Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anti-Libertarianism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 11:56:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What are your main arguments against Libertarianism?

Here's a basic overview of Libertarianism:

The Non-Agression Principle (NAP): a moral attitude that initiatory aggression is inherently unlawful. The principle says that except for self-defense, don"t harm others, don"t harm or steal their property, don"t break your word, don"t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don"t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things. However, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. [http://nap.univacc.net...]

Self-Ownership: Each person owns himself and all of his functions, including those of sex, digestion, cognition, and so on. Among the greatest satisfactions available to human beings are those which recognize other persons as equals in the property ownership of self. Although a man may wish an exclusive association with a particular friend, and while it may be possible to contract for such an exclusive relationship, the fact remains that each party to any association always remains the owner of himself. It's from this point that the concept of inalienable rights originates. [http://mises.org...]
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:03:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What exactly are you assuming is the role of a government in a society? Neighbors in Brooklyn can adhere to the NAP when interacting, but we wouldn't call them as example of libertarianism. The term specifically relates to a basis for government formation and policy.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 6:02:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A fundamental disagreement with the libertarian conception of freedom. See Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty." Of course I don't reject negative freedom entirely, but I think there's a more ancient conception of freedom that has faded from the public eye during modernity.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:15:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have a "Rand Paul 2016" bumper sticker on my car and somebody key slashed my paint job. Fortunately I have an advanced 2012 paintjob on my vehicle so I was able rub it off with no permanent marks.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 2:16:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:03:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
What exactly are you assuming is the role of a government in a society?
To retaliate against those who violate the NAP.

Of course I don't reject negative freedom entirely, but I think there's a more ancient conception of freedom that has faded from the public eye during modernity.

That "Ancient conception" was evil, it's a good thing it's gone. It was the concept that you existed for the purposes of the State (or city-state), and you were "free" as long as the state containing your race/tribe/whatever kicked butt on the state with the different race/tribe/whatever.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 5:08:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 2:16:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:03:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
What exactly are you assuming is the role of a government in a society?
To retaliate against those who violate the NAP.

Of course I don't reject negative freedom entirely, but I think there's a more ancient conception of freedom that has faded from the public eye during modernity.

That "Ancient conception" was evil, it's a good thing it's gone. It was the concept that you existed for the purposes of the State (or city-state), and you were "free" as long as the state containing your race/tribe/whatever kicked butt on the state with the different race/tribe/whatever.

If you define the role of government as "enforcing the NAP" and Libertarianism as "the ideal means of dealing with NAP" then it's fairly trivial to state Libertarianism is the best form of government.

But people who see an ideal government as one that also provides for public goods like roads, hospitals, schools, and such could quite easily say Libertarianism is not ideal.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 5:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Definitions of theft, coercion, and property can be very complex if you want to get into a philosophical discussion of what they truly mean.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 5:22:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 5:11:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Definitions of theft, coercion, and property can be very complex if you want to get into a philosophical discussion of what they truly mean.

I'm considering through "intellectual property" into the discussion, since technically copying a machine that someone else made is in no more an aggressive act towards the person than if he were to paint a scene that was painted identically by another artist.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 6:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 2:16:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:03:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
What exactly are you assuming is the role of a government in a society?
To retaliate against those who violate the NAP.

Of course I don't reject negative freedom entirely, but I think there's a more ancient conception of freedom that has faded from the public eye during modernity.

That "Ancient conception" was evil, it's a good thing it's gone. It was the concept that you existed for the purposes of the State (or city-state), and you were "free" as long as the state containing your race/tribe/whatever kicked butt on the state with the different race/tribe/whatever.

I meant freedom as self-mastery, which necessitates a form of guidance.

Definitions of theft, coercion, and property can be very complex if you want to get into a philosophical discussion of what they truly mean.

You phrase it in a weird way, it's not about the "true meaning" of these words. You can just look up the words in the dictionary - there are competing conception of, say, coercion or freedom but it's ultimately a matter of how you conceive of human beings i.e. which conception makes more sense given what we know.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:28:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 5:22:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/31/2012 5:11:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Definitions of theft, coercion, and property can be very complex if you want to get into a philosophical discussion of what they truly mean.

