ANY LIBERTARIANS HERE?

Posts

author=Billwilliams
Basically the key point is that the State is at best a 'necessary evil'. Then you slowly realize that Evil isn't necessary at all.

It's a very odd intellectual journey and every person takes a different path.

What detours me from all of that anti-state stuff is this : What comes after?
Does personal property still exist? Do the Old Money types get to keep and spend their legacy fortunes? How do you prevent land/resource cartels? Doesn't the loss of central direction prevent the construction of infrastructure projects that historically created and advanced civilisation?

I'd like to know how a large natural gas company can be punished if they frack nearby and destroy your drinking water, while selling the gas to a place 200km away full of people who don't care about your problem. I'd also like to know what's stopping me from shooting you and taking your shit.
In a stateless system, laws are useless because there's nobody to enforce them.
I'm pro-Liberty, though sometimes I'm anti-Liberty but I try not to be because self-hatred is bad for you.

Personally I'm so glad I'm Australian so I don't have to care about being pro-this and anti-that. There are some things I agree and disagree about on all sides.
Freedom of speech is fine as long as you use it intelligently and without hassling others.
Right to bear arms - not a fan.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
I totally want the arms of a bear and the head of a chicken.
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
I support the right to bear arms because I find the idea of being forbidden from wielding a firearm while being able to wield a baseball bat is completely ridiculous.
author=Deckiller
I totally want the arms of a bear and the head of a chicken.

It'd be an improvement, I think. XD
I kid, I kid. ^.^
In Australia gun laws are in place so that only military may have semi- or full automatic weapons. Shotguns and the like require licenses and you need to have a reason to have them aside from "Cos I can, dur hur."

Also, most of the people I know think all Politics sucks - we just choose the one that seems to suck the least at the time of Election and hope for the best. If not, it's bye-bye next election season. One day we might even hit jackpot!

I know there are some Aussies who follow a certain party, though. We've only the two main parties - Liberal and Labor. Of course there's lots of other smaller parties that lend their votes to the bigguns - the Greens and One Nation Party being well-known ones.

I vote based more on who's representing which party - if I've heard of them via ads and stuff I won't vote for them. They're just spending good money on pumping up their egos. Screw that.

Last year I voted the Sex Party. Sadly they didn't get into office. But hey! First female Prime Minister! Not that she's awesome or anything, but at least we got one in office before 2012.
dear libertarian party of the united states,

please stop soiling the term 'libertarian' for the rest of us

sincerely,

disgusted libertarian socialist / social anarchist of tunbridge wells
author=Liberty
Right to bear arms - not a fan.

A gun is how a 90 lb woman defends herself against three assailants.
author=Dyhalto
author=Liberty
Right to bear arms - not a fan.
A gun is how a 90 lb woman defends herself against three assailants.


Awww, no more of that Krav Maga?
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
author=alterego
Libertarians are insane! ...Well, I imagine Libertarianism is a legitimate political stance for some people somewhere. But me not being American, I'm mainly exposed to the loudest, nuttiest kind that populate the interwebs. You know, the kind that like to go on long, angry rants about how greed and selfishness are so rad, about how the free market is so awesome, and about how the state is the enemy and everything done to hurt it is fair game, including crashing planes at tax offices... Now, I know every political stance has its radicals, but imo 'Libertarians' are the scariest of the bunch. They take themselves far too seriously. =/

This is incoherent babbling.

It's difficult to argue against as well, since the only things you said were unsubstantiated, sweeping claims.
I'm biased against Libertarians, I'll admit that much. - I just don't agree with most of their ideas, not even when they are expressed nicely enough for me to understand them. For example, the idea that the market will regulate itself, is something that I just don't see happening...

But beyond the first three words of my post, I think I was clear enough acknowledging that there are kinds and kinds of Libertarians, and I spoke about the ones making the strongest impression on me. So tell me, Harmonic, what is that you want to argue against? That there aren't people out there waving the Libertarian flag and claiming things like "taxes are institutionalized violence" or worse? ...Why would you?

Edit: Wait, what? Was just happened? Did I deserved that, or I just got sidestepped and condecended at for no reason? D:
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
author=alterego
For example, the idea that the market will regulate itself, is something that I just don't see happening...


author=alterego
That there aren't people out there waving the Libertarian flag and claiming things like "taxes are institutionalized violence" or worse? ...Why would you?


What is this I dont even. O_o

Look, you seem zealously invested into your current opinion that I can tell I'm not going to get anywhere debating with you. I suggest doing a bit of learning on the matter. You discovering things on your own is far more likely to open up ideas for you than me telling you. You are severely, vastly, ridiculously oversimplifying the way the world works.
Hahaha, you are a wise man, Harmonic. I'm grabbing your quote and posting it somewhere else with giving credit of course.

harmonic doesn't afraid of anything.
Hmm... I am a cross in-between a Imperialist, and a overly zealous Templar with a hangover...
So mark me as a Imperialar? I do believe in freedom, but I am also pretty regimented in my thoughts that the most efficient government is one with an enlightened monarch, or a state of near constant rebellion; A government designed to fall.

So... Most of the parties label me as a radical. XD
An 'enlightened' Monarch is certainly better than democracy as it is a hell of a lot easier to keep an eye on one single tyrant than a hundred senators all taking bribes hand over fist. A monarch is also less likely to pillage the shit out of his own country since his children will acquire his position as long as he doesn't provoke a revolution. I believe there's actually some serious writing on this sort of thing.

Alterego: If you don't pay your taxes the government will fucking kill you. That sounds like "institutionalized violence" to me.

Dyhalto: Give me a day or two and I'll break down your first post point by point. I work retail and Christmas is still screwing up my schedule.
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
An 'enlightened' Monarch is certainly better than democracy as it is a hell of a lot easier to keep an eye on one single tyrant than a hundred senators all taking bribes hand over fist.

Do keep in mind that there are numerous lesser nobles (dukes, counts, etc.) and courtiers around and below the monarch. Monarchies aren't any less prone to corruption than any other form of government.

I do agree that a constitutional monarchy with a good and wise king is better than a democracy, though. Especially if the general population on average is more stupid than a pile of rocks.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
100% British ?
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
author=chana
100% British ?

If that was a genuine question directed at me, no: I'm 100% Japanese but born, raised and living in the USA.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
oh! what an original political opinion then. Though Japan's emperor is somewhat similar to the Queen in England, i.e. constitutional monarchy. ?
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
oh! what an original political opinion then.

I wouldn't call it original, it's just the result of thinking objectively for myself what the various forms of government require and entail.

Democracy in my opinion only functions when the people are smart and well-informed. If the people are stupid and/or ignorant (and most of the time they are), the next best choice is a constitutional monarchy with a good monarch as that completely eliminates public opinion from the political equation while also limiting the monarch via a constitution.

It's basically deciding who to place the burden of responsibility on: The head of state and government, or the people?

Though Japan's emperor is somewhat similar to the Queen in England, i.e. constitutional monarchy. ?

The two are indeed constitutional monarchies, but the similarities end there.

Japan's emperor holds no actual power or influence, he's just a ceremonial head of state and icon who's there just because of tradition. You could remove the entire royal family of Japan and we wouldn't know the difference even if we were told.

On the other hand, while I admit I'm not too familiar with the UK constitutional monarchy, the monarchs of the UK hold considerable influence on a global scale and, I presume, power beyond that of ceremonial ones. The UK without the monarch would be like a headless chicken, so to speak.