@BearWindAppleyard Well, the ad itself is directed to the Independent Thinkers, as said in there, which means it is supposed to be just a commentary for libertarians (and perhaps anarchists). However, if you think a commentary magazine tells others how to think, then it is your mind, I can't change your mind.
There's no such thing as an independent thinker. We are all dependent on the environment for our ideas. If independent thought ever existed, then a hunter a thousand years ago would have had the idea to become a nuclear physicist.
Are you an independent thinker? Do what all the other independent thinkers do! Follow the independent thinker crowd and subscribe to our independent-thinking magazine so our independent thinkers can tell you what our independent-thinking corporate overlords tell us to tell you to think!
Just kidding, actually ... I like Reason, but I am not a fan of crowing about being "independent."
@xWren You have Ron Paul and George Carlin videos so our thinking is alike. Look at who funds reasontv! The republicans (excluding the pauls) and not your friends, unless you are multimillionaire.
@PluripotentBrain Libertarians do not believe the state is not necessary; they recognize the purpose of the state is, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, to secure individual rights. Period. If you think a state is required for something other than that, then you think very poorly of your fellow man (and hopefully, of yourself, else you're also a terrible elitist).
@pudgenet - there is more than one type of libertarian. I feel that the logical conclusion of libertarianism is no government at all because even the smallest government does everything at the point of a gun, which is immoral and only serves to attract others to take advantage of that power.
@furyofbongos I know very few of that type of libertarian, and they are really anarchists. We need minimal government in order to secure individual rights. Yes, that means we cede a small part of our liberty -- such as being forced to pay taxes -- but as long as get greater liberty in return, it's a fair trade: without govt, we essentially have no protection for our liberty except what we can defend with our own two hands. You want the point of a gun? Get rid of govt and that's all you'll have.
Hi. I'm kind of new to Libertarianism (I don't really identify myself as one, but I tend to lean towards it.) Right now I'm interested in the Libertarian view on taxes. I understand that Libertarians don't like needless spending (who would?) What is the average Libertarian definition of "needFULL" spending though?
Like, to me, things like public schools, roads/highways, police/fire department etc., all sound pretty tax worthy.
@JohnKiller118 To put it in very simple terms, taxes are based on the use of coercion by the state in order to acquire funds. Coercion is when threats of or use of violence is mandated to acquire funds for the state. Basically, to use the 'invisible gun' metaphor, the state is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay them. What happens when you don't pay taxes? You're thrown in a cage. Libertarians are basically against the use of coercion by the state on its citizens. (con't)
@JohnKiller118 (con't) In terms of some of the examples you mentioned, there are many libertarians that argue against those programs as well, some basic arguments are: public education encourages statist propaganda and devotion to statist ideals, roads/highways are poorly maintained by public works because of lack of competition, privated fire departments have functioned in the past, and police exist to protect individual rights and their property, not serve as the state's strongmen.
@JohnKiller118 There is no "official" libertarian stance on taxes, but the general idea is that one should be able to keep the fruits of one's own labor to be spent however one wishes, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. So taxes, if possible, should be voluntary, if not eliminated. People ought to pay their own way as much as possible, so Peter should not have to pay for Paul's children's education...but he can if he wants to.
@JohnKiller118 Now when it comes to "critical" services, there is a fallacy that if the government didn't provide it, there would be this terrible gap in society and the private market wouldn't be able to fill the void. But in most (perhaps all) cases, the private sector can provide the same or better service for less money. The best roads in Florida, for example, are on the Disney properties and they are subsidized (voluntarily) by tourists but anyone can use them.
@JohnKiller118 "Like, to me, things like public schools, roads/highways, police/fire department etc., all sound pretty tax worthy."
Only if they a. increase liberty and b. cannot reasonably be accomplished without government.
For example, you can debate over whether fire service is better handled privately or publicly (and this may depend on the community). But there's no serious debate that police MUST be done by government: you can't have competing law enforcement, where might makes right.
