Wolfe said:

@Dakota it’s excellent to see you posting here again. Even when I disagree with you, your thinking is generally highly rational and logical.

As are you, sir. Generally. ;)

As a historian, I think it’s a mistake to view the US as the only country on earth to institute significant restrictions on government. There is a golden thread, as Mortimer might say, of liberty that runs through the English-speaking world. It may well culminate in the Bill of Rights, especially the now-forgotten Ninth Amendment. But it did not originate there, nor would it have been possible for the US to have achieved what it has achieved without what had gone on before.

I don’t disagree: one always stands on the shoulders of giants.

However, I would point out the following:

Until the creation of the United States as a government with extremely limited powers and which explicitly elevated the rights of the individual over government power, there was almost no technological progress. From the time of the Pharaohs to the mid-18th century, technological progress occurred extremely slowly. During all that time, for example, the primary method of transportation was the horse. A visitor from the 10th century would easily recognize the technology of the 16th.

After the individual reigned supreme, technological progress increased to the point where there appeared to be no limit.

It has plateaued at this point.

There is a causal relationship between individual supremacy and technological progress, and the reason is fairly simple:

In a society with a lot of government, the individual is forced to spend a majority of their time serving their government. Whether it be living at the subsistence level on a feudal farm to grow enough crops to satisfy the Lord’s taxes or spending all day in a company’s financial department ensuring compliance with a mountain of government regulations, the effect is the same:

The individual can’t spend time improving his own situation but must instead waste enormous amounts of time kowtowing to his master at the price of his own freedom and gain.

Reduce the demands of government, and you increase personal freedom. Increase personal freedom, and individual intelligence and creativity is unshackled to perform miracles.

The fantastic impact of an entire country’s citizens had a ripple effect throughout the world. In order to compete with the extraordinary volume of wealth and technological advancement in the US, other countries were forced to reduce government in order to allow their own citizens to utilize their individual intelligence and creativity.

So yes, while it’s no doubt true that much of the west has a history of allowing its citizens individual freedom, it was the ripple effect of near-individual autonomy in the US that brought us where we are today.

In the reverse, we’re not seeing a similar ripple effect to the detriment of the entire world. As the US abandons the principles which created freedom and wealth in favor of socio-fascism, wealth decreases in this country. We’re beginning to see permanent classes again, something that had been all but eliminated. Enormous numbers of people serve nothing but their government rather than themselves, though in a corporate/fascist environment rather than a feudal one.

It’s plateaued and continues to worsen. Fortunately, socio-fascism is unstable, and combined with the monetization of the Iraq War debt, shows every signs of accellerating towards collapse.

I only hope that whatever comes after doesn’t make the same mistakes as its precessors.

Since I do seem to only post points of disagreement, let me say that I agree entirely with you here. (And I am actually for some form of statist pinko-commie health care system. What I propose will indeed drive up some costs, anger some doctors, and increase the cost of emergency health care. My concerns are the mentally ill (libertarianism seems to assume rational actors), the very poor, and catastrophic illness).

Look at it this way:

At present in the US, taxation at all levels inflates prices by roughly 800%. At the same time, individual taxation robs every person — regardless of tax rate — of about 50% of their money.

Imagine a world in which every good and service was 1/8 what you currently pay and that you had double your current income.

How many poor people would there be in such a world? In order to even have them, we’d have to define “poor” as today’s “middle class”.

The price of medical care has skyrocketed largely because the US FedGov got in bed with the doctors’ union, the AMA:

A hundred years ago, there were two classes of doctor: the physician and the surgeon. Physicians handled routine cases, made house calls, treated childhood illnesses and colds, etc. They were essentially the modern General Practitioner. Surgeons worked exclusively in hospitals and exclusively performed surgery. The physician was educated enough that they knew when a surgeon was necessary.

Then the socio-fascist AMA/FedGov alliance happened. The category of “physician” was eliminated and all doctors were required to be surgeons.

What this did was effectively reduce the supply of doctors to well below the demand. It caused people like myself, in IT, or engineers — who had the intelligence necessary to be physician — to go into other fields. I could deal with some kid sneezing on me; I can’t deal with cutting people up, even just in school.

Today, the only people who become doctors are a select few who are both intelligent and have the intestinal fortitude to learn surgery. This decreases the supply of doctors such that there is an extraordinary deficit compared to their demand.

