I guess that's the other major difference. In democratic governments, if there's a problem, we almost automatically say that we'll let the government fix it or figure out how to regular it. In a libertarian one, you'd have to figure out how to work out the problem yourself (even if it includes hiring professionals or experts).

OK Mr. Shits&giggles (AyeYo), what's your answer to:
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own self-interest?

No guarantee of regulation working, either (e.g. drugs are regulated as well).
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own interest?

Yes?

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to try to come up with ideas of how to set up some mutually agreed on rules within the free market system that will stop those nukes?

Sounds iffy, especially in light of the Tea Party cheering about 234 inmates put to death recently. I know the details and facts don't stack up, but that's the mental connections others will have.

I was pretty sure that the argument was that you have the right to do whatever you want, including the right to stop me from having nukes. It's just that I also have the right to stop you from trying to stop me, either by volunteering to give up some privacy and information (voluntary self-regulation) or by protecting myself with force. Am I right in understanding that?


So far the only people who disagreed with that have been the imaginary citizens of strawmanville created by the anti-libertarian side, who don't actually live in libertardville, and aren't supported by libertarians.


Let me see if i can make up some answers for these...
Same way these situations are handled now: by mutual agreement of both parties, even if that involves going to arbitration and having the case decided without prior precedent. Hopefully the final resolution will have both parties in agreement, and will be mutually beneficial. The costs of conflict resolution (court fees, lost productivity, personal annoyance) will hopefully make both parties want to settle the dispute as soon as possible. If no resolution is found, let the two parties duke it out some other way, either by competing in the market or with a duel. As long as they are not forcing harm on other bystanders, who cares. You guys are confusing criminal law with civil law. Criminal law has actual laws on the books, passed by government. Personal conflicts between two parties or businesses go through civil law. There, the laws are not determined by government but by a judge or jurry that both parties have previously agreed on. The actual decisions come from either prior cases, or whatever the judge decides is just. These "laws" or prior rulings can also transcend national borders, and don't need to rely ob government enforcement.
Let me know if this answer is insufficient.



Isn't infringing on another's rights an act in violation of NAP? Thus, wouldn't the person who is following NAP have the right to be agressive against the in ringer until they stop infringing and follow NAP themselves? I'm confused. It sounds as if you think following NAP means everyone will be like Ghandi. Or do you mean the person infringing will just do stuff you don't want them to, but which isn't technically illegal? In that case the person is just allienating themselves.

In that case, I would ask what were some of the examples of those historical exploitaitions, and what could be some ways of fixing those problems? I can't really think of any historical examples of libertarianism.

I think humanity enshrines wealth and power. Everyone is "keeping up with the Joneses," buying expensive cars, TVs