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.
You know that I can grow food in my backyard, right?In a particular area, sure.
A town people not allowing blacks to use the roads would be perfectly legitimate under your conception of 'aggression'...if the roads were privately owned. Which in your system, all of them would be.
But just because you ignore this abuse and exploitation doesn't mean we can't see it. And there is where your argument breaks. As it lacks persuasive power.
I can offer dozens of such examples. And you will ignore them all. A rational person won't. Which is why your proposed Anarchy doesn't sit well with most rational people.
There is no monopoly on food. It's a figment of your imagination.Can you? Is the soil sufficient to feed yourself and your family? What if you ive in an apaertment like tens of millions of people do?
Again, you're ignoring the abuse and exploitation of monopolies, pretending none exist.
A rational person can recognize the abuse and exploitation. Thus, your argument lacks persuasive power....again.
With the Supreme Court shutting that down. As there is a constitutinoal right to travel and right to eavesment rights recognized under the law.
Under your system...there are no such rights. Nor is there a Supreme Court to stop it. As there are no checks on personal power under Anarchy.
I can offer dozens of such examples. And you will ignore them all. A rational person won't. Which is why your proposed Anarchy doesn't sit well with most rational people.
I can offer dozens of examples of the state initiating aggression.
There is no monopoly on food. It's a figment of your imagination.Can you? Is the soil sufficient to feed yourself and your family? What if you ive in an apaertment like tens of millions of people do?
Again, you're ignoring the abuse and exploitation of monopolies, pretending none exist.
A rational person can recognize the abuse and exploitation. Thus, your argument lacks persuasive power....again.
The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains.
Libertarianism is based upon the stance that it's wrong to initiation aggression against one's fellow man. How exactly is this stance "exploitative"?
Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.
You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.
Actually, to be a libertarian, you have to be against taxation because to be a libertarian means you support the non-initiation of force principle.
I know many libertarians that would disagree.
What you're describing in an anarchist.
The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains.
Libertarianism is based upon the stance that it's wrong to initiation aggression against one's fellow man. How exactly is this stance "exploitative"?
Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.
You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.
Actually, to be a libertarian, you have to be against taxation because to be a libertarian means you support the non-initiation of force principle.
I know many libertarians that would disagree.
What you're describing in an anarchist.
If they disagree, they are wrong. The man who founded libertarianism based it on the non-initiation of force principle. Many people who call themselves libertarian don't really know what it means.
The non-aggression principle has existed in various forms. Although the principle has been traced back as far as antiquity, it was first formally described by this name by the Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, and then further popularized by libertarian thinkers.[6][7]
Natural law theorist Murray Rothbard traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist St. Thomas Aquinas and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school.[8] Proverbs 3:30 records it succinctly, "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."[citation needed] Variations of the non-aggression principle can also be found in Taoism.[9]
There is no monopoly on food. It's a figment of your imagination.Can you? Is the soil sufficient to feed yourself and your family? What if you ive in an apaertment like tens of millions of people do?
Again, you're ignoring the abuse and exploitation of monopolies, pretending none exist.
A rational person can recognize the abuse and exploitation. Thus, your argument lacks persuasive power....again.
We generaqlly don't allow monopolies in our system. In yours they are entirely possible. As there is nothing to prevent them.
Now you're insisting that monopolies aren't even possible. Which most rational people would disagree with. Which again is why your argument lacks persuasive power. And why no one uses your flavor of Anarchy.
Libertarianism is based upon the stance that it's wrong to initiation aggression against one's fellow man. How exactly is this stance "exploitative"?
Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.
You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.
Actually, to be a libertarian, you have to be against taxation because to be a libertarian means you support the non-initiation of force principle.
I know many libertarians that would disagree.
What you're describing in an anarchist.
If they disagree, they are wrong. The man who founded libertarianism based it on the non-initiation of force principle. Many people who call themselves libertarian don't really know what it means.
The non-aggression principle has existed in various forms. Although the principle has been traced back as far as antiquity, it was first formally described by this name by the Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, and then further popularized by libertarian thinkers.[6][7]
Natural law theorist Murray Rothbard traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist St. Thomas Aquinas and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school.[8] Proverbs 3:30 records it succinctly, "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."[citation needed] Variations of the non-aggression principle can also be found in Taoism.[9]
So all of these people opposed taxation....and any mandatory law?
If yes, can you prove that?
What's a regional monopoly?
A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.
No such thing ever existed.
No monopoly has ever existed? Really?
What's a regional monopoly?
A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.
No such thing ever existed.
No monopoly has ever existed? Really?
No so-called "natural monopoly" has ever existed. Only government enforced monopolies have existed.
Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.
You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.
Actually, to be a libertarian, you have to be against taxation because to be a libertarian means you support the non-initiation of force principle.
I know many libertarians that would disagree.
What you're describing in an anarchist.