@pudgenet Have you considered the ideas of people like David Friedman and Roderick Long? Competing law enforcement wouldn't necessarily be a matter of "might makes right" - in fact market demand could well put unpopular renegade cops out of business, and peaceful conflict resolution would be in the best interest of everyone.
Personally I think local democratic defence might be a better solution than market defence, but a big overarching state police has definitely shown itself to be a disaster.
@ConscientiousMind Consider Seattlites collectively agreeing that driving SUVs and light trucks is punishable. Now the suburbs say, screw you, we want and need our vehicles, and if you try to punish us, we'll punish you back. There is no law, no right or wrong, only might-makes-right.
Such a situation is untenable. It cannot work. You end up with no rights except that which you can enforce through might, no matter how much people want to believe otherwise.
@pudgenet - I would respectfully suggest watching some Walter Block videos, he does a good job demonstrating the details of how it can work better w/out government. I must also say that I have a bit of trouble with the logic of "we need to submit to having our property stolen by a group of people in order to have those same people protect our property from being stolen".
@furyofbongos No. If there is no govt, there is no collective agreement on laws; without that, there is no securing of liberty except through force, so only the strong have true protection of their rights. That means there's a significant and direct loss of liberty -- across the majority of the population -- without that minimal govt. to secure individual rights.
@pudgenet You put the cart before the horse. The reason why societies exist in the first place is because they agree on common laws, and they always include prohibition of murder, theft, fraud etc. Governments come later to serve as a monopoly provider of enforcement, legislation and arbitration.
I suggest you read "The Obviousness of Anarchy" by John Hasnas. He illustrates perfectly why anarchy can work in the real world because it does work in everyday life.
@ConscientiousMind Without govt there is no such thing as laws, except those enforced by those with might. There is no agreement on many laws. Consider the obviousness of no agreement on whether abortion is murder. So my police arrest your doctors for murder, your police arrest my police for false arrest ... it cannot work. Anarchy is a sophomoric fantasy.
@pudgenet Laws don't have to be enforced by governments to be effective (look up Lex mercatoria), because it's often in the best interest of everyone to agree to common practices. People generally get along really well and can resolve their disputes peacefully.
I would like to continue this debate, but every time it's explained to you how laws don't require governments, your response seems to be "But laws require governments!" If you're truly interested, look up the aforementioned Hasnas essay.
@ConscientiousMind "Laws don't have to be enforced by governments to be effective (look up Lex mercatoria), because it's often in the best interest of everyone to agree to common practices"
You're missing the point. Without govt we will have many laws that MANY people do NOT agree to. Sure, we'll agree on a few basics, but there will be many big ones that we won't agree on.
And you NEVER explained how laws don't require govt: you merely asserted it. I am the only one doing any explaining.
@pudgenet As for the disagreements among people, why should there be uniform laws everywhere? If you're serious about that, you would want a global government, which would have to be democratic to work properly, which would require common agreements among the people, in which case you don't need a global government.
If you want unity, inform, educate and learn. Imposing laws on other communities is not only despotic but impractical - true change can only come from the bottom up.
You're still confused, though I've been clear: I am talking about DIFFERENT laws in the SAME places. You imagine groups of people in the same areas will come to agreement and get to live as they wish, but that's nonsensical fantasy: there will be major conflicts, and without a system for people to come together to agree on common laws for all in that area, it can't work.
@pudgenet No, all that implies is that some people will rub others the wrong way - things like abortion are ultimately minor issues. Societies form because of unity so laws will mostly be common and in most cases will be based on property rights and individual autonomy.
You're committing the nirvana fallacy here: nobody's saying anarchical societies would be perfect. They would, however, be the most practical solution of preserving liberty. Look at Xeer law in Somalia: it's flawed but it works.
@pudgenet You're talking about essentially a non-issue - how can you vote to take away rights in a stateless society? I'm not sure we're even talking about the same things - anarchy isn't a collection of mini-democracies. Read Hasnas' article if you haven't.
As for Somalia, its substandard cultural practices (religiousity etc.) contribute to its success. But that wouldn't be improved by the presence of a government - in fact, things have gotten way better since Barre was overthrown.
