- Jun 25, 2010
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
I'm very curious since war and nuking is always automatically rejected on principle by libertarians.
1. Military Socialism - Several bases all over the world protecting countries that can provide their own defense.And what is that foreign policy and why do libertarians object to it?
What does this mean? When a country of small or no threat does something similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11, do we just go "well, since these people don't belong to a national organization, we're just going to let them kill us and destroy our property and we'll just cut our loses." ?The truth is most of these so called "small threat" nations are in reality no threat at all to the U.S.
Oh good lord.There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.
I don't suppose you would care to bolster that assertion with logic or facts, would you?There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.
Not at all. I was speaking of potential threats, such as Iraq before we invaded. Iraq realistically posed no threat to us. They were well contained thanks the embargo. But we kept yammering on about the axis of evil and such, so we ended up invading them when they posed no potential threat to the U.S.What does this mean? When a country of small or no threat does something similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11, do we just go "well, since these people don't belong to a national organization, we're just going to let them kill us and destroy our property and we'll just cut our loses." ?
Your view of America and particularly the American right is so warped and distorted I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond. Probably because I have nothing better to do right now.There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.
Libertarianism is individual sovereignty and the honoring of nonaggression which anarcho-capitalism also is.You're confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. --- So your argument was basically a straw man fallacy --- Libertarians recognize the necessity of the state in preserving order.
Didn't think you would, as usual. :sarcasticclapI don't suppose you would care to bolster that assertion with logic or facts, would you?
Quotes don't win me over so I figure they wouldn't for others. The nonaggression axiom is what makes libertarianism libertarian however. There isn't a consensus on what is and what isn't aggressive. I believe that artificial state monopolies are coercive.You don't need my permission to post anarcho-capitalist quotes. Having debated with enough anarcho-capitalists in the past...chances are pretty good that none of your quotes will include arguments that I haven't already heard. But don't let that stop you.
It's an identity that sympathizes with Islam and other Afghan culture. Anarchy and minarchism and statism(although less so) relies on society to be nonaggressive and to advance technologically freely in order for any of the 3 to work. At least in a stateless society a group of individuals can associate freely to create a nonmonopolistic legal system.Your type of minimal state already exists...it's called Afghanistan. I spent a year there. Uh, no thanks. You should really check it out...better hurry though because we're in the process of helping them implement a true minimal government. Well...you probably don't have to hurry too much. Supporting the development of a national government requires a national identity. Afghans have absolutely no national identity...just a tribal identity.
Tribalism does not indicate that the individual is sovereign and it can't be considered anarchy if the tribe has authoritative law that it imposes on others involuntarily. Anarcho-capitalism was a term coined by Rothbard to describe a stateless society of sovereign individuals. An individuals sovereignty is violated when aggressive entities infringe upon the individuals sovereignty through force or coercion. There's also argument on what is and what isn't true anarchism, another term that is debated similar to aggression. Islamic tribalism in Afghanistan may be stateless but it is most certainly authoritative and cannot be considered a society comparable to any individualist anarchism.Understanding the relationship between a central government and national identity is essential to understanding why anarcho-capitalism would most likely lead to tribalism. The central government is the basis of a national identity. It's the glue that holds us together. Arbitrary lines on a map obviously do not create a sense of national identity.
And I reject what the people want because I am not the people when the people vote for coercion.Practically speaking it's a moot point though because we live in a democracy. Governmental coercion forces people to invest in the common good...but government is merely a reflection of what people want.
^For the past 100 years people have wanted more...not less...investment in the common good. This means it's nearly impossible that libertarianism will ever be realized and completely impossible that anarcho-capitalism would be realized. Well...at least with our current system.
This would be an economic war where the individuals sovereignty is being infringed by taxes.The only way that anarcho-capitalism has a chance of being realized is through pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism would allow people to decide which public goods they support with their taxes. This would force the public sector (socialism) to compete directly with the private sector (anarcho-capitalism) for the provision of public goods.
I understand what you're saying but in order for this to be an even playing field, the State would need to repeal it's decision on making school compulsory. It's still unfair because the funding for government is guaranteed by extortion while donors who are being taxed may contribute less because of the tax expense.For example, you could start a voluntary organization (non-profit) dedicated to providing public education. As more and more people donated money to your organization then less and less people would allocate their taxes to government organizations dedicated to public education. As the government produced less public education then this would increase the pressure to lower the tax rate.
Especially if none of the competitors were extorting money, laundering it and using their monopoly on law to insure this. It would be more fitting if the mafia were competing against the state.Competition is always good for consumers.