As we all know, the Internet is infested with libertarian nonsense. We have stuff like libertapedia, dozens of blogs, youtubers and think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Alliance, Mises Instititute and the list goes on and on and on. All of these various sources spread half-truths, use faulty reasoning or sometimes are blatantly dishonest. When you discuss with a libertarian (or, perish the thought, an anarchist) you're bound to sooner or later be confronted with long articles, videos or "studies". It often takes a long time to properly research all this stuff in order to offer an adequate rebuttal. Just like creationists, they try to talk you into submission with an avalanche of dishonesty. So I'm wondering: Are there some sites that are dedicated to debunk libertarian nonsense (just like in the creationism vs. evolution debate)?
bump
Trick question OP, Libertarianism isn't nonsense.
>>5245753Yes it is. Maybe I shouldn't have come to /pol/ to ask this. This place is probably too infested.
>Hey /pol/ my name is OP and I like statist dick in my ass.
>>5245770No it isn't, you just dislike its goals.
>>5245770>Maybe I shouldn't have come to /pol/ to ask this.I'm sorry. Were you "asking"? It seems more like you're just making a series of statements and then looking for people to agree with you. So, go keep sucking that Democrat dick -- it's not infested with nonsense at all, and Nancy Pelosi is your friend.
>>5245670and what kind of governance is proper in your opinion?
Mike Huben's Critique of libertarianism, a compilation of different links that rebuttal different facets of libertarianism:http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html21st Century Social Democracy, an excellent blog that not only has a post-Keynesian perspective but also debunks most Chicago school and Austrian economics:socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com
for the most part Libertarians are awesomethe small fringe of insane " STOP SIGNS ARE FASCISM" types seem to be the loudest thoughoh and the OP is a state worshiping faggot
Well what do you want debunked? I really don't get the point of this thread. You complain about being given long articles, yet want a whole website dedicated to debunking libertarianism.
>>5245670You see OP, there is no direct definition for libertarianism other than that liberty should be the foremost value in society. Where the line is drawn depends on the person you're talking to. The best description of an american libertarian I can give you is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The libertarian party has become the haven for people fed up with the two party system and harbors a lot of different ideas. It may not be perfect in practice, but the libertarian party is the best shot we have at shaking the system outside of blatant revolution.
>>5245770glad we could help, reddit may be more your speed
>>5245886 the small fringe of insane " STOP SIGNS ARE FASCISM" typesIrony time: taking down most road signage results in less accidents due to people actually paying attention to their surroundings. "Following The Rules" is not a valid substitute for Driving Safely.
Libertarianism is a lot like atheism:They're all douchebags and I hate many of its loudest advocates.But goddamnit, they're on the right track. The most intelligent people in the field of politics tend to have many libertarian views. No one who thinks for himself is perfectly libertarian-- it's utterly impractical as a self-consistent philosophy. But for the most part, anyone who can see the logic in libertarianism is smart enough to realize the emergent properties of human behavior. Again, this is a lot like atheism. Anyone who calls himself an atheist is a child grasping for greatness. He wants knowledge and allies himself with those who do have knowledge, but doesn't realize anyone who truly thinks for himself has abandoned all such labels. Atheism is on the right course, but it is logically impossible to prove and for the most part, shouldn't occupy a person's thoughts aside from the few times it comes up in conversation throughout a person's life.
>you're bound to sooner ot later be confronted with long articles, videos or "studies>takes a long time to properly research all this stuff in order to offer an adequate rebuttalSeriously? You're mad that libertarians use science, logic, and reasoning found through studies to prove their point. And this is because you find it hard to rebuttal facts.And instead of trying to get better at debating, and gathering research materials on your own, you want some easy copy and paste debunk website that you can refer to everytime you argue with a libertarian. You don't want to find and research real things like they did, you just want a quick easy way to strengthen your argument.And you find nothing wrong with this?
Rational Wiki has a page on debating Libertardians.
MSM is what you're looking for OP.
>taking down most road signage results in less accidentsI'm gonna need some kind of reason to believe this. Study? Citation? You can't go that counter to common sense without some backup.
>>5245943Actually, when I was in the states it did seem odd to me that for country so hung up on muh freedum there were an awful lot of road signs: speed up, slow down, beware of this, don't do that. It was pretty distracting.
What are your parents' jobs OP. Let me guess, civil servants?
>>5246003You do know half of your studies and stuff are obvious bullshit pulled out of Pro-Libertard sites and other assorted BUY GOLD like shit?Basically OP there's no point in debating them, they're so eager to suck Austrian Cock that reality doesn't mean anything to them.
>>5245922When I'm send an article from "answers in genesis" for example, then I have a lot of sources available which speficifally expose these half truths and lead me to more information. In regards to libertarian lies, I always have to start with google which is very pesky. It would be easier if there would be an equivalent of the sites that debunk common creationist claims.
>>5246009>Rational Wiki>Not just conservapedia for liberals
>>5246029>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>>5246029>>5246035http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/09/11/cbs-finds-less-govt-regulation-means-fewer-traffic-accidents-dutch-to"PHILLIPS: The whole point of the "Shared Space" idea is that it changes behavior. Drivers no longer look for road signs or traffic lights. They look for people on foot or on bicycles. People on bikes have to watch out for themselves and for those in cars and on foot. And those walking have to watch out for everybody. The idea is that this takes responsibility away from the traffic engineers and puts it on the individual. The idea is catching on in bigger places. There are now "Shared Space" schemes in several countries in Western Europe and some being considered in America."
>>5246064Can you refute anything, instead of just trying to insult people? You know, debate.
>>5246064>just ignore them and they'll go awayTypical liberal.
>>5246077>Implying libertarians don't just use googleSeriously, if you can't google-fu a study within seconds, you have no right to argue on the internet.
>All of these various sources spread half-truths, use faulty reasoning or sometimes are blatantly dishonestName one OPI will crush you
>>5246029http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/02/transport.psychologyNot particularly difficult to find. Or even that counter intuitive.
>>5246003>And this is because you find it hard to rebuttal facts.It's not hard to sooner or later find where the libertarian article is dishonest. It's just a hassle and often not worth the effort in an online discussion. >And instead of trying to get better at debating, and gathering research materials on your own, you want some easy copy and paste debunk website that you can refer to everytime you argue with a libertarian. I already have quite a few sources for specific claims already but 1) it's not my full time job to school retards on the Interent and 2) libertarians often come up with obscure references and then the research starts anew. It's not about copy and pasting - it's about having hub for further information about the lies libertarians come up with.
>>5246182see >>5245879
Just stray away from the extremists. The ones who are constantly shouting about, "MUH FREE MERKETS, MUH COERCION, MUH THEFT" etc.
>>5246206Yes, thank you. Keep em coming.
Take this loaded bullshit back to reddit. Every ideology has some merit, and /pol/ is for debating them. You've already made up your mind like a clueless faggot so what you need is a hivemind to confirm your shit beliefs handed down to you. You are worse than any libertarian, communist, anarchist, social democrat, fascist, or neoliberal I have ever seen.
>>5246182>trying to prove people wrong on the internet>"It's just a hassle and often not worth the effort in an online discussion."You might as well try to prove you have the cure for cancer without presenting any research or evidence for your claims.