@ConscientiousMind "how can you vote to take away rights in a stateless society?"
Simple. You get enough people together to say any land in excess of N acres belongs to the community, and they hire people to enforce that. How are you not getting this?
@pudgenet That, by definition, IS a government - an organization that believes it can legitimately exert force on a geographical area. Your solution to that is apparently to have an even bigger government stopping those people from doing so, only one that's kind and righteous and protects rights the way you want it to.
(Btw, I find it funny how so many libertarians think owning huge tracts of land is the most important individual right that must be protected at any cost, but whatever.)
Exactly! You can't get away from it. You can't wish it away, no matter how hard you click your heels.
"an even bigger government"
Yes, I call it the U.S. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the alternatives, because -- even though often ignored -- it is required to protect individual rights.
"so many libertarians think owning huge tracts of land is the most important individual right"
@pudgenet I'm not advocating wishful thinking, but active participation, non-violent action and education. Even if most people are authoritarian, at least you and I are not (I'd like to think so), so education can make a difference.
I think your view is very pessimistic, because if you can't have liberty on a small scale(anarchy) then you'll never have it on a large scale(minarchy). There's a reason why governments don't stay small for very long.
You are advocating a society which cannot exist except through fantasy.
I am all for education, and the more people who believe in freedom, the better. But there's no evidence of any sort that we could ever get to the point where enough people agree that we won't need government. It's not pessimism any more than a belief for the need of police -- private or public -- is pessimism: human nature has never changed.
@pudgenet On the contrary, anarchy can exist because it has existed. Take medieval Iceland and some medieval towns in continental Europe. During the Spanish Civil War there were many voluntary socialist areas. None of them were perfect but they worked, and were more ethically sound than any coercive nation-state.
What's curious is that you charge anarchists with fantastic thinking, while hoping that the government will somehow stay within its boundaries. How well has that worked out so far?
@ConscientiousMind "if you can't have liberty on a small scale(anarchy) then you'll never have it on a large scale(minarchy)"
I am saying you will have MUCH LESS liberty without govt. We have a govt that is sworn to be limited and to uphold individual liberty; that is a HUGE achievement. We will see the health care mandate fall in the Supreme Court. As tenuous as that is, it couldn't happen anywhere else. If we can make our govt abide by its own law, we'll have the best possible outcome.
@pudgenet Btw, just so it's clear, I'm not thinking of a magic button scenario where the government suddenly disappears and we'll have anarchy (which is why Somalia is not the best example of anarchy). It has to be a long journey of convincing people that libertarian non-aggression is generally the best way to act and that the government is not the solution to social problems. In that sense the means are not disconnected from the ends - anarchy is not an end product, but a general praxis.
@pudgenet You may argue that an anarchical society would be impossible to form unless most people agree to be libertarians, which I agree with - we must educate people now and forever. However, the same problem applies to minarchy. You will never get the state to fit inside a matchbox unless that's what people want, unless you advocate some sort of Libertarian Marxist-Leninist-style vanguard party to take over Capitol Hill.
@ConscientiousMind "You may argue that an anarchical society would be impossible to form unless most people agree to be libertarians"
Yes, I am living in the real world, where anarchy is LESS protective of rights than the current U.S. govt, because people are NOT libertarians, and WILL and DO choose to infringe on others' rights.
Incorrect. I am not saying they won't be perfect, I am saying they are terrible. Anarchies are FAR less protective of individual rights than our current system in the U.S., with all its flaws.
Xeer law only works as well as it does, which isn't very well, and worse than the U.S., because Somalia is essentially a monoculture. What I've been describing is the problem of significantly different groups living together.
I just resubscribed after a year gap after 3 years subscription. I was busy and poor. But i read reason, but often i have already read the article on-line, but you have to support reason. In political scene of buying votes, flavor of the day doomsday predictions, and the general inaccuracy of US policy reason has been constant and correct.
@mathers3000 Mathers3000 is right. Everyone knows the Koch brothers used a time machine (that probably runs on oil) to pay off Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. When will the Koch brothers reveal this time machine (made with corporate money no doubt) and end their oppression on the working class throughout history??? Now to go spank one out to Keith Olbermann reruns on my tivo.
