How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[bripat9643]

And of course, with no checks on personal power and rampant abuses of that power everywhere.....why wouldn't they also influence the government?

What government?

Apparently, Skylar's theory is that anarchy is bad because it would allow the wealthy to bribe government officials.

You just have to shake your head at such idiocy.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I have just this one observation. YOU NEVER DEFINE TERMS AND NEVER PRESENT EVIDENCE other than your opinions in my experience. How far does your hypocrisy run?

What terms don't you understand?

That is not the point as you well know. You are forever vague in your responses like just now with a response to a post that requires no reply such as you have provided; one making a rhetorical observation. You're a very dishonest person, truth be told and beyond any trust!

 

[Skylar]

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

As you believe in absolute property rights.....there would be no such checks. Nor any for the abuses that can and often do arise under Anarchy. Private power can be abused with no legal repercussions.

Anarchy is not a functional system. Its too fragile, too corruptible, and too injust in practice.

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

The profit motive.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Exploitation is profitable. Abuse is profitable. You're literally defining the reasons why the very abuses you insist wouldn't exist......would exist.

And historically, did.

A road is a capital investment and requires upkeep. The road owner would increase his profits by having as many people use his road as possible.

Unless it was more profitable to keep certain classes of people off the road. For example....competitors. Or to charge them exorbitantly more. Or it may be in your best interest to keep a certain class of people economically depressed for cheap labor. Or because of personal beliefs. Or because of your religion. Or because you don't like what they have to say.

You ignore the profitability of exploitation. You ignore the control that can be exerted with gross inequities in power.

And your Anarchy has no checks against it. And in terms of practical freedom, these factors cause gross imposition on the exercise of practical freedoms.

 

[bripat9643]

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

The profit motive.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

A road is a capital investment and requires upkeep. The road owner would increase his profits by having as many people use his road as possible.

Unless it was more profitable to keep certain classes of people off the road. For example....competitors. Or to charge them exorbitantly more. Or it may be in your best interest to keep a certain class of people economically depressed for cheap labor. Or because of personal beliefs. Or because of your religion. Or because you don't like what they have to say.

And your Anarchy has no checks against it. And in terms of practical freedom, these factors cause gross imposition on the exercise of practical freedoms.

How does a business keep a class of people economically depressed? How could you make more money by keeping a few business owners off the road? How does a business make money by reducing its customer base? The simple answer is that it doesn't.

Government has no checks against it. Under the open market, every business must compete with other businesses that are working constantly to take its customers away. That's the market check.

As always, you provide no examples for any of your claims. You spew claim after claim with nothing to support them.

 

[Skylar]

And of course, with no checks on personal power and rampant abuses of that power everywhere.....why wouldn't they also influence the government?

What government?

Apparently, Skylar's theory is that anarchy is bad because it would allow the wealthy to bribe government officials.

Or form their own personal armies. If there is NO government, then those with the most capacity for violence rule. If there is a government.....then the unchecked power of the wealthy can corrupt it. Ending the proposed conception of anarchy either way.

There is a reason why this ivory tower fantasy exists.....NO WHERE. Its ineptly fragile and inherently unsustainable.

 

[Skylar]

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

The profit motive.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

 

[Skylar]

I have just this one observation. YOU NEVER DEFINE TERMS AND NEVER PRESENT EVIDENCE other than your opinions in my experience. How far does your hypocrisy run?

What terms don't you understand?

That is not the point as you well know. You are forever vague in your responses like just now with a response to a post that requires no reply such as you have provided; one making a rhetorical observation. You're a very dishonest person, truth be told and beyond any trust!

Centinal likes semantic games. When we get specific.....his arguments collapse. So he remains as vague as possible.

The problem is....vague isn't compelling or persuasive. So while he preserves his argument by avoiding revealing it.......he can't use it to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with him.

I win either way. Either his specific claims collapse when revealed.....or his vague claims remain rhetorically worthless while hidden.

Its a no-lose scenario for me.

 

[bripat9643]

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

The profit motive.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

That's right, dumbass. The law said restaurants had to have a separate section for blacks, and that the bus company had to force blacks to ride in the back. It was the law: government, in other words, not the private businesses that you believe to be so evil.

 

[bripat9643]

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

The profit motive.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

 

[Skylar]

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

The profit motive.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

So that's a no?

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched.

As *somebody* had to support the laws you cite....else they never would have been passed. And given the nature of voting in each city, county and states.....there would have to be LOTS of somebodies.

Any one of which explodes your narrative.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

Dude.......................

 

[bripat9643]

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

The profit motive.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

So that's a no?

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched.

As *somebody* had to support the laws you cite....else they never would have been passed. And given the nature of voting in each city, county and states.....there would have to be LOTS of somebodies.

Any one of which explodes your narrative.

When are you going to backup any of your claims?

 

[Skylar]

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

So that's a no?

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched.

As *somebody* had to support the laws you cite....else they never would have been passed. And given the nature of voting in each city, county and states.....there would have to be LOTS of somebodies.

