It was not impossible to build it in the middle of the sea; it was impossible to build it anywhere else.

I think the biggest problem I have with Libertarians is that they seem far more interested in whether a particular policy comports with their ideology than if it benefits society as a whole. The pragmatist in me finds this deeply disturbing and it reminds me more than a bit of the Chinese Communist Party prior to Deng Xiaoping.

I have had numerous conversations with Libertarians regarding the healthcare systems of other civilized countries and their objections seem always to boil down to "sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Malor wrote:

Yeah, there are a number of real problems with it, and one is that they don't seem to understand that sociopaths exist, and appear, in fact, to be about 1% of the population. But I promise you, while Libertarianism may not have sociopathy in its worldview, sociopaths most emphatically know about Libertarianism.

Libertarians are perfectly aware that sociopaths exist. We just think, due to empirical observation, that most of them gravitate to government,where their casual use of coercive violence is societally accepted. What other societal group would people be comfortable with invading a country on the other side of the world, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and calling it "spreading freedom" and "liberating"?

OG_slinger wrote:

A *real* Libertarian? Come on. Practically every angry white dude who thinks he pays too much taxes or thinks he should be able to smoke weed fancies himself a Libertarian.

You don't know me, so you don't know how absolutely hilarious this comment is. Please trust me when I say that I'm a committed, bona-fide Libertarian.

Nothing like a libertarian selling bacon weaves for gold flakes using eggs and bacon that have been USDA inspected and yet still calling himself a bad ass rebel.

If Libertarians were all about the individual and being independent and self-sufficient, why would he even be there working his ass off to provide food for other people? Why would any of those people be there?

Atras wrote:

I am having a hard time with this point. If we look at some of the biggest problems in this country's history, I think most of the solutions have been government force.

Well, lets look at some of those "solutions".

All the well-meaning, sympathetic people who gather together to say that "gay people are people, too" can get together and try to convince others that we are all equal, no matter who likes to put what where and it doesn't stop hospitals not allowing same-sex partners to visit. Put a law saying it, and the problem is solved, because the state said that these people are married now, and are allowed. Law implies government force, right?

The problem you cite is a problem created by the law and the government. What business is it of theirs who your next of kin is and who you have relationships with? Gays not being able to marry is a government rule. Gays not being allowed to function as next-of-kin is a government rule. Yes, creating a laws that says gays can marry and be next-of-kin would possibly solve the problem - but why not remove the laws that created the problem in the first place?

People with higher levels of melanin in their skin, mostly with an African ancestry are not allowed to go to school.

And who was doing that preventing? Oh right ... that'd be the guys with guns and uniforms, the police, the government. Blacks were forced into slavery and later into segregation by law and government-sanctioned force. Thanking government for ending slavery and segregation is like thanking a bully for not taking your lunch money.

Maybe there are a few thousand people who are willing to get blasted by fire hoses to point out how wrong that is, but the schools stay barred.

By whom?

One smaller government even goes so far as to bring armed men to prevent educating dark-skinned people. The bigger, stronger government says that that can't happen, and justice is served. Nothing against the bravery or purity of mission of the non-violent cooperators, but they didn't fix the problem, just brought it more into focus.

I think you drastically underestimate the effect of the protestors. What they "brought into focus" was the utter inhumanity that was being perpetrated by all levels of government up to that point, and what really caused this societal change was not government, but changing attitudes in society. When racism became wrong, the government followed along because they wanted to get re-elected. Up to that point, they were the perpetrators of racism and violence against peaceful protesters. Justice was increased because society demanded it, not because the government suddenly decided one day to do the right thing. As further proof of this, look at what equal rights laws were enacted - they were laws aimed at preventing government from creating laws that discriminated by race. In essence, they were solving a problem that only existed because of previous government abuses!

Any military operation that does not include strict defense of our borders would be certainly be government force, but did that actually solve any problems? I think we can categorically say that West Front WWII absolutely did.

