I find it funny how libertarians say its unfair for us to ask them to leave, because they live here too, and how its unfair that we get the entire area, while at the same time they wouldnt have a problem with property right. What if we (everyone who likes the idea of government) in an anarcho capitalist society simply bought the entire area and asked them to leave, would that also be unfair?
Oh you are without a doubt a total 100% "what can government do for me" liberal democrat. The social contract? There is one, it is called the Constitution. Nothing about democracy or socialism found there.
@AroundSun He addressed the constitution in the previous segment. You're just another one of those "my interpretation of the const. is the only correct one". Even the founders disagreed on interpretations. Jefferson even wrote that it had to be flexible enough to accomidate changes in society many years in the future. Funny folks like you ignore the parts of it you hate like the supremacy clause, right of congress to levy taxes. Pretend all you want, this isn't the 18th century any more.
"trace every acre of land (...) track down their descendents and give the land back to them"
Of course not. But if _they_ can prove that they rightfully own the land, then _of course_ it should be given back to them. If you can prove something is yours, then it is yours. Seems to be quite simple, no?
@blackplatypus Property is property because you have either produced it yourself (or in the case of raw resources and land, made it useful for humanity first), or have gotten it through trade or free gift from someone else, who in turn meets either of these conditions, and so on.
Property isn't just a social convention, it's an issue of justice, and causality (I caused this piece of resource to be useful to me or others, therefore it is mine, and no one else can logically claim it.)
Wait, you're asserting that property is theft (by claiming you have an "inalienable right" to a tree owned by someone else) and then claim that this is "solved" by assuming that property is theft? Circular reasoning much?
So because a large portion of the population might have taken land by force for a myriad of millenia, does that mean that this kind of behavior should be acceptable today and in the future? By that logic, since slavery as institution has existed for most of human history, written and unwritten, we as a collective unit of individuals should not condemn slavery because our ancestors had participated in this institution.
From wiki "Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity" America, like canada and india, were part of the British colonies , and America no longer wanted to be part of the british colonies for reasons I won't go into and formally declared their inpendence from the British via by signing the declararation of independence. Therefore , it was a succession.
@Pentazoid111 As he said succession is based on a belief that one has the legal right to withdraw - that was the argument made by the southern states in the US that they had a legal right. The founders of this country never claimed a legal right to break away from Britain, but they did claim a moral right to do so - the Declaration of Independence lays out those moral claims.
Ok great so you have now yourself have strip yourself of any right to complain about your government ever. Because as you pointed out there are myriad of other possible countries for you to live in. No more women's right, gay rights, no changes to the current state affairs ever. Yeah it works both ways.
@crazypants88 Of course I have the right to complain about the government -- more than that, I have the right to change what the government does by electing representatives who will do what I want them to do. Of course, I have to share that right with millions of other folks, but that's democracy for you.
The apartment analogy you made doesn't hold water as you explicitly agree to the contract involving the apartment as opposed to the social contract which is at best implicitly agreed upon.
@DavidJohnWellman The constitution can only be binding on 'US citizens' the US gov is the legitimate owner of the land it claims (just as the restaurant owner who expects payment for meals ordered--it's his place, so he gets to set the terms of use). Can you explain the reasoning behind the belief that the US gov is the legitimate owner of the land it claims?
"You're advocating that we trace every acre of land ..."
Not so. The fact that the state's land claims are illegitimate says nothing about what we should do about that fact. And the fact that it's practically difficult to return land to its rightful heirs does not render the property claim of the invader legitimate. So the objection stands: in most cases the state has no legitimate claim to the land it possesses, and so has no right to set the terms of its use.
I notice that you mentioned the objection I spelled out in my video: that social contracts (the explicit kind) are signed under duress, and are therefore void. Unfortunately you failed to address the objection. To do this you could either:
1. Show how the claim of duress is false
2. Show how contracts signed while under duress can be legitimate and binding.
@bitbutter Implicit in my response was that nobody was holding a gun to immigrants' heads and forcing them to enter the United States, nor was anyone holding a gun to parents' heads and forcing them to have children in the United States, thus giving them citizenship here.
