Tab Content
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:12 PM
    Deist either isn't very clever (doesn't understand libertarianism, or ethics generally), or is too clever (trying to pander to the new nationalists). (text version) No, it shouldn't. To believe that aggression is wrong means precisely that you don't want other people to engage in aggression; you want to "tell them what to do" (namely, to not aggress). Alternatively, to "live and let live," as he proposes, would be to endorse aggression. Adopting national self-determination means abandoning libertarianism. Either aggression is wrong, regardless of whether it is politically popular, or not.
    19 replies | 179 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:39 PM
    Another month, another pile of evidence that libertarians should be ostracizing conservatives, not assisting them. Highlights include: --Amash officially left the GOP --the energetic yoots of that party held a conference denouncing libertarians For those who appreciate the need to accelerate this long overdue divorce, what is to be done?
    181 replies | 6517 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:59 PM
    Populist? check Obsessed with culture? doublecheck
    19 replies | 179 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:36 PM
    Again, I am aware that you don't recognize the rights which libertarianism does. That is precisely my point.
    29 replies | 225 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:32 PM
    Everyone still has the rights libertarianism assigns them, except the ones you took away: hence the problem.
    29 replies | 225 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:24 PM
    Then you strip everyone of their rights: still unlibertarian, try again.
    29 replies | 225 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:13 PM
    That is your nationalistic view, yes. However, on the libertarian view, which the OP is purportedly examining, all individuals have the same rights, irrespective of where they were born.
    29 replies | 225 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:41 PM
    I'm rooting for hard Brexit; let them teach themselves a lesson.
    9 replies | 131 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:19 PM
    This is the crux of the OP's argument: "Sure, the people crossing the border peacefully don't pose an imminent threat, but they will become a threat in the future, so the use of preemptive violence against them is justified." When is preemptive violence justified? The libertarian view is that preemptive violence is justified in the face of an imminent threat. Why does the threat have to be imminent? We want people to be able to use violence to prevent crimes, but the future is not known with certainty. Limiting the use of preemptive violence to situations in which there is an imminent threat serves to avoid mistakes. It's difficult to give "imminent" a precise meaning. Compare two extreme versions of a rule for self-defense against stabbing: "you can only shoot once the knife is moving toward your body," versus "you can shoot anyone at any time because anyone might stab you at some point in the future." Both are absurd; there's some happy medium, which will vary on a case by case basis. As to immigration, is there a case that immigrants pose a sufficiently imminent threat to justify the use of preemptive violence against them? On what basis? You would have to show that immigrants have some trait which correlates sufficiently strongly with criminality. The OP offered IQ as an example. Well, there is a correlation, but is strong enough to justify preemptive violence? I think not. Finally, keep in mind that this reasoning applies universally: not only to foreigners. If a person having an IQ lower than X (or merely being of an ethnic group whose members have an average IQ lower than X) is sufficient to justify the use of preemptive violence against them, that applies domestically as well. I'll leave you work out the practical implications of that (think internal passports, deportation of native born people).
    29 replies | 225 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:21 PM
    The tribal warfare intensifies.
    11 replies | 130 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:48 PM
    A minarchist government is one which provides courts and police to secure property rights, and does nothing else. This is a back of the envelope estimate of what such a government would actually cost in the United States today. Note that this is for domestic spending only. POLICE Total spending on police by state and local governments is $109 billion per year. Much of this is waste, since much of the what the police do doesn't need to be done (e.g. enforce drug prohibition), but in the interest of a conservative estimate, and/or supposing some of the currently wasted police resources could be efficiently reallocated to something useful (i.e. preventing actual crimes), let's leave that figure as it is. At the federal level, it would be fair to include the marshal service ($3 billion) and the FBI ($9 billion), as agencies that serve necessary functions (the marshals as the enforcement arm of the federal courts, the FBI as a kind of catch-all). We'll leave these budgets alone according to that same conservative logic. The total is then $121 billion per year.
    0 replies | 36 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:27 AM
    Unless the Fed starts loosening, there's going to be a recession soon. Either way, preemptively or reactively, the Fed's going to be loosening. And it's going to stay loose for the foreseeable future, because this debt-addled economy is utterly dependent on cheap credit. I'm expecting a 2008-style recession, but the recovery will include much higher inflation and much lower growth. Stagflation
    2 replies | 207 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 10:24 PM
    So it's basically an ETF + payment processing system for transacting in shares of that ETF. I'm not sure what the appeal is supposed to be. Reducing currency risk? In democratic countries, total
    28 replies | 1693 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 10:04 PM
    The loot with which votes are purchased will run out and the government will collapse.
    111 replies | 4016 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 08:41 PM
    Good thing pro-Trump, anti-deep-state warrior Mark Levin is around to straighten out those losertarians
    36 replies | 662 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 08:13 PM
    3 replies | 285 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 08:11 PM
    Must be those secret marines massing to remove the lizard people.
    4 replies | 169 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 08:08 PM
    Or maybe the starving engineer manning the generator got hungry and ate the gum holding it together?
    1 replies | 50 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 07:58 PM
    It's funny; Trump's bears much of the responsibility for ginning up anti-immigrant sentiment in the GOP, and yet it is (and always was) obvious that he isn't particularly enthusiastic about restricting immigration (contra his protectionist bent, which appears to be authentic). If Trump disappoints the mob he himself helped raise, which seems likely, I guess we'll have an even more vigorously xenophobic demagogue to look forward to in the future.
    46 replies | 1005 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    07-22-2019, 07:30 PM
    Politics is now literally too stupid for satire.
    18 replies | 405 view(s)
More Activity


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
04-18-2018 10:10 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:24 PM
Join Date
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


  • 11:42 PM - Hidden




  • 04:02 AM - Hidden











  • 10:31 AM - Hidden





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 327 1231151101 ... LastLast




Page 1 of 327 1231151101 ... LastLast