Every individual should be a libretarian at heart

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
Try to think about why you are so strong minded about drug legalization and if you think you are so right, why do have such a perseverance in creating drug threads, why don't you just think "fools" and let it pass sometimes.

Because once one has seen the light of the fallacy of the drug war, it is hard to just let it go. Every now and then I'll interject on drug war threads, but I'm with ya Berserker, and Seattle just pretty much decriminalized marijuana http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kirsten...rticleI75.html just an opinion article. Also I don't know if you have read http://www.mapinc.org/ which is simply a compilation of as many media stories, no matter how small, about the drug war. I remember reading about Tulia Texas over 3 years ago through this website, and it only got recognition now, after 41 black people spent 3 years in jail on the word of one rogue cop turned informant. We will win. Me personally, I come here to change no-ones minds, I just like to let it be known that so-called extreme views are not as extreme, and if you agree with me, we are not alone.
BTW, visit any other OT at any other forum, and you'll find the drug war as a common topic. The fact it is even being debated is a sign of progress, since in the 80's it was almost treasonous.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Everybody pays taxes,

I don't

[GePap]

I'd say the northern US before the Civil War was largely libertarian except for several laws prohibiting personal behavior like homosexuality... But if the year was 600 BC, would you argue democracy was a nice, and utterly irrelevant theory?

Then the society was NOT libertarian, and you ignore blue laws and many other limits on business activities during sabbaths and so forth, plus the ability to create monopolies, so forth: Nope, only under a very strange meaning of libertarianism is the US north beofre the civil war fit, very strange indeed.

as for your second point..it only took 2400 years of human history for some sort of theory of legislative civic government to form (with predecessors porbalby earlier). and since then, it has been around for 2600 years. Yet again, NO libertarian societies have existed in 5000 years of recorded history, even in the last 200 years were plenty of theoretical backbone existed. Maybe after some sort of Star Trek tech revolution where no one has to wrry about shortages will libertarianism come about, becuase any time the dispossed and the poor can come together into collective action to end their situation, you dream soceity is screwed.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It IS a group of people with a special legal status.

Anything hierarchical is not a group of people.

You mean there are people in that entity?

I mean not through the corporate beancounters.

Perhaps (I don't buy that though), but it was that agricultural system that was a needed stepping stone to the increasing quality of life we see today.

No, urbanization, democracy. and left-wing-driven reforms are responsible for that. Agriculture was hell.

[Berzerker]

Leo -

Anything hierarchical is not a group of people.

You found that in the definition of "group"?

I mean not through the corporate beancounters.

There are or are not people in corporations?

No, urbanization, democracy. and left-wing-driven reforms are responsible for that. Agriculture was hell.

Leo, read what I said, agriculture was a needed stepping stone to what we see today. We didn't go from hunter-gatherer systems to today's world, several thousand years of agriculture was the stepping stone. And if agriculture was as bad as you claim, people would not have adopted it over this "paradise" you describe.

Juggernaut -

You should always speak up when you feel something's wrong but these people have heard your arguments over and over again.

And I've heard yours, but you don't see me asking why you bother offering your opinions.

They are not dumb, they listen to you and they feel this subject is very important to them as well.

Then let them respond to arguments if they are so smart.

They read the same lines and facts from you over and over again and try to think find new viewpoints (there aren't any left)

Have you and I debated this issue before? If so, you've got a new name. But you seem more interested in this "fact" that you've heard my arguments before than refuting what I've said.

How come they just don't agree? They want to agree...

Wtf?

Gepap -

Then the society was NOT libertarian, and you ignore blue laws and many other limits on business activities during sabbaths and so forth, plus the ability to create monopolies, so forth: Nope, only under a very strange meaning of libertarianism is the US north beofre the civil war fit, very strange indeed.

Gepap, I said there were several prohibitions on personal behavior so don't act like I said there were none. What other limits on business on the Sabbath?

as for your second point..it only took 2400 years of human history for some sort of theory of legislative civic government to form (with predecessors porbalby earlier). and since then, it has been around for 2600 years. Yet again, NO libertarian societies have existed in 5000 years of recorded history, even in the last 200 years were plenty of theoretical backbone existed. Maybe after some sort of Star Trek tech revolution where no one has to wrry about shortages will libertarianism come about, becuase any time the dispossed and the poor can come together into collective action to end their situation, you dream soceity is screwed.

