Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 570 of 733

Thread: Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

  1. #541
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    /thread Anarchist have much in common with communists. There is a temptation to rewrite history...
    That's pretty much what I've been saying. Some of the anarchists' comments here remind me of communists who always say, "but Communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!" Earlier on this thread I said that I'm all for trying it, because it sounds good in theory… but the more I learn about it and think about it, the more I can see that like communism, it'll never work.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #542
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There it is again, that troubling attitude...

    The goal should be the maximization of human liberty.

    If a given political system doesn't do that, we shouldn't be advocating for it.

    That a political system could work if people were different than they are doesn't improve the case for that system.

    It's like your insisting that we all put water in our gas tanks, because water should run an internal combustion engine.
    These are excellent arguments against the state, of course.

    And in the case of the "minarchist" State, we have documented evidence that it does not work; in fact, we have evidence that what the minarchist State becomes is a ravaging beast which destroys everything including and in particular human liberty.

    So, could you please explain how you - as a minarchist - have as a goal the maximization of human liberty, please?

    I'm not sure what you mean..
    I mean, what is the foundational principle upon which you advocate for your preferred order of society?

    For instance, the Founders at the point of secession stated that they hold certain unalienable truths to be self-evident... then they built from there. Unfortunately, they engaged in a logical inconsistency, when they stated that they hold that all men are created equal (observably so), yet inaugurated a State, an institution which manifestly overturns that objective fact.

    However, they did seek to establish a State that was respectful of that fact. But that was then. We can see today that it is not possible to establish a state which is respectful of human liberty.

    Failed how, and in comparison to what?
    Surely you're not preparing to make a case that the American State is somehow respectful of human liberty?

    It has quite CLEARLY failed at securing human liberty; in fact it is in direct and open conflict with the concept of human liberty.

    Please don't ask me to bear that out. Seriously...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    /thread Anarchist have much in common with communists. There is a temptation to rewrite history to ignore that this is in fact the history of mankind.

    Along with the idea that if everybody was a voluntaryist, the concept would work perfectly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Philosophically, communism works very well. The test of any theory is reality.
    Incorrect. The principle from which communists operate is that "all men ARE EQUAL", full stop. This is observably false. We can easily prove that all men (mankind) are not equal. Thus, communism fails philosophically.

    That men are created equal is observable, and true. If there were some objective instrument by which we could determine which men amongst us who are capable of ruling over other men, then we would have an argument in favor of the State. If there were some objective instrument by which we could determine that all men are in all things equal, then we would have an argument in favor of communism. We have neither of these instruments.

    What we can observe and know is that one man is in no way superior to another in any provable manner. Thus there is no basis for one man to rule over another. Thus there is no basis for the existence of the State.

    So, you're wrong. Communism does not work very well, neither in practice nor philosophically.

  4. #543
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There it is again, that troubling attitude...

    The goal should be the maximization of human liberty.

    If a given political system doesn't do that, we shouldn't be advocating for it.

    That a political system could work if people were different than they are doesn't improve the case for that system.

    It's like your insisting that we all put water in our gas tanks, because water should run an internal combustion engine.



    My guiding principle is maximizing human liberty.



    Right



    Yes, the argument against anarchism is a practical one.



    I'm not sure what you mean..



    Failed how, and in comparison to what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    /thread Anarchist have much in common with communists. There is a temptation to rewrite history to ignore that this is in fact the history of mankind.

    Along with the idea that if everybody was a voluntaryist, the concept would work perfectly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Philosophically, communism works very well. The test of any theory is reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    That's pretty much what I've been saying. Some of the anarchists' comments here remind me of communists who always say, "but Communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!" Earlier on this thread I said that I'm all for trying it, because it sounds good in theory… but the more I learn about it and think about it, the more I can see that like communism, it'll never work.

    NNNnope... please see above.

  5. #544
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    NNNnope... please see above.
    Hey, yo. Have you turned in you drivers license and your plates and registration yet? Have you sent your tax bill back to the IRS with a big FU scribbled across it yet? Have you walked into your local police station and flipped em off yet?

    Come on, man. I wanna see how this stuff pans out. The suspense is killing me. Show us the way, Dear Leader.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-20-2017 at 02:39 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #545
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    That's pretty much what I've been saying. Some of the anarchists' comments here remind me of communists who always say, "but Communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!" Earlier on this thread I said that I'm all for trying it, because it sounds good in theory… but the more I learn about it and think about it, the more I can see that like communism, it'll never work.
    The only thing that "works" is a mixed economy with a disfunctional welfare state and foreign adventurism. That's because most people don't want freedom, whether because of laziness, indoctrination, Jungian archetypes or whatever.

