If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by government. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the framework we are living.

Yes. Some are violent - let's say they're aggressive, even coercive. Shall we conclude that the voluntary groups must somehow muster a pretty formidable defense against the aggressive and violent groups? I think it's likely it will be necessary for the various voluntary groups to merge together to mount a solid defense. Naturally there will be minor disagreements. But some type of army will no doubt be necessary. Can you see where this is going?

States are inevitable. And you yourself said:

They self organize into states?

That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.

Have you read Herman Daly?

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

This is good stuff too: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wealth_of_nations/

Google "Herman Daly".

Did you indicate to me anywhere that in your lib-land, when I venture onto your property, I am not subject to your house rules, not subject to you pointing a gun at me, not subject to paying a tariff, toll, fee or tax, and not subject to who knows what?


Did you indicate to me that in your lib-land, when I venture onto your property, I don't have a nagging sense that you are in control, might have stockpiled weapons, and might lay down some rules if I choose to remain on your property?


No thanks. Why would I want to starve the beast that keeps wackos from having nuclear weapons in their garden shed?

I can assure you - I don't have a blind spot for chaos, which results in huge death rates.

Do you want a prime example of your libertarian system at work everyday in a really big way? It works exactly as you have specified. It's called the world. It has 192 members, and each claim their own property and do what they wish on their own property. Hands off to anyone else! There is no centralized authority. It's a classic example of "If you're on my property, you follow my rules!" Disagreements are worked out via sanctions, courts, treaties, private security forces, weapons, etc. Many have nuclear weapons! Imagine that. Kind of like your lib-land, eh?

In some sense, it depends on the footprint left on the ground while engaging in making lots of money. Ground is used metaphorically here, meaning the ground literally, and the biosphere, people, everything.

I agree with this stuff. Most people choose to remain willfully ignorant of what is undesirable. Education is important. Unfortunately, it usually takes about a generation, as opposed to a couple of years.

Is that what's inside your "philosophically sophisticated" mind?

I advocate that you use common sense.

Note that you are allowed the first and third action. Why do you suppose that is? What makes the first and third different from the middle? Need a hint? I'll give it to you: "potential harm to others."

Start digging into your philosophical thoughts.

Geez. First of all, do you understand that the first goal is to prevent you from ever possessing such a device? Secondly, do you understand that if you willfully engage in risky behavior, bad things can happen?

Suggestion: don't climb El Capitan without a proper belay.

Suggestion: don't handle nuclear weapons.

Suggestion: don't wander around in dark alleys at night.

The key actions listed above, respectively are: climb, handle, wander. You know these things going in. You know the consequences. What happens is in your control.

Because those aren't the laws. Did you mistakenly think they were? Furthermore, there is no moral justification for there to be any laws which make ownership of a sofa the same as owning land. None.

Let's be very clear on something. There is moral justification for there to be laws which make ownership of a sofa the same as ownership of a sofa.

Sofa != gun != land != animal != automobile != human != WMD != atmosphere != ocean != aquifer

Dig as deep as you want into your philosophical thoughts, but that will not allow you to come up with an argument that you are morally justified in claiming that ownership of one class of thing is equivalent to ownership of another type of thing. You need to seriously question the assumptions you are building your arguments upon.

From my point of view, you were very clearly hesitant to get involved in posting over there. You can set us straight when you begin posting over there.


I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?

Please show us where we have not done that. I'm not a big fan of rewriting 500 word posts.

I'm not confused at all. Here's your post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg543311#msg543311

I'll quote it:


That looks like you've made a decision to not go over there based on the environment you'd find yourself in. Welcome to reality.


We're not speaking of the intentions of the mugger. Don't confuse the matter. We're talking about your decision making process. You've made a claim, and I'm calling you on it. You're trying to claim that you're going to end up being killed. I'm calling you on it.

Ownership of land does not correlate with ownership of a sofa. Please indicate to me where you have received information that exactly states that ownership of land means what you think it might mean. I'm assuming that you believe that because it has been recorded that you own a parcel of land, you are granted a certain set of rights, but that quite possibly is not the case.

Feel free to show that the rights you believe you should have been granted are in fact the responsibility of some entity. Who in fact is granting you the rights you believe you are entitled to? Don't make the mistake of claiming you simply deserve said rights by virtue of acquiring said property. If you make that mistake, then you're only admitting that you entered into a contract with false assumptions.

I don't agree with much that you've said. When you say "By staying on your property", are you confusing owning a parcel of land with owning a book or a sofa?

What, in general, are your expectations in this world (natural and artificial), and this society, when you engage in extraordinarily risky behavior outside your bounds of expertise? Tell me, do you adjust your behavior and temper your decision making based on outside influences?

Consider that not too long ago, you made the decision to not post over at honda-tech.com. To your credit, you subsequently claimed that you decided to sign up over there, but we do have a post of yours here where you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there. I would qualify that as a decision that you made based on accepting that there are outside forces that you did not wish to risk engagement with.

Tell me now, what kind of rational thought and decision making processes do you apply in this world with regard to acquisition of WMDs? Simultaneously, please indicate to me that in your favored libertarian land, you will be forever free of being confronted with situations that force you to choose a less favorable path than you would ordinarily desire so that you can avoid consequences that are not appealing to you.


Well, keep me informed of that one. Once again, I suspect that you won't ever let it come to that. You see, once again, we all find ourselves in reality, and our decisions are guided by reality. Let me know.