@DavidJohnWellman The bandits in my hypothetical are also not forcing anyone to have children in the settlement, the residents are free to leave at any time. You can show how either:
1. The claim of duress is false (in both the case of the bandits and the state, or only in the case of the state)
2. Contracts signed under duress can be legitimate and binding.
Isn't it funny how The libertarian/randian arguments always ends up arguing for exactly what they don't like - an agreed upon system of rules and enforcement (ie a government!). They try to avoid this obvious conclusion by saying; 'well it would be an unwritten set of moral rules.' Really? I see loving couples arguing over where to go eat dinner, you think a whole society can come to agreement on an entire set of 'unwritten' un-enforceable laws??
@TZ3k "always ends up arguing for exactly what they don't like - an agreed upon system of rules and enforcement (ie a government!)."
Just to clarify: Libertarians are certainly not against rules, agreements or enforcement. They're against the initiation of force (or the threat thereof) against peaceful people. Governments systematically do that.
@bitbutter But the government doesn't necessarily initiate it (at least not oppressive ones), their use of force is a response, and also based on rules. Again, assuming that you don't hold a view that all the governments act like tyrannical dictators. You say that libertarians are not against rules but then complain about the use of force.
@Saukko31 "government doesn't necessarily initiate it (at least not oppressive ones), their use of force is a response"
All governments maintain threats of initiated force against peaceful people. To see this is true you can break it down: 1. The efficacy of law depends on the ultimate existence of threats of violence for non-compliance 2. Many laws (including tax laws) aim to modify the behaviour of peaceful people--that is, people who have not initiated force, or threatened to, themselves.
@bitbutter Just because someone is peaceful doesn't mean he's not doing something wrong. I could peacefully pick your pocket and take your keys without you even noticing it, than I could peacefully enter your home when no one is there and without aggression take everything you own. Or I could borrow that stuff from you, and when you come to claim it, I could peacefully decline to give it back.
@Pylo01 "I could peacefully pick your pocket and take your keys without you even noticing it"
Peaceful has a more specific meaning in the libertarian tradition: it means you're not deliberately violating another person's property rights (or threatening to). A person's property includes their body, and extends to inanimate objects too. I have this sense in mind when i talk about peaceful people. We can only identify aggression thanks to a prior idea of what a person's property rights are.
@bitbutter Oh well, if you get to define all the terms than you can go ahead and conclude that the state is evil. But those words mean nothing to me so you're essentially playing with your self.
@bitbutter I'd love to argue semantics with you, but I have better things to do. I'm sure you can find someone to take my place though so good luck and goodbye.
@Pylo01 Semantics is the study of meaning, so as far as reaching an understanding goes, it's pretty crucial. No problem though if you don't want to continue.
@Saukko31 (While I'm a libertarian I should add that agreement that govs are aggressors in the way I described doesn't necessarily establish the validity or desirability of libertarianism on it's own--a statist may maintain that gov is a 'necessary evil')
@bitbutter But wasn't this point already dealt with by DJW? You could as well say that all citizens maintain the threat of force against other peaceful citizens, i.e. I'm not allowed to go or behave how I want on private property, no matter how peaceful. But they, like government only act when rules are broken. I see no problem of maintaining a threat of use of force if done so according to law, restrictions apply also to the government, police, etc.
@Saukko31 In any community in which members are prepared to defend themselves, you're right: citizens do maintain threats of force. The crucial difference for Lib's is that the state maintains threats to _initiate_ force, not merely to use retaliatory force.
Aggression, in the lib tradition, is a concept that derives from the concept of property. Property rights allow us to identify when the initiation of force occurs--initiated force (aggression) is the violation of property rights.
@bitbutter We are starting to talk circles here. It is not a initiation of force. In my work I have to use certain clothes, if I don't do that, in the end, they can point me to the door. This is not an initiation of force, by agreeing to work there, I also have to obey the rules. I don't see any difference in that, and that I also have pay taxes.
