Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 3, 2004, 02:55 pm

It's my view that MOST people at root believe that individuals have unalienable rights. Why, then, aren't we a lot freer than we are today? Obviously, many reasons, such as:

* Perceived market failures such as the Crash of 29, led to adoption of the creeping adoption by some that socialistic/fascistic/statistic "remedies" were "necessary" to counteract capitalism's excesses.

* Manipulation of people's material fears

* Wars which tend to concentrate power and weaken rights

* Few exponents for liberty in the last 80 years or so.

In the past 30 years or so, the political philosophy of libertarianism has gained SOME ground OUTSIDE of politics. It's my contention, however, that libertarians are generally their own worst enemies. Lots of reasons for this too, but mostly, I think, because libertarians TEND to hold the view that "radical posturing" is somehow "principled." Libertarians seem to want the whole loaf NOW, rather than slices. Socialists/fascists/statists have been more sophisticated, recognizing that, by taking the path of least resistance, they could achieve their aims, albeit at a more measured pace.

Libertarians love taking far out positions, in part to prove a point, intellectually, in part because they seem stuck on this idea that agitating for full freedom now is somehow effective. I think those who hold such a position are incorrect. Staking out radical positions in a society where few think in terms of utopian end games has the effect of marginalizing libertarians.

So, I'm curious as to the assembled view of my assertion.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 3, 2004, 03:41 pm

It's only radical from the centralist point of views.

I personally view libertarians as centralists. They still wan't government while i don't.

But anyway..you have it all wrong. We aren't trying to reach a utopian ends through a "radial position" means. We're just trying to get BACK to the freedoms that we should have always had that government has taken away from us.

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 04:03 pm

There are a lot of theories that look good on paper but don't work out as imagined in real life. I'm going to ask this over and over until I get an answer: Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it?

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 3, 2004, 04:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
It's only radical from the centralist point of views.

I personally view libertarians as centralists. They still wan't government while i don't.

But anyway..you have it all wrong. We aren't trying to reach a utopian ends through a "radial position" means. We're just trying to get BACK to the freedoms that we should have always had that government has taken away from us.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes, Tman, you're right...it IS radical in contrast to the prevailing political environment. I don't know what you mean by "get BACK to the freedoms," since total freedom's NEVER been achieved.

You don't seem to be getting my point. As a matter of strategy, how does staking out "outside the mainstream" positions advance the cause of freedom? Why advocate positions that sound to most as "utopian," "radical," and "fringey"? Do you reject the notion that such posturing only serves to discredit libertarians (or anarchists)? If so, why? Walk us through advocating, say, zero taxes actually lowers taxes. Or advocating, say, legalizing all drugs liberalizes what free people can imbibe without government intervention?

You can "want" no government all you want. It's an interesting question in the classroom. But, as a practical matter, how does advocating "no government" help in reducing government?

Edge · Mar 3, 2004, 04:12 pm

I like H.L. Mencken’s quote. He said that “the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenth’s imaginary. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty – and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

Most people are more than happy to abandon most of their freedom if it means they will be less free to fail. That is why true lovers of liberty are so dangerous. Even failure is cherished as a form of liberty, not as an oppression, so failure doesn't stop them, it just slows them down a little.

Impenitent · Mar 3, 2004, 04:28 pm

well, if there is no government, there is no police... each individual would be his own police... no law, no justice...
most couldn't handle it...

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 3, 2004, 04:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No society has ever been allowed to go without government. Hong Kong (when it was under english rule) and Iceland are 2 examples that are fairly low government. They both do fine.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I don't know what you mean by "get BACK to the freedoms," since total freedom's NEVER been achieved.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We've always had the right to these freedoms...but government has never allowed them. I simply want to have them all.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You don't seem to be getting my point. As a matter of strategy, how does staking out "outside the mainstream" positions advance the cause of freedom? Why advocate positions that sound to most as "utopian," "radical," and "fringey"? Do you reject the notion that such posturing only serves to discredit libertarians (or anarchists)? If so, why? Walk us through advocating, say, zero taxes actually lowers taxes. Or advocating, say, legalizing all drugs liberalizes what free people can imbibe without government intervention?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Advocating doesn't actually do anything. You're thinking of lobbying.