I'm considering through "intellectual property" into the discussion, since technically copying a machine that someone else made is in no more an aggressive act towards the person than if he were to paint a scene that was painted identically by another artist.

That's not incompatible with libertarianism though. See agorism and most anarcho-capitalists.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 2:30:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 5:08:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/31/2012 2:16:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:03:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
What exactly are you assuming is the role of a government in a society?
To retaliate against those who violate the NAP.

Of course I don't reject negative freedom entirely, but I think there's a more ancient conception of freedom that has faded from the public eye during modernity.

That "Ancient conception" was evil, it's a good thing it's gone. It was the concept that you existed for the purposes of the State (or city-state), and you were "free" as long as the state containing your race/tribe/whatever kicked butt on the state with the different race/tribe/whatever.

If you define the role of government as "enforcing the NAP" and Libertarianism as "the ideal means of dealing with NAP" then it's fairly trivial to state Libertarianism is the best form of government.

But people who see an ideal government as one that also provides for public goods like roads, hospitals, schools
There's no such thing as public goods. All the things you just mentioned are consumed by individuals, not some mythical beast called the "public," and produced the same way.

I'm considering through "intellectual property" into the discussion, since technically copying a machine that someone else made is in no more an aggressive act towards the person than if he were to paint a scene that was painted identically by another artist.
Well of course A isn't more than A. Both are violations of intellectual property. Both violate the creations of the mind of another living rational being without their consent, making use of the things they provided on terms other than those they demanded.

I meant freedom as self-mastery, which necessitates a form of guidance.
Self-mastery necessitates someone else being your master?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 6:16:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My basic argument against Libertarianism is that some markets for goods and services cannot function efficiently without regulation by the state.

Some cannot function efficiently because there are massive free-rider effects. This means that the marginal social benefit is significantly greater than the marginal benefit accrued to the producer.

Examples are the market for information in financial services. Ideally, I could choose a bank based on what I view as an acceptable trade-off between risk and profit. In choosing which bank to park my savings at, which corporate bonds to buy, etc. I, as a non-expert in financial services, cannot decide which banks are taking an appropriate amount of risk because I am not able to discern which investments are risky or not for a bank.

This creates an immediate problem of the principal-agent problem. If a bank uses my money to lend to borrowers, they have a significant incentive to take on risky loans. This is because if the risky loan pays off, it usually pays off big and the bank is going to see most of the profit. However if the risky loan defaults, I am left holding the bag.

Now one could say that private firms could provide information to customers about the riskiness of banks' balance sheets, much like the way that the IIHS and Underwriters' Laboratories provide risk information on consumer products.

The problem is that there is a massive free rider problem. I could pay a firm to provide information about a bank, or I could not pay and just look where other depositors who used this service are putting their money, and then park my savings at those banks.

In this case, every individual has an incentive to free ride on the service provided by our hypothetical intermediary. If every individual can, then every individual will. But if every individual chooses to free ride, this service will not exist.

So we need some kind of government regulation of financial markets. Either we can have direct intervention and tell banks how much risk they can take, or we can force companies to disclose information about their balance sheets. Both of these policies are second-best policies.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 7:41:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 10:15:22 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I have a "Rand Paul 2016" bumper sticker on my car and somebody key slashed my paint job. Fortunately I have an advanced 2012 paintjob on my vehicle so I was able rub it off with no permanent marks.

I found this hilarious for some odd reason.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 7:44:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 11:56:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What are your main arguments against Libertarianism?

Here's a basic overview of Libertarianism:

The Non-Agression Principle (NAP): a moral attitude that initiatory aggression is inherently unlawful. The principle says that except for self-defense, don"t harm others, don"t harm or steal their property, don"t break your word, don"t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don"t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things. However, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. [http://nap.univacc.net...]

Self-Ownership: Each person owns himself and all of his functions, including those of sex, digestion, cognition, and so on. Among the greatest satisfactions available to human beings are those which recognize other persons as equals in the property ownership of self. Although a man may wish an exclusive association with a particular friend, and while it may be possible to contract for such an exclusive relationship, the fact remains that each party to any association always remains the owner of himself. It's from this point that the concept of inalienable rights originates. [http://mises.org...]