    Minarchy is terribly impractical. A maxarchy isn't likely to turn into a minarchy by any means. If it did, it wouldn't stay min- for long. All evidence supports this.

    Anarchy maybe impossible. It's certainly not feasible for large, congested urban environments. An anarchist USA is indeed an oxymoron and ain't happening.

    But if the concepts of self-ownership and self-determination are your standards (this applies to a very few people), absence of institutionalized compulsion (anarchy) is the only framework in which those concepts are more than a comforting illusion.

    I consider myself an anarchist, but I don't see it as achievable in an environment of extremely restricted resources and high population density. In one sense, widespread anarchy can never be achieved - if it's imposed on somebody else, it ceases to be anarchy.

    But for everyone here, the dream is to stake out your own personal anarchy and find freedom in an unfree world. To establish a private domain where you can act as you please without interference. Whether that's a 2-room apartment or a 500-acre ranch, we all see it as the ideal.

    I don't think we'll see the idea of human's living in proximity with each other with no governmental authority over them until we start, say, settling the asteroid belt. But that doesn't mean one can't ethically and fully endorse the path toward anarchy and adhere literally to the principle "the less government the better."

    Most of all, I hate to see the word anarchy being heard as distasteful, destructive, immoral, uncapitalistic, etc. Admittedly, it's perhaps the most un-PC word ever invented. But at its essence (sorry NC) it means comprehensive self-determination and should be heard in a positive light by anyone who adores liberty.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  8. #546
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Hey, yo. Have you turned in you drivers license yet? Have you sent your tax bill back to the IRS with a big FU scribbled across it yet? Have you walked into your local police station and flipped em off yet?

    Come on, man. I wanna see how this stuff pans out. The suspense is killing me. Show us the way, Dear Leader.
    This isn't a response to anything. It's cute, I'm sure, and it's nothing more than a tacit "might makes right" argument, which is wholly in line with your worldview.

    And your use of the phrase "Dear Leader" is MAGNIFICENTLY ironic, considering that YOU advocate such a political paradigm.

    But of course, you don't know that, or maybe you do and you're just playing games. Either way, intelligent people who understand logically ordered arguments aren't in the least compelled by your quips.

  9. #547
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    The only thing that "works" is a mixed economy with a disfunctional welfare state and foreign adventurism. That's because most people don't want freedom, whether because of laziness, indoctrination, Jungian archetypes or whatever.

    Minarchy is terribly impractical. A maxarchy isn't likely to turn into a minarchy by any means. If it did, it wouldn't stay min- for long. All evidence supports this.

    Anarchy maybe impossible. It's certainly not feasible for large, congested urban environments. An anarchist USA is indeed an oxymoron and ain't happening.

    But if the concepts of self-ownership and self-determination are your standards (this applies to a very few people), absence of institutionalized compulsion (anarchy) is the only framework in which those concepts are more than a comforting illusion.

    I consider myself an anarchist, but I don't see it as achievable in an environment of extremely restricted resources and high population density. In one sense, widespread anarchy can never be achieved - if it's imposed on somebody else, it ceases to be anarchy.

    But for everyone here, the dream is to stake out your own personal anarchy and find freedom in an unfree world. To establish a private domain where you can act as you please without interference. Whether that's a 2-room apartment or a 500-acre ranch, we all see it as the ideal.

    I don't think we'll see the idea of human's living in proximity with each other with no governmental authority over them until we start, say, settling the asteroid belt. But that doesn't mean one can't ethically and fully endorse the path toward anarchy and adhere literally to the principle "the less government the better."

    Most of all, I hate to see the word anarchy being heard as distasteful, destructive, immoral, uncapitalistic, etc. Admittedly, it's perhaps the most un-PC word ever invented. But at its essence (sorry NC) it means comprehensive self-determination and should be heard in a positive light by anyone who adores liberty.
    :thumbs:

    Tho' I would challenge this assertion: "An anarchist USA is indeed an oxymoron and ain't happening."

    I would suggest that there were people who said the same thing about abolitionism in the early 19th century, yet they've been proven wrong by the march of history.

    I've held for quite some time now that the State will die when a majority of people hold it in the same regard as they hold human chattel slavery. That time may or may not come some time soon, but it is of the same distinction.

  10. #548
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Most of all, I hate to see the word anarchy being heard as distasteful, destructive, immoral, uncapitalistic, etc. Admittedly, it's perhaps the most un-PC word ever invented. But at its essence (sorry NC) it means comprehensive self-determination and should be heard in a positive light by anyone who adores liberty.
    My main disagreement is that I contend that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application. Again, comparable to Democracy vs A Democracy.

    As I was telling Rev, Rothbard's worst mistake was attaching the term Anarcho to his worldview. He, himself, rejected Anarchy very early on in his life.