I'm not trying to forcably interject my opinions on people.

Anarchism is about winning a war of ideas. The more people i can convince to join the better. Eventually...if everyone is anarchist then they will just demand that the government be abolished.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
well, if there is no government, there is no police... each individual would be his own police... no law, no justice...
most couldn't handle it... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is not true. There would be private defense agencies and private abritrators/juries.

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 04:46 pm

That's insane.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 3, 2004, 05:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
That's insane.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
an argument like this would probably be classified as ad hominem... With no reasoning behind your statement, you leave yourself looking like a fool mia. I happen to think you're better than that, so please, either give reason, or be quiet and listen to the arguments of others

From Freedom, Prosperity
Dave

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 06:25 pm

Some things are too dumb to argue with. We live in the Matrix. We are all computer-generated programs. Prove me wrong. Are you going to jump to spend the time necessary to do this? I think not. Because it's too dumb.

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 3, 2004, 06:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
There are a lot of theories that look good on paper but don't work out as imagined in real life. I'm going to ask this over and over until I get an answer: Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Mia, let me try to answer this. I assume you are asking where are rights universally respected? The simple answer is "nowhere," and "never has there been such a society."

I also am not clear on what you mean by "doing well with it." Certainly, over time, the countries with the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP have been the most prosperous. More freedom, more liberty, more wealth.

However, I don't even think THAT'S the right question. The right question, to me, is what is natural and right?

Jefferson said it best, government which governs least governs best. And we have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first is a prediction, and it's been proven correct over and over again. Second is an assertion, one which I find unassailable. Do you disagree?

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 3, 2004, 06:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
Advocating doesn't actually do anything. You're thinking of lobbying.

I'm not trying to forcably interject my opinions on people.

Anarchism is about winning a war of ideas. The more people i can convince to join the better. Eventually...if everyone is anarchist then they will just demand that the government be abolished.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, Tman, good luck with that. I for one find it quixotic, strategically speaking. Wage that war, by all means, but it sounds like a wasted effort. If anything, the State is getting bigger by the day.

Lobbying and advocating CAN make a difference, else the socialists would not have been successful in moving the state of affairs in their direction. They've been at it for a century, and, in the process, the US spending levels have increased four fold, from about 10% of GDP to over 40% of GDP.

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 06:35 pm

Unlike what you all believe, my point is not trying to prove you wrong about anything - the ideals you talk about make a ton of sense. Some of them just don't work in real life.

No, I do not disagree. And here in the USA there is too much regulation, too much unnecessary re-distribution, too much of everything when it comes to the government.

I just don't think it's possible to build and maintain a society without ANY regulation or re-distribution. I think if it were it would exist.

That's all ;-)

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 06:39 pm

[QUOTE
I also am not clear on what you mean by "doing well with it." Certainly, over time, the countries with the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP have been the most prosperous. More freedom, more liberty, more wealth.

?[/quote]

I couldn't think of the best way to phrase this...I just meant a "successful society" but that could have many different definitions..my point was really that I think one with no regulation or interference whatsoever would not survive long.

Everyone here keeps being so emphatic that it WOULD but since it DOESN'T anywhere that we know of how can you be so sure?

I love to be proven wrong when it would benefit me or others. It would benefit me gretly if you are right and this can be so.....but I just don't see it.

Mar 3, 2004, 06:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There are a lot of theories that look good on paper but don't work out as imagined in real life. I'm going to ask this over and over until I get an answer: Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And yet again let us try in vain to explain this simple point to you mia.. If one were to accept this line of reasoning, then ALL ideas can ALWAYS be dismissed. Also, your position relies on the is/ought fallacy, which assumes that what is, is what ought to be MERELY BECAUSE IT EXISTS. This fallacy would also lead us to believe that rape, murder, and any number of heinous acts are just as justified as the acts of violence which you have so heartily endorsed.

