Well, you should read the previous threads on agorism and the Liberty Colony since this thread is but the latest in a prolonged conversation dealing with both subjects. You’re forming an opinion based on incomplete information.
The opposite of what? Do you mean that they aren’t dead ends or that they aren’t demonstrating anything?
I don’t think that either one is necessarily a dead end. They each have different goals and employ different means to achieve them.
It seems that you are not even interested in how childish all of this is and the harm you are doing to your cause by failing to demonstrate an appropriate level of maturity, which can be done, even if one is faced with childish provocation. All I can say is: good luck. I think you’re going to need it.
I’m starting to wonder just how unbiased you really are seeing as how you are so willing to form an opinion based on incomplete information. If you’re really interested in truth, you’ll try to get a more complete picture and be less one-sided in your criticism. If anyone is doing the cause of liberty harm it is people like Max who barge into a forum to promote a new project for liberty while simultaneously seeking to discredit alternatives to it in rude and pretentious fashion, accusing everyone else in the process of being do-nothings, and so on and so forth. I don’t have an overriding obligation to waste my time dealing patiently with every single rude and pretentious libertarian who enters these forums with an agenda. I’m trying to finish my dissertation so that I can graduate and get a job exposing young minds to the literature of liberty. If he cares to have a civil, respectful discussion I might feel more inclined to devote more time to him. But since he has yet to do so, I’m justified in calling him on his bad behavior and providing a quick debunking of his claims and criticisms.
I do not see anywhere that you or anyone else in this thread have debunked anything regarding my claims and criticisms. This thread has repeatedly demonstrated that agorists can not explain the contradictions of agorism. Youhaven’t even tried to answer the questions and those that have tried have failed spectacularly.
If you are beginning to question whether I am unbiased, I’m beginning to question your ability to understand the English language. I must say it does not suprise me at all to see the exact same tactics now being used: if someone does not agree, or continues to disagree with you, yes, that is sufficient evidence of bias it seems. Because I call it like I see it does not make me biased, but think whatever you like.
I am not passing judgment on you, agorism, nor the Liberty Colony. My purpose in this thread has not been to assess from a macro level ‘who was an asshole first’ which is what you are telling me I am not doing. Fine. That’s not my goal. You are right - I am not doing it. And I am not going to do it. I could care less what the prior conversations looked like. That information is immaterial to the point I am laboring to make, so far futilely.
Do you not grasp that it is not mature to keep saying ‘yeah but he started it!’?!?!?! This has been your consistent response to every single one of my posts. You want me to go read 673 posts in 24 threads so I can come to a macro level decision about who has been naughtiest? Are you kidding me? What am I to do then? Jump in and bash the side I find more offensive? Are you f**king kidding me?
Maturity has nothing to do with ‘who started it’ - it has everything to do with who - even if he was justified in perpetuating it - chooses not to. I can assure you, after a couple decades of fatherhood, that this is a factual statement.
Let’s start with this: “If he cares to have a civil, respectful discussion I might feel more inclined to devote more time to him. But since he has yet to do so, I’m justified in”
What I am saying to you - and have been trying to say all along - is this: this thread started that way. So he met your first condition. Whereupon he was reviled and ridiculed by what would appear to be your young hooligan followers. So you did not. So on the basis of this thread and this thread alone, you have made a false statement.
Look, dude, people are rude and pretentious. Especially libertarians, are rude and pretentious. I am rude and pretentious, and so, I suspect, are you, at times. You certainly have some rude and pretentious followers, to which fact this thread clearly attests.
So what? Are you going to go to battle with one of your advisors, or with a colleague, if they turn out to be rude and pretentious? Get over it already. People sharing the same fundamental beliefs - that the State and anti-liberty by its very nature and cannot be bargained with on any level - need to learn to get along, whether they agree on actions or not. At worst, they need to agree to disagree.
This, BTW, is addressed to all parties involved on all sides here. You are up against the most fearsome and powerful and malevolent entity the world has ever seen: the State. It will mangle and crush you without batting an eye. And here you are sniping at others who believe as you do? Control yourselves. Evince - or develop - some maturity.
Or don’t. IMO, it won’t matter anyway. IMO, liberty will never flourish unless and until humans have evolved well past the ‘teenage’ stage at which we currently seem to be stuck. GB Shaw was dead on target - you’ll never persuade the masses that liberty is in their best interests - because for 99% of the sheep out there - it isn’t.
I’ve said all I have to say in this thread. I hope - thought without much reason - it will die a quick and merciful death.