Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can all of you agree with this?

Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:06:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is probably my favorite political idea, at first I called it Liberocracy but then I discovered that word has been used before, so I don't know what to call it.
Here's how it goes:

>Imagine cutting an area (preferably the whole world) in to many, many different small nations.
>Each nation designs it's own government.
>Some work better than others.
>The worse ones change.
>Eventually the entire area adopts the best system and the world becomes a better place.

Now, I now you people can find an objection somewhere, so lets hear it and sort things out.

Oh, and here's some other benefits:

>Government just works more efficiently on a local level.
>It would be a lot harder for nations to make a bunch of nuclear weapons.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:15:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:06:40 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
This is probably my favorite political idea, at first I called it Liberocracy but then I discovered that word has been used before, so I don't know what to call it.
Here's how it goes:

>Imagine cutting an area (preferably the whole world) in to many, many different small nations.
>Each nation designs it's own government.
>Some work better than others.
>The worse ones change.
>Eventually the entire area adopts the best system and the world becomes a better place.

Now, I now you people can find an objection somewhere, so lets hear it and sort things out.

Oh, and here's some other benefits:

>Government just works more efficiently on a local level.
>It would be a lot harder for nations to make a bunch of nuclear weapons.

Would it be voluntary? Could an individual decide not to join this "nation" or be governed by this "government"? Would it be opt in or opt out?

Even f it is voluntary and opt in, Rothbard would still argue that it is illegitimate on the grounds that self-ownership and the right to property are inalienable.[1]

[1] http://mises.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:28:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:15:27 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:06:40 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
This is probably my favorite political idea, at first I called it Liberocracy but then I discovered that word has been used before, so I don't know what to call it.
Here's how it goes:

>Imagine cutting an area (preferably the whole world) in to many, many different small nations.
>Each nation designs it's own government.
>Some work better than others.
>The worse ones change.
>Eventually the entire area adopts the best system and the world becomes a better place.

Now, I now you people can find an objection somewhere, so lets hear it and sort things out.

Oh, and here's some other benefits:

>Government just works more efficiently on a local level.
>It would be a lot harder for nations to make a bunch of nuclear weapons.

Would it be voluntary? Could an individual decide not to join this "nation" or be governed by this "government"? Would it be opt in or opt out?

Yes, there would be free travel between nations.

Even f it is voluntary and opt in, Rothbard would still argue that it is illegitimate on the grounds that self-ownership and the right to property are inalienable.[1]

[1] http://mises.org...

You can't force someone to be free. They should have a say in it.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:33:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Government just works more efficiently on a local level.
Ermhrm, economies of scale, ermhrm.

Other issues: Who cuts and how? What are you going to tell the person who loses their property to the formation of a tyrant territory?

Now if someone legitimately owns a large amount of land, they can slice it up however they wish and require entrants to it to consent to rules there or not enter. But that isn't what you're advocating?

An inalienable right is a contradiction though WJM.
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.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:37:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:33:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Other issues: Who cuts and how? What are you going to tell the person who loses their property to the formation of a tyrant territory?

It was their choice to be there to begin with, they had a hand in it's creation, if they don't like it they can move.

Now if someone legitimately owns a large amount of land, they can slice it up however they wish and require entrants to it to consent to rules there or not enter. But that isn't what you're advocating?

Come on, that's not the same as a government.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:41:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Is there some objective criterion that would allow these nations to be judged by the all-powerful overseer that seems to be the one that makes the bad ones change?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:05:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:37:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:33:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Other issues: Who cuts and how? What are you going to tell the person who loses their property to the formation of a tyrant territory?

It was their choice to be there to begin with
It was my choice to be walking down the street, does that justify you suddenly slicing off a section of street and saying "This is the indiscriminate killing zone." ?


Now if someone legitimately owns a large amount of land, they can slice it up however they wish and require entrants to it to consent to rules there or not enter. But that isn't what you're advocating?