Progress necessitates being able to understand truth, and have the foresight to understand that things can be changed for the better.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
my point was really that I think one with no regulation or interference whatsoever would not survive long.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes I believe that we all understand that this is your illusion, but thus far you have not given any hint of a reason to believe that this COULD BE true much less that it must be true as you have asserted. Why not offer evidence, and sound reasoning if this is such a simply proven point as you have declared?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I love to be proven wrong when it would benefit me or others. It would benefit me gretly if you are right and this can be so.....but I just don't see it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am going to call you on this yet again, since you have been repeatedly and conclusively proven to have offered fatally flawed arguments and blatantly false presumptions, but in response you have only offered insults, ad hominems, and red herrings. Becoming familiar with reality and reason would indeed benefit you or anyone, but no one can force you to abandon your illusions as long as you hold onto them even in light of direct contradiction to reality. The choice is yours and yours alone.

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 07:18 pm

I was not speaking to you.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 3, 2004, 07:46 pm

Mia, read the writings of Hans Hoppe and Murray Rothbard (among others) to see how a governmentless society would function.

Remember, a few short years ago democracy was labelled impossible, and people asked "Well, where's an example of a democratic nation?" The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 3, 2004, 08:03 pm

Mia...the Matrix is just a movie.

Anarchy is the probably one of the most simple ideas i can think of. Simply, get rid of the government.

The government has convinced people that it is necessary to do service which the people demand but the private sector couldn't do for profit.

The above statement is the biggest lie in civilazation. If people demand something then that thing will be supplied for a fee. This is absolute.

If it seems "too dumb" to you then maybe you're not smart enough to understand it. :rolleyes:

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 08:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
Mia, read the writings of Hans Hoppe and Murray Rothbard (among others) to see how a governmentless society would function.

Remember, a few short years ago democracy was labelled impossible, and people asked "Well, where's an example of a democratic nation?" The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I thought of that same thing myself. It doesn't mean that every idea would work as imagined. Doesn't mean that it couldn't either.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS! THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 08:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
Mia...the Matrix is just a movie.

Anarchy is the probably one of the most simple ideas i can think of. Simply, get rid of the government.

The government has convinced people that it is necessary to do service which the people demand but the private sector couldn't do for profit.

The above statement is the biggest lie in civilazation. If people demand something then that thing will be supplied for a fee. This is absolute.

If it seems "too dumb" to you then maybe you're not smart enough to understand it. :rolleyes:<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's been tried before in the area of police and it didn't work out too well.

Mar 3, 2004, 04:03 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	There are a lot of theories that look good on paper but don't work out as imagined in real life. I'm going to ask this over and over until I get an answer: Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 04:10 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) It's only radical from the centralist point of views. I personally view libertarians as centralists. They still wan't government while i don't. But anyway..you have it all wrong. We aren't trying to reach a utopian ends through a "radial position" means. We're just trying to get BACK to the freedoms that we should have always had that government has taken away from us.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, Tman, you're right...it IS radical in contrast to the prevailing political environment. I don't know what you mean by "get BACK to the freedoms," since total freedom's NEVER been achieved. You don't seem to be getting my point. As a matter of strategy, how does staking out "outside the mainstream" positions advance the cause of freedom? Why advocate positions that sound to most as "utopian," "radical," and "fringey"? Do you reject the notion that such posturing only serves to discredit libertarians (or anarchists)? If so, why? Walk us through advocating, say, zero taxes actually lowers taxes. Or advocating, say, legalizing all drugs liberalizes what free people can imbibe without government intervention? You can "want" no government all you want. It's an interesting question in the classroom. But, as a practical matter, how does advocating "no government" help in reducing government?

Mar 3, 2004, 04:28 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	well, if there is no government, there is no police... each individual would be his own police... no law, no justice... most couldn't handle it... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 3, 2004, 04:39 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No society has ever been allowed to go without government. Hong Kong (when it was under english rule) and Iceland are 2 examples that are fairly low government. They both do fine. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I don't know what you mean by "get BACK to the freedoms," since total freedom's NEVER been achieved. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We've always had the right to these freedoms...but government has never allowed them. I simply want to have them all. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You don't seem to be getting my point. As a matter of strategy, how does staking out "outside the mainstream" positions advance the cause of freedom? Why advocate positions that sound to most as "utopian," "radical," and "fringey"? Do you reject the notion that such posturing only serves to discredit libertarians (or anarchists)? If so, why? Walk us through advocating, say, zero taxes actually lowers taxes. Or advocating, say, legalizing all drugs liberalizes what free people can imbibe without government intervention?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Advocating doesn't actually do anything. You're thinking of lobbying. I'm not trying to forcably interject my opinions on people. Anarchism is about winning a war of ideas. The more people i can convince to join the better. Eventually...if everyone is anarchist then they will just demand that the government be abolished. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by well, if there is no government, there is no police... each individual would be his own police... no law, no justice... most couldn't handle it... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is not true. There would be private defense agencies and private abritrators/juries.