It's easy to be a libertarian when you're a kid because, at that age, "government" is just your parents or teacher asking you to do something.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:59:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 6:16:16 PM, Jake-migkillertwo wrote:
Examples are the market for information in financial services. Ideally, I could choose a bank based on what I view as an acceptable trade-off between risk and profit. In choosing which bank to park my savings at, which corporate bonds to buy, etc. I, as a non-expert in financial services, cannot decide which banks are taking an appropriate amount of risk because I am not able to discern which investments are risky or not for a bank.
You can do it just fine when increased complexity in finance is not mandated by regulation, and incentivized by subsidy; and your deposits aren't guaranteed to relieve you of any motive to bother figuring this s*** out.

Certainly better than the government, which pumps up bubbles with easy money until they collapse every decade or so.


This creates an immediate problem of the principal-agent problem. If a bank uses my money to lend to borrowers, they have a significant incentive to take on risky loans.
You can decide for yourself how much of a track record you want a bank to have, and what sort of content that record has to have in order to get your business.

Now one could say that private firms could provide information to customers about the riskiness of banks' balance sheets, much like the way that the IIHS and Underwriters' Laboratories provide risk information on consumer products.

The problem is that there is a massive free rider problem. I could pay a firm to provide information about a bank, or I could not pay and just look where other depositors who used this service are putting their money, and then park my savings at those banks.
Your structuring of the private firm's payment model is absurd. You don't have the depositor buy the rating, the bank buys the rating to prove to customers it is worth depositing in. Rating agencies with bad track records die out, only the ones with good track records provide any value to the bank by having any persuasive role for the depositor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 9:01:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:44:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/30/2012 11:56:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What are your main arguments against Libertarianism?

Here's a basic overview of Libertarianism:

The Non-Agression Principle (NAP): a moral attitude that initiatory aggression is inherently unlawful. The principle says that except for self-defense, don"t harm others, don"t harm or steal their property, don"t break your word, don"t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don"t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things. However, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. [http://nap.univacc.net...]

Self-Ownership: Each person owns himself and all of his functions, including those of sex, digestion, cognition, and so on. Among the greatest satisfactions available to human beings are those which recognize other persons as equals in the property ownership of self. Although a man may wish an exclusive association with a particular friend, and while it may be possible to contract for such an exclusive relationship, the fact remains that each party to any association always remains the owner of himself. It's from this point that the concept of inalienable rights originates. [http://mises.org...]

It's easy to be a libertarian when you're a kid because, at that age, "government" is just your parents or teacher asking you to do something.
Parents or teachers do not have to "Ask." They can demand, with the full backing of State. Running away from home or truancy are violations of the law, and can land you negative attention from armed pigs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 9:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:44:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/30/2012 11:56:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What are your main arguments against Libertarianism?

Here's a basic overview of Libertarianism:

The Non-Agression Principle (NAP): a moral attitude that initiatory aggression is inherently unlawful. The principle says that except for self-defense, don"t harm others, don"t harm or steal their property, don"t break your word, don"t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don"t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things. However, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. [http://nap.univacc.net...]

Self-Ownership: Each person owns himself and all of his functions, including those of sex, digestion, cognition, and so on. Among the greatest satisfactions available to human beings are those which recognize other persons as equals in the property ownership of self. Although a man may wish an exclusive association with a particular friend, and while it may be possible to contract for such an exclusive relationship, the fact remains that each party to any association always remains the owner of himself. It's from this point that the concept of inalienable rights originates. [http://mises.org...]

It's easy to be a libertarian when you're a kid because, at that age, "government" is just your parents or teacher asking you to do something.

This response makes almost no sense at all.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 3:24:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Self-mastery necessitates someone else being your master?

Yeah, it's a difficult process. It requires intellectual and moral guidance. Negative freedom is only worthwhile if people have those; that generally explains why we don't grant kids independence. That's the gist behind K-12 education - the adults make the decisions and the kids go to school whether they like it or not.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:09:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 3:24:20 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Self-mastery necessitates someone else being your master?

Yeah, it's a difficult process. It requires intellectual and moral guidance. Negative freedom is only worthwhile if people have those; that generally explains why we don't grant kids independence. That's the gist behind K-12 education - the adults make the decisions and the kids go to school whether they like it or not.

