          • GrayCat

            The “straw man” is yours; you have volunteered that you don’t agree with war. My question, of course, which you still refuse to answer, is why then do you “agree” with “society” since “society” does war. Your “morality” depends on what others – “society” – declares it is. And “society” declares and initiates wars. So what you SAY you believe makes absolutely no rational sense. You reserve the non-existent right to disagree: non-existent, since you maintain that there are no such things as rights except as “society” grants you at any time. You can’t answer the question because you’re caught up in your own self-contradictory rationalizations, and you know you can’t admit what you’re striving not to admit.

            Please cite authoritative sources for your claim that social Darwinism has nothing to do with “actual” evolution. On the other hand, if you cared to know the truth, you can actually find the documented sources of social Darwinism and see the straight line from Darwin’s theories – especially in his Origin of Species – to the Progressive era of the early 1900s through the various world governments and American legislation since then, and today’s modern eugenics and euthanasia movements. These things can only exist under collectivism — your wonderful “society.” You really should research your supposed facts more carefully if you want to be taken seriously.

            And, uh, it may come as a shock to you, but you cannot have morals without morals existing objectively outside you. Talk about an authority unto yourself! LOLOLOLOL!!! Who says you have morals and that they are right and good and should be? Without something objective to base your personal morals on, you don’t have any. And consequently, there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no such thing as “compassion,” “empathy,” cruelty, or murder. If morality is whatever “society” says it is, then you have pure depravity, because nothing is a standard of measure, nothing is secure, nothing is ordered, but everything is arbitrary, moment-to-moment chaos.

            You know, of all the comments passed between you and I, you are the only one who’s ever mentioned a god or gods, and how awful all those Christians are and how wonderful your atheism is. Yet you have never actually looked at what those Christian beliefs entail or what most Christians’ actual beliefs are, and what they’re founded on and why. You’ve never bothered to look at what the historical reality of Christianity has been, and why. You don’t let factual history get in the way of your vacuous, fallacious, erroneous beliefs about anything. Yet you bring all these things up to me as reasons to smear and disagree with me. Why?

            Exactly what DO you “stand for,” other than a love for and belief in the force of government to be used against anyone who doesn’t agree with you, especially as you ride your “compassion” and “empathy” hobby horse. You deny that force would be used to effect the compulsion (do you know what that word means?) of all of us who want to make our own choices about these things, and especially those of us who would refuse to do what you believe we should and must do. Please explain precisely how you would go about effecting the conformity of all of us to your ideas of “compassion” and “empathy” without using and threatening force, and why our disagreement so bothers you.

            What I presented to you was in no way a manifesto. You’re afraid to read anything that might highlight the errors – even criminality – of your thinking, so you can’t read it. It was purely a simple, straightforward presentation of the basics and foundation of freedom and libertarianism. I can see you in no way actually read it. And we can all see that once again you don’t dare engage any of the points, because you’d have to admit you’re wrong. Straight out and plainly. That what you believe about the state is absolutely false. You KNOW it.

            Without the ultimate objective reality of morals, you cannot accuse anyone of wrongdoing; you cannot complain about wrongdoing or evil; you cannot place blame or accept praise; you cannot make charges of unfairness or injustice; you cannot claim anything is fair or just; you cannot improve your morality – there is no standard against which to measure it – or anyone else’s — including “society’s” (so you might as well just lie back and smile at all those wars, because society says!); you have proven over and over again on this forum that you cannot hold a meaningful moral discussion; you cannot promote the obligation of tolerance of anyone for anything; you cannot have accountability either from yourself or anyone else, much less “society.”

            Where do you get the idea that libertarians don’t want to live by rules? The NAP is exactly the objective ultimate rule: do no harm against anyone not harming you: Do not initiate violence, force, coercion, except as proportionate self-defense; do not take by force, stealth, compulsion or deception that which is not yours, you didn’t earn, and have no express permission to take; do not defraud.

            How hard is that to understand?

            Your fig leaf seems to be shriveling up and crumbling under the pressure you’re clasping it with . . . ;-)

          • Your argument is fallacious. To claim that I support war because I favor having government, and governments wage war is logically flawed. And you act as if humans haven’t been attacking each other since humanity began. Ridiculous.

            Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolutionary theory because eugenics is based upon a flawed understanding of genetics, and Darwin, nor his theory, ever proposed that “survival of the fittest” should be applied to human societies. Again, you’ll most frequently find approval for social Darwinism amongst those who don’t even accept evolutionary theory.

            I’ve never once touted “how wonderful my atheism is”. Atheism is exactly one thing: not believing that gods exist. There are no tenets or beliefs or decrees or anything else mandated by atheism. But it seems that this has struck a nerve with you. Typically, you accuse me of being ignorant regarding religion, when, as studies routinely show, I’m quite educated on the topic. You want the “history of Christianity”? Sure. Yahweh was a Canaanite war god in their polytheistic belief system. The Hebrews were a tribe that split off from the Canaanites and who selected Yahweh as their primary, and eventually, sole deity in order to justify and inspire their conquests against competing tribes. This is why the Torah tells the story of them slaughtering Baal worshippers (another Canaanite fertility god) and destroying their idols. Later on, some Jews got the idea to construct a messiah following the prophecies in the Torah, and the Jesus character emerged. Christianity is an amalgamation of Babylonian myth, Canaanite polytheism, Hebrew customs, Greek mythology, Zoroastrianism, and other traditions.

            But by all means, continue your typically smug dismissal as you label me a statist and knock down the mother of all strawmen. It isn’t statism that’s the religion here – it’s libertarianism, with it’s rigid dogma, promise of a utopian existence, and slandering of anyone who doesn’t buy into it.

          • GrayCat

            Um, if you would re-read what I wrote, please, you’d see I never said
            you support war because you support government. What I wrote is that
            your arguments make no rational sense: if you believe
            “society”/government can whimsically, arbitrarily, absolutely grant
            morals and rights, then you cannot claim to have any morals; you deny
            you have any rights but what “society” says you have. Since “society”
            says wars, then you cannot with any validity protest war. You are
            obligated by your blind support of “society”/government to accept its
            wars; you have no valid moral objections, and you have no rights to
            stand on in opposition to anything. Or to stand in support of, either.

            Where
            did I ever even imply I don’t think humans have been attacking each
            other since “humanity” began?! I do maintain that just because something
            has been accepted in the past does NOT mean that anyone MUST accept it
            today and forever more as inevitable. If we in fact are “intelligent
            primates,” then we SHOULD come to the logical conclusion that because we
            can figure it out, we OUGHT to stop all the irrational warring. And
            warmongering “societies” be damned. What’s wrong with that?

            And I
            can maintain that fact because I am intelligent and do recognize
            universal ultimate objective morals as outside and pre-dating human
            governments. Please note the difference I employ between “society” as a
            mutual, voluntary, cooperation among like-minded human beings for mutual
            protection and defense of each other’s liberties and inherent rights,
            and human “government,” the proposition that the few somehow have the
            right and are qualified by some mysterious ether to rule the many.

            If
            you’ve ever actually read anything by Darwin, you will find that he in
            fact did have ideas based on his theory of evolution that apply to human
            beings, especially that as a farmer manipulates evolution to improve
            his livestock, so human beings can be properly managed and bred to
            improve “the race.” Darwin also bought into Malthus’s flawed theories of
            numerical ideal for populations, including humankind. And the Darwinian
            eugenicists from his time on did enthusiastically apply his theory of
            evolution to socially engineer the human race. Please do some more
            research. Has everything to do with Darwinian evolution, and almost
            nothing to do with modern genetics.

            Well, okay; you’ve never
            actually used the words “my atheism is wonderful.” So? Even your
            outdated, slanted, erroneous comments about Judeo-Christian history
            harps on that theme.

            And, uh, studies don’t routinely show that you’re “quite educated” on the topic! ;-D

            I
            commented on this topic only because you brought it up out of nowhere;
            please explain how what you wrote is actually relevant to and actually
            addresses what I wrote and presented about libertarianism. I’ve never
            mentioned gods or religion in any of our back-and-forth comments, yet
            you chose to, commenting completely off topic. Can you explain why you
            did that?

            You can’t factually and logically and reasonably argue your position, so you presented your own red herring. Not cool.

            Please,
            once again, explain how “Do not initiate violence, do not steal, do not
            defraud” is in any way religious, and why that principle is bad for
            anyone, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, while your
            impervious-to-facts, emotional, irrational, and faithful clinging to the
            proposition that the state is the best, though “imperfect” “system” to
            rule human beings and effect your pet desires, is not.

            Please?

          • I understand your thought process on natural rights not existing in nature. Animals in nature do not necessarily respect the rights of other animals (that we can understand, anyway). That being said, we certainly have always had the right to protect our own lives. So while perhaps you can argue that in nature nothing has the right to not be killed, it can be argued that every being has the right to fight to protect its own life. Similarly, every being has the right to fight for their own freedom. So we’re really delving into nitpicks here. Civilization can not exist without the concept of rights and I don’t think anyone is arguing against civilization.

            If we’re going to use your argument that society decides what rights are, then assuming you live in the United States, the very foundational document of this country, The Declaration of Independence, defines the concept of natural rights:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

            So if you live in the United States and you believe in a nation of laws, then you must agree with the concept of natural rights. The Declaration clearly states that these self-evident truths exist:

            – all men are created equal (i.e. no man or group of men has the authority to rule another)

            – we are born with unalienable rights

            – government is instituted to secure these rights, deriving just power from the CONSENT of the governed

            If you do not agree with these ideals, then you can argue that we need to restructure our government otherwise, but if you are working within the framework of this country’s government, then you can not dismiss these principles.

            If we’re going to follow the rules established by this society as you argue for, then we continue on to the Constitution, which incidentally is probably the most libertarian document ever written. Article I, Section 8 defines the specific and limited legislative authority of the federal government and no where else is the government given other authority to rule over the governed. Then the first 10 amendments to the constitution serve to guarantee certain rights and clarify the limited role of government. Two of the most important, yet oft ignored amendments:

            Amendment 9 – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Amendment 10 – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            Amendment 9 is the “catch-all” amendment, stating that all other rights besides the ones in the previous 8 amendments are also protected. Amendment 10 states that if a power is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, then they do not have said authority. These two amendments basically codify what was said in The Declaration of Independence. Also note that the amendments are NOT what grant us our rights, as the founders acknowledge the concept of natural rights. They are only there to serve as an additional layer of protection for these rights in case the government begins to ignore the limitations of Article I, Section 8.

          • This obviously proves my point that rights only exist in reality if a society says they do. Sure, any animal, including humans, is going to defend it’s existence against a threat. It’s not like anyone can take the right to defend yourself from you, because any attempt to do so will be met by…you defending yourself.

            The fact that the founders “acknowledge natural rights” only means that they have agreed that the people who would live in this new country would have these rights. They also tied these rights to a “Creator”, which doesn’t exist in reality.

            Americans have been fighting about the 10th Amendment since the beginning. The Civil War was supposed to have settled that, yet 150 years later, many Americans still falsely believe that “states rights” mean that states can create laws that don’t comport with the federal Constitution.

          • Your first paragraph is somewhat contradictory. If society can not dictate my right to defend myself, then how is it that this right is not a natural right that exists above and beyond the reach of any man or any government?

            A “creator” does not necessarily need to be a god or anything to do with religion. It can be as simple as saying nature created us. Practically speaking, we were created in some way. Whatever anyone wishes to believe that creator is, it is their right to do so. The point is that the founding documents of our country acknowledge natural rights that exist above and beyond the authority of man or government and that government is instituted to protect those rights, not decide what rights exist. It clearly does NOT say that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by this document, or the government that we are going to create, or man, or anything that could be construed to mean that our rights are subject to the whim of society.

            Yes, the Civil War had to do with states’ rights, but the meaning of the 10th Amendment was not altered by anything after the Civil War. Strictly speaking, since the Constitution defines the limited powers of the federal government, restricts certain authority from the states, and then leaves the rest to the states and/or the people, there should never be an issue of state law conflicting with federal law. Only one government has legal authority as defined by the Constitution, so it should be simple to understand who has the authority in any situation. However, when the federal government oversteps its bounds as it has done egregiously for the last 100 years or so, then things get muddied. That is the core of the problem.

            That being said, the 9th Amendment is the real kicker, as it codifies the acknowledgement of natural rights and makes it clear that they are not to be denied or disparaged. Again, as someone fond of rules, I’m not sure how you can choose to ignore what is clearly stated in the supreme law of the land.

          • This all boils down to a fundamental disagreement. We know that there’s no deity that rights are conferred by, and that was clearly the premise set forth by those who drafted the Constitution. And, as I’ve been reiterating, there are simply no rights guaranteed by nature. This is the underlying philosophy that humans have struggled with since they had a brain advanced enough to ponder it. Most people can’t handle the idea that there’s no such thing as objective rights or morals or an ultimate authority that humans cannot alter.

            Just out of curiosity, do you believe that a god exists? Do you believe that morals are social constructs, or sacred proclamations? I only ask because if you accept that morals and rights can exist simply by men agreeing that they do, then this proves my point that rights don’t exist in the absence of such consensus. And, even if you are of the opinion that rights exist “naturally”, with or without a deity, it doesn’t take a government to infringe upon them. In fact, as the drafters of the Constitution stated, the government was created to protect such rights.

            The United States is a union. No states can have laws which violate the federal Constitution, otherwise that’s no union at all. States can make their own laws which address issues that don’t fall under the scope of the federal Constitution. The Constitution is also open to interpretation, and that’s the job of the court system. They do not agree with your interpretation of it. Of course, the people have the final say, and if the people overall disagree with the courts, the Constitution can be amended. I don’t think you’re going to find the support you’re seeking, though.

          • I think we agree on more than you think. The disconnect is in the difference between the idea of rights “existing” in the sense of a principle vs a practical implementation. I say rights exist in principle, you only think rights exist if they are being used in practice.

            If one does not believe in a higher power, then obviously all morals (including the idea of rights) are simply social constructs. So let’s run with your premise. For my purposes of believing in freedom, it doesn’t really matter whether my basic morals of freedom are from a higher power or created by man.

            Since you believe that men need rules to operate by, I’m perfectly happy to subscribe to the rules that this country was founded upon. Whether or not you subscribe to the idea of natural rights as explained in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution is the codified law of the land and it gives only very specific authorities to the federal government. It recognizes that all rights retained by the people are not to be infringed upon. So if we are agreeing to abide by man-made rules, then these rules recognize the concept of unalienable rights. So let’s just follow the rules.

            If you like following rules, then you must be just as willing to go after people who break the rules as much as wanting to create more rules. And you must start with making sure that the core rules that form the base of the rest of the rules (i.e. supreme law of the land) are strongly followed. Not just by the governed, but by the governors as well (which are one and the same, truly). Otherwise, if we aren’t going to follow the most basic rules, then what’s the point of any more rules on top of those? What we have is exactly the social darwinism scenario you describe, except that now people defer to an authority of their own creation which has the sanctioned power of violent force. An authority that we see is subject to corruptive influence. So the rules are simply what the powerful want them to be.

            What most libertarians are advocating is that we return to following the most basic set of rules that the country was founded upon. It really doesn’t matter if those rules were man-made, it’s the law of this country. Most libertarians aren’t advocating to create more rules, they just want the current rules to be followed. Yes, that would mean that a lot of unconstitutional laws would be repealed (or simply nullified) but that IS following the laws of the land.

            While the Constitution is open to some interpretation, to say that it can be interpreted in ways that basically make it worthless is paradoxical. What’s the point of a foundational document that can be interpreted to fit any political need? We would need to start arguing that language has no real meaning other than what the one reading it wants it to be. What would rules be then?

          • But let’s not forget that while these “basic rights” were codified in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the very men who established or acknowledged them did not even practice what they preached. Women were treated as property and subservient to men, and had no voice. Slavery was allowed and defended.

            The only way to explain your position is to claim that America is a failure. We have a three-branch government to create, interpret, and enforce laws and ensure they are Constitutional. We reserve the right, as the people, to change the Constitution if we feel that our elected and appointed representatives in these 3 branches have failed to establish the will of the people. If your argument is that our government has not followed its own rules, and the people haven’t held them accountable, then America has failed.

            In all reality, it may be most unfortunate that the Civil War was ever fought. Since our inception, there have been two very distinct camps with respect to how our country should be, and they have been, and largely remain, geographically distinct, with few exceptions. I don’t think this fundamental divide will ever be bridged.

          • Democracy does not equate to justification. Just because a group of people vote for something does not make something right, unless people agree to abide by the vote beforehand. If an individual does not have a right, the right does not come into existence because individuals form a group. Otherwise what you have is mob rule where the rights of minorities can be voted away by majorities. That is one reason the United States is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic, where the constitution defines a government of specific and limited powers.

