And how would the people go about disposing of 90% -100% of the government. They wont go quietly without a struggle. the UN would probably send in foreign troops if it come to an armed uprising. Maybe we could vote them out
Communism relies on the absence of the State. In a communist society there is no centralised political authority. Communism has not been put into practice and it can't because socialism can't work, and socialism is the necessary precursor to communism. Libertarianism does not rely on the absence of a centralised political authority. It relies upon that centralised ruling authority to uphold individual liberty - as opposed to communism. Communism is not workable because it ignores the fact that humans make value judgments (individual) and engage in meaningful economic activities daily, a fact which most libertarians acknowledge. Value is subjective, communists would have you believe that it is objective.
But communism hasn't been trialled so you can't claim that it is more workable than libertarianism. You are just hypothesising. Edit to add: unlike communists, our (libertarian's) hypotheses is more rational and based upon proven concepts.
A communist would say unlike Libertarians, our (Communist's) hypotheses is more rational and based on proven concepts. Speaking of Libertarianism, I was doing a bit of reading on the Libertarin community in Chile, it is still a huge mess. One of the Libertarians that bought into it all and lost everything they ever had headed back to the US and abandonded the block of ground in Chile. He is living in his car with his wife and two daughters, he is doing odd jobs like shoveling snow off peoples driveways to feed his family. A Libertarian who put Libertarianism into practice, the article did not mention his current thoughts on Libertarinism. I feel really bad for his kids, they had no say about Libertarianism and now they are living in a car below the poverty line and if Dad is shovelling snow I am assuming it must be cold in the car of a night time. Even though he is a libertarian I hope he gets things sorted so he can get his two daughters into a house and out of the car.
But Libertqrianism has'nt been trialed so you can't claim that it is more workable than Communism. You are just hypothesising. Lol that is funny,
A distinction must be made between communism and libertarianism in order clear up any misunderstandings between the two and any incompatible comparisons that may be drawn. Communism is an econo-political theory, it deals with both the economic and political circumstances of man, libertarianism does not. Libertarianism just deals with the political aspect of an individual's life in best meeting their need for freedom, therefore communism is a far broader philosophy. The only real distinction that can be drawn between the two are that libertarianism is about individuals, and communism is about collectives. A communist would say their ideas are more rational, but that ignores the economics behind communism which is always destined to fail. If they did say their theories were based on proven concepts then they would be lying. On the other hand a libertarian not having to justify his philosophy from an economic perspective, would argue that their ideas are more rational because they uphold the liberty of all individuals - an absolute necessary pre-cursor for humans to achieve their full potential. Communism is inherently flawed because it fails to uphold the sovereignty of the individual and seeks to impose a collective political and economic structure upon everyone. By recognising that individuals act purposefully and with reason, libertarians (more accurately Austrian economists) are able to deduce what the implications of that purposeful behaviour are and lay down a set of principles that explain why an individual is successful in achieving his needs and why they may not have been successful. The Austrian-libertarian requires no more proof than that which history provides, ie: and that In other words, a free market. Edit to add: the "proof" needed that a libertarian political structure is the most advantageous and most workable is in the daily activities of countless millions of individuals seeking and adding value.
I think you missed the point ...again. Nothing wrong with laws to protect although I believe there is way too many laws to "protect" us from ourselves .its the blanket banning of anything that I don't agree with
A survey done of 1700 Victorians, 40% of people want tougher gun laws, 45% of people think the gun laws are about right and 5% think gun laws should be loosened. 5% want them loosened, I love reading threads on silverstackers and people post about these shitty minorities trying to impose their will upon the majority (Yennus you would be at the top of the list as well as boardie and shiney). How dare these idiots try and impose their will on the majority, it is just so wrong, people rant and rant about what shitty people they are. You are now the 5 percent trying to impose your will upon the majority, applying your standards what does that say about you? Guess what, you a very, very TINY minority group trying to impose your will upon the majority, when you say one thing and do another what is that called?
Is that 'all guns' or just the murders attributed to that particular make and model or style of gun? I don't know much about guns, is the one pictured a really popular choice or is it just a generic gun? Maybe if you added up all the murders from the different sort of guns it would be more than the murders attributed to different sorts of hammers.
I am far from the far left, they are as big of idiots as the far right The thing is you see anyone who is not far fright as a leftie.
That's not very nice (and not very accurate either)... I'm not trying to impose my will on anyone - I'm just hoping to have the right and means to defend myself and those I care about. I haven't stated my position yet, so I'll do so now. I think everyone should have the right to secure their family, home and property against criminals. Currently the law prevents you from having the means to defend yourself - defensive items such as pepper spray and wearing a bullet proof vest is illegal. I don't think it's very fair that the criminals can use guns and knives, and your mum can't own pepper spray or even a loud siren.
The ban on bullet-proof vests always seems a bit weird, but it's important to understanding the psychology behind having weapons. If people - anyone - can own a gun, then you need one too in case one of those other people goes a bit crazy and tries to do you harm. If people can own guns and bullet-proof vests, then you need a bigger, more powerful gun to protect yourself from a crazy person with a gun and a bullet proof vest. If people can own big, powerful guns and bullet-proof vests, then you need an RPG to protect yourself from a crazy person with a big, powerful gun and a bullet-proof vest. And so on. Defensive items might seem perfectly sensible, but they contribute to the escalation of arms just as much as offensive items. Your chance of being harmed by someone increases dramatically if you look like you pose a threat to them. Having done armed robbery holdup training myself - and having had a gun pointed at me in a non-training situation as well - being made defenseless and vulnerable sucks. It's a horrible feeling. Unfortunately, it's also the best way of getting out of the situation alive, because whoever is threatening you has already decided what they want to do and how far they're prepared to go with it. You, on the other hand, have had a grand total of perhaps a few seconds to come to grips with the situation, you've just had a massive dose of adrenalin hit your brain and can't think properly, your palms are sweaty, your limbs are shaking and your heart-rate is going through the roof. Police and soldiers train for years to be able to overcome those reactions to physical threats, and even then they still don't always manage it perfectly. There are so few truly murderous psychopaths around that it's really not worth worrying about and everything else is basically just property crime. In the grand scheme of things, increasing the number of guns in circulation and taking all the accidents, overreactions and heat-of-the-moment arguments that turn fatal that come with that isn't a good trade-off when there's hardly any property that can't be insured and, I'd argue, none that's worth someone losing their life over. Arguing about the "right" to defend yourself is all well and good, but the reality is that in most situations you're better off waiving that right and letting someone take your stuff. Yeah, it still sucks, but it's better than the body count that comes with the alternative.