    Hoppe defines it better in saying Propertarian.

    It comes down to operating definition.

    Other than that, I'm all for anyone getting together and being self-reliant. Libertarianism permits for it. As I said, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. Regardless of whether anyone wants to accept that problem as a legitimate problem, it's patently true that this is the biggest problem.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-20-2017 at 02:59 PM.

  11. #549
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    My main disagreement is that I contend that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application. Again, comparable to Democracy vs A Democracy.

    As I was telling Rev, Rothbard's worst mistake was attaching the term Anarcho to his worldview. He, himself, rejected Anarchy very early on in his life.
    Hoppe defines it better in saying Propertarian.

    It comes down to operating definition.

    Other than that, I'm all for anyone getting together and being self-reliant. Libertarianism permits for it. As I said, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. Regardless of whether anyone wants to accept that problem as a legitimate problem, it's patently true that this is the biggest problem.
    Again, you're peddling nonsense. We're talking about Big Ideas here, and you're arguing semantics.

  12. #550
    I was just poking a stick at you. There's other people in the thread now so let's give them a turn to debate it for a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    This isn't a response to anything. It's cute, I'm sure, and it's nothing more than a tacit "might makes right" argument, which is wholly in line with your worldview.

    And your use of the phrase "Dear Leader" is MAGNIFICENTLY ironic, considering that YOU advocate such a political paradigm.

    But of course, you don't know that, or maybe you do and you're just playing games. Either way, intelligent people who understand logically ordered arguments aren't in the least compelled by your quips.

  13. #551
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Again, you're peddling nonsense. We're talking about Big Ideas here, and you're arguing semantics.
    Nope. If you're going to make an ideal applicable rather than letting said ideal remain merely an ideal, then, you must have an operating definition. For instance. One may easily blurt out yay Democracy. But do they mean Democracy or do they mean A Democracy? Know what I mean, jelly bean?

  14. #552
    Anyway, I'm bailing out of this one for a while. Let the others debate it for a while, SOL.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #553
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Philosophically, communism works very well. The test of any theory is reality.
    I don't agree that communism is sound philosophically and definitely not theoretically. But I do very much agree with the second sentence. If an idea isn't robust where where it works in a variety of circumstances, it isn't worth pursuing.

    Anarchist have much in common with communists
    The predictable end result of communism and anarchism will be rule by the strong where individuals don't have their rights protected.

  17. #554
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    The only thing worse than being rude is being wrong and rude.

    "Varnell City Council votes 3-1 to disband the agency, putting Whitfield County Sheriff's Office in charge of law enforcement."

    Thank you Swordsmyth.
    I don't understand the purpose of the article at all. A very small town in rural Georgia with five officers voted eliminate a government service they deemed inefficient in favor of using county officers. Is that supposed to be viewed as a vote for anarchy or something.?

  18. #555
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Again, you're peddling nonsense. We're talking about Big Ideas here, and you're arguing semantics.
    You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  19. #556
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I don't understand the purpose of the article at all. A very small town in rural Georgia with five officers voted eliminate a government service they deemed inefficient in favor of using county officers. Is that supposed to be viewed as a vote for anarchy or something.?
    That is what it was implied to be by the post in which the link was included.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #557
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    But for everyone here, the dream is to stake out your own personal anarchy and find freedom in an unfree world. To establish a private domain where you can act as you please without interference. Whether that's a 2-room apartment or a 500-acre ranch, we all see it as the ideal.
    Is this your definition of freedom?
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  21. #558
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.
    Wait! There's More! Hehe. I always wanted to say that.

    Beyond definition of said Ideal, one must naturally ask if the libertarian should be for anarcho-capitalism (stateless society, with government services) or minarchy (a society with a minimal state, restricted only to the enforcement of property rights)?

    The question that must naturally follow is... Do minarchist libertarians, such as Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises, have as much right to the term ''libertarian'' as the anarcho-capitalist such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

    And the only way to do that is to associate the differences between a state and government in application. Process.

    Anyway you didn't answer your phone. I'm going to work. I'll shoot you a text once I get settled and get everybody started
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-20-2017 at 03:18 PM.

  22. #559
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Actually, I was "us" years before you bothered to show up. Back when people actually got off their ass and did something, besides flap their gums. It was amazing back then.

    Are you upset that your threads bitching about both Bryan and me were shut down over in Orignalist's little forum? Are you still sending out tweets to members here, trying to pull them over there?
    I have never tweeted (or used any other media) to anyone about that site, you really enjoy changing the subject don't you?
    I tell you what, if you promise to stop derailing activism threads and lying about Gunny, I promise to never mention you again either here or anywhere else.
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  23. #560
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.
    This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
    I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
    As a start:

    1) I own me.
    2) You own you.
    3) I own my stuff
    4) You own your stuff
    5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #561
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
    I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
    As a start:

    1) I own me.
    2) You own you.
    3) I own my stuff
    4) You own your stuff
    5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.

    Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

    I'll send my private police over to bust some heads if anyone gets to thinking otherwise.

    Thanks, otherone.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-20-2017 at 04:14 PM.

  26. #562
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.
    May I infer that you don't agree with the listed principles? understand that your comment could be applied to firearms as well. Where you differ is in degree. The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler? People may (and have) hurt people with pipe bombs. Where and why is the line drawn?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  27. #563
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Nope. If you're going to make an ideal applicable rather than letting said ideal remain merely an ideal, then, you must have an operating definition. For instance. One may easily blurt out yay Democracy. But do they mean Democracy or do they mean A Democracy? Know what I mean, jelly bean?
    Yeah, I do know what you mean. Do you?

  28. #564
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

    I'll send my private police over to bust some heads if anyone gets to thinking otherwise.

    Thanks, otherone.
    You're welcome!
    Do you believe that owning a weapon absolves you from the consequences of using that weapon in an aggressive act?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  29. #565
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.
    Are you reading the posts I'm making, or just the posts you're quoting? Because you only seem to quote me when I lash out - which I do admit I do from time to time. But I've been making very logically consistent arguments in most of my posts in this thread and this sub-forum.

  30. #566
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    May I infer that you don't agree with the listed principles? understand that your comment could be applied to firearms as well. Where you differ is in degree. The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler? People may (and have) hurt people with pipe bombs. Where and why is the line drawn?
    I would draw the line at massive indiscriminate damage.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #567
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
    I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
    As a start:

    1) I own me.
    2) You own you.
    3) I own my stuff
    4) You own your stuff
    5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to otherone again.
    // :thumbs:

    Pretty easy, ain't it?

  32. #568
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    May I infer that you don't agree with the listed principles? understand that your comment could be applied to firearms as well. Where you differ is in degree. The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler? People may (and have) hurt people with pipe bombs. Where and why is the line drawn?
    Precisely. My comment could be applied to firearms. But your comment could be equally applied to my chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. My stuff.

    You see?

    Why should a line be drawn at all? And if you do draw a line, have you not suddenly imposed a system? A State? What gives you the authority? Is your right to own you more important than my right to own me? Is your right to own your stuff more important than my right to own my stuff. Does your right to own you and your right to own your stuff give you the right to infringe upon my right to own me and my right to own my stuff?

    If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

    Is it dootie? Is it concern?

    I can't really hang out here right now but I'll check back later.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-20-2017 at 04:32 PM.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #569
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler?
    And there is no difference between The Majority and a Ruler, otherone. Talk about a strawman. Jiminy crickets. That's a weasel move.

    Let us learn.

    A Democracy: The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.


    So don't try to compare The Majority with a Ruler in drawing any line. There is no difference.

    In either case, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against unlimited power.

    And this, my friend, is why you must precisely set down operating definitions. These are not labels. To minimize them to labels equates to ignoring the fundamental inconcistencies in your own argument. Respectfully.

    So consider the question answered.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-20-2017 at 05:16 PM.

  35. #570
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Precisely. My comment could be applied to firearms. But your comment could be equally applied to my chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. My stuff.

    You see?
    Yeah, I see.

    These things exist. Would you have them in the hands of Barack Obama and Donald Trump? These are individuals who presume to speak for MILLIONS of human beings.

    I agree with your unspoken premise that I don't want these things in the hands of the insane. But here's the thing - they're not going to end up in the hands of the insane... because generally speaking, the insane don't have enough money to land these things.

    But even if they do end up in their hands... How are we worse off in a world without the State than we would be in a world without the State?

    Why should a line be drawn at all? And if you do draw a line, have you not suddenly imposed a system? A State? What gives you the authority? Is your right to own you more important than my right to own me? Is your right to own your stuff more important than my right to own my stuff. Does your right to own you and your right to own your stuff give you the right to infringe upon my right to own me and my right to own my stuff?
    Right! Now you're getting it! Good job!


    I can't really hang out here right now but I'll check back later.
    Don't blame you one bit, bud! :lol:

Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. What’s Anarcho-Capitalism?
    By Suzanimal in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-14-2015, 09:56 AM
  2. Anarcho-capitalism vs Free Market Anti-Capitalism
    By awake in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:12 PM
  3. Anarcho-capitalism?
    By Che in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 10:50 PM
  4. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By LibertiORDeth in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 05:05 AM
  5. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By Fox McCloud in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 08:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •