Fix it. I'm waiting for your solution, because if you can't maintain your society, it's worthless. And when you provide that solution, fix the other many many flaws.

Not this again. It's like you saying sea levels don't rise when heat is absorbed by the ocean because I only asserted it, rather than write a 1,000 page introduction to physics.

Oh, so you admit that your "free societies" never last because control is wrested from them just when things are getting good. That's a flaw.

Flaws pointed out need to be shown to not actually be flaws.

These discussions go all the way back to the knife juggler, private roads, private thug forces, he with the most guns wins, nuclear bombs, tyrants, tax collection, greed, the environment, climate change, inundation of contracts, he with the most money to pay lawyers wins, ignorant neighbors, colluding neighbors, enslavement, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on. Your solutions to each of these are inadequate, and far from being ideal. They've all been covered. And you never offered a satisfactory solution to any of them.

The fact is, your system only looks appealing to someone who willfully remains ignorant of facts which get in the way.

Didn't I just mention that you willfully ignore the flaws presented to you, and engage in circular argumentation to delude yourself into thinking your arguments are sound?

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws, which you choose to willfully ignore by, well, willfully ignoring them. You run an endless circular argument as a result of your delusions that your thoughts are entirely sound. In perpetuity, you cannot accept the flaws within your system, and thus, in your eyes, your arguments appear sound.

You enshroud yourself with other like minded peers equally self deluded in the morality of your system which depends on individuals to all think in a like minded way, failing to acknowledge the utter ignorance and/or greed of many participants that would inevitably exist within your dream society, who would effectively be the ultimate and constant monkey wrench which would cause your system to fail, or more likely, never get off the ground, which in fact, is the truth right here and now, and in the past.

Doesn't this just corroborate what I'm saying?


There are so many forum threads here where myself, or no longer existing members (I wonder why), or banned members pointed this out over and over - inadequacy regarding long term viability. Takeovers can occur from within or beyond.


I agree, to a point. Here's my version:

What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the society, which includes a smoothing of misfortunes which befall the unlucky, those born into lesser circumstances, etc., with the minimum of interference from government, but utilizes forward thinking which minimizes *borrowing from the future excessively due to excessive greed, opportunism, and ignorance of consequences within self serving groups, while also being able to protect that society from existential threats.

* Where borrowing from the future means depletion of natural capital in such a way that the future has less potential productivity. The use of the term potential productivity here is important, as opposed to the term productivity by itself.

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

I would judge success based on a combination of several criteria:

- Significant in size relative to other democracies/nations/governments. In other words, not some tiny colony.
- Significant immunity to being overruled, changed, annexed, or taken over by another nation.
- Significant duration relative to other long enduring democracies

Furthermore, discount examples of isolated geographies in a historical world of low population and slow travel and communication times.

I noticed you provided your own speculative opinion on what in theory you think should happen in the face of lacking any real data on the subject, and then here pontificate how such speculations are facts.

All I see are failures and Somalia. Such promise! Nice try.

Big letters. Tiny opinion. No one is burdened with doing anything here, did you know that? I will leave you to your current mind-state, as it is not my burden to provide you with further information. But maybe you learned something anyway - I didn't actually see you negate anything I said here. And I can't recall a single informative post made by you. All I recall was somebody named Rudd-O demanding that I cite sources, implying that one couldn't possibly find material on ice albedo feedback loops, glaciation, ocean densities, etc.

The world is out there beyond the little bubble you enshroud yourself in. Out of curiosity, do you have a favorite source you use for scientific news? It would be interesting to hear what it is.

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

Honest questions. Answer them.

No, it's called agitation derived from arguing with the brainwashed. And then compounded by the brainwashed pointing fingers, making demands, and then having the gall to require an endless chain of evidence back to first principles, all the while hypocritically not actually producing any substance themselves.

Scientifically literate people not brainwashed by the promise of libertarians do not attach any credence to the memes propagated by the likes of the crowd here.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

Baseless, stupid, and hypocritical opinions will hit nerves.

Do you know how your comments would appear in the absence of taking shelter within the cozy clique of your group-think peers on this specific forum? How easy it is to pat each other on the back and say nothing of any substance. Or, I'm sorry, did you say anything of substance about climate change, or did you just sit around and render a baseless opinion for your buddies to hear?

Did you actually do any research? Did you actually summarize any findings? Have you actually educated yourself about climate science from papers, books or documents not written by fringe websites?

Did I hear you just make the claim that the list I provided regarding the processes of glacier calving, sea level rise, water density, and species migration could not be true because I didn't substantiate it enough?

Are you so brainwashed and ignorant that you cannot logically deduce the truth in what happens when a glacier calves into the sea? Are you too lazy to learn what an ice albedo feedback loop is?

You sir, are the intellectual weakling, hiding behind both the keyboard and the libertarian group of peers you find yourself protected by. You have zero wit, zero content, and zero balls, ensconced as you are here in this forum. Your self congratulatory posts serve no purpose but to keep you in ignorance.

Or is there something there in that brainwashed head of yours that carries the spark of thinking? Could it be, that instead of demanding that one person (myself) be responsible for reiterating all the science that exists regarding climate science, that instead, you could lift your lazy fingers enough to carry out some of your own research and reading, to the point that perhaps that libertarian think tank muddled brain of yours might receive some material beyond the Exxon/Mobil funded propaganda you prefer?

Is there one single post in this thread made by you that would back up the implication made by you that your posts are more substantive than mine? If so, please share.

That's not how the brain works, and you should know that. Context and experience influence our views. More importantly, I sincerely believe, given my discussion with you, that you are lacking proper context. You can't possibly believe that your observations of a few plots puts you in a position to grade the quality of your opinion very highly.

I think you should read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life, maybe a book by John Terborgh, and a few others. And maybe you should go climb a fourteener. It's not all data and plots. Some context helps. A general understanding combined with lucid explanation and real world examples will make everything logically obvious.

If you can't stand letting my assertions stand uncontested, then by all means, contest them. That's what I've been asking you to do, rather than make childish mocking noises and useless remarks about the count of lines in a post.