Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 11. (Read 24009 times)

myrkul, what do you think of indentured servitude? I understand owning a human is not okay, but what about renting one?

For example, here in Singapore we love our imported bonded labor, but sometimes they cause disturbances.

Today, we have some mainland Chinese refusing to drive the bus. They want less crowded dormitories or some such nonsense.

They signed a contract to come here and work. The contract stipulates 1 year imprisonment as a penalty for failing to perform their duties when physically able.

Is a voluntary contract like this legitimate? [e.g. it would be unconstitutional in the US, but it's kosher here, which is the correct view? (according to Natural Law of course)]

Maybe you missed this part?

(that includes threatening violence in order to take part of their farm.)

Last Resort, on A*BC

*merican

Get hold of some nukes and seize an island.

Ironically, it's actually a change back towards the original topic, and since it's so rare that such a turn is taken, I decided to honor it. Even though they're far from what I would call "honest questions," given how so many are either contradictory or blatantly biased.

They boil down to just one question, though: "Why isn't AnCapistan here now?" To which the answer is, of course: "For some reason , the plantation owners don't like the idea of the slaves setting up their own farm. And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

No one is burdened with any obligation to answer your tangential topic change questions, because you have failed / neglected / declined to prove your earlier claims first.

Yeap.  He's definitely lashing out.  Anyone notice the (italicized) red herring he just threw out?

Here he is changing the subject from his baseless and unproven theory of anthropogenic climate warmingcoolingchange, to his new baseless and unproven theory "Why doesn't libertarianism last long?".  He's breaking rule number 1 of rational debate hyperlinked in my signature.

FirstAscent scurries away from his failures like a rat when light shines upon him.

This pleases me.

I doubt that.  I don't get agitated arguing with you.

In fact, I don't even need to argue with you -- all I have to do is point out that you haven't proven any of your claims.  You only get angry because you know that your claims are smelly bullshit and I'm holding your head against them.

I am amused :-)

Well said.

Some of them are contradictory, such as "Why do they never get started? Why do they never last?" indicating that you are asking them from an agitated emotional state, but I will answer anyway.

There have been Libertarian societies. Even anarchic ones. Pennsylvania, for instance, had a period where nobody even tried to be boss. And not surprisingly, it was the most peaceful period of the colonial US. The United States of America were originally set up in a very libertarian framework. Lincoln decided that he didn't like that. (If you go back to the Articles of Confederation, it was even more libertarian, but a monopoly without the power to compel payment is a rather weak monopoly.)

Pieces have been tried, and worked quite well. They failed, of course, because they were only pieces. Medieval Iceland had a private justice system. That failed when it got bought out, because the judges didn't have the competition required to keep them honest. Pennsylvania failed to stay an anarchy because the Quakers were pacifists, and wouldn't fight back.

The complete package has never been tested, primarily, because these flag-waving gangs have claimed all the territory in which it could be tried. Although it could be said that Somalia, outside the major cities where government control was and is the worst, is a fairly thriving anarcho-communist region.

To be honest, Libertarianism, and especially AnCap, are very young philosophies, at least in the "complete" form we see them in today. The first person to place the final piece of AnCap was Gustave de Molinari, in 1849. How long has the idea of "democracy" been around?

So if you're going to pursue this train of argument, you might as well go nag Miguel Alcubierre about why we don't have starships around Proxima Centauri or Gliese 581 yet. The answer will be the same: "Working on it, have a few hurdles to jump first."

Honest questions. Answer them.

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

No, it's called agitation derived from arguing with the brainwashed. And then compounded by the brainwashed pointing fingers, making demands, and then having the gall to require an endless chain of evidence back to first principles, all the while hypocritically not actually producing any substance themselves.

Scientifically literate people not brainwashed by the promise of libertarians do not attach any credence to the memes propagated by the likes of the crowd here.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

Nah, a mature person shrugs off baseless criticism. Accurate criticism, however, hits them nerves hard, especially when it's criticism you are afraid is true. Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Baseless, stupid, and hypocritical opinions will hit nerves.

I think you hit a nerve. 

Do you know how your comments would appear in the absence of taking shelter within the cozy clique of your group-think peers on this specific forum? How easy it is to pat each other on the back and say nothing of any substance. Or, I'm sorry, did you say anything of substance about climate change, or did you just sit around and render a baseless opinion for your buddies to hear?

Did you actually do any research? Did you actually summarize any findings? Have you actually educated yourself about climate science from papers, books or documents not written by fringe websites?

Did I hear you just make the claim that the list I provided regarding the processes of glacier calving, sea level rise, water density, and species migration could not be true because I didn't substantiate it enough?

Are you so brainwashed and ignorant that you cannot logically deduce the truth in what happens when a glacier calves into the sea? Are you too lazy to learn what an ice albedo feedback loop is?

You sir, are the intellectual weakling, hiding behind both the keyboard and the libertarian group of peers you find yourself protected by. You have zero wit, zero content, and zero balls, ensconced as you are here in this forum. Your self congratulatory posts serve no purpose but to keep you in ignorance.

Or is there something there in that brainwashed head of yours that carries the spark of thinking? Could it be, that instead of demanding that one person (myself) be responsible for reiterating all the science that exists regarding climate science, that instead, you could lift your lazy fingers enough to carry out some of your own research and reading, to the point that perhaps that libertarian think tank muddled brain of yours might receive some material beyond the Exxon/Mobil funded propaganda you prefer?

Is there one single post in this thread made by you that would back up the implication made by you that your posts are more substantive than mine? If so, please share.

I think, based on my reading of this thread, that FirstAscent's assertions are wholly unsubstantiated, and that the only "support" he has lent to his claims is "there's tons of studies, go look for them".  Since he is unwilling to actually provide direct evidence for his claims, I'm going to say that the burden of proof he needs to save face here is extraordinary, and he has not met it.  Of course, as usual, like any other individual without any evidence, he demands that others prove him wrong rather than proving his claims to us.  This is nothing but religious logic.

TLDR: FirstAscent is blowing smoke up everyone's ass while playing dialectical tricks.  Nothing new under the sun for anthropogenic climate sycophants.

If the metacontext wasn't important, you wouldn't abuse it so badly. I'm sorry (I'm not), I won't ignore the man behind the curtain.

Male brains are different from female.

Females are socially oriented, so they accept and even expect consensus as a valid rational for accepting an something as true.

Males are hunters, so we rely much more on the direct evidence of our senses combined with critical thinking.

FirstAssScent has a femininely wired brain, so all our cold, abstract arguments about fudge factor arrays and sabotaged data sets won't matter to her.

Women live among their neighbors, so to them reality is a warm, fuzzy popularity contest.