Come on, that's not the same as a government.
I know. I was providing it as a legitimate contrast to your proposed wanton theft of property.
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.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:20:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:41:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Is there some objective criterion that would allow these nations to be judged by the all-powerful overseer that seems to be the one that makes the bad ones change?

They change on their own.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:22:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:05:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:37:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:33:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Other issues: Who cuts and how? What are you going to tell the person who loses their property to the formation of a tyrant territory?

It was their choice to be there to begin with
It was my choice to be walking down the street, does that justify you suddenly slicing off a section of street and saying "This is the indiscriminate killing zone." ?

Expect in this case they would know what's coming.


Now if someone legitimately owns a large amount of land, they can slice it up however they wish and require entrants to it to consent to rules there or not enter. But that isn't what you're advocating?

Come on, that's not the same as a government.
I know. I was providing it as a legitimate contrast to your proposed wanton theft of property.

Theft?
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:48:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
ITS GENIUS . . . except I don't think that they would all change to one "best" kind of government, because various places due to demographic and geographics work better under different kinds of governments
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:59:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:22:19 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Expect in this case they would know what's coming.

Who owns the sidewalk?

Theft?

Taking someone's land against their will and giving it to some new organization would certainly be theft, no?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:02:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:59:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:

Theft?

Taking someone's land against their will and giving it to some new organization would certainly be theft, no?

How exactly did it seem like I was advocating that?
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:13:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:22:19 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:05:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:37:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:33:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Other issues: Who cuts and how? What are you going to tell the person who loses their property to the formation of a tyrant territory?

It was their choice to be there to begin with
It was my choice to be walking down the street, does that justify you suddenly slicing off a section of street and saying "This is the indiscriminate killing zone." ?

Expect in this case they would know what's coming.

NO THEY WOULDNT. NEXT TO NO ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET BELIEVES THAT YOUR PLAN WILL BE HAPPENING. On the other hand, many people have already invested in property.



Now if someone legitimately owns a large amount of land, they can slice it up however they wish and require entrants to it to consent to rules there or not enter. But that isn't what you're advocating?

Come on, that's not the same as a government.
I know. I was providing it as a legitimate contrast to your proposed wanton theft of property.

Theft?
Yes. If you hand over jurisdiction that contains my property to a tyrant who will nationalize it, you are guilty of theft. I can't think of anything in particular I've done to you that would justify such a thing.
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.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 9:00:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:13:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:22:19 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:05:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:37:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:33:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Other issues: Who cuts and how? What are you going to tell the person who loses their property to the formation of a tyrant territory?

It was their choice to be there to begin with
It was my choice to be walking down the street, does that justify you suddenly slicing off a section of street and saying "This is the indiscriminate killing zone." ?

Expect in this case they would know what's coming.

NO THEY WOULDNT. NEXT TO NO ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET BELIEVES THAT YOUR PLAN WILL BE HAPPENING. On the other hand, many people have already invested in property.

My system isn't tyrannical, it gives people the choice to which government they want. Would you rather force people ti be free? That doesn't make sense.




Now if someone legitimately owns a large amount of land, they can slice it up however they wish and require entrants to it to consent to rules there or not enter. But that isn't what you're advocating?

Come on, that's not the same as a government.
I know. I was providing it as a legitimate contrast to your proposed wanton theft of property.

Theft?
Yes. If you hand over jurisdiction that contains my property to a tyrant who will nationalize it, you are guilty of theft. I can't think of anything in particular I've done to you that would justify such a thing.

You don't understand, nobody is forcing anybody into anything they don't want, they all get to have the system of their choice. If the government takes from them, it was their own doing.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 9:17:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 9:00:44 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 8:13:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:22:19 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:05:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:37:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 6:33:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Other issues: Who cuts and how? What are you going to tell the person who loses their property to the formation of a tyrant territory?

It was their choice to be there to begin with
It was my choice to be walking down the street, does that justify you suddenly slicing off a section of street and saying "This is the indiscriminate killing zone." ?

