[Truth To Power]

But what if I don't actually want your ice cream? What if I just want to feel resistance being overcome? What if getting you to push back is the whole reason why I pushed you to begin with, because I'm an asshole like that? Would you accept being my punching bag for as long as I see fit because might makes right, or would you start to think that the reason why I shouldn't behave this way has nothing to do with your ability or inability to stop me?

Either I, or a group of people who I recruit, would simply try to viciously beat you every time, because might makes right.

Incoherent. If might makes right, on what grounds do you resist it? If you can't recruit enough people even effectively to retaliate, does that mean the bully is right? If so, why would you try to retaliate a second time?

If you didn't stop, we'd just keep having that fight ad infinitum.

That's probably the easiest question on the subject I've ever had to answer.

Too bad the answer is so uninformative.

[Rei Murasame]

Incoherent. If might makes right, on what grounds do you resist it?

The force of my will, because I want to.

If you can't recruit enough people even effectively to retaliate, does that mean the bully is right? If so, why would you try to retaliate a second time?

Because the only way to find out if I can win, is to continually fight and find out. Sometimes one has to bide time, or to use indirect means if direct means are infeasible, but the principle remains the same.

For example, considering education as a form of preparation for fighting, is an indirect means. Considering the development of productive forces in an economy as a preparation for fighting is also an indirect means. Diplomacy and trade can even be preparation for war by other means. But the main point is that war is the purpose.

Too bad the answer is so uninformative.

Well, given that the entire point of my approach to life is 'be a savage', non-ironically, I don't see why you would expect it to be informative. I live in the west, but I'm philosophically not a part of your civilisation and I'm not even trying to be. I reject the very premise behind your question. I'm not trying to convey any moralistic information, because I don't even need it.

I don't need a universalist moral justification to fight. I only need to feel like I want to fight for some reason. 'Might makes right' is a statement that has to be continually tested in order to find out who the winner is. This means that fighting must necessarily continue forever, unless someone loses the will to fight and decides not to try again.

[SolarCross]

Careful. Private property in land automatically results in exploitation of workers, as it removes their rights to liberty without just (or any) compensation.

Any property right obtained can be viewed that way, land is not special.

[Truth To Power]

Careful. Private property in land automatically results in exploitation of workers, as it removes their rights to liberty without just (or any) compensation.

Any property right obtained can be viewed that way, land is not special.

No, that is factually incorrect. Obtaining rightful property in the fruits of one's labor by producing a product does not remove any right to liberty that anyone else would otherwise have, because the product did not otherwise exist, so they would not have been at liberty to use it. Land did, and they would.

You will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. All who try to rationalize and justify the evils of socialism and capitalism must begin by pretending they do not know that fact. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital; capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.

But there is no way for any normal person over the age of six to avoid knowing the fact that capital is produced by labor, while land is not.

[SolarCross]

No, that is factually incorrect. Obtaining rightful property in the fruits of one's labor by producing a product does not remove any right to liberty that anyone else would otherwise have, because the product did not otherwise exist, so they would not have been at liberty to use it. Land did, and they would.

You will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. All who try to rationalize and justify the evils of socialism and capitalism must begin by pretending they do not know that fact. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital; capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.

But there is no way for any normal person over the age of six to avoid knowing the fact that capital is produced by labor, while land is not.

Ultimately the real truth is might makes right, you can spin out a moral philosophy that decrees this or that thing is right or wrong but it is just empty words unless backed by power. If your argument pivots on the notion that land is uncreated by man and so somehow belongs to all beings (or just humans?) and on "rights to liberty" then your argument is empty philosophising which is no more valid than other philosophising like that which Marxists employ to call a businessman's profit "theft".

But I will play your game some. Ask what is land? Actually it is a composite of two things: matter and space. Matter as in soil, rock and whatever green things grow on it. Space as in.. well space. The matter is no different a thing than any other raw material which I believe you do think people can "rightly" claim ownership of without depriving another of their "liberty". So land is special for you because it is space. Yet all claim ownership of space. Do you not claim at least the "personal space" around you? What of the stranger's liberty to enter into your personal space? Why do you steal from him? Oh see we humans (as do animals and even plants) claim space, if we can, because it is useful for us to do so.

[Truth To Power]

No, that is factually incorrect. Obtaining rightful property in the fruits of one's labor by producing a product does not remove any right to liberty that anyone else would otherwise have, because the product did not otherwise exist, so they would not have been at liberty to use it. Land did, and they would.

