A United States citizen. I made no claim of being better than anyone. You continue to misuse the word statist.
Yes this was stupid but he also lifted it a year later. Obama just imposed a 35% tire tariff.
If there is an anarchist society why would I obey any law?
Your theory is the world exists constantly in a peaceful state and wars between countries do not exist and never happen. Historically militarily stronger countries have invaded other weaker countries for natural resources. If you are militarily strong enough other countries merely react with words. But as you well know even on a world scale humans attempt to setup up government arbitrators such as the WTO.
You don’t, you only have to accept that I have a right to my opinions as do you.
I never stated this, I know what a light bulb is, this was never my point. I was talking about stating something vs proving it. Your light bulb analogy was flawed and I proved it so. Only someone who has been shown through demonstration of a light bulb giving off light would accept it. If you showed one to someone who has never seen one before, why would they believe you? My point again is you cannot just think you are right but prove it. This was never about me not believing light bulbs exist.
Who is the authority between Japan and Portugal? Who is the ultimate arbiter between Australia and New Zealand?
You tell me. You’re the one arguing for an ultimate arbiter, the state. If that is correct, then surely you believe all of the various states, like with different individuals, needs some final arbiter, or ultimate authority. Correct?
The government can only purchase property with stolen wealth. The government cannot homestead. Only individuals can originally appropriate nature by mixing their labour with it.
It’s not subjective. If you believe the state is legitimate, and do not support the right of individuals to secede, then that would mean the Founders were terrorists and treasonous. However, if you believe they had the right of self-determination, that individual rights are inalienable etc, then you have to believe that people have a fundamental human right to secede, and the blanket social contract of the state (constitution) is non-binding.
It’s a simple logical progression in either direction. I’d appreciate that you deal with the reductios rather than claiming subjectivity.
I’m sure you will find it in TEOL or FANL. I don’t care about dictionaries or wikis. I also linked you recently to Stephan Kinsella’s article on Libertarianism. That article was fantastic, and should be a primer for anyone wanting to understand what libertarianism is.
What do you think the declaration was, but a declaration of independence (secession)? C’mon now. Have you read the Kentucky Resolutions?
I’ll skip the security issue for now. We really need to focus on your doublethink about the state.
and your opinion desires coercion. a government is instant coercion. so I don’t accept it - no thanks.
I simply asked you if A=A or a light bulb is a light bulb - no more, no less. You said my argument “A=A” is flawed. Look back. I wanted to know how A is not-A or whatever else you might be claiming. I wanted to know what is flawed about that argument. I tried to keep the conversation within focus, but you kept bringing up “prove it”. How do I prove that A=A? - and why would I need to?
Explain this then. Why did you say this? Also I find your posts in this thread to be defense. Why is that considering the title of this thread? Also why are you seemingly defending Republicans such as Bush over Obama? Why is your distinction between these two important?
Okay, people seem to misunderstand what I am talking about with my ideal government. This seems to have become a thread that’s totally diverted from the topic I wished to discuss.
My ideal minarchist government would be one that’s just there. It would abide to the people that want to send voluntary donations to it. It would not create laws or control anything other than the services that it would provide aside from the ones that it would receive from the people that gave it money. There would be no taxes. No transcription.
I don’t think that it would be more of a utopia than an anarchist society. Either anarhcism or minarchism would be fine with me. I don’t think that it’s impossible for there to be an extremely limited government. There would have to be real constraints on it. I think that the argument that every government causes violence, and, violence exists because of governments is false- as violence has been a natural human part of human behavior, and violence towards one another (in war) would probably not change unless drastic changes were made so people would be more acceptable to the idea of free trade and peacful cooperation.
Why is the title of this thread about conservatives and how they discredit us - yet - that’s not what you are asking? I believe you may have unintentionally added something to your OP and titled it incorrectly. I don’t know. You tell me.
What I stated was clear. It was to explain the main factions in the Republican party, which too many people here are ignorant of and just lump groups together. Just like the minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalists vs. objectivists exist in the libertarian sphere so do different factions in the conservative one. My point was not to black ball all of the republican party as many who consider themselves financial conservatives are really minarchist libertarians but instead to reach out to those who you can convince and minarchist libertarians will be able to convince financial conservatives (I am not talking about supply siders) that they are really minarchist libertarians. So I am not allowed to state my opinion that Obama is more of a socialist than Bush? I see Obamacare, Obamastimulus and Cap and Trade to be much more damaging to the economy than anything Bush did. This does not mean I was in support of TARP or the Prescription Drug Program. And while I opposed the Steel tariff at least he removed it. Obama just put a tariff on tires.
Laughing man, the state wouldn’t have a monopoly of the services. It would allow for free competition to the services it has. Kind of like the Post Office. It would be ran like a private enterprise here.
And wilderness- no I wasn’t trying to mislead you with this topic. This was originally about Republican conservatives, but if you read through all of these pages, you’ll see that my topic has been hijacked somewhere along the lines. I wasn’t trying to mislead you with the OP.
I think that Republicans discredit us by talking about socialism… when their whole ideology of supply-side economics is based on revolving around the federal reserve and the state.
How can you honestly say that when the first bailouts of this melt-down were started under a Republican adminsitration? Also, how can you say that despite the fact that it’s commonly known that George W Bush actually pushed for a lot of government regulation during his tenure as President- more so than Obama has so far? I’d say they’re both equally statist.
Banishment from where? I am a billionaire (theoretical) who owns my own property, I do not need your service and I can defend myself from all violence.
There is no probability that anyone to obey any laws if there is no on to enforce them.
Only based on you redefining words that the rest of the English speaking word does not accept. Can you show me a definition of the word libertarian that means “no government”. Why would the word anarchist exists then? And why is it called anarcho-capitalism and not libertarian-capitalism then? If what you are saying is valid then when you state to someone “libertarian-capitalism” they will understand that means “no government”.
Do those not familiar with Rothbard understand liertarian-capitalism to mean “no government”?