I think I am. I cannot be swayed right away.
felpaluche 2 months ago
Meh, just looks like a wing of the republican party.
I'm perfectly fine with my "class warfare", thank you very much.
Roxz80 7 months ago
"sick of people telling you how to think? Then buy our product (...where we tell you how to think)"
BearWindAppleyard 10 months ago
@BearWindAppleyard Well, the ad itself is directed to the Independent Thinkers, as said in there, which means it is supposed to be just a commentary for libertarians (and perhaps anarchists). However, if you think a commentary magazine tells others how to think, then it is your mind, I can't change your mind.
AnarchisThinker 10 months ago
Are you an independent thinker? Then read our magazine for independent thinkers just like you!
Anyone else find this ironic too?
FishofMuu 11 months ago 2
There's no such thing as an independent thinker. We are all dependent on the environment for our ideas. If independent thought ever existed, then a hunter a thousand years ago would have had the idea to become a nuclear physicist.
xchainlinkx 11 months ago
Can i subscribe and get the magazine shipped to Sweden ?
h4tefury85 11 months ago
@h4tefury85
Yes
graffjon 10 months ago
"Are you an independent thinker? ...You need Reason"
I love the irony.
DougShatter 11 months ago 3
If only Reason Magazine had some balls and seriously covered real issues like Alex Jones does....
bofors7715 11 months ago
@bofors7715 Really?? Alex Jones is a complete moron. Only the stupid sheep listen to him.
SharkDude1 11 months ago
I subscribe on my Kindle :)
clcproduction 11 months ago
i already subscribed!
Chad9976 11 months ago
I saw one of these ads air on Fox Business during Stossel's program.
Are they airing on other networks?
MooseOfReason 11 months ago
@mictheorist I hope you didn't spend too much time coming up with that zinger.
ih8ronpaulh8ers 11 months ago
I came here just to check out the trolls' comments. They did not disappoint.
elsquibbs 11 months ago
Are you a fool who falls for corporate psyops bullshit? Try Reason!
depro9 11 months ago
@depro9 - Are you a fool who falls for Politicians' bullshit? Try depro9
Slipknotyk06 11 months ago 2
One sentence to piss off everyone: I read Reason and I'll probably vote for Obama again. /dealwithit.gif
msudave54 11 months ago
@msudave54 I'll raise you. I'll vote for the candidate who promises to raise taxes.
Violent2aShadow 11 months ago
Are you an independent thinker? Do what all the other independent thinkers do! Follow the independent thinker crowd and subscribe to our independent-thinking magazine so our independent thinkers can tell you what our independent-thinking corporate overlords tell us to tell you to think!
Just kidding, actually ... I like Reason, but I am not a fan of crowing about being "independent."
pudgenet 11 months ago
Buying a gun may do more for protecting your free thinking than buying a magazine!
MsWanderer1 11 months ago
@xWren You have Ron Paul and George Carlin videos so our thinking is alike. Look at who funds reasontv! The republicans (excluding the pauls) and not your friends, unless you are multimillionaire.
mathers3000 11 months ago
Yes because those of us who believe in the necessity of a state are not independent thinkers *rolls eyes*
PluripotentBrain 11 months ago
@PluripotentBrain Libertarians do not believe the state is not necessary; they recognize the purpose of the state is, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, to secure individual rights. Period. If you think a state is required for something other than that, then you think very poorly of your fellow man (and hopefully, of yourself, else you're also a terrible elitist).
pudgenet 11 months ago 15
@pudgenet - there is more than one type of libertarian. I feel that the logical conclusion of libertarianism is no government at all because even the smallest government does everything at the point of a gun, which is immoral and only serves to attract others to take advantage of that power.
furyofbongos 11 months ago
@furyofbongos I know very few of that type of libertarian, and they are really anarchists. We need minimal government in order to secure individual rights. Yes, that means we cede a small part of our liberty -- such as being forced to pay taxes -- but as long as get greater liberty in return, it's a fair trade: without govt, we essentially have no protection for our liberty except what we can defend with our own two hands. You want the point of a gun? Get rid of govt and that's all you'll have.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet "such as being forced to pay taxes"
Hi. I'm kind of new to Libertarianism (I don't really identify myself as one, but I tend to lean towards it.) Right now I'm interested in the Libertarian view on taxes. I understand that Libertarians don't like needless spending (who would?) What is the average Libertarian definition of "needFULL" spending though?
