Turns out there's no Libertarians

[TZucchini]

That is really all government legislation is.

Society would be chaotic without rules and regulations. Government legislation is the recognition of that fact.

Sure, some zealots within government want to push their lifestyle onto others. Particularly true in the religious arena. But this doesn't apply to all human beings. And it's certainly not an innate trait by any means.

[Machismo]

Society would be chaotic without rules and regulations. Government legislation is the recognition of that fact.

Sure, some zealots within government want to push their lifestyle onto others. Particularly true in the religious arena. But this doesn't apply to all human beings. And it's certainly not an innate trait by any means.

Government is there to create order. And it usually does a pretty decent job in that aspect. However, it also goes too far in many cases, religious people are merely one group that does so. The same can be said for prohibitioniats, gun-control advocates, and those who wish to restrict free trade. The more restrictive government becomes, the not you see the signs of it being more about belief, and less about personal liberty (which is also a belief of many).

[TZucchini]

Government is there to create order. And it usually does a pretty decent job in that aspect. However, it also goes too far in many cases, religious people are merely one group that does so. The same can be said for prohibitioniats, gun-control advocates, and those who wish to restrict free trade. The more restrictive government becomes, the not you see the signs of it being more about belief, and less about personal liberty (which is also a belief of many).

So is it about wanting to create a better society based on the available evidence, or is it simply some primal instinct to control other people. You're miles from making your case.

90% of firearm owners in the US actually want additional firearm regulations at the federal level(universal background checks). So do firearm owners have a primal instinct to control themselves?

[Glorious Leader]

Private property merely requires sufficient force to protect it. That does not necessarily require the government. They may be three largest form of force, but they are not their only one, Not are they the most singularly focused.

To suggest it requires "merely sufficient force" is to downplay or ignore the massive police state required to enforce it. It absolutely requires a government. The authority in charge of force is the government by any any other name. The rothbardian conception of some voluntary system merely slips in government without the name.

- - - Updated - - -

So is it about wanting to create a better society based on the available evidence, or is it simply some primal instinct to control other people. You're miles from making your case.

90% of firearm owners in the US actually want additional firearm regulations at the federal level(universal background checks). So do firearm owners have a primal instinct to control themselves?

Government is there to create order. And it usually does a pretty decent job in that aspect. However, it also goes too far in many cases, religious people are merely one group that does so. The same can be said for prohibitioniats, gun-control advocates, and those who wish to restrict free trade. The more restrictive government becomes, the not you see the signs of it being more about belief, and less about personal liberty (which is also a belief of many).

Again the most restrictive act that government can and does perform is the defense of private property. It literally tells me where i can and cannot go. No other right imposes a greater impact on the others.

[downnola]

Again the most restrictive act that government can and does perform is the defense of private property. It literally tells me where i can and cannot go. No other right imposes a greater impact on the others.

Considering the benefits that come with enforcing property rights, I'd say it's a good trade off.

[Kujako]

Again the most restrictive act that government can and does perform is the defense of private property. It literally tells me where i can and cannot go. No other right imposes a greater impact on the others.

It's almost as if the Guberment exists to protect my rights from your rights.

[Machismo]

So is it about wanting to create a better society based on the available evidence, or is it simply some primal instinct to control other people. You're miles from making your case.

90% of firearm owners in the US actually want additional firearm regulations at the federal level(universal background checks). So do firearm owners have a primal instinct to control themselves?

Look at history, and you will see countless examples of people trying to rule over others. They can always claim they want a better society, that's the standard justification for just about everything. Hell, Hitler even used that excuse. At the end of the day, they want the power more than anything else. Regardless of the means used to push legislation, it's still a desire to rule the lives of others. Even people who believe their actions to be altruistic do it. Yes, gun control is a chance to do exactly that.

Of course, we could run some experiments. Put three people into a room together for weeks at a time, and see if they form social hierarchies, rules, and even violence.

- - - Updated - - -

To suggest it requires "merely sufficient force" is to downplay or ignore the massive police state required to enforce it. It absolutely requires a government. The authority in charge of force is the government by any any other name. The rothbardian conception of some voluntary system merely slips in government without the name.

- - - Updated - - -





Again the most restrictive act that government can and does perform is the defense of private property. It literally tells me where i can and cannot go. No other right imposes a greater impact on the others.