You will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. All who try to rationalize and justify the evils of socialism and capitalism must begin by pretending they do not know that fact. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital; capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.

But there is no way for any normal person over the age of six to avoid knowing the fact that capital is produced by labor, while land is not.

Ultimately the real truth is might makes right,

No, that is an incoherent and indefensible assumption. Proof:

you can spin out a moral philosophy that decrees this or that thing is right or wrong but it is just empty words unless backed by power.

So, you claim that slavery is right as long as the masters have the power to keep the slaves enslaved, and that the Nazis were right to exterminate Jews just as long as they had the power to do so. The only way they could ever establish that it might be wrong was to try it, and see if they lost the war. Tamerlane was actually right to exterminate millions of people, including whole societies, because he ultimately won the war.

Thought so.

If your argument pivots on the notion that land is uncreated by man

It is not a notion. It is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. I would like readers to note that by dismissing that self-evident and indisputable fact as a "notion," you are still trying to find some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

and so somehow belongs to all beings (or just humans?)

It does not belong to anyone. But all human beings have equal rights to use it. That is what the equal human right to liberty means.

and on "rights to liberty"

So, you believe in a right to liberty as long as it is only your liberty to rob, oppress, enslave, starve and murder those whom you have the power (granted by government -- which you refuse to pay for -- in the form of legal privileges such as land titles) to rob, oppress, enslave, starve and murder.

Thought so.

then your argument is empty philosophising which is no more valid than other philosophising like that which Marxists employ to call a businessman's profit "theft".

No, that is factually false. The Marxist calls a businessman's profit "theft" because he pretends that workers have as much right to capital as to land, even though the former was produced by someone else's labor and the latter was not, and even though the workers would otherwise have been at liberty to use the latter, while they would not have been at liberty to use the former as it would not have existed but for the labor of its producer.

But I will play your game some. Ask what is land? Actually it is a composite of two things: matter and space. Matter as in soil, rock and whatever green things grow on it. Space as in.. well space.

Land has two relevant definitions. The legal one is the earth's solid surface. The other is the economic one: the whole physical universe other than human beings and the products of their labor.

The matter is no different a thing than any other raw material which I believe you do think people can "rightly" claim ownership of without depriving another of their "liberty".

As long as just compensation is made to those who are thus deprived of it, matter can be made into private property by removing it from its natural place by labor. A location ("space") on the earth's solid surface by definition cannot be removed from its natural place by labor, and can therefore never rightly be made into private property.

So land is special for you because it is space.

No, it is special because it is something nature has provided, which can never be a product of labor.

Yet all claim ownership of space.

False.

Do you not claim at least the "personal space" around you?

I do not claim to own it, no.

What of the stranger's liberty to enter into your personal space?

We have social rules that allocate temporary use of the space around our bodies. In Japan, for example, these rules dictate that people keep a respectful distance on the street, at work, in social situations, etc. But the rule is different on a commuter train, where they are packed like sardines.

A temporary right of use is not ownership. You have to make the absurd claim that it is.

Why do you steal from him?

Why do you resort to such absurdity?

As if we both don't know very well why....

Oh see we humans (as do animals and even plants) claim space, if we can, because it is useful for us to do so.

We use space. But using -- especially temporarily, for a matter of moments -- is not owning.

[Truth To Power]

Incoherent. If might makes right, on what grounds do you resist it?

The force of my will, because I want to.

You oppose right? Of what use is the concept of right, then?

Your position is incoherent.

If you can't recruit enough people even effectively to retaliate, does that mean the bully is right? If so, why would you try to retaliate a second time?

Because the only way to find out if I can win, is to continually fight and find out. Sometimes one has to bide time, or to use indirect means if direct means are infeasible, but the principle remains the same.

Then the "principle" appears to be nothing but brute animal force, the law of the jungle, the mentality of a sociopath elevated to a moral principle.

For example, considering education as a form of preparation for fighting, is an indirect means. Considering the development of productive forces in an economy as a preparation for fighting is also an indirect means. Diplomacy and trade can even be preparation for war by other means. But the main point is that war is the purpose.

It's true that intersocietal competition, including military combat, is the basis of morality and the ultimate source of the human moral faculty in evolutionary psychology. But war is not a purpose, only a means to an end.

Too bad the answer is so uninformative.

Well, given that the entire point of my approach to life is 'be a savage', non-ironically, I don't see why you would expect it to be informative. I live in the west, but I'm philosophically not a part of your civilisation and I'm not even trying to be. I reject the very premise behind your question. I'm not trying to convey any moralistic information, because I don't even need it.