You might be able to show that the state's threats are not aggression by establishing that the state is the rightful owner of the land its subjects live on. Libertarians generally advocate the homesteading principle--on which the state's land claim is invalid. I don't know of a theory of property rights under which the state's claims to vast areas of unused land, as well as land that was already homesteaded, are legitimate though.
@Saukko: "I see no problem of maintaining a threat of use of force if done so according to law,"
Is _any_ law an acceptable license for the use of force? I expect that you don't really believe this. I think you have moral intuitions about the acceptable use of force on an inter-personal level--and that these intuitions wouldn't change even if the laws did. I think there's a good chance that libertarianism will be a close ideological fit with these intuitions.
@bitbutter Actually, yes. Humans are not robots, we do not always behave rationally, we behave emotionally, impulsively. But I maintain that the use of force is only reactionary. We have law enforcement, and this actually frees me do to other things I want, instead of wasting time to guard my property by myself.
@Saukko31 "We have law enforcement, and this actually frees me do to other things I want, instead of wasting time to guard my property by myself."
Lib's are typically are very much in favour of laws and their enforcement too. What they're often less enthusiastic about is monopolies maintained by the threat of force--which is what current police forces throughout the world are. Under these conditions we can expect a lower quality product at a higher price, thanks to lack of competition.
@bitbutter Whether or not I agree with that, and I don't, that goes past your point I believe, whether it is publicly funded police or private security firm, they still maintain the same threat of force.
@Saukko31 "whether it is publicly funded police or private security firm, they still maintain the same threat of force."
Of course. Maybe I wasn't completely clear: I (like most libertarians ive spoken to) am not opposed to the use of force per se. What I'm opposed to is the _initiation_ of force (or the threat thereof) against peaceful people, and by that I mean against people who are not violating property rights, or threatening to.
You know what? This *is* a good idea! I've pretty much always been a socialist (a *real* socialist, not a "OMG Obama is a socialist"-socialist), and what always bugged me was that revolution (which I consider to be a legitimate act) was the only way out of tyranical situations, if you get my meaning. What we need is a "libertarian homeland", in the vein of Robert Heinlein. Since there's nothing left on Earth - Give them Mars! Isn't the conquest of such an inhospitable homeland the Randian ideal?
Holy Shit, it never ceases to amaze me the dumb ass arguments Libertarians come up with in order to promote their bullshit agenda. By the way, great video series.
@DavidJohnWellman - If that be the case, why stop there? To heck with your right to free speech. Speech hurts people. Did you know that... you know what... nevermind, I'll save it for my rebuttal.
Funny, I'm an authoritarian, statist totalitarianist too. I'm just having trouble reconciling my need to have dominion over everyone and everything with my compassion for my fellow man. Can you help me work through this?
Do libertarians actually shout and scream? It seems more likely that they dupe religious and racist nut jobs to do the shouting and screaming for them. Hence the teabaggers.
@jdbadboy The similarities between them stem from the fact that they're both anarchist groups that vigorously oppose any government that they're not in charge of. That is to say they claim to oppose all forms of government, until they get into power and they suddenly find it has some uses, then when they leave they're opposed to all forms of government again.
@coladict "That is to say they claim to oppose all forms of government, until they get into power and they suddenly find it has some uses,"
No. I think your confusion has to do with the fact that some who self identify as libertarians believe that the state is justified and necessary (usually minarchists)--the Libertarian political parties, or politicians like Ron Paul are an obvious example. Others believe that libertarianism is incompatible with the existence of the state.
@bitbutter the difference between the Pauls (both Rand and Ron) and the other right-wing anti-government advocates is that those two are honest. What I said with more words in my last comment was that most of those guys are complete hypocrites or liars (the Pauls not included).
I was always under the impression "might makes right" meant that, might makes right what ought to be wrong. Kind of like the victor records the history as they are the righteous ones defeating the wrong.
You think a fully libertarian society would last 20 years? They'd be whining and complaining about arbitrary bullshit so much that they'd starve to death within one month.