It does not require a massive police state to enforce private property, that is simply the usual result. A family with guns seems more than capable of protecting their property from almost all likely threats. It's one of the reasons libertarians tend to be well armed.

Government can get far more restrictive than private property rights. The most restrictive is anything which restricts a person simply for existing in his or her natural state. A government can discriminate against gay people, just because they were born that way. it doesn't matter if they are on public property, or not. That is literally the government telling you who you can, and cannot be.

[Glorious Leader]

Considering the benefits that come with enforcing property rights, I'd say it's a good trade off.

Thats fine but that argument rarely gets made by so called libertarians because they of course assume private property is a natural right that just exists and isnt actually a trade off. This removes it from the discussion of statism cause its beyond the state its natural law. It is of course total bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at history, and you will see countless examples of people trying to rule over others. They can always claim they want a better society, that's the standard justification for just about everything. Hell, Hitler even used that excuse. At the end of the day, they want the power more than anything else. Regardless of the means used to push legislation, it's still a desire to rule the lives of others. Even people who believe their actions to be altruistic do it. Yes, gun control is a chance to do exactly that.

Of course, we could run some experiments. Put three people into a room together for weeks at a time, and see if they form social hierarchies, rules, and even violence.

- - - Updated - - -



It does not require a massive police state to enforce private property, that is simply the usual result. A family with guns seems more than capable of protecting their property from almost all likely threats. It's one of the reasons libertarians tend to be well armed.

Government can get far more restrictive than private property rights. The most restrictive is anything which restricts a person simply for existing in his or her natural state. A government can discriminate against gay people, just because they were born that way. it doesn't matter if they are on public property, or not. That is literally the government telling you who you can, and cannot be.

It really cant. The "natural state" is a meaningless conception. The government can tell anyone gay or not where he or she can or cannot pass. This is an even grosser tyranny as it literally applies to all peoples with no discrimination among class, gender, religion or sexuality. Private property limits us ALL. It is the largest state intervention and the most restrictive to actual liberty and freedom.

[Machismo]

Thats fine but that argument rarely gets made by so called libertarians because they of course assume private property is a natural right that just exists and isnt actually a trade off. This removes it from the discussion of statism cause its beyond the state its natural law. It is of course total bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -



It really cant. The "natural state" is a meaningless conception. The government can tell anyone gay or not where he or she can or cannot pass. This is an even grosser tyranny as it literally applies to all peoples with no discrimination among class, gender, religion or sexuality. Private property limits us ALL. It is the largest state intervention and the most restrictive to actual liberty and freedom.

No, it's not. The government telling you where someone can go is not as tyrannical as the government saying whether a person is free. There are numerous examples, from slavery to the Holocaust. In all those cases, you are seeing much stronger authority. If you are going to try and say that the principle of private property is more tyrannical than killing and enslaving people based on their birth, then you are crazy.

[Glorious Leader]

No, it's not. The government telling you where someone can go is not as tyrannical as the government saying whether a person is free. There are numerous examples, from slavery to the Holocaust. In all those cases, you are seeing much stronger authority. If you are going to try and say that the principle of private property is more tyrannical than killing and enslaving people based on their birth, then you are crazy.

They are fundamentally one and the same. If the government tells you where you can and cannot go can you truley say you are free? The enforcement of private property is by far the most intrusive and gross form of state intervention that exists today.

[satimy]

The problem with libertarianism is that, while it's an ideology that encourages free and independent thought, actually thinking freely about libertarianism very quickly leads to things like privatized fire departments which are objectively horrifying to any rational human being. Not to mention that most self-identified libertarians are curiously silent on free speech issues when it's someone other than affluent white men doing the talking.

Where are all these oppressed silenced minorities? Are blacks being removed from campuses so whites can show them how important they are? Because that just happened to white people

[Machismo]

They are fundamentally one and the same. If the government tells you where you can and cannot go can you truley say you are free? The enforcement of private property is by far the most intrusive and gross form of state intervention that exists today.

No, they are not fundamentally one and the same. One restricts movement to property paid for by someone else, the other one literally kills or enslaves you for being born.

[Glorious Leader]

No, they are not fundamentally one and the same. One restricts movement to property paid for by someone else, the other one literally kills or enslaves you for being born.

