Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.
What is Government then?
Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.
To some, government is a necessary evil to be kept placated and then ignored as much as possible.
To some, government is the protector, security blanket, mommy, daddy, and public teat to which we all belong and can expect to receive what we need as we need it.
To some, government is the villain to be destroyed and buried if we can.
And to the libertarian, little "L", government is what we put into place to enforce the social contract that we want. We give the governmentits power and it has no power of its own.
What is Government then?
Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.
To some, government is a necessary evil to be kept placated and then ignored as much as possible.
To some, government is the protector, security blanket, mommy, daddy, and public teat to which we all belong and can expect to receive what we need as we need it.
To some, government is the villain to be destroyed and buried if we can.
And to the libertarian, little "L", government is what we put into place to enforce the social contract that we want. We give the governmentits power and it has no power of its own.
I agree
The degree to which government is involved in enforcing the social contract is determined by the voters. Government is given leeway or reigned in based on the will of the people
And yet, you have failed to identify a single one of them
Why am I not surprised
Celtic Ireland existed on a clan structure which is still a government. So, once again you fail miserably
Jeebus, f'in christmas, some of you are beyond stupid. Here, let me help you out since you can not differentiate terminology and in so, get stuck on stupid.
tribe noun \ˈtrīb\
Definition of TRIBE
1
a : a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers
b : a political division of the Roman people originally representing one of the three original tribes of ancient Rome
c : phyle
2
: a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest
3
: a category of taxonomic classification ranking below a subfamily; also : a natural group irrespective of taxonomic rank <the cat tribe> <the rose tribe>
Now, i realize there are a lot of words there, and yest each one has specific meaning. None of the three of these terms give connotation to the same thing. They are vastly different.
And if someone had read any history, they would KNOW that the celts were considered...wait for it.... WAIT FOR IT..... anarchic. hence the justification by their conquerors that they were "barbaric.
It's like teaching fucking first semester political history in here most days.
Wow....I'm impressed
Someone knows how to look things up in a dictionary. Too bad you don't understand what you read
Even the Celtic clans had a form of Government. They were patriotic and loyal to their clan. They obeyed clan elders. They fought and died for their clans. They contributed to the clan and helped other clan members
That is GOVERNMENT. It is government on a small scale but government just the same. It ultimately failed because it was inefficient an unable to compete with larger societies
Synonyms (of government)
administration, authority, governance, rule, jurisdiction, regime (also régime), regimen
Related Words
reign; dominion, power, sovereignty (also sovranty), supremacy, sway; command, leadership; direction, management, regulation, superintendence, supervision; autocracy, dictatorship, domination, hegemony, mastery, oppression, subjugation, tyranny
Using that intellectually retarded definition, the Crips and Bloods are "governments".Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government
Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.
What is Government then?
Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.
Please specify them. I would like to see an example of a society without government.
Just be sure you're not concocting a false definition of government in the process.
There are societies that exist today that do not have government. Since they have been doing the same thing for 300 years, they were obviously doing it in colonial times.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Majority-Rule-Decisions-Religious/dp/0941308049"]Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Religious Society of Friends: Michael J. Sheeran: 9780941308045: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
lol, the Quakers have no government? Colonial Quakers had no government?
William Penn was a Quaker.
You said public education does not take wealth from one and give it to another. That is false.
The cost of public education is paid for by pooled money that is unequally collected from taxpayers,
therefore those who pay more are having their wealth redistributed to those who pay less, all else being equal.
I see the problem now, you can't read.
I said that education is not redistribution of wealth, it isn't.
So you're saying you posted a non sequitur because you couldn't cope with staying on topic,
and I'm at fault for giving you some benefit of the doubt that perhaps that wasn't what you were doing?
Okay.
So now tell us exactly how the payment for public education, through forced taxes unequally leveed, is not a redistribution of wealth.
I keep citing items right out of the Libertarian Party Platform, which I assume is where the Libertarians are trying to tell ME what a libertarian is.
And yet the libertarians here, so-called, don't want to defend their own party's positions.
You trying to tell me what I believe by citing the Libertarian Party platform is no different than me quoting the Communist Party platform and telling you that is what you believe.
No, I'm telling you what the Libertarian Party professes to believe. One would assume that the positions taken in the platform were placed there by some sort of consensus amongst those in the party.
If you're saying I shouldn't trust anything in the Libertarian Party's platform there is no rational basis for party's platform,
fine.
Then why does the Libertarian party platform say this:
Education
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.
That's a call for privatizing all education. Libertarians wrote that platform.
Refer to the bolded: That is what school taxes DO. Period. Not to mention the portion of public education that may come from state income taxes. That is redistribution of wealth. That is forcing you, if you're wealthier, to pay for the education of the less wealthy.
Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government
Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.
What is Government then?
Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.
So this guy is wrong too?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/redistribution-of-wealth-in-america/?_r=0
"Aside from hard-core libertarians, who view the sanctity of justly begotten private property as the overarching social value and any form of coerced redistribution as unjust, how many Americans on the left and right of the political spectrum would disagree with Mr. Obamas very general and cautiously phrased statement?"
...
"The fact is that redistributive government policy mainly through benefits-in-kind programs, agricultural policy and the like has been very much a characteristic of American life, just as it has been in every economically developed nation, albeit at different levels.