Like, to me, things like public schools, roads/highways, police/fire department etc., all sound pretty tax worthy.
Pointless wars aren't.
JohnKiller118 11 months ago
@JohnKiller118 To put it in very simple terms, taxes are based on the use of coercion by the state in order to acquire funds. Coercion is when threats of or use of violence is mandated to acquire funds for the state. Basically, to use the 'invisible gun' metaphor, the state is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay them. What happens when you don't pay taxes? You're thrown in a cage. Libertarians are basically against the use of coercion by the state on its citizens. (con't)
LunaticFringe20 11 months ago
@JohnKiller118 (con't) In terms of some of the examples you mentioned, there are many libertarians that argue against those programs as well, some basic arguments are: public education encourages statist propaganda and devotion to statist ideals, roads/highways are poorly maintained by public works because of lack of competition, privated fire departments have functioned in the past, and police exist to protect individual rights and their property, not serve as the state's strongmen.
LunaticFringe20 11 months ago
@JohnKiller118 There is no "official" libertarian stance on taxes, but the general idea is that one should be able to keep the fruits of one's own labor to be spent however one wishes, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. So taxes, if possible, should be voluntary, if not eliminated. People ought to pay their own way as much as possible, so Peter should not have to pay for Paul's children's education...but he can if he wants to.
kev3d 11 months ago
@JohnKiller118 Now when it comes to "critical" services, there is a fallacy that if the government didn't provide it, there would be this terrible gap in society and the private market wouldn't be able to fill the void. But in most (perhaps all) cases, the private sector can provide the same or better service for less money. The best roads in Florida, for example, are on the Disney properties and they are subsidized (voluntarily) by tourists but anyone can use them.
kev3d 11 months ago
@JohnKiller118 "Like, to me, things like public schools, roads/highways, police/fire department etc., all sound pretty tax worthy."
Only if they a. increase liberty and b. cannot reasonably be accomplished without government.
For example, you can debate over whether fire service is better handled privately or publicly (and this may depend on the community). But there's no serious debate that police MUST be done by government: you can't have competing law enforcement, where might makes right.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet Have you considered the ideas of people like David Friedman and Roderick Long? Competing law enforcement wouldn't necessarily be a matter of "might makes right" - in fact market demand could well put unpopular renegade cops out of business, and peaceful conflict resolution would be in the best interest of everyone.
Personally I think local democratic defence might be a better solution than market defence, but a big overarching state police has definitely shown itself to be a disaster.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind Consider Seattlites collectively agreeing that driving SUVs and light trucks is punishable. Now the suburbs say, screw you, we want and need our vehicles, and if you try to punish us, we'll punish you back. There is no law, no right or wrong, only might-makes-right.
Such a situation is untenable. It cannot work. You end up with no rights except that which you can enforce through might, no matter how much people want to believe otherwise.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet - I would respectfully suggest watching some Walter Block videos, he does a good job demonstrating the details of how it can work better w/out government. I must also say that I have a bit of trouble with the logic of "we need to submit to having our property stolen by a group of people in order to have those same people protect our property from being stolen".
furyofbongos 11 months ago
@furyofbongos No. If there is no govt, there is no collective agreement on laws; without that, there is no securing of liberty except through force, so only the strong have true protection of their rights. That means there's a significant and direct loss of liberty -- across the majority of the population -- without that minimal govt. to secure individual rights.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet You put the cart before the horse. The reason why societies exist in the first place is because they agree on common laws, and they always include prohibition of murder, theft, fraud etc. Governments come later to serve as a monopoly provider of enforcement, legislation and arbitration.