>>5246077>In regards to libertarian lies, I always have to start with google which is very pesky. It would be easier if there would be an equivalent of the sites that debunk common creationist claims.Once again you show your absolute intellectual dishonesty. You're obviously not interested in reality/facts, just a convenient way to reinforce your preconceived ideas. You're the worst kind of person -- intelligent, but without a shred of curiosity or humility.
>>5246245>You've already made up your mind like a clueless faggot so what you need is a hivemind to confirm your shit beliefs handed down to you.So it's ok when libertarians use shit like libertapedia to safe time but it's not ok when I'm asking for a research source for the other side?
>>5246280>to safe time
>>5245879>that website>16 years of butthurt and fallacies - the blog
>>5246280Typical liberal response -- "Two wrongs make a right."
>>5246182Okay, give us an example of a libertarian lie.I can easily come up with a creationist lie, so don't pretend it's suddenly so hard to come up with an opposing viewpoint. For example, creationists believe the world was created about 5000 years ago. Creationists also believe in intelligent design, that is, the idea God made the complex mechanisms which result in life. Creationists also do not believe in evolution.The first can easily be rebutted with fossils or what have you. The second can be rebutted by showing anything with emergent complexity, though this is one of those argument which is not likely to convince someone not of a rational disposition.The third can be disproved by showing evolution in real-time on the microorganism level.Point is, for all of these rebuttals, I could easily google up a supporting study in a minute's time. Why can't you?
>>5246259What? I said that it takes time to get all the evidence and that I would be grateful for a few sources that make this easier because the specialize on these debates. You know, when I want to get general information about a philosophical issue, I go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy because it's a reliable source of consise information and further references. When I want to research an libertarian lie, it would be nice to have a similar site to start.
>>5246228http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/http://robertvienneau.blogspot.comhttp://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/Most of these can get quite theoretical and abstract, but they provide good reads.
>Implying liberals are capable of fact-checking libertariansNope.jpeg
>>5246280So you want to beat a retard by being a retard? Not all libertarians spout talking points as you're led to believe. Try reading the source material of various ideologies and actual discourse and deconstructing it yourself. Don't fall into this babbys first politics that exists for every political ideology including libertarianism.
>>5246306>your reply>autism mad buddhurd
Unlike creationists or climate change denialists, libertards are largely confined to internet. There's no need to debate with them or debunk their mythology, especially when there are actual problems to solve and people with actual influence to argue with. (Yes, I'm aware that if we had any means to solve actual problems, we wouldn't be on 4chan either.)But please don't confuse the so-called libertarianism with anarchism, they're two completely different worldviews linked only by the former appropriating the alternative name for the latter. And say all you want about actual anarchism and its utopian views, it at least isn't self-contradictory.
The only good kind of libertarian is conservative libertarian. The rest is just utopia.
>>5246343*concise
>>5246343>an libertarian lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=054Sp3kk9cA
>>5246360The reply of a wild social democrat with his world view shattered.
>>5246087>>5246096After reading about these it sounds like they only have a hope of working in downtown areas where speed limits are already quite slow and impeded by heavy foot & cycling traffic.How would such reduction of signage impact rural and suburban areas? Removing stop signs / signal lights on 55mph crossings still strikes me as disaster central.>>5246176>Psychologists said that the amount of advertising and signage typically present in a city centre could be pushing up the number of accidents.How is this relevant? Increased distractions tend to lead to distracted drivers?
>>5246391The reply of a wild libertarian with his world view shattered.
>>5246343>Relying on one or two websitesJesus fuck. There are people who are really like this?L2do independent research. Figure out a website's biases and bear them in mind. Learn how to fact-check websites against other websites. Learn how to fucking think for yourself.You're just as bad as those idiots who want a "perfectly unbiased news source". Protip: no such thing exists.So long as it's made by a human and it's about a non-math or easily falsifiable subject via logic, it will have biases. Period. End of story.Stop using one or two websites as a substitute for critical thinking.
>>5246411oh wow
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html>Milton Friedman.>The most notable libertarian: a brilliant economic theoretician, policy advisor, popularizer, and propagandist.>propagandistNOPE
ITT: OP claims he's smarter than libertarians, comes out looking more retarded than even them
>>5246417Why can't you respond to what I'm actually saying instead of using straw mens? Are you a libertarian?I don't intend to rely on a few websites. I explicitly said that I would like something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to use as a start. If you have ever done proper research for a paper, then you know how useful a source is that gives you an overview and then leads you to further relevant sources for the explicit topic you're interested in. Otherwise, you would have to read book after book before you find what is relevant for you.
>>5246435Oh wow
>>5246396Rural? It means you have less signs and people are more likely to go a speed that feels safe rather than "the posted speed +8".Suburban? I dunno.The issue you're missing, though, is the idea of limited brainspace. Whenever people get into cars, we effectively ask them to solve two problems:1. move this large heavy potentially lethal object from point A to point B2. solve a complex rulesetBoth these tasks require a large amount of concentration, which means that when people are paying attention to the rules they are not paying attention to their driving. If you remove the burden of having to solve the complex ruleset, people are more likely to do their single remaining task --which was the one the ruleset was supposed to be helping with-- effectively.
>>5246492Milton Friedman, a famous libertarian, was a criminal and an accomplice to brutal Latin American dictators like Pinochet. Friedman is also responsible for the horrendous poverty his retarded libertarian policies brought to Latin America as the middle class was getting decimated, social mobility came to a full stop, illiteracy and lack of social safety net skyrocketed crime rates and privatization of everything caused unheard of unemployment and corporate corruption. In fact he could only put his ideas into practice using a brutal dictator because his economic policies were so absurd and caused such violent poverty that it's certain they could not be implemented in a democracy (and they haven't since the Latin American experiments).Latin America and in particular Chile under Allende was a paradise compared to the hellish dystopia Friedman created where entire shanty towns were built overnight thanks to his retarded economic policies. Everyone must read about Chile's history before even considering becoming a libertarian. The only ones who benefited from it were multinational corporations, banks and corrupt officials.
>>5246529*Straw menI'm not a native English speaker.
>>5246529How am I strawmanning you?I said it's fucking fallacious to assume there's some magical website that can debunk every argument given by x political position.I said, you're a fucking retard for wanting such a thing as well since you're obviously using that website as a substitute for critical thinking.I mean, why bother thinking for yourself when you can just parrot off whatever the website says?And no, there is no such website that aggregates information against a certain political position that is somehow unbiased.ALL political websites are biased. And you're an idiot for thinking they're not.
>>5246529Yet again you fail to realize your basic problem -- you're not interested in research, sources, overviews, etc. You're only interested in finding sites that back up your preconceived notions. As noted upthread, you're as intellectually dishonest as they come.
>>5246550>Was a criminalNot in America. Stay butthurt communist.
What kind of libertarian nonsense? It being touted as a utilitarian rather than categorical ideology?