I find it funny how libertarians say its unfair for us to ask them to leave, because they live here too, and how its unfair that we get the entire area, while at the same time they wouldnt have a problem with property right. What if we (everyone who likes the idea of government) in an anarcho capitalist society simply bought the entire area and asked them to leave, would that also be unfair?
gulbirk 3 months ago
UR FAT U DONT MATTER
bannyloren100 4 months ago
"A true Red Planet." LOLZ!!!!!!!!
Activeassholeonpills 4 months ago
Oh you are without a doubt a total 100% "what can government do for me" liberal democrat. The social contract? There is one, it is called the Constitution. Nothing about democracy or socialism found there.
AroundSun 4 months ago
Comment removed
MaryJo1950 3 months ago
@AroundSun He addressed the constitution in the previous segment. You're just another one of those "my interpretation of the const. is the only correct one". Even the founders disagreed on interpretations. Jefferson even wrote that it had to be flexible enough to accomidate changes in society many years in the future. Funny folks like you ignore the parts of it you hate like the supremacy clause, right of congress to levy taxes. Pretend all you want, this isn't the 18th century any more.
MaryJo1950 3 months ago
Hey, can we not colonise mars ourselves? I'd rather try a new world and leave the libertarians to screw up this one.
stewie1974 7 months ago
Do we just add libertarians to the long list of people you simply can't argue with?
Racists, Creationists, Libertarians, Conspiricy Theroists...
stewie1974 7 months ago
Impressive debating.
SilvaZodiac 9 months ago
"trace every acre of land (...) track down their descendents and give the land back to them"
Of course not. But if _they_ can prove that they rightfully own the land, then _of course_ it should be given back to them. If you can prove something is yours, then it is yours. Seems to be quite simple, no?
fab006 11 months ago
@fab006
Define "yours"
Property is only property because we agree it is.
blackplatypus 9 months ago
@blackplatypus Property is property because you have either produced it yourself (or in the case of raw resources and land, made it useful for humanity first), or have gotten it through trade or free gift from someone else, who in turn meets either of these conditions, and so on.
Property isn't just a social convention, it's an issue of justice, and causality (I caused this piece of resource to be useful to me or others, therefore it is mine, and no one else can logically claim it.)
fab006 9 months ago
Wait, you're asserting that property is theft (by claiming you have an "inalienable right" to a tree owned by someone else) and then claim that this is "solved" by assuming that property is theft? Circular reasoning much?
fab006 11 months ago
So because a large portion of the population might have taken land by force for a myriad of millenia, does that mean that this kind of behavior should be acceptable today and in the future? By that logic, since slavery as institution has existed for most of human history, written and unwritten, we as a collective unit of individuals should not condemn slavery because our ancestors had participated in this institution.
Pentazoid111 11 months ago 4
@Pentazoid111 Of course conquest isn't acceptable today.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidJohnWellman "Of course conquest isn't acceptable today."
On your view isn't conquest acceptable if it leads to a morally superior outcome that refraining from conquest?
bitbutter 11 months ago
From wiki "Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity" America, like canada and india, were part of the British colonies , and America no longer wanted to be part of the british colonies for reasons I won't go into and formally declared their inpendence from the British via by signing the declararation of independence. Therefore , it was a succession.
Pentazoid111 11 months ago
@Pentazoid111 As he said succession is based on a belief that one has the legal right to withdraw - that was the argument made by the southern states in the US that they had a legal right. The founders of this country never claimed a legal right to break away from Britain, but they did claim a moral right to do so - the Declaration of Independence lays out those moral claims.
xexixk 8 months ago
Good video. Well done
billburns2 11 months ago
On mars? Wouldn't it be a better idea to just kinda send them to some kind of undersea colony?
Of course, it wouldn't be long until a class war breaks out and all that remains are citizens psychotically addicted to altering their own DNA
blackplatypus 11 months ago
Wasn't a Libertarian colony on Mars the plot of an old Heinlein novel?
ShadowPa1adin 11 months ago
@ShadowPa1adin That was the Moon. "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress."
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
Ok great so you have now yourself have strip yourself of any right to complain about your government ever. Because as you pointed out there are myriad of other possible countries for you to live in. No more women's right, gay rights, no changes to the current state affairs ever. Yeah it works both ways.
crazypants88 11 months ago
@crazypants88 Of course I have the right to complain about the government -- more than that, I have the right to change what the government does by electing representatives who will do what I want them to do. Of course, I have to share that right with millions of other folks, but that's democracy for you.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman So you can demand changes to the status quo but libertarians can't?
crazypants88 11 months ago
The apartment analogy you made doesn't hold water as you explicitly agree to the contract involving the apartment as opposed to the social contract which is at best implicitly agreed upon.
Contract are explicit agreements.
crazypants88 11 months ago
@crazypants88 The Constitution is pretty explicit, I think.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman The constitution can only be binding on 'US citizens' the US gov is the legitimate owner of the land it claims (just as the restaurant owner who expects payment for meals ordered--it's his place, so he gets to set the terms of use). Can you explain the reasoning behind the belief that the US gov is the legitimate owner of the land it claims?
bitbutter 11 months ago
"You're advocating that we trace every acre of land ..."
Not so. The fact that the state's land claims are illegitimate says nothing about what we should do about that fact. And the fact that it's practically difficult to return land to its rightful heirs does not render the property claim of the invader legitimate. So the objection stands: in most cases the state has no legitimate claim to the land it possesses, and so has no right to set the terms of its use.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter But then neither does anyone else.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Yes because, the person who find it first is the owner, and the person has the right to do wharever he wants with his own property.
Coteincdr 11 months ago
@Coteincdr In other words, first come, first served.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
I notice that you mentioned the objection I spelled out in my video: that social contracts (the explicit kind) are signed under duress, and are therefore void. Unfortunately you failed to address the objection. To do this you could either:
1. Show how the claim of duress is false
2. Show how contracts signed while under duress can be legitimate and binding.
I look forward to you attempting one of these.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Implicit in my response was that nobody was holding a gun to immigrants' heads and forcing them to enter the United States, nor was anyone holding a gun to parents' heads and forcing them to have children in the United States, thus giving them citizenship here.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman The bandits in my hypothetical are also not forcing anyone to have children in the settlement, the residents are free to leave at any time. You can show how either:
1. The claim of duress is false (in both the case of the bandits and the state, or only in the case of the state)
2. Contracts signed under duress can be legitimate and binding.
bitbutter 11 months ago
Isn't it funny how The libertarian/randian arguments always ends up arguing for exactly what they don't like - an agreed upon system of rules and enforcement (ie a government!). They try to avoid this obvious conclusion by saying; 'well it would be an unwritten set of moral rules.' Really? I see loving couples arguing over where to go eat dinner, you think a whole society can come to agreement on an entire set of 'unwritten' un-enforceable laws??
TZ3k 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TZ3k "always ends up arguing for exactly what they don't like - an agreed upon system of rules and enforcement (ie a government!)."
Just to clarify: Libertarians are certainly not against rules, agreements or enforcement. They're against the initiation of force (or the threat thereof) against peaceful people. Governments systematically do that.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter But the government doesn't necessarily initiate it (at least not oppressive ones), their use of force is a response, and also based on rules. Again, assuming that you don't hold a view that all the governments act like tyrannical dictators. You say that libertarians are not against rules but then complain about the use of force.
I see a contradiction there.
Saukko31 11 months ago
@Saukko31 "government doesn't necessarily initiate it (at least not oppressive ones), their use of force is a response"
All governments maintain threats of initiated force against peaceful people. To see this is true you can break it down: 1. The efficacy of law depends on the ultimate existence of threats of violence for non-compliance 2. Many laws (including tax laws) aim to modify the behaviour of peaceful people--that is, people who have not initiated force, or threatened to, themselves.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Just because someone is peaceful doesn't mean he's not doing something wrong. I could peacefully pick your pocket and take your keys without you even noticing it, than I could peacefully enter your home when no one is there and without aggression take everything you own. Or I could borrow that stuff from you, and when you come to claim it, I could peacefully decline to give it back.