I suggest you read "The Obviousness of Anarchy" by John Hasnas. He illustrates perfectly why anarchy can work in the real world because it does work in everyday life.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind Without govt there is no such thing as laws, except those enforced by those with might. There is no agreement on many laws. Consider the obviousness of no agreement on whether abortion is murder. So my police arrest your doctors for murder, your police arrest my police for false arrest ... it cannot work. Anarchy is a sophomoric fantasy.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet Laws don't have to be enforced by governments to be effective (look up Lex mercatoria), because it's often in the best interest of everyone to agree to common practices. People generally get along really well and can resolve their disputes peacefully.
I would like to continue this debate, but every time it's explained to you how laws don't require governments, your response seems to be "But laws require governments!" If you're truly interested, look up the aforementioned Hasnas essay.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "Laws don't have to be enforced by governments to be effective (look up Lex mercatoria), because it's often in the best interest of everyone to agree to common practices"
You're missing the point. Without govt we will have many laws that MANY people do NOT agree to. Sure, we'll agree on a few basics, but there will be many big ones that we won't agree on.
And you NEVER explained how laws don't require govt: you merely asserted it. I am the only one doing any explaining.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet As for the disagreements among people, why should there be uniform laws everywhere? If you're serious about that, you would want a global government, which would have to be democratic to work properly, which would require common agreements among the people, in which case you don't need a global government.
If you want unity, inform, educate and learn. Imposing laws on other communities is not only despotic but impractical - true change can only come from the bottom up.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "why should there be uniform laws everywhere?"
You're still confused, though I've been clear: I am talking about DIFFERENT laws in the SAME places. You imagine groups of people in the same areas will come to agreement and get to live as they wish, but that's nonsensical fantasy: there will be major conflicts, and without a system for people to come together to agree on common laws for all in that area, it can't work.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet No, all that implies is that some people will rub others the wrong way - things like abortion are ultimately minor issues. Societies form because of unity so laws will mostly be common and in most cases will be based on property rights and individual autonomy.
You're committing the nirvana fallacy here: nobody's saying anarchical societies would be perfect. They would, however, be the most practical solution of preserving liberty. Look at Xeer law in Somalia: it's flawed but it works.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "ings like abortion are ultimately minor issues"
No, they are not. You're fooling yourself only.
"laws will mostly be common"
And many of the ones that are NOT will be cause for strife. You're not making a case.
"in most cases will be based on property rights and individual autonomy"
You're dreaming. In the real world, many, if not most, people vote to take away our rights. That won't change if we get rid of governments.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet You're talking about essentially a non-issue - how can you vote to take away rights in a stateless society? I'm not sure we're even talking about the same things - anarchy isn't a collection of mini-democracies. Read Hasnas' article if you haven't.
As for Somalia, its substandard cultural practices (religiousity etc.) contribute to its success. But that wouldn't be improved by the presence of a government - in fact, things have gotten way better since Barre was overthrown.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind (contribute to its lack of success, I should say)
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "how can you vote to take away rights in a stateless society?"
Simple. You get enough people together to say any land in excess of N acres belongs to the community, and they hire people to enforce that. How are you not getting this?
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet That, by definition, IS a government - an organization that believes it can legitimately exert force on a geographical area. Your solution to that is apparently to have an even bigger government stopping those people from doing so, only one that's kind and righteous and protects rights the way you want it to.
(Btw, I find it funny how so many libertarians think owning huge tracts of land is the most important individual right that must be protected at any cost, but whatever.)
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "That, by definition, IS a government"
Exactly! You can't get away from it. You can't wish it away, no matter how hard you click your heels.
"an even bigger government"
Yes, I call it the U.S. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the alternatives, because -- even though often ignored -- it is required to protect individual rights.
"so many libertarians think owning huge tracts of land is the most important individual right"
I am not among them.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet I'm not advocating wishful thinking, but active participation, non-violent action and education. Even if most people are authoritarian, at least you and I are not (I'd like to think so), so education can make a difference.