          • And yet the Constitution itself, and the protection of setting up a republic to defend against tyranny of the majority, and all the rights guaranteed by said Constitution were all created by the men who founded the United States. People can claim that “natural laws” exist, or that certain rights are granted by a “creator”, but in the end, rights only exist when populations of men explicitly state that they do. In the absence of any laws or government, there are no rules. It’s social Darwinism.

          • By that explanation, it’s all social darwinism since the same men who have no rights are the ones deciding which rights people get to have. If men are the ones creating rights, then men can take those rights away just as easily.

            What you say makes sense in a hypothetical way. Basically, might makes right. However, that is why these ideals were expressed in the Declaration of Independence and then codified into law in the Constitution. Since you are fond of rules, here are the rules that this society is founded on. You may not agree with the concept of natural rights, and ironically, that is your right to do so. But you can’t logically also hold the same belief that rights only exist when granted by men and then dismiss those rights that the founding documents explicitly acknowledge.

            Also, you somewhat miss the point of the concept of rights and their actual implementation. Just because one’s rights are not being exercised or are being oppressed does not mean those rights do not exist. Practically speaking, they aren’t being used or are not being respected, but they still do exist. Ultimately, it is not up to you to decide what other people’s rights are, that is their sole dominion.

            If you want to avoid the social darwinism scenario, then people do need to follow a basic set of rules or principles. They can be codified into law like in the Constitution, or less formally understood principles like:

            you can do anything you want to yourself or your property, but you can not initiate force against another person, take or damage property that is not yours, or use fraud against another person. If you violate these principles, you are obligated to make things right with the person you infringed upon.

            I’m not disagreeing that a basic set of rules are a good thing when people interact with each other. It’s just that we don’t need a lot of laws or laws that stop a person from exercising their rights. I’m for a government as small as possible. If we can get to the point where we as a society can govern ourselves without a state-run government, then great. But until then, we should be working towards reducing government and increasing personal freedom, given that government is coercive by nature. We don’t need more violence in our society.

          • So where do rights come from? Either a god of some sort, or you claim they are “natural”, which again, is an absurd concept. Sure, you have the right to defend yourself and survive, and that cannot possibly be taken from you. Any attempt to do so will be met by you invoking said right. Beyond that, there’s nothing guaranteed in nature. The men who wrote the Constitution claimed that rights came from a deity, but no such deity exists. They were just looking for a way to justify having an ultimate and objective measure of justice. It’s the same way that the people who wrote the Bible tried to justify their morals and customs by claimed they were the decree of a god. But, in reality, the laws and rules were nothing more than what the authors of these documents agreed upon, which is entirely my point.

            You’re asserting things as objectively true, when they simply aren’t. You’re decreeing that harming others or taking their property is a violation of natural rights. That’s false. Those are nothing more than violations of rights which are about as universal as we can reasonably expect them to be. Again, in the absence of civility or altruism, none of these things should be expected. In fact, in order to survive, we’d expect them to be violated.

            Humans, taken on the whole, can never be expected to govern themselves. We couldn’t even expect people to play a simple game like baseball or football without cheating for an advantage. That’s why we have referees and umpires. To enforce the rules which have been agreed upon by those who choose to play the games. Just because everyone, or at least most people, agree to the rules, that doesn’t mean there won’t be those who will attempt to skirt them. In fact, we’d expect any adherence to the rules to quickly dissipate, and attempts to self-govern would devolve into chaos. If government is coercive by nature, it’s to coerce people to act in the best interests of everyone rather than for selfish ends. And violence is a human problem, not a government problem.

          • The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence spoke of a “creator,” avoiding the concept of a specific religion or any at all. They understood the concept of religious freedom and leaving government out of religion.

            Obviously nothing is guaranteed in nature. We are not trying to guarantee anything. Freedom as most libertarians would define it is agreeing to the most basic set of principles for human interaction. Being free by this definition does not mean you will be successful automatically or that the world will be a utopia. But at least you will be free to pursue the life you wish to lead with a reasonable amount of expectation that others will not interfere in your life. And if someone does infringe on your rights, then you can reasonably attempt to have them fix what they did wrong.

            If humans can not be expected to govern themselves, then what are we doing electing humans to government office? If we take at face value everything you say about how terrible humans are, why on earth would we concentrate power and authority and then give that to other humans? As we’ve seen before, humans in power are often the most corrupt people on the planet. Small government advocates understand that not everyone is a good person and that having a big and powerful government is ripe for corruption. By leaving more power in individual hands, bad people can not do the really terrible things that are possible when they have the violent power of government at their disposal. Again, if we are to have a government that must resort to violence to enforce their laws, then that set of laws should be as small as possible to minimize potential problems. How small that can be is the real question.

          • I mean that people can’t govern themselves without some sort of leadership or structure, preferably put in place by the collective agreement of said people. The great thing about our government is that we have various branches with checks and balances, and a foundational document which can be interpreted and altered if the people desire. Of course it isn’t perfect, and not everyone is going to be happy, but it’s the best system that I’ve seen presented. We’ve already seen how even this form of government can become abused by the wealthy and power-hungry, but it at least is prevented from becoming a dictatorship or totalitarian regime. I’ve little doubt that without a structured government, the rich and selfish would easily rise to the top and lord over everyone else. I mean, that’s pretty much the way it went for thousands of years before democracy.

          • freedumb123

            What do you mean “should”? A wage is what your labour is worth in the market. There is no “should”. There is only is. You get paid what you’re worth, and nothing more. That’s not unfair or slavery, that’s economics. If you don’t provide enough value to other people to justify your wage, then you should not and will not be paid that wage.

          • And when the only option becomes nothing or scraping by on slave wages, guess what people are going to choose? Good to know that you support a system where 1% of people live opulently while the rest struggle to survive. Anyone with an ounce of empathy sees the problem here.

          • GrayCat

            Sorely, absolutely wrong.

          • cesium62

            Oh, well argued. Can I use that argument too?

            You are wrong GrayCat. So wrong.

          • GrayCat

            You’ve read the running discussion with “Prototype Atheist” to say that?

            Exactly what am I wrong about, in reference to “Prototype Atheist’s” “arguments”? Exactly what is “Prototype Atheist” right about?

          • cesium62

            Ah yes. In organized crime, those people who are not all angels never breach a contract. And if there was a breach of contract, violence would never be used to enforce the contract. Oh, so well argued.

          • pyrodice

            Once again a statist shows that he doesn’t understand that (the need for) organized crime is CAUSED by prohibited markets not having access to state-monopoly courtrooms.

          • GrayCat

            Have you missed the TRUTH that all this population IS composed of mostly small, local communities?! There is no such thing as a single global population that has to be controlled by a central government!

            Sheesh!

            Numbers without context are a mere pretext for madness.

          • GrayCat

            And with such a population, you can blithely presume that a government can force such diversity to conformity? I’m sure nothing but libertarianism is a valid model for most human beings to live and let live, and trade freely with one another, and peacefully.

            You cannot trade during stupid wars unless you’re one of the profiteers of war. Government and its cronies certainly meet that criterion.

            Have you ever read War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, the most decorated soldier and Marine in American history? You should. It’s online and free, or you can get the book at Amazon; you can also see re-enactments of his speeches at YouTube.

            You really ought to do that.

          • GrayCat

            You might read Robert Higgs’s essay, “If Men Were Angels;” it’s online and free.

          • GrayCat

            If one does not share libertarianism, one is, by definition, a statist.

            If there is only one political position that does away with a state, by definition, all others are statist positions.

            If you want other human beings to rule over you, to “govern” you, you are, by definition, a statist, as that is what a state is: a bunch of presumptive rulers who have a monopoly on force to force conformity on those they presume to rule.

            A statist, by definition, is NOT a “good” person. No one who presumes to rule others is good. No one who presumes to force others to do and be what they want them to do and be, AND hand over their earnings in any proportion on threat of arrest, fine, imprisonment, or death, is “GOOD”!!!

            Nor are they “compassionate,” “charitable,” “decent,” “empathetic,” or in any way “selfless.”

            Own it already. Nothing changes these FACTS.

          • cesium62

            Oh, I see your mistake. You think that cooperation requires having other human beings rule over you. You don’t actually understand the concept of a representational democracy. You also have no idea how you are going to have your contracts enforced in the absence of a state.

          • GrayCat

            Actually, you could have bothered to read the arguments in this forum and have had your objections efficiently dealt with.

            Since you haven’t done that reading, perhaps you should look up works by Murray Rothbard, Michael Rozeff, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Robert Higgs, Thomas Woods, Walter Block, Paul Rosenberg, Jacob Hornberger, Jacob Heubert, etc. You can find most of their articles free online. Also, at the mises[.]org site, you can download, for free, in pdf form, whole libraries of books and journals, as well as articles by these people and many more.

            By the way, no, I do not think that cooperation requires having other human beings rule over you. If you got that from anything I’ve written, you haven’t been paying attention.

            Question: of all the representatives you’ve helped elect in this “representational democracy,” which ones are ACTUALLY YOUR “representative”? Which one(s) did you officially and legally contract with to be your representative, and under what term, and what are you paying him/her/them, under what terms of payment and/or termination? Which one(s) actually, legally, contractually, must answer to you?

            You might also read the works of Lysander Spooner, most of whose works can also be accessed online, for free. And look up “Detroit’s Private Police” on YouTube for a working example of “how to have your contracts enforced in the absence of a state.”

            Please do make the effort to read and study these issues from a true libertarian position. You may be surprised, even pleasantly.

          • amajamus

            Will everybody on this thread arguing against each other just STFU already! This bickering is why people look at libertarians as nuts. If we can’t agree on our own ideology, why would voters vote for us. At least stop bickering on a public forum.

          • normdplume

            You do realize that the article is about exactly this kind of discussion, right?

            What better place to engage in discussion like this?

          • Andrew Patton

            No, it’s simply a utilitarian calculation that tyranny is better than anarchy. At least a single tyrant is predictable; under anarchy people have to fear a thousand tyrants at once.

          • GrayCat

            No one needs to fear a tyrant who isn’t. That argument is profoundly irrational. A tyrant is “predictable” . . . you mean, like Lenin was? Or Stalin? Or Mao? Or Hitler? Or Nero? Or Caligula? Or Diocletian? Or the recent string of despots in North Korea? They’re preferable to your neighbor, who has only the armaments you have to defend yourself?

            I’d rather face the stupid bully down the street, with my other neighbors, or even alone, with non-violence, then retaliatory violence if he is stupid enough to push it that far.

            I cannot protect myself, my family, my neighbors, from a 3 a.m. no-knock raid on my home, and the attendant murder and mayhem, and damage, and all for a “mistaken” address or a “prank” call to 911. The “predictable” tyrant, from the White House down to my local “police department,” is definitely NOT preferable to dealing personally with a local would-be tyrant bully.

            By the way, do you fear your neighbors so much? What country/government has attacked the U.S.? How many countries, in the last 150 years, has the U.S. government attacked, just for comparison?

            Self-defense is highly preferable to waiting 20 minutes to hours for “police protection” — and that with the chance that YOU, who called for HELP, will be abused, arrested, even murdered when they finally get there to “protect” you!!!

            Please. Get some new material — actually informed. But then, I guess if you did that, you wouldn’t be asking inane questions and arguing against libertarian anarchy . . .

          • cesium62

            You should read about new guinea.

          • GrayCat

            Why? Is it representative of the U.S. government, U.S. society, or Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist libertarianism?

          • cesium62

            So, what’s your plan for enforcing contracts?

          • cesium62

            So… In the current system bad people can leverage the power of government. But in your system there can be no sufficiently strong organization whose power can be leveraged. So there is absolute equality and no corporations. Well argued.

            No regulations? So a group of corporations can’t get together and agree to certain rules of behavior to ensure the sustainability of a commons? Because that agreement would be a regulation. A society can’t get together and decide that lead should not be used in gasoline? Without regulation, any corporation may sell leaded gasoline. A society can’t get together and agree that the air should be kept breathable? They are required to allow corporations to emit as much pollution as the corporation wishes to emit?

            Government is cooperation. Advocating a government solution to a problem is advocating a cooperative solution. If you outlaw government, you must also outlaw cooperation.

            When you define rights and what is an infringement on those rights, you have just created a government. Congratulations.

          • letmego

            You really should study some of the Austrian School of Economics….all of your points above are addressed. There will never be a society without conflict, no libertarian expects that. We have a society with a lot of conflict now, where the laws of the land are massive in number yet I am not living in a crime free land, are you? Monopolies are granted by government and lobbyists, there are a gazillion regulations through which the powerful corporations have crowded out numerous smaller competitors. As a consumer, I have never been forced to purchase any product (except by the government) or use any corporate service (except by the government). I’d say we’re pretty much at the mercy of the ruling elite right now (the government and their cronies). The Free Market won’t allow this by nature. There is no force, no violent coercion-that all comes from government.

          • The only thing you’d be doing by removing the government is taking out the middle man. The wealthy and the corporations could then directly lord over us without any oversight or hindrance. You claim that monopolies are allowed by the government, but they aren’t, and corporations would immediately begin consolidating to maximize profits and take massive shares of the market. They then could exploit workers and pay low wages. Again, it is bad enough now with the regulation we have, take it away and forget it.

          • How does a rich person “lord” over another? Their money has no power if there is no power to be abused. If rich people in a free society attempt to coerce or use violence, they would be held responsible for their actions. You seem to continue to misunderstand that a free society isn’t a lawless society. Either the laws are enforced by a very, very small government (libertarianism), or they are enforced by the people themselves (anarchy).

            The government loves to talk about fighting the big bad monopolies, when in fact it is governments that create the worst offenders. Companies such as cable and phone providers enjoy their local monopolies because of local governments. In other examples, government regulations restrict the number of businesses in a market (such as taxi cabs). In either true monopolies or restricted markets, it takes violence to enforce other businesses from entering those markets. That violence is only tolerated coming from government because too many of us believe they are justified in using it. If a private company tried to strong-arm the market the way government does, we’d all call for the imprisonment of the owners.

            You seem to discount the power of the consumer. We have the power to vote with our dollars when companies do things we don’t like. Just look at the technology market. Microsoft had a virtual monopoly but it wasn’t any government action that has affected their market presence. It was one company coming out with a groundbreaking product that has completely transformed the technology industry. Once Apple came out with the iPhone, consumers flocked to it of their own free will. Smart companies know that profit maximization doesn’t come from consolidation and monopolies, but rather from competition and innovation. It comes from creating new things and creating new markets. Entrepreneurs will always do this, as long as there is nothing in the way of their aspirations, as there continue to be with big government regulations. It is exactly these regulations that you think help us that are hurting us. Government regulations, while ostensibly created to control the big, bad corporations, actually end up hurting the little guy the most. Regulations make it harder for people to start and run their own businesses. While big companies with their large teams of lawyers and accountants have little trouble absorbing and/or passing on the high cost of regulations, it is the little guy trying to make a go of running a business that is most hindered by the morass of red tape they must deal with. When people have the option to work for themselves, it is the best thing for an economy and the best way to ensure competition. The more free a society is (in other words, free of government regulation, taxation, and other forms of interference), the greater chance people have of starting businesses and creating new wealth.

          • Andrew Patton

            Held responsible how? Remember, you just dissolved the government, leaving it up to private individuals to take revenge. Also, the rich will have access to the best thugs money can buy, and plenty of weapons and fortifications, too.

            Now, limited government is rational, but limited government must still be strong enough to punish the wicked, and to achieve this goal, it needs money.

          • GrayCat

            You should read some actual history of ordinary life in the Middle Ages of Europe. Puts to the lie every point you thought you made.

            Please read Regine Pernoud’s Those Terrible Middle Ages!: Debunking the Myths, and James Scott’s The Art of Not Being Governed, plus Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Thomas Woods, for starters.

          • GrayCat

            You are so woefully uninformed.

          • Karl Schipul

            “First, like I stated, most libertarians espouse the unregulated free market.”

            You finally said something correct.

            “So, even if you claim you don’t support social Darwinism, the end result of the free market is going to be that in fairly short order.”

            Your support of the state is practically the same as social darwinism. I can’t think of anything more like the jungle from humanity than the state. The state threatens imprisonment or death to those who disobey. Libertarians do not declare that fast talking shysters who weasel their way with broken promises are better or have more rights than other people. Libertarians also do not declare that men with sub 100 IQ in blue costumes and badges have more special rights than everyone else.

            “Look at the regulation we have now, and we’re still not far off from it.”

            You don’t know what you are talking about. The US Federal government has more regulations than any one person can count. Even lawyers can not seem to count the sheer number of them. There are also 3000 criminal offenses according to the Justice Department. It has been estimated that virtually everyone commits federal crimes unwittingly every day.

            “Humanity once had libertarianism. It was called pre-civilization.”