Pylo01 11 months ago
@Pylo01 "I could peacefully pick your pocket and take your keys without you even noticing it"
Peaceful has a more specific meaning in the libertarian tradition: it means you're not deliberately violating another person's property rights (or threatening to). A person's property includes their body, and extends to inanimate objects too. I have this sense in mind when i talk about peaceful people. We can only identify aggression thanks to a prior idea of what a person's property rights are.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Oh well, if you get to define all the terms than you can go ahead and conclude that the state is evil. But those words mean nothing to me so you're essentially playing with your self.
Pylo01 11 months ago
@Pylo01 "Oh well, if you get to define all the terms "
If you prefer different definitions, or believe that there's a problem with one of mine, I'd be happy to talk about that.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter I'd love to argue semantics with you, but I have better things to do. I'm sure you can find someone to take my place though so good luck and goodbye.
Pylo01 11 months ago
@Pylo01 Semantics is the study of meaning, so as far as reaching an understanding goes, it's pretty crucial. No problem though if you don't want to continue.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@Saukko31 (While I'm a libertarian I should add that agreement that govs are aggressors in the way I described doesn't necessarily establish the validity or desirability of libertarianism on it's own--a statist may maintain that gov is a 'necessary evil')
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter But wasn't this point already dealt with by DJW? You could as well say that all citizens maintain the threat of force against other peaceful citizens, i.e. I'm not allowed to go or behave how I want on private property, no matter how peaceful. But they, like government only act when rules are broken. I see no problem of maintaining a threat of use of force if done so according to law, restrictions apply also to the government, police, etc.
Saukko31 11 months ago
@Saukko31 In any community in which members are prepared to defend themselves, you're right: citizens do maintain threats of force. The crucial difference for Lib's is that the state maintains threats to _initiate_ force, not merely to use retaliatory force.
Aggression, in the lib tradition, is a concept that derives from the concept of property. Property rights allow us to identify when the initiation of force occurs--initiated force (aggression) is the violation of property rights.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter We are starting to talk circles here. It is not a initiation of force. In my work I have to use certain clothes, if I don't do that, in the end, they can point me to the door. This is not an initiation of force, by agreeing to work there, I also have to obey the rules. I don't see any difference in that, and that I also have pay taxes.
Saukko31 11 months ago
@Saukko31 "It is not a initiation of force."
You might be able to show that the state's threats are not aggression by establishing that the state is the rightful owner of the land its subjects live on. Libertarians generally advocate the homesteading principle--on which the state's land claim is invalid. I don't know of a theory of property rights under which the state's claims to vast areas of unused land, as well as land that was already homesteaded, are legitimate though.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@Saukko: "I see no problem of maintaining a threat of use of force if done so according to law,"
Is _any_ law an acceptable license for the use of force? I expect that you don't really believe this. I think you have moral intuitions about the acceptable use of force on an inter-personal level--and that these intuitions wouldn't change even if the laws did. I think there's a good chance that libertarianism will be a close ideological fit with these intuitions.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Actually, yes. Humans are not robots, we do not always behave rationally, we behave emotionally, impulsively. But I maintain that the use of force is only reactionary. We have law enforcement, and this actually frees me do to other things I want, instead of wasting time to guard my property by myself.
Saukko31 11 months ago
@Saukko31 "We have law enforcement, and this actually frees me do to other things I want, instead of wasting time to guard my property by myself."
Lib's are typically are very much in favour of laws and their enforcement too. What they're often less enthusiastic about is monopolies maintained by the threat of force--which is what current police forces throughout the world are. Under these conditions we can expect a lower quality product at a higher price, thanks to lack of competition.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Whether or not I agree with that, and I don't, that goes past your point I believe, whether it is publicly funded police or private security firm, they still maintain the same threat of force.
Saukko31 11 months ago
@Saukko31 "whether it is publicly funded police or private security firm, they still maintain the same threat of force."