As I said: the mentality of a sociopath -- "Whatever I can get away with" -- elevated to a moral principle.

I don't need a universalist moral justification to fight. I only need to feel like I want to fight for some reason. 'Might makes right' is a statement that has to be continually tested in order to find out who the winner is. This means that fighting must necessarily continue forever, unless someone loses the will to fight and decides not to try again.

I.e., as a moral claim, "Might makes right" is incoherent and vacuous.

[Rei Murasame]

Then the "principle" appears to be nothing but brute animal force, the law of the jungle, the mentality of a sociopath elevated to a moral principle.

Yes.

the mentality of a sociopath -- "Whatever I can get away with"

Yes.

I.e., as a moral claim, "Might makes right" is incoherent and vacuous.

I never said it was a moral claim. 'Might makes right' is a negation of moral claims. It is quite deliberately the opposite of a moral claim, at least, in the sense that it is commonly understood.

Your position is incoherent.

Actually, it's 100% coherent, which is why you are 100% capable of understanding it. Your post shows that you understand exactly and precisely what I'm saying. You just don't like it. It is however the reality that stands behind everything.

[Truth To Power]

Your position is incoherent.

Actually, it's 100% coherent, which is why you are 100% capable of understanding it. Your post shows that you understand exactly and precisely what I'm saying.

I understand that your position is a negation of morality, but that makes your use of the term, "right" incoherent.

You just don't like it. It is however the reality that stands behind everything.

No, it is not. Sociopaths constitute a microscopic minority of the population precisely because the relentless war of all against all that you advocate doesn't work in evolutionary terms. It's too destructive, and consequently weakens societies that don't put a stop to it.

Coincidentally, Scientific American has an interesting article this month about how the development of cooperative social dynamics -- especially economics -- led to human dominance in the ecosystem, and the emergence of human society as an evolutionary superweapon far more powerful than mere intelligence.

[mikema63]

the mentality of a sociopath -- "Whatever I can get away with"

Whatever I can get away with, without feeling bad. would then be the mentality of the rest of humanity.

I understand that your position is a negation of morality, but that makes your use of the term, "right" incoherent.

Just because morality doesn't objectively exist doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect in the world. Rights and morals exist in our heads and in our collective consciousness, and they shape the world we live in by affecting our actions. The observation that might makes right is just that the people with power in society are the ones who shape that moral framework.

No, it is not. Sociopaths constitute a microscopic minority of the population precisely because the relentless war of all against all that you advocate doesn't work in evolutionary terms. It's too destructive, and consequently weakens societies that don't put a stop to it.

It's up to 4% actually, besides sociopathic behavior exists on a spectrum, it's not a dichotomy. Several different genetic strategies exist, sociopathy works quite well as long as there aren't too many sociopaths.

Coincidentally, Scientific American has an interesting article this month about how the development of cooperative social dynamics -- especially economics -- led to human dominance in the ecosystem, and the emergence of human society as an evolutionary superweapon far more powerful than mere intelligence.

Scientific american should be taken with a grain of salt, it likes to take research far out of proportion and make conclusions that don't readily follow. Sociopathy doesn't preclude people working within those systems however, in fact many with sociopathic traits do quite well within it, being willing to take advantage of a system in a place where the only control is moral and not legal is an amazing advantage in a capitalist system.

[SolarCross]

So, you claim that slavery is right as long as the masters have the power to keep the slaves enslaved, and that the Nazis were right to exterminate Jews just as long as they had the power to do so. The only way they could ever establish that it might be wrong was to try it, and see if they lost the war. Tamerlane was actually right to exterminate millions of people, including whole societies, because he ultimately won the war.

In terms of natural rights yes. You are quite comfortable, I am sure, with slavery if it is not a human being enslaved: dogs, cows, sheep etc. You are quite comfortable with mass exterminations if it is not human beings being exterminated: lice, mice, bacteria etc. That is because you are a "humanist" with humanism being a peculiar cult that deifies some abstraction of a particular species of which the cultist coincidently happens to be a member. lol. The Romans of that great empire of antiquity were not humanists; they kept humans slaves for the same reasons they kept animal slaves because it was useful for them and because they could. They are not weird in this either because pretty much all people throughout history all over the world have a similar approach to life. The humanist is the exception and a hypocritical one at that.