I've already identified one libertarian system and there were others, like Nordic Iceland. Until the 20th century there were only 2 or 3 democratic systems even if we include ancient Greece. And technically, no democratic system has ever existed because not even Greece and the USA were/are democracies, even Europe has constitutions restricting democracies.

[Berzerker]

Juggernaut -

You tend to get bad conscience?

Let me ask you a question: why do you think about this so much?

Have you have ever convinced anyone about being selfish. You are very good at debating...

Geez Jugger, now you're pulling that hypocritical crap on David?
If you've read what people say on all these issues already, just go away. But no, you are here presenting your position so stop with this BS.

[David Floyd]

Have you have ever convinced anyone about being selfish. You are very good at debating...

Actually I have convinced others of my viewpoint. Starting with my ex-roommate/best friend, who I converted from a far right conservative, pro-Bush type, to a Libertarian. I'm on the road to convincing my mom, who is a fundamentalist far right winger - I've already gotten several concessions out of her, such as the immorality of the drug war and things of that nature. I convinced someone I work with, who used to be a gay moral relativist. He's still gay, but not a moral relativist.

So yes, I have actually convinced others about my viewpoint. Now, what about YOU?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You found that in the definition of "group"?

Fine, I'll paraphrase. Corporate handouts go not to the corporation as a linked list of people, but to the corporation as a tree of people.

I'd object less to them if if they went to the corporation as a linked list of people. Actually, I don't really care about this topic at all.

Leo, read what I said, agriculture was a needed stepping stone to what we see today. We didn't go from hunter-gatherer systems to today's world, several thousand years of agriculture was the stepping stone.

Yes, it was.

And if agriculture was as bad as you claim, people would not have adopted it over this "paradise" you describe.

You are overestimating people.

Reasons to adopt agriculture:
-population pressure (due to reproduction, desertification, rising sea levels
-coercion from agricultural bigwigs
-overexploitation of foraging food sources

Reasons agriculture sucks:
-poor nutrition (human fossils show a marked deterioration in health with the switchover to agriculture)
-vast expenditure of time
-vast extenditure of energy
-inability to avoid coercion through frequent relocation
-possiblity of a failing harvest causing starvation

even Europe has constitutions restricting democracies.

Ugh. Do I really have to think up of a new name for it if I want my democracy to include a constitution?

[GePap]

Gepap, I said there were several prohibitions on personal behavior so don't act like I said there were none. What other limits on business on the Sabbath?

How about: you cant conduct any commercial business on the Sabbath? Is that enough of a constraint for you? And it is nonsensical to state that you can have a libertarian society if the only government emposed restrictions happen to be on what you can do personally and not business wise.

I've already identified one libertarian system and there were others, like Nordic Iceland. Until the 20th century there were only 2 or 3 democratic systems even if we include ancient Greece. And technically, no democratic system has ever existed because not even Greece and the USA were/are democracies, even Europe has constitutions restricting democracies.

You haven't indetified any (cause using the US pre-civl war, even the north is absurd). Ad you are of course twsting what democracy means for your own ends. The guys who came up with the word for the idea itself knew as much about it as you do. Democracy simply means rule of the poor, or many, as opposed to rule by one, which can be a monarchy or tyranny, rule by the rich which is oligarchy, or by the "good", whch is aristocracy, rule by priests (theocracy), rule by the old (gerontocracy), rule by the best equiped (meritocracy), so forth and so on.

[PeteH]

>>>>
quote:
And if agriculture was as bad as you claim, people would not have adopted it over this "paradise" you describe.


You are overestimating people.

Reasons to adopt agriculture:
-population pressure (due to reproduction, desertification, rising sea levels
-coercion from agricultural bigwigs
-overexploitation of foraging food sources

Reasons agriculture sucks:
-poor nutrition (human fossils show a marked deterioration in health with the switchover to agriculture)
-vast expenditure of time
-vast extenditure of energy
-inability to avoid coercion through frequent relocation
-possiblity of a failing harvest causing starvation

quote:
even Europe has constitutions restricting democracies.


