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.
Yes they were. Most who have made arguments here are not discussing Libertarianism but something else. Libertarian's support the Constitution as written and are not anti-government.
They did capitalize Libertarian, which we’d associate with the party, but they didn’t exactly specify. We’re just talking about fully consistent libertarianism.
I did not and do not plan to read through the 86 pages of this thread. But in my opinion, people think Libertarians are nuts because that's what the two parties had incentive to make you believe. The media, as usual, was complicit.
Yes they were. Most who have made arguments here are not discussing Libertarianism but something else. Libertarian's support the Constitution as written and are not anti-government.
Can we go back to the roads that can’t be built without the government?
I have provided you a real life example how they can be built.
You support free markets and you support the idea of everyone having equal. You know the two will never work together.
He never said he supported the idea of everyone HAVING equal. He even defined equality as he does see it - "no one entity having legal ability to initiate force, regardless of the thickness of someone's wallet, or mystical piece of paper."
Nowhere in that definition does he define or espouse the theory of equal results. In the free market, where equality is defined as Gungnir defines it above, not everyone will achieve equal results, by definition. Every anarchist/libertarian understands and accepts this as feature, not a bug. Equality simply means no one person or group thereof has power to initiate force on others, which is defined (often quoted by No_Recess, in fact) as holding a higher claim on someone else's life than they have for themselves. That's equality. What the individual does with their individual freedom from aggression is up to them.
The straw man is your favorite fallacy. You reword what any of us libertarian/anarchist folks say and then argue your newly worded version. Then you label your straw man version of what was written/meant as dishonest, to fuel your appeals to ridicule and ad hominem fallacies.
He never said he supported the idea of everyone HAVING equal. He even defined equality as he does see it - "no one entity having legal ability to initiate force, regardless of the thickness of someone's wallet, or mystical piece of paper."
Impossible without force. Wonderful idea. I've said over and over, I'm not interesting in ideas not based in realities.
Impossible without force. Wonderful idea. I've said over and over, I'm not interesting in ideas not based in realities.
Please provide a specific counter example instead of the disparaging “It can’t be done but I don’t why.”
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.