Of course. Maybe I wasn't completely clear: I (like most libertarians ive spoken to) am not opposed to the use of force per se. What I'm opposed to is the _initiation_ of force (or the threat thereof) against peaceful people, and by that I mean against people who are not violating property rights, or threatening to.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@TZ3k Read what Ayn Rand had to say on the topic of anarchy, then come back to me again and say this nonsense again.
fab006 11 months ago
You know what? This *is* a good idea! I've pretty much always been a socialist (a *real* socialist, not a "OMG Obama is a socialist"-socialist), and what always bugged me was that revolution (which I consider to be a legitimate act) was the only way out of tyranical situations, if you get my meaning. What we need is a "libertarian homeland", in the vein of Robert Heinlein. Since there's nothing left on Earth - Give them Mars! Isn't the conquest of such an inhospitable homeland the Randian ideal?
Killersepp 11 months ago
Holy Shit, it never ceases to amaze me the dumb ass arguments Libertarians come up with in order to promote their bullshit agenda. By the way, great video series.
brokensoul70 11 months ago
like I've said for years...libertarianism in practice would result in a fascistic society.
chrisbuxton1958 11 months ago
Randroids, it sounds a little like hemorroids.
Which one hurts more?
PT109Boat 11 months ago
@PT109Boat Or more of a pain in the ass..?
GoblinXXX 11 months ago
BTW, folks don't have to get booted to Mars. There are trillions of acres of state-free international waters available. Go sail away!
jagmarz 11 months ago
Hey David, the US social contract includes bearing arms as a "right". =)
thereprieve 11 months ago
@thereprieve Insofar as that is true, it should be modified.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman - If that be the case, why stop there? To heck with your right to free speech. Speech hurts people. Did you know that... you know what... nevermind, I'll save it for my rebuttal.
BTW - Check your email.
Thanks!
thereprieve 11 months ago
Funny, I'm an authoritarian, statist totalitarianist too. I'm just having trouble reconciling my need to have dominion over everyone and everything with my compassion for my fellow man. Can you help me work through this?
TheLivingDinosaur 11 months ago 4
So, you are one of those legalistic types. When I said secede or secession, I'm making a descriptive claim.
se·cede
–verb (used without object), -ced·ed, -ced·ing.
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Sure, just as long as you can get every single person in each state to agree to secede; after all, anything less would be coercion.
jagmarz 11 months ago 3
Do libertarians actually shout and scream? It seems more likely that they dupe religious and racist nut jobs to do the shouting and screaming for them. Hence the teabaggers.
jdbadboy 11 months ago
@jdbadboy The similarities between them stem from the fact that they're both anarchist groups that vigorously oppose any government that they're not in charge of. That is to say they claim to oppose all forms of government, until they get into power and they suddenly find it has some uses, then when they leave they're opposed to all forms of government again.
coladict 11 months ago
@coladict "That is to say they claim to oppose all forms of government, until they get into power and they suddenly find it has some uses,"
No. I think your confusion has to do with the fact that some who self identify as libertarians believe that the state is justified and necessary (usually minarchists)--the Libertarian political parties, or politicians like Ron Paul are an obvious example. Others believe that libertarianism is incompatible with the existence of the state.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter the difference between the Pauls (both Rand and Ron) and the other right-wing anti-government advocates is that those two are honest. What I said with more words in my last comment was that most of those guys are complete hypocrites or liars (the Pauls not included).
coladict 11 months ago
Hells no! I'm not paying for libertarians to live on Mars if I don't get to!
TheLaughingOut 11 months ago
@TheLaughingOut Hold out for Europa.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Too damn cold there. Might as well move to Wisconsin as live on Europa!
GoblinXXX 11 months ago
I was always under the impression "might makes right" meant that, might makes right what ought to be wrong. Kind of like the victor records the history as they are the righteous ones defeating the wrong.
ShallowBeThyGames 11 months ago
Won't the oxygen run out a little quicker than two decades?
I would suggest the Golgafrincham solution for the libertarians.
johncrwarner 11 months ago
You think a fully libertarian society would last 20 years? They'd be whining and complaining about arbitrary bullshit so much that they'd starve to death within one month.
zetanato 11 months ago