Libertarianism makes you stupid

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It is impossible to actually be libertarian. It is the political equivalent of dividing by zero.
Actually politics is based in other people controlling you. libertarianism is based in you controlling you, as long as you aren't trying to control others.

It is difficult to be libertarian. (anarchist) because some people have zero understanding of what anarchy is. It simply means without an "archon" or ruler, not necessarily without rules.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Actually politics is based in other people controlling you. libertarianism is based in you controlling you, as long as you aren't trying to control others.

It is difficult to be libertarian. (anarchist) because some people have zero understanding of what anarchy is. It simply means without an "archon" or ruler, not necessarily without rules.
We have had this attempt at a discussion. All one has to do is look up Lysander Spooner’s proposed society to lay bare the irreducible utopian component.

Others have walked you through this, and you have invariably ignored the demonstrations of the fallacious reasoning on which you rely.

It is reducible to the same sort of absurdum as saying “think how much faster we could run if only we dispensed with those heavy, constraining bones.”
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you have invariably ignored the demonstrations of the fallacious reasoning on which you rely.
Fallacious reasoning? Oh dear.

It is impossible for a person to delegate a right to do somethng to a body politic if that person doesn't have that right in the first place. It is impossible for a group of people to delegate to a body politic the aggregate of all of their "zero right" to do something and come up with a positive sum.

A coercion based government is literally an attempt to rationalize the impossible and conjure a positive sum from a bag of zeroes..

Your grade on this essay ? Zero.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fallacious reasoning? Oh dear.

It is impossible for a person to delegate a right to do somethng to a body politic if that person doesn't have that right in the first place. It is impossible for a group of people to delegate to a body politic the aggregate of all of their "zero right" to do something and come up with a positive sum.

A coercion based government is literally an attempt to rationalize the impossible and conjure a positive sum from a bag of zeroes..

Your grade on this essay ? Zero.
Your premises are incorrect.
 

MICHI-CAN

Well-Known Member
It appears the Frump useful idiots are amassing. And the vortex created by their vacuum is consuming them as the attempt to eat everything.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member

It's not a strawman to point out that the alleged reason for having government, "to protect rights" is flawed.

To wit, the first thing government does is VIOLATE everyone's rights by assuming consent when none is given or can be given since no person has that right, to delegate to a "representative" .

How things might or might not be done in a libertarian society are valid questions, but to assume that a system which is based in large scale consent violation can also be the protector of rights is flawed and utopian and impossible.

That is a nice strawman in your picture, but it's not applicable. You said libertarianism was impossible yet have embraced a political system which is self evidently incapable of being a protection agent since it violates individual consent from the get go. That is impossible and your strawman assertion is lame and...well...a strawman.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
It's not a strawman to point out that the alleged reason for having government, "to protect rights" is flawed.

To wit, the first thing government does is VIOLATE everyone's rights by assuming consent when none is given or can be given since no person has that right, to delegate to a "representative" .

How things might or might not be done in a libertarian society are valid questions, but to assume that a system which is based in large scale consent violation can also be the protector of rights is flawed and utopian and impossible.

That is a nice strawman in your picture, but it's not applicable. You said libertarianism was impossible yet have embraced a political system which is self evidently incapable of being a protection agent since it violates individual consent from the get go. That is impossible and your strawman assertion is lame and...well...a strawman.
1663374140921.jpeg
 

MICHI-CAN

Well-Known Member
This thread is about Libertarians, please take your Republican hate boner into the closet and relieve yourself. Then come out and talk about libertarian shit.:bigjoint:
Your repube self made it that way.

Amazing how few yard signs and beards I see of late. Overlooking the for sale signs for phallus compensating 4x4's with poorly removed stickers in windows.

You will be happier after mid terms. Stop attacking everyone.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Unregulated market: final form.

View attachment 5198695
Your fear of the unknown and misunderstood is showing. A free market IS a regulated market, since it relies on consumer feedback and the ability to leave a shitty supplier and go to another one that provides better service. That is a peaceful form of market regulation.

You can't really do that when government is involved since their business model is based in "nobody can leave" wife beater logic.


Confessing?
Wut?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Ungovernable areas don’t seem to have a prosperous and peaceful population.
I think you are confusing "imposed order" with "peaceful".

Imposed order is what governments do, by violating even a peaceful person's right to live as they see fit as long as they aren't trying to control other people. (like government always does)

Also, consider researching the word democide.

1663376735878.png
 
Last edited:
Top