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/another-note-on-von-misess-and-ron-pauls-monetary-mental-disorder.htmlhttp://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/see-see-the-von-mises-monetary-mental-disorder-redux.html
>>5246589>How am I strawmanning you?You said that I wanted to solely rely on one or two websites.>I said it's fucking fallacious to assume there's some magical website that can debunk every argument given by x political position.So? That's not what I was asking for. I was asking for a dedicated website, maybe something like a wiki, which helps me with my research because it's dedicated to debunking libertarian half-truths.>I said, you're a fucking retard for wanting such a thing as well since you're obviously using that website as a substitute for critical thinking.Why is research a substitute for critical thinking? I love it when people employ 'mind reading tactics' in which they attempt to gauge my intentions, instead of just responding to what I actually wrote.
>>5246529>>5246343>>5245670Don't expect to be taken seriously when you post kawaii desu~ avatar bullshit here.
>>5246591I love it when people employ 'mind reading tactics' in which they attempt to gauge my intentions, instead of just responding to what I actually wrote. I'll stop listening to you now. Go sit in your time out corner and think about the childish manner in which you have behaved. You may come out and play with the grown ups when you have realized your mistake.
>>5246550Pinochet was a bro. Killing 3000 commies doesn't make you a brutal dictator, it makes you a hero. If the commies got power in chile they would have built shantytowns and still be living in them today. They would have also killed upwards of 100k like castro just for not being commie scum.Pinochet, the father of south America's most prosperous country.
>>5246539>Rural? It means you have less signs and people are more likely to go a speed that feels safe rather than "the posted speed +8".However, the maximum speed limits set in place for a reason. The local authorities don't want people going over a certain speed and are willing to enforce this with penalties. How are people to know at what speed they will be penalized without such signs?>people are more likely to go a speed that feels safeI'm still not seeing any examples that this would be the case outside of dense cityscapes.>2. solve a complex rulesetI'm not seeing the complexity in adhering to stop signs / traffic signals. If anything that seems less complex than negotiating traffic with no consensus of action from the drivers around you.
>>5246684>I was asking for a dedicated website which helps me with my research because it's dedicated to debunking libertarian half-truths.>Why is research a substitute for critical thinking?Because, again, you're only looking for sites that reinforce what you already believe. This is the antithesis of critical thinking. For someone who apparently possesses some intelligence, you're an annoying fucking retard.
>>5246685I miss flower girl ;_;
>You said that I wanted to solely rely on one or two websites.That's not a strawman, that's an implication.
>>5246684You're completely missing the pointIf you want a wikipedia for political positions, guess what:http://www.wikipedia.org/is a good fucking start.>Why is research a substitute for critical thinking?It's not, but criticizing other people's research without providing research of your own is intellectually lazy. On actual academic papers, the weight of your research often depends on the amount of supporting evidence you have. Most theses are cited out the ass, with hundreds of works cited throughout the paper.If someone provides links for x,y,z position, in lieu of finding some uber-infalliable website (which doesn't actually exist), either debunk his sources, provide counter-evidence with sources of your own, OR disprove his position with logic.Finally, if you're arguing on the internet, don't expect to convince the person who started the argument. It never happens. You're arguing to convince the impartial third-party lurker that your position is the correct one.
>I was asking for a dedicated website, maybe something like a wiki, which helps me with my researchwikipedia.org
Why would you need those sites if you already know libertarians are wrong?
>>5246760>Because, again, you're only looking for sites that reinforce what you already believe. Or perhaps you're too unintelligent to have a discussion without making assertions you have no relevant knowledge to make. Look at this website for example:http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.htmlWhen I use it, does it mean that I only want to be reinforced in my belief that Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald? No. It's a good site too look at all the criticism of the movie JFK. To find all that information and, more importantly, the references would take ages if you want to do it from skratch! I'll admit that I'm biased against libertarian sources but only because I have made my own experiences with them and, more often than not, they use half-truths to make a point.
http://post-modernenlightenment.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/look-at-modern-libertarianism.htmlEverything that is wrong with libertarianism as a philosophy.
>>5246968>Or perhaps you're too unintelligent to have a discussion without making assertions you have no relevant knowledge to make. My fucking sides. Alright, close it up guys, we're talking with an intellectual giant here.
>>5246872>You're completely missing the point If you want a wikipedia for political positions, guess what: http://www.wikipedia.org/ is a good fucking start.It's good enough for getting info about the political positions. It's not very useful to research a particular claim or argument. For this, deducated websites such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are much more useful.
OP is retarded.>whenever i argue with libertarians they just give me websites to back up their claims even though i know they're wrong!>hey does anyone know of any websites that debunk libertarian lies?
>>5247004>I've mentioned before Libertarianism is racist. I wasn't kidding, and that wasn't snark. American libertarianism is all about White Male privilege expressing itself and justifying itself through the presence of the Free Market.
>>5247004>MUH PRIVILEGES
>>5247004>First line>"I've mentioned before Libertarianism is racist."My sides.
>>5247004I love websites like this.>white male privilegeWell I'm asian.>Asians are racist too!Except I've suffered from quite a bit of discrimination in my life from being brown.>HUSDFJHLEWFOH:UQSWD::DFSDH:LFLDHFDSFFLEFLHFLHCVEO
>>5247117Uncle Ching Chong!
>>5246872(forgot about the rest of your post)>It's not, but criticizing other people's research without providing research of your own is intellectually lazy.And I don't intend to do this. >On actual academic papers, the weight of your research often depends on the amount of supporting evidence you have. Most theses are cited out the ass, with hundreds of works cited throughout the paper.I know. I've written some of those myself. How about you stop pretending that I need to be schooled about htese things? >If someone provides links for x,y,z position, in lieu of finding some uber-infalliable website (which doesn't actually exist), either debunk his sources, provide counter-evidence with sources of your own, OR disprove his position with logic.If you think that I was asking for "some uber-infalliable website", then you need to improve your reading comprehension. You know what? I'm wasting my time reasoning with you. You're not interested in a conversation with me. Have fun burning your straw men.
> After all, if there's no government to lift up people who are disadvantaged by the system, then these White, straight, cis-gendered wealthy Christian males (WSCWCM?) don't have to worry about sharing their social privilege - or, rather, the privilege that society awards them. If there's no entity to try to equalize the playing field and make sure that nobody is starting at a serious disadvantage, then the only people who benefit from it are WSCWCM.
>>5247140Oh you.I'm telling you no such website exists. Why do you believe such a website exists?There is no Stanford Encyclopedia of Political Positions I do not Agree With.
Postmodern rhetoric has been used to conclude that the Gulf War never happened, among other factually erroneous claims. What does this say about the usefulness of the paradigm?
>>5247124Oh you damn white devils. Stay away from our women! You want shirt dry cleaned?
>>5247167I've already got a few nice suggestion ITT which I will look into. Thanks for bumping my thread, that probably helped me out. You may now leave, you hapless gorilla.
>Debunk>LibertyPick one and only one, statist scum.
>>5247237Being subject to a coercive set of laws is not necessarily a constraint at all, because it often actually provides one with greater opportunities. Laws are just the regularization, and rationalization of the necessities to which human beings are subjected to anyway. In that regard, enforcing taxation to finance social programs, for instance, creates far more liberties than it restricts, because it ensures that the fate of human beings is determined by their decisions and not by unavoidable social circumstances.Besides, all forms of rights only have meaning insofar as they impose limits on the freedom of others. You literally can't have a society where every individual is absolutely free.
>>5247237awww is the anarchist baby getting emotional?