Well, I guess that depends. Do you qualify destroying two continents and killing tens of millions of people as "solving a problem"? And I can't help but note that the actions taken in World War II were to oppose abusive and terrible actions taken by ... yet another government, one in a long line of governments that have been notably ungoverned. And in the process, our government devised and used unbelievably terrible weapons that remain the single greatest threat to our continued existence on this planet.

Am I wrong? Can you give me a couple of examples of big problems we have faced that were solved without government force?

Sure - they are all around you. Problem: grow, process, and distribute food to three hundred million people. Answer: a highly efficient private food distribution system that is so good, so efficient, and so tuned that our only significant food-related societal problem is people eating too much. Go back and look through history for societies with that problem, and you'll get an idea of just how unique our modern economy is. And yes, there is government involvement in many aspects of the food distribution process, but the vast majority of food-chain activity happens without government oversight, planning, or intervention of any kind. The government involvement that does exist is designed to protect people from unscrupulous suppliers, not determine what is grown and where it should go. The government isn't out there telling farmers when and what to plant, they aren't out there telling truckers when and where to pick up food and deliver it, they don't tell grocery stores what they can and can't sell, and they don't tell people what they can and can't eat. It's all done by millions of people specializing and cooperating in a vast network of ever-changing and rapidly adapting economic activity - and virtually none of it is based on violent coercion. How is that possible? Because our modern society is really, really good at cooperation, specialization, and adaptation to changing market demands.

Another example: Take a simple object, let's say a pencil. Creating even such a tiny, simple item takes the voluntary cooperation of thousands of people. There isn't a person on earth who has the knowledge and skills to build a modern pencil from scratch, and no one centrally plans pencil production or stands over people's shoulders forcing them to make pencils - yet our society produces millions of them every year. Imagine the networks required to build a car or a computer. These networks of people are fantastically complex, always changing, and deeply interconnected with millions of other networks - yet some people believe that with some tax money here and some incentives there, they can make meaningful improvements. The hubris required is truly astounding.

Jayhawker wrote:

I think the epitome of this was a libertarian that explained to me that even a police force is not necessary. With a straight face, he told me that communities could band together and form their own security. He didn't even see the irony of the fact that his great libertarian plan was to pitch in and all support a common service. People not willing to support it would have to live somewhere else. It's all about freedom.

Well, good thing that never happens, right? It's not an irony, it's the entire basis of libertarian thought - voluntary cooperation instead of violent coercion.

I wonder what that could be compared to? A group of people paying dues and setting up their own security force. Is there something like that in place now?

Aetius wrote:
Any military operation that does not include strict defense of our borders would be certainly be government force, but did that actually solve any problems? I think we can categorically say that West Front WWII absolutely did.

Well, I guess that depends. Do you qualify destroying two continents and killing tens of millions of people as "solving a problem"? And I can't help but note that the actions taken in World War II were to oppose abusive and terrible actions taken by ... yet another government, one in a long line of governments that have been notably ungoverned. And in the process, our government devised and used unbelievably terrible weapons that remain the single greatest threat to our continued existence on this planet.

Well, yeah, actually, I can see the killing a lot of people who are abusive and oppressive until they stop as solving a problem. Maybe it isn't the best solution, I can admit that, but it is a solution. I don't want to Godwin the thread, but there were HORRIBLE things being done in WWII, and they had to be stopped. I really don't care that they were done by a government, and I don't think it truly matters at all, aside from the scale of the problem.

You keep pointing out that the problems I listed were government-originated, and that can be a fair point, but in the context of the conversation, it is the presence of force that is important. Until a larger presence of force works against the problem, there is no solution. The bigger problem with reiterating that these were government problems is that the government in question is one made by the people - the same people who, if left to their own devices, would do the same brutal and unfair things, but without any law holding them back.

Aetius wrote:
Am I wrong? Can you give me a couple of examples of big problems we have faced that were solved without government force?

Some pretty broad problems and solutions...

I guess I didn't think that Libertarians would care all that much about feeding 299,999,999 other people.

Aetius wrote:

the entire basis of libertarian thought - voluntary cooperation instead of violent coercion.

