anarchy would work....... for about 10 seconds... then people would take advantage of the lack of a government and start their own groups or nations... humanity can't be coherent without some kind of leadership to keep everything in a common direction. however you could build a better society with someting like the freestate project but not the perfect utopia. as someone said, not everybody is equal
No nerves were struck. I don't even see where things became "personal". If you are referring to the dental hygiene comment, it was a joke. Conservatism and Libertarianism are not the same thing. That's also why so few Brits drive cars and rely on government transportation, neatly fitting into the socialist program. Who said there was an infinite supply of petroleum? Internal combustion engines are simply a stage in the evolution of transportation. America's higher population means more of all kinds of people, including the poor, as well as more people in prison. Firearms are the true badge of liberty. Generally speaking, the stricter a nation's laws on firearm ownership, the stricter a nation's laws on other individual rights. Besides, police cannot be there to defend us every second of the day, as they are largely reactive rather than proactive. I have no interests in delegating defense of my life from criminals to people who don't know me and have no real reason to care about me. Government oppression - the point of that quote - can happen regardless of how fast you move. Anyone who says that a Libertarian society won't have a government in place to defend individual rights either isn't a Libertarian or doesn't understand Libertarian politics. Less likely in a nation founded for a specific political philosophy. Many of the Founding Fathers of America considered standing armies to be the bane of liberty. Were they communists?
I don't think anyone is under the assumption that any society - even a Libertarian one - would be utopian. There have always been problems in societies and likely always will be.
Ohhh, it was a joke. right. And i thought libertarianism cured bad teeth. Sure, conservatism and libertarianism arent the same thing, neither is a mixed welfare state and socialism. the point is that the conservatives also profess the similar ideals of individual freedom, money etc. "That's also why so few Brits drive cars and rely on government transportation, neatly fitting into the socialist program. " No, its because trying to fit the extra million or three cars onto our roads would spell disaster. Try to imagine a city without public transport. In fact, our car ownership has gone up so much theres roundabout 23 million of the things about. Yet traffic velocity in london has been roughly the same for decades. In living in a society, there has to be some give and take between individuals in who does what. Oddly enough, it tends to divide out between rich and poor. You are correct about the USA having a higher population, but the key here is percentage of total population. Needless to say the USA has the highest in the western world. Firearms are not the true badge of liberty any more than any other arms are. You may htink you are free with your ak47, but theres always someone with a bigger gun over the horizon. And the gvt/ corporation/ etc will manage to produce more. Plus of course, look at the number of accidents etc using guns. anyhow, feel free to not delegate your safety to someone else. Just dont tell the rest of us its the best way. See, its the connection between gvt oppression and liberals i dont get, over here we have gvt oppression from anyone. We also have economic oppression from people who want more money and indeed every sort of oppression you can get. The point is the oppression, the abuse of asymmetric power relationships. Perhaps your founding fathers were more communistic than you thought. They seem to have recognised there is a society and it seems to need a gvt. Tell me about libertarian politics. I know nothing about them.
Libertarianism won't cure bad teeth, but it will help with bad government. The welfare part of the mix is socialism, however. What we do is more important than what we say. Why should there be a give and take for an activity that violates the rights of none? There are people all over the world who enjoy the freedom of speech and religion, for example, but few enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms. This is generally the first target of "nanny-state" governments. Having a gun in and of itself doesn't make you free, but it gives you a means to protect your freedoms from those who would violate your rights. Any time people are allowed access to something there will be those who use that something in a criminal and/or irresponsible way. And who is forcing his or her values on who: the person who believes that people who want to own firearms should be allowed to do so, or the person who believes that nobody should be allowed to own a firearm? Perhaps the argument over state militias versus a standing federal army is an issue of federalism and anti-federalism rather than communism and anti-communism. What do you want to know?
"The welfare part of the mix is socialism, however. " But it would seem that most successful countries have had mixed types of gvt. Look at how "successfull" the USA has been in the era of big gvt and big corporations. "What we do is more important than what we say." And what happens to it all in actuality is very important as well. "Why should there be a give and take for an activity that violates the rights of none? " Because it makes everyones lives harder if erveyone tries to stand up for themselves. Traffic is a good example, imagine all the peopel who take public transport trying to fit on the roads in their cars. Its a very nasty thought. commutes taht already take 30 mins or an hour would double in length. Therefore, its easier and speeds things up to get the bus etc. Many actions may strictly speaking violate no ones rights, but for everyone to calim them would result in problems. "There are people all over the world who enjoy the freedom of speech and religion, for example, but few enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms. This is generally the first target of "nanny-state" governments. " Sure, but that doesnt mean they are automatically a symbol of freedom. "And who is forcing his or her values on who: the person who believes that people who want to own firearms should be allowed to do so, or the person who believes that nobody should be allowed to own a firearm? " The law of unintended consequences springs in here, about the effect of use of firearms etc. "Perhaps the argument over state militias versus a standing federal army is an issue of federalism and anti-federalism rather than communism and anti-communism." Good point. OK, libertarian politics how are htey supposed to work, and reach some sort of agreement? Its better hearing this from someone who believes in it all, because i find it all hard to believe.