So we have simple supply-and-demand: lots of people want doctors, but there are too few to service them all. Consequently prices go up.

Eliminate government laws requiring all doctors to be surgeons, and the problem with correct itself inside of a generation. Hell, just to get in on the ground floor, I’d go back to physician’s school right now!

Eventually, the supply and demand will equalize, true market forces will kick in, and you’ll see doctors not only making house calls again, but medical science will advance at a rate unheard-of. Prices in general will drop and month-long hospital stays for pregnancies (the norm in my grandmother’s day) will again be within reach of the average individual’s pocketbook. Doctors will compete for business and will occasionally do pro-bono work for the poor, the same as lawyers today.

In short, more government in health care isn’t going to do anything but make things worse. What we need is significantly less and a few years for the field to recover from government interference.

As to the mentally ill, I’m again slightly qualified to speak on this subject, as both my parents have worked for or do work for a state mental hospital.

They’re almost exclusively a disgusting waste of time. After working for one for twenty years, my father went exclusively into private practice because the state hospital was so demoralizing. He simply didn’t feel like he was helping anyone and couldn’t take it any more.

In private practice, he is constantly helping people.

Private hospitals staffed by lower-cost physicians and psychologists that compete for a patient’s dollar (or for the dollar of the private charity funding that patient) is infinitely better of providing mental health care than a state-operated institution run by surgeons.

The former has every reason to provide excellent care, because if they don’t, they’ll be out of business. That latter has every reason to have as many patients as possible: if they actually cure them, everyone will be out of a job.

I agree with much of what you say, Anon, but by no means all. (I agree with some of Dakota’s arguments and wish I still believed his philosophy. The nature of man, in my eyes, weighs against it).

It’s time we addressed this head-on. I’ll send you a PM. :)

sonyad said:

You cannot have a monetary economy without some form of state and government.

Again, explain the drug trade, which operates a whole black market economy without government. In fact, the only purpose served by government in the black market is to increase the cost of black market items. Without prohibition, the free market would quickly reduce the cost of drugs to near-free while simultaneously removing violence from the trade.

Someone needs to print the money and guard against counterfeiting as best possible.

Why?

The purpose of fiat currency is to allow one to trade more easily, correct? So as long as something backs the currency (whether it be gold, silver, uranium, oil, Disney rides, or long-distance minutes), why does a government need to be the one doing the printing?

Someone needs to be the ubiquitous guarantor (and enforcer) of the market’s rules

Government is incapable of guaranteeing or enforcing the free market. All it can do is destroy the market in the name of guarding it. See the last fifty years for proof.

and society’s laws (against thievery, for example)

A better guarantor of personal safety and a deterrant against theft are personal arms in private hands. Again, see the history of victim disarmament in the last half century for proof.

In particular, see the Iraq War for proof.

else it’s the rule of the strongest, regression to feudal society, the dark ages, etc.

No, feudal society is marked by exactly what we have today: weapons only in the hands of government. Weapons in the hands of private citizens deters government aggression since officials must worry that their next action will also be their last.

If an allegory is permitted me, would you even have a market without the city?

Yes. In fact, as I work for a multi-national company with manufacturing facilities in both cities and (in my case) towns of about 2000, I can speak with some authority on this.

Bottom line: we’re closing our city-based plants because it’s virtually impossible to do business there. Our New Jersey and Los Angeles plants are closed while our plants in small towns easily took over their volume.

Why? Simple: too much government in the big cities. The cost of doing business there is hideous. Not so in nearly-rural South Dakota or Virginia.

Which is better? 10000 autocracies, with their own currency, dialect, laws, industry, taxes and tolls etc. per every city over a million inhabitants or a aspiringly democratic government per nation of several tens of millions?

Neither.

In the US, the best form is roughly 250 million autocracies, with each individual having the freedom to do what they please provided that they do not initiate force against others.

Substitute the number of autocracies for the total population wherever you happen to live.

As for those few like yourself who cannot help themselves from initiating force, there’s always those weapons in personal hands. Eventually, after trying to control the wrong person, you’ll be dead.

My guess is that if there was some significant likelihood that you’d be killed by your intended victim, you’d find the self-control necessary to stop initiating force.

sonyad said:

You cannot have a monetary economy without some form of state and government.

Someone needs to print the money and guard against counterfeiting as best possible.

Stuff and nonsense. Even today, the state does not have a monopoly on printing banknotes in Scotland. Do you argue that Scotland does not have a monetary economy? Seriously Sony, this is a silly tack for you to take.

Moreover, historically, banks printed money privately and guaranteed it privately.

Someone needs to be the ubiquitous guarantor (and enforcer) of the market’s rules and society’s laws (against thievery, for example) else it’s the rule of the strongest, regression to feudal society, the dark ages, etc.

The first part of your statement is nonsense; no one needs to enforce or guarantee the market’s ‘rules’; that’s the beauty, in a long-term sense, of the free market. The final part is also somewhat (though only partially so) nonsense; there is a difference between the strong man on horseback (feudalism) and anarcho-capitalism.

That said you raise an interesting point that Dakota would disagree with and that I reluctantly agree with. To wit, society’s laws. We choose, as a society, to have moral codes — child labor codes, laws against abortion — that infringe on the free market and Lochnerist freedom to contract.

These codes restrain freedom. Indubitably.

Yet, these codes are, in both my childish and adult beliefs, necessary, given the nature of man.

Even local economy and trade is not possible though the scale might mislead some to misname it different from government despite its role and function being the same for the scale, albeit operating under wildly differing forms.

I’m assuming this is your out for places like Sicily. Your argument then is “well, it may not be called government, but it is authoritarian, and so much the same.” Not so. There is a perceived difference even amongst the most slow-witted, between admitted felons and mere accused felons.

If an allegory is permitted me, would you even have a market without the city?

Could you have a Cathedral without a Bazaar? (the quick witted will get the reference). And yes, to answer the rhetorical question, you can most definitely have a market without a City.

Which is better? 10000 autocracies [wrong -- this is a fundamental misreading], with their own currency, dialect, laws, industry, taxes and tolls etc. per every city over a million inhabitants or a aspiringly democratic government per nation of several tens of millions?

Neither. But you assume a maximum of chaos, a minimum of order, and a proliferation of choice beyond even Dakota’s — or my — wildest dreams.

These are my views.

Well-stated, cogently argued.

From this I draw but two conclusions.

1. You were a precoce and most wise kid.

2. Your wisdom fluctuated greatly with age.

(You mean ‘precocious’.) And amusingly and politely stated.

I appreciate the way you’ve phrased your counterarguments. You are objectively wrong on some points (e.g. currency). I believe, though cannot readily prove, that you are correct to some degree when you speak of ’society’ and societal laws. I suspect you and I would disagree vehemently over what those laws should be, though.

In general, Dakota places a high degree of trust in rational individuals. You seem to place very little.

Altogether, I think Dakota’s society would be somewhat more pleasant to live in, were it populated by typical North American people.

In all on this matter, I am, however, reminded of that great line of Webber’s: “Politics is the art of the possible”.
-wolfe

So said Athens. So said Carthage. So said the Romans. They were each right, in their time and in their way.

I still disagree. The Romans didn’t have a Theory of Relativity, and atomic energy, did they? They weren’t aware of the full surface of the Earth and its geography. They did not have anti-viral and anti-bacterial medication. These are among the things that profoundly affect how our civilisation works. I still think that, in light of those profound scientific and social advancements, none of the old rules apply as to how long a civilisation will last.

Nevertheless, surely you acknowledge that if Western civilisation is to fall, it will fall because of at least one specific weakness. There will be a logical reason for its decline. Please provide the reason why Global Capitalism (not necessarily US Capitalism, though the US model continues to be exported/adopted worldwide), and hence civilisation, will fail.

You confuse the 21st Century West with America. Live in London, one of the great centers of the modern West, for a year. Tell me you think crime is down.

I am from Western Europe myself, though I’ve never lived in London. I will say that the murder rate has to be a valid indicator of criminality, in 2005 it was 6.9 per 100,000 in New York; it was 2.4 in London. Which would imply that London, UK is safer and that society is at least as stable, if not more stable, than it is in America.

I would take care not to extrapolate alot from relatively isolated gun-crime incidents which the media gets frenzied about. The reality is most people, especially in middle-class upwards, have a high standard of living. Social order in London, the UK, and Europe is not crumbling.

It’s not my experience or opinion that Europe is vastly behind America economically or socially. Indeed I would say that making such comparisons is somewhat futile as they both essentially follow Globalised Capitalism. They are both a central part of the Western picture and they are both stable. American-style Capitalism tends to be the model and it continues to transform Eastern Europe and the rest of the world. You said that I confuse the West with America; what I’m saying is that Western and Westernised countries are modelling themselves on America to the point where economically they must be seen as similar entities.

