AJ:Perhaps you are being turned away from what some people call "anarchy," which is really their vision of how anarchy will be.
In an anarchist society who decides the "vision" and why would people listen to them?
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
I think the really important question for people interested in Austrian economics to ask is "Do libertarians discredit us?".
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:I think the really important question for people interested in Austrian economics to ask is "Do libertarians discredit us?".
What you don't think calling anyone who does not agree with Anarcho-Capitalism a neo-con, socialist or marxist is an effective way to convince people to their position?
Poptech: In an anarchist society who decides the "vision" and why would people listen to them?
In liberty I can decide to listen or not, but it's obvious the State is never absolutely listened to - or else the State wouldn't have to rely upon coercing people to adhere to their false ideology.
I want truth and justice.
Poptech: AJ:Perhaps you are being turned away from what some people call "anarchy," which is really their vision of how anarchy will be. In an anarchist society who decides the "vision" and why would people listen to them?
No one, and that is my point. I maintain that if anarchists are consistent, then their particular vision - such as having PDAs, etc. - is just educated speculation as to how things will turn out (however correct that speculation may be). I sometimes sense an oblique implication from some AnCaps that their vision will be "decreed," but that's clearly at odds with their core position.
Why anarchy fails
Poptech,
In reponse to your signature I'd like to quote Robert Le Fevre:
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
A stupid question to ask at the LvMI
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Poptech:What you don't think calling anyone who does not agree with Anarcho-Capitalism a neo-con, socialist or marxist is an effective way to convince people to their position?
Some people need to get slapped in the face with a wet fish, metaphorically of course. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear a comment from you about the world government Blockian point I brought up in the conspiracy thread. If you need to be reminded of it:
First Post, top page
Yes, I think appeasing conservatives and taking up conservative causes is debilitating to the goal of a free society.
AJ:No one, and that is my point. I maintain that if anarchists are consistent, then their particular vision - such as having PDAs, etc. - is just educated speculation as to how things will turn out (however correct that speculation may be). I sometimes sense an oblique implication from some AnCaps that their vision will be "decreed," but that's clearly at odds with their core position
I could not agree more.
AJ:No one, and that is my point. I maintain that if anarchists are consistent, then their particular vision - such as having PDAs, etc. - is just educated speculation as to how things will turn out (however correct that speculation may be). I sometimes sense an oblique implication from some AnCaps that their vision will be "decreed," but that's clearly at odds with their core position.
I think we are utilizing thymology to ascertain possible future outcomes which are more likely then others. I don't think anyone here knows with 100% certainty how the society will develop, though if I am wrong and you are 100% certain then please speak up.
Laughing Man:Some people need to get slapped in the face with a wet fish, metaphorically of course.
How does misusing words "slap someone in the face"? It just makes you look like you never took an English class
Laughing Man:By the way, I'm still waiting to hear a comment from you about the world government Blockian point I brought up in the conspiracy thread.
I had a long reply to one of your posts and it was deleted because the thread got locked. Your assertion that I must accept world government is a strawman as the world clearly functions without it and the existence of state governments. Anarchy only exists in places like Somalia where coincidently the strongest warlord rules.
Laughing Man: AJ:No one, and that is my point. I maintain that if anarchists are consistent, then their particular vision - such as having PDAs, etc. - is just educated speculation as to how things will turn out (however correct that speculation may be). I sometimes sense an oblique implication from some AnCaps that their vision will be "decreed," but that's clearly at odds with their core position. I think we are utilizing thymology to ascertain possible future outcomes which are more likely then others. I don't think anyone here knows with 100% certainty how the society will develop, though if I am wrong and you are 100% certain then please speak up.
Sounds good to me.
The problem I notice every few days on these forums is that somehow people end up with the impression concerning AnCap that somethings will be decreed or banned, and that confusion is often at the core of their rejection of it.
GilesStratton: I think the really important question for people interested in Austrian economics to ask is "Do libertarians discredit us?".
Some do. Then again, so does Dr. Morgan Reynolds.
AJ: The problem I notice every few days on these forums is that somehow people end up with the impression concerning AnCap that somethings will be decreed or banned, and that confusion is often at the core of their rejection of it.
yeah the state will be 'banned' (i say that loosely for obvious reasons) and that confuses some people.
ambiguous!
