-
"Potential to aggress another is irrelevant, the aggression has to take place to be relevant." This is beautifully put.
-
@liberty student, thanks. Will do some digging there. @Libertyandlife, yeah, I get that. I am just wondering how you go from Issue X to <application of voluntaryism across the board for all issues>.
-
I am going through this thread and studying it and want to make sure I get all the information I can out of it. Thank you all so much for your contributions thusfar and I hope to hear more! @James, in the interest of not assuming I know what you mean and running with it, could you elaborate on this? "Start with a basic principle. There is such
-
What about those who support a more moderate position? Using the gun control example, instead of supporting outright ban of all firearms, they support registrations, regulations, restricted carry, and bans on only some weapons. How do you guys argue those points? Thanks for all the replies so far :)
-
It seems any time that I try to counter the "guns kill people" argument with "cars kill people" argument, they go to a "well cars are for transportation; guns are for hurting/killing people" or "WHAT ARE YOU? NUTS? WE NEED CARS!" or even still the "Yeah, I agree with you, we should also have stricter government
-
I find that when any discussion of political nature comes up, I have a hard time articulating my stance. Say for instance, some issue (e.g., gun control, taxation, business regulation, etc.) comes up, I have a hard time trying to defend my position. I find it hard to bring up the philosophy of no government or if nothing else, why government is not