Mar 3, 2004, 04:46 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	That's insane. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 02:55 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	It's my view that MOST people at root believe that individuals have unalienable rights. Why, then, aren't we a lot freer than we are today? Obviously, many reasons, such as: * Perceived market failures such as the Crash of 29, led to adoption of the creeping adoption by some that socialistic/fascistic/statistic "remedies" were "necessary" to counteract capitalism's excesses. * Manipulation of people's material fears * Wars which tend to concentrate power and weaken rights * Few exponents for liberty in the last 80 years or so. In the past 30 years or so, the political philosophy of libertarianism has gained SOME ground OUTSIDE of politics. It's my contention, however, that libertarians are generally their own worst enemies. Lots of reasons for this too, but mostly, I think, because libertarians TEND to hold the view that "radical posturing" is somehow "principled." Libertarians seem to want the whole loaf NOW, rather than slices. Socialists/fascists/statists have been more sophisticated, recognizing that, by taking the path of least resistance, they could achieve their aims, albeit at a more measured pace. Libertarians love taking far out positions, in part to prove a point, intellectually, in part because they seem stuck on this idea that agitating for full freedom now is somehow effective. I think those who hold such a position are incorrect. Staking out radical positions in a society where few think in terms of utopian end games has the effect of marginalizing libertarians. So, I'm curious as to the assembled view of my assertion.

Mar 3, 2004, 03:41 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	It's only radical from the centralist point of views. I personally view libertarians as centralists. They still wan't government while i don't. But anyway..you have it all wrong. We aren't trying to reach a utopian ends through a "radial position" means. We're just trying to get BACK to the freedoms that we should have always had that government has taken away from us.

Mar 3, 2004, 04:12 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	I like H.L. Mencken’s quote. He said that “the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenth’s imaginary. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty – and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." Most people are more than happy to abandon most of their freedom if it means they will be less free to fail. That is why true lovers of liberty are so dangerous. Even failure is cherished as a form of liberty, not as an oppression, so failure doesn't stop them, it just slows them down a little.

Mar 3, 2004, 05:24 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) That's insane.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> an argument like this would probably be classified as ad hominem... With no reasoning behind your statement, you leave yourself looking like a fool mia. I happen to think you're better than that, so please, either give reason, or be quiet and listen to the arguments of others From Freedom, Prosperity Dave

Mar 3, 2004, 06:25 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Some things are too dumb to argue with. We live in the Matrix. We are all computer-generated programs. Prove me wrong. Are you going to jump to spend the time necessary to do this? I think not. Because it's too dumb. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 06:26 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) There are a lot of theories that look good on paper but don't work out as imagined in real life. I'm going to ask this over and over until I get an answer: Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Mia, let me try to answer this. I assume you are asking where are rights universally respected? The simple answer is "nowhere," and "never has there been such a society." I also am not clear on what you mean by "doing well with it." Certainly, over time, the countries with the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP have been the most prosperous. More freedom, more liberty, more wealth. However, I don't even think THAT'S the right question. The right question, to me, is what is natural and right? Jefferson said it best, government which governs least governs best. And we have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first is a prediction, and it's been proven correct over and over again. Second is an assertion, one which I find unassailable. Do you disagree?

Mar 3, 2004, 06:32 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) Advocating doesn't actually do anything. You're thinking of lobbying. I'm not trying to forcably interject my opinions on people. Anarchism is about winning a war of ideas. The more people i can convince to join the better. Eventually...if everyone is anarchist then they will just demand that the government be abolished.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, Tman, good luck with that. I for one find it quixotic, strategically speaking. Wage that war, by all means, but it sounds like a wasted effort. If anything, the State is getting bigger by the day. Lobbying and advocating CAN make a difference, else the socialists would not have been successful in moving the state of affairs in their direction. They've been at it for a century, and, in the process, the US spending levels have increased four fold, from about 10% of GDP to over 40% of GDP.