            Not exactly, then it had small tribes where typically the eldest man ran the show, often having life and death decisions for even trifle things like violating some random tribal superstition. Libertarians inherently recognize no such authority based around following the strongest warrior or the craziest shaman.

            Tribes also fought in wars against each other on a regular basis. Libertarianism includes the non aggression principle. Which means people exchange with others if they want the goods from others.

          • “Your support of the state is practically the same as social darwinism.”

            Oh, the irony of the person attempting to lecture me about projection projecting his beliefs onto me.

            Again, you take my aversion to libertarian fantasies and twist it into my full, unflagging support for the abuses of government. This is simply not the case. I fully recognize that there are issues with government which need to be addressed, however, it is frequently libertarian-leaning politicians who are obstructing the ability to correct these issues.

            Again, to sincerely believe that humanity will abide by the “non-aggression principle” is laughable. There will be more than enough willing people to seize the opportunity to elevate themselves at the expense of others. Businesses colluding to pay poverty wages would go unpunished, for example. And that would quickly become the state of affairs.

          • Karl Schipul

            “Oh, the irony of the person attempting to lecture me about projection projecting his beliefs onto me.”

            No, it’s just bringing up what you logically support: the state.

            “Again, you take my aversion to libertarian fantasies and twist it into my full, unflagging support for the abuses of government.”

            What fantasies? Who here is talking about fantasies? We are talking about facts, like the self-contradicting so-called morality that supports the state, or how the state often ends up undermining its stated goals. Take a look at the drug war or the war on terror. Take a look at how no matter how much tax money a government gets, it almost always finds its way into debt.

            Consider if I held a gun to people’s heads and drove them to my building with metal bars, kept them there with others for years, I would be recognized as a horrible criminal.

            I don’t care about your aversions. That is not a compelling argument. Am I supposed to disregard all these plain facts because some random person has issues with anxiety? Maybe you should take some anti-anxiety medicine. Some people have anxieties about high places or closed spaces. Should I care?

            “Again, to sincerely believe that humanity will abide by the “non-aggression principle” is laughable.”

            Some people abide by this all day, actually. Some people almost never commit aggression against others. Some people spend their whole lives without assaulting anyone. People have, over the course of centuries become less and less aggressive.

            If you studied psychology, relative aggression of a person is usually linked to how this person was raised.

            So what are you talking about?

            Even if it were true that aggression is not phased out, a state is still the worst idea to handle this problem. It only adds more aggression to the problem.

            I do not make rashes feel better by rubbing poison ivy on said rashes.

          • Andrew Patton

            So how do you punish aggression? Do you kill people for theft? How about for assault? Should rapists be put to death? Whose responsibility is it to execute a murderer? To whom does one appeal if he has been falsely accused?

          • GrayCat

            Instead of demonstrating your complete lack of brainpower where government is concerned, try actually reading some scholarly work by recognized and scholarly libertarians!

            THEY HAVE ANSWERS TO YOUR INANE QUESTIONS!!! Search and you will find; ask and you will receive (I’ve posted authors and works for you and others here on this forum; you have no real excuse for remaining ignorant — unless you just want to, in which case, we can all ignore you without qualm).

            If you’re arguing as a Roman Catholic, you should know that according to God, only He is Judge, and only He is qualified to rule human beings, because He created them, and therefore no human being has a right or is qualified to rule other human beings.

            Look. Read. Learn. Please.

          • “Libertarian leaning politicians” Christ, you’re an idiot. Scroll back up and read the article you’re dribbling over.

          • Wow, excellent use of logic there, Alan. You have me convinced that I’m an idiot and that a simple re-reading of this nonsensical diatribe will convince me of the virtues of libertarianism.

            Yes, conservatives who espouse the libertarian economic principles are indeed obstructing what social libertarians want to do overall. Things like abolishing the minimum wage and allowing the free market to work unregulated are libertarian stances, which many Republicans agree with.

          • Oh we know you’ll never get it, that’s why we’re rude to you, which is the entire point of this article. I mean scroll back up because this point was already covered in the article. And yeah, you are indeed an idiot.

          • You’re rude to non-libertarians because libertarianism is a fantasy on the level of religion, whose cultlike following and adherence to dogma are rather comparable to such.

          • Philippe David

            No, we are rude to non-libertarians because of the 10 reasons listed above…

          • Philippe David

            “So, even if you claim you don’t support social Darwinism, the end result of the free market is going to be that in fairly short order.”

            The only darwinism that would apply to a free market, would be the competition between businesses where the good ones succeed and make profits and the bad ones go into bankruptcy.

            Believe it or not, that would actually be a good thing as government usually keeps the bad ones alive instead of the good ones.

          • XComplacent

            Basically you’re saying that most libertarians want Money Tyranny to replace Government Tyranny?

            That’s what it seems like. Probably true. I can’t measure what most ‘libertarians’ are like, but there are at least many that fit that description I believe. What right do people have to hold other people’s life’s survival, peace, and prosperity, and the earth’s resources- land- and life as well, at ransom for forced participation in a money system? None I say.

            Some people advocate that like wolves in sheep’s clothing, using anarcho-capitalist fan bases and ideological talks and sentiments thereof to mask their imperial goals, but how many do this, I do not know, I just know there are at least some, and it would be wise to maintain caution, but also continue to learn from everything.

            The non-aggression principle is not a complete virtue without charity and voluntaryism. And to stand strong and persevere against tyranny of all kinds, we need virtue.

          • GrayCat

            Again, BALDERDASH.

            Tell us free markets resulted in social Darwinism before the U.S. government started regulating it. Just go ahead.

            Do you know ANYTHING about ancient history — the ancient Chinese, Indo-Chinese, the Mesopotamians, the Babylonians, the ancient trade routes from northern Africa through the Middle East, to Europe, to China?

            How did mankind, and his civilizations, and the progress he made through all those thousands of years, ever muddle through without the U.S. government?!

            Really?

          • GrayCat

            No, you’d simply be deprived of a phony objection to free men being free.

          • amajamus

            What you are doing is exactly why people look at libertarians as “wackos” (for a lack of a better term). Libertarians arguing with each other over their ideology on a public forum isn’t helping . . . take this to a bar, a coffee shop, or in private to save the image of libertarianism. This is the exact reason I stay out of politics and don’t vote (also because I am an anarchist).

          • Andrew Patton

            Okay, so what about the death penalty for adultery? The cheating spouse and the interloper have both violated somebody else’s rights by transgressing the marriage covenant. Is the offended spouse therefore justified in killing them?

          • GrayCat

            So what about it? Are not people capable of hiring independent arbitration firms to help sort it out?

            Have you read anything by Michael Rozeff or Hans-Hermann Hoppe, or Thomas Woods or Walter Block? You might do that . . . there are solutions, there are answers, just not what government tells you they should be. ;-)

            If you’ve ever read the Bible closely, have you ever noticed that in the OT, for the Israelites, the death penalty had to be unquestionably held up by at least two absolute eye-witnesses, and sentence could only be passed by the high priest, who was required by God to be sin-free before passing sentence, because he would have to cast the first stone? It’s why the writer of Hebrews tells us unequivocally that there is only One who ever had no sin, and only He is High Priest?

            Yeah.

            You might try expanding your reading on what libertarianism really is and what it means for all of us.

          • Andrew Patton

            By what authority would these arbitration firms act? Suppose one of the parties refuses to recognize the authority of the arbitration firm, shall they be permitted to judge anyway?

          • GrayCat

            Their authority comes from their reputation and standing in the community. If they don’t consistently meet their obligations by resolving problems quickly and fairly, people stop paying them, and they lose out to those firms that do. It’s an interesting subject, and is treated by Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and others. It is a well-established, ancient means of resolving these types of problems; it was established in ancient Israel beginning with Moses, through the Book of Judges, and was used very successfully throughout Europe before the Renaissance. So there’s plenty of practical precedence to go on in history.

          • Andrew Patton

            We already have private companies that settle disputes. They’re known as the mafia, and let me tell you, their services aren’t hired on account of their reputation for justice, but rather for their willingness to inflict violence on their enemies and the enemies of their clients.

            In the Torah, the first generation of judges were appointed by Moses, and likewise they appointed successors. Aaron was the first High Priest, and the title was hereditary. If anyone challenged the authority of the judges or the priesthood, he was subject to a death sentence. To the extent that the priests and judges were unwilling or unable to enforce the Law, “Every man did what was right in his own sight,” but just as in the days of Noah, the age of the Judges was a time of lawlessness in Israel. When some Benjaminites raped a concubine to death, her master had to recruit all of Israel to go to war against the tribe of Benjamin, lest the criminals go unpunished.

          • GrayCat

            Do you intend to be deliberately disingenuous?

            Yes, the first judges were appointed by Moses, at the kind suggestion of his father-in-law, because Moses was presuming to do too much in settling all disputes brought to him; even he couldn’t handle the volume of complaints and requests brought to him.

            Yes, the Aaronic priesthood was hereditary — until Jesus Christ. And He is the High Priest, the ONLY priest, now. Nowhere does He appoint anyone else to be priests over other human beings; the Christian Scriptures declare that all who come to Him are automatically made kings and priests, supposed to answer to no one but Him.

            How about what John the Baptist did? He had a funny way of respecting and honoring the “authority” God had “installed,” wouldn’t you agree?

            Have you ever read closely Revelation 19, and noticed that of all the vast heavenly army, ONLY one has a weapon, and what that weapon is, and who it is wielding it, and what all those followers are doing, exclusively, in their clean white robes? Shouldn’t modern American Christians, at least, pay attention to that and heed it?

            Yet even at the worst handful of egregious wickedness during the almost 500 years of the time of the judges, when every man did what was right in his own eyes, God DID NOT revoke the freedom of every man to do what was right in his own eyes, AND God even OBJECTED to the clamor of the people for a human king (1 Samuel 8)!!!

            The rest, as they say, is HISTORY — of the ungodly rule of human beings over their fellows. Shouldn’t THAT lesson mean anything for modern American Christians, and be heeded?!

            Yeah; the concubine’s ABUSIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE master, “had” to recruit (and his forensic method was SO demonstrative!) “the rest of Israel” to take revenge. Notice no kings, priests, or judges were involved. And then the tribe of Benjamin was so destroyed other irresponsible crimes were committed to compensate. You believe God condoned all this? Where do you find even a hint of that in all of the Bible?

            Do you know WHY the Great Flood?

            Because of the violence, the wickedness, in the hearts of men. Have you ever considered why Noah got drunk? It happens after God matter-of-factly states that man will always shed other men’s blood — they will never give up their love of bloodshed and violence. (By the way, there is absolutely no command from God in Genesis 9:6 for vengeance or capital punishment; read it, especially in context, and see.)

            There is no justification for respecting and honoring evil, no matter who does it, anywhere in the Bible.

            That’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

          • Andrew Patton

            Do you know where the English word “priest” comes from? It’s a contraction of the word “presbyter,” one of the Biblical offices of Church authority. And the context most assuredly does indicate that Genesis 9:6 establishes capital punishment to be carried out by men; in Genesis 9:5, God warns that He will demand an accounting of the blood of man from man and beast alike, and then in 9:6, He says that “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has man been made.”

            The prophets did not hesitate to call wicked rulers out on their wickedness, but they did not challenge their authority, either. John the Baptist called out Herod just as Nathan called out David, yet neither presumed to challenge the authority God had given them.

          • cathylz

            The implication here is that the marriage covenant grants “ownership”. It does not.

          • Andrew Patton

            Yes it does. When you get married, you give your sexuality to your spouse, and it no longer belongs to you.

          • freedom74

            Same with all ideologies. Difference is we don’t want to shoot each other over it.

            Next argument.

          • John Stuart Mill

            Goop goop gobbletygoop!

          • GrayCat

            You claimed that libertarians can’t agree on what libertarianism is, yet you were given a simple, coherent answer, yet you skip blissfully on, not accepting it, because it’s a simple, coherent answer!

            Your constant complaint against libertarianism is that the free market is not “compassionate,” not “altruistic,” not “charitable,” not “empathetic,” when none of that has anything to do with libertarianism, and in fact is not true of most libertarians — or most other human beings.

            You just don’t like for anyone to be free of what you think they should be and do. You don’t like private property, and you’re afraid of anyone who guards and protects and defends his own private property from your grubby government talons!

            It’s none of your business what anyone does with what rightfully belongs to him, NOT you, and CERTAINLY NOT “THE GOVERNMENT.”

            Try being a genuine human being, for a change, please. Do you go over and knock on your neighbor’s door and demand money from them to give to one of your “needy” altruism cases, and threaten your neighbor with imprisonment, or worse, if he says “NO!”?

            If not, then why do you pretend you are justified in hiding behind “government” to do that very thing FOR YOU?!

            And you call libertarians sociopathic and psychopathic and “uncompassionate,” and “selfish,” and “uncharitable,” and not “empathic”! Does your dictionary include “voluntary,” and its definitions? If so, look it up and think about it, please.

        • Libertarianism just shares too much with conservative thinking, and at the same time is against, just out of pure coincidence, to liberal thinking.

          Ergo, you’re conservatives.

          A woman can or can’t abort.
          A worker has or hasn’t rights.
          No middle BS.

          Liberal thinking:

          Corps are to be regulated.
          Women get to decide by themselves.
          Equality of marriage.
          Adoptiong rights for Gay and Lesbian couples.
          Human rights for transexual persons.
          Restrictions, not prohibition, to carry arms, there’re for getting a driver license, so much more for carrying a gun.
          Labor rights, including social security and union rights.
          Protection of the environment.
          Eugenecy, you have the right to a decent passing.

          Both conservatives and “libertarians” are against all this.

          • pyrodice

            Re: ‘liberal thinking’ you’ll find that libertarians agree with all of those which increase human freedom (gay/les/trans rights, marriage equality, women decide) but we’re against the others because they AGAIN employ a gun against peaceful people, including, ironically, trying to regulate guns. I WISH guns were only regulated the way cars are… I can buy a car regardless of whether I have a license or not, I can drive it anywhere on my own property, and only need the license for state owned roads, and if I DID have a license, and ran over a troop of girl scouts, they’d only take the license, not the car!

        • Ethan Koernke

          How about this Constitutionalist is the proper term for what you just described. That is what our nation is about. Maintaining friends not Ally’s, Nation building, or False wars. To the rest of these people “Freedom is Slavery! Freedom is Slavery!”

        • Victor Moreno

          Then just about everyone is a libertarian. Don’t be silly, man. Libertarianism is a lot more than that.

        • qcubed63

          It’s also based upon ideals that cannot be achieved in today’s society.

        • Crayven

          This NAP b/s is downright comical and over used and NEVER challenged.

          Tell me something, do i have the right to buy up all the water in the US under a libertarian system as my private property and defend it with my very own BlackWater?

      • Peter Hauer

        Wow. I am sorry that the idea of being a free person scares you so much. Please don’t vote.

        • That’s your response? Well, not that it matters, you don’t believe in voting anyways. Good luck with your libertarian revolution.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            Why should he respond in a different matter to someone whose mind is made up?
            You make propaganda fueled connections to libertarianism that are baseless. To many libertarians, that means “end of discussion”, as you expose yourself as someone refusing to learn and understand the ACTUAL libertarian viewpoint.

          • Unless there has been some drastic shift in libertarian philosophy recently which I’m unaware of, yes, my mind is made up. I understand the concept well enough to reject it as an absurd system for a civilized society.

            If I’m “filled with propaganda”, then I’ve gotten it from your fellow libertarians, because 95% of my understanding of the concept has come from conversations such as these.

            I’d love to understand the ACTUAL libertarian viewpoint, the only problem is that ACTUAL libertarians seem to disagree on what that ACTUALLY is.

          • Ali Bambali

            1) A “civilized society”; how would you define that? A society which happens to conform to your biases or to contemporary happenstance? A society which includes a welfare state and taxpayer-funded infrastructure? There are other conceptions of “civilization” which don’t justify themselves on mere status-quo bias.

            When you say that: “[you] understand the concept well enough to reject it as an absurd system for a civilized society,” you’re merely substituting the term ‘absurdity’ for the fact that libertarianism doesn’t adhere to your personal values. Disagreement doesn’t entail absurdity.

            2) Your confusion about the ‘actual’ libertarian viewpoint and the many interpretations thereof stems from the fact that many forms of libertarianism do exist–it isn’t simply a holistic philosophy. A few notable subcategories are: Minarchism; Voluntaryism; Agorism; Anarcho-capitalism; left-libertarianism, and Geolibertarianism. Like progressivism and conservatism, libertarianism is no exception in that subcategories might and do exist.

          • Da FilosFur

            I think Rule number 9 is in order here.

            However, to be fair, I seldom appreciate an internet gangbang of a commentator, only in the cases of truly stupid and delusional people or consistent trolls. Gangbangs are just so shitty, and it forces the lone commenter on this issue to have to respond to a dozen different arguments between another dozen being thrown at them. In the end, it makes the lone commenter no better off in getting answers, and it makes the gang no better off in getting answers themselves or passing information on consistently. In short, it is a huge waste of time to commit to.

