The eu needs them more than the french need the euFrance could leave the EU and do fine. It would hurt but they could
I assume that "it is complicated". And might be beyond the Human Mind to graspThe eu needs them more than the french need the eu
So we've been doomed for over three thousand years, have we (not counting in excess of ten thousand years of human civilisation)? Optics have been important since Agamemnon. There is no getting around it.
And here we see hyperbole.
They are unable to do that because they lack the political will, not to mention it would sink their economy further as the EU abandons them and they'd get sanctioned.
Again, you start on this dumb idea. First, the solution I'm advocating is removing socialism, so your statement is just dumb. Second, I'm not saying that we must allow immigration because libertarian ideals, I am using economic arguments to show you have no realistic way of stopping immigration. Because quite frankly, France doesn't have the balls (read: political will) to close its borders, with all that will cause.
Optics have been important since Agamemnon, but it has only been since appearance of democracy that optics became an absolute key. There were many good rulers who saved their countries despite bad optics.
Every conversation with you reinforces my belief that the mainstream Libertarian, which you seem a part of, serves this handmaid role to socialism. What that means has been explained several times before. Your confusion over this, such as your defense of Rousseau, from which many of the terrible leftist ideas are laid out, as not a leftist proto communist, merely highlights you being unself aware as a handmaiden, which is my assumption for most mainstream Libertarians.
That's anarchism, not communism. Communism is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It most definitely has a state, government, and little freedom.And the communist argues for the abolishment of the state and absolute freedom.
This is because you don't seem to know anything about what you talk about. Your insistence that Libertarianism depends or cares at all about Rousseau is a classic example of this.Every conversation with you reinforces my belief that the mainstream Libertarian, which you seem a part of, serves this handmaid role to socialism. What that means has been explained several times before. Your confusion over this, such as your defense of Rousseau, from which many of the terrible leftist ideas are laid out, as not a leftist proto communist, merely highlights you being unself aware as a handmaiden, which is my assumption for most mainstream Libertarians.
Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism operate off the NAP and are in favour of private property, which is pathologically opposed to socialism. You're thinking of Neo-Liberalism, which does actually enable leftism due to its fecklessness, technocratic tendencies and runaway materialism. Neo-Liberalism is also something Classical Liberals and Libertarians aren't exactly fond of either.
It's true.
However, I've also met a number of people who can't understand Libertarian thought. They just cannot think in those ways, so they create their own version, and it's inevitable that it'll take the open nature of Libertarianism and fill it in in ways that make sense to them (But not to actual Libertarians). On top of that, Libertarianism is influentual enough that power hungry folk will use it to grift, from time to time.
Libertarianism is very open. It's purely economic. It, in theory, has nothing to say about social matters, and when it is applied, just says "between consenting adults...", and that very open-ness leads to people using the broken open area for their own use.
To boil it down? Libertarianism opens things up. Done properly, it helps immensely. But, like almost all ideologies, nobody does it properly, or really can. People can only think what they can think.
It's going to take a long time to undo the decades of propaganda and instill self-determinism again.
I'm not really sure it's possible. There's no frontier, no place where you can get away from the slavers, who need control.
Look, I went through that propaganda mill, same as pretty much everybody else here. But, I can, and did, see how Libertarianism can work. Some people I've met? Just can't. Just can't stretch their minds in that way.
The propaganda doen't help. It's certainly part. Might be the majority. But, it might not. It's one of the main reasons I'm against immagration. Most people just don't, and can't, change.
-Snip-
There's a reason I'm more interested in fiction than many other things.
That's anarchism, not communism. Communism is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It most definitely has a state, government, and little freedom.
This is because you don't seem to know anything about what you talk about. Your insistence that Libertarianism depends or cares at all about Rousseau is a classic example of this.
I don't know about you, but advocating for someone in favor of more government power and control seems to be a faster way to socialism than arguing for less government control. You can get to effective communism following the primrose path of the european right as well.
Law is about 1) Enforcing Morality, 2) Rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
Are you a child yes! That is what law is and American people on the right who worship libertarian thought just let the left get what they want.so basically, law is a gun in each hand and saying "My package is bigger than yours." That's totally appealing and doesn't make me just want to say "Forget it" at all. I give it
Are you a child yes! That is what law is and American people on the right who worship libertarian thought just let the left get what they want.
I get the strangest feeling you wouldn't think the same way when your the one left dying. Just a feeling.
Well, that's why we don't want the communists to win, which part of the argument is the Libertarians indirectly help?
How is enforcing morality "my package is bigger than yours"? A law is a series of rules, backed up by the threat of force, to make people do things they don't want to do. That can be for "their" benefit, your benefit, societies benefit, your people's benifits, Gods benefit, execetera. What is controversal there?