Expect in this case they would know what's coming.

NO THEY WOULDNT. NEXT TO NO ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET BELIEVES THAT YOUR PLAN WILL BE HAPPENING. On the other hand, many people have already invested in property.

My system isn't tyrannical, it gives people the choice to which government they want.
No it doesn't actually. For one, there is not an infinite number of possible land areas. Two, your system is worthless anyway since it's easy to conquer local governments. Three, people have property-- right this minute-- and you are telling them that if they don't want to subject themselves to the tyranny that will result from your system, they will have to abandon it (that is after all part of moving).

Would you rather force people ti be free? That doesn't make sense.
I force people to respect other's freedom if I can. Whether they choose themselves to use it is no concern of mine.

Yes. If you hand over jurisdiction that contains my property to a tyrant who will nationalize it, you are guilty of theft. I can't think of anything in particular I've done to you that would justify such a thing.

You don't understand, nobody is forcing anybody into anything they don't want
That's nonsensical. No government has or can operate that way. Either a government takes over a given jurisdiction or it does not. Your proposal simply makes them smaller in the hopes that one will be vaguely acceptable-- and in so doing guarantees that those who live in a place scheduled to become unacceptable shall be expropriated.

they all get to have the system of their choice.
Again, no government has or can operate that way.

If the government takes from them, it was their own doing.
Excuse me? No, it was yours, for bringing up the idea of letting the government take over that swath of land. What did they do? Try to make a living?
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.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 10:44:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
you see Freedo, Ragnar is the great status quo equalizer. if you want to engage in radicalism, you have to get through him first. Ragnar will smite you with the broadsword of logic while he stands guard at the gates of free market capitalism. in order to defeat him you must produce a blueprint for a system which encapsulates ethics without sacrificing freedom, efficiency, and the american dream. unfortunately, no hypothetical system you or i can imagine can do this without sounding ridiculous... so we end up piled up on the outskirts of the gated community with our limbs missing...
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 10:54:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sig update
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.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 11:02:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 10:44:01 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
in order to defeat him you must produce a blueprint for a system which encapsulates ethics without sacrificing freedom, efficiency, and the american dream.

Or just present a scenario in which the status quo objectivist answer fails and put a question mark at the end of it so as to remain consistent?
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 11:46:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
status quo objectivist
Objectivism is not the status quo. Not even close.

I'm wondering btw whether Rob realizes that Objectivism is a radical system. Lol.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 12:02:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:06:40 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
This is probably my favorite political idea, at first I called it Liberocracy but then I discovered that word has been used before, so I don't know what to call it.
Here's how it goes:

>Imagine cutting an area (preferably the whole world) in to many, many different small nations.
>Each nation designs it's own government.
>Some work better than others.
>The worse ones change.
>Eventually the entire area adopts the best system and the world becomes a better place.

Now, I now you people can find an objection somewhere, so lets hear it and sort things out.

Oh, and here's some other benefits:

>Government just works more efficiently on a local level.
>It would be a lot harder for nations to make a bunch of nuclear weapons.

Naive balkanisation would be a better name. No, I don't agree!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 12:19:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 9:17:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

they all get to have the system of their choice.
Again, no government has or can operate that way.

If they don't like it, they move, it's that simple. So yes, it does work.

If the government takes from them, it was their own doing.
Excuse me? No, it was yours, for bringing up the idea of letting the government take over that swath of land. What did they do? Try to make a living?

No excuse me. I don't know what it is your not getting about this but your are simply explaining something entirely different from what I have proposed.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 12:20:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 10:44:01 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
you see Freedo, Ragnar is the great status quo equalizer. if you want to engage in radicalism, you have to get through him first. Ragnar will smite you with the broadsword of logic while he stands guard at the gates of free market capitalism. in order to defeat him you must produce a blueprint for a system which encapsulates ethics without sacrificing freedom, efficiency, and the american dream. unfortunately, no hypothetical system you or i can imagine can do this without sounding ridiculous... so we end up piled up on the outskirts of the gated community with our limbs missing...