Hey guise, look what I found. Libertarian Library. Fuck the government, amirite? They never do anything for us.
>>5247362>hurr durr only government funds can support a libraryAnd also>2012>Not just downloading books online
>>5247360>>5247362And so the quality liberal posts begin.
>>5247394>Not just downloading books onlinePlease remind me, who invented the Internet again?
>>5247362>Going to the library and expecting to find a wide selection of high-quality non-fiction booksMost public libraries are fucking awful. Libertarians buy their own fucking books instead of sharing second-hand copies of shit books the government deems fit for circulation.
>>5247362>Going to the library>2012In 20 years, libraries will only exist on university campuses and even then, many paper books will be replaced by digital ones.
Hurr I am stupid and Libertarians use sources and I feel that they are wrong but cannot provide rebuttals on my own so I need you to give me facts to parrot like a fucking drone so I can be cool like the Libertarian kids with their half truths.You're no better than they are, you dumb cunt.
>>5247411http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
>>5247394Show me a Library that comes from something that isn't the government? Protip: Religious Communities are a form of gov't, too. Libertarians are all about "ME ME ME ME ME" while they use shit they paid for that other people made.
>>5247408Why do anarchists and libertarians always assume that the opposition consists of liberals? Liberals are also anti-authoritarian, just mostly in regards to social issues. I'm in favor of authority in both cases.
>>5247362>libertarian libraryBooksStudy loungeFree wifiStarbucks coffee barOffice supplies for saleListings on the wall for paid tutors and workshopsdoesn't sound so bad
>>5247411>Who invented the internet?Multiple entities both public and private?
Edgy 4channers tend to be pro-Anarky
>>5247451>Liberals are also anti-authoritarianGood one.
>>5247362>library that's open 24-7>bad
>>5247451>liberals>anti-authoritarian Pick one.
>>5247474So what do you call it when they want to allow all women to kill the babies in their wombs as they see fit ?
>>5247459Pssssst, that's code for "people using money from the government".
>>5247446>Religious CommunitiesNot necessarily, if it is completely voluntary then there's no problem. And you seriously think that libraries can't exist without government? You're retarded.>Libertarians are all about "ME ME ME ME ME" Oh look this strawmen again.
>>5247446>Protip: Religious Communities are a form of gov't, too. Protip: Religious communities are a form of free association not an extension of the ruling government.
>>5247505What do you call it when they have people arrested for being racist?
>>5247522Religious Communities are their own form of government, dumbass.
>>5247509>money from the governmentPssst, that's code for "money taxed from private individuals and companies".
>>5245879Socialdemocracy21stcentury is an excellent blog, if one wants to learn about post-keynesian economics and how it relates to austrian and other heterodox schools of economics. Problem is, the blogger Lord Keynes sometimes misinterprets some aspects of Austrian economics (mostly economic calculation), and insists on the same argument again and again and again even if the debate already moved past that. But Mike Huben's collection of critiques is retarded. All he does is compile a lot of articles, mostly with out caring what they even argue, and most of them being nothing but parroting of old arguments that every Libertarian ever has already answered a million times. It's a shitty source of shitty articles, you won't find anything new in there.The fact that OP doesn't already know any anti-libertarian sources at all (fuck, there are many and are easy to find. I am a libertarian and i follow several of them), and rejects libertarianism with out having a single clue about anti-libertarian arguments, is a sign he is fucking retarded.>>5247362>Government currently provides/monopolizes function X>This means no institution other than Government can ever provide function X under any circumstance, and anyone who believes otherwise doesn't want function X to ever be provided at all!Flawless logic, fucking idiot.
>>5247411>government funds people to invent internetOMG WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERNET COULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED
>>5247509>people using money from the governmentReally now.I guess venture capital is all imaginary and really, the government should take care of funding all start-up capital.
>>5247517>Libertarians are all about "ME ME ME ME ME" >Oh look this strawmen again.Except that it isn't a straw man. There is something wrong with these people, inside. They lack something that most people have - most likely a sense of compassion that equates to the overriding collective morality. Any behavioral code that is based on empathy would prescribe positive moral obligations to help a sufferer, given that one wouldn't have to sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance by doing so. Libertarians and anarchists, however, created a framework in which each agent only has to care for himself. The idea that any action of assistance should be voluntary implies that the moral faineant isn't actually guilty of any misconduct. To say that charity should replace an egalitarian baseline distribution connotes that the sufferer doesn't actually deserve help. Libertarianism is 'fuck-you-I-got-mine!' writ large. They want to reduce the basic elements that sustain life to a cash product and turn justice into a commodity that needs to be bought or donated. Dictionary.com defines a sociopath as: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. This description fits you guys perfectly.
>>5247547>Religious Communities are their own form of government>dumbassJust repeat it, that'll make it true.
>>5247505>affirmative action>not authoritarianHire this black man now BIGOT OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES
>>5247446>Protip: Religious Communities are a form of gov't, too. Government = Entity with a geographical monopoly on the legitimate use of force.How are religious communities a Government?>Libertarians are all about "ME ME ME ME ME" while they use shit they paid for that other people made.2/10Made me reply.
ITT: Anarchists who think people would work together if they didn't have to. Tell me, who would have invented much of anything without the support of the government? All families having cars and nicer roads to drive on for faster travel? Seems like Hitler's idea. Instant communication with other world powers? Hmmm.....It seems to me most Libertarians are:1. Not successful in life2. Blame other people for #1. 3. Feel that "The Man" is holding them down4. Hate paying their shit taxes because of #1.
>>5247569>. . . For whilst it indicates the vital importance of establishing certain central controls in matters which are now left in the main to individual initiative, there are wide fields of activity which are unaffected. The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary. Moreover, the necessary measures of socialisation can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society.- Keynes - The General Theory
>>5247609Actually collectivism is compatible with libertarianism, but nice try.Libertarianism allows for natural, small collectives of interest. For example, 4chan is one such entity. The family unit is another. What it doesn't allow for is government-enforced social categories. Just because you forced so-and-so to live in a certain area, don't expect the people living there to accept him.Libertarians allow for communities to form more organically. Statists impose these categories artificially.
>>5247609>implying stealing money from others to make you feel good about voting for welfare is compassionate
>>5247713Explain to me how Capitalism has done anything but that?Who has ever FORCED you to do anything but pay taxes?>ObamacareAnd I'm pretty sure you faggy libertarians love that shit. You don't have to work for "BIG GUBNIT" and you STILL get free health care. Holy shit.
>>5247609You can not seriously believe this bullshit that you are writing. >lack compassionSo not liking being forced to do things against our will is lacking compassion suddenly? >created a framework in which each agent only has to care for himselfWhy should I be forced against my will to care for anyone else? If I help people (which I do), then it should be of my own free will. >To say that charity should replace an egalitarian baseline distribution connotes that the sufferer doesn't actually deserve help.Except it doesn't connote that at all. That doesn't even begin to make any since logically.>They want to reduce the basic elements that sustain life to a cash product and turn justice into a commodity that needs to be bought or donated.And the justice system is currently based on force in today's society. This whole post is completely retarded. Libertarians simply DON'T want to be forced to do things. There's nothing wrong with a society built on voluntarism, however, there is something wrong with a society based on force. Pic related, because that's exactly what you believe and people like you. YOU'RE the selfish one. You want to force people to behave how you think they should. Us libertarians and anrchists, don't.