But how do you deal with people who don't want to cooperate, or who want to violently coerce? It just seems that with libertarian theory that isn't adequately dealt with. I think that human nature is where libertarian theory falls apart.

Jayhawker wrote:

I wonder what that could be compared to? A group of people paying dues and setting up their own security force. Is there something like that in place now?

IMAGE(http://www.sgnewwave.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/goodfellas.jpg)

Aetius wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

A *real* Libertarian? Come on. Practically every angry white dude who thinks he pays too much taxes or thinks he should be able to smoke weed fancies himself a Libertarian.

You don't know me, so you don't know how absolutely hilarious this comment is. Please trust me when I say that I'm a committed, bona-fide Libertarian.

No, I don't know you. I just know loads of idiots who say they are also Libertarians and they all pretty much fall into those two camps.

Aetius wrote:

If Libertarians were all about the individual and being independent and self-sufficient, why would he even be there working his ass off to provide food for other people? Why would any of those people be there?

It was a camp, FFS. It wasn't anything more real than people selling hits of nitrous in the parking lot of Phish concert. And those people did it for the same reason: to make a bit of scratch.

The only difference is that the Phish concert goers aren't constantly screaming that they don't need the government while they drive their cars whose safety and fuel efficiency has been mandated by the government on roads built and maintained by the government to an event held on a campground licensed and regulated by the government (and then feeding those camp goers food whose safety has been assured by government inspections).

If you want me to be impressed about a Libertarian camp then hold it in the middle of goddamned nowhere, some place where the Libertarians have to come together as a group and build all the roads and infrastructure required to support the attendees instead of leeching off existing infrastructure the government has created.

Aetius wrote:

Sure - they are all around you. Problem: grow, process, and distribute food to three hundred million people. Answer: a highly efficient private food distribution system that is so good, so efficient, and so tuned that our only significant food-related societal problem is people eating too much. Go back and look through history for societies with that problem, and you'll get an idea of just how unique our modern economy is. And yes, there is government involvement in many aspects of the food distribution process, but the vast majority of food-chain activity happens without government oversight, planning, or intervention of any kind. The government involvement that does exist is designed to protect people from unscrupulous suppliers, not determine what is grown and where it should go. The government isn't out there telling farmers when and what to plant, they aren't out there telling truckers when and where to pick up food and deliver it, they don't tell grocery stores what they can and can't sell, and they don't tell people what they can and can't eat. It's all done by millions of people specializing and cooperating in a vast network of ever-changing and rapidly adapting economic activity - and virtually none of it is based on violent coercion. How is that possible? Because our modern society is really, really good at cooperation, specialization, and adaptation to changing market demands.

You might want to pick a better example. The reason food is cheap and plentiful in America is massive government subsidies, not an efficient market. Taxpayers shell out tens of billions a year in farm subsidies which helps guarantee that farmers get paid a minimum amount for staple crops. That system was put in place during the Great Depression because the supposedly efficient market failed so completely that farmers left their crops to rot in the field because prices had collapsed even while people were going hungry.

Since then those subsidies have guaranteed that farmers will grow lots of cheap corn which private industry has turned into everything from livestock feed to corn syrup to endless chemicals and fillers that are the staple of the entire processed food industry. All of those companies depend on cheap, cheap government subsided corn.

Also don't forget that all the cheap food travels an average of 1,200 miles from farms to grocery stores using the highway and road system the government created as well as the rail system private enterprise wouldn't build until they got loads of free land *and* money from the government.

Again, you're just inventing sh*t because you're threatened by the ethos. What they do doesn't hurt you. And yes, building a society is difficult, but by your standards, the fledging democracies aborning from the age of kings should have completely demolished their society and thrown everything overboard, instead of keeping their existing systems and slowly changing them into what they wanted.

You hate Libertarians, impose absolutely unreasonable requirements, and then call them fantasists for not precisely meeting the bullsh*t requirements you've invented.

