Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
Dondrei:
Well, it's never really come up, because there aren't any Libertarians in the real world.
Explain this rather provocative statement.
But it would've explained your bizarre phobia of mild expletives.
I have no trouble with someone who uses mild expletives, but I do have an issue with someone who resorts to infantile name-calling; especially when he does it from behind the anonymity of the Internet. The main reason I have made it a habit to call you on it is because name-calling serves no purpose other than to insult the other poster. (Hence, it’s a bannable offense on many forums including this one.) It does nothing to prove that that poster’s statement is wrong nor does it do anything to prove that your position is right. If you said “When X happens, Y always followsâ€, how does my response of “Hey, moron, that’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever said†in anyway refute your claim? And how does it in anyway support my belief that Y doesn’t necessarily follow X?
Despite what some of them [libertarians] say you can't have your cake and eat it too, but you might want to eat your cake all the same.
Please explain how any aspect of the libertarian philosophy equates to a “you can have your cake and eat it too†belief.
- - -
Johnny:
Because any group of people who will come together and decide that they don't need no governments. That they can work things out just fine without "the man".
As others have said, there is only a very small group on the fringe of libertarianism that believes in total anarchy. Putting all libertarians into this group is analogous to defining all people who have liberal beliefs as communists. A very famous science fiction story that deals with an anarcho-libertarian society is Eric Frank Russell's "And Then There Were None" which is happily on the Net
here.
There's a reason we don't have any libertarian countries at all today. In the entire world, except for Somalia that is.
I think you’re confusing how the common man uses the word “anarchy†and its technical political meaning. If anarcho-libertarians had their way, there would be such things as police and fire forces, they just would be privately owned.
-
When
Garbad_the_Weak replied “What a load of hogwash. Libertarianism doesn't prevent cooperationâ€, you answered:
Oh right. I forgot that not even the libertarians can agree on what defines libertarianism.
Your belief that there exists even a small group of libertarians who don’t believe in cooperation, is proof positive that you don’t understand the philosophy behind libertarianism at all. Libertarianism is against
forced cooperation, not voluntary cooperation. In fact, Libertarians argue that voluntary cooperation would occur naturally in the absence of the government in most areas of our life. If you can’t force someone to do something, you’d better cooperate with him if you want to have any chance of getting that “something†done.
Oh well good luck with your "everyone is equal" commie empire plans.
And where do you get the idea that libertarians believe that everyone is equal? We know that everyone is different and, as such, each of us have different needs and wants. We also know that due to the fact that resources are limited, some people will have their needs and wants satisfied more fully than others. This will happen no matter what political or economic system you live under. We just feel that the best way to satisfy the most people is to give them a system where transactions they make with other people are voluntary rather than forced.