As a child of five, I would probably have agreed with Sony. As a teen, with Dakota. As a young adult, pre-911, with Anon. Now? I find myself imbued with some of the same pessimism of SoTS, and much less of Anon’s optimism. I yearn for the days when I was a believer in libertarian ideals, but they are largely gone.

From this I draw but two conclusions.

1. You were a precoce and most wise kid.

2. Your wisdom fluctuated greatly with age.

- Daft Punk vs Robbie Rivera - One More Tribal

You cannot have a monetary economy without some form of state and government.

Someone needs to print the money and guard against counterfeiting as best possible.

Someone needs to be the ubiquitous guarantor (and enforcer) of the market’s rules and society’s laws (against thievery, for example) else it’s the rule of the strongest, regression to feudal society, the dark ages, etc.

Even local economy and trade is not possible though the scale might mislead some to misname it different from government despite its role and function being the same for the scale, albeit operating under wildly differing forms.

If an allegory is permitted me, would you even have a market without the city?

Which is better? 10000 autocracies, with their own currency, dialect, laws, industry, taxes and tolls etc. per every city over a million inhabitants or a aspiringly democratic government per nation of several tens of millions?

These are my views.

- Sash! - Mysterious Times

sonyad said:

Firstly, welcome back, sir. Was beginning to threat there that the feminist to gobble up the wolfe was finally devised.

I’ll read and pertinently parrot the log in my own eye.

- rivera rotation - on the beach-smc

It’s nice to see you too, good sir. I’m not sure if I shall be posting much. Demands on my time have become rather staggering, both personal and professional.

-wolfe

@Dakota it’s excellent to see you posting here again. Even when I disagree with you, your thinking is generally highly rational and logical.

@Sony: On the question of printing money: you’re no doubt aware that governments never used to have a monopoly on printing this? Economies were indeed viable, robust even.

@Dakota:

human progress is directly linked to the only country on earth

As a historian, I think it’s a mistake to view the US as the only country on earth to institute significant restrictions on government. There is a golden thread, as Mortimer might say, of liberty that runs through the English-speaking world. It may well culminate in the Bill of Rights, especially the now-forgotten Ninth Amendment. But it did not originate there, nor would it have been possible for the US to have achieved what it has achieved without what had gone on before.

emergency medical care would be damned near free.

Since I do seem to only post points of disagreement, let me say that I agree entirely with you here. (And I am actually for some form of statist pinko-commie health care system. What I propose will indeed drive up some costs, anger some doctors, and increase the cost of emergency health care. My concerns are the mentally ill (libertarianism seems to assume rational actors), the very poor, and catastrophic illness).

@Anon

We are living in the most remarkable, advanced and globalised civilisation in history

So said Athens. So said Carthage. So said the Romans. They were each right, in their time and in their way.

Similarly, if the 21st Century West is to fall, there will be definite signs of weakness showing…
and wider society is by and large functioning quite well (crime rates down, employment good, homelessless low, disease low)

You make the same mistake I cite above. You confuse the 21st Century West with America. Live in London, one of the great centers of the modern West, for a year. Tell me you think crime is down.

Check out Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone. Look at what he has to say on demography in Europe. I find it disturbingly persuasive.

I agree with much of what you say, Anon, but by no means all. (I agree with some of Dakota’s arguments and wish I still believed his philosophy. The nature of man, in my eyes, weighs against it).

It’s important to understand that I do not cite my evolution below (other than my childhood belief in statism) to denigrate any particular belief or to imply it is less mature, less developed than others. I simply note the changes I have passed through as a man and where they have led me.

As a child of five, I would probably have agreed with Sony. As a teen, with Dakota. As a young adult, pre-911, with Anon. Now? I find myself imbued with some of the same pessimism of SoTS, and much less of Anon’s optimism. I yearn for the days when I was a believer in libertarian ideals, but they are largely gone.

Regards to all,
-wolfe

Firstly, welcome back, sir. Was beginning to threat there that the feminist to gobble up the wolfe was finally devised.

I’ll read and pertinently parrot the log in my own eye.

- rivera rotation - on the beach-smc

What a fascinating topic. Strictly speaking, it belongs more in Politik, on the forums, but I for one find the discussion sufficiently interesting as to not quibble on that point, and I hope Dick won’t either.