It is not a notion. It is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. I would like readers to note that by dismissing that self-evident and indisputable fact as a "notion," you are still trying to find some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

False and evil? Why not just call me a heretic and be done with it? Land or at least space is uncreated by the hand of man, that much is "an indisputable fact of objective reality" but your following assertions that human beings have equal rights to anything or a right to liberty is pure theology and a logical non sequitur as well.

So, you believe in a right to liberty as long as it is only your liberty to rob, oppress, enslave, starve and murder those whom you have the power (granted by government -- which you refuse to pay for -- in the form of legal privileges such as land titles) to rob, oppress, enslave, starve and murder.

Thought so.

Such is the dishonesty of idealists that they wilfully misrepresent and misunderstand those that do not conform to their belief system. I do not say anyone has a right to liberty, not intrinsically. It is something that is often desired but there are no god or gods dispensing rights to liberty and if there were that would only have validity in so far as those gods had the MIGHT to make it so. So it also goes with human legal systems.

As long as just compensation is made to those who are thus deprived of it, matter can be made into private property by removing it from its natural place by labor. A location ("space") on the earth's solid surface by definition cannot be removed from its natural place by labor, and can therefore never rightly be made into private property.

Okay so let's try this weirdness for it's practicality. A lonely bedouin out in the Sahara finds a patch of land by an oasis, takes by his labour sand and clay to make a house for himself. It is nothing special barely more than a mud hut, no electric and no modern conveniences but it makes for a shady spot to shelter from the midday sun. Oh noes! He stole your sand! He stole your space! He owes you compensation and.. err... every other human (but not other animals) on the face of the planet an equal share. So if he doesn't want to be dubbed an heretical oppressor of natural rights to liberty by crazy ideologists he should to post a cheque every year for... how much?.. His house is practically worthless, if he tried to sell it he might get a few dollars or a canteen of water or something similar. So the compensation should be proportionately small. One millionth of a dollar seems a fair but arbitrary total compensation so one millionth of dollar divided by 7 billion for each individual human that he cruelly and unjustly deprived of their liberty, means he should pay out 7 billion cheques each year each to the value of 7e-15 dollars (that's 1 over 7 million billions).

So land is special for you because it is space.

No, it is special because it is something nature has provided, which can never be a product of labor.

Fine but so is sunlight, so solar panels are an oppression of natural rights to liberty?

We use space. But using -- especially temporarily, for a matter of moments -- is not owning.

All ownership is temporary if for no other reason than the owner is temporary. It is owning; it is claimed, it is used, it is traded, it is stolen. What do you think ownership is?

[Truth To Power]

So, you claim that slavery is right as long as the masters have the power to keep the slaves enslaved, and that the Nazis were right to exterminate Jews just as long as they had the power to do so. The only way they could ever establish that it might be wrong was to try it, and see if they lost the war. Tamerlane was actually right to exterminate millions of people, including whole societies, because he ultimately won the war.

In terms of natural rights yes.

You are assuming there are no rights -- except property rights, of course....

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

The propertarian must always resort to absurdity to justify the atrocities committed in the name of the Great God Property. ALWAYS. Observe:

You are quite comfortable, I am sure, with slavery if it is not a human being enslaved: dogs, cows, sheep etc.

See how you always have to resort to absurdity? Slavery is labor compelled by force. Labor is human effort devoted to production. Therefore, nothing but humans can ever be enslaved.

You know that, and so does everyone else reading this.

You are quite comfortable with mass exterminations if it is not human beings being exterminated: lice, mice, bacteria etc.

Correct. Because human beings have rights, which other organisms do not.

That is because you are a "humanist" with humanism being a peculiar cult that deifies some abstraction of a particular species of which the cultist coincidently happens to be a member. lol.

Nope. Human beings have rights because of their biological nature: uniquely, among all organisms, they have moral capacity (i.e., the capacity to respect others' rights, which is the crucial requisite for having rights of one's own).

The Romans of that great empire of antiquity were not humanists; they kept humans slaves for the same reasons they kept animal slaves because it was useful for them and because they could.

Animals cannot be slaves, and the Romans would rightly have laughed in your face at the absurd suggestion that they could not tell the difference between slaves and domestic livestock.

They are not weird in this either because pretty much all people throughout history all over the world have a similar approach to life. The humanist is the exception and a hypocritical one at that.

More absurdity. Now you are even pretending you cannot tell the difference between human beings and bacteria.

It is not a notion. It is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. I would like readers to note that by dismissing that self-evident and indisputable fact as a "notion," you are still trying to find some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

False and evil?

Yes. Your beliefs are false and evil.

Why not just call me a heretic and be done with it?

