This is the thread to discuss Libertarianism of all types, the ideals associated with it, and new ideas for the ideology to cope with any problems you might see with it.
Last edited:
Welcome to the official thread of Anarchist, Minarchist and drunkards alike! I felt we needed a thread for this since we don't have one, despite more than a few people I know being on the freedom loving end of spectrum over fraternity.
This is the thread to discuss Libertarianism of all types, the ideals associated with it, and new ideas for the ideology to cope with any problems you might see with it.
As I've said before, Anarchy lasts only until someone or other gets a few lads together and starts forming a new government.
Minarchy, or king who wields just enough power to stop anyone else taking over, might be more promising.
Libertarianism is not anarchy.
No, no it's not. It's hyperbolic and not intellectually honest at all to claim that wanting to limit government equates to not wanting it at all.
No, no it's not. It's hyperbolic and not intellectually honest at all to claim that wanting to limit government equates to not wanting it at all.
Some people are a bit prone to all-or-nothing thinking.
Doesn't that very statement imply the speaker is stating an absolute...?Only a Sith believes in absolutes.
I dream of a world where popculture quotes are treated as dumb again.Only a Sith believes in absolutes.
I dream of a world where popculture quotes are treated as dumb again.
Yes yes they do. Its creepy. Like people who honestly call their pets their kids.I don't quote pop culture quotes to sound wise, I quote them for the lols.
Do other people do differently?!?
So? Moral systems aren't designed to be easy, they're designed to be moral. Otherwise we'd be tossing most religious morality, the very idea of self control over violent impulses, etc.The problem, of course, is that people are pretty much hard-wired to act in ways antithetical to that.
Eh, agree on libertarianism but the NAP isn't THAT hard to argue against. Most stuff isn't. It boils down to "Why not?" and "I don't care".Now why the non-aggression principle? There's a variety of arguments, but I take it as an axiom. It's wrong to attack people in a way that's both obvious and difficult to explain why without going in circles.