Yes. That’s glaringly obviously.
Does it encourage fair play?
This topic sums up my exact feelings.
What I really hate about hard-headed democrats is how they see the Government as the solution to everything, and cry about Business being unfair if its let to compete.
So I ask again, you would go on a killing spree if there was no government?
I doubt it to be honest. Unless I thought I had a real reason to. Honestly, I’ve been that angry maybe twice in my life. Both times, it was nothing a nice cool shower and a few days of video games couldn’t fix.
Unless I thought there was some great benefit to be gained that would outweigh the costs, no I don’t think I would. I think my first priority in life is to avoid undesirable consequences. Killing people is most likely to have those.
However, this isn’t just about me. This is about the people I have to live around as well. And I fear what they would do without a state much more than I fear what I would do. Is that a baseless fear? I think you’ll say it is. But that doesn’t convince me I’m wrong, just that you’re not the kind of person I’m worried about.
It encourages responsibility and even adds incentives to it.
Noted, I will have to think about this. Thank you for sharing this idea.
You’re a good sport. (As insanely ridiculous as you are [:P])
I appreciate that lol.
Oh gosh, what’s the name of the Greek god that fell in love with his image? It’s on the tip of my tongue.
Narcissus.
That’s it. It’s maddening to have it on the tip of your tongue but forget.
Possible (defined) - “Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.”
It says nothing of absolute, again basic English.
And I wrote “No”.
I disagree with much of what the government does. But again your use of shock words is pathetic. Not everyone considers enforcing the constitution, federal and state law “aggression” or “violating property rights”. This is the same tired and old propaganda.
Who decides what is a universal principle and that it has been properly applied? You?
The dictionary definition of economics has nothing to do with an “school”, which is why you have an added word to classify different economic schools - such as “Austrian”.
Economics (defined) - “The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.”
Your argument is illogical.
It is irrelevant if I mixed Austrians and non-Austrians, I wasn’t talking solely about Austrian economists, but general libertarians. I am well aware of Rand’s position on objectivism and her anti-anarchist position. But the english language definition of the word they are all libertarian.
Either dictionaries define english language words or they do not. You certainly cannot freely define them. You have demonstrated no such thing.
Now you are lying, I was well aware of this. The morality of homosexuality is absolutely irrelevant to anything. You keep fabricating nonsense to fit your fantasy definitions of words.
By the common english language definition they all were. Here we go back to fantasy land, doing away with the state has nothing to do with the definition of the word.
You have nothing, show me ANYTHING where he endorsed anarchy. I have extensive proof he did not.
Wrong,
Statist (defined) - “an advocate of statism”
Statism (defined) - “Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry”
The problem here is that these words have been constantly misused so much in their failed shock campaign people don’t even bother to look them up anymore.
Fine, you are pro-theft and enslavement. Better?
Or,
anti-100% liberty.
You forgot “maximum possible”. Proper sourcing is necessary when you rest your entire case on an external opinion or definition. Maximum possible is absolute liberty.
You weren’t crystal clear. Do you feel that aggression and the violation of property rights by the state is pro-liberty or anti-liberty? It should be fairly simple for someone like yourself, capable of using dictionaries to provide razor sharp clarity to your answers. So please respond to the question. Evasion does not make your case. If you believe in something, why not state it clearly?
You don’t understand the ethical concept of universality?
But based on your rationale, the dictionary is always right, so if the dictionary uses a marxist definition, then that is economics, is it not? I’m merely applying your own standard to the discussion.
Rand was a rabid anti-homosexual. How could she be a libertarian? You didn’t even know Rand hated libertarians or that Hayek did not consider himself a libertarian, until I told you.
Why does a dictionary have more authority than I do? Also, which dictionary are you using? I’m curious to know if you accept the authority of all of their definitions, or just particular ones.
Prove it.
No, it is relevant to libertarianism.
So when Hayek said he was not a libertarian, he was wrong by the dictionary?
No one said anything about doing away with the state, that is a strawman. And you do know that Mises supported the possibility of doing away with the state if individual sovereignty could be established, right? So far, you’ve failed to make a case for the state, or against individual sovereignty. You have also evaded explaining your rationale for a monopoly state.
I do indeed have something. And it has been provided to you many times.
But you don’t. You have proof that he stood against anarcho socialism, which were the only anarchists of his day. Anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t emerge in the mainstream of libertarian thought until Rothbard and Friedman.
Regardless, you are arguing several logical fallacies here. A strawman, negative proof and an appeal to authority.
It still doesn’t help you defend your own case for why you support the state. Are you going to ever make that case? Will you defend it?
No it is not, those are separate words,
-
“Possible”
-
“Absolute”
If it meant absolute, it would say absolute not “possible”.
Strawman, I don’t accept the premise. Using strawman arguments does not make your case either.
Understand something is irrelevant to the question,
Who decides what is a universal principle and that it has been properly applied? You?
But dictionaries don’t use a marxist definition of economics,
Economics (defined) - “a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services”
Having an opinion that does not agree with yours has nothing to do with being libertarian. Please stop lying I was well aware of Rand’s position on this. You need to get over yourself.
Because it allows people to communicate using the same words so we can understand each other. Why do you speak in English? It would be easier to make up your own language so you can actually freely define your words, which is what you appear to want to do.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with libertarianism.
You have nothing to support you assertion of Mises and anarchy, nothing. It is a sad and pathetic attempt to link the man to Rothbard’s ideology. I’ve done my research on the issue and am still waiting for one shred of evidence that Mises supported anarcho-capitalism. You have Nothing.
You’re right Poptech. I yield the argument.
So war is great. Taxes are great. Government is great. You’re a libertarian, and Rothbard , Hoppe, Kinsella, Rockwell, Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Walter Block etc are not.
Contractual choices between individuals are not a libertarian matter, and invading Iraq was consistent with liberalism.
Damnit. So close!