No zoning regulations? Making some assumptions there I think. Did you notice that it was dealt with by people teaming together and solving the problem by a mixture of information, avoidance, care and action? You know, a bit like farmers do when a feral pig (or whatever) starts causing problems. At no point was a government welfare state with a regulatory apparatus that fines farmers for growing too many potatoes necessary. Funny enough neither were mandatory data retention laws, anti-gay marriage laws, VLAD laws, cinema and book censorship laws, anti-marijuana laws, anti-euthanasia laws, anti-piracy laws. Didn't require any bans on people freely renting their labour out for mutually agreeable rates. Didn't require any agriculture subsidies, bank bailouts, car industry bailouts, excessive tariffs, alcohol excises, anti-competition bans or licencing of hair braiders either.
I already dealt with that and posted links. Saying that you need charity to deal with social issues if the government doesn't is simply nonsense.
Whaaaaaat??? Why? I thought our democratic system of political and economic organisation was working really well?
You still refuse to answer any difficult questions that may shed some light on the reality of Libertarianism, and instead resort to insults. Again, how is a Libertarian system different from might-makes-right? As has been made abundantly clear by other commenters in this thread, real world examples of Libertrin ideals in practice seem to demonstrate real issues.
The old "humans are inherently evil so we need need governments to control us" theory? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/201102/are-humans-good-or-evil Libertarian society with the NAP as it's fundamental principle simply could not tolerate a "highly stressful, resource poor environments, we'll step on whoever is in front of us if it helps us survive." It doesn't mean that society will be stress free, but what it means is that capital, labour and entrepreneurial behaviour will be directed to maximising resource allocation.
Answering difficult questions generally requires a willingness on the party asking the questions to interact nicely as well. What sort of difficult questions do you have? It's more might enforces rights. It is specifically focused on what is an illegitimate use of might. Can you repost what these "real world examples" of "real issues" are? I'm struggling to find any in the previous posts.
If there are 500,000 unemployed and most are going to be low skill labour and you have no safety net those 500,000 people will be competing for jobs do not exist, people bid lower and lower for the available jobs and you have wages that are not liveable. You would end up with hundreds of thousands people in extreme poverty who are working full time. On a positive note they would have guns and flamethrowes and there would be an abundant supply of cheap drugs. Sounds pretty good to me. If an employer offers $3 and the alternative is to starve do you really have two people negotiating on even terms? That is the same as using money as a weapon to threaten or intimidate. There will always be a percentage of people who will be unemployed, Libertarianism just seems to ignore that issue.
I've learnt that you thrive on insults, you seem to enjoy insulting others so I assumed you would get excited if I insulted. A person with a bit more intelligence would've used that as their avatar in an attempt to throw the insult back at the instigator. But anyway, you're young. I don't know how a Libertarian system is different from a might-equals-right system because as I have said twice, I don't know what a might-equals-right system is. If a might-equal-right system upholds the principle of non-aggression as the basis of it's organisational structure then it would probably look like Libertarianism, if it didn't it wouldn't. My best guess is that a might-equals-right system is a government enforced system, and there has been more than enough debate on that to show that the NAP is not at the basis of any government imposed social structure.
How did people in extreme poverty afford to buy guns, flamethrowers and drugs? It is not enough to make a statement like this and expect a real world solution. It has to be a plausible situation from the real world in the first place. For example, besides not understanding why you think there is no safety net, the question is what were the circumstances that lead to 500,000 people being unemployed? Also the context surrounding the labour market (eg is this a large number of people? 1%, 2%, 20% etc) and background economic conditions.
Since you are the one instigating the insulting behavior towards others, I really felt no need nor obligation to descend to your level, even if you think that demonstrates a lack of intelligence on my part. The one thing I have learnt from dealings with you is that you are quick to anger and abuse when someone disagrees with you and then throw around accusations. Now, please stick to the topic at hand.
@SilverPete: [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_bing.jpg][/imgz] It's schizophrenia isn't it?
As I said to NewToSilver, the irrelevance of Chile situation was already discussed in the Beyond Democracy thread (you know the one). In essence, it is just a simple case of fraud happening in a place that is governed by the Chilean Government (where a substantial amount of the contract breaches are directly related to Chilean Government permits) and hence they are the ultimate authority no matter what else people would like. As I posted in one of your threads recently, otherwise smart, sophisticated investors operating within a highly regulated state with a strong rule of law got sucked in by Bernie Madoff. Is that supposed to be a failure of Liberal Democracy?
From what I have read about the Libertarian community has decended into a might is right situation. You have the "rescue team" who by there own admission have acted illegally, there have also been threats of violance against Ken Johnson. The "rescue team" is comprised of a lot of ex military. Some members of the community do not agree with what is happening. The "rescue team" I can't remember the exact term but they reclaimed, retook the compound by "force of action" I think the term was. None of that sounds like the Libertarianism you talk about in theory here. The big question here is why are these people abandoning the Libertarian principles and doing something else? Is the Libertarianists way of doing things not working? There has to be a reason why they are acting this way. I love real life examples for some reason they just seem to play out different from theory. Why are they not acting in accordance with there deeply held Libertarian principles?
On a side note, it's an interesting study of character to observe the personality types and behaviors of those who so vehemently advocate Libertarianism.
have they all abandoned the concept or just some? You are correct, there has to be a reason, I know very little about the situation but it smells like scam to me, or maybe not a scam but an attempt at overthrowing the founder. How it all pans out will be interesting.
Chile is not irrelevant, look at how the people in that community are acting, they are Libertarians, why are they not acting like Libertarians?