My system has more freedom than his.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 1:07:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 12:19:14 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 9:17:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

they all get to have the system of their choice.
Again, no government has or can operate that way.

If they don't like it, they move, it's that simple. So yes, it does work.
And lose their property as a direct result of the action you are encouraging. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you realize the theft you are proposing. If they have to move to avoid the tyrant, then they have no means to defend their property. What you are proposing is the equivalent of the classic left wing "Duty to retreat." In effect this mean that if someone fights back when a tyrant is suddenly granted jurisdiction over a place that includes the property they owned before the tyrant was around, you are taking the tyrant's side against the person who was minding their own business and living their life until your system came along and nationalized everything they own-- you are holding that the land belongs, not to the one who worked it until it had value, but to the one with the guns in the area-- you are in short making a very unlibertarian proposal, which ought to concern someone named Freedomaniac, unless you're one of those "libertarian socialists" rather than what is usually meant by libertarian.
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
12/5/2009 1:22:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 12:20:24 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 10:44:01 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
you see Freedo, Ragnar is the great status quo equalizer. if you want to engage in radicalism, you have to get through him first. Ragnar will smite you with the broadsword of logic while he stands guard at the gates of free market capitalism. in order to defeat him you must produce a blueprint for a system which encapsulates ethics without sacrificing freedom, efficiency, and the american dream. unfortunately, no hypothetical system you or i can imagine can do this without sounding ridiculous... so we end up piled up on the outskirts of the gated community with our limbs missing...

My system has more freedom than his.

No, it doesn't. The ability to move (And have everything you own stolen from you-- and that's assuming you can afford to move after taxes, and assuming that there is an over-authority that enforces freedom of movement WHICH OF COURSE THERE ISN'T) is not freedom. The system I advocate involves everyone being free anywhere they want, unless they explicitly choose to walk on the private property of someone with different rules-- and will not expropriate those who legitimately own their property before the system is implemented. The system you advocate, in effect, will, again, since you don't seem to get it after saying it just a few times, result in property owned before the system is implemented being in effect mandatorily abandoned to avoid the tyrant who has taken over the jurisdiction.
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 7:33:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 12:19:14 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
If they don't like it, they move, it's that simple. So yes, it does work.

Dear Freedomaniac,

I have decided to conduct an experiment. You have been selected to live in totalitarian state D, you have been assigned to work in the mines, report there starting next Tuesday. This is not theft because If you don't like it you can move.

Best Regards,
Reasoning
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 9:45:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 1:07:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/5/2009 12:19:14 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 9:17:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

they all get to have the system of their choice.
Again, no government has or can operate that way.

If they don't like it, they move, it's that simple. So yes, it does work.
And lose their property as a direct result of the action you are encouraging. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you realize the theft you are proposing. If they have to move to avoid the tyrant, then they have no means to defend their property. What you are proposing is the equivalent of the classic left wing "Duty to retreat." In effect this mean that if someone fights back when a tyrant is suddenly granted jurisdiction over a place that includes the property they owned before the tyrant was around, you are taking the tyrant's side against the person who was minding their own business and living their life until your system came along and nationalized everything they own-- you are holding that the land belongs, not to the one who worked it until it had value, but to the one with the guns in the area-- you are in short making a very unlibertarian proposal, which ought to concern someone named Freedomaniac, unless you're one of those "libertarian socialists" rather than what is usually meant by libertarian.

What on Earth are you talking about?? I have not proposed, nor implied any of those things!
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 9:48:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 1:22:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/5/2009 12:20:24 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 10:44:01 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
you see Freedo, Ragnar is the great status quo equalizer. if you want to engage in radicalism, you have to get through him first. Ragnar will smite you with the broadsword of logic while he stands guard at the gates of free market capitalism. in order to defeat him you must produce a blueprint for a system which encapsulates ethics without sacrificing freedom, efficiency, and the american dream. unfortunately, no hypothetical system you or i can imagine can do this without sounding ridiculous... so we end up piled up on the outskirts of the gated community with our limbs missing...