          • 1) Civilized society is easy. It is people working together altruistically for the overall benefit of everyone included. Before civilization, humans were tribal, just like what is proposed with libertarianism. Libertarianism is absurd, because its results are predictable.

            2) I understand that gradations exist within the umbrella term “libertarianism”, however my beef with it lies in its sociopathic economic view, which is nothing more than social Darwinism. Progressive democratic socialism has pretty much the same stance on social issues and personal freedom, but has a humane approach to economics that benefits as many people as possible rather than an elite few.

          • pyrodice

            Altruism doesn’t exist. If you do something for someone, does it make you feel good? If so, then you’ve gotten value from your donation. A true altruist would be doing things for people in which he not only didn’t like the idea, and wasn’t told to, but also accepted that it might actively harm him.

          • GrayCat

            You want someone you don’t respect as an “expert” to do all your homework for you and just hand a magical pronouncement to you on a silver platter?

            Please look up the authors and the works I’ve cited in my other posts. Thanks.

          • pyrodice

            It’s strange, since when one asks you to break your objections down, what you come up with usually sounds very fuzzy. Could you define “absurd” for us, and explain where we’re wrong and about what?

            I doubt very much that you got from a libertarian most of the things you accuse us of. I’d be glad to ask them, if you give me their contact info, but I’m willing to bet you won’t follow through on that.

      • Not even in paper, the simple mention of “moral superiority” is stupid, at best.

        • pyrodice

          Non-aggression beats aggression at EVERY measure of morality. If it’s stupid, you’re advocating being beaten.

          • Guns mean violence, pro-life is pro-fetus and pura hipocrisy, which is imposing women your view, it’s aggresion and intolerance, closet conservatives.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            Pro-life is a not a libertarian position.
            The fetus is inside the woman’s body. And nobody but the woman owns the woman’s body. To force her to give birth is to enslave the woman physically. The unborn cannot live without forcing the woman to assist (by carrying it around and living without great risk), which is no different from slavery or at least similar to socialism (stealing from one to give to the starving). The woman CAN live without the fetus. Her life is independent of the fetus’ existence. But the fetus can have no right to life if it can only live by enslaving another for ca 9 months. Hence, terminating a pregnancy is a libertarian right.

            And guns can mean initiation of violence or defensive violence. In the latter case, guns are perfectly libertarian, as having a right to defend your life is morally superior to having that right taken away by others. Just because someone could use a tool for initiatory violence does not mean any third party has the right to take that tool away, even for defensive purposes. If it did, baseball bats and knives should also be banned, as well as cars and any other tool that can be used for violence. You take away rights from criminals; take them away from the innocent. and you are engaging in immoral behavior.

          • The rest of the world lives in a social system where nobody, or almost nobody, owns a gun, and very probably will never need one.

            Such a pity you people can’t understand that world is a lot safer. Life is treated by so many other things that can’t be stopped by a gun anyway, like Cancer, in which case we need medicine, not a gun.

            And Pro-Life (which doesn’t actually defend life therefore being pure hipocrisy) IS a libertarian position, or better called, a closet conservative position, as many comments here show.

          • Da FilosFur

            Yes, the rest of the world is a beautiful safe paradise; only America is the dangerous place. And suggesting that places like China, India, the entire Middle East, Russia, Africa, and South America are places that will never require a gun is just ludicrous.

            I am not sure why you brought up cancer. irrelevant?

            Are you kidding? When did prolife become a Libertarian position? Libertarians are heavily divided on the issue; suggesting that it is a libertarian trait is an outright fallacy when you look through a dozen libertarian pundits.

          • pyrodice

            Forgot Mexico.

          • Yeah well, we need to keep all those american junkies supplied.

          • pyrodice

            Yes, we all live in a world where almost every time you put on your seat belt, it’s a waste of energy, and it’s very likely you’ll never need it…

            but when the day comes, would you rather have it on, and not need it, or need it on, and not have it?

            Now replace seat belt with gun.

            Except I don’t recall 267,000,000 people being fatally T-boned by their governments after having their seat belts confiscated. The worst private mass-murder in recent memory was Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in one day. Imagine if you will that the same thing happened NINETY TIMES PER DAY FOR A CENTURY. That’s what happened in the 20th century, strictly with people who had been disarmed by their government.

            So much safer… :P

          • Not safe at all, and shootings in countries not at war are almost exclusive of America, at least they seem to be the day to day for you.

            Never seen one american standing against anything, I’m convinced I will never see any stupid civil hero arise, like ever.

            Funny you’re waiting for the chance to jump out and save somebody, when you country ranks above all in daily killings at universities, restaurants, etc.

            Seat belt has 1000000 more chances of saving my life, seat belt is secure in both a country where people are armed, a gun doesn’t make any sense to me, since guns are not allowed in Mexico, and I’m very glad for it. We’re not primitives as you.

          • pyrodice

            “Not safe at all, and shootings in countries not at war are almost exclusive of America, at least they seem to be the day to day for you.”

            We have the third highest population on earth, and the densest communications media of the top tier. It’s “man bites dog” syndrome… Also “if it bleeds, it leads”.

            “Never seen one american standing against anything, I’m convinced I will never see any stupid civil hero arise, like ever.”

            The reason you don’t hear about the two million plus DEFENSIVE uses of firearms every year is that a burglar or mugger running away doesn’t leave anything to take pictures of, and, you know, doesn’t fit the agenda.

            Those university killings? (And theater, and government building, etc.) are all places called “gun free zones”. I guess you can see how well it works.

            “Seat belt has 1000000 more chances of saving my life”

            Wow, 2 million defensive handgun uses per year… but YOU think there are 2 TRILLION seatbelts per year saving lives. This is sorta proving the article’s point about you not knowing about the things you argue against.

            “seat belt is secure in both a country where people are armed, a gun doesn’t make any sense to me, since guns are not allowed in Mexico, and I’m very glad for it. We’re not primitives as you.”

            That looks like it got translated from a different language, but aside from whatever “in both a country” means, are YOU in Mexico? That might make some sense… Except that you’d know how bad the violence down there is, if so. And that making them illegal hasn’t helped for shit.

            Also, what exactly is primitive about not having any guns? Do you think the world was safer when it had no guns? Those were the “primitive” times… The crusades, the inquisition, the mongol hordes… Highwaymen on every road… Do you think men were SAFER before guns? D’you think WOMEN were?

          • Philippe David

            “The rest of the world lives in a social system where nobody, or almost nobody, owns a gun, and very probably will never need one.”

            Right! Like Nazi Germany, USSR, Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Disarming these people workrd out so well for them…

          • Owning gund has worked sooooo well for americans.

          • Philippe David

            Actually, it has worked out really well for America, except for those places with strict gun laws, like Washington DC…

          • Roy J Lores

            Ever heard of Switzerland moron? Try again state worshiper.

          • pyrodice

            Then cops bring violence. You’re strawmanning me, as I’m pro-choice, and insulting me personally by calling me a conservative.

          • Roy J Lores

            Being killed an raped by their god the state is what they love the most, they daydream about it every nanosecond of their sad excuses of lives.

        • Ali Bambali

          Why? The well-established theory of moral coherentism states that: “moral theories displaying internal coherence are superior than those which contradict themselves or display incoherences.”

          Saying that it is “stupid, at best” does not refute the aforementioned notion.

          • Good, I can keep insulting you the whole day. Dont really care being called inferior by such morons.

      • Keri-Anne

        Where is your argument?

        • What do you mean? I’m pretty sure social Darwinism isn’t an endorsement.

          • Keri-Anne

            All you are doing is going on and on repeating talking points. You keep proving the post correct, how ever eloquently you post the same nonsense it does not change the fact you have failed to argue anything. You have spent at least an hour trying to explain how articulate you are, but argued absolutely nothing. You say the same things, but fail to comprehend pretty much everyone is asking you HOW & WHY and you simply can’t back up what you claim to know.

          • GrayCat

            No, it’s just a smear — an UNFOUNDED smear.

            You make such smears and misinformed claims, without ever providing facts, figures, and concrete examples, much less solid, logical, rational reasoning — called argument — to back up those smears and claims.

          • Roy J Lores

            Prototype Fake Atheist posted “What do you mean? I’m pretty sure social Darwinism isn’t an endorsement.”

            But coercion, violence, mas murder and perpetual war by your god the state is not huh? LOL You are a moron but then again all statists are.

          • Yes, we already know. You’re a Mensa member and anyone who thinks that a government is necessary automatically espouses tyranny and subjugation and is beneath you.

          • Roy J Lores

            Your inane circular logic that people are bad so we need a group of bad people to control everything hasn’t worked since it’s creation except to perpetuate war, genocide and suffering state worshiper try again.

          • So, if all people are so innately bad, why do you think a society full of bad people with little to no rules would be successful?

          • Roy J Lores

            That’s your belief not mine state worshiper and again Anarchy means NO RULERS not NO RULES. Do yourself a favor and Google Natural rights.

          • Good luck enforcing rules without any infrastructure to do so.

          • Roy J Lores

            You still don’t get it do you? There is no need to enforce natural rights and as long as you do not initiate violence against me I will not use violence to blow you away either, what’s so hard to understand about that?

          • Again, good luck getting humanity to be on board with that. There’s a reason civilization and governments were created.

          • Roy J Lores

            Yes the state was created with the purpose of serving the whims of the ruling elite from the pharaohs and emperors of ancient times to today’s ruling elite there is no difference that’s the extent of the so called greater good to,

          • Once again you’re oversimplifying and broadly generalizing while choosing the worst examples as being representative of all governments.

            It would be like picking the KKK and Westboro Baptist as representatives of Christianity.

          • Roy J Lores

            All governments require the initiation of force to even exist, violence is the bread and butter of your deity and the sole purpose of it’s existence, that’s why the founding fathers tried to limit it’s power but failed miserably from the get go as the Whiskey rebellion under Washington and Adam’s anti sedition laws that Jefferson struck down the moment he became president prove.

          • When people refuse to abide by the rules set forth by the vast majority of society, there are consequences. We can’t have vigilantes meting out justice however they please. Besides, you’re comparing the actions of a fledgling government of an emerging nation to those of well-established governments, which isn’t an apt comparison.

          • Roy J Lores

            So if the majority decide to take your children away it’s OK because it’s the majority. mob rule much?

          • GrayCat

            Please, out of all the human governments of recorded history, name one “good” one, and give reasons it’s not still with us.

          • GrayCat

            And those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with what you think they did. PLEASE read, in depth, history.

          • Philippe David

            Who says that there aren’t any alternatives to government to provide such a service? Have you even bothered to research such alternatives?

            The market actually provides millions of products and services without the aid of government, yet you can’t fathom that it could actually provide security as well.

            It’s not because you lack imagination that everybody else does.

          • Philippe David

            If humans are so innately bad, what makes you think that putting a small group of innately bad humans in charge with the monopoly of the legal use of force is such a great idea? Do you know how many people were murdered by that very thing which was supposed to protect them in the first place?

          • GrayCat

            Hate to break it to you, but social Darwinism is EXACTLY what you’re proposing. Are you aware of the programs and their development in Weimar Republic in Germany? In the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia? Do you know where they got the ideas for their social programs, that turned into the nightmares of democide in the 20th century?

            American Progressives of the late 1800s, following and building on Darwin’s ideas, led to all that inhumanity, in the name of equality and building the better, ideal society, based solely on . . . forced altruism and the betterment of humanity.

            You’re right: social Darwinism isn’t an endorsement for a humane society; it’s pretensions to eliminate human suffering through true, forced “compassion” is a pretension no truly compassionate, thinking, educated person should ever be taken in by again.

            Libertarians never presume to make all people “equal.” There is no such thing. We may all be created equal as human beings, with the equal right to earn our living unmolested by “taxes” and coercion to conformity, but equality of results is a universal impossibility, arrived at only through violence and injustice.

      • David Borg

        It would be great if you could actually validate your claim by providing specific examples of this “social darwinism”. While it is fun to use “words”, it is even more fun to use “words” without transforming them into baseless claims.

        • The free market is an “anything goes” philosophy. It suggests that those who are successful should be able to acquire as much wealth and power as they can achieve, and those who aren’t should be left to suffer and die.

          • GrayCat

            BALDERDASH.

            It only means that EVERYONE has the opportunity to do and make of himself, FREELY, whatever he can by meeting needs and wants peacefully.

            If you DON’T want to produce or participate in producing anything someone else WANTS and is willing to pay for, that’s on you.

            If you are physically or severely mentally UNABLE to participate, there are entities that WILL take care of you, beginning with your family.

            The point is, there is no one who has the right to initiate FORCE to effect any production or distribution.

            Do you know why socialism ALWAYS fails, in all times, in all places? Please do some economics studying. And when you do, try getting out of Marxism and Keynesianism. Try, for instance, reading Mises, Thomas Woods, Robert Murphy, Robert Higgs, Walter Block, Ron Paul, etc.

          • pyrodice

            Clearly you have no concept of a free market. Unlike government, nobody will give you anything unless you make their lives measurably better in some respect.

          • GrayCat

            It’s not an “anything goes” philosophy. If someone is successful, they EARNED it because what they were doing, others WANTED and were willing to PAY FOR IT.

            If someone isn’t successful in competing, then there are alternatives: get into something you’re more suited to; work for the successful guys. Go off in the woods and be self-sufficient living off the land — and maybe even producing something or performing a service someone needs and is willing to pay for.

            Before the great welfare states, people were not as a rule “left to suffer and die.” If you read any history, look into records of the past of most towns and villages, the community VOLUNTARILY took care of their neediest members.

            And MOST of that TRUE charity was done by churches and church people.

            Try. Read. Learn. Think.

            Please.

      • FEMA L366

        Welcome Statist… How is that Hope and Change working out for you?

      • Roy J Lores

        Yup sure I mean all voluntary exchange and association = social Darwinism but coercion, violence, mass murder and perpetual war by your god the state = the way to utopia. And pigs fly too.

        Thanks for proving the point of the article beyond all reasonable doubt troll

        • The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the failings of libertarianism which are inherent to such a system while completely misrepresenting ANY support for government as support for corruption and overreach proves my point.

          • Roy J Lores

            Define overreach! Oh wait you can’t you have to blindly obey and worship your god the state. And as Bastiat long ago put it you social engineers think that because we do not like the state doing something like helping the poor for example does not mean we are against the idea of helping the poor s the idea of forced collectivism you adore that we are against.

            You want to help the poor go do it! Do not force others to do it for you and oh! Not to mention that you have no control of how your god legally extorted money ends up being spent either.

          • I do try to help the poor and needy. Again, the government already uses tax money to help the poor, and yet still we have plenty of people who are poor and struggling. If you take away the “mandatory” taxation, you really think people are going to give MORE than they do now when they aren’t “forced” to? That’s simply absurd, just as absurd as the belief that companies will pay a fair wage when they have no minimum wage to force them to.

          • Roy J Lores

            Prototype Statetheist wrote “Again, the government already uses tax money to help the poor, and yet still we have plenty of people who are poor and struggling.”

            Exactly your precious welfare only brings multi-generational government dependency, charity actually helps the poor it does not keep them poor forever and ever dependent on government handouts not to mention that on top of it all t does not rely on the initiation of violence as the solution for everything as your beloved deity does

          • Again, welfare is only as prevalent as it is because we’ve allowed corporations to pay glorified slave wages, requiring workers to be subsidized by the government in order to survive. We’ve allowed companies to outsource labor by removing tariffs on imported goods. We’ve failed to invest in education so that people can learn skills and trades in order to be productive.

            Welfare doesn’t cause people to be poor or dependent. There are plenty of stories of people who received assistance and later achieved success, even if it was in the next generation.

            How is private charity any different that public charity? Care to explain? Care to explain how people would give MORE when they aren’t taxed? Your argument is simply illogical, and it is inhumane to allow people to suffer or force them into crime (which then puts them in prison, costing far more than welfare) just to get by.

          • Roy J Lores

            Wow just wow! If you go and steal food, clothes from someone else to give it to the poor is not charity but theft, charity is to give from your own not to steal from others look at the definition and call me in the morning dolt.

          • And who steals food and clothes and gives it to someone else?

            Altruism is necessary for any society to be successful. Greed and selfishness are not virtues.

          • Roy J Lores

            You do through your god the state all the time hypocrite.

          • How? You’re making baseless and unfounded accusations. Examples, please.

          • Roy J Lores

            Everything your god the state does is through legally extorted money that’s not baseless that’s fact pure an simple hypocrite.

          • Then you should have no trouble linking me to some examples of this occurring.

