The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#351
#351
Grand Vol said:
No, the original claim was Islam got radical and violent because of US intervention. I'm saying it has been radical and violent from the start. A point which you deny.
Click to expand...

That implies that part of the world was peaceful and suddenly got violent. That's not what I said. I was talking specifically about about their relations with us. I probably could have worded things better (see original quote below), but what they've been doing in the last 60 years is far different from anything in the past. Why do I say that? Because the stuff you are talking about with enslaving Christians wasn't exclusive to Islam back then. Everybody kinda behaved that way, including Christians. Radical islam isn't doing what they used to do, and one major difference between now and then is that they're not really doing what their peers are doing, either.

n_huffhines said:
Did you know that Islam did not talk this way 100 years ago? I have done the research. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam will explain all of that. It was written by a conservative. Not a libertarian. Not a anarchist. He says that all the turmoil in the middle east has led to them turning their religion into something it wasn't.

Islamic terrorist attacks weren't a thing until very recent history....after intervention in the Middle East. Am I really to believe it's about cultural and religious differences when we've been different forever and the attacks have only been going on a few decades?
Click to expand...
 
#353
#353
PKT_VOL said:
So the entity which "governs" is not a "government"?
Click to expand...

Well, I govern my househould, but I don't consider myself government. Technically that makes me government, but not in any sense that is useful to this conversation. It's a waste of breath and time to make that distinction, but that's what we're talking about, I guess.

Whatever you want to call the state, that's what I'm talking about.
 
#356
#356
So you want all the things government offers you just don't want politicians.
 
#357
#357
Tim said


"No idea what you do or where you live. However, I know you know peaceful/voluntary interactions requires at least two parties agreeing, so unless you live where everyone agrees all the time it's kind of moot."

Tim, don't you realize we already have this today in our society? We are only advocating taking the state out of the equation.
There would still be courts, laws, all kinds of stuff that we enjoy today. Anarchists want all those things as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#359
#359
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Tim said


"No idea what you do or where you live. However, I know you know peaceful/voluntary interactions requires at least two parties agreeing, so unless you live where everyone agrees all the time it's kind of moot."

Tim, don't you realize we already have this today in our society? We are only advocating taking the state out of the equation.
There would still be courts, laws, all kinds of stuff that we enjoy today. Anarchists want all those things as well.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying and I'm saying it would end up being what we already have. Putting people in charge of these entities would fall upon the people and how would they decide they decide? A vote perhaps? Even if you put a business in charge of it how would the business be kept in check? Regulation perhaps? It would eventually and quickly devolve into what we already have. I think our efforts should concentrate on fixing what we already have. Term limits would ge a fabulous start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#360
#360
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Don't you understand that anything the government can do, an actual free market can do much better and cheaper as well.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is true when it comes to most infrastructure. Yes, I've heard all the backwards schemes for privatized roads and other such things, but they aren't economically viable in the real world.
 
#361
#361
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Tim said


"No idea what you do or where you live. However, I know you know peaceful/voluntary interactions requires at least two parties agreeing, so unless you live where everyone agrees all the time it's kind of moot."

Tim, don't you realize we already have this today in our society? We are only advocating taking the state out of the equation.
There would still be courts, laws, all kinds of stuff that we enjoy today. Anarchists want all those things as well.
Click to expand...

Without the state then who?
 
#362
#362
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Don't you understand that anything the government can do, an actual free market can do much better and cheaper as well.
Click to expand...

I generally agree but what you are advocating is nothing more than taking power away from the state and giving it to corporations. Just another form of government.
 
#363
#363
tim said:
I know what you are saying and I'm saying it would end up being what we already have. Putting people in charge of these entities would fall upon the people and how would they decide they decide? A vote perhaps? Even if you put a business in charge of it how would the business be kept in check? Regulation perhaps? It would eventually and quickly devolve into what we already have. I think our efforts should concentrate on fixing what we already have. Term limits would ge a fabulous start.
Click to expand...

No one would be in charge per say, other than the property owner.

What do you mean keep a business in check? The market would regulate itself.

I agree about term limits under the current system. But, when the system is inherently broken, there isn't a lot left to fix. Government force is force on steroids.
 
#364
#364
hog88 said:
I generally agree but what you are advocating is nothing more than taking power away from the state and giving it to corporations. Just another form of government.
Click to expand...

You understand a corporation cannot exist without Government right? They regulate the competition.
 
#368
#368
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No one would be in charge per say, other than the property owner.

What do you mean keep a business in check? The market would regulate itself.

I agree about term limits under the current system. But, when the system is inherently broken, there isn't a lot left to fix. Government force is force on steroids.
Click to expand...

Nothing drives business more than money. We would end up being under the control of 2-3 extremely wealthy dictators. Anarchists fail to put humans and human nature into the equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#369
#369
Thrasher865 said:
I don't believe this is true when it comes to most infrastructure. Yes, I've heard all the backwards schemes for privatized roads and other such things, but they aren't economically viable in the real world.
Click to expand...

In the real world where you are still paying for it? Why not remove the force from the equation?
 
#371
#371
tim said:
Nothing drives business more than money. We would end up being under the control of 2-3 extremely wealthy dictators. Anarchists fail to put humans and human nature into the equation.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with someone being rich? Think of all the people he/she could employ. I don't really believe dictators would spring up, although it might, never say never.

Funny fact, you say we don't take into account human nature into our equation? Who is government made up of? People
 
#374
#374
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
In the real world where you are still paying for it? Why not remove the force from the equation?
Click to expand...

Well obviously we're paying for it. We have to. You understand that developers already pay a large portion of infrastructure improvements, right? There's not a way to do it without a governing body and taxation that would be simpler or more fair. It would be a complete mess.
 
#375
#375
Thrasher865 said:
Well obviously we're paying for it. We have to. You understand that developers already pay a large portion of infrastructure improvements, right? There's not a way to do it without a governing body and taxation that would be simpler or more fair. It would be a complete mess.
Click to expand...

How on earth did we ever travel with out government planning?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top