>>5247750>want to cut hair>have to get a license
>>5247771>Us libertarians and anrchists, don't.>UsOpinion invalid.
>>5247781>not true>I cut hair for friends all the time
>>5247750There's libertarian socialism dipshit.I would actually argue that free markets are incompatible with capitalism, but that's another story.
>>5247807How dare you undermine the barber and beautician carte- consumer safety board!
>>5247713>Libertarianism allows for natural, small collectives of interest. For example, 4chan is one such entity. The family unit is another. That's the problem: Tribalist thinking.Only state institutions promote the common good of all the inhabitants of the relevant territory, rather than the interests of a segment of the population unfairly indifferent or even hostile to the interests and wellbeing of other segments. We need a system that includes all affected interests when calculating the rightness of an action and weigh those interests equally. In a Social Democracy, everybody has an equal vote for instance. Any theory that either excludes some interests from the moral calculus or weighs certain interests differently from others, must be rejected because it violates the basic innate moral knowledge about fairness. Libertarianism and Anarchism are such system, because they weigh the own interest higher than anybody else's
>>5247750 Captialism has fueled white flight, among other things. The invention of suburbia was demonstrative of the fact people will pay top dollar for a sense of community.What the state has done, by comparison, is force x community to accept people who don't belong there. Mostly, this is done in the name of diversity and whatnot. Affirmative action is one such thing. The government passed a mandate allowing unqualified people to enter universities when more qualified people were barred from them. Anything involving privilege is another example of this.If statists had their way, they would bar Chick-fil-a from ever funding any pro-family organizations. If libertarians had their way, Chick-fil-a would be able to give charity to whomever they wanted while still cooking damn good chicken.Face it, what you want is artificial. If given free choice, if people are allowed to choose for themselves, they would not choose many of the things the government imposes upon them.
>>5247843You can do what you want, but if you are going to do it to someone else, they want to be sure you won't fuck up and hurt them.But that's bad, right? I want to work in Nuclear Power Plant but the government says that I don't pass the test? NOT FAIR!
>>5247858>Only state institutions promote the common goodCitation needed. Last time I checked, they strip us of our rights and give power to big corporations.
>>5247880>comparing cutting hair to building nuclear reactors
>I LOVE COCK UP MY ASS AND HATE FREEDOM -OP
>>5247880Actually, the people who actually own the nuclear power should decide whether or not you can work there. Not the government.
>>5247877Chick-Fil-A wouldn't exist if Capitalism didn't exist. Why would it? You think he does that because "I like helping people eat chicken, yupp"Show me one GOOD libertarian society that exists to anywhere near their greatness of the USA.>inb4 Hong Kong because they aren't libertarian.
>>5247923So the government?
>>5247858But herein lies the problem, who determines what the "common good" is? You? A group of corrupt politicians?This is why statism fails. "As power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Byron saw it more clearly than others. By concentrating power in a small group of people, you are guaranteeing some special interests are going to buy them out, corrupting them.The people as a whole, however, cannot be bought out."You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time." To me, this Lincoln quote is exactly why libertarian principles should always be adopted to some degree. By allowing for free choice, by promoting individualism, you're preventing corruption from taking root.
>>5247771>So not liking being forced to do things against our will is lacking compassion suddenly? Coercion is a tool to make the choice to act immorally less appealing. It keeps the bloody minded from harming others, detaines the insane and is an indispensable technique in the rearing of children. Besides, your system is just as coercive as mine. Tell me, how can you effectively enforce your property rights (or any rights for that matter) without some coercive method?>Why should I be forced against my will to care for anyone else?You're not forced to care. You're just punished when you undermine a just system.>Except it doesn't connote that at all. That doesn't even begin to make any since logically.Yes it does. When the recpitient of, let's say, a basic education actually is entitled to it, then it would be theft to withhold it from him. To say that it should be legal to withhold it from him, implies that he isn't really entitled to it. >Libertarians simply DON'T want to be forced to do things.Not true. For example, they want to force others to accept their favorite set of property rights.
>>5247938I was assuming that we were talking about privately owned nuclear reactors.
>>5248013>Nuclear Power Plants needed Government Funding to start up>Fuck the government, they so mean
>>5247961A just system doesn't require coercion. People should be happy to join it willingly.>Taxation is theft.
>>5247956>But herein lies the problem, who determines what the "common good" is? You? A group of corrupt politicians?You changed the issue from "what is right?" to "how do we decide what is right?"My system is fair because everybody has an equal vote in the decision making process. Yours isn't because it is lopsided to the wealthy. When you are poor, your voice in the marketplace is very small. That's why a profit seeking individual will rather invest into finding a cure for baldness than into finding a cure for diseases of poor countries, like Malaria for instance.>This is why statism fails. "As power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."Cute taglines you got there. You don't just throw a random bunch of humans in charge of everyone else. You create a system where there are checks and balances on the power that others utilize, and you make sure that every person in that system realizes how important it is to clean up that system if the need arises from corruption or other undue influence. Granting power, and then checking that power against other groups of individuals that have agreed to a social system of governance is better than simply allowing someone individually to accumulate power through, say, an economic system, that can be corrupted far easier. A proper government that is beholden to its people can be held accountable. An economic system cannot. >By allowing for free choice, by promoting individualism, you're preventing corruption from taking root.You're an idiot. You apparently think that coercion is only wielded by some big bad state boogey man. In an unregulated market, it's easy for those who own the means of production and the necessary resources to coerce other people. The idea that there can be a "voluntary contract" between the owner of the means to survive and a starving worker is a sick joke.
>>5247961>to act immorally less appealingDefine immoral. It's completely subjective and changes from person to person. I would say that any aggressive force is immoral, but obviously your opinion is different. >how can you effectively enforce your property rightsDefend it yourself. It's not that hard. People have done it for most of history. >inb4 that's coerciveNo it's not, you are simply defending yourself from aggressors. >You're just punished when you undermine a just system.Bullshit. "Just" is completely relative and being punished for NOT doing something is force.>entitledThere's your problem. No one is entitled to anything other than what they get from their own labor. No one is entitled to welfare because they did not labor to achieve it fairly. >force others to accept their favorite set of property rights.Except true anarchists don't. (You can criticize minarchists on this one though.) We simply think that x form of property rights will naturally dominate in a particular community.
>>5248080Taxation isn't theft, faggot. You volunteer to pay taxes by living here.
>>5248070So? The government is mean because it forces things onto people.
>>5248108>Rape isn't force. You volunteer to it by living in a bad neighborhood.
>>5248142Lol seriously?The colonists didn't mind being taxed, they just had no representation. You have your representation in Congress, you pay your taxes. Even though the government has never done anything good for us. Never ever. They just take some money out of your paycheck and then give it back to you later that year. Go live in a libertarian society somewhere else. I'm sure it's soooooo great over there.
>>5248108Nope. The social contract, which the Constitution was modelled after, says that your only obligation is to repeat others freedoms, so that they will respect yours.The welfare state is immoral and funded on theft.