The only difference is that the Phish concert goers aren't constantly screaming that they don't need the government while they drive their cars whose safety and fuel efficiency has been mandated by the government on roads built and maintained by the government to an event held on a campground licensed and regulated by the government (and then feeding those camp goers food whose safety has been assured by government inspections).

If Libertarians want to go anywhere, what alternative do they have?

Obviously, the peasants of the middle ages had no business using the infrastructure that had so graciously been provided by the King to make something new.

SallyNasty wrote:

But how do you deal with people who don't want to cooperate, or who want to violently coerce?

For those who choose not to cooperate they simply won't be able to reap the benefits of whatever that cooperation was meant to achieve. For the violent there are laws to deal with the individual who harms another individual.

Just like the "large tent" of conservatives, liberals, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. there is also a "large tent" of libertarian ideals, some more radical than others. To me libertarianism != anarchy.

OG_slinger wrote:

The only difference is that the Phish concert goers aren't constantly screaming that they don't need the government while they drive their cars whose safety and fuel efficiency has been mandated by the government on roads built and maintained by the government to an event held on a campground licensed and regulated by the government (and then feeding those camp goers food whose safety has been assured by government inspections).

If you want me to be impressed about a Libertarian camp then hold it in the middle of goddamned nowhere, some place where the Libertarians have to come together as a group and build all the roads and infrastructure required to support the attendees instead of leeching off existing infrastructure the government has created.

Yup. It very much reminds me of the stories my Russian friend told me about Soviet rocket scientists using electrical tape smuggled in from the West because tape wasn't included in the 5 year plans and then being told they couldn't use "capitalist tape".

When you're so married to a particular ideology that it necessarily rules out pragmatic and proven solutions, you enter some very bizarre mental territory. This is where I see all this Libertarian nonsense going. As I have mentioned above, other countries have arrived at much more affordable and efficacious solutions to healthcare costs than we have. Those solutions are proven to work and constitute significant improvements over our own. Even still, Libertarians reject them because they don't comport with their ideology.

This rigidity of thinking is not moral strength. It is mental weakness.

Malor wrote:

If Libertarians want to go anywhere, what alternative do they have?

Obviously, the peasants of the middle ages had no business using the infrastructure that had so graciously been provided by the King to make something new.

There's loads of government land in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. that can be bought for cheap. All the Libertarians would have to do buy a couple of hundred acres in the middle of the desert and lay a couple dozen miles or so of roads to get there. And then build some power lines. And then lay pipes for water and sewage. Or they can just pay an arm and a leg to have it all trucked in and out. I'm sure Halliburton could give them some fantastic cost plus quotes.

Of course to pay for all this the price of the event tickets would have to go up a bit, but you just can't put a price on freedom from government tyranny.

The more I think about it, the more this should be a requirement for every Libertarian event. It might actually make some Libertarians realize they actually do get a lot of things for their taxes.

Those f*cking peons should be thankful for what the King provides. Traitors, the lot of them.

Angry white dudes who smoke weed?
If they're smoking weed, why are they still angry?

Malor wrote:

Those f*cking peons should be thankful for what the King provides. Traitors, the lot of them.

Characterizing a democratically elected government as "the King" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the mechanism of our governance. It is also pretty insulting to anyone who has either: 1) served our country, 2) participated in a campaign, or 3) lived in a truly repressive society.

Seriously. Spend some time elsewhere before you go any further with your whole "government is tyranny" nonsense.

Paleocon wrote:
Malor wrote:

Those f*cking peons should be thankful for what the King provides. Traitors, the lot of them.

Characterizing a democratically elected government as "the King" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the mechanism of our governance. It is also pretty insulting to anyone who has either: 1) served our country, 2) participated in a campaign, or 3) lived in a truly repressive society.

Seriously. Spend some time elsewhere before you go any further with your whole "government is tyranny" nonsense.

I laughed when I read Malor's comment, so you may be taking it out of context.

I think comments regarding democratic government don't take into account that while not the Libertarian ideal, Democracy is a form of Cooperation, just not Pure Cooperation, which is the Libertarian ideal.
I'm not a Libertarian philosopher, but I think current government means that actions for the greater good are allowed to be implemented via coercion of its own members whereas Libertarianism does not.

Aetius wrote:

And who was doing that preventing? Oh right ... that'd be the guys with guns and uniforms, the police, the government. Blacks were forced into slavery and later into segregation by law and government-sanctioned force. Thanking government for ending slavery and segregation is like thanking a bully for not taking your lunch money.

I know, I feel so bad for those peaceful, loving, tolerant cotton farmers that were forced by their government to chain up their black neighbors and use them as slaves. And then years later, when those friendly people wanted so badly to share their schools, swimming pools, and water fountains with their darker-skinned brethren their government stepped in and said "No! You must not peacefully coexist. Now spit on them!"

They didn't want to, but the government made them.

This whole conversation brought to mind that Machiavelli quote that's in Civilization:

Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.

The simple and misguided fiction that we are somehow, anyhow, less free as a people than we were 40 years ago is the sort of nonsense that could only have been dreamt up in the minds of the extraordinarily entitled. By just about every objective measure, we enjoy greater rights both individually and collectively than just about any other time in human, let alone American, history.

I keep coming back to this, but when my family moved to a predominantly white suburb in Maryland in 1972, we were subjected to the mandatory indignity of a "neighborhood interview" because the covenant didn't allow for non-white families. Keep in mind this was four years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but apparently, things happen a bit more slowly south of the Mason Dixon.

This would not only be instantly prosecutable in today's legal environment -- it would be just about unthinkable. And we have the Federal Government to thank for it.

With the aid of a fast internet connection, a good search engine, and half an hour's time, I can undoubtedly find over 50 such examples of how we are immeasurably more free than any fictional "golden age of freedom" for which folks (predominantly angry, grumpy white males) might pine.

We are better off as a people divorcing ourselves of any such nonsense.

Paleocon wrote:

With the aid of a fast internet connection, a good search engine, and half an hour's time, I can undoubtedly find over 50 such examples of how we are immeasurably more free than any fictional "golden age of freedom" for which folks (predominantly angry, grumpy white males) might pine.

Yes, but I'd like to be more free and I don't remember anyone talking about some "golden age of freedom".
Freedom requires vigilance.
It doesn't matter how free we are today, what matters is how free we will be tomorrow and the day after.

With the same tools you describe, one can undoubtedly find over 50 such examples of government overstepping its bounds as well. In fact, I think many links would be to discussions on this site.

Characterizing a democratically elected government as "the King" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the mechanism of our governance

Wow, you missed the point.

The point was that a new way of governance always arises from the old ones. OG's theory seems to be that they're not allowed to take advantage of the existing infrastructure because they don't like how it was paid for. Because the Federal government used some of the tax money they took to provide services, apparently that puts chains on the people who had the money taken. The King provided those services, you peons, and you should be grateful.

They paid for those roads as much as anyone else did. The fact that they want to change how we organize ourselves doesn't mean they don't have every right to use what's already there.

The peons didn't like kings; Libertarians don't like the modern collective kings any better than the singular ones of the Middle Ages. The movement of society has been, very slowly, toward greater and greater self-determination for the individual.

Their believe that OG and you have no more right to make people work for you, via taxation, than kings had to force the peons to work their lands.

I have a lot of respect for the ethos. It IS an ethos. I think it's better in many respects, more moral, than the one you and OG are espousing -- that you have the fundamental right to force other people to live as you wish, simply because you say they're in your group. You want to be mini-kings, and they don't want any kings at all.

RolandofGilead wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

With the aid of a fast internet connection, a good search engine, and half an hour's time, I can undoubtedly find over 50 such examples of how we are immeasurably more free than any fictional "golden age of freedom" for which folks (predominantly angry, grumpy white males) might pine.

Yes, but I'd like to be more free and I don't remember anyone talking about some "golden age of freedom".
Freedom requires vigilance.
It doesn't matter how free we are today, what matters is how free we will be tomorrow and the day after.