Ugh. Do I really have to think up of a new name for it if I want my democracy to include a constitution?
<<<<

Just a few things that are getting mixed up in this part of the discussion:

Population explosions are a result of agriculture, not a cause. As one author put it, turning to agriculture to feed a starving population is like knitting a parachute after you fall out of a plane.

As for why people became full time farmers, in many ways it was a cascading effect (in the form that exists today that is, there were several cultures which tried full time farming and abandoned it). Once a group begins amassing large surpluses, and along with it an even larger population, it forms a positive-feedback loop. As more food leads to more people, there comes a point of diminishing return on the land you currently have available. Now this point has shifted over the years as farming technology has changed, but it is always there, and peopel have always run into it any time they have become full time farmers.

Modern civilization is largely a result of one group deciding to become agriculturalists about 10000 years ago in the middle east. As there population grew, and crop yields fell, there were only two choices: find another way to live, or find a way to bring in more resources. With the surpluses available to them, they could wage war in a way that other tribes could not, and it has spread in an ever-widening circle ever since.


As for democracies, there have been plenty of democratic tribes throughout history, as well as some with a more monarchal structure, and thousands of variations in between. You have to ignore 99% of human history, or truely believe it does not matter, to say otherwise.

[St Leo]

Modern civilization is largely a result of one group deciding to become agriculturalists about 10000 years ago in the middle east.

Mkay. Other agricultural systems have been developed elsewhere independently.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Confusion often stems from false assumptions. Libertarians don't oppose user fees/taxes for these services. Some even support forced taxation for these, and citing these services - a common tactic from people on your side - to detract from what libertarians despise - the massive forced "re-distribution" of wealth as payback for votes - is illogical.

So they want only want to pay taxes for services that benefit themselves? That does sound like selfishness to me.

[Berzerker]

Leo -

Fine, I'll paraphrase. Corporate handouts go not to the corporation as a linked list of people, but to the corporation as a tree of people.

Which is what I said, corporate handouts are to groups of people. I don't care if the group has a hierarchy or "link", it's still one group bribing politicians to get other people's money.

Ugh. Do I really have to think up of a new name for it if I want my democracy to include a constitution?

If you want to say no libertarian system has ever existed when there have been systems that were largely libertarian, then the same is true for democracy.

UR -

So they want only want to pay taxes for services that benefit themselves? That does sound like selfishness to me.

And if I want taxes imposed on you to enrich me? Is that selfish? Btw, a tax to pay for the police benefits me and you...

Gepap -

How about : you cant conduct any commercial business on the Sabbath? Is that enough of a constraint for you? And it is nonsensical to state that you can have a libertarian society if the only government emposed restrictions happen to be on what you can do personally and not business wise.

Gepap, slow down and read what I post instead of inventing strawmen. I said the north had some restrictions but was still largely libertarian. And do you have proof of state imposed blue laws on all business?

You haven't indetified any (cause using the US pre-civl war, even the north is absurd). Ad you are of course twsting what democracy means for your own ends.

Why do you get to cite systems that were largely democratic but I don't get to cite systems that were largely libertarian? The point you were trying to make was that libertarianism cannot succeed because it never has succeeded. And you really think the north would have collapsed without blue laws? Prove the north would have failed if those anti-libertarian measures it did have did not exist.

The guys who came up with the word for the idea itself knew as much about it as you do. Democracy simply means rule of the poor, or many, as opposed to rule by one, which can be a monarchy or tyranny, rule by the rich which is oligarchy, or by the "good", whch is aristocracy, rule by priests (theocracy), rule by the old (gerontocracy), rule by the best equiped (meritocracy), so forth and so on.

Democracy is rule by the majority. Now, most people don't want democracy as it is defined because they understand the notion of the tyranny of the majority so they impose limits - Constitutions - on what the majority can do. For example, the USA under the Constitution is a "republic" and the Founders made known their dislike for "democracy". Was ancient Greece a democracy as you've defined it? No. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu....