Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mention the no true Scotsman logical fallacy, but your argument itself fallacious. You assume the sidewalks would become clogged with the needy and assume that the government would have to step in. Neither of those are valid logical assumptions.
Correct.
One of the most illogical assumptions is that people will not adapt.
They will...and if they do not, then that is a personal choice they have made.
For example, there's no reason why a single woman under 28 years of age should have her own tax-payer funded bank-rolled sexapartment.
She can live with her parents, or mother or father or brother or sister or the cat, the dog, the rat, the frog, or who ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
The lesson of history is that government creates many of the problems that government is required to solve. In your example, it was government's meddling in price controls and safety nets which caused the price of healthcare to skyrocket. Prior to that, for the majority of the nation's history, healthcare was absolutely affordable and there was no epidemic of handicapped and homeless people clogging the streets.
A most excellent example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The salient point is that libertarianism is aggressively anti-moral and antisocial.
That doesn't say much since you rail against anyone who refuses to become a slave and service the "most vulnerable in society" which you have defined as those who have sharted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
OK, so you can't back up your idiotic claim about the political spectrum of 4500 BC. I'm not surprised. You have really jumped the shark with your claim that libertarians are pro-slavery. Do you also claim that the pope isn't Catholic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Thanks for proving my point. Nice chatting with you.
Uh-huh.....so, which part of "Sumerian King List" do you not understand?
Would you like me to name the kings since "king-ship was handed down", or will it suffice to just list the antediluvian kings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small
Great link. I think Switzerland is a particularly good example. Socially liberal, free-market capitalist, with a high standard of living.
Switzerland is an outlier.
Quote:
Switzerland is not and has never been an ethnically homogeneous nation.
If you Utopias were so great, then why aren't there any Utopias?
There's a reason why....and no, I'm not going to waste my time explaining.
Fail.
You don't understand Entity Theory.
The absence of Government is not Anarchy.
Mircea
Still don't know what utopias you are talking about.....could you try and be more vague?
You don't need to explain, I know the reason why there is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are.
I never said the absence of government is anarchy, I said without a government libertarians would fall to anarchists. Their individualism would be the failure of them.
Haiti has few regulations. That has worked well for them, especially great to have a country filled with buildings not hindered by pesky building codes. Hurricanes, earthquakes. No problem. Freedom!
You do know that Haiti for most of their history has been ruled by the military/Dictators/Tyrants right? Total opposite of what Libertarians believe.
The Libertarian paradise of Somalia has been undergoing an economic boom for YEARS.
And it's waiting for all y'all America-hating Libertarians who find the rest of us so goddamn oppressive... a veritable Galt's Gulch by the sea!
No troublesome Big Gubment regulations. You can bear arms anywhere- it's the fashion over there. No welfare for the undeserving poor- or even security. You can buy all the success you want. A little hard work and Horatio Algiers pluck & luck and you'll never look back!
Lol, you're comparing a war torn country ran by warlords and radical Islam to libertarianism? You people can't be thant dense.
The libertarian movement is undeniably influential, especially in the US, but also worldwide. Milton Friedman, who self-identified as libertarian, was perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th century. The libertarian Cato institute has been ranked as one of the top 10 most influential US think tanks.
Yet despite the popularity and influence, I think it's safe to say that not one of 196 nations in existence is remotely close to being libertarian. From what I've read, Hong Kong may have been closest until it was ceded back to Red China by the Brits. The US in the 19th century had a lot of libertarian aspects, albeit for white males only.
We've had nations governed by strange and radical ideologies from communism to fascism to Islamism, to "l'etat, c'est moi." Yet never so far in the history of the world has there been even one libertarian-based nation
What about modern Somalia? During the Dark Ages, libertarianism ruled Europe.
Lol, you're comparing a war torn country ran by warlords and radical Islam to libertarianism? You people can't be thant dense.
What do you think happens when there's no central government? The strongest dude with the most weaponry, ie, a warlord, takes over.
This isn't rocket science. It's biology and anthropology. The social nature of primates is to have some kind of leader, and before there were nations or even clans there were families that relied on somebody being in charge. Even among a couple, just 2 people, one tends to be somewhat more dominant than the other. Now, you can take your butt off into the wilderness and live all by yourself but a single individual living off by himself does not constitute a nation. Gather more than 1 person and there needs to be somebody making decisions.
1. Libertarianism is inherently anti-slavery...that's pretty much the entire point of the philosophy.
The salient point is that libertarianism is aggressively anti-moral and antisocial. So the criteria that drives virtuous people to see slavery in a negative light doesn't resonate with some libertarians because, from their perspective, at the time the slaves were not God's people with inherent worth and dignity, and the slaveowners were. I suspect, among libertarians, we could find a Latino or an Asian (perhaps even a Black) person who, if they were honest instead of politic for a moment, would also acknowledge some merit in the slaveowners' grievance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
2. It's a common straw man to say libertarians want "every man for himself" or that they don't want to be part of a community. You could argue that people would never voluntarily cooperate with each other, but you can't say that libertarians don't advocate working together as a community. They just believe that people have free will and you shouldn't force them into anything unless they agree to it first.
The US Constitution was ratified in 1788, so your comment here is yet more nonsense. If you resent your fore-bearers agreeing to live in community with the rest of us here, with the government we have and the laws we have and the other expectations place on you as a result, then take that up with your fore-bearers.
We had a libertarian country. Slowly that has changed as those in power have pried and clawed to increase the power of government and therefor their own power.
The people allowed that...
I think the Great Depression, the Great Flood of 1927 and the Dust Bowl had a lot to do with it.
Modern society has an inert fear of being one step from a bread line.
Corruption in Capitalism (if you can call it that) helped move that along.
What about modern Somalia? During the Dark Ages, libertarianism ruled Europe.
There are varying versions of libertarianism, but generally lack of government, nor feudalism constitutes libertarianism. Somalia is certainly not libertarian; it is Islamist.
Again, consider 19th century America. There was a central government, but it was very limited in scope, at least compared to today. There was no FBI, IRS, or BATF. There was no war on drugs, war on tobacco, or war on prostitution, which was generally tolerated until the Progressive Era (late 19th-early 20th centuries). But there was not no government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