With the same tools you describe, one can undoubtedly find over 50 such examples of government overstepping its bounds as well. In fact, I think many links would be to discussions on this site.

The problem is that very few folks in the "government is tyranny" camp actually take the time to think through the costs of their ideology or the actual difficulty and complexity in actually running the social, legal, and physical infrastructure of a functioning modern society. Spend just about any time in a society where the rule of law is weak, public welfare is disregarded, or where government is truly repressive and it instantly becomes obvious how truly good we have it, how delicate the balance is, and how worthless ideological extremism of the Libertarian stripe is when it comes to solving actual problems.

Moreover, most of these self styled Libertarians struggle to come up with a meaningful definition of the word "Freedom" that has any real currency in modern context. And describing participatory government with unprecedentedly low barriers to entry for participation as "tyranny" is meaningless and insulting.

We may not get everything right, but we do a pretty freaking good job most of the time. If you think otherwise, live in a Taiwanese apartment during an earthquake or visit a country under martial law. I've done both and, trust me, the former demonstrates the invalidity of the "markets will provide better building codes" nonsense and the latter puts the lie to the whole "tyranny" in American idea.

Perhaps this floating dung heap for spoiled, pissed off, entitled jackasses is a good idea. I hope they all go there and it sinks into the ocean.

Malor wrote:

The point was that a new way of governance always arises from the old ones. OG's theory seems to be that they're not allowed to take advantage of the existing infrastructure because they don't like how it was paid for. Because the Federal government used some of the tax money they took to provide services, apparently that puts chains on the people who had the money taken. The King provided those services, you peons, and you should be grateful.

They paid for those roads as much as anyone else did. The fact that they want to change how we organize ourselves doesn't mean they don't have every right to use what's already there.

The peons didn't like kings; Libertarians don't like the modern collective kings any better than the singular ones of the Middle Ages. The movement of society has been, very slowly, toward greater and greater self-determination for the individual.

Their believe that OG and you have no more right to make people work for you, via taxation, than kings had to force the peons to work their lands.

I have a lot of respect for the ethos. It IS an ethos. I think it's better in many respects, more moral, than the one you and OG are espousing -- that you have the fundamental right to force other people to live as you wish, simply because you say they're in your group. You want to be mini-kings, and they don't want any kings at all.

No, my theory is Libertarians should stop being hypocritical little whiners and simply admit that they benefit greatly from all the things they Female Doggo about. They aren't being oppressed. They aren't being overtaxed. They aren't doing anything except being spoiled little selfish brats.

If they don't like the big bad government then leave. Go to some nice third-world country with a weak central government and no public infrastructure, buy up a bunch of land and see how quickly they become the self-made uber-mench they fancy themselves. When their business fails because there's no infrastructure to move raw materials and finished goods, when they can't find enough educated workers who aren't too sick to work, and when the can't invest in the long-term because of political or social instability they might actually realize they things so much better here. Sure you have to pay your workers a minimum wage, follow safety guidelines that were put in place because people died, and you can't pollute, but at least you don't have to worry about your business being nationalized or burned to the ground during a civil war.

As for transportation, Libertarians shouldn't use said infrastructure because in their world there would be no Department of Transportation, a national highway system, nor all the other infrastructure that makes our society function. That's because they don't think the government should be able to spend any taxes (which they also want to do away with) on things that aren't mandated in the Constitution and the national highway system certainly isn't in the Constitution. Not to mention that all those roads and bridges aren't one-time expenses. You actually have to spend a lot of money on their upkeep every year if you want to keep them useful. But, again, Libertarians won't stand for the taxes required to maintain the infrastructure.

No. Instead of investing in that infrastructure for the good of all they'd much rather Balkanize the country by selling off all that infrastructure to private companies who could then charge whatever the hell they wanted. And I'm sure the company that buys I-70 would never abuse their monopoly of having one of the only major east-west road systems in the country.