Youre original statement was and i quote

"The government telling you where someone can go is not as tyrannical as the government saying whether a person is free"

The government telling you where you can and cannot pass is telling you wether or not you are free. They are quite really one and the same.

"Paid for" has no meaning in a system without private property enforcement (since their is zero reason to give a shit about your claim) so arguing that restricting movement in favor of someone who "owns" property is redundant. Theird be no payment as their was no ownership without private property enforcement.

[Machismo]

Youre original statement was and i quote

"The government telling you where someone can go is not as tyrannical as the government saying whether a person is free"

The government telling you where you can and cannot pass is telling you wether or not you are free. They are quite really one and the same.

"Paid for" has no meaning in a system without private property enforcement (since their is zero reason to give a shit about your claim) so arguing that restricting movement in favor of someone who "owns" property is redundant. Theird be no payment as their was no ownership without private property enforcement.

And there are degrees of the restriction of freedom. Restricting movement onto private property is not equivalent to literally murdering someone for being alive. If you think those are fundamentally the same thing, you may need to address that.

Private property does not require government enforcement, it can be enforced by the person owning and occupying his property. Take me, for instance. If you come onto my property without my permission, and intend to harm me, I will shoot you until I am certain the threat is gone. Then, depending on my mood, I may call the emergency services to come gather up your remains. Then again, I may not. The changing hands and protection of private property does not mean the government is needed.

[Kellhound]

To suggest it requires "merely sufficient force" is to downplay or ignore the massive police state required to enforce it. It absolutely requires a government. The authority in charge of force is the government by any any other name. The rothbardian conception of some voluntary system merely slips in government without the name.

- - - Updated - - -





Again the most restrictive act that government can and does perform is the defense of private property. It literally tells me where i can and cannot go. No other right imposes a greater impact on the others.

No, the most restrictive act the government can and does perform is the decision of life and death.

- - - Updated - - -

So is it about wanting to create a better society based on the available evidence, or is it simply some primal instinct to control other people. You're miles from making your case.

90% of firearm owners in the US actually want additional firearm regulations at the federal level(universal background checks). So do firearm owners have a primal instinct to control themselves?

Social order is a need for humans, so yes, control of others is a need.

[Stormdash]

Much like telecommunication consisted of nothing more grand than call-waiting before it was deregulated and the private sector was able to get to work developing the effortlessly lifechanging systems we call phones today, the internet was a way for military engineers to send small text and data files very slowly to each other until the private sector turned it into World of Warcraft played on the Box of the Month and discussed on MMO-Champion.

Government is a bystander to most of the great advances in human history, not the cause. The notable exception is really space travel, with a couple worthwhile caveats: one, that most of rocket science was repurposing of military technology, a quasi monopoly of the state, and two, even the great vehicles of spaceflight, at least in the west, were commissioned by the government only, not engineered.

It is always a tickle when leftist dilettantes congregate to lament the evils of capitalism... while wearing relatively fashionable new clothes, using smartphones or advanced desktops or laptops, between sit-down sessions of online video games, probably living or at least brought up in single family housing, none of which ever happened in human history without the good old bourgeoisie.

[Kujako]

Much like telecommunication consisted of nothing more grand than call-waiting before it was deregulated and the private sector was able to get to work developing the effortlessly lifechanging systems we call phones today, the internet was a way for military engineers to send small text and data files very slowly to each other until the private sector turned it into World of Warcraft played on the Box of the Month and discussed on MMO-Champion.

Government is a bystander to most of the great advances in human history, not the cause. The notable exception is really space travel, with a couple worthwhile caveats: one, that most of rocket science was repurposing of military technology, a quasi monopoly of the state, and two, even the great vehicles of spaceflight, at least in the west, were commissioned by the government only, not engineered.

It is always a tickle when leftist dilettantes congregate to lament the evils of capitalism... while wearing relatively fashionable new clothes, using smartphones or advanced desktops or laptops, between sit-down sessions of online video games, probably living or at least brought up in single family housing, none of which ever happened in human history without the good old bourgeoisie.

Only if by "deregulated" you mean the monopolies broken up...

[Lodreh]

...Humans have an innate desire to rule over others, and try to force them to live the way they want them to live...

I believe humans by and large just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit.

[Machismo]

I believe humans by and large just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit.

Man, I wish that were true.

[Dug]

What's the data on woke independents?