I am a libertarian

[Onyx]

You're both wrong. Libertarians are not anarchists and I don't buy for a second that someone who supports Trump is truly a libertarian.

Uh, yeah they are.

A libertarian is classically defined as an individual that values liberty above all else. The only group that values liberty above all else are anarchists. The only person I would really make an exception for is Ayn Rand, whose idea of government was practically local voluntarism anyways.

Only in the United States could libertarianism be perverted into meaning moderate. The term libertarian was used consistently for 150 years, and I know my political philosophy and sciences a helluva lot better than presumably anyone on this site.

 

[Onyx]

I am economically conservative (I like free market and less regulation). I am socially liberal.

Like I said, only in the United States could libertarianism be perverted into meaning moderate/centrist.

But here, Trump, is economically conservative like republicans. He is socially liberal. Think about it. He has strippers in his casino. He talks to playboy magazine.

Right, well he is actually economically liberal and that is going to show when he is president.

And he has common sense.

If American are led by people like Trump, the whole world will be a better place. What's not great about it?

Not sure how you reached either of those conclusions. I myself have decisively concluded that the world is going to become a much worse play no matter who wins.

Anyways, more power to you.

 

[Onyx]

You are going to need an aide if you expect to point out when everyone is wrong.

And when he is wrong?

No one cares about definitions in this country. They just pick a word and assign a meaning to it based on nothing more than conjecture.

 

[saveliberty]

You are going to need an aide if you expect to point out when everyone is wrong.

And when he is wrong?

No one cares about definitions in this country. They just pick a word and assign a meaning to it based on nothing more than conjecture.

No, certain liberals do that, try for accuracy. He's wrong about half the time. It is up to you to figure out which half.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're both wrong. Libertarians are not anarchists and I don't buy for a second that someone who supports Trump is truly a libertarian.

Uh, yeah they are.

A libertarian is classically defined as an individual that values liberty above all else. The only group that values liberty above all else are anarchists. The only person I would really make an exception for is Ayn Rand, whose idea of government was practically local voluntarism anyways.

Only in the United States could libertarianism be perverted into meaning moderate. The term libertarian was used consistently for 150 years, and I know my political philosophy and sciences a helluva lot better than presumably anyone on this site.

We're folks that value the Constitution and Court System. And rule of law in general -- so no -- we may ATTRACT anarchists, but it's got nothing to do with maximizing Liberty given the Constitutional framework of where we started. Now we need to quit boring people and APPEAR to be "welcoming and inclusive"..

 

[Onyx]

We're folks that value the Constitution and Court System. And rule of law in general -- so no -- we may ATTRACT anarchists, but it's got nothing to do with maximizing Liberty given the Constitutional framework of where we started. Now we need to quit boring people and APPEAR to be "welcoming and inclusive"..

What is the basis of your definition? Certainly not history or semantic origins.

Libertarianism is just another term that got perverted from its original meaning by its stupid followers. It is very hard to maintain ideological purity.

 

[flacaltenn]

We're folks that value the Constitution and Court System. And rule of law in general -- so no -- we may ATTRACT anarchists, but it's got nothing to do with maximizing Liberty given the Constitutional framework of where we started. Now we need to quit boring people and APPEAR to be "welcoming and inclusive"..

What is the basis of your definition? Certainly not history or semantic origins.

Libertarianism is just another term that got perverted from its original meaning by its stupid followers. It is very hard to maintain ideological purity.

We should have beer summit sometime. And invite the Newbie.

 

[grbb]

If a person is pro free market, economically, is he liberal or conservative?

Perhaps in ancient time, liberal economy means you support free market. Conservative means you let the feudal lords control the economy.

Now it seems to be the other way around isn't it?

 

[Onyx]

If a person is pro free market, economically, is he liberal or conservative?

The only true supporters of the free market are market anarchists.

Actually the only true supporters of a lot of things are anarchists. Freedom, love, humanity, cooperation, prosperity, liberty, tolerance, ect.

 

[grbb]

anarchy is probably what libertarian is.

However, I am not that extreme. If there is no government, some other organization will take control. Then we will call it government.

As long as government is small that's good enough for me. And governments all over the world are getting smaller and smaller.

Google pays a mere 4% tax.

 

[Indeependent]

anarchy is probably what libertarian is.

However, I am not that extreme. If there is no government, some other organization will take control. Then we will call it government.

As long as government is small that's good enough for me. And governments all over the world are getting smaller and smaller.

Google pays a mere 4% tax.

What does Google's Tax Rate have to do with the size of a particular government?

 

[Onyx]

If there is no government, some other organization will take control. Then we will call it government.

The definition of anarchism is "no rulers."

It is commonly conflated by society as meaning no organization or no government.

 

[grbb]

what's the difference between no rulers and no governors?

 

[Onyx]

what's the difference between no rulers and no governors?

Rulers exercise control over others using force, whereas government can be defined as any system of organization.

Another way of putting it, is that anarchism opposes power hierarchies. Or the idea that some men should be able to hold power over other men.

 

[grbb]

The problem with that, is that some men will always hold power over other men. What we can do is to minimize that.

Say there is no US government. Can you, as an individual, challenge China?

No.

To challenge Chinese power you got to unite. And in unity there are "deals".

Okay, we protect you but you pay income tax. That sort of deal.

Do I like income tax? No. But I can understand that that sort of thing will happen anyway. If it's done small and in ways that do not cause too much market distortion then I can live with that.

Income tax is getting lower by the way. People can more easily move to low tax countries for example. Their corporations and their capital surely can. To me, that's awesome.