          • Roy J Lores

            your beloved taxes is legalized extortion yo dolt, you have no choice but to pay or be killed like a dog if you do not

          • Who is being killed for not paying taxes? Ah, yes, I remember now when Wesley Snipes was executed live on television.

          • Roy J Lores

            You get thrown into a cage same difference and if you resist such a grievous injustice you are killed like a dog.

          • Being imprisoned for a couple years is the same thing as being killed? Also, I’m pretty sure that resisting arrest or contempt of court just buy you some extra time in prison, not a date with the injection chamber.

            But go on with the hyperbole.

          • Roy J Lores

            If the trigger happy cops of today don’t shoot you dead first and yes is pretty much the same. To somebody that loves serfdom and slavery like you it isn’t but to those that cherish freedom and liberty like us it is.

          • Again, what gives you the impression that I approve of cops using excessive or unnecessary force? Also, what gives you the impression that cops aren’t going to be like any other group of people, where some are good and some are bad?

          • Roy J Lores

            Honestly I would give them no choice if I were to be arrested on any of the tons of victimless crimes decreed by your god the state.

          • Again, you’re implying that I support laws that punish victimless crimes when I have stated many times that I do not. But keep on ignoring me because I don’t agree with you 100%

          • Roy J Lores

            not paying the legal extortion by your god the state is a victimless crime you dolt, one that gets you in a a cage or killed if you resist.

          • Legal extortion? Society has decided that taxation is a viable method of paying for shared resources. If most people stopped paying taxes, they couldn’t put us all in jail. Same way that drug laws are changing because people don’t respect them.

          • Roy J Lores

            Drug laws are changing because prohibition has never ever worked you dolt And you beloved federal government is still actively pursuing prohibition and threatening states that defy them.

            And just because “society” as you call it see something as acceptable doe not mean it is, after all your society once saw the selling of human beings as property as acceptable too.

          • I agree that prohibition is a failed policy; however, most of society still obeyed and/or agreed with drug laws until fairly recently. That has changed and continues to change. When a law ceases to be effective at deterring behavior, then it is time to re-evaluate it. Again, I support the legalization of drugs, yet you keep implying that I support the federal prohibition on them simply because I think that government is necessary.

            You keep doing this – equating my belief that a government is necessary with my full-fledged support for all policies currently instituted by the US government. I have told you many times this is not the case. You also keep calling me a “dolt”, which is nothing more than ad hominem argument. You have displayed little intellectual honesty in this conversation.

          • Depending on one’s viewpoint, it is very difficult to say that “most of society” obeyed and/or agreed with drug laws. There’s a reason things exist in a black market. Demand is high enough for someone to take the risk to make a profit. Of course, it takes place out of the mainstream, so who knows how big certain black markets are?

            I tend to believe that the reason drug laws are starting to lose mainstream popularity is because of the Internet. Now people who believe in a certain way that was deemed unfavorable by the mainstream media can find that many others believe in the same way. They can find solidarity via the Internet in ways that were never possible before. And just like those who support freedom in drug usage, those who support freedom in many other areas are also finding solidarity. Is there any wonder that the libertarian/anarchist/freedom movement has mushroomed in popularity in the last 10 years or so?

            The problem that many others who support limited government have is that support for big government in one area while not supporting it in another ends up being counterproductive, since big government knows no bounds. Agreeing to give government power in one area will inevitably lead to that power being used in other areas. It works all well and good as long as people you like are in office. As soon as power shifts, that power will be used against your interests. And the cycle continues but each time government has grown a little more.

            So while I wish others on here would act nicer so they could get their points across without disrespect, understand that their point is that it is hard to support freedom half-way. Either you fully support it or eventually you lose it.

          • For much of our history, “society decided” that slavery was a viable method of production, that women weren’t equal to men, and that kings had a “divine right” to rule. Of course, those things have been “undecided” at this point, much like I hope taxation will be one day as well.

          • Philippe David

            “Society has decided that taxation is a viable method of paying for shared resources.”

            “Society” is just an abstract concept that represents a group of individuals acting in cooperation with one another, “Society” can’t act or make decisions. Only individuals can. And if individuals have no moral right to take someone’s property by force, then neither does “Society”.

          • GrayCat

            Who the heck is “society,” and why does a mob get respect from you?!

            Did you ever actually vote to increase income or state taxes? Exactly who are you referring to, “society has decided”?!

            I’m “society,” or just as much part of it as you are, and I NEVER decided that taxation is a viable method of anything but THEFT!!!

            If I can’t hold you up at gunpoint at your ATM, because that is “theft,” why is a government goon in a suit permitted to? What, EXACTLY, is the difference between the personal robbery and theft by government?!

            PLEASE?!

          • The problem with any group that is given power and authority is exactly that! Some people are good and others bad, but when bad people get power and authority they can be menaces without accountability! Bad cops are one thing, but just look at what happens when bad people get control such as they did in the southern states (Jim Crow laws) or South Africa (Apartheid). Or take your pick of any dictator of the 20th century from Mussolini to Mao. Bad individuals can’t cause the type of mass destruction that bad government can.

          • Philippe David

            Even worse than that. Lord Acton said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but in reality, it’s not so much that power corrupts, but that it’s a magnet to the corruptible.

            Power just attracts just the type of personnality who loves to abuse it. Just and peaceful people have no desire to control their fellow man, but pathological personnalities do.

          • GrayCat

            So if cops aren’t going to use deadly force to enforce your tax laws and “charity” laws, who actually needs to obey them?

          • Wesley Snipes was forced to go to jail. If at any point he had resisted enough, actual violent force would have been used, including lethal force if deemed necessary by the government. The direct threat of violence is almost as bad as the actual use of it.

          • Jalen

            “Who is being killed for not paying taxes? ”

            People generally don’t wanna die, so they concede to the person with the gun pointed at their head, AKA gubmint…

            Try resisting to the inevitable kidnapping that will come your way if you refuse to pay your taxes…

            A couple of people have, maybe not in terms of taxes, but in terms of gun laws… Justin Borque, committed the non-violent crime of walking outside with a gun slung over the shoulder, when cops responded with guns, he proceeded to kill 3 of these wastes of human space, injured 5 of them.

            In the end, both of our beliefs boil down to who has the most weaponry, you need more guns than us to impose your will on us, we need more guns than you so we can resist such despicable, immoral, irrational behavior.

            We may not have the weaponry on our side yet, but when we do, we will not impose the same injustice you would impose on us. Our philosophy doesn’t need to force people to follow it, free people tend to follow it out of their own rational self interests…

          • I’ve yet to see the IRS hold a gun to anyone’s head and demand their taxes. But that’s cool, your libertarian hyperbole is certainly believable. Why exaggerate if your ideology is so sound?

            Being put in prison isn’t kidnapping. You go through the legal system, and if you don’t honor the law, that’s where you go. If you don’t want to pay taxes, feel free to move elsewhere or establish your own libertarian haven. It’s so viable that there are many to choose from. Oh, wait.

            Funny how you claim that establishing law and order and using the justice system is “tyranny”, yet here you are just waiting until you can stock up on guns and ammo to overthrow the government. Should I be passing on your comment to the FBI, then?

          • GrayCat

            You might look up Aaron Russo’s documentaries, America: Freedom to Fascism, and Mad As Hell. Also, look up the documentary, The Monopoly Men.

          • Taking something by force or the threat of force (i.e. taxation) is not altruism. Forced redistribution of wealth is not altruism. Charity is not charity at the point of a gun. The only true altruism is that which is completely voluntary.

            A free society will have greedy and selfish people just as they exist now. The difference is that a free society will be wealthier and generally people are more charitable if they have more wealth to be charitable with. But there will also be less need for charity in a wealthier society since the poorer people will be much more able to work themselves up without so much government regulation, bureaucracy, and taxation.

          • GrayCat

            Neither is presuming to dictate to others according to your ideas and usurp their rights to their life, their labor, and their wealth.

            Only your life, what you earn, and what you own is yours to govern.

            You have no right or claim to anyone else’s life, earnings, or any other property. Not even if you call yourself “government.” That’s called pride, imperiousness, greed, and dishonesty. None of that is virtuous.

            Presumption is not a virtue; neither is theft, initiation of violence, invasion of privacy, or dictating association and trade.

          • GrayCat

            Where do you think “value” comes from?

            Why do you think companies on the whole would not pay labor what it’s worth? Why do you think it’s the fault of businesses rather than of government and the Federal Reserve System that things are so economically out of whack? You’ve obviously never read much history; otherwise, you’d know better.

          • Philippe David

            Statists like the poor so much, they keep creating more.

      • amajamus

        The NAP does not just refer to physical violence. Violence can be in the form of economic sanctions as well. But right now I am witnessing violence on this thread from libertarians against those who disagree with them by verbally assaulting them. This is exactly why I stay out of politics, because of the attitude, “if you disagree with me . . . well f*ck you!” Just live by the NAP and leave others alone.

        • For libertarianism to work, everyone has to abide by the NAP. It’s a pipe dream. It’s demanding a utopia. It’s obvious that those who are the most selfish and willing to exploit would come out on top.

          • GrayCat

            Absolute, unabashed BALDERDASH!!!

            Everyone, mostly, ALREADY abides by the NAP.

            Or do you refrain from personal murder and robbery with assault just because you’re afraid you might get caught and punished?

            I guess we don’t need to demand a Utopia (and libertarians demand no such thing, knowing there will be criminals who think they can get away with it); you’re already living in it!

            So what’s your main complaint, again? That libertarians aren’t “compassionate,” “charitable,” “empathetic,” and “decent” enough to suit you?

            Selfishness, true selfishness, is an inability to see and understand reality, a pathological, irresistible emotional need to force others to be and do what you want them to be and do — and always for the most “altruistic” of reasons (for the children, for the good of society, for the common good, for the general welfare, etc., etc.). Otherwise, they might turn out to be different, even if innocuous, from you.

            Oh, the HORROR!!!

      • Karl Schipul

        “Libertarianism may look great on paper and when you study it in a book, but in practice…”

        name a place where this is/was in practice.

      • freedumb123

        “Abolitionism may look great on paper and when you study it in a book, but in practice, or at least the version of it that most of us have become familiar with from people calling themselves abolitionists, it is useless…”

        Care to make an actual argument?

        • I have, but your lack of empathy prevents you from understanding it.

    • Right

      Maybe you should have went to college instead of spending all your time on the internet reading the Lew Rockwell blog. You goobers think that recreational reading of sophistry deserves credibility or respect? Delusional. The lot of you are misguided, self-indulging, deluded, and have no solid grasp on reality.

      • Da FilosFur

        Lets see…

        NOPE!

        Nothing intelligent or noteworthy here. Just another mad person on the internet wanting to spit out as many ad homs before he can cum.

        • Roy J Lores

          Yup

    • Michael DeAmicis

      You had me at “intellectual honesty”. I think it is my new favorite word.

    • Guest

      3 libertarians & 1 liberal lunched frequently. When the liberal would spout nonsense we would argue politely. We never convinced him that day.
      Weeks later the topic would come up again, and we would hear him stating our arguments as his own. We would then tell him his analysis was brilliant.
      It’s not usual for someone to abandon his beliefs in 1 day. But well reasoned arguments may penetrate, and make changes to his beliefs over time.

    • Chris Garvey

      3 libertarians and 1 liberal lunched frequently. When the liberal
      would spout nonsense, we would argue politely. We never convinced him
      that day.
      Weeks later the topic would come up again, and we would
      hear him stating our arguments as his own. We would then tell him his
      analysis was brilliant.
      It’s not usual for someone to abandon his
      beliefs in 1 day. But well reasoned arguments may penetrate, and make
      changes to his beliefs over time.

      • qcubed63

        The problem here is that YOU seem to think that you are eternally right and cannot be wrong.

        • Mitch

          I don’t see that as present at all, other than in the second line when he refers to the liberal arguments as nonsense. but even that doesn’t suggest that Chris himself is infallible.

    • John Stuart Mill

      Keep the faith, friend.

      Support Voter ID. And please, continue to denigrate authority as “pigs” and “the man” … shoving alinsky up their ass actually works. We win on weed and then taxes.

    • sex

      “Chris is an anarchocapitalist.”

      I stopped reading there, you are all so stupid it’s unbelievable. “Libertarians aren’t nice” because they’re a club of political science dropouts who only exist on the Internet.

      Oh and Noam Chomsky is a fag.

    • miseshayekrothbard

      Medieval peasants are not as bad as the modern socialist.

      Regarding college degrees, we have to continually mock, insult, and shame anyone with a liberal arts degree.

    • ozlanthos

      I look at it this way. I run. I enjoy running, but I didn’t always enjoy it. Something happened that I looked down, saw how fat I’d become, and made a choice to do something about it. My parents don’t run, and they are over-weight. They don’t like being over-weight, and don’t get any benefit out of it when I run. They have to make that choice for themselves. I’ve told them to be more active, encouraged them by showing ways they can improve their diets, and life-styles, but they don’t feel the same compulsion I do to actually do anything about their state of being.

      The same can be said about people who don’t understand politics, government, and/or economics well enough to make the transition to libertarianism/anarchism on their own. However, the fact that someone even engages or attempts to shut you down should be regarded as a compliment. Most of the time it is because you have given them an impression or perspective they didn’t and probably couldn’t come to on their own.

      Some people are trolls. However, if you’ve done this long enough it becomes obvious who they are. Once you see that is what is going on, it’s best to disengage, and allow them to burn themselves out. It doesn’t take all that long before they either give up, or get pwn’d by someone else following the same thread….

      -Oz

    • Phillip Russertt

      i think it was socrates who said “those who lose the debate resport to slander”. i tell the angry incivil debaters this all the time.

    • That first paragraph explains how I feel as well. Yeah, it’s like, folks. We TRIED being nice. It. Does. Not. Work.

    • Paul X

      Can you imagine Dale Carnegie explaining how to most effectively “crush” people in an argument?

      Who says libertarians are smarter than other people?!

  • Eric Ashley

    1/ Sadly true, which is why I advocate hitting tarians with a stick once a day. It grounds them in this weird thing, we Terrans like to call Reality.

    2/ I am a Conservative, which means I DO NOT have an ideology. Conservatism is anti-ideological.

    3/ Oh, so only people Just Like You are Real Libertarians. All those others, in fact the large majority of non-anarchists libertarians are Real. M’kay. Dishonesty is not a virtue.

    4/ Why do you need ‘great, libertarian theorists’? KYFO is a dead brain simple theory. Its the simplest political theory in existence.

    5/ The usual freaking out about speed limits is that they are too slow.

    6/ And I can’t teach you logic either, unless you’re willing to learn. Calvin Coolidge pointed out that without law, Wall Street was just as valuable as the deserted and dusty lots of Babylon. Without the imposition of morality in the form of private property support, we have less choices to respond to your earlier drivel.

    7/ The rank of intelligence runs from hard liberal to liberal to libertarian to conservative to hard conservative in IQ. Yeah, we’re smarter than you.

    The notion that a bunch of gamma dork boys are in favor of legalized prostitution is not that surprising.

    8/ So…Single Value Ethical System. The winner of the Prometheus Award, and for a long time, THE SF Libertarian was L. Neill Smith. Being very consistent, he was in favor of letting six year olds have guns.

    SVES’ create monsters.

    To spell it out for the slow////Making a ‘but kids are not counted’ exception means you’re not a Real Libertarian. And good for you. After all, a Real Libertarian is a Monster.

    You overrate the power of the human brain. Perfect consistency is not possible, even if we were rational beings. Since we are mostly irrational (and that includes you, probably especially so since you think you’re immune.)

    Also, what good is your utopia if it only lasts one generation?

    As to ‘ancient religious texts’…try to keep up with Reality. Don’t be Anti-Science, and Anti-History,and Illogial. Quit rebelling against the Creator. He’s not amused.

    9/ Rolls eyes. Don’t be an idiot. Don’t take Ron Paul’s picture in vain, either. He’d tell you that you’re an idiot.

    10/ You want to impose your morality of ‘I have a right to be left alone in my own home’, but I’m not allowed to impose my morality on you. Logic, its whats for breakfast. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, much skipped by tarians.

    • TJ

      “10/ You want to impose your morality of ‘I have a right to be left alone in my own home’, but I’m not allowed to impose my morality on you. Logic, its whats for breakfast. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, much skipped by tarians.”

      Libertarianism concerns itself with the legitimate use of coercion and violence, not imposing morality. A girl who uses a gun to defend herself against a rapist may or may not be construed to be imposing her morality on him, but she is not violating his private property rights by doing so, nor is she violating the Non-Aggression Principle. If a rapist does the same, he is imposing his morality on a girl and violating the Non-Aggression Principle.

      I would reconsider the attitude that someone is “imposing their morality” on them by not wanting to have their wealth stolen and used in manners they do not approve of. In that sense, the Colonials were “imposing their morality” on the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord.