We seem to have at least three strains of thought on Government: Sony’s, which appears largely indistinguishable from Senator Clinton, Dakota’s libertarian views, and Anonymous’ more conventional though utopic views.

While I disagree with most of what Sony has said, on the grounds of rationality, I am struck by the wisdom of one of his early statements:

You CANNOT have a viable national economy without government.

Presuming that Sony is referring here to a nation-state, I agree entirely. I think, if he reflected, so too would Dakota.

A merely libertarian-inclined society might well have some vestigal government, and hence some distinguishable ‘national’ economy. However, I do not readily see how a nation-state would exist in a truly anarcho-capitalistic society, hence, no ‘national economy’ would be imaginable or even possible.

Sadly, Sony fails to see the wisdom inherent in what he has written and goes on to proclaim that local economy is impossible without local government.

The fallacy?

The local community exists, with or without government. So too does the local economy in meaningful, measurable form.

A ‘nation’ of people may exist without government, but a nation-state certainly won’t. (True, pace [for women reading, I use this word as a preposition, rather than a noun or verb] government or the absence thereof, one could still, I suppose, speak of a “Canadian economy” in the absence of a Canadian nation-state, but it would be about as statistically meaningful as speaking of a “left-handed glassblowers’ economy”.)

Sony makes one other point which is rather impressive:

It’s all really just the philosophical aberration of anarcho-capitalism under a more appealing name. The same contradiction in terms.

Actually (and Dakota seems to have addressed this point), many people, myself included, find anarcho-capitalism far more appealing than libertarianism. Moreover, speaking strictly for myself, I find conventional (if there is such a thing) libertarianism encumbered with certain views and beliefs that I find anathema, and, in certain cases, downright illogical.

An example? One of the few things Sony and I would agree on, I think, is the matter of abortion. Our views would be diametrically opposed to those of most libertarians.

More to follow.
-wolfe

* half-century or longer…

Oh crap. The bed beckons, I really can’t gather myself to stay and read this too, however much I’d like…

- DJ.Tonka - She Know U

Every empire/civilization has fallen. They have a life cycle. This one is in its final stages of corruption and decay.

Oh please. We are living in the most remarkable, advanced and globalised civilisation in history, one that is built on firm, male-engineered economics and technology. None of the old rules apply. The “life cycle” of an “empire” does not apply to the Global Westernised culture we have today. There is no empire.

The decline of great empires in times past could have been predicted and indeed were the result of specific circumstances - e.g. weak military, stronger neighbouring tribes, lack of economic need for colonial arragements, etc. Similarly, if the 21st Century West is to fall, there will be definite signs of weakness showing; a collapse will not come simply out of nowhere.

As technology and military organisation are at very advanced levels, and wider society is by and large functioning quite well (crime rates down, employment good, homelessless low, disease low) the only thing that could topple our civilisation is a fundamental economic problem. That fundamental economic problem would surely have presented itself in the half-decade or longer that Global Capitalism has reined. It hasn’t. Because there isn’t a fundamental problem with Capitalist economics or global ecnomics.

The only country on earth whose government from its inception was forbidden from doing everything socio-fascists like yourself suggest would make a utopia

Please, in the interests of clarity, specify what “only country on earth” you are referring to that subscribes to, and implements, libertarian ideals? Could it be the USA? Not it any of our lifetimes has it been governed by anything near the system you are describing. Rather, it has been a staunch proponent of moderate socialist policy, and Globalised Capitalism which requires big Government. Why? Because economically, it works. It’s controllable and adaptable.

Pity that son of the sons also seems to agree with DS’s non-sensical worldview (i.e. one disconnected with economic and political reality):

The US is a dying beast. It’s easy to say “well families are all fucked up but most people still have jobs”. Jobs mean nothing at this point in the great Empire’s fall. Jobs are the last thing to go. Civility, faith and family are the first.

I’ve said what I said about “empires” above. What you’re saying about Western civilisation falling because of corrupt morals, of “civil war or violent religious rebirth” is all very nice fantasy, but you’re not providing any real political, social or economic basis as to how the collapse will happen. It’s just a kind of “I think society is corrupt and it deserves to collapse, therefore it will collapse.” As a consequence of what? “As a consequence of me saying so.”