Mar 3, 2004, 06:35 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Unlike what you all believe, my point is not trying to prove you wrong about anything - the ideals you talk about make a ton of sense. Some of them just don't work in real life. No, I do not disagree. And here in the USA there is too much regulation, too much unnecessary re-distribution, too much of everything when it comes to the government. I just don't think it's possible to build and maintain a society without ANY regulation or re-distribution. I think if it were it would exist. That's all ;-) "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 06:39 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	[QUOTE I also am not clear on what you mean by "doing well with it." Certainly, over time, the countries with the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP have been the most prosperous. More freedom, more liberty, more wealth. ?[/quote] I couldn't think of the best way to phrase this...I just meant a "successful society" but that could have many different definitions..my point was really that I think one with no regulation or interference whatsoever would not survive long. Everyone here keeps being so emphatic that it WOULD but since it DOESN'T anywhere that we know of how can you be so sure? I love to be proven wrong when it would benefit me or others. It would benefit me gretly if you are right and this can be so.....but I just don't see it. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 06:52 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There are a lot of theories that look good on paper but don't work out as imagined in real life. I'm going to ask this over and over until I get an answer: Where is the society that is using this system and doing well with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And yet again let us try in vain to explain this simple point to you mia.. If one were to accept this line of reasoning, then ALL ideas can ALWAYS be dismissed. Also, your position relies on the is/ought fallacy, which assumes that what is, is what ought to be MERELY BECAUSE IT EXISTS. This fallacy would also lead us to believe that rape, murder, and any number of heinous acts are just as justified as the acts of violence which you have so heartily endorsed. Progress necessitates being able to understand truth, and have the foresight to understand that things can be changed for the better. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by my point was really that I think one with no regulation or interference whatsoever would not survive long.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes I believe that we all understand that this is your illusion, but thus far you have not given any hint of a reason to believe that this COULD BE true much less that it must be true as you have asserted. Why not offer evidence, and sound reasoning if this is such a simply proven point as you have declared? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I love to be proven wrong when it would benefit me or others. It would benefit me gretly if you are right and this can be so.....but I just don't see it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am going to call you on this yet again, since you have been repeatedly and conclusively proven to have offered fatally flawed arguments and blatantly false presumptions, but in response you have only offered insults, ad hominems, and red herrings. Becoming familiar with reality and reason would indeed benefit you or anyone, but no one can force you to abandon your illusions as long as you hold onto them even in light of direct contradiction to reality. The choice is yours and yours alone.

Mar 3, 2004, 07:18 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	I was not speaking to you. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 07:46 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	Mia, read the writings of Hans Hoppe and Murray Rothbard (among others) to see how a governmentless society would function. Remember, a few short years ago democracy was labelled impossible, and people asked "Well, where's an example of a democratic nation?" The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.

Mar 3, 2004, 08:03 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Mia...the Matrix is just a movie. Anarchy is the probably one of the most simple ideas i can think of. Simply, get rid of the government. The government has convinced people that it is necessary to do service which the people demand but the private sector couldn't do for profit. The above statement is the biggest lie in civilazation. If people demand something then that thing will be supplied for a fee. This is absolute. If it seems "too dumb" to you then maybe you're not smart enough to understand it. :rolleyes:

Mar 3, 2004, 08:10 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) Mia, read the writings of Hans Hoppe and Murray Rothbard (among others) to see how a governmentless society would function. Remember, a few short years ago democracy was labelled impossible, and people asked "Well, where's an example of a democratic nation?" The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I thought of that same thing myself. It doesn't mean that every idea would work as imagined. Doesn't mean that it couldn't either. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS! THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING!!!!!!!!!!!! "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 08:11 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) Mia...the Matrix is just a movie. Anarchy is the probably one of the most simple ideas i can think of. Simply, get rid of the government. The government has convinced people that it is necessary to do service which the people demand but the private sector couldn't do for profit. The above statement is the biggest lie in civilazation. If people demand something then that thing will be supplied for a fee. This is absolute. If it seems "too dumb" to you then maybe you're not smart enough to understand it. :rolleyes:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's been tried before in the area of police and it didn't work out too well. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali