Actually, in the very short response to my comment, you misinterpret what I've said. I do agree that it is just to prevent the likes of Osama and Jared from acquiring said weaponry. They have already demonstrated their unwillingness to participate in society in a non-aggressive way. They have already violated the NAP, and could be regulated in that sense. You shouldn't regulate unless there is a threat to commit violence or after the fact.

Voluntarism and regulations stand in opposition to each other with respect to their implementations.

Wrong. It's about justice. Fairness may or may not happen, and anything is possible. He wasn't agreeing to regulations and never used the term in the context you use it.

Actually, I think your version of Statism is a little to kind. It's more like the following,

Statists: You can use violence to defend yourself and your property under the abstract pretext of physical aggression or the potential threat thereof. You construct law, which discriminates against individual rights, by making illicit certain characteristics and compositions of property. All property of this "illicit" type falls under the purview of the State. Property and control then accrues to the State in this fashion. More innocent people fall under this "criminal umbrella" definition. In the end, it's better to imprison many more innocent people and a few more criminals.

I meant common in the prevalent, prevailing and pervasive sort of common, but whatever I guess. I think if the majority of people are violent, you will eventually get what you have now. It is difficult to promote a more just form of governance when the one in which you live has lulled you into believing violence first, ask questions later, is the only way to go or the only one you've experienced. Displaced and delegated violence is very subtle and difficult to unravel, but when you point it out, you have a tendency of "seeing a lot of red" everywhere and often. The NAP opened my eyes. Sad to say I was once apathetic and ignorant too.

Additionally, extreme edge cases don't help, and we don't have many Libertarian examples to go by to prove them out (other than the NAP axiom, and derivative logic), so were kind of the underdogs at the moment. I'd still be willing to give it a try though. I have faith in humanity. If I didn't, I'd probably be finding the biggest gun, just in case it's every man for himself, but I'm not giving up just yet.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!!  THEY DON'T OWN ANY BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL!!
[/quote]

It's illegal to murder too. So much for that theory. It's most likely that, as any nuclear physicist will tell you, it's very difficult to compose a nuclear weapon, because it takes so much energy and expertise to refine the radioactive materials that comprise such a weapon, and not kill yourself in the process. But then we all knew that didn't we?

Flame on. Don't let any logic and reason stop you. It hasn't yet.

b2c wasn't advocating aggression, just merely stating a fact. It's like saying, here are two objects: one is black, the other is white. You pick black, so the other object must be white. He wasn't stating whether or not black or white was good or bad, only what the other choice was.

Likewise if I say it is not appropriate to aggress, and you say that you disagree, then are you not at least implying that aggressing is okay?

Those two quotes don't even share any synonyms, much less the same words, how could they possibly have the same meaning? They're not even a close substitute for what I said, fail. It's the best interest of everybody everywhere to act in a non-violent, respectful way. War, generally speaking, is too expensive to maintain. One way out is to play nicely. Most forceful means are a disincentive to improve.


If I didn't think any human acted humanely, there would be no point to any type of ideology, including yours. I daresay, yours would be the first to fail, the quickest. Having someone else control you makes you a minion and a sucker. Keep drinking the Koolaid. Oh, and don't check for poison, there isn't any.


Any state, individual, or collective, is corrupt if it violates the NAP. Pretty obvious. No need to doll it all up with fancy words like Nation, Society, State, Government, Modernity, Advanced, or Leadership etc.

If you use a little introspection for a moment, you'd realize that all 'owned' things are privately held. There really is no public and private, that would be IMO, misdirection. The 'real' question is how you arrived at ownership (by what means).

The state (a collective of individuals) uses taxation and eminent domain to acquire their lands. This uses the initiation of force. Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs. This initiation of force is not justified, but most will just give up ownership in exchange for their life.

In a free society, ownership of property still exists, it is recognized in a number of ways, but there is no justification for taking another man's property thru the initiation of violence.

Wow, I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten thru 4th grade! Repeat, repeat, "Please pay attention Jonny", repeat, repeat, "Hey Jonny, please keep your hands to yourself", repeat, repeat... Ad nauseum

I'm really beginning to wonder if you're trolling, or if there's more than a thousand ways to say the same thing, and still not get it across.

I can point out a book or two that would answer that quite well if you'd like. The short answer is, if my land gives the appearance of being lived in, the surroundings have been modified from their natural state (human labor applied), or his heavily fenced and labeled with 'no trespass' signs, that should suffice. If it has little to no indication of the above, I'd imagine you could do as you pleased.

By the way, waving a shotgun around may be interpreted as many things, but could be excessive threatening gestures too. You would probably be justified in defending yourself I'd imagine, if it came down to it.

Authority can be presented in many ways. I'd imagine it may not operate in Liberland much differently than in the current society in which we already live. (titles, deeds, local chain-of-custody repository, etc.)

I'm glad to see you're going to be so exacting in your wording in the future. Please continue along that line so that when you use metaphors or analogies in the future, we will call you on it too, or ignore them as entirely irrelevant. Don't expect anything less.

Nobody is going to force you to agree with any rules. Nobody will force you via violence to abide by them. If on the other hand, you initiate violence against another person with no provocation, I'm certainly not going to feel very sorry for you if you get your head handed to you on a platter.

Don't get any ideas from the above that I advocate violence, you'd be assuming (please refrain). To be perfectly blunt, I personally don't find it a useful form of communication, just a last resort when an idiot attacker won't back down.

Guarantees? Thats an assumption. If you're going to assume, say you're going to assume. Libertarianism does not guarantee death. People eventually die, some get killed, that's about all you can say. Saying it any other way and it's a logical fallacy. If however you're going to presume that there is a higher probability of death, then show how that might be.

That's a non sequitur and a Straw Man if I've ever seen one. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Making a law doesn't make people inherently good. I could just as easily say, when was the last time 6 million Jews were murdered?

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to. I like the sound of that very much. Your statist beliefs are also entirely built on 'oughts' and 'shoulds' arguments. If we were talking physics, there'd be very little to actually argue about.

I can't take back the millions of deaths already caused by smallpox, nukes and car bombs, and I can't say that any version of Libertopia would make all of that go away either any more than yours does/did. Human nature is unpredictable, you have to just deal with it. As I've said before, there are many different ways to "skin a cat". Let's not just assume that yours is the best way, just because it's the only way at the moment.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves.

I don't like your framework. If I pointed a gun at your head and said, "let's play", don't think for a second I'd find it fun, or particularly enlightening.

Oh, and we should'nt question anyone in government. They're so benevolent and kind and honest and forthright and, and... they always have our best interests in mind. Riiiiight....

Also, there are no free markets left.