      • Eric Ashley

        The Colonials were ‘imposing their morality’. I’m glad we agree.

        The whole Impose Argument is bogus. The question should be ‘what morality should I or we impose’, but then that takes away an easy club to beat the religious with.

        If I understand the distinctions right, the Impose Arguement would be Rhetoric, not Dialetic. In other words, nice sounding garbage.

        But you caught on a lot quicker to this than another Libertarian I tossed this at. He just could not get his head around the idea.

        • Karl Schipul

          “The Colonials were ‘imposing their morality’. I’m glad we agree.”

          I don’t agree. The colonials fought defensively, therefore, were not the imposers. To say colonials were imposing morality on the redcoats is like saying a woman is imposing sex on a rapist.

        • GrayCat

          Who has a right to impose anything on anyone peaceful who’s not trying to impose anything on you?

          Why does anyone HAVE to impose anything on anyone else if they’re not being threatened or violated?

      • Marla Hughes

        “Libertarianism concerns itself with the legitimate use of coercion and violence, not imposing morality.’
        The imposition of force, in fact the definition of force, is a moral decision. You’re not allowed to define morals only in a religious context as many, in fact most, who define themselves as moral are not religious at all and the definition of words depends upon the society/culture they are used in. We are a secular society so therefore our societal morals are secular even though many base their individual morals on religious beliefs.

        • TJ

          I’m sorry, but I’m not quite sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me. Is it fair for me to say that libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a religious, cultural or moral one?

    • Imposing women having a baby and not allowing them an opinion about their own body, which is not your frigging business looks quite ideological.

      • TJ

        So instead you favor the woman imposing violence on the baby, who has no control over the circumstances? Last time I checked, babies don’t conceive women, but women and men conceive babies.

        Might I recommend you try using proper grammar and punctuation before you lecture people on their views? Nobody takes it seriously.

        • What baby? it’s fucking embryo, and once it’s born noone gives a shit.

          See how your delusional non-ideology is more than inclined to conservative ideology?

          • TJ

            You used the word “baby” in your first comment, without commas. I’m not wasting my time on you. You can’t even write or think coherently.

          • It’s a baby once it is born. Before that it’s nothing.

            Closet conservatives.

          • TJ

            A human is the combination of an egg and sperm cell. Before that, a human doesn’t exist. There is just an egg and sperm cell. But they are still something. Try reading a science book and then working on your terminology.

            Closet eugenicists.

          • I’m calling bullshit. The point at which a human exists is entirely subjective.

            To believe that life begins at conception, which is almost always coupled with religious belief, is illogical. Between zygotes that never implant into the uterus, spontaneous abortions, miscarraiges, and other circumstances leading to a result other than a live birth, the majority of “people” never even take a breath. No deity worth anything would design such a flawed system, let alone force the rest of us to dance through hoops for 80 years of suffering just to get to heaven when all the dead fetuses got in for free.

          • TJ

            How illiterate can a person be? Did you even read what I wrote, or can you not read? When did I mention religion anywhere in my comment, or the belief that it takes 80 years of suffering to go to Heaven? What is with the knee-jerk reactions that cause people like you to write a response based on presuppositions rather than actual arguments stated? I said to read a science book, genius, and I also based my definition of when human life begins off of a scientific fact, not a religious text. What scientific facts do you have to support your claim that “The point at which a human exists is entirely subjective?”

            This is the same argument employed by statists who murdered people by the millions and then dismissed any qualms by saying “they’re really not human.”

            Additionally, by saying that, you’re arguing that your being a human being even now is subjective.

          • TJ, take a breath. I never said that you personally stated any of that. I simply said that taking such a position is illogical.

            I’m a molecular biologist, so don’t lecture me on science. Yes, a zygote is the first step in the development of a human being, but we’re not talking about scientific definitions here. We’re talking about practicality. It is subjective. You cannot place equal importance on a 46-chromosome cell as you do a fully grown human being, that’s absurd.

            To demonstrate, let’s take a hypothetical scenario: You’re sitting in an IVF clinic with an unrelated toddler when a large fire breaks out. You only have time to either help the toddler out to safety or grab a storage tank containing hundreds of viable embryos. Unless you’re grabbing the embryos, your position is hypocritical.

            Abortion is undoubtedly necessary in some cases. The only people who should be making this decision are the woman and her doctor. It’s nobody else’s business. We cannot have government panels deciding whether or not a woman needs an abortion. It always amazes me when libertarians take this stance when they claim to be about personal freedom and anti-government.

            Your analogy of killing fully grown humans because of the justification of “they’re not human” is fallacious because that justification is fallacious. As I’ve demonstrated, a zygote does not have the same properties as a human person that has been born. As such, the point at which this embryo does attain such a status is subjective. For the purposes of the law, we currently use fetal viability, 24 weeks. Seem reasonable to me since abortion is entirely up to the individual and not forced on anyone.

          • TJ

            “To demonstrate, let’s take a hypothetical scenario: You’re sitting in an IVF clinic with an unrelated toddler when a large fire breaks out. You only have time to either help the toddler out to safety or grab a storage tank containing hundreds of viable embryos. Unless you’re grabbing the embryos, your position is hypocritical.”

            This is grasping at straws. A man is in a building with a fire inside and can only grab one child of ten. That doesn’t make the other nine less human. You’re talking about practicality.

            I have a scenario: A man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries. What crime if any just occurred?

          • You’re dodging. I’m not grasping at straws, I’m demonstrating a valid point. If you don’t value hundreds of embryos more than one single toddler, then it is obvious that you don’t place as much value on an embryo (let alone a zygote). Therefore, when you argue that a zygote is a human being, you are being a hypocrite.

            Now, as to your scenario, it is quite obviously a murder. Why? Because abortion is a defined medical procedure, and requires consent. When an individual causes the termination of a pregnancy outside of approved medical abortion, and without consent, they are infringing on the woman’s rights. This is an easy concept, and in no way makes my position hypocritical.

          • TJ

            Abortion does not require consent of the aborted. How many abortions would be performed if the aborted had a say?

            When you say that a zygote is a human being only if the mother wants it and thus is murder is someone else kills it, and isn’t a human if she doesn’t, you are being irrational. The definition of life isn’t determined arbitrary emotions.

            It is consistent, however, with your belief that people have the right to do things against others without their consent.

          • We don’t allow any person under the age of 18 to consent to anything, with rare exceptions. Thusly, questioning why a fetus cannot consent is nonsensical. Not only are you wishing to grant a fetus rights over those of the mother carrying it, but you want to grant it rights not afforded to children under the age of 18. Huh?

            I’m not being irrational with my argument. You’re trying to confer rights to something that you readily admit is less than a fully born human that even a fully born human doesn’t have. Now that’s irrational.

          • GrayCat

            So . . . you can murder without a second thought anyone born but under age 18 and that young person isn’t allowed a say in that?!

            Isn’t there a difference between being “allowed” to consume alcohol or “vote,” and being able to LIVE WITHOUT having to have someone else’s “consent” to allow you to?!

          • pyrodice

            And this is where libertarians diverge. I don’t think I need the consent of the occupants of my house to terminate their lease and kick them out, even if I solicited them, and they tell me that being evicted will cause them to die.
            I think that if you’ve ever visited a hospital, seen a person dying and in need of an organ transplant, and not even checked to see if your spare organ could save them, you, like I, have demonstrated that you value your own bodily sovereignty over the life of another who may very well depend on your decision to survive another day.

          • Not, I’m all for eugenecy, not an hypocrite, not an idiot either. Pre-lifers, pro-fetus, that’s in your head.

            A woman doesn’t want a baby, she’s totally free to abort it. This is the 21st fucking century.

  • Onlooker from Troy

    I’m pretty sure Christopher knows what xenophobia is, just an awkward sentence that should be restructured.

  • CommonSenseRant

    I love it when the commentators on a post prove the veracity of the post’s arguments thru their own ignorance responses. So many great examples of it here in the comments to this post. The folks that are going bat poop crazy defending their “team” here not only lack discernment, basic reading comprehension seems to allude them. Amazing!

    • curiousssgeorge

      Elude. Not allude. Basic reading comprehension…

      • Jason Dodge

        That’s actually grammer, not reading comprehension. The very fact that you understood the miss-use of The word, and the authors intended gyst, means that you have good comprehension, but are a nitpicking nitwit with no plausible argument relivent to the issue at hand.

        • Seymour Clufley

          Ah…

          • pyrodice

            He sure flushed YOU outta the grammar-nazi bunker, huh?

          • Dennis Johnston

            Spelling”≠ Grammar…

          • pyrodice

            Two for one special! Caught YOU too!

          • Seymour Clufley

            Only after flushing himself out of the “unbelievably illiterate” bunker.

          • pyrodice

            Yes, clearly THAT was important to do.
            You deserve a medal. How’s about an iron cross?

          • Seymour Clufley

            Only if you capitalise it.

          • pyrodice

            if it makes you mad when mistakes are made rest assured ill add more of them

          • Seymour Clufley

            No… please, no…! My head will explode!

        • gabriel314

          “grammar,” “misuse,” “gist,” and “relevant” are the words you’re looking for.

          :D I’m on your side, but couldn’t help myself.

    • Ughface

      Unfortunately, in this case, there is little veracity to prove.

  • I see just a teenager rant here, so I have the right to insult and if you insult me it’s because you have a violent nature?

    Morally superior to who? you’re just a foolish teen ranting.

    Ignorance means freedom of ideology since when? People informing themselves are ideological? seriously? you that naive?

    All government bashing but not one single corporations bashing? Are you really that stupid to think corps are all good?

    Libs and cons are not becoming libertarians, but libertarians are stupid enough to go conservative I see.

    Violence doesn’t appeal to you, that’s great!! then neither do guns and firearms, what for? unless you’re too hypocrite or an idiot.

    Not impressed, nor surprised to such nonsense displayed here, I see just teenagers pretending to know, thinking themselves superior for being ignorant and willing not to actually know.

    And believe me, I didn’t bat an eye at this, not even typing this comment.

    • TJ

      When we refer to violence we refer to the Non-Aggression Principle, which prohibits violence against innocent people and their property. People do not violate this principle by owning and using guns to defend themselves.

      May I infer by your comment that you think all firearms are bad, including those owned and used by government agents, or only when private citizens own them?

      We do not defend corporations that violate our rights, but what power would they have without government to force us to do things without our consent? When was the last time a corporation forced you to buy a product at the point of a gun without government being involved?

      • I continously see videos of cops brutally abusing their power against defenseless people and have never ever watched one single video where a citizen moves a single finger to help anybody.

        They day you really stand against that evil government with those guns you have, be sure to record yourself and I will shut up, until then you’re just another paranoid-hypocrite-teenager-gun-nut for me.

        • TJ

          I’m in my late twenties. Nice try. Where I did mention having any guns? Or are you making presumptions?

          Please cite which paranoid statement I’ve made and where I am hypocritical about my beliefs. I do not believe I have a right to use violence against you unless you are violating my rights. Why are you so enraged by this?

          The day you can find a video of me standing idly while someone is being brutalized by a government agent, I will shut up. Until then, you’re just another troll to me who is completely uninterested in listening to anyone else’s beliefs, especially those beliefs that state you have rights we can’t violate.

          And again, work on the spelling, please.

          • Mentally you’re not even 15.

          • William Meador

            And yet you’re the one to resort to name calling lol.

          • Oh poor of you!! a post that claims superiority and justifies a ridiculous and stupid teen atittude, and it’s full of pussies.

          • William Meador

            Lol not the one butthurt, just showing that you’re the one with the little kid attitude. You argue like 3 year old with a potty mouth. It’d be cute if you were 3, but at your age it is just sad.

          • TJ

            Translation: I have no logical comeback.

        • pyrodice

          ” and have never ever watched one single video where a citizen moves a single finger to help anybody.”
          It happens…

    • gabriel314

      Would corporations be that evil and impervious to public protest (think Monsanto, Northrop Grumman) if they didn’t have gov’t support/contracts?

      Violence doesn’t appeal to me, but knowing that other people are violent justifies my owning a firearm, in spades. Not asking you to buy me one, just asking that you don’t threaten me so I don’t have to use one.

      I’m morally superior to you because I’ll leave you alone with no problem…you can’t say the same. You’d take my money, my means of self-defense and claim some semblance of ownership over me and my family. You can not claim any sort of superiority if you are not willing to allow another person’s free will (the limitation being violence against others.)

      Good luck trying to justify theft and violence.

      • As long as you have a firearm and I don’t, you’re the treat.

        • Roy J Lores

          How does somebody whom would only use violence in self defense be any kind of threat to you, unless you intend to initiate violence against said person. Damn you statists are complete morons you prove it with each post which I’m screencapping and posting on all pro liberty pages on Facebook ad logs on the whole internet ad the best thing of all s that unlike your god the state I do not have to pay to get likes either LOL

          • Self-defence means you were attacked first, if the other person have no gun cant do no harm to you, if that other person uses no gun, you shouldnt either.

          • Roy J Lores

            Hector Macias the retard Ayala wrote “Self-defence means you were attacked first, if the other person have no gun cant do no harm to you, if that other person uses no gun, you shouldnt either.”

            Your argument is that the only way an assailant can harm you is with a gun? Wow that’s beyond retarded, so I guess that all the mugging victims ad rape victims that were attacked with knives or bats etc. should not have anything to worry about because nothing happened to them and no crime was really actually committed against them since no gun was present and that includes victims stabbed to death, no gun no murder case closed. ROFL@ Statist logic BTW I’ screen-capping this beauty of yours too

          • Maybe you are right, as american, fortunately that view of things does not apply globally.

          • Roy J Lores

            Again wrong in Africa most killings during the Rwandan genocide were done with knives and machetes so try again state worshiper.

  • Rick Raubenheimer

    Shouldn’t such a smart person (point 4) know how to spell “whose” correctly?

    • If he was any smart all points would say much different things.

      • gabriel314

        Go ahead and write your rebuttal. Can’t wait to see you justify putting sick people in jail for using marijuana medically.

    • gwhosubex

      Stupid people who miss the point and don’t respond to the arguments at hand point out grammar mistakes as if to imply the messenger is not smart and therefore the arguments are invalid. The arguments are the same even if he misspelled every single word.

    • GrayCat

      And you’re writing such eloquent, substantive articles every day that are advocating for a better, saner, more prosperous society, while holding down a full-time job and seeing to other responsibilities on top of that?

      You are qualified to insult someone else doing all those things and more, why? You’re “smarter” because you can spell “whose” correctly?

  • heyheyitsteytey_v2

    Christopher Cantwell should do more Top 10 lists…

  • Matthew Richards

    What an asshole.

    • JdL

      What an asshole.

      What a perfect example of sputtering incoherence from a Statist who is totally outclassed in the realm of thought.

  • Marla Hughes

    10. “We’re really the victims here.” LOL victimology with a libertarian spin. Love it. Still reading and laughing.Edit:
    Funniest part: Using a pic of Ron Paul to argue against against statism, the Constitution and government in general. Oh, and moral superiority. In fact using a pic of Ron Paul for ANYTHING might just be the funniest part of whatever is being discussed.

    • pyrodice

      Ron Paul gets a pass from most Libertarians and an-caps because the guy did whatever he could to prevent government from doing anything at all… Normally he was just another pebble in the course of the river, but he didn’t HURT the cause, which is almost impossible, for a government employee. I ceased following his stuff around when he tried to get the UN to intercede to confiscate the web domain ronpaul.com from volunteers who had put years in on his campaigns, rather than offering to buy it from them.

  • Duder

    What exactly is the purpose of this article? Was it written to explain that libertarians for some reason have the right to ignore the customary methods of discourse used in communicating with others about political topics because of the strength of their convictions?

    Well done! I hope it offers some relief when the people you are trying to convince that you know the true path to salvation decide to stop talking to you or inviting you to gatherings. I hear that’s a really effective political strategy to win the hearts and minds of American citizens.

    • Illyanna Gray

      Did you not read the part, “So when libertarians argue with you, it’s not you we’re trying to
      convince. We’re doing it for the sake of others who might be watching.
      It gives us the opportunity to put information out there, and while you
      reject fact, after fact, after fact, we try to make you look like idiots
      so that others who may be watching have a negative opinion of you and
      your ideas, so that they do not join your cause and advance them.” So when you say you will stop inviting us to gatherings and the such or socializing with us…. do you really think we care? I would rather dine with the wolves than to be picked from the herd of sheep. And that is all you are. Sheep.

      • Duder

        You’re clearly someone who understands the power of networking.

        What exactly makes you think the quoted section applies to me?

        1) Do you know anything about me or my political beliefs?

        2) Why would you want others to have a negative opinion of me when you don’t even know my opinion?

        3) What facts have I rejected?