Start at the local level. Through property taxes, local governments all over the United States routinely take from high-income Americans living in expensive houses to subsidize the education of children from lower-income families. It is the American way, based on the widespread belief that doing so will make society as a whole better off. Is there a significantly large constituency for abolishing this form of redistribution at the local level and instead letting every family fend for itself, with its own budget, in a private market for education?"
So this guy is wrong too?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/redistribution-of-wealth-in-america/?_r=0
"Aside from hard-core libertarians, who view the sanctity of justly begotten private property as the overarching social value and any form of coerced redistribution as unjust, how many Americans on the left and right of the political spectrum would disagree with Mr. Obama’s very general and cautiously phrased statement?"
...
"The fact is that redistributive government policy — mainly through benefits-in-kind programs, agricultural policy and the like — has been very much a characteristic of American life, just as it has been in every economically developed nation, albeit at different levels.
Start at the local level. Through property taxes, local governments all over the United States routinely take from high-income Americans living in expensive houses to subsidize the education of children from lower-income families. It is the American way, based on the widespread belief that doing so will make society as a whole better off. Is there a significantly large constituency for abolishing this form of redistribution at the local level and instead letting every family fend for itself, with its own budget, in a private market for education?"
How am I supposed to point out where he is wrong if you don't post a working link?
As for Obama, he is, as always, full of shit. Most of the historical redistribution policies were the result of corruption, and benefited the wealth over the poor. That alone is enough reason for intelligent people to question their value.
Libertarians fail to realize that it's 2013 and everything is more complex than they can understand.
Libertarians fail to understand 'greed'.
Libertarians are the original hypocrites. Their 'god' Ayn who denounced social programs, but used social programs when it was in her best interest. (under an assumed name)
Ayn Rand? The one who despises libertarians and is known for her objectivist views?
Keep talking, it shows how ignorant yyou truly are regarding political philosophy.
Wow totally refuted my post....totally.Minarchist libertarians believe that one of the responsibilities of government is to outlaw murder. A pro-life libertarian obviously sees abortion as murder. Thus there is nothing anti-libertarian about being pro-life.
Liberts find it a private issue where government has no opinion on it
Anything else and you are not a libert.
And btw liberts talk about this because they can. Just like liberals talk about liberals and cons talk about cons....there is no special reason beyond nothing.
I always love when a liberal or conservative who is NOT a libertarian tries to tell al libertarian what one is. This is particularly funny when they are clueless and basing their definition on utter falsehoods. Tell us more about things that you do not understand, please .
It is also of note that you used a no true Scotsman fallacy here. IOW, you are full of bullshit.
You dont even know the difference between these words you use, do you?
You're either playing a part, or it's impressive you have the ability to type. You're fuckin stupid, kid.
When you factor in religion as a form of government in many of its aspects, you see even more 'government' in primitive societies.
When I read your posts I lose brain cells. The only rational response is to stop reading your posts.
I always love when a liberal or conservative who is NOT a libertarian tries to tell al libertarian what one is. This is particularly funny when they are clueless and basing their definition on utter falsehoods. Tell us more about things that you do not understand, please .
It is also of note that you used a no true Scotsman fallacy here. IOW, you are full of bullshit.
I keep citing items right out of the Libertarian Party Platform, which I assume is where the Libertarians are trying to tell ME what a libertarian is.
And yet the libertarians here, so-called, don't want to defend their own party's positions.
You trying to tell me what I believe by citing the Libertarian Party platform is no different than me quoting the Communist Party platform and telling you that is what you believe.
You trying to tell me what I believe by citing the Libertarian Party platform is no different than me quoting the Communist Party platform and telling you that is what you believe.
No, I'm telling you what the Libertarian Party professes to believe. One would assume that the positions taken in the platform were placed there by some sort of consensus amongst those in the party.
If you're saying I shouldn't trust anything in the Libertarian Party's platform there is no rational basis for party's platform,
fine.
Sigh.
The party platform is a statement of policy, not belief. For example, the 2012 Democratic Party Platform had a statement about responsibly ending the war in Iraq, which was responsibly ended by Bush. No sane person believes Obama had anything to do with it, but the Democratic Party policy is to take credit for it.
Libertarians fail to realize that it's 2013 and everything is more complex than they can understand.
Libertarians fail to understand 'greed'.
Libertarians are the original hypocrites. Their 'god' Ayn who denounced social programs, but used social programs when it was in her best interest. (under an assumed name)
Ayn Rand? The one who despises libertarians and is known for her objectivist views?
Keep talking, it shows how ignorant yyou truly are regarding political philosophy.
Stupid views are stupid views whether they're yours or Rands. The fact is, we rich own your ass.
[/B]
2. Libertarians dont care about minorities or the poor.
This is directly from the Libertarian Party 2012 Platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,
and since Libertarianism opposes any redistribution of wealth, it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,
unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.
This is further indicated by this plank in the Libertarian platform:
2.8 Education
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
Education 'without interference from government' and without any governmental 'redistribution of wealth',
means NO public education. Period. Which thus means education can only be acquired based on one's ability to pay for it.
Platform | Libertarian Party