Poptech:Your assertion that I must accept world government is a strawman as the world clearly functions without it and the existence of state governments.
Anarchy! You are on your way.
Poptech:Anarchy only exists in places like Somalia where coincidently the strongest warlord rules.
Be that as it may, Somalia has actually gotten safer since the state fell. Even ignoring the culture behind clan leaders, and the all of the outside funding (U.S.!) that has gone into the hands of said warlords, and the outside threats (Ethiopia, U.N., U.S.) that help to empower such people, Somalia still has lower murder rates than many governed nations (and less warlords!). The point is, you don't really have a point.
There really isn't any difference between a warlord and a general.
Cortex:The very beginnings of the human kind could be called anarcho-capitalism. Everybody was on his own and yet the concept of the state prevailed everywhere. Is there any let's say theory why it did prevail and what would prevent it from prevailing again? First glance at history suggests that the state is pretty lively and vigorous concept.
Do you have these same concerns about slavery, and the social position of women? Do you worry that we might slip back into treating women like property and diminishing their role in society? Are you concerned that we will slip back into tribalism or monarchy? Does it keep you up at night that you might have to bow before a ruler of a divine blood line? Do you see where I am going with this?
Cortex:I think that people, or better - most of people actually wanted to be ruled. If explicitly asked they may deny it, but it seems to me the desire for hierarchy is somehow...inherent to people, being a brick in the wall makes them feel good. That doesn't mean that I approve of such sentiment or that I think it is an excuse for coercing people, I am just - again - thinking out loud....
Can't help you with this. It's a myopic view of things. I've been there. Such thinking is basically an excuse to inactivity, validation of not committing to an ideal. That's your choice. You can rationalize anything, and most people do.
Yes, a lot of people think the state is good, and the use of violence is acceptable. I'd say nearly all of us here thought that at some time. Ancap isn't intuitive. The desire to be free, perhaps, but the conception of a private society conflicts with the earliest stages of human development, where we did not operate independently, but in groups as it was necessary for survival. That has changed with the advent of technology. It will continue to change. A single person with a powerful weapon can kill millions now. That was inconceivable even 75 years ago. In another 100 years, a single individual might be capable of solo space flight.
The possibilities for the decentralization of power grow every day.
Angurse:Somalia still has lower murder rates than many governed nations
Which warlord gives you these "accurate" statistics? LMAO!
Sometimes I wonder if you're just trolling these threads, Poptech.
Poptech:I agree that this power needs to be removed from the constitution but I was referring to an Anarcho-capitalism society were those with can fund the bigger army can take your property
But we're not flipping this over to a defense of anarcho-capitalism. This thread is about conservatives and the (potential) harm they do to the liberty movement, and whether or not they are fellow travelers towards liberty.
You can find dozens of threads where marxists of every sort show up and challenge ancap, and end up leaving with their hat in their hand.
I don't have to validate a free society to you, because I don't know what it will look like. You have taken the positive position that a state is necessary. the burden of proof lies with you.
Poptech:In an anarchist society no one has to agree to anything, anarcho-capitalist "law" is irrelevant. So protection is based on who can fund the larger army.
Both statements are incorrect.
Poptech:Man has organized by forming governments.
Man has organized by establishing law. Government have done little to organize people.
Poptech:Somalia is in a state of anarchy and the most powerful warlords rule.
Anarchy is "without rulers". Somalia is not in a state of voluntarism. As you said, there are violent war lords. That is not at all what we are talking about. But there is an excellent paper over at the Independent Institute which explains the advancements in the standard of living in Somalia under decentralized rule. If you need help finding it, let me know.
Poptech:Going to war to acquire property can be very profitable, look at Somalia pirates.
Their targets are prohibited from protecting themselves. That said, what they do is no different than what any government does. It depends money at the barrel of a gun.
Poptech:It is not cheaper to settle if you have a larger army and your intentions is to acquire property.
When 19 men can attack you and kill thousands, due to the capacity of technology to magnify violence, it is not cheaper unless we pretend it is still the 18th century.
Poptech:Private Property for individuals and the government should own property for things like police stations, courts and military bases.
This is a nonsense statement. Government doesn't own anything. Government is not a person, and only individuals can homestead (originally appropriate) property.
Poptech: liberty student:That's not secession. Secession is the individual right of self-determination, as claimed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and the Kentucky Resolutions. If you don't support secession, then that means you do not think the American revolution was legitimate. And thus the Constitution was not legitimate. I am not talking about Secession but if you didn't notice you need to win the war.
liberty student:That's not secession. Secession is the individual right of self-determination, as claimed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and the Kentucky Resolutions. If you don't support secession, then that means you do not think the American revolution was legitimate. And thus the Constitution was not legitimate.
I am not talking about Secession but if you didn't notice you need to win the war.
What does this mean? Either you support Jefferson's assertion that there is a right to secession (a control of your own property and sovereign individual) or there is not. If you claim there is no individual right of secession, then you have admitted that the American revolution was illegal and unjust. Take your pick.
Poptech:The state uses coercion not "violence" as you use the term.
Semantics. The force is ultimately lethal. Thousands of dead muslims since 9/11 can attest to the lethality of the state use of force.
Poptech:You can avoid most of it by limiting it to basic things like the protection of private property rights.
What part about this false notion of rights do you not understand? Under the state, you have no property rights. In 1791, Washington was already going to war with the American people under the influence of Alexander Hamilton so they could secure funding to grow and enrich the federal state. The friggin ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution yet. The state uses violence, to claim title to all property, including all persons.
Poptech:So say a gang forcefully steals my house and throws me on the street, the state can use the police to arrest the gang and restore my private property to me.
The state doesn't do that. They promise to do that, as part of the social contract, but you have no legal recourse or compensation if they don't catch the bad guys, or don't return your property. It's a bogus contract, because one party has no obligation to fulfill their half of the deal in return for funding and fealty.
Poptech:The way you manipulate the term "violence" is to claim people support the police just randomly beating people up for fun which is propaganda and nonsense.
It is violence. You're just comfortable pretending it is not.
I think your bigoted remarks on this forum have done more to discredit Austrian Economics, LvMI and libertarianism than anything any other regular contributor has posted.
Angurse: GilesStratton: I think the really important question for people interested in Austrian economics to ask is "Do libertarians discredit us?". Some do. Then again, so does Dr. Morgan Reynolds.
The entire question is based on a premise that is not libertarian. We don't own others' opinions of us. We were never entitled to credit in the first place. I think the real question is, "are (american style) conservatives fellow travelers"? What statists think about libertarians is irrelevant. We didn't come over to libertarianism as individuals because it has the hottest chicks (that honour belongs to Objectivism) or the coolest people (GAP and Kinsella? PULEEZE! ) or because you get to dress flashy (bowties).
We came to libertarianism because the idea of non-aggression resonated with us.
People who judge it superficially aren't evaluating it on that level. The question re:Morgan Reynolds is like saying "Does Ron Artest discredit the NBA" or does "Stalin discredit Russians?" It should be meaningless. If you think your liberty is tied to me, or a perception of liberty that I can project onto you, then you never really had a chance at liberty in the first place.
Poptech:Which warlord gives you these "accurate" statistics? LMAO!
CIA, U.N., etc...
Are you implying that a warlord is more likely to lie than a government representative? Because that would be absurd.
liberty student: The entire question is based on a premise that is not libertarian. We don't own others' opinions of us. We were never entitled to credit in the first place. I think the real question is, "are (american style) conservatives fellow travelers"? What statists think about libertarians is irrelevant. We didn't come over to libertarianism as individuals because it has the hottest chicks (that honour belongs to Objectivism) or the coolest people (GAP and Kinsella? PULEEZE! ) or because you get to dress flashy (bowties).
So what? The majority of the world isn't libertarian. And opinions (whether warranted or not) do have an effect. You know very well that the MSM is going to run with anything to discredit, (didn't they do that to Ron Paul?) In my opinion, If Austrian economics (and libertarianism) wants to be taken seriously again its going to have to be as held to a higher scrutiny. (Which does seem to be doing overall) So yes, conservatives (not all though) do discredit us.
And if thats last part is true, maybe I should reconsider Objectivism.
liberty student:We came to libertarianism because the idea of non-aggression resonated with us.