My system has more freedom than his.

No, it doesn't. The ability to move (And have everything you own stolen from you-- and that's assuming you can afford to move after taxes, and assuming that there is an over-authority that enforces freedom of movement WHICH OF COURSE THERE ISN'T) is not freedom. The system I advocate involves everyone being free anywhere they want, unless they explicitly choose to walk on the private property of someone with different rules-- and will not expropriate those who legitimately own their property before the system is implemented. The system you advocate, in effect, will, again, since you don't seem to get it after saying it just a few times, result in property owned before the system is implemented being in effect mandatorily abandoned to avoid the tyrant who has taken over the jurisdiction.

The only place there would be any tyranny is were the people themselves who would be ruled by said tyranny implemented it. Why is it you automatically hate any system you yourself didn't think of?
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 9:49:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 7:33:49 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/5/2009 12:19:14 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
If they don't like it, they move, it's that simple. So yes, it does work.

Dear Freedomaniac,

I have decided to conduct an experiment. You have been selected to live in totalitarian state D, you have been assigned to work in the mines, report there starting next Tuesday. This is not theft because If you don't like it you can move.

Best Regards,
Reasoning

Nobody is "selected" to go anywhere. It's their choice from the very start.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 9:53:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 9:45:22 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 1:07:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/5/2009 12:19:14 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/4/2009 9:17:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

they all get to have the system of their choice.
Again, no government has or can operate that way.

If they don't like it, they move, it's that simple. So yes, it does work.
And lose their property as a direct result of the action you are encouraging. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you realize the theft you are proposing. If they have to move to avoid the tyrant, then they have no means to defend their property. What you are proposing is the equivalent of the classic left wing "Duty to retreat." In effect this mean that if someone fights back when a tyrant is suddenly granted jurisdiction over a place that includes the property they owned before the tyrant was around, you are taking the tyrant's side against the person who was minding their own business and living their life until your system came along and nationalized everything they own-- you are holding that the land belongs, not to the one who worked it until it had value, but to the one with the guns in the area-- you are in short making a very unlibertarian proposal, which ought to concern someone named Freedomaniac, unless you're one of those "libertarian socialists" rather than what is usually meant by libertarian.

What on Earth are you talking about?? I have not proposed, nor implied any of those things!

So when you tell people to move away from the tyrant that results from your system of splitting up the earth into a million local governments--

Are you proposing that they take their house (and land) WITH them? Because I don't see any other way you're avoiding the charge of theft.
And if you are, I wanna know how you propose to transport such things.

The only place there would be any tyranny is were the people themselves who would be ruled by said tyranny implemented it.
Despicably collectivist. There is no such entity as "The people." There are majorities and there are those who are oppressed by the majorities. Unless you're only proposing your system upon unanimous consent, in which case you're actually proposing unanimous consent rather than the system you said you were proposing.
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.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 10:11:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 9:53:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Are you proposing that they take their house (and land) WITH them? Because I don't see any other way you're avoiding the charge of theft.

Maybe I should make this a little more clear by pointing out something that's pretty self-evident; there will be a transition period. Everyone who doesn't agree with the views of the people in their area would sell and/or exchange their property to find a place where they do. Do you understand now? If a tyrant takes your property it's because you personally decided to give them that power.

The only place there would be any tyranny is were the people themselves who would be ruled by said tyranny implemented it.
Despicably collectivist. There is no such entity as "The people." There are majorities and there are those who are oppressed by the majorities. Unless you're only proposing your system upon unanimous consent, in which case you're actually proposing unanimous consent rather than the system you said you were proposing.

Why don't you understand? It would be unanimous consent! And tat is what I have been proposing! You move to the government you want, everyone within a certain government is there because they agree with it!
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...