R. Shackleferd
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 316
- Reaction score
- 117
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm very curious since war and nuking is always automatically rejected on principle by libertarians.
Since when? You're thinking of Marxists.I'm very curious since war and nuking is always automatically rejected on principle by libertarians.
And what is that foreign policy and why do libertarians object to it?
The truth is most of these so called "small threat" nations are in reality no threat at all to the U.S.
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.
1. Military Socialism - Several bases all over the world protecting countries that can provide their own defense.
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." ?
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Competition is always good for consumers.