Does it bother you that our entire government is based on forcing people via gunpoint

[Nosmo King]

Then how do you justify taxation?

It pays for government. The alternative is anarachy. Would you prefer anarchy?

Yes. The worst thing that could happen under anarchy is that government would be reestablished.

That's what you imagine would be the worst thing to happen under Anarchy?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

Speak with George Washington, he's on line 2

 

[nodoginnafight]

This should be good.

btw - it is completely unregulated capitalism that I can't support.

You toss out a red herring.

Tort law regulates commerce to a more just extent than an army of commissars and apparatchiks ever could.

No it doesn't and it never has.

 

[bripat9643]

It pays for government. The alternative is anarachy. Would you prefer anarchy?

Yes. The worst thing that could happen under anarchy is that government would be reestablished.

That's what you imagine would be the worst thing to happen under Anarchy?

What do you imagine is the worst thing that would happen under anarchy?

 

[bripat9643]

This should be good.

btw - it is completely unregulated capitalism that I can't support.

You toss out a red herring.

Tort law regulates commerce to a more just extent than an army of commissars and apparatchiks ever could.

No it doesn't and it never has.

Duh . . . . wrongo!

 

[nodoginnafight]

You toss out a red herring.

Tort law regulates commerce to a more just extent than an army of commissars and apparatchiks ever could.

No it doesn't and it never has.

Duh . . . . wrongo!

duh . . . . righto!

Gee, that was easy.

 

[bripat9643]

No. Not at all. Inherent in governments is the use of force. If they couldn't use force, all we would have is anarchy with not government able to enforce anything. The government cannot do anything except with the threat of force or force. That is precisely why the powers of the government should be limited and we should make it clear what the government cannot do.

Yep, it's a consensus by the public that create the government....which is why I keep asking these jokers to tell me what they are being forced to do by gun point that is so reprehensible and detrimental to their well being? To date, it seems to be just selfish whinings on their part.

What you call a "consensus" is in fact majority rule. the fact that a majority compels me to do something doesn't mean I am not being compelled. In the end every law is enforced at gunpoint. The fact that the government thugs seldom bring out their guns for everyone to see doesn't mean they won't if they have to.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because humans are not perfect, a system of settling disputes must exist. Armed tribes where retribution or vendetta are practiced rarely create a peaceful and prosperous community. Tribes gave way to dictators and monarchs as man and society evolved. Then came Rome, and the notion of law. That a code of justice that is availible to all be established and posted.

This is the basis of civilization, laws that govern all. Governments are formed with the exclusive right to use force. In our case, we formed a government based on the input of the people governed. We entrust this government with the exclusive right to use force.

The left in this nation seeks to go back to kings and dictators. The anarchists seek to go back even further, to armed tribes.

The conservatives and Libertarians seek to maintain self-government and limit the power of government; realizing that government is like fire, a useful servant, but a force of unbridled destruction if not carefully contained.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No it doesn't and it never has.

Don't be childish, it does nothing to promote your position.

Lawsuits make anti-social commerce unprofitable. They are far more effective than the corrupt bureaucrats you promote.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No it doesn't and it never has.

Don't be childish, it does nothing to promote your position.

Lawsuits make anti-social commerce unprofitable. They are far more effective than the corrupt bureaucrats you promote.

in a dream-world perhaps.

In the real world, it is far too easy for unregulated commerce to hide any evidence that might be used against them. Transparency only comes through force of law. Period.

Don't be so hungry to let a few robber barrons become your kings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism is every bit inherently a failure as is communism.

Take it up with the founding fathers. It was their idea.

A great falsehood, Mustang, and you should be ashamed for libeling them in this manner.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This should be good.

btw - it is completely unregulated capitalism that I can't support.

You toss out a red herring.

Tort law regulates commerce to a more just extent than an army of commissars and apparatchiks ever could.

Our courts and our law are not those of "an army of commissars and apparatchiks."

You better than anyone else on the Board, Uncensored, embody the spirit of the communist commissar or apparatchik.

 

[Avatar4321]

Libertarianism is every bit inherently a failure as is communism.

Take it up with the founding fathers. It was their idea.

A great falsehood, Mustang, and you should be ashamed for libeling them in this manner.

So the Founders didn't argue for a limited Federal government with much of the power retained by the people and States?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes. The worst thing that could happen under anarchy is that government would be reestablished.

That's what you imagine would be the worst thing to happen under Anarchy?

What do you imagine is the worst thing that would happen under anarchy?

people like you would be given free reign. When the lunatics run the asylum they always think things are better.

think the French Revolution versus the American Revolution.

Anarchy is only one step lower than direct democracy or more accurately, they both share the gutter

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take it up with the founding fathers. It was their idea.

A great falsehood, Mustang, and you should be ashamed for libeling them in this manner.

So the Founders didn't argue for a limited Federal government with much of the power retained by the people and States?

Some did and some did not. However, what you describe is not a libertarian form of government.

Since it is your thesis, though, why don't you provide (1) a clear concise definition of libertarianism, (2) how libertarianism operates, and (3) how the Founders were consciously and conscientiously libertarian?

 

[Avatar4321]

A great falsehood, Mustang, and you should be ashamed for libeling them in this manner.

So the Founders didn't argue for a limited Federal government with much of the power retained by the people and States?

Some did and some did not. However, what you describe is not a libertarian form of government.

Since it is your thesis, though, why don't you provide (1) a clear concise definition of libertarianism, (2) how libertarianism operates, and (3) how the Founders were consciously and conscientiously libertarian?

So the Founders established a Constitution that limited the Federal Government and retained much of the power by the people and the States, but all of them did not want that? Who exactly among them signed the Constitution and argued for it's ratification but didn't actually want it?

You are the one arguing that libertarianism isn't what the Founders were advocating. I think it's your burden to show what they were advocating.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the Founders didn't argue for a limited Federal government with much of the power retained by the people and States?

Some did and some did not. However, what you describe is not a libertarian form of government.

Since it is your thesis, though, why don't you provide (1) a clear concise definition of libertarianism, (2) how libertarianism operates, and (3) how the Founders were consciously and conscientiously libertarian?

So the Founders established a Constitution that limited the Federal Government and retained much of the power by the people and the States, but all of them did not want that? Who exactly among them signed the Constitution and argued for it's ratification but didn't actually want it?

You are the one arguing that libertarianism isn't what the Founders were advocating. I think it's your burden to show what they were advocating.

No, what I have said is that the Founders were not Libertarians. You have to Since it is your "provide (1) a clear concise definition of libertarianism, (2) how libertarianism operates, and (3) how the Founders were consciously and conscientiously libertarian."

Once you attempt to do that, a 7th grader can demolish your contention.

Read this, guys: it will help. http://www.frumforum.com/were-the-founding-fathers-libertarian/

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Libertarianism is every bit inherently a failure as is communism.

Take it up with the founding fathers. It was their idea.

While they all believed in liberty, they argued and fought with each other constantly...and I thin k you mean the framers and not the founders. Better yet, learn about who actually gave the Constitution it's power...those who ratified it

So before you start spouting off your limited knowledge of early American history beware, some of us will wipe the floor with you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism is every bit inherently a failure as is communism.

Take it up with the founding fathers. It was their idea.

While they all believed in liberty, they argued and fought with each other constantly...and I thin k you mean the framers and not the founders. Better yet, learn about who actually gave the Constitution it's power...those who ratified it

So before you start spouting off your limited knowledge of early American history beware, some of us will wipe the floor with you

. . . and we will not wring you out, Mustang, and hang you up to dry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What you call a "consensus" is in fact majority rule.

back to school for a refresher course


in basic English reading and comprehension