        4) Why wouldn’t you want them to join my cause if you don’t know anything about my cause? It may be the case that I hold many shared beliefs with libertarians, but still believe in the sanctity of fact based civil political discourse rather than ad hominem, i.e. addressing your arguments rather than calling you a “sheep”.

        5) Who is going to be watching if you never get invited to parties because you berate people with your politics and alienate other people at the party? Are you just going to start stopping people on the way into the grocery store and hope for witnesses?

        6) When you dine with the wolves, your sphere of influence is limited to the wolves. Why bother speaking if you all have the same thing to say?

        7) What you have done is give an excellent demonstration of exactly why people have a bad impression of libertarians or occupiers. You made the assumption that you knew who I was and that it was morally inferior to who you are without ever taking the time to find out anything about my beliefs. It’s textbook ignorance.

        • GrayCat

          You’ve pretty much confirmed the impression of you he got.

          “Parties” aren’t the be-all and where-all, as your being here to comment and confirm the 10 reasons given in the article shows.

          ;-)

          • Duder

            How have I confirmed this impression?

            Clearly, I don’t consider parties to be the exclusive form of communicating political ideologies. I was using it more broadly to imply that people will avoid you and your message will be distorted by the methods of the source. Kind of thought that was obvious.

          • GrayCat

            And certainly the message is lost on those who do not hear, and would be nonexistent if it were never communicated in deference to those who don’t want to hear.

            Personally, I believe that’s one reason more people don’t know and understand the concepts of freedom and a free society: because we’ve been taught that “polite” society does not discuss such “serious” and “personal” and “divisive” topics as sex, religion, and politics. We’ve slid along for a century now trying to be “polite” and “private” about politics, and look where that’s gotten us.

            Truth is hardly ever appreciated until it’s finally undeniable. But I believe in being prepared, and I believe in trying to help others be prepared and look at the truth. If they don’t want to see, at the moment, or know the truth and prefer to be on the side against freedom, that’s their choice. I believe that must not stop my bringing up the subject and getting a discussion going. It works in many more venues than perhaps you’d think, as witness the recent new interest in it — especially among young adults, who despite public schools, aren’t as stupid as they were trained to be, and have figured out that they’re left holding the bag for all the garbage their supposed intelligent, informed elders have left them with.

            My wise grandmother used to say, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”

            If one social venue at one time proves “unproductive,” another one won’t. The object is to keep trying, keep honing the message and presentation, every opportunity that comes along.

            And more and more people ARE getting the message, and ARE appreciating it and exploring it. The message is about life and death; as governments all over the world, and the U.S. gov as no exception, prove our points: freedom is best; freedom is desirable; live and let live: freedom is life, rule by others is slavery to the grave.

            There is no honest, reasonable justification for “death and taxes.” We all die. But we should all die free, without the shackles of slaves.

            So if freedom is your politics why would you be dissing this article? (Can you explain what you mean by “libertarians or occupiers,” please? Are you saying there’s a correlation?)

          • Duder

            I’m not entirely sure why you thought this was a response to my posts.

            The tone of the article is essentially: “We are right, so we are going to say what we think as loudly as possible and attempt to alienate everyone who disagrees.”

            The tone of your response is… “I am trying to start reasoned political discussions with my peers”.

            I have absolutely nothing wrong with the latter. In fact, I think it’s a noble pursuit. I have multiple political discussions with my peers every single day. A large number of those are devoted to discussing issues with libertarians, so that I can better understand the libertarian filter by which most libertarians view facts. I think it’s incredibly important to discuss important social and political topics, and wish more people would do so.

            To answer your question, there is absolutely a correlation between occupiers and libertarians. In my experience, both groups are dead set on their ideologies because they have limited exposure to opposing view points. This is what happens when you spend all of your time drudging through article after article written by someone you already know is going to agree with your world view. Both groups like to load up on cite-able fuel to “prove” they know the way. Then when someone isn’t familiar with the reference, they assume that they are far more educated on political matters and that they have won the argument, and speak of frustration to their peers about how nobody takes the time to break through the veil and see the truth by reading the exact same books that they have read.

            P.S.- “Freedom” like “liberty”, as used by you, is a buzzword with no real meaning to someone who doesn’t subscribe to the precise definition that you do. They are pulled from the ether to present an emotional argument without actually discussing the fine details of their meaning. Just ask the independent coffee farmers in South America who believe in the right to continue farming the land that they have been farming for their entire lives. Or big agro growers who forced them off of their land with intimidation and guns in the name of the free market. For that matter, you could ask the Nazi party who grew from the Free Workers’ Commission. The founders, The Supreme Court, and many other philosophers far more intelligent than you or me have never come to a consensus as to the meaning of these words, so they are not really useful in reasoned discussion.

          • GrayCat

            Cantwell is merely expressing frustration with the tirelessly flogged “obstacles” to the idea that every person has the right to be left alone without some goon forcing him at the point of a gun to obey, constantly thrown up by statists and ignoramouses. Nothing more.

            So . . . just because the free market was criminally invoked to justify usurping someone else’s freedoms and rights, means it’s impossible to define rights and freedoms?! That liberty is license to abuse others and deny them their rights? If these things you cite aren’t clearly wrong, and AGAINST individual freedoms and rights, and abuses of liberty, why cite them? Do you think otherwise? That some “consensus” must be universally reached before freedom and liberty — as I and other libertarians use them — and YOU DO understand their meanings — can be understood and legitimized?!

            I came to my libertarianism from a stance exactly like yours, because I finally dared to actually look at what someone else recommended. I am constantly comparing it with everything else I finally understood SHOULD be rejected — and finding no logical, compelling reason to go back to the cesspool of the lie that anyone has a right or qualifications to control, rule, and rob anyone else. There are no “fine details” to tease out. Only base hypocrisy.

  • Mark

    Awesome piece that is succinct and well written. Kudos to the author!

  • Building Seven

    You have riled up the statists… haha read the comment section of hurt feelings.

    • Roy J Lores

      There’s 3 pages worth of them and counting. :D

  • Justin Keith

    Awesome

  • Joshua Katz

    Condi Rice has a famous quote about civility and her dislike for raised voices and the like. It is easy to be polite and not raise your voice when you are in power and can kill those who disagree.

  • Don Duncan

    A lot of good laughs, Chris. The best humor is firmly based in reality, especially previously unacknowledged/unconscious thoughts/emotions.

    I have gone thru so many uncomfortable/unproductive conversations with the superstitious in my 71 years that I have grown tired of debate. My attitude can be summed up as: “Fine! Believe whatever you want, just don’t force it on me.” But to quote Shakespeare, “There’s the rub.” Some people can’t be content with fucking up their life, they have to drag everyone down with them. They usually tip their hand by starting every sentence with “we”. Once, I actually won a point after decades/dozens of conversations. I was astonished. My persistence, patience, and scholarship finally paid off. I reviewed my argument, noted it for future reference, and wondered if it was the final argument alone, or the total over the years that got through to the listener. The next day I was approached by the “enlightened convert” only to find he had reverted back to his previous statist position, as if he did not remember his conversion. I reminded him of his previous agreement and his own examples showing his new understanding. He looked puzzled, then continued on as if I had not spoken. I never argued with him again. I learned a lesson. Some are not open to reason. I believe they can be reached, but it would take an extremely skilled psycho-therapist. Unfortunately, collectivists are in the 95 percentile. As a professional gambler, I put the chance of species suicide high. Since the stakes are so high, I continue to rant against superstition.

    • monkeyhouse

      I think it’s called cognitive dissonance.

  • [pr★n]

    nice job

  • Chris Ohge

    Great article! My only criticism is that you stated two conflicting positions… If we’re not trying to win elections or convince statist that they’re wrong about government, then what hope do we have that we will be “left in peace” in our own homes? Property taxes essentially destroys that idea from the get go.

    If you google “land without property taxes” you’ll find threads where people are asking if such property exists and mobs of statists show up and curse them out for even considering such a thing. There is exactly zero hope of convincing a majority using theoretical arguments. If we want to make any progress in our lifetimes it will require a practical demonstration.

    • Sam Cru

      The vast majority of people will always remain passive bystanders, so their opinions are irrelevant. The number of people who stand between you and liberty is much smaller than you think.

      • Roy J Lores

        Yup most will simply go with the flow

  • The Mute Robot

    Here are 10 more accurate reasons:

    1. It’s a fundamentally narcissistic philosophy (as evidenced by this article).

    2. It values personal expression over objective fact (“my ignorance is just as

    good as your knowledge”).

    3. Ad hominem (ridicule) is the usually the first place you go when you run out of

    logical arguments.

    4. Lack of reasoned foresight resulting in an inability to imagine or defend the

    plausible negative consequences of a Libertarian utopia.

    5. They’ve just read an Ayn Rand book and feel they must continue the cycle of

    violence.

    6. People don’t become Libertarian through reasoned debate, so why bother?

    7. They easily confuse “sociable” and “socialist.”

    8. It’s easier to ridicule an argument than to make your own; to tear something

    down rather than fix it.

    9. Rooted in a persecution complex that can’t be reasoned away.

    10. Socialism correlates with stability, freedom, social and economic mobility,

    and happiness (see: World Happiness Report) – and ridicule does the opposite.

    • state hater

      “Socialism correlates with stability, freedom, social and economic mobility,and happiness” <— Are you mentally retarded? North Korea, Cuba, and other socialist shit holes are anything but free, happy, or conducive to economic mobility. The relatively prosperous countries that you're clearly alluding to are prosperous to the extent that they have some semblance of a free market. Do you honestly think that Sweden is a nice place to live because of its government rather than the wealth-producing capitalist activity that goes on there?!

      • Philippe David

        Hell, the most recent addition to socialist shitholes (Venezuela), can’t even produce enough toilet paper…

    • pyrodice

      If I eliminate all the ad hominem reasons, I’m left with fewer things to rebut here, so:

      1 adhom

      2 which objective facts? Is it personal expression to pout out that “government” is the leading cause of death in the past century?

      3 ironic, but I’ll humor you. Logical arguments don’t sway ideologues. When we know we’re dealing with one, we don’t bother. He addressed the other reason we do this: The statists proved it worked.

      4 straw man, actually. There are tons of refutations for any given “but what if?” in a libertarian society. There was a “but what if?” for the abolition of slavery, too. Your argument was among them. We managed to survive, and the cotton still gets picked.

      5 adhom

      6 another ad hom, but: I did. I saw that points the left and right were making all had holes in them, and were all ways to bring overwhelming force to play to get what you want.

      7 We don’t, actually, and it’s normally the libertarians pointing out the difference between society and government… That socialism is fine, while it’s VOLUNTARY. It just never seems to work unless it’s not, because the most productive people know what comes next, so they don’t join.

      8 Isn’t that what you just did, here? Seriously though, how exactly would you like us to do that? Someone invented bitcoin as a libertarian non-fiat currency, and the government beat MtGox to a pulp, and confiscated all their money to make sure it couldn’t succeed, and then slapped them with a gag order so they couldn’t explain to potential investors why they needed an influx of new capital. And now that it’s DONE, they change the rules and say that it isn’t money, so, never mind, I guess they didn’t need to be whalloped for “operating as a money transmitter without a license”.

      So yeah, it’s easier to tear something down than to fix it, especially when there is an entire multi-trillion dollar government suck-hole dedicated to tearing our shit down.
      9 See above. Yeah, it’s just paranoia. It’s not like they use helicopters to steal rancher’s cattle because of an endangered tortoise they don’t give a shit about and are killing because they can’t fund the preserve for, despite being able to afford helicopters.
      10 and east germany wasn’t socialist, nope. nuh uh.

    • MrDemagogue

      No, socialism correlates with corruption, food lines and lack of basic goods.

    • Hahahaha, couldn’t be said better, you riled up these teens.

    • Murray Roodbaard

      “10. Socialism correlates with stability, freedom, social and economic mobility,”

      Yeah, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela have a lot of that.
      Oh you meant places like Scandinavian countries, where there is no “socialism”, but a mixed economy (mix of social democracy and neoliberalism) where socialism siphons its resources from the productive neoliberal section of the economy?

  • Layla Godey

    “And making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns”. lol.

  • cCCCCCCCCC

    Trying to drive a wedge between Republicans and libertarians? What’s new?

  • Tim Scott

    Perhaps you’re aware that people have been at this whole philosophy thing for some time. It’s good to know that that’s all done with now that you have a discovered the perfect internally consistent moral, political and economic system based on pure reason.

    You seem to believe that anarchy will deterministically result in the ideal condition for humanity. However, you cannot appeal to evidence because it does not exist. We have seen that increases in liberty have increased the marginal happiness and prosperity of mankind. However, it is a logical fallacy to assume that the trend must continue, and that no serious problems would be encountered as liberty approaches 100%. What evidence do we have?

    I’m one of those libertarians who doesn’t yet know he’s an anarchist. I prefer to call myself a classical liberal, a line of philosophy that has actually produced the best results yet seen in history.

    I would caution you that purely rational systems have alway failed and always harm mankind. As philosopher Francis Bacon predicted a few hundred years ago, the best result is not from pure reason (the spider, who creates everything inside himself) or pure induction (the ant, who only builds with what he gathers) but a combination (the bee, who gathers and transforms).

    Pure reason always fails is because it causes the mind to become self-satisfied with an internally consistent system and thus resistant to counter-evidence and practical considerations. Your article, to me, comes off as dangerously self-satisfied.

  • James Gendron

    If my feeble, non-libertarian mind understands the argument in point four correctly, then I think the author is mistaking correlation for causation. It’s not that being smart makes one a libertarian; it’s that a person who would want his sense of superiority reinforced by membership in a club he perceives as “elite” (based, in this case, on a widely discredited test of intelligence) would also be prone to adopt a political philosophy that makes him (it’s almost always a “him”) feel superior. And the same sort of person would probably write an article like this one.

    • pyrodice

      How precisely has the IQ test been widely discredited, and what has replaced it as the gold standard in intelligence testing?

      • James Gendron

        The IQ test measures a few learned (not innate) skills, and, as such, the resulting score reflects a whole host of environmental and cultural factors that have nothing to do with the supposed “intelligence” of the test-taker. Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould wrote widely on this subject, as have many others. Here is a brief article about IQ testing taken from the American Psychological Association’s website: http://www.apa.org/research/action/intelligence-testing.aspx

        The IQ test has been replaced by the understanding that intelligence is a complex, multipartite set of attributes not reducible to a single number.

  • This entire article seems like its addressed to religious conservatives. As a progressive atheist, most of the commentary has no relevance to me, even though the article seems to be meant for the general public. It almost completely ignores positions on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    In addition, the author seems to be making one giant No True Scotsman argument. He’s putting forth libertarianism as he perceives or practices it, but in reality, there is plenty of disagreement and differing opinion among LIbertarians, just as there is among other political ideological groups.

    Liberatarianism is inherently selfish and sociopathic. The desire to “be left alone” pretty well sums this up. Sorry, when you live on a planet of 7 billion people, civilized society requires cooperation and altruism. We all are entered into a social contract when we live in a civil society. We do not just leave people to suffer when we can take action to help them. The greed of the few should not trump the survival of the many.

    I know Libertarians often try to position themselves as the “middle ground” between liberals and conservatives, but their mix of ideas from both is far from it. It essentially takes some of the more radical personal freedom policies from progressivism (legalized drugs, prostitution) and then takes some of the more radical economic ideas from conservatism (unregulated free markets, disregard for worker rights). It’s more of a combined extremism than a middle ground.

    • TJ

      “Sorry, when you live on a planet of 7 billion people, civilized society requires cooperation and altruism.”

      Translation: Do what I say or I will kill you and steal your property because I am social and selfless.

      • You need a new interpreter.

        If you think you’re entitled to use the commons to amass wealth, then sequster all of said wealth for your own personal use, then you’re a selfish sociopath.

        Good luck getting wealthy without our shared infrastructure.

        • TJ

          We believe in voluntary interactions. You clearly do not understand the terminology. When we say “the right to be left alone,” we refer to the right to do with our property as we please. We don’t mean “go off and hide in the wilderness.”

          Selfless sociopath? Who is the one who believe they have the right to use violence against other people who are not trying to violate their rights?

          What’s with the assumption that I have lots of money, which I don’t?

          • What violence am I supporting or suggesting? You think that everyone who isn’t a self-described libertarian is a violent thief just waiting to happen?

            I’m not assuming that you have lots of money, I’m simply addressing the philosophy of libertarianism with respect to economic policy. It supports the concepts of maximum greed and no concern for others.

            As far as the desire to do as you wish with your property, what specifically are you referring to? What restrictions presently exist which you are opposed to?

          • TJ

            Greed is an emotion. A poor person can be greedy.

            John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie gave away a billion dollars worth of charity.

            And you’re saying there are no greedy people in government?

            Go read the thousand of pages of regulations the federal government has if you want to know.

