If he is elected president, I wan’t be surprised if he too starts acting like a puppet for the bankers. Power corrupts.
Possibly. But is it a good idea that anyone can buy infrastructure, natural resources etc? What if a terrorist bought the water supply of my town and started poisoning it? Nobody could stop him. It would be his water after all. And according to libertarianism, water is not a right.
Ron Paul is too old to be corrupted. They will never let him be President. The President has no real ideas or power. He is just the #1 salesman for the institution of the state. He is the guy everyone loves and everyone hates. The people who wield the real power are the ones who stand behind him, the ones you never see much said about on the news.
Like child porn and IP?
And you’ve succeeded in converting anyone? Or do they leave the discussion believing that you’re nuts and that their own answers are superior?
Not necessarily, just coercion. The government steals your dollars before they enter your bank account, so they don’t need to use violence. And what if coercion prevents suffering, violence or poverty?
But it would be your water once you bought it, and there most certainly would be a case against him were he to sell water under the assumption it is safe to consume but instead poisoned it.
Then you would get your water other ways besides from that evil water terrorist (plus he would be run out of business quite quickly). You could always go to the grocery store to buy bottled water, or get those huge 10 gallon jugs of water delivered to your house daily.
I’m strong on IP. I just don’t like talking about child porn, or children in general. Again it’s not that I don’t have opinions or thoughts on the matter, but these are areas people get very emotional about, and I hate having to deal with irrationality.
A fair number.
Irrational people, cannot be reasoned with. That’s not so much a failure on my part, as a set of circumstances which does not tend to victory conditions.
The implicit threat of access to my bank account, and my inability to stop them, is based on the fact that they are legally authorized to use violence to support taking my property, but I am not authorized to use force to defend myself. If you resist the state long enough, the penalty is always death.
And what if coercion causes suffering, violence and poverty? It’s like trying to fight a fire with gasoline. It doesn’t make any sense.
If there is suffering, private charitable donations always outnumber state aid. They just aren’t cataloged and reported the way that state aid is accounted for. Think about all of the people everyday who share a sandwich, support their parents, buy a present, share a cab etc. We are social animals, and maintain our trade networks through mutual aid because it is intrinsic to our nature.
Voting wiill be meaningless in a society without government?
Who is better than another?
No one would drink it. So he would have paid good money for poisoned water.
Nature is pretty amazing. Anything necessary for human survival, is not so scarce, that it can be easily monopolized. For example, water falls from the sky.
Sure. What would people vote on?
My point was, if you can’t trust people to plan their own lives, then how can you trust them to choose their politicians?
-
You’re presupposing that the state is capable of preventing all crime, and that the state is not curruptable.
-
There are plenty of private providers of water already. When was the last time Crystal Geyser poisoned its product?
Actually, the cost of hardback printing hardly exceed the cost of softcover printing. It is mostly the copyrights that make books expensive.
HA! Now you are making my arguments for me! [:D] Now I can sleep. Nice talking to you today.
I know, Rockefeller, Rotschild, Brzezinski and so on. But if we cannot vote libertarianism to power, how then, without using violence?
Not bad. You’ve helped one more over the edge the last couple of days.
Do you mean that they’ll kill you if you resist them long enough?
But you consider minarchism a violent and deeply immoral ideology, right? Just not quite as the current system.
Experts on environment, infrastructure and city planning?
With today’s environmental and demographical development, it’s ineviitable that there will be water crises in the future.
I’m using that argument frequently. The standard objection is: “The majority is able to plan their own lives and choose good leaders. A minority is not. The majority secures good leaders for the minority through our political system”.
I’ve used this arguments as well. Answers I got:
- We’re electing our politicians iin our society. We’re not electing the criminals.
Lol. Thanks the same. Btw, did you get my PM?