I know quoting Wikipedia is poor form. And what I quote is doesn’t help. But here goes :) :

Alternatively, libertarians are criticized for dogmatism. The Objectivist school of libertarianism under Ayn Rand has in particular faced accusations of being cult-like in some respects.

___

They are incredibly useful as allies in battle, but you wouldn’t want them to actually run things.

___

“Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist!”

___

One common characterization is that libertarians immediately resort to calling their opponents “communist” for any disagreement.

Cheers. Nighty night.

- From Dusk Till Dawn - Pussy lovers

I’m speechless.

Your argument, far from inexpugnable, is just a myriad of fallacies, falsehoods and outright nonsense sewn together.

Most are not even your ‘arguments’ but totally unoriginal silliness you scrounged off of unconvincing deranged/evil cons conniving for a constituent base large enough that they too might, hopefully, someday be a legitimate party instead of a scarce bunch of nutters.

I threat they may yet get their wish but I really can’t be bothered to take the entire stinking, twisted patchwork apart for you. Arguing with a zealot to the cause of ‘libertarianism’, linux and other such nonsense to no end really doesn’t touch me the right places.

Heck, the cornerstone of your rant is you daring me prove some utter foolishness or other wrong, again and again… without actually ever citing concrete examples or situations as proof in support of your position.

Nope. It’s me who has to grapple with nonexistent facts and factoids, ey? Not you, who has the burden of proof on his shoulders in regard to his exultant reviews of a… something that never actually really existed and is actually contrary to common sense.

I dare you to name a single nation ever to have tried something similar to ‘anarcho-capitalism’ and succeeded at something else than failing miserably and completely before they even got started.

Well? Cargo cults? Something? Perhaps the utter failure of libertarianism is preferable to its resounding success, as far as the ‘greater good’ is concerned.

Is only stating logically completely unassailable nonsense your strategy to win skeptics over? Or maybe ominous threats of some vaguely nondescript ’solution’ for dissenters and naysayers?

Thousands and thousands of years of governed human history with states, sovereign and satellite nations, empires and republics… wow!

What inept fools we’ve all been for such long while!

I hope you’ll show me the regard to come watch in person when they deport me to the firing squad/concentration camp with all the other ’socio-fascists.’

All for the ‘greater good’, of course.

Cheerios.

- Dj Optik - Surrender

There is one fact that has remained throughout recorded history - every empire/civilization has fallen. They have a life cycle. This one is in its final stages of corruption and decay.

Who cares. Government officials know things that no one else does.

sonyad said:

Ok, Dakota. Keep reciting the pipe dream of libertarianism.

Interestingly enough, one would think that after literally centuries of nothing but tyranny and bloodshed, one would think that the pipe dream of socio-fascism would be fairly obvious.

I mean, it’s not like it’s not obvious that human progress is directly linked to the only country on earth whose government from its inception was forbidden from doing everything socio-fascists like yourself suggest would make a utopia. Nor is it any accident that since the limits on government were abandoned, human misery has increased in direct proportion to the amount of government in place.

In short, I’ve got all the evidence, and you have the pipe dream.

It would be an atrocious society that which would conceivably attempt it.

Then why does it work so well whenever it’s tried? While your brand of socio-fascism continues to create nothing but misery and human suffering?

I seriously doubt civilised society in any form resembling what we’ve come to even most leniently deem as such can coexist with a libertarian ‘economy.’

Hit the history books. If you actually read them objectively, the evidence is quite clear.

It’s all really just the philosophical aberration of anarcho-capitalism under a more appealing name.

Oh, I’m sorry, I should have been more specific:

Anarcho-capitalism is the goal. It’s just unlikely we’ll ever achieve it due to socio-fascists like yourself. Consequently, we sit around trying to dream up ways to thwart your ideas of how to get rid of individual freedom.

The same contradiction in terms.

Again, it’s the socio-fascists like yourself, whose goals create nothing but tyranny and human suffering, that have the contradiction in terms. You have precisely no examples where a tightly state-controlled economy, individual liberty, and choice have produced anything other than misery. Indeed, from the beginning of human history to the present time, that’s all it produces.

I, on the other hand, have a number of examples where tightly-bound government authority works extraordinarily well and produces wealth beyond imagining.

Fortunately, the textbook libertarian propaganda silly little factoids you cite do little to sway my ’socio-fascist’ self.

I know. While we agree on women, I fear that the next war will be fought with you and I on either side. Our worldview is utterly incompatible, and the kind of human suffering you’d create disgusts me. Therefore, you and other socio-fascists are eventually going to have to be eliminated.

