Eliminate the means by man can make oppresive laws then, Government.
Just because you eliminate it, doesn’t prevent a new one from popping up. I think even a libertarian like Ron Paul acknowledges that we need border control.
As long as you allow govrenment to permeate you will always have the problems you illustrate. The formation of government is the equivilent of dropping a small snowball down a large snowbowl, by the time it gets to the bottom you have an avalanche.
There is no way to restrict the invasive growth of government, as long as you permit its existence.
That’s why we must protect our borders. In a libertarian society, most people will probably agree on the libertarian principles. But if 300 million anti-libertarians crossed the border, we’d be in trouble.
Thus, we need the state?
I get your point, I just think that scenario is a fairytail. One used to incite fear which ultimately justifies oppresive legislation and perpetuates evil.
No country, no matter how anti-libertarian, would abandon their home for such a cause.
Maybe not, but thus libertarianism will only work if a lot of people agree on the principles of liberty. That’s very unlikely. People want leaders and government protection.
What does it mean for libertarianism to work?
Libertarianism can provide that.
Yes, but anarcho-capitalism can’t. And as soon as you have a government, the snowball will start rolling…
Let’s follow the idiocy of you logic. You claim that anarcho-capitalism fails, therefore, we need the state. However, the state has already been proven to have failed.
Btw, this is an argumentum ad populum. That means that your argument is fallacious.
No, I claim that ancap fails because people believe thay need a state.
Yes, but people believe that it hasn’t.
I know, but it doesn’t matter because a system can never work if people don’t trust it.
Argumentum ad populum. Btw, I believe you are a dumbass, therefore, it is true.
Argumentum ad populum.
Wow! You made an argumentum ad populum defending you argumentum ad populum.
Why should they be illegal? Personal opinions on religious choice should not make something illegal unless it breaks the liberty of others. I may live a strict lifestyle or a libertine like one, as long as it doesn’t infringe on your liberties.
Ideologies require widespread credence to work. When people believe they need to be governed, libertarianism will fail.
I’m not claiminng that the state hasn’t failed, I’m simply claiming that it hasn’t failed to convince people people that it is necessary.
I surrender.
Again, what does it mean for libertarianism to fail?
Yes, and that is your argument for the state, which is why it is an argumentum ad populum.
That it fails to convince people that liberty is better than tyranny.
It’s not an argument for the state, but it’s why I believe we’ll never see a libertarian society. That doesn’t mean we should stop working to limit the state power.
That is fine.
I see your point Alimentarius and think its a valid one. I know of no correct path for destroying the confining chains of government. The best we could hope for is elect someone in power to shrink back its influence, like Ron Paul. Your assessment is a fair one in that people will never give up their governments untill widespread ideological beleifs have changed.
I think you have a valid point that it’s not a matter of whats truely right and truely wrong, but in fact what is preceived “right” and "wrong and currently that assessment is arbitrarily defined and changes at the whim of major political party influence.
So you bring up a another issue. How to broadcast the views of liberty. I don’t like minarchism but I’d rather live in a country with a tiny government then a big one. At least if we start moving in that direction I think people would be more inclined to agree and understand the libertarian philosphy.
Thats all speculation on my part though.
Thanks.
Should anti-libertarian political parties be allowed in a libertarian society?