            I don’t blame people who don’t know better but would if they learned. I was not always a libertarian. But I did the research and changed my beliefs when I was convinced by reason and evidence.

            My beef is with people who dismiss our beliefs without asking any questions to clarify what we mean before they make false accusations about our intentions.

          • Why are you interpreting my criticism of libertarianism as support for the current state of affairs?

            You personally think that you’ve found the perfect political stance, but such a thing doesn’t exist. You can claim that the entire premise is perfectly logical and defensible, but it simply isn’t. I’ve already pointed out inconsistencies and hypocrisy just with your stance on abortion and your view on personal wealth gained using the public infrastructure.

            I’m not saying that libertarianism doesn’t have some good ideas, but I’m saying it’s not perfect, and that it would never exist in practice like you think it does on paper.

          • pyrodice

            I haven’t seen you point out any inconsistencies in his stance, just in your misinterpretation of it. In short: a strawman.

          • That’s because I’ve been conversing with him on multiple comment threads. You won’t find what I’m referring to right here.

          • Ronald Yunis

            In order to take from me when I do not wish to give (e.g. taxes) or to force me to participate in something which I do not choose for myself (e.g. health insurance) you need to either use violence or the threat of it.

          • That’s simply untrue.

            First, you don’t want to pay taxes? Fine, stay off our roads, don’t bother calling anyone if your house is on fire or if you’re being attacked. Also, good luck hooking up your own utilities.

            Second, who is threatening violence if you don’t buy health insurance? You’re not even threatened with imprisonment. You’ll simply be fined for not having it, which may or may not even be enforced. Resisting health insurance is just stupid. Everyone will need it at some point, and without it, you risk everything, and also burden the rest of society with your medical costs when you don’t pay.

          • monkeyhouse

            And if you don’t pay the fine?

          • There’s no fine to pay. If you have a refund on your tax return at any point, they’ll deduct the penalty. If you do not get a refund, then they can’t enforce it. It’s more of a tax penalty than a fine, and you can’t be imprisoned for it.

          • Ronald Yunis

            Spoken like a true “you didn’t build that” lemming. Ever hear of “toll roads?” “railroads?” “Fed Ex?” Try looking up their history. The reason that infrastructure has been built by government is primarily that they commandeered it so that they could control it as well as pay off their lackeys and silence competition, in much the same way as gubment in now initiating a takeover of the 1/8 of our GDP known as health care. Private capital will always build what benefits it if that is what is needed to succeed and universally speaking, when government gets involved it always costs 10 times more and takes 5 times longer.

          • Ronald Yunis

            And you don’t “simply” get to fine me because I don’t wish to buy your product and subsidize the voting apparatus that you have rigged against those of us who do not wish to see your ilk in power. That is called taking. Don’t assume I don’t have nor that I don’t believe in health insurance. I just don’t believe in paying three times as much for 1/2 the coverage so that people who already live off my tax dollars and do not efficiently avail themselves of the resources available to them can squander more of my tax dollars in the most inefficient manner possible. If I am intelligent enough to save and plan for my health insurance or say I am a doctor and can barter with my colleagues, why should I be made worse off so that others can be made, in your opinion, better off?

          • pyrodice

            Not to mention, as he points out so many people hyperventilating over speeding, the same is true of so many things that don’t involve third parties: prostitution, jaywalking, drug use and sales, heck, one can even make a grayer case for drunken driving. If they don’t hit anyone, there’s no victim. (If they DO, you have my full support in tacking on “aggravated” to the charges of vehicular manslaughter, or vehicular assault.)

          • I agree that enforcement of prostitution laws, jaywalking, and drug laws is asinine. I see where you’re coming from with drunk driving, but as you state, it isn’t as clear cut, and as long as they don’t lower the BAC threshold from its present level, I’m OK with leaving it alone.

            I really don’t take much issue with the social views of libertarianism. It’s more the economic aspects where I have a problem.

          • pyrodice

            Economically, I’m never impressed with liberal reasoning. I’d rather get everyone to agree when I tell them “You deserve to be free!”, and then let them set up their own sub-system where everyone can decide how their own property gets used.
            If you want to own a thousand acres of managed forest for people to wander through and forget their troubles, that’s fine. Whether you charge for it or not is up to you. If you do, maybe you can do more good for the forest, if you don’t, nobody can complain if you use some of it to grow or hunt your own meals.

            Similarly, if you want to dig a giant mine, and process every single element out of it, separately, and then fill it back in with ten years of garbage, and cap it off with a golf course, that too is up to you. But if forest-family comes over to strip-mine family and starts waving guns around, they don’t get my support any more than if strip-mine family goes over to the forest and starts waving THEIR guns around. In the end, everyone has to make their own decisions as to what that land might be worth in the future, when THEY have to (or decide to) sell it. Who do you think will get more for their plot? It sounds like the forest would be worth more, objectively… But I could still find a buyer for the landfill. As certain materials become more uncommon, a landfill becomes a mine, once again… Even after its utility as a methane producer (yay electricity), there are hundreds of tons of scrapped iron, aluminum, fertilizers, and other resources in there.
            The trick is simply to LET the market do these things. Nobody voluntarily and irreparably screws up land they own except the government. I’m serious, imagine if BP had to OWN all that ocean before they could drill it? They’d have had to put a tube around the whole site, down to the seabed. Who bombs ranges with depleted uranium? Or LIVE uranium? I sure wouldn’t. Government does.

    • Tim Scott

      > We all are entered into a social contract

      Strange, I don’t recall signing that. Nice words from a French pop philosopher with a flair for romantic flourish. Unfortunately, nobody really knows what it means.

      What’s required to improve the lot of the 7 billions is increasing productivity, which history has proven over and over again results from only one thing: entrepreneurial capitalism. Even Bono figured that out after trying everything else and failing.

      The essential ingredients are not altruism and some vague notion of a phony social contract — good intentions that are quickly nailed to the cross of unintended consequences — but rule of law, property rights, honest enforcement of contracts, free prices and interest rates, no bailouts, no siphoning of resources through government to favorites. This is what has worked. This is has been and is dramatically raising the lot of millions around the world.

      • Strange, I don’t remember anyone asking me if I wanted to be born, either, yet here I am. The social contract is not something you agree to, it’s something inherent in living in a civilized society. If you don’t accept this responsibility, then it would be advisable to find a more remote or uncivilized portion of the world.

        I support capitalism (with regulation). I also support having democratic socialism mixed in with it, so that we can have public infrastructure and services like law enforcement and fire protection. Pure capitalism has never and will never work. The free market will always move towards oligarchy and plutocracy.

        • Tim Scott

          > The social contract is…something inherent in living in a civilized society.

          Inherent? How so? You make an assertion, but do not support it.

          I want to ask you to do something. Read “The Fatal Conceit” by F. A. Hayek. I think you should because you are arguing without understanding the other side very well. I understand your side because I grew up in America and went to college and thus got a thorough progressive indoctrination.

          You should read that book because you are appealing to what Hayek might call a collectivist morality without understanding that there is an alternative, what it is, or why it might be perferable.

          My libertarianism — I prefer “classical liberalism” (as did Hayek) — is directed by evidence of efficacy, not pure dogmatic adherence to the Non Aggression Principle. In this book Hayek also appeals to results for society at large. He shows that there are two basic moral systems. The first system comes from the tribe, and can be called collectivism. The tribe depended on this system to survive and prosper vis-a-vis competing tribes. He shows how humankind has deep psychological roots in this system.

          But as the size of the group grew, a competing moral system, I would call it liberalism, began to evolve. It probably started when some member of the tribe created a tool and said “mine.” The two systems have jockeyed for millennia.

          The ultimate manifestation of the new system is entrepreneurial capitalism with a highly liberal political system.

          (NOTE: By “liberal” I mean, marked by liberty, not as a synonym for progressive.)

          Here’s what matters. Through the lens of collectivist morality, the liberal system appears selfish and ineffective. But history has conclusively proven that entrepreneurial capitalism with small liberal government beats a collectivism so badly it is hard to overstate it. Every effort to bring collectivism back in, with it’s alluring and primeval system of morality, curtails and eventually destroys wealth and happiness, most of all for the poorest. It’s maddeningly counterintuitive, but true nonetheless. (For more on how that process unfolds, read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayek.)

          • You claim that you were “indoctrinated with progressivism” at a university, yet your current views seem to bear the hallmarks of indoctrination, regardless of if it was self-induced.

            If people are in a competition for survival, your system may have merit. There’s no room for empathy or altruism outside of your inner circle or tribe, because your survival depends upon remaining superior to the other tribes. However, we presently live in a civilized society in the US, and moving toward libertarianism would ultimately only benefit the rich and powerful, and leave the majority to suffer and die. It is not a system fit for a civilized nation.

          • Tim Scott

            > moving toward libertarianism would ultimately only benefit the rich and powerful

            This is demonstrably false and runs counter to all evidence throughout history. If you don’t accept this you need to shed your indoctrination and relearn the facts of history. The lot of poorest always rises the most dramatically whenever liberal political and economic systems operate to their fullest.

            The problem with modern progressives is they are highly resistant to plain facts and place all moral weight on relative economic position and completely ignore absolute economic position, thus tragically destroying the very virtues they aspire to bring to the lowest. They rest content with their supposed altruistic intentions, willfully blind to their role in bringing about all untended outcomes.

          • I pretty much agree with the libertarian stance on social issues and personal freedom, outside of the economic stance. I absolutely believe that the free market will lead to mass poverty and glorified slavery and the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few. It’s capitalism on steroids.

            If a truly libertarian society were put into effect, it would have one of two possible outcomes: 1) The masses would accept the system, toil for whatever they could get to scrape out an existence, and suffer though life; 2) The proletariat would rebel against the elite in violent fashion and attempt to destroy the libertarian system.

            I’m having a hard time grasping, why, if libertarianism has been so successful throughout history, there aren’t any libertarian nations presently in existence. Hell, even the ones that claim to be libertarian are mostly only so because of their progressive stance on social issues. Can you name one current country that best represents your aspirations for libertarianism, especially with respect to the free market?

          • Tim Scott

            > I absolutely believe that the free market will lead to mass poverty and glorified slavery and the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.

            You used the correct verb. You *believe* as an article of faith. But it does not stand up to facts and critical assessment.

            Today the poorest are getting richer wherever economic freedom is highest:
            http://mises.org/daily/5632/Freedom-and-Economic-Growth-in-the-Poorest-Countries

            Look at a map of economic freedom around the world, and you might confuse it with a map of wealth:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

            It is instructive to compare very similar countries choosing starkly different paths:
            http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/in-one-chart-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-relationship-between-good-policy-and-economic-prosperity/

            For 1,000 years growth in per capita real income was nearly flat. Then around 1800 something happened. It shot up like hockey stick. By the start of the progressive era the middle class lived better than kings a century earlier. Hmm, what happened in the west around 1800? Entrepreneurial capitalism took hold, that’s what. Soon after Adam Smith noticed that pin makers could dramatically increase their output if they divided labor and applied capital the church finally began to soften its opposition the values of individual profit and lending. An extremely liberal system of government was established in America spread back to Europe bringing mass prosperity with it.

            All of the criticisms of free market capitalism, ALL OF THEM, start by pointing to inequalities. They completely ignore absolute gains, which they uncritically take as god given and assured. So they plot to carve up the golden goose not even realizing that that you must kill it first.

            When the dinner bell rings, every scoundrel and shyster crawls from the woodwork and comes to the feast. The decline has begun.

          • pyrodice

            If moving towards libertarianism would only benefit the rich and powerful, why aren’t the rich and powerful sponsoring libertarian candidates? Are they rich, powerful, AND stupid and self-immolating?

        • pyrodice

          The social contract doesn’t exist. If you think it does, you have no idea what constitutes a contract, or a very poor idea of what it constitutes to enter a newborn into a one-sided agreement, for which the leverage-holding side can change, eternally, with no escape clause.

          • lberns

            Statists of the proglodyte type like Prototype (non) Atheist love pushing the Social Contract nonsense which, when translated, really means this:

            A peaceful, cohesive, moral and just society can only be achieved via the barrel of a gun.

          • Roy J Lores

            Yup

          • It most assuredly does exist. Civilized society would never have evolved without it. If groups of individuals didn’t work altruistically, we’d still be living in tribal societies constantly vying for superiority.

          • pyrodice

            Explain to me what a contract is. Next, if you can, explain what happens to a contract when one party breaches it, or alters it without consent. Now explain to me how the state hasn’t done those things.

          • Roy J Lores

            Like you god the state going constantly to war against other states vying for superiority and off course their resources you mean? LOL

          • Again, I do not support nor condone policing the world nor going to war unless attacked. I do not support the United States’ empire implicitly simply because I think a government is preferable to no government.

            If it were a matter of sheer survival, then of course libertarianism would be fine, it would be every man for himself. However, we do not exist in such a reality presently.

          • GrayCat

            Um, . . . what you’re describing is most definitely NOT a “social contract.”

            And . . . governments and their subject “societies” today — all of them — are not constantly vying for superiority?!

            “Altruism” isn’t the motivating factor; that’s why truly socialist societies like fascism and communism die such deserved, tortured and disgusting deaths.

            What truly motivates human beings in social cooperation is self-interest. “I want what you have, and am willing to exchange something I have or produced to procure it from you, if you’re willing to trade for it.” That’s the way the real world works. You gotta first have something of value in hand before you can even pretend to be truly altruistic, and then voluntarily apply it because you decide to do good to someone else, knowing you will have made a one-sided “bargain.” (If the recipient is truly decent, and in the least able, he/she will endeavor to somehow pay you back . . . your kind of “altruism,” the welfare state, precludes, discourages, and prevents those basic decent human qualities of honesty and gratitude.)

            Only your precious government pretends to be “altruistic” while stealing from and demonizing those who own what the government — and you — want to expropriate, in order to be “altruistic” in your “compassion,” “charity,” and (oh, brother!!) “empathetic.” “Decent,” this attitude is, according to you. Are you really so blind?

        • wrothbard

          >The social contract is not something you agree to, it’s something inherent in living in a civilized society

          So you’re not an atheist after all, you religious nutcase.

          • lberns

            He’s a statheist:

            Sta·the·ist
            STˈāTHēˌist/
            noun
            1.
            a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, yet believes in the religion of Statism. Worships and Pledges Allegiance to a Flag or Country. Thinks voting and the political process is progression for humanity. Casts out fundamentally religious people who participates in “voluntarily” organizations yet forces people to participate in their dogma via the barrel of a gun. Treats other humans as omnipotent “humans” with extra special rights over the ones below them. Feels obligated to pay “tithings” to the religion of the State because of the logical reasoning you were born here. Feels the fallible human race cannot progress without the leadership or ruling class.

          • Sta·the·ist

            Useless term invented by libertarians to slander people who are anything but sociopathic rebels.

            Sorry, but having empathy for others isn’t a religion, it’s being a decent human being. It also doesn’t mean that I fully support the current structure of our government, but to you, any support is full support and equals statism.

            You also falsely assert that I do or would threaten violence to force you to accept my views. Utter bullshit, completely unfounded.

            Taxes pay for things like roads, utilities, fire protection, law enforcement. You know, the things that benefit everyone and are the hallmark of a prosperous modern nation? You guys all want to live on the wild frontier. Either invent a time machine and go back a few centuries, or move to Somalia.

          • lberns

            Holy fuck, was this article ever written for you.

            And no, you, personally, would probably not threaten me with violence. You, like all state worshiping douchebag cowards, would have the state do your dirty work for you instead.

            Move to Somalia? You should move to North Korea if you love the state so much :P

          • No, I’m perfectly fine with democratic socialism, but since you’re not, feel free to pack your bags if you can’t stand it. Good luck in your libertarian utopia. There’s a reason why primitive men formed civilizations, because libertarianism sucks.

          • pyrodice

            YOUR idea of libertarianism sucks, because YOUR “libertarian” world is full of piñatas you can whack around, since “straw man” is not a strong enough term to describe what you’ve done here, thus far.

          • pyrodice

            oh man, I shoulda scrolled down first, we just said the same thing. :P

          • lberns

            “but having empathy for others isn’t a religion,”

            Empathy via the barrel of a gun. How fucking empathetic of you.

            “It also doesn’t mean that I fully support the current structure of our government, but to you, any support is full support and equals statism.”

            It is a matter of degree, not kind. Regardless, the gun is the same. Only bullets might differ.

          • You keep making wild assertions, but cannot substantiate your claims. How does my empathy, a natural emotion for most humans who aren’t sociopaths, come via the barrel of a gun? I don’t own a gun.

            You are a master of projection. If you want to talk about illogical religious-like fanaticism, have a look in the mirror.

          • lberns

            WHOOOSH! You really aren’t much of a thinker are you?

          • Is this you looking in the mirror, then?

          • GrayCat

            “YOUR” empathy is YOURS. You ASSUME (