Yes and if the average person hears those ideas packaged with more outlandish ideas (like the no plane theory) they are more likely to associate them.
liberty student: People who judge it superficially aren't evaluating it on that level. The question re:Morgan Reynolds is like saying "Does Ron Artest discredit the NBA" or does "Stalin discredit Russians?" It should be meaningless. If you think your liberty is tied to me, or a perception of liberty that I can project onto you, then you never really had a chance at liberty in the first place.
Yet people still do judge superficially. Yes, it should be meaningless, however you know that most of the world doesn't consist of people presuaded by facts, they are irrational and can be driven away by anything. I mean, didn't you change the title of a thread because it had the words Hoppe and Homophobe in it? Its just a bad association.
Angurse:ou know very well that the MSM is going to run with anything to discredit, (didn't they do that to Ron Paul?)
To which I say, who cares? We're bypassing the MSM. That's how decentralization works. And Ron Paul wasn't hurt by the MSM. The more they attacked him, the more money he raised and people supported him. Ron Paul didn't do well in the primaries, because he ran an educational campaign, and the grassroots had no political experience or leadership, so instead of actually registering to vote, they made YouTubes of sign waving from a bridge. Lots of fun, but it won't win a nomination if you don't vote.
Angurse:In my opinion, If Austrian economics (and libertarianism) wants to be taken seriously again its going to have to be as held to a higher scrutiny.
Seriously by whom? The people it attacks and the who profit from the premises it undermines? Does AE need to make ground at Harvard or in the schoolyard? Does it need to be popular with the FED board of governors? Or Obama?
Angurse:And if thats last part is true, maybe I should reconsider Objectivism.
Seriously bro.
Angurse:Yes and if the average person hears those ideas packaged with more outlandish ideas (like the no plane theory) they are more likely to associate them.
Look, it's not a question of marketing. It is a question of education. Marketing will only take you so far, until someone out markets you. Knowing what you know now, could you ever be a statist? Probably not. No amount of pro-state marketing is going to work on someone like you who is educated.
Don't be ashamed or embarrassed by the truth telling power of AE, the moral good of the NAP or the fringe opinions held by people who want less government and more liberty. That sort of behaviour is self-defeating, and it is exactly what the statists count on to maintain consent. Shame is a powerful tool used by state and religion since the beginning of civilization because there are never enough swords, guns or eyeballs to keep everyone in line. So they count on us to rat out our neighbors or to discourage free thinkers, to label each other crazy, or to shun those who pursue unconventional decisions.
Angurse:I mean, didn't you change the title of a thread because it had the words Hoppe and Homophobe in it?
I changed it because it was a lie and because statements like that aren't in line with the community guidelines. LvMI reserves the right to moderate what it published on its website. Basic exercise of property rights.
Angurse:Yet people still do judge superficially. Yes, it should be meaningless, however you know that most of the world doesn't consist of people presuaded by facts, they are irrational and can be driven away by anything.
And that is what we seek to change. But I maintain, you cannot win a game, where your opposite controls the rules. You either play with no regard to their rules or you lose. Trying to cater to public opinion, is about as useful and sensible as trying to vote in a libertarian government.
What arre you talking about! I have done more to spread the cause of liberty and truth than you statist wannabe economists!
Take this week for example where:
1) I staged a protest rally in front of a VFW center to show those statist WWII baby killing jerks whose boss
2) I distributed realistic looking toy guns to kids in an inner city school to educate them on gun rights
3) I disowned my evil statist aunts who are public school teachers
4) I banned all my evil t statist customers (those postmen and road workers are so damn smug and one step away from baby killing anyway)
5) I spammed the evil Nazi -like statists Peter Schiff and Ron Paul with radical messages essentially telling them where to go.
6) Since I was in NYC, I thought it may be a good idea to tell the widows of dead firemen that their husbands were evil statist bastards, and if they were private enterprise firemen they would have saved more lives. I also thought it would be a good opportunity to educate them and say 9/11 may have been an inside job and any one who worked for the government is under suspicion of conspiracy.
I think sir, it is you egghead elitists who discredit us.
liberty student:To which I say, who cares? We're bypassing the MSM. That's how decentralization works. And Ron Paul wasn't hurt by the MSM. The more they attacked him, the more money he raised and people supported him. Ron Paul didn't do well in the primaries, because he ran an educational campaign, and the grassroots had no political experience or leadership, so instead of actually registering to vote, they made YouTubes of sign waving from a bridge. Lots of fun, but it won't win a nomination if you don't vote.