I think your view is very pessimistic, because if you can't have liberty on a small scale(anarchy) then you'll never have it on a large scale(minarchy). There's a reason why governments don't stay small for very long.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "I'm not advocating wishful thinking"
You are advocating a society which cannot exist except through fantasy.
I am all for education, and the more people who believe in freedom, the better. But there's no evidence of any sort that we could ever get to the point where enough people agree that we won't need government. It's not pessimism any more than a belief for the need of police -- private or public -- is pessimism: human nature has never changed.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet On the contrary, anarchy can exist because it has existed. Take medieval Iceland and some medieval towns in continental Europe. During the Spanish Civil War there were many voluntary socialist areas. None of them were perfect but they worked, and were more ethically sound than any coercive nation-state.
What's curious is that you charge anarchists with fantastic thinking, while hoping that the government will somehow stay within its boundaries. How well has that worked out so far?
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "if you can't have liberty on a small scale(anarchy) then you'll never have it on a large scale(minarchy)"
I am saying you will have MUCH LESS liberty without govt. We have a govt that is sworn to be limited and to uphold individual liberty; that is a HUGE achievement. We will see the health care mandate fall in the Supreme Court. As tenuous as that is, it couldn't happen anywhere else. If we can make our govt abide by its own law, we'll have the best possible outcome.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@pudgenet Btw, just so it's clear, I'm not thinking of a magic button scenario where the government suddenly disappears and we'll have anarchy (which is why Somalia is not the best example of anarchy). It has to be a long journey of convincing people that libertarian non-aggression is generally the best way to act and that the government is not the solution to social problems. In that sense the means are not disconnected from the ends - anarchy is not an end product, but a general praxis.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
@pudgenet You may argue that an anarchical society would be impossible to form unless most people agree to be libertarians, which I agree with - we must educate people now and forever. However, the same problem applies to minarchy. You will never get the state to fit inside a matchbox unless that's what people want, unless you advocate some sort of Libertarian Marxist-Leninist-style vanguard party to take over Capitol Hill.
ConscientiousMind 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ConscientiousMind "You may argue that an anarchical society would be impossible to form unless most people agree to be libertarians"
Yes, I am living in the real world, where anarchy is LESS protective of rights than the current U.S. govt, because people are NOT libertarians, and WILL and DO choose to infringe on others' rights.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@ConscientiousMind "You're committing the nirvana fallacy"
Incorrect. I am not saying they won't be perfect, I am saying they are terrible. Anarchies are FAR less protective of individual rights than our current system in the U.S., with all its flaws.
Xeer law only works as well as it does, which isn't very well, and worse than the U.S., because Somalia is essentially a monoculture. What I've been describing is the problem of significantly different groups living together.
pudgenet 11 months ago
@xWren Never herd of it, but now I have. Thanks for the good info.
mathers3000 11 months ago
I just resubscribed after a year gap after 3 years subscription. I was busy and poor. But i read reason, but often i have already read the article on-line, but you have to support reason. In political scene of buying votes, flavor of the day doomsday predictions, and the general inaccuracy of US policy reason has been constant and correct.
jetrpg22 11 months ago
Subscribed!
RangerMcFriendlie 11 months ago
favorited
yougiberishtube 11 months ago
If you believe most the crap that the koch broth.. i mean reason.tv puts out. Then you are not an independent thinker.
mathers3000 11 months ago
@mathers3000 Mathers3000 is right. Everyone knows the Koch brothers used a time machine (that probably runs on oil) to pay off Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. When will the Koch brothers reveal this time machine (made with corporate money no doubt) and end their oppression on the working class throughout history??? Now to go spank one out to Keith Olbermann reruns on my tivo.
Thorbie 11 months ago 18
@Thorbie You get a "Crowning Moment of Funny" award for that.
shamgar001 11 months ago
shit...it didn't work.
luc649 11 months ago
WHY NO COMMENTS?OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IC! LOL1
nutty01 11 months ago
@nutty01 Because it's an ad?
Timasion 11 months ago
@nutty01 first
luc649 11 months ago