>>52456703/10
>>5248108yea, and why don't prisoners just shut the fuck up? i mean they can just walk out it's not like they're being forced to stay there or anything.
>>5248093First of all, I didn't "change the issue" because I'm not the anon you're arguing with-- I jumped in recently.Secondly, a free society knows there will be winners and there will be losers. Yet, in this system, there will be more equality than one where equality is imposed from the top down.This is because it's an issue of complete versus incomplete information. When you have a single entity (the government) responsible for all decisions ever made, it is an impossible task. No single entity, no matter how brilliant, is privy to all the hidden variables in the market. It's a losing game because the government can never have complete information.Now, the government does do certain things well, and this is why I do not call myself libertarian (I consider myself a classical liberal). The government can absorb long-term risk much better than any private entity can. This is why it is responsible for funding cutting-edge science for the most part. Only the government can hold risk long enough for it to bear a profit 50 year later.But insofar as making split-second decisions in a dynamic marketplace, only the market is capable of being that nimble and self-optimizing. You completely underestimate the value of emergent complexity. The market works because as a whole, it operates on complete information. In order for this complete information to take hold though, you have to allow for winners and losers. This whole "winners win too much" and "we should help out the losers" really bespeaks to how far we've strayed as a society. This applies to both the liberals who want to bail out certain failing races through affirmative action and the conservatives who want to bail out failing companies with taxpayer money.
>>5248103>Define immoral"The only feature that the descriptive and normative senses of “morality” have in common is that they refer to guides to behavior that involve, at least in part, avoiding and preventing harm to some others."(Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/)Morality is based on "the immediate participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, primarily in the suffering of another." Compassion is the only incentive people have to wonder if their actions are right or wrong in regards to other sentient creatures. It's the ability to understand other living beings so well that you share their experience to some extend and, therefore, you don't want them to suffer and want them to be happy instead. In the words of Green Ingersoll, "happiness is the only good" and "the way to be happy is to make others so."I further propose that moral behavior is an offshoot of knowledge, namely the knowledge about the inner nature of other beings. 'Knowing good' will ultimately lead to 'doing good' (and desiring it). When we empathize with another creature, the barrier between the ego and the non–ego is for the moment abolished. Its interests become our interests and thus, assuming we understand the other creature correctly, it is impossible for us to harm it.Hence, an agent is objectively morally right when he has perfect knowledge about other sentient creatures in a given situation. What you "should" do refers to what a rational agent with perfect knowledge about other sentient creatues (i.e. empathy) "would" do.Continued in next post
>>5248214Way to sidestep my analogy. It's really the exact same logic that you are using. Don't give a fuck about the colonists, having "representation" doesn't make theft any better. I'll gladly give up my representation in Congress (not that they represent my interest of course) and all of those government welfare programs and pay for shit like roads by use if I could be free from taxation and government law.
>>52482380/10, nice try though>>5248248As a Conservative, I have never wanted the bailout of corporations. Being a Libertarian is retarded. The fact that we are where we are today is SOLELY based on the fact that we are a Capitalist country.
>>5248103Part 2>I would say that any aggressive force is immoral, but obviously your opinion is different. No shit Sherlock. Pacifism-at-all-costs is immoral, as it prescribes passivity in the face of grave injustice.>Defend it yourself. It's not that hard. People have done it for most of history. But when you defend yourself, then you use coercive force. You are effectively forcing others to accept your property claim even when they disagree with you. That's not "voluntary" at all! You guys believe that you have found a moral high ground and constantly rant about the "evil" of the state, stressing that it arrogates to itself a monopoly of force over a given territorial area. Yet at the same time you proclaim that in your "free" and "voluntary" society everybody has the ultimate decision-making power over his own property. Oops! What happened here? Apparently the magical power of the expression "private property" can turn the bad (ultimate decision-making power over a given area) into the good (ultimate decision-making power over a given area). On the one hand you demonise state authoritarianism, but at the other hand you conveniently ignore that you're guilty of the same thing.>No it's not, you are simply defending yourself from aggressors. That's playing with words. My can't the state say that it's "defending" itself from you when you don't want to accept its baseline distribution? >No one is entitled to anything other than what they get from their own labor.Why? Because you say so? Because of the nonsensical labor theory of property?>We simply think that x form of property rights will naturally dominate in a particular community.So the minority that is "dominated" has no right to complain? How come you can whine about our status quo then, you troglodyte homunculus?
>>5248226Who do you think funds all those think tanks, dimwit?
>>5248248>Yet, in this system, there will be more equality than one where equality is imposed from the top down.>Doesn't understand the idea behind social justice and equal opportunity. >Thinks that people would even care about being equal when they die en masse in a libertarian dystopia.hahaha! oh wow!
>>5248292Okay, that first post was really long-winded and pretty unnecessary. But fine, I get where you are coming from a little better.>>5248391>Pacifism-at-all-costs is immoral, as it prescribes passivity in the face of grave injustice.I wasn't talking about pacifism, I was talking about aggression or the initiation of force. Completely different. >You are effectively forcing others to accept your property claim even when they disagree with you.Except that's wrong. When you defend yourself, it is the OTHER person that is attempting to force their claim to property. They INITIATED the force against you, and you would naturally defend yourself. It's really not that difficult. And actually, the rest of your response on this part is based on this exact same fallacy. Try to understand the initiation of force. Defending yourself is not coercive at all, it is simply defending yourself. The other person is the one who has started the force and is truly aggressive. >My can't the state say that it's "defending" itself from you when you don't want to accept its baseline distribution?No because the state initiated the force in the first place. That would be like invading another country and then calling it a defensive war. >So the minority that is "dominated" has no right to complain?Except they don't have to accept the rest of the societies view on property rights and can establish their (assuming it doesn't infringe on other people of course.) The view of property between anarchist isn't really that different you know, and none of it is based on force so they can all exist at the same time.
The Declarartion of Independence says that any government which violates rights is committing a crime. The government is supposed to be bound by the same law as an individual, which is why we have citizen arrests. But it is immoral for an individual to take your money, regardless of whether they want to spend it on hospital. That is why the welfare state is immoral.
>>5248607>I wasn't talking about pacifism, I was talking about aggression or the initiation of force. This NAP bullshit is worthless. What counts as an "initiation of force"? When extended to concepts which are not immediately intuitive, the NAP is worthless. You think it's an initiation of force when I enforce an egalitarian baseline distribution but it isn't when you enforce your baseline distribution that is based on the labor theory of property (or something like that). It's just playing with words.>Except that's wrong. When you defend yourself, it is the OTHER person that is attempting to force their claim to property. So you only defend your body, not what you deem to be your property?>Try to understand the initiation of force. Defending yourself is not coercive at all, it is simply defending yourself.So I could hold somebody's bike hostage and when he wants to get it back, then he is initiating force against me?>No because the state initiated the force in the first place. Why didn't you initiate force by stealing somebody else's property? Furthermore, why do we all have to follow your retarded NAP? I think the NAP is dumb. Why are you forcing me to accept it as the guiding principle? >Except they don't have to accept the rest of the societies view on property rights and can establish their (assuming it doesn't infringe on other people of course.) What if it does infringe? Two different sets of property rights are bound to conflict with each other. >The view of property between anarchist isn't really that different you know, and none of it is based on force so they can all exist at the same time.Are you really this dumb that you can't understand the simple point that no matter what set of rights you enforce, you will implicitly limit other people's freedom?