Because I do not mean you are a heretic (someone who preaches beliefs at variance with accepted religious doctrine). I mean that your beliefs are false and evil.

Land or at least space is uncreated by the hand of man, that much is "an indisputable fact of objective reality"

Then why did you try to minimize and dismiss it as a "notion," hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

but your following assertions that human beings have equal rights to anything or a right to liberty is pure theology and a logical non sequitur as well.

You either believe in equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor or you don't. You don't. Simple.

In any case, I have given my reasons for my belief in equal human rights, and they are based logically on known facts of the physical universe -- specifically, the origin and nature of human beings.

So, you believe in a right to liberty as long as it is only your liberty to rob, oppress, enslave, starve and murder those whom you have the power (granted by government -- which you refuse to pay for -- in the form of legal privileges such as land titles) to rob, oppress, enslave, starve and murder.

Thought so.

Such is the dishonesty of idealists that they wilfully misrepresent and misunderstand those that do not conform to their belief system.

<yawn> Let's see who is dishonest, shall we? Observe:

I do not say anyone has a right to liberty, not intrinsically.

Do you claim a right to use and enjoy your property as you see fit, including depriving others of access to what nature provided for all?

It is something that is often desired but there are no god or gods dispensing rights to liberty and if there were that would only have validity in so far as those gods had the MIGHT to make it so. So it also goes with human legal systems.

I am not the one invoking gods, here, and legal systems just codify and organize pre-existing beliefs about rights. They are self-evidently not their own ultimate cause.

As long as just compensation is made to those who are thus deprived of it, matter can be made into private property by removing it from its natural place by labor. A location ("space") on the earth's solid surface by definition cannot be removed from its natural place by labor, and can therefore never rightly be made into private property.

Okay so let's try this weirdness for it's practicality.

Without reading further, I know I will be showing your "argument" is fallacious and absurd.

A lonely bedouin out in the Sahara finds a patch of land by an oasis, takes by his labour sand and clay to make a house for himself. It is nothing special barely more than a mud hut, no electric and no modern conveniences but it makes for a shady spot to shelter from the midday sun. Oh noes! He stole your sand! He stole your space!

First absurdity: it is self-evidently not my sand or space.

He owes you compensation and.. err... every other human (but not other animals) on the face of the planet an equal share.

Second absurdity: he could only owe compensation to the extent that he deprived someone else of what they would otherwise have. No one else wanted to use that clay and sand, so they have suffered no deprivation, and are therefore owed no compensation. If someone else HAD wanted to use that clay and sand, and the Bedouin deprived them of it, then yes, of course he would owe them just compensation.

So if he doesn't want to be dubbed an heretical oppressor of natural rights to liberty by crazy ideologists he should to post a cheque every year for... how much?..

More of the inevitable absurdities....

His house is practically worthless, if he tried to sell it he might get a few dollars or a canteen of water or something similar. So the compensation should be proportionately small. One millionth of a dollar seems a fair but arbitrary total compensation so one millionth of dollar divided by 7 billion for each individual human that he cruelly and unjustly deprived of their liberty, means he should pay out 7 billion cheques each year each to the value of 7e-15 dollars (that's 1 over 7 million billions).

And more...

So land is special for you because it is space.

No, it is special because it is something nature has provided, which can never be a product of labor.

Fine but so is sunlight,

Correct.

so solar panels are an oppression of natural rights to liberty?

Another obvious absurdity. A solar panel only deprives someone else of sunlight if it intercepts sunlight they wanted to use.

We use space. But using -- especially temporarily, for a matter of moments -- is not owning.

All ownership is temporary if for no other reason than the owner is temporary.

Ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

It is owning;

Everyone reading this is aware that it is not. Your claim is ABSURD.

it is claimed,

No it isn't. It is just used. Your claim is ABSURD.

it is used,

Lots of things are used without being owned. I'm using the English language right now without owning it.

it is traded,

No it isn't. It is just used. Your claim is ABSURD.

it is stolen.

No it isn't. It is just used. Your claim is ABSURD.

What do you think ownership is?

Ownership in the relevant sense is a legal entitlement to use, control, benefit from, and dispose of something as property.

[Truth To Power]

the mentality of a sociopath -- "Whatever I can get away with"

Whatever I can get away with, without feeling bad. would then be the mentality of the rest of humanity.

Ah, no.

I understand that your position is a negation of morality, but that makes your use of the term, "right" incoherent.

Just because morality doesn't objectively exist

It does:

doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect in the world. Rights and morals exist in our heads and in our collective consciousness, and they shape the world we live in by affecting our actions.

