Of course sonny. Now, I’m sure that a few real & american libertarians won’t put up with your stupid lie that WWII was a ‘defensive’ war.
Hell, even a mainstream conservative like Buchanan doesn’t parrot your party line.
Yes sonny, they are.
I don’t favor the use of violence and coercsion. I think that you anarchists need to stop confusing the people that just say they’re minarchists who are really statists with the people who are minarchists who just don’t want anarchy. I used to be an anarchist. However, I’ve come to a realization that if the government was very small and could provide some services through voluntary donations perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad. I am not a fan of violence myself. I just wish that you people would stop assuming that because you want limited government somehow means you’re a statist, etc. It just means that we see things differently.
Which part of this would require the label of government instead of non-profit organization?
Yes child it was.
You think Buchanan is a mainstream conservative? LMAO! What party line would that be?
No child they are not. Your brainwashing from your third world schooling has been effective though.
I thought I explained the difference in motivations. The outcome however, is the same. Violence.
My friend, every time you post, you have switched from one ideology to another. Like a leaf blowing in the wind. I hope when you land, it is on the side of peace.
But that is not possible. It is Utopian fantasy. A government that provides services by voluntary donations, has no authority over those who do not donate, and so, it is just another private service provider.
Well, government is the state. So you are a limited statist. Does that really make you feel better?
No, it just means you don’t have any principles. You switch around on emotionalism. Justice by feel.
Commit to a principle. Is the initiation of violence justified or not? Once you answer that, everything falls into place.
It would actually have to protect our liberties. That’s all it would be required to do. All it would do- is to preserve the bill of rights. That’s why it would have the label of government. I’m sorry… but I’m just not ready for anarchy.
When you can get this point across let me know.
But the only way you could create this would be to violate rights.
I don’t see this as any reason the rest of us should be oppressed. How about if you want, the rest of us live peacefully, and you can hire someone to coerce you into things?
Actually no statist is defined as socialist. He made no statement in support of government control and planning of the economy. This is another misuse of a word.
Statism (defined) - “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry”
Student of Liberty, I don’t favor violence or coersion. I don’t switch based too much on emotionalism. I just decided that I wasn’t ready for anarchism. I just feel that a government should be there… albeit a very small one but that it should do some things. I don’t think that it should interfere in market practices. If it were voluntary than I think it would solve the problem with coersion. I’m not a statist as I don’t believe it should use force to achieve its goals. I just view it as perhaps a necessary evil.
I never said that you would be oppressed. Just that I don’t want anarchism yet.
And Mises agrees.
“Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved. It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes Homo sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression. Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d’etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man’s innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent.”
- Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (PDF)
This isn’t government.
These two statements are mutually exclusive.
Goldwater explained it, but I don’t think people understood how his idea works even under a reductio.
A government to give you what you want, is big enough to take it away. In other words, a government big enough to protect your liberties, is big enough to take them anyway. That is why limited government is a myth. Some people say that limited government was lost with Lincoln, but in truth, it was gone when Hamilton got George Washington to march around enforcing the whiskey tax. The US never had a minimal government that protected rights, Lysander Spooner has documented this.
But it can only do that, by violating the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is a slave contract. No one signed it, and yet everyone born under it is assumed to have agreed to it. Again, read Spooner, “Constitution of No Authority”. If you oppose individual secession, then you oppose liberty, because it is a fundamental human right to secede.
At least that is honest. And I can emphasize with it. Because it took me time too. But when confronted with pro or against violence, that was the decision maker for me. There is no government without violence.
Well, he’s no libertarian, and he’s no liberal…that kinda implies…
No poptech, thank god I learnt nothing at public schools. You on the other hand are the typical jingoist joe-six-packs who parrots what his political masters tell him to parrot.
Here’s a little piece of news. When you murder people, you are murderer. Soldiers murder people - that’s why they are murderers.
Anyways, I’m sure that all american children who attend, uh, public schools are taught that WWII was the ‘good war’. They are also taught how the americans saved the jews ? Well not really. And how the free world helped the commies to conquer half europe maybe ? I don’t think they are told that either.
Oh yes, it was all because of pearl harbor…
Right, that is statism. Which is government. All rights are property rights (libertarianism 101) so any government power, has to be a power over property, and thus, economy.
Your external definitions are meaningless here, as I indicated to you earlier this evening. However, in this case, you made my point.
What does “favour” mean? Why are you being so vague? Either you do support the use of it or you do not. Which is it?
A government cannot act, without influencing market practices.
So you support individual secession as Mises did?
You are the master of double think. In the first sentence, you were doing so well, and then in the second sentence, you completely undermined the first one.
Statism is not government, it is government control over the economy. Government can exist to merely arbitrate and enforce private property rights. Calling someone a “statist” when they do not advocate for government control and planning of the economy is a misuse of the word.
Is English not spoken here? If not what is and how do you expect to communicate with the rest of the English speaking world using freely defined words? My definitions of words from the English language come from dictionaries.
Here is some more Mises.
No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.
This one is particularly relevant to your appeal to authority
Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them.
Yes indeed. But your language is not English, it’s newspeak.