>>5248844This is all terrible reasoning. The NAP doesn't force you to do anything, just as you won't force anyone to do anything. That is how you get the most freedom for the most people.
>>5248941Get a clue already! Unless the NAP only refers to direct bodily harm, it's worthless because people disagree about waht counts as "initiation of force". For example, when me and my community believe the forest next to our village is part of our public property, then we could declare it to be a wildlife park or something. Now if somebody else who doesn't share our belief thinks he can destroy the forest to build an amusement park there (or whatever), then we might interpret this as an initiation of force (he destroyed our property), while he doesn't.
>>5248941>The NAP doesn't force you to do anything, just as you won't force anyone to do anything.Ok so if I either starve to death or take the food from some rich guy's banquet, then he isn't allowed to stop me because otherwise he would "force me to starve"?
>>5248844>This NAP bullshit is worthless.Initiation of force is very simple. Force against another person that is not done in a defensive manner. I've already said that none of the anarchist view of property rights (lol labor theory of property) are based on force nor do they need to be enforced. Only defended when necessary. That is all.>So you only defend your body, not what you deem to be your property?No you are defending your property as well. Of course, you will suggest that this is enforcing your will onto the other person while ignoring that the other person attempted to enforce their will onto you first by initiating the conflict. >So I could hold somebody's bike hostage and when he wants to get it back, then he is initiating force against me?No because you initiated force on him/her by taking his bike. It's fine to get it back as long as you don't violate the other person's rights.>Why didn't you initiate force by stealing somebody else's property?What? I don't steal property because its immoral. >Why are you forcing me to accept it as the guiding principle?I don't. Just know that if you attempt to violate and steal from other people, then they should have the right and will defend themselves.>inb4 hurr durr coercion No, you initiated the force by attempting to thrust your will onto them, and they have every right to reject it. >Two different sets of property rights are bound to conflict with each other.No they aren't. Occupation and use rights are perfectly compatible with georgist land rights. As long as it is all done voluntary, these rights do not have to conflict.
>>5249011 The property belongs to the first to claim it. Anyone that tries to take claimed property is initiating force.
>>5249011Bullshit. Have you read ANYTHING on the NAP besides criticism?>>5249044You're starving is the defualt state. There's no "force" from the rich guy to place you in that state. If he didn't exist to have food to steal from, you'd still starve.
>>5249074>Are you really this dumb that you can't understand the simple point that no matter what set of rights you enforce, you will implicitly limit other people's freedom?Are you really this dumb to not understand that no one is enforcing anything, but simply defending themselves in all these examples?
>>5249011>>5249075Allow me to elaborate on this. The property belongs to whoever mixes their labor into the land first. (Homesteading principle). All anarchist property right views agree with this.
>>5249175>mr1001nights>homesteading principle
ok faggot, I'll break this down for you. First, read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principlethen apply it to your life and to politics...if you disagree with aggression on a small scale, you shouldn't accept it at a larger one.
>>5249198Who the fuck is that?
>>5249277>fallacy of composition
>implying anyone in their right mind would disagree with this:The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force, ZAP, or NAP) is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person (which may also be considered that person's property), no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership. Supporters of NAP often use it to demonstrate the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others
>>5249315You are making sweeping statements about anarchists but don't know mr1001nights?youtube.com/mr1001nightsHave you even read inforshop's An Anarchist FAQ?
>>5249361I don't keep up with youtube people. Does he disagree with the homesteading principle somehow and calls himself an anarchist?
>>5249348Implying agression is never morally correct.
>>5249348except that coercion isn't a one way street
>>5249394Yup. Most anarchist do. Just because you can make the inference of homesteading DOES NOT mean they have. Ever read or watched Chomsky discussing anarchism?
Public schools are infested with liberal nonsense. We have how many millions of schools (K-12, colleges and everything in between) that brainwash kids everyday? Liberalism should be outlawed and banned.
>>5249417can't into reading:In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others
>>5249446Most are against it? All the guys I can think of off the top of my head supported it. Rothbard, Proudhon, Hoppe, Spooner, Warren, Tucker, etc. How else do you rightfully claim unused land then? And no, I don't watch Chomsky because he's far too contradictory. (For example, corporations wouldn't exist without a state which is correct, but he also says that right-libertarianism would lead to corporate tyranny somehow which makes no sense.)
>>5249417told by his own ignorance
>>5249494but self-defense is coercion
>>5249595use your brain, who is initiates force in a case where someone needs to use self-defense?
>>5249595>Coercion>noun >1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. >2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.>Defense>1. resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.Nope, those two are different.
>>5249523>cherry picking anarchist who's views you agree withRothbard, et al, are a minority. Chomsky is what most anarchists are. They care about material equality, period. That's their acid test.>How else do you rightfully claim unused land then?To most anarchists? Entitlement because of equality. Seriously, do you not pay attention to the counter-arguments by Chomsky, infoshop, etc? Why do you think they use "fuck you, I've got mine" when psychologizing NAP proponents? Or "but then people could let others starve!"?The Chomsky, Revleft, etc anarchists are against markets and property itself. Don't shoe-horn your assumptions into their theories.And corporations will exist just as partnerships, sole-proprietor, etc. Don't fall into the labeling business you don't like as "corporations" clap trap. A corporation is just shareholders making agreements to the creditors that each individual shareholder is only responsible for the debt in proportion of his share and no more.
>>5249686>>5249673>first time on 4chan>can't into greentext>this is so different compared to reddit xD
>>5249673>Guy comes up to you and says, "get off this land, it's my land now." He has a gun in his hand.>You decide to either shoot him or point your gun at him and tell him to leaveAssuming it's your property, then the act of defending your land is coercion. Why? It fits the definition.1. You're using force or intimidation to obtain compliance
>>5249719The initiator of aggression/coercion matters
I only have one question to you idiotic coercionfags: If self-defense IS NOT coercion, then does racism mean power and prejudice?
>>5249764Except that's not in the definition. What you're talking about is connotation.
>>5249697Which is why libertarians trump anarchists. We'll take individualists like Spooner and Rothbard, and you can keep the collectivists.
>>5249792>Hiding behind the dictionary definition game because I don't have a good response
>>5249697>Chomsky is what most anarchists are.Citation needed.>Seriously, do you not pay attention to the counter-arguments by Chomsky, infoshop, etc?I wasn't even aware of infoshop's existence until your post. >Don't shoe-horn your assumptions into their theories.It was my understanding that most anarchists from communists to capitalists all agreed on the homesteading principle. You've named a few apparent exceptions, but I've never encountered any anarchist who didn't support it except perhaps you.>exist just as partnerships, sole-proprietor, etc.How, large organizations are inefficient and couldn't survive in a free market?
>>5249795But I'm an anarchist (mutualism) and I disagree with that guy. And you just named two other anarchists as well.
>>5249795Don't say "you". I'm Rothbardian/Hoppe/someMolynuex/etc to the core. I'm just pointing out that the anarchist on the left, as they place themselves, are not allies to market anti-statists. Kevin Carson is as far as I feel comfortable in calling and ally.I think it's incredibly foolish to lure in leftists with shallow appeals to rhetoric. We got to get people on the principles themselves.