See?

The observation that might makes right is just that the people with power in society are the ones who shape that moral framework.

Like Jesus, or Gandhi...?

Your view is either too simplistic, or too vague. If you include moral suasion as "power," that's expanding the concept of "might" to where it is no longer meaningful.

No, it is not. Sociopaths constitute a microscopic minority of the population precisely because the relentless war of all against all that you advocate doesn't work in evolutionary terms. It's too destructive, and consequently weakens societies that don't put a stop to it.

It's up to 4% actually, besides sociopathic behavior exists on a spectrum, it's not a dichotomy. Several different genetic strategies exist, sociopathy works quite well as long as there aren't too many sociopaths.

Yes, a society can carry a certain load of sociopathic parasites before its function is impaired to the point of jeopardizing the whole -- pretty much the way a population of songbirds can support a certain number of cuckoos.

Coincidentally, Scientific American has an interesting article this month about how the development of cooperative social dynamics -- especially economics -- led to human dominance in the ecosystem, and the emergence of human society as an evolutionary superweapon far more powerful than mere intelligence.

Scientific american should be taken with a grain of salt, it likes to take research far out of proportion and make conclusions that don't readily follow.

True. It's not an impartial source, and is a shadow of its former self intellectually. Still, the article was thought provoking.

Sociopathy doesn't preclude people working within those systems however, in fact many with sociopathic traits do quite well within it, being willing to take advantage of a system in a place where the only control is moral and not legal is an amazing advantage in a capitalist system.

Correct. In fact, capitalism as a system seems almost designed to give the sociopath maximum opportunity to prosper at others' expense without actually engaging in violence. It has been noted that the assumptions of modern mainstream neoclassical economics essentially imply that people are all sociopaths.

[TheRedPill]

I am libertarian.

I believe that the ultimate goal of libertarianism is for all people to have the freedom to live their life as they choose so long as it does not interfere with another's right to do the same.

I believe that government's only reason for existence is to resolve the conflicts that arises naturally among people's desire to live their life as they choose.

I believe that the size of government should be the minimum needed to resolve these conflicts, as close to these conflicts as possible, and only affecting those specifically involved in such conflict.

I believe that such freedom and liberty produces the greatest environment for creativity, innovation, and happiness among all people.

[jango1985]

have any of you heard those redneck jokes, well I want to try explain it like that? You know your a libertarian if you live by yourself in the woods, if someone messed with you'll defend yourself and if the outside world isn't burning down or causing you problems you ignore it. You know your a libertarian if you live in a desert and own an AKM just in case the Russia invades but otherwise don't pay too much attention to the outside world. You know your a libertarian if you want a justice system but after that who gives a F*ck I got the only piece of government that matters.

The reason capitalism exists in libertarianism is because they don't stop it not because they are for it, a huge difference, if communists were common a libertarian system would be constantly getting accused of communist agenda's to enslave the workforce to take care of the needy. If fascist were common libertarianism would be equated with that, Rei in proper fascist way started a fight making this about ( libertarians + capitalism ) . Libertarianism == Justice, this is all we consider important. I assume if there is a need to coordinate you all fully capable of doing that without my intervention, if you feel you aren't and I should have more power over you okay? But If you do give me all that power over you I might have to start calling my self a dictatorship or part of a oligarchy.

I refuse to discuss how to make a justice system in this thread, its off thread and a very large body of text. The question is really what is the end goal of a justice system and free market economy? I am super curious but I don't know if its fair to ask for a response if Rei intentionally asked a question of what is the goal to a mean. This thing I just did that accuses Rei of trying to cause problems directing potential anger towards her is a fascist move. If you want to attack attacking for attacking, attack yourself and save us all the trouble, otherwise you may participate but I might call you a fascist.

[EU rope]

What is the purpose of being a libertarian in your view?

Well, to acquire liberty, of course. To be free.

[Crantag]

The ultimate goal of mine would be to abolish ideology, I reckon.

[Godstud]

Wouldn't that be a lot like an organized anarchist??

[Pants-of-dog]

So, after being inspired by certain Octavia Butler novels, i would say that the ultimate goal of my ideology is the complete abolition of hierarchies and other oppressive power dynamics.

[Crantag]

Wouldn't that be a lot like an organized anarchist??

I believe in local sovereignty and abolishment of nation-states, the concept of which is inherently phony, and which has been one of the biggest barriers to peace in the modern world (ironically, they were created in Westphalia to prevent wars).