You know what I believe? Every nation on Earth enacts libertarianism tomorrow (assuming there’s any unitary, cohesive, non self contradictory ideology thereof) and naturally dissolves into anarchy and in a thousand years, assuming any human being will still be alive - let alone any semblance of society exist - by virtue of libertarianism alone, you’ll have amalgamous states and governments all over again.

Well, it’s all a work in progress. The sooner we destroy the socio-fascists who are the root of the problem, the better, I suppose.

No such thing as human rights,

Human rights are inherent. No government grants them and every government violates them. I dare you to prove otherwise.

decency, humanity towards another,

Government is the primary creator of indecency and inhumanity. I dare you to prove otherwise.

emergency medical service,

Government doesn’t create emergency medical services. Rather, it drives the cost of medical care so high that only the well-to-do-and wealthy can afford it. Were the free market allowed back into medical care, doctors would be forced to lower prices and make house calls, and emergency medical care would be damned near free.

I dare you to prove otherwise.

ubiquitous and assured rule of law or continuous strife towards.

Again, government creates unequal application of the law. See any wealthy person in the world for proof.

No supreme arbiter to insure fair trade

No such arbiter presently exists, nor can one exist except in a global feudal state. Which, sadly, is the ultimate goal of socio-fascists like yourself.

and balance monopolistically abusive policies by business conglomerates,

Government creates monopolies. They cannot exist without government sanction. I dare you to prove otherwise.

cartel economic policies, murder, mayhem, abuse, corruption and nepotism by the now private institutions of legislature, justice and law enforcement…

Again, you’re describing the current situation under socio-fascist policies. Whenever the alternative is tried, it works.

You yourself would be yelling for it to cease and be undone, or rather for the old order, with all its ills and flaws, to be rebuilt, within the year.

Again, individual freedom works wherever it’s tried. Wherever socio-fascist policies are enacted, corruption, human misery, and poverty are rampant. It continues to amaze me that after thousands of years of trying to make socio-fascism work and failing that anyone believes that it’s workable.

I always assume this kind of cognitive dissonance is some sort of as-yet undiscovered form of personality disorder. Were it so diagnosed and the sufferer treated, we might not have to eliminate you and your intellectual bretheren for our own safety.

Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to be rid of a miserable genetic strain is to cull it.

Ok, Dakota. Keep reciting the pipe dream of libertarianism.

It would be an atrocious society that which would conceivably attempt it.

I seriously doubt civilised society in any form resembling what we’ve come to even most leniently deem as such can coexist with a libertarian ‘economy.’

It’s all really just the philosophical aberration of anarcho-capitalism under a more appealing name. The same contradiction in terms.

Fortunately, the textbook libertarian propaganda silly little factoids you cite do little to sway my ’socio-fascist’ self.

You know what I believe? Every nation on Earth enacts libertarianism tomorrow (assuming there’s any unitary, cohesive, non self contradictory ideology thereof) and naturally dissolves into anarchy and in a thousand years, assuming any human being will still be alive - let alone any semblance of society exist - by virtue of libertarianism alone, you’ll have amalgamous states and governments all over again.

Only more egregiously corrupt, decrepit, nepotistic and inhumanely evil despotic social hierarchy and structure than anything the world has seen to date.

No such thing as human rights, decency, humanity towards another, emergency medical service, ubiquitous and assured rule of law or continuous strife towards.

No supreme arbiter to insure fair trade and balance monopolistically abusive policies by business conglomerates, cartel economic policies, murder, mayhem, abuse, corruption and nepotism by the now private institutions of legislature, justice and law enforcement…

I could go on and on taking apart the childish madness that is the dream of libertarianism. But it’s not really the most fun I could have with my time.

Have you read Philip Kindred Dick’s ‘Solar Lottery’?
I strenuously suggest you do.

The social structure that book portrays as a possible future for mankind does not even begin to compare with the abuses, inequities and inhumanity of what an attempt (it is only a pipe dream, after all) at libertarianism would certainly entail. You yourself would be yelling for it to cease and be undone, or rather for the old order, with all its ills and flaws, to be rebuilt, within the year.

But easier to make a new man than change another’s true convictions.

Threat don’t. For I threat we may yet live to see your desired world order come to pass and hell on earth likewise.

Cheers.

Sign me up then!