 

[Onyx]

The problem with that, is that some men will always hold power over other men. What we can do is to minimize that.

Hundreds of anarchic societies that have existed throughout history. Anarchy is actually the natural order of man.

Anyways, if your best argument against anarchism is "resistance is futile," you lost the debate.

Say there is no US government. Can you, as an individual, challenge China?

You act as though anarchists have never formed an army before.

To challenge Chinese power you got to unite. And in unity there are "deals".

It isn't like China is any worse than the United States. Less slick about their wrongdoings, which makes them more of a boogeyman.

Anarchism is the ultimate unity ideology though.

Okay, we protect you but you pay income tax. That sort of deal.

Which is known as a protection racket. Like the mafia, the government will punish you for not paying into their extortion.

 

[grbb]

I sort of agree it's like protection racket. However, governments are better than regular mafia. It has clear laws. It has to compete.

Yes anarchists can make an army. With nukes? With F-16? You are no match of the might of russian china. You and your US government is more than a match.

And look at reality. In reality, humans natural state is worse than NAP. Humans natural state is killing each other.

If uniting and attacking another tribe is profitable, that's what people would do. That's what people have always do. Read the bible. Kill all the males rape the woman. God himself told his chosen people to do so. That's what people normally do.

The way the current world works, namely that we have hundreds of country competing for investments, job creation, businesses, residency, is the closest we have to libertarian ideals in the whole human history.

Could this be better? Can we have flying car? Yes. Not yet now.

Just look at what we can do for ourselves today. That's it

 

[Onyx]

I sort of agree it's like protection racket. However, governments are better than regular mafia. It has clear laws. It has to compete.

I do not see how the established law somehow makes a state morally superior to a mafia family.

Yes anarchists can make an army. With nukes? With F-16? You are no match of the might of russian china. You and your US government is more than a match.

So what imposition is preventing a powerful anarchist army?

My favorite theory of study is military theory by the way.

And look at reality. In reality, humans natural state is worse than NAP. Humans natural state is killing each other.

No, not sure about that.

Human beings did not even start getting into tribalistic fueds for quite some time. Not to mention the first cities in the world were anarchic.

If uniting and attacking another tribe is profitable, that's what people would do. That's what people have always do. Read the bible. Kill all the males rape the woman. God himself told his chosen people to do so. That's what people normally do.

That was a result of cognitive development. The division of human beings into tribes is a social construction. Not to mention that tribal conflicts have always been rare and sproadic, usually resulting in low to zero casualties.

The way the current world works, namely that we have hundreds of country competing for investments, job creation, businesses, residency, is the closest we have to libertarian ideals in the whole human history.

The state does not actually create anything. Everything the state has, it has stolen.

Businesses, residency, and jobs are not contingent on the existence of the state.

Just look at what we can do for ourselves today. That's it

Foremost, we could improve our lives by rejecting rulers, politics, and all the associated bullshit.

 

[grbb]

I sort of agree it's like protection racket. However, governments are better than regular mafia. It has clear laws. It has to compete.

I do not see how the established law somehow makes a state morally superior to a mafia family.

Morally no. But let's forget about moral. Let's forget about benefits. I think US government have more open and transparent laws that mafia family. Citizens can vote in Mafia. Mafia is more like monarch.

Is that what you want? Replacing government with a bunch of small Mafia? Because totally free from governments and mafia seems to be impossible. I mean, we don't see that around do we?

Yes anarchists can make an army. With nukes? With F-16? You are no match of the might of russian china. You and your US government is more than a match.

So what imposition is preventing a powerful anarchist army?

My favorite theory of study is military theory by the way.

Nothing. I just don't think your rag tag anarchist army stand a chance against powerful state with professional army.

And look at reality. In reality, humans natural state is worse than NAP. Humans natural state is killing each other.

No, not sure about that.

Human beings did not even start getting into tribalistic fueds for quite some time. Not to mention the first cities in the world were anarchic.

If uniting and attacking another tribe is profitable, that's what people would do. That's what people have always do. Read the bible. Kill all the males rape the woman. God himself told his chosen people to do so. That's what people normally do.

That was a result of cognitive development. The division of human beings into tribes is a social construction. Not to mention that tribal conflicts have always been rare and sproadic, usually resulting in low to zero casualties.

The way the current world works, namely that we have hundreds of country competing for investments, job creation, businesses, residency, is the closest we have to libertarian ideals in the whole human history.

The state creates a union. That union creates security. Chinese and Russian do not even think of invading US because of united states.

The state governs and prevent us from killing each other. Well, sort of. I prefer gun ownership where owners can hire private party to defend house. And the state often interfere. So it's grey area here.

Still, with the way the state govern it's people we see cities where people can live together and don't kill each other at high rate. That improves land value. If the state would tax land I would agree more actually.

The state does not actually create anything. Everything the state has, it has stolen.

Businesses, residency, and jobs are not contingent on the existence of the state.

Just look at what we can do for ourselves today. That's it

Foremost, we could improve our lives by rejecting rulers, politics, and all the associated bullshit.

Rejecting? Good idea. How exactly you gonna reject? I mean I did a lot by rejecting rulers. You can incorporate in country A, have bank account in country B, have citizenship in country C, and live in country D. To me, that's the closest thing to libertarianism. As long as no state can have monopoly on your life, you're fine.

 

[grbb]

I mean citizens can't vote in Mafia. Well, think of government as "moderate" mafia. More tolerable than regular mafia.