Citing forced labor as evidence that your ideas represent freedom?

Don't speak of we. YOU don't respect childhood freedom, and some other people don't, but there's no "we" in the matter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:27:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 9:03:57 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This response makes almost no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense, in fact, and that's why the Rand group spends so much money infecting AP classes with Atlas Shrugged and the like.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 1:31:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 7:27:42 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/1/2013 9:03:57 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This response makes almost no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense, in fact, and that's why the Rand group spends so much money infecting AP classes with Atlas Shrugged and the like.
Where "So much" equals "A tiny fraction of the money every other ideology spends on measures to recruit minors."
While ARI hands out books to any library or teacher that wants them, Christians hand out Bibles outside schools and sponsor youth groups galore, Republicans and socialists sponsor various clubs, Democrats... well, the entirety of the public school system consists of just-left-of-mainstream Democrats spewing forth authoritatively to captive audiences.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 1:31:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Youth is an attractive demographic for ANY ideology to target.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
laskinner06
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:46:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libertarianism is a difficult sell because....well, what is it selling? Yes, NAP and self-ownership, but then there are all these other contradicting camps of the libertarian party: Anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, Minarchists, Libertarian Socialists.
What I think the basic premise of a libertarian society would be is: Laissez Faire Capitalism. And Libertarians are crushed as soon as philosophy enters the debate because they're unwilling to acknowledge that in Capitalism is philsophically at odds with the morality of most of the world. That is, the individual belongs with the group.
"But wait...", you say, "self-ownership and rights!".
*Why?*
Why do you own yourself? Why do you not belong to the group? Why do you have rights? Why are those rights being violated? What rights?
The answer is usually something to effect of, "Well, because that's what works the best". Indeed it does.
Libertarians do a spectacular job of justifying the NAP economically (which necessitates laissez faire capitalism). In fact most libertarians I know are quite schooled in economics. Think tanks like the Mises Institute and Cato Institute are wonderful for that.
But the Libertarian Party is unwilling to philosophically justify individualism, and instead use utilitarian arguments. In other words, they argue that Libertarianism is good because it's political beliefs require capitalism, and capitalism is good because it is best for the group.
Again, they're great at economically justifying individualism, but they have little to no philosophy justifying individualism/capitalism/etc.
Rand created the philosophy to justify individualism and capitalism.
Libertarians need philosophical justification for their beliefs or they will continue to be crushed by both the left and the right.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 6:39:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:09:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/2/2013 3:24:20 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Self-mastery necessitates someone else being your master?

Yeah, it's a difficult process. It requires intellectual and moral guidance. Negative freedom is only worthwhile if people have those; that generally explains why we don't grant kids independence. That's the gist behind K-12 education - the adults make the decisions and the kids go to school whether they like it or not.

Citing forced labor as evidence that your ideas represent freedom?

Don't speak of we. YOU don't respect childhood freedom, and some other people don't, but there's no "we" in the matter.

Do you believe parents should have legal authority?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:31:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 6:39:34 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:09:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/2/2013 3:24:20 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Self-mastery necessitates someone else being your master?

Yeah, it's a difficult process. It requires intellectual and moral guidance. Negative freedom is only worthwhile if people have those; that generally explains why we don't grant kids independence. That's the gist behind K-12 education - the adults make the decisions and the kids go to school whether they like it or not.

Citing forced labor as evidence that your ideas represent freedom?

Don't speak of we. YOU don't respect childhood freedom, and some other people don't, but there's no "we" in the matter.

Do you believe parents should have legal authority?

No.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 5:13:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Small government sucks. Example valley forge
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 5:27:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/6/2013 5:13:49 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Small government sucks. Example valley forge

Big government sucks. Example Stalinist Russia herpedy derp.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 5:39:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/6/2013 5:27:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/6/2013 5:13:49 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Small government sucks. Example valley forge
Big government sucks. Example: every big government.
Corrected Ma'am.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 6:01:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, my real reasons are a list of cumulative arguments for the existence of a fairly sizeable state, but the most obvious problem I have with Libertarianism is that it's incoherent - a minimal state still violates the NAP because it includes taxation. I need to reread Anarchy State and Utopia again at some point though, because obviously that contains the most famous response to that point.