Daily Anarchist Forum
October 26, 2021, 04:39:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: "Facepalms" why do people have to be so stupid.  (Read 4481 times)
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« on: June 04, 2013, 02:03:19 PM »

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/

One commenter (I agree with him) said:

Quote
This is like asking 'if no-rape societies are so good then why are there no examples of any?'.

The answer is simple: one cannot choose not to be raped. The whole point is that it's involuntary. Asking why there are no libertarian countries assumes that one can choose not to have the fruits of their labor stolen at gunpoint.

The reply by another commenter?

Quote
Well, at least you admit that your proposed society is an absolutist fantasy and completely impossible. Most libertarians aren't that brave.


Someone...please...kill me now. I don't want to live in a world with so much stupid contaminating the gene pool Angry



P.S. Please know that the first half of that last comment was me being sarcastic....well half-sarcastic. Tongue
Logged

Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2013, 02:14:57 PM »

I notice in your signature you have a jabber account and a PGP key. Have you set up Bitmessage yet? You could put that there as well.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2013, 04:48:33 PM »

 Agorist, are you seriously trying to debate people at Salon? Salon, dude? The lowest cess pool on the internet in terms of intellectual ability? I know you're better than that, my friend.
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2013, 09:57:09 PM »

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-answer/

 A nice retaught by Tom Woods.
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2013, 10:02:25 PM »

@SinCityVoluntaryist:

Of course not!!!  What the hell kind of dumb ass do you take me for?  Angry I may have an issue with debating idiots to try to get them to NOT be idiots (proof of my insanity) but even with that obsession/insanity I have SOME standards. I was just stating how stupid the author as well as one of the commentators were, (The other commenter was actually among like 2 in the 30 some commentators I read who was actually semi-intelligent)

@Seth King no I haven't yet. I'm actually going to do so tonight. And I really should remove that jabber account in my sig since I don't even use it anymore Tongue



EDIT*** Dang it SinCity! You did it again! I was just about to post the link to that post by Tom Woods! Tongue Oh well, at least it WAS posted.
Logged

acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2013, 09:18:29 PM »

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/



Quote
Well, at least you admit that your proposed society is an absolutist fantasy and completely impossible. Most libertarians aren't that brave.




Well, he's kind of right. Unless libertarians would be willing to kill statists who emerge, they will indeed forever be enslaved. As far as I can tell, the ancap/voluntaryist type abhor violence of any sort.
Logged
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2013, 11:16:46 PM »

Well, he's kind of right. Unless libertarians would be willing to kill statists who emerge, they will indeed forever be enslaved. As far as I can tell, the ancap/voluntaryist type abhor violence of any sort.

Seriously? While there ARE ancaps/voluntaryists who are pacifists and committed to non-violence, George Donnelly being a good example (although he's more of a mutualist/voluntaryist than ancap) there are quite a few who have no problems with violence and coercion IF it isn't initiated. Or to put in another way if some thug breaks into my home and is planning on taking what he wants and possibly raping wife/live in girlfriend (of which I have neither being one of the brotherhood of eternal bachelors) and then killing her, and me, I'd have no problem shooting that motherf**ker in the head with my shotgun before he gets the chance. The thug breaking in and attempting to commit violence against me and someone on my property who is thus "under my protection" I guess you say, counts as an initiation of violence/coercion. Thus to use violence in defense of myself and those who were on my property with my permission, would be perfectly acceptable.
Logged

MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2013, 10:04:41 AM »

Well, he's kind of right. Unless libertarians would be willing to kill statists who emerge, they will indeed forever be enslaved. As far as I can tell, the ancap/voluntaryist type abhor violence of any sort.

Seriously? While there ARE ancaps/voluntaryists who are pacifists and committed to non-violence, George Donnelly being a good example (although he's more of a mutualist/voluntaryist than ancap) there are quite a few who have no problems with violence and coercion IF it isn't initiated. Or to put in another way if some thug breaks into my home and is planning on taking what he wants and possibly raping wife/live in girlfriend (of which I have neither being one of the brotherhood of eternal bachelors) and then killing her, and me, I'd have no problem shooting that motherf**ker in the head with my shotgun before he gets the chance. The thug breaking in and attempting to commit violence against me and someone on my property who is thus "under my protection" I guess you say, counts as an initiation of violence/coercion. Thus to use violence in defense of myself and those who were on my property with my permission, would be perfectly acceptable.

I think acft's point is that waiting for the enemy to come to your home is a really good way to lose. You aren't going to win any kind of fight if you limit yourself to fighting on your property. You have to be willing to take the fight to the enemy.

Ethically I have no problem killing Feds I just have pragmatic concerns with that kind of action namely they have more guns and ammo than I do and more men.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2013, 10:32:01 PM »

@MAM Oh. I see now. Idk if that's what acft actually meant but if it was then I agree, if not then I agree with you at least. I have no issues with "preemptive" actions against certain individuals within a certain category of crime syndicate.....just pragmatic ones.
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2013, 07:00:47 PM »

I haven't read the original article, but I recognize the headline and I think it's the same thing Roderick Long was responding too:
http://c4ss.org/content/19663
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!