Topic: To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society... - page 7. (Read 16598 times)

Well we all know you're the king of incorrect definitions.  Here's what it actually means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

And that's exactly what he's going.  He's using gross exaggerations (which really amount to strawmen) of murder and rape to elicit emotional, knee-jerk responses in a fallacious attempt to win an argument, when I have no where mentioned murder and rape.  It's not about forcing people to not murder and rape.  It's about forcing people to live in a world they do not want to live in, be pawns of a market they have little-to-no say in, and to sell themselves to a system they do not agree with.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Stop with the hyperbole and read what I'm actually writing.  Let's try this again with a slight variation.



-Robert Locke

Yes, and emigration, as well. Free flow, in and out.

Stop whining. Either answer my question or just say you can't.

Is it really that difficult for you to drop the hyperbole?

Would a libertarian society have free borders with unlimited immigration? 

You poor thing. It would be so awful to have to keep your hands off of other people and their property. I'm really just torn up about it.

Here's your argument: You're forcing someone to have sex with you but they're forcing you not to have sex with them, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. Your logic is utterly ridiculous. Before you whine about hyperbole, explain the difference in what I'm saying and your actual argument.

Thank you for proving my point. These responses are exactly what I was expecting.

Libertarianism: a society free from force and coercion... unless you aren't a libertarian, in which case you can get fucked because its our way or the highway.


We have now successfully come full circle.  What you said to me is what I've been saying to you guys all along: if you don't like this society, GTFO out.

The current system is not in any way a part of this discussion.  I am not defending the current system, I am attacking the libertarian system.  Get it right.  Your entire post is one big strawman/diversion.

Modern society already has rampant drug use. The most abused is one of the worst: alcohol.
 


I think you might be surprised at how many drivers in many areas, where car insurance is required, don't have it.



How healthy do you eat? Do you consider the regulated labels on foods today to be accurate? At least here in the U.S., the regulations actually grant corporations the permission to have labels that outright lie (one example: honey.)



Like Enron, or those Japanese power plants? What does it matter if the business that's destroying the environment is regulated or not, if it's still doing it? (Frankly, I think the behind-the-scenes story of the recent Japan situation is a case study for this.)



Wow. Again, you must not live in the U.S. Or you must just have never actually seen the legal system at work.


Hmmm. This society you don't wish to see come about? It seems to me that we're already living in it....

I didn't.

Do not confuse my statements with welfare programs.

Complex systems are often governed by a few simple rules. Like I said, there are solutions to the problems mentioned and reasons why those solutions would be implemented. I did however say that even if no solution was offered, it doesn't matter. Let justice be done though the heavens fall. So, whether or not those solutions are available is completely irrelevant. If you think you should be able to put your hands on other people or their property without their permission because you feel entitled to a comfortable life, I feel bad for you.

Your simple one liners are not solutions to very large, complex and finely nuanced problems. I am open to addressing each of these issues on a case by case basis, given time. The world is a very complex place, and human society is a very large system. The confluence of these two systems creates complexities which are beyond your simple answers.

My case is won by showing that we should keep our hands off other people and their property unless we have their permission and following that to its logical conclusion.


Maybe some people think the world would be better off with a little injustice but I value justice highly. For me, even if the heavens fall, justice is more important.

How are your responses making your proposed world appealing, again? I thought the point of debate was to try and win your case by showing it's better.

Too bad. 


Walk. 


Grow your own food. 


Live in a plastic bubble. 


Refuse to appear.


Aww, you poor thing.

You have a real problem with entitlement. You think everybody owes you something but they don't. There are reasons why everything you've said can and would be avoided but even if they aren't avoided, that's just too bad. You'll just have to keep your hands off of other people and their stuff even if it's an inconvenience.

Here's what their predictable answer will be:

"But if you don't like it, then you can change it!" Or, "You can move to an area where it is like you want it to be!" Or, "I'd rather have all those freedoms than live under the boot of my oppressor!" Or, "But you can set up a petition to get some laws and then legally show how what I am doing is unlawful!"

People with more money have more control of the market, no violence needed.  People with less money are at the mercy of the market, like floating at a pool toy at sea.



Oh to be so simplistic...


What I'm saying, as in the pornography example, is that while you think freedom of personal choice means total freedom, the rest of the universe that doesn't have their heads up their asses do not.  This is because I am also affected by OTHER PEOPLES' persons choices that I have absolutely no control over or say in, as in the pornography example. 

In Liberkidland, while I can personally choose not to do drugs, I cannot choose to not live in a society that is tainted by rampant drug use. 

While I can choose to carry car insurance on my own car, I cannot choose to not be subjected to roads full of uninsured drivers. 

While I can choose to eat healthy, I cannot choose to not be stuck wondering whether the labels on food (if there are any) are false or not because there is no regulatory agency controlling them. 

While I can choose not to harm the environment myself, I cannot choose to not live in a world whose environment is being destroyed by unregulated businesses. 

While I can choose to not take people to a heavily biased, privately own kangaroo court, I cannot choose to not be at the mercy of others taking me to these courts for frivilous reasons because that is the only legal system in existence.

While I can choose to work hard, I cannot choose to not live in a society of exploited workers and I will be worse off for it.