Any one of which explodes your narrative.

When are you going to backup any of your claims?

So you have nothing to back your argument that every denial of service was forced by laws.

Duly noted.

 

[bripat9643]

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

So that's a no?

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched.

As *somebody* had to support the laws you cite....else they never would have been passed. And given the nature of voting in each city, county and states.....there would have to be LOTS of somebodies.

Any one of which explodes your narrative.

When are you going to backup any of your claims?

So you have nothing to back your argument that every denial of service was forced by laws.

Duly noted.

Again, you have never provided a single bit of support for any of your claims. When are you going to answer any of the questions put to you?

 

[Skylar]

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

So that's a no?

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched.

As *somebody* had to support the laws you cite....else they never would have been passed. And given the nature of voting in each city, county and states.....there would have to be LOTS of somebodies.

Any one of which explodes your narrative.

When are you going to backup any of your claims?

So you have nothing to back your argument that every denial of service was forced by laws.

Duly noted.

Again, you have never provided a single bit of support for any of your claims. When are you going to answer any of the questions put to you?

Right after you back your argument that every denial of service in segregationist south was forced by laws.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I have just this one observation. YOU NEVER DEFINE TERMS AND NEVER PRESENT EVIDENCE other than your opinions in my experience. How far does your hypocrisy run?

What terms don't you understand?

That is not the point as you well know. You are forever vague in your responses like just now with a response to a post that requires no reply such as you have provided; one making a rhetorical observation. You're a very dishonest person, truth be told and beyond any trust!

Centinal likes semantic games. When we get specific.....his arguments collapse. So he remains as vague as possible.

The problem is....vague isn't compelling or persuasive. So while he preserves his argument by avoiding revealing it.......he can't use it to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with him.

I win either way. Either his specific claims collapse when revealed.....or his vague claims remain rhetorically worthless while hidden.

Its a no-lose scenario for me.

Indeed! I view him now as a vile example of protoplasm scraped from the gutter with his two-step gallivant right rhetorical games.

 

[bripat9643]

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

So that's a no?

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched.

As *somebody* had to support the laws you cite....else they never would have been passed. And given the nature of voting in each city, county and states.....there would have to be LOTS of somebodies.

Any one of which explodes your narrative.

When are you going to backup any of your claims?

So you have nothing to back your argument that every denial of service was forced by laws.

Duly noted.

Again, you have never provided a single bit of support for any of your claims. When are you going to answer any of the questions put to you?

Right after you back your argument that every denial of service in segregationist south was forced by laws.

I had about 5 questions in a row before that. Answer them.

 

[bripat9643]

I have just this one observation. YOU NEVER DEFINE TERMS AND NEVER PRESENT EVIDENCE other than your opinions in my experience. How far does your hypocrisy run?

What terms don't you understand?

That is not the point as you well know. You are forever vague in your responses like just now with a response to a post that requires no reply such as you have provided; one making a rhetorical observation. You're a very dishonest person, truth be told and beyond any trust!

Centinal likes semantic games. When we get specific.....his arguments collapse. So he remains as vague as possible.

The problem is....vague isn't compelling or persuasive. So while he preserves his argument by avoiding revealing it.......he can't use it to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with him.

I win either way. Either his specific claims collapse when revealed.....or his vague claims remain rhetorically worthless while hidden.

Its a no-lose scenario for me.

Indeed! I view him now as a vile example of protoplasm scraped from the gutter with his two-step gallivant right rhetorical games.

No one cares how you see him, commie.

 

[Contumacious]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Nothing.

People not agreeing to those terms of employment.

And if their choice was starvation.....or monopoly? Or the company store?

Death or submission to monopoly, abuse and exploitation. With libertarianism sanctioning and protecting the monopoly, abuse and exploitation. You can ignore these consequences. But rational people woudlnt'. And didn't.

Again, there's a reason why your Anarchy isn't practiced....anywhere.

HUH


WTF


When oh when were the Libertarians in charge ?


When oh when , have Libertarians supported coercive state monopoly?


WHEN?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You've asked what would stop it. I've given you a half dozen examples. You ignore them all.

Feel free. A rational person wouldn't.

If the profit motive would end denial of service practices....why didn't it in the segregationist south? After all, resteraunts that wouldn't serve black people would have been motivated to get as many customers as possible.

But didn't. What are you missing? Perhaps the economic value of keeping an entire class of people powerless and economically depressed so you could pay them less and treat them poorly?

Jim Crow was legally enforced, dumbass. It was the law. That isn't the free market.

So every person who denied services was FORCED to do so by government?

Can you back that claim up?

When have you ever backed up a single one of your claims?

So that's a no?

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched.

As *somebody* had to support the laws you cite....else they never would have been passed. And given the nature of voting in each city, county and states.....there would have to be LOTS of somebodies.

Any one of which explodes your narrative.

When are you going to backup any of your claims?

libtards dont answer other peoples questions.