I think you're right, but you still haven't got there yet. And I think the MSM's treatment of Paul (ignoring him, slandering him) probably had an affect.
liberty student:Seriously by whom? The people it attacks and the who profit from the premises it undermines? Does AE need to make ground at Harvard or in the schoolyard? Does it need to be popular with the FED board of governors? Or Obama?
Sure. The more people who understand economics the better.
liberty student: Look, it's not a question of marketing. It is a question of education. Marketing will only take you so far, until someone out markets you. Knowing what you know now, could you ever be a statist? Probably not. No amount of pro-state marketing is going to work on someone like you who is educated.
Now consider the people on the margin, marketing will always have a place.
liberty student: Don't be ashamed or embarrassed by the truth telling power of AE, the moral good of the NAP or the fringe opinions held by people who want less government and more liberty. That sort of behaviour is self-defeating, and it is exactly what the statists count on to maintain consent. Shame is a powerful tool used by state and religion since the beginning of civilization because there are never enough swords, guns or eyeballs to keep everyone in line. So they count on us to rat out our neighbors or to discourage free thinkers, to label each other crazy, or to shun those who pursue unconventional decisions.
Its not being ashamed of AE or libertarianism, heterodox schools are bound to attract the fringe, its simply a matter of knowing the affects these people will have. It doesn't make any difference how it should be.
liberty student: I changed it because it was a lie and because statements like that aren't in line with the community guidelines. LvMI reserves the right to moderate what it published on its website. Basic exercise of property rights.
I never said you shouldn't have done it, but it did make an LvMI member look bad, which could damage the credibility of the LvMI.
liberty student:And that is what we seek to change. But I maintain, you cannot win a game, where your opposite controls the rules. You either play with no regard to their rules or you lose. Trying to cater to public opinion, is about as useful and sensible as trying to vote in a libertarian government.
Public opinion is going to be relevant independently of government, I think it would be best to be look "respectable."
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
It is a sad day whenever Austrian economics is relegated to a discipline of libertarian-apologetics.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
it's not like the Mises Institute was started by an anarchist or anything - reality check.
Poptech:How does misusing words "slap someone in the face"? It just makes you look like you never took an English class
How did I misuse those words?
My assertion is reductio ad absurdum. For you accept that people cannot govern themselves, yet nations [ which are more or less masses of people ] somehow can. It does not follow that it cannot be true for the individual yet it can be true for the masses.
Dondoolee: I think sir, it is you egghead elitists who discredit us.
Why, you make Friedrich Hayek look like Friedrich Engels!
liberty student:I think your bigoted remarks on this forum have done more to discredit Austrian Economics, LvMI and libertarianism than anything any other regular contributor has posted
Be that as it may, I've since retracted both those comments and views and offered an apology to the concerned party. Perhaps of more importance is the fact that I am but a young student of economics (albeit one interest in a future in acadamia). On the other hand, the followings of both Rothbard and Hoppe (amongst others) should imply a greater responsbility on their behalf when it comes to status of Austrian economics. Whether it be calling Gary Becker an "intellectual criminal", Friedrich Hayek (one of, if not the, most important Austrian economists and defenders liberty) names such as "confused" and "unsystematic", calling Don Lavoie a user of "LSD" or calling Milton Friedman (one of the most capable economists ever) a "statist" who lacks "principles" the self described Rothbardians have tarnished the reputations of Mises, Menger, Hayek, Lachmann and Kirzner.
laminustacitus:It is a sad day whenever Austrian economics is relegated to a discipline of libertarian-apologetics.
And yet, unfortunately the term "Austrian economics" is all too often used, by its alleged proponents to be a synonym for "libertarian economics", whatever the last term means. As I said, the Austrian school is a very serious set of ideas and contains numerous progressive research programmes, and yet these are being eclipsed by the alleged "hate of the state" that its "layman proponents" claim to have.
AJ:The problem I notice every few days on these forums is that somehow people end up with the impression concerning AnCap that somethings will be decreed or banned, and that confusion is often at the core of their rejection of it.
I chalk it up to mere harmless speculation. I mean lets face it we won't have anarchy tomorrow but it is fun to speculate what it would be like.
liberty student: You can find dozens of threads where marxists of every sort show up and challenge ancap, and end up leaving with their hat in their hand.