If they disagree, they are wrong. The man who founded libertarianism based it on the non-initiation of force principle. Many people who call themselves libertarian don't really know what it means.
The non-aggression principle has existed in various forms. Although the principle has been traced back as far as antiquity, it was first formally described by this name by the Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, and then further popularized by libertarian thinkers.[6][7]
Natural law theorist Murray Rothbard traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist St. Thomas Aquinas and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school.[8] Proverbs 3:30 records it succinctly, "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."[citation needed] Variations of the non-aggression principle can also be found in Taoism.[9]
So all of these people opposed taxation....and any mandatory law?
If yes, can you prove that?
"Any mandatory law?" What kind of law is that? They support laws that say "you can't kill someone who is minding his own business," or take his stuff. They oppose laws that say "you have to buy this insurance product from one of these approved providers.
And how is the moral stance that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man exploitative?
Its your argument. You tell me.
My argument is that libertarianism has few and feeble checks for the concentration of personal power.Especially the radical 'no taxation' anarcho-libertarianism that you favor.
Monopolies, exploitation, environmental damage, anti-competative business practices, intimidation, rampant nepotism, propaganda, racial discrimination, harassment.....just to start. As any concentration of power, unchecked, will eventually be abused. Libertarianism has no checks for these wild abuses.
I'm not sure how these result from people thinking that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.
That's because you don't take into consideration the consequences of say....no mandatory taxation. Absolute property rights. The ability of any property owner to be able to 'secede from the nation' at their whim. Or a nation with no laws.
In the real world, we have to take these consequences into consideration. Which is why a philosophy which ignores them is so practically worthless.
We understand those things perfectly. That would mean all the abuses endemic to government would become impossible. It's you who doesn't understand the consequences of handing over the monopoly on the use of force to a corrupt government. No formal government does not mean "no laws."
No. It doesn't. As you wouldn't be able to maintain such a system. Anarchy as a form of government collapse quite rapidly. Either internally, or from external forces.
There's a reason why what you've described is practiced....no where. Why even the founders wouldn't touch it: its can't survive.
What's a regional monopoly?
A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.
No such thing ever existed.
No monopoly has ever existed? Really?
No so-called "natural monopoly" has ever existed. Only government enforced monopolies have existed.
Prove it.
Actually, to be a libertarian, you have to be against taxation because to be a libertarian means you support the non-initiation of force principle.
I know many libertarians that would disagree.
What you're describing in an anarchist.
If they disagree, they are wrong. The man who founded libertarianism based it on the non-initiation of force principle. Many people who call themselves libertarian don't really know what it means.
The non-aggression principle has existed in various forms. Although the principle has been traced back as far as antiquity, it was first formally described by this name by the Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, and then further popularized by libertarian thinkers.[6][7]
Natural law theorist Murray Rothbard traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist St. Thomas Aquinas and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school.[8] Proverbs 3:30 records it succinctly, "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."[citation needed] Variations of the non-aggression principle can also be found in Taoism.[9]
So all of these people opposed taxation....and any mandatory law?
If yes, can you prove that?
"Any mandatory law?" What kind of law is that? They support laws that say "you can't kill someone who is minding his own business," or take his stuff. They oppose laws that say "you have to buy this insurance product from one of these approved providers.
Then how about proving that all libertarians oppose mandatory taxation. Or at least the people you just cited.
You'll need to define your terms first. With evidence.A practical monopoly for a given town, county or state. Where for a given vital product, there large groups of people have no alternative but to purchase from one seller.
No such thing ever existed.
No monopoly has ever existed? Really?
No so-called "natural monopoly" has ever existed. Only government enforced monopolies have existed.
Prove it.
Name one.
I know many libertarians that would disagree.
What you're describing in an anarchist.
If they disagree, they are wrong. The man who founded libertarianism based it on the non-initiation of force principle. Many people who call themselves libertarian don't really know what it means.
The non-aggression principle has existed in various forms. Although the principle has been traced back as far as antiquity, it was first formally described by this name by the Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, and then further popularized by libertarian thinkers.[6][7]
Natural law theorist Murray Rothbard traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist St. Thomas Aquinas and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school.[8] Proverbs 3:30 records it succinctly, "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."[citation needed] Variations of the non-aggression principle can also be found in Taoism.[9]
So all of these people opposed taxation....and any mandatory law?
If yes, can you prove that?
"Any mandatory law?" What kind of law is that? They support laws that say "you can't kill someone who is minding his own business," or take his stuff. They oppose laws that say "you have to buy this insurance product from one of these approved providers.
Then how about proving that all libertarians oppose mandatory taxation. Or at least the people you just cited.
There are people who call themselves libertarian but also support taxation. Their position is a contradiction.
You'll need to define your terms first. With evidence.No such thing ever existed.
No monopoly has ever existed? Really?
No so-called "natural monopoly" has ever existed. Only government enforced monopolies have existed.
Prove it.
Name one.