What's worse is that Libertarians are oh so eager to throw off the oppressive yolks of a government they actually have input into and run to the cold embrace of for-profit corporations. You think the government acts like a king, just wait until you try to drive on a road owned by King, Inc. Now multiply that a thousand fold for every mini-king corporation you'll have to deal with in the world of Libertarians.

Your talk about society is especially laughable. By your own admission--and their own platform--Libertarians are all about the individual. Case in point, there are only five mentions of "society" in the Libertarian platform--all of which are platitudes about a "free society" or a "modern society"--but there are 38 mentions of "individual".

It's especially telling that you've repeatedly compared life under a modern democracy as being the same as the life of a medieval peasant under a monarch. That, of course, completely overlooks half a millenia of political and social progress where the rights of the individual have grown from hazy concepts to being enshrined in the founding principals of our government.

Libertarianism isn't an ethos. It's a fantasy where ever man thinks he'll be king and have to answer to no one.

Wow, it seems "Libertarian" means something different in the US than it does in Europe.

The only other thing I'd say is; OG_Slinger you seem to have either misunderstand or completely misrepresented some of the arguments the other posters are making.

OG_slinger wrote:

No, my theory is Libertarians should stop being hypocritical little whiners and simply admit that they benefit greatly from all the things they Female Doggo about. They aren't being oppressed. They aren't being overtaxed. They aren't doing anything except being spoiled little selfish brats.

...rest of rant snipped...

This isn't a theory, it's an opinion.

And please tell me OG, does the concept of limited government even exist for you? In your opinion at what point would you be overtaxed by the government? At what point would you be oppressed?

Wait, where did we go from a guy being crazy and missing the point to having an ideological holy war?

Perhaps an argument on the virtues of various types of government deserves it's own thread.

Caddrel wrote:

Wow, it seems "Libertarian" means something different in the US than it does in Europe.

The only other thing I'd say is; OG_Slinger you seem to have either misunderstand or completely misrepresented some of the arguments the other posters are making.

This is his MO. You learn to ignore it. :shrug:

But he addresses the central point that no one has answered yet. Who will maintain the floating country?

Someone is going to have to scrape off the barnacles, repave roads, clean the houses, mow the lawns, grow the food, orchestrate flight landings and ship dockings, monitor the weather and tides, and the list goes on and on.

Sure a lot of Libertarians will say "duh! we knew that." But because these types of tasks seem readily dismissed, it appears they don't understand the gravity of letting those maintenances lax. Another response is that private corporations can handle those maintenances as well or better than a central government. But again Libertarians seem to overlook or dismiss the amount of centralized power that would be amassed if any of these maintenances were to come under the control of a single entity. (corporation or person)

Libertarians don't see that you would be trading one centralized power for another? Does oppression care whether its coming from a government or corporation?

I don't think that Libertarians understand that sh*t happens. And please take that not as an insult. I think Libertarians attempt to isolate themselves such that sh*t doesn't happen often enough so they don't have to deal with it or pay for it. The problem is, nature is a Female Doggo and you can't wait until after sh*t happens to realize you should have prepared for sh*t to happen everyday despite the low odds of it.

What's interesting is that I only know one full fledged, card carrying libertarian -- Aetius -- and I don't think I've ever seen him be anything but polite and logical.

I don't agree with him on many issues (I approve of coercion of my fellow citizen via taxes and the redistribution of wealth from those who stole it back to those who earned it, for example) -- but that doesn't make the respect he's earned from me worth any less.

fangblackbone wrote:

Someone is going to have to scrape off the barnacles, repave roads, clean the houses, mow the lawns, grow the food, orchestrate flight landings and ship dockings, monitor the weather and tides, and the list goes on and on.

In our current society, the government only does one of those things: repave the roads. And technically they don't even do that, they just pay a private entity to do it (I could pay the same people to come out and repave my pothole-ridden driveway, for instance). Why would a smaller government prevent these things from happening?

Seth wrote:

What's interesting is that I only know one full fledged, card carrying libertarian -- Aetius -- and I don't think I've ever seen him be anything but polite and logical.

Two, as of my last driver's license renewal.