Topic: Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you - page 4. (Read 3830 times)

+1 I was wondering where all the real communists and socialists had gone off to, because the real ones were actually pretty intelligent and rational.

Its a stupidly long book, that, if it was re-written well could be half the size and get the point over far better!

Its a good little story, but doesn't prove anything other than similar types of people like to stick together!

I used to consider Libertarianism as a good ideology, but slowly realized that it was just as ideologically impossible as socialism.

What the real world system that we have does, which is better, is that it creates a number of levels of trades for each trade, through adding various levels of bureaucracy. The result is that one trade which would only be of benefit to two people under libertarianism, actually benefits 10+ people under whatever you want to call what we have in the real world.

This is a very simplistic example, and to break down a real world example to prove it would take many 1000s or words - maybe even a book the size of Atlas Shrugged! ;-)

What are NT and NF? Sorry, I just woke up and the coffee molecules haven't reached my processor yet.

I suppose that would be the difference between the NT and the NF

actually there are two main lines of reasoning against the coercive power of state: the moral and the practical. The moral argument says: "it is wrong to force people to give up their resources and be ordered around under threat of force". The practical argument says: "the state is a hierarchical monopolistic structure and as such provides perverse incentives for its managers and absolutely SUCKS at collecting accurate information and making intelligent decisions based on it". Personally, I don't give a shit about the moral argument, I leave that to the moralists

So... what the first page of this thread is trying to say is that a civilized talk between libertarians and the rest of the world is impossible?

Glad to know this isn't true :]

I respect socialists and communists who actually have principles as opposed to Republicans and Democrats who's ideas come from others telling them what they should believe because of who they are.

I especially respect those that would be ok with my community of free thinkers living next to theirs without the need to try to regulate us "for our own good".

That's not the main argument; the main argument is on ethics, claiming that using coercion is immoral, and the use of systematic coercion through the state is still systematically immoral.

As it applies in this context, not only should there be competition in the currency marketplace, but I believe that the world will be better off if we offer more than one viable cryptocurrency.  Almost everywhere in the market, you end up with 2-4 major players and a dozen or so mid-size players.  From social networking to soda, from cars to airlines, from cell phone makers to their service carriers, there are only a few big suppliers.  However, there are almost always a few small startups.

At the beginning of politics there was a free market for force. Anyone who could round up a posse had his own little army that could provide protection in exchange for tribute - of food, gold, women, whatever. The successful posses became states, and as more land and people came under their protection they started establishing bureaucracies to manage it all.

Over the years many of these groups failed.

Nowadays force is controlled by a cartel known as the UN of about 200 of these groups who call themselves countries, have mostly agreed upon territories for their control, and support each other if any nascent group tries to challenge their monopoly. They've diversified somewhat from their original purposes - though they still exact tribute, they now offer more services in return.

Now, this is my critique of libertarianism:

We view the original state of nature as pure freedom. These groups formed corporations to provide security to their customers in exchange for tribute - payment - which was given to their shareholders: the warriors or nobility. Doesn't history then prove that over the course of time a state of infinite competition settles into one of multiple monopolies which band together to stamp out potential challengers in their market? This entirely disproves libertarianism's main argument that infinite competition will provide infinite freedom.

Authoritarian, socialist governments have disarmed and murdered 175 million of their own people during the 20th century alone.  Nearly every war-mongering president, prime minister, dictator, and ruler has been a proponent of big government and the agenda of the International Banking Cartels--the same people who put Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and other tyrannical regimes in place.

Hmm, are you sure it allows anonymity in transactions? 

That makes sense, but this community does have rules--perhaps not explicitly stated but we can all see what they are by observation.  Do you think this occurs due to a person always being fed rules, that they become very poor at identifying them otherwise?

Socialists, like me, like bitcoin because it allows freedom and anonymity in transactions - which is as important to those fighting for change against dictatorships as it is for individual free-marketeers

It's because when people aren't bounded by rules, regulations or laws, or there's no enforcement, the community norms inevitably drift to selfishness.

Well, guns are necessary for survival up in Alaska.

The way I see it there needs to be an evaluation and a waiting period with a licence and gun & ammo registration.

The holder of the licence will have to keep descriptions of the safety measures kept and how the bullets were generally expended. (Hunting, stored, etc).
Any falsification on the form should be considered for taking back or placing restrictions on the licence.


I don't see why people need guns in cities and urban areas, especially those who do not need to hunt to survive... (If more than 80% of the meat you consume is store bought, you don't really need to hunt).


I had a lot of anarchist friends. Anarchism in Greece is a response to the crappiest, ultra-corrupt government of Greece. Huge loans were taken and politicians (presidents and others) took billions of euros in personal accounts. (That is why Greece has such a huge debt problem).

If the government is super bad, (North Korea level badness) anarchism is the fastest solution for the short-term. Anarchism would never work unless there were decentralized governments all over the place with the gaps in between being anarchist free-lands. (Go out of the limit of the city and get raped and beaten) all free of charge (legal).

I think this thread is reason alone not to read it, at least I hope so.
Honestly I wouldn't know, or care.

Is Atlas Shrugged worth reading? I always hear polar opposite opinions on it.

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

Giving up one's own bargaining chips seems to be the staple of the sheeple.