I’d imagine there would be a Declaration of Independence of sorts. Or a Declaration for a Free Society. Obviously just a piece of paper, open to competition, not binding etc
Something like this maybe;
Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.
For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules: • ownership of one’s own self, • ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and • ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership —either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.
These rules —which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”— can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind.
I don’t consider that a good example of a “handling” a statist comment. Libertarians can best challenge the state by convincing people using lucid reasoning, and being good-natured is icing on the cake. But David shat on the cake. Now who’s gonna eat the cake?
Look at why alimentarius said no to anarchy. Or was he playing devil’s advocate? Anyway, I explained to him why he is wrong. Furthermore, if alimentarius is going to play devil’s advocate, he should at least tell us when he is doing so. Btw, who’s David? Lastly, alimentarius knows better and it is difficult to know when he is being childish or simply playing devil’s advocate.
You might want to consider that alimentarius may not have English as a first, or perhaps even second language, and that there are going to be differences when it comes to the nuances of language, typical of debating with people from other parts of the world.
I’ve discussed with alimentarius, and he is sympathetic to libertarianism, and yet there are a handful of you who treat him like crap every time he posts.
Not only do you work against his positive conception of libertarianism, but that of dozens or perhaps hundreds of readers, and for what purpose I do not know. Simply, there are high time preference libertarians who can’t keep their mouths shut for a greater good, and sadly, that undoes the work that other libertarians try to accomplish. As satisfying as it is to “lay a beat down” in a forum, one may be undermining the bigger picture to satisfy some philistine emotional compulsion.
If it was only possible to make convincing arguments to the world by shouting down the people we disagree with, or the people who have doubts, or the people who aren’t as clever as us.
Sorry about that. I was “debating” mr1001nights for the past couple days. Now that I think about it, I wasn’t trying to lay the beat down on alimentarius, I was trying to be witty/sarcastic, but I guess it came across as an insult.