>>5248844>What counts as an "initiation of force"? When extended to concepts which are not immediately intuitiveYou must have shitty intuition
>>5249719No, because he attempted to use force to achieve compliance first. You are merely defending yourself.If you want to be that anal about definitions, then fine. Anarchists/libertarians support coercion in cases of self-defense. Can we stop playing these wordgames and move on?
>>5249830>How, large organizations are inefficient and couldn't survive in a free market?Large organization != corporation, corporations have special privileges granted by government
Oh God! I was afk eating dinner and you guys are still clueless.>>>5249074>I've already said that none of the anarchist view of property rights (lol labor theory of property) are based on force nor do they need to be enforced. Only defended when necessary.Let's say that Paul is in favor of one set of property rights, A, and Smith is in favor of another set of property rights, B.A: When something is situated on your land, it belongs to you.B: When something grows on your land, it belongs to you.When an apple from a tree which stands on Smith's land falls onto Paul's land, then both will claim that the apple is theirs. Paul would like to "DEFEND" his property against Smith, and Smith would like to "DEFEN" his property against Paul. Can't you see that neither of them is less coercive than the other, you dumb asshole idiot head?>Of course, you will suggest that this is enforcing your will onto the other person while ignoring that the other person attempted to enforce their will onto you first by initiating the conflict.What are you talking about? What do you mean by "first"? You enforced your property rights and I enforced mine from the get go.>No because you initiated force on him/her by taking his bike.But it's only *his* bike according to him. I think it's my bike. >What? I don't steal property because its immoral. You don't want to pay taxes. Taxes aren't your property. Thus, according to me, you are the aggressor. >Just know that if you attempt to violate and steal from other people, then they should have the right and will defend themselves.Therefore, the government has the right to defend itself from you because you want to steal its property. Gotcha!
>>5249880>Can we stop playing these wordgames and move on?Word games are all these faggots have, because they can't refute the NAP.
>>5249907I know. I was referring to all large organization. They are always inefficient.
>>5249924>thinks two neighbors will fight over an apple>thinks property disputes are a feature of completely free markets and not mixed economies also>fullretard.jpg
>>5249818>Bending words around to mean whatever you want
>>5249930The NAP is nothing but one big fat word game. Unless you are just talking about real, literal, physical violence, tjhe NAP's content is completely arbitrary.
>>5249880No, wordgames are important to anarchism because that's all you have. Not my fault your shitty ideology relies on it.
>>5249768Still waiting on this, 13 year olds.
>>5249972>thinks two neighbors will fight over an appleYou're apparently too dumb that this is just an analogy so you dimwits can finally get the point. If you haven't noticed, we are fighting about whose property rights should be enforced RIGHT NOW!
>You're making it difficult to justify my support for authoritarian government that uses violence and coercion to involve itself in the lives of people who are minding their own business, with your logic, reason, and evidence. Stop it, you guys.
>>5249768>>5250037non-seq, what are you even talking about?
>>5249924>Really stupid scenarioIf you honestly think that two people are going to fight over one apple then you are absolutely retarded. And property lines are hardly a straight perfect line in the ground. Here's what would really happen.>Apple from smith's tree falls onto paul's land>Smith gets the apple>Paul doesn't care, give a fuck, or isn't even there>life goes on>What are you talking about? What do you mean by "first"? The aggressor obviously is the first one. I'm just going to stop and quote my other post here: >>5249880>If you want to be that anal about definitions, then fine. Anarchists/libertarians support coercion in cases of self-defense. Can we stop playing these wordgames and move on?>But it's only *his* bike according to him. I think it's my bike.Apparently you stole the bike from him so its his. It's not a difficult concept.>Taxes aren't your property.No, I make the money myself. The government does not; therefore, it is my money and the government is the aggressor.>Therefore, the government has the right to defend itself from you because you want to steal its property. Gotcha!Except the government has no legitimate claim on most of its property. There's no "gotcha" here. I define property by occupation and use. The government does not do this to most of the stuff it owns, therefore, it does not own it.
>>5250037Mad that nobody cares to answer your pointless question?
>>5250057>I'm too dumb to understand that every effective formalization of society is based on coercion.
>>5250037>>5249768I don't even understand the question. It's a non-sequitur. Why would self-defense as a response to coercion initiated by someone else mean that racism is power? And if it was, why would that disrupt any libertarian principle?
>>5250058>>5250076It's analogous, pussies.>mfw people say anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion>anarchism>logic
>>5249830>infoshop>most prominent anarchist website>not aware of itGo to infoshop and revelft. You're understanding of other anarchist is wrong. Commies are still commies even with the anarcho- qualifier. Seriously, communism as a core principle is against private property. Homesteading is irrelevant. Homestead more than anyone else? Well it's entitled to everyone who has less.>How... marketAs I said, don't fall into the clap trap. Have you even read Man, Economy, and State w/ Power and Market? The size is also irrelevant to whether or not a firm is a corporation or not. It's an arrangement between the creditors and shareholders.Yes, the few large businesses today are a result of government intervention. But, I do not think without those interventions, we wouldn't have large business to the scale we have today. I think we could even have more. It's not the size per se, it's the ability to reference market prices between capital stages. It's the size relative to the market, not the size total.
>>5249876What? I was saying that I consider people like Spooner and Rothbard more libertarian than anarchists. They were for property rights, even IP, and don't belong in the same group as Bakunin, Proudhon, Chomsky etc. who are collectivists and anti-property at their core, with a very different worldview than propert respecting individualists like Bastiat, Spooner, Hayek, Rand, Rothbard, Friedman, and Ron Paul. People I would consider libertarians, not anarchists, in modern terminology.
>>5250094It's about interpreting the definition. Both are different ways of interpreting coercion and racism, yet I doubt that most of you would agree that self-defense is not coercion and racism is power and prejudice.Hint: the idea that self-defense is not coercion and racism is power and prejudice relies on connotations, which you idiots love to use.
>>5250026No it isn't. The NAP is how we think people should achieve maximum freedom. Tell me why the NAP shouldn't apply to personal possessions (like theft for example). >>5250029 Anarchism does not rely on wordgames. You guys are the ones going "hurr self-defense is coercion." Going by your anal definition, then fine, anarchists support coercion in defensive situations. Move on and find a real criticism.
>>5250085Define "effective". And since we've never had a society that follows the NAP, how do you know?
>>5250125>Non Aggression Principle>implying using NAP isn't just an unspoken law of the land
>>5250124You're still not making any sense and now you didn't answer my question.Self-defense is a response to coercion. It's coercive in itself, sure. That really should go without saying, but no libertarian anywhere ever said coercion was the problem -- the problem is and always has been unsolicited coercion that threatens the rights of individuals.Racism is none of the above. It's simply a mental state.
>>5250095But libertarianism is inherently pragmatic, or there wouldn't even be a separation between libertarianism and anarchy.
>>5250095No, it just didn't make sense. TOO_DEEP_FOR_YOU.JPG
>>5250118>you can keep your collectivistDense? I was telling you that you were retarded for implying I identified as an anarchist.
>>5250186That's all they have. Sending you on equivocation goose chases so they don't have to address the argument.
