Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: February 07 2011 at 21:51
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Apparently, being libertarian implies a strong affinity towards beer...
Beer is great. I've been on a bit of a gin kick lately though. I love me some gin.
I wrote my first two novels drunk on gin and beer. I don't discriminate.
You've written two novels? So have I! My second one will be out in less than a week.
Are you so libertarian that it doesn't matter if these novels are only read by one individual?
I am self published and my first novel was read by more than ten individuals, thank you.
Neither of my books are published, but I don't mind. I didn't really try to get them published. My wife read them, and I wrote them mainly to impress her, so there.
One impressed her and one made her hate me, so there's that.
The first novel I wrote is called Tolerance. It deals with an alien race among US people. This alien race is inherently inept and stupid, yet the United States government requires that teachers and other federally-funded entities cater to them and help them thrive, despite the havoc that doing so causes. Also, the book explores alcoholism.
My second novel is called Atropos Slipped. It is a romance novel. My wife loved it. It was very fun to write.
I have about 5 novels in the works right now that I've started but not finished.
The first one sounds quite attractive. You should publish it or at least send a few copies out there...
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: February 07 2011 at 21:52
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
What's a libertarian nation to do without a proper army? And who does the army represent? In a libertarian country where absolute elimination of the state occurs, frontiers pretty much disappear (at least from our side), massive migration, and there we can have the much dreaded chaos that I think can be avoided with minimal government. Also, if a country where to reach a state of true zero-government, who's to stop foreign foes from coming and pretty much doing what they want? I don't think private forces would be able to manage anything in this case, not economically (they build the arsenal anyway) but from an organizational point of view. That's why I think an army is necessary, an army that represents everybody (not the king president, but the people, the president being just the commander in chief) and that is ready only for defensive purposes. Funded, sadly, by some form of taxation. If we are to enjoy the fruits of a free market, we better protect it or not?
An anarchist society gains some protection from three relatively plausible things that I'll assume exist and thus serve as a deterrent:
1) The anarchist society will be wealthier than other societies.
2) Free of any trade restrictions, the anarchist society will trade with any and all countries
3) Without a central government, invading an anarchist society is difficult. (See the US in Afghanistan)
#3 is where I take issue.
#3 implies a nation. I would bet that an anarchist society would have plenty of infighting. Taking over a nation with infighting is relatively easy.
Invading Afghanistan wasn't hard. Getting out seems to be the problem.
Overthrowing the weak government was easily done. Actually accomplishing anything in Afghanistan is hard because the government is meaningless. I
I don't see why an anarchist society would be prone to more infighting than say the USA as it is now. I would see less reasons for infighting.
You're still operating your hypothetical scenarios within a paradigm of government, which is really funny and ironic.
Let's say Land X is an anarchist society. They have no central government. Land Y has a central government and is bigger than Land X- much bigger. Land Y bombs the sh*t out of Land X. They move in and take over the land, then enslave the former citizens of Land X.
This is the most likely scenario. How do I know this? Because the Mongols did it many times over.
Why has the US been completely unable to ever do this to a decentralized nation?
That scenario also plays out for any country, whether it has a government or not.
Unable? Do you really think that if political pressures were off, the US couldn't completely take over Afghanistan?
Yes I do.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
What's a libertarian nation to do without a proper army? And who does the army represent? In a libertarian country where absolute elimination of the state occurs, frontiers pretty much disappear (at least from our side), massive migration, and there we can have the much dreaded chaos that I think can be avoided with minimal government. Also, if a country where to reach a state of true zero-government, who's to stop foreign foes from coming and pretty much doing what they want? I don't think private forces would be able to manage anything in this case, not economically (they build the arsenal anyway) but from an organizational point of view. That's why I think an army is necessary, an army that represents everybody (not the king president, but the people, the president being just the commander in chief) and that is ready only for defensive purposes. Funded, sadly, by some form of taxation. If we are to enjoy the fruits of a free market, we better protect it or not?
An anarchist society gains some protection from three relatively plausible things that I'll assume exist and thus serve as a deterrent:
1) The anarchist society will be wealthier than other societies.
2) Free of any trade restrictions, the anarchist society will trade with any and all countries
3) Without a central government, invading an anarchist society is difficult. (See the US in Afghanistan)
#3 is where I take issue.
#3 implies a nation. I would bet that an anarchist society would have plenty of infighting. Taking over a nation with infighting is relatively easy.
Invading Afghanistan wasn't hard. Getting out seems to be the problem.
Overthrowing the weak government was easily done. Actually accomplishing anything in Afghanistan is hard because the government is meaningless. I
I don't see why an anarchist society would be prone to more infighting than say the USA as it is now. I would see less reasons for infighting.
You're still operating your hypothetical scenarios within a paradigm of government, which is really funny and ironic.
Let's say Land X is an anarchist society. They have no central government. Land Y has a central government and is bigger than Land X- much bigger. Land Y bombs the sh*t out of Land X. They move in and take over the land, then enslave the former citizens of Land X.
This is the most likely scenario. How do I know this? Because the Mongols did it many times over.
Why has the US been completely unable to ever do this to a decentralized nation?
That scenario also plays out for any country, whether it has a government or not.
Unable? Do you really think that if political pressures were off, the US couldn't completely take over Afghanistan?
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: February 07 2011 at 22:04
Calm down... I still don't drink beer... And I would be the first or at most the tenth hispanic-Libertarian...
EDIT: I just read some poll results that say that, of those hispanics that don't align with the democrats, an 8% said the libertarian party better understood them... So at least there's a few hundred...
So T, when will you be converting to Christianity?
When they stop opposing freedom....
"The truth shall set you free."
"Nothing shall set you free since you were born free."
I was a "go-along" Christian until 16 or so.
Eventually I said things orthodox Christians didn't like, like how the doctrine of the Trinity is a fraud, "Satan" does not exist, and "hell" is a bullsh*t scare tactic people made up. I also drink beer because Christ made wine!
Neal Morse is booed for his "preachiness," but ironically, he would be viewed with scorn in most churches in the US because he also is not a Trinitarian.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.301 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!
Topic Options
The T wrote:
it is actually true... 