Marxists clearly don't know what they are talking about. But it seems everytime I discuss it I get this typical response and people are unable to respond to my questions.
"I don't have to validate a free society to you, because I don't know what it will look like. You have taken the positive position that a state is necessary. the burden of proof lies with you."
liberty student:Both statements are incorrect.
Not at all. In an Anarchists society no one has to listen to anyone thus no "law" would be established.
liberty student:Man has organized by establishing law. Government have done little to organize people.
The whole world is covered in governments not anarchist societies with agreed upon laws (which doesn't make any sense).
liberty student:Anarchy is "without rulers". Somalia is not in a state of voluntarism. As you said, there are violent war lords. That is not at all what we are talking about. But there is an excellent paper over at the Independent Institute which explains the advancements in the standard of living in Somalia under decentralized rule. If you need help finding it, let me know.
Anarchy (Defined) - "absence of government".
Somalia clearly has an absence of government. In the absence of government no sort of "voluntarism" can be enforced. Which is why any sort of anarcho-capitalism is wishful thinking at best.
liberty student:Their targets are prohibited from protecting themselves. That said, what they do is no different than what any government does. It depends money at the barrel of a gun.
Not all the targets. What governments are pirating vessels?
liberty student:When 19 men can attack you and kill thousands, due to the capacity of technology to magnify violence, it is not cheaper unless we pretend it is still the 18th century.
The 19 men did not inflict any military damage. In an anarchist state, if someone has no morals and do not care about civilian casualties this would not slow them down.
liberty student:This is a nonsense statement. Government doesn't own anything. Government is not a person, and only individuals can homestead (originally appropriate) property.
Who owns the U.S. government buildings and the property they sit on?
liberty student:What does this mean? Either you support Jefferson's assertion that there is a right to secession (a control of your own property and sovereign individual) or there is not. If you claim there is no individual right of secession, then you have admitted that the American revolution was illegal and unjust. Take your pick.
The "legality" of the revolution is irrelevant as it took force to be successful. "Unjust" is a subjective and irrelevant.
liberty student:Semantics. The force is ultimately lethal. Thousands of dead muslims since 9/11 can attest to the lethality of the state use of force.
The force is only lethal if you commit acts killing innocents, in 911's case thousands.
liberty student:What part about this false notion of rights do you not understand? Under the state, you have no property rights. In 1791, Washington was already going to war with the American people under the influence of Alexander Hamilton so they could secure funding to grow and enrich the federal state. The friggin ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution yet. The state uses violence, to claim title to all property, including all persons.
So anyone can own my property?
liberty student:The state doesn't do that. They promise to do that, as part of the social contract, but you have no legal recourse or compensation if they don't catch the bad guys, or don't return your property. It's a bogus contract, because one party has no obligation to fulfill their half of the deal in return for funding and fealty.
Why would I have legal recourse against the state which did not steal my property? Everytime I have called 911, the police have showed up. Last month my bike was stolen and the police located it a few days later.
liberty student:It is violence. You're just comfortable pretending it is not.
No it is not, you use the term to try and manipulate people to your view.
Poptech: In an Anarchists society no one has to listen to anyone thus no "law" would be established.
In an Anarchists society no one has to listen to anyone thus no "law" would be established.
So people being rational with no coercive monopoly will not rationalize law the way law has been rationalized since it's beginnings. And thus rational people will not voluntarily adhere to natural law or in other words, a negative liberty approach (refrain from initiating physical aggression). Poptech, that sounds real rational [sarcasm].
I think your mantra is pin-down by the word "has". If you are not coerced, then you can't follow the law. For in the beginning and end this is really about your inadequacies or potential maturation Poptech.
liberty student:What statists think about libertarians is irrelevant.
Conservatives are not statists!
Conservatism (defined) - "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."
Statism (defined) - "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
No definition of libertarianism includes the absence of the state or mentions anything about "non-aggression".
Libertarianism (defined) - "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action"
Libertarianism (defined) - "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens"
Libertarianism (defined) - "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state"
Libertarianism (defined) - "advocate of individual responsibility: somebody who believes in the doctrine of free will"
Angurse:Are you implying that a warlord is more likely to lie than a government representative?
Yes
Poptech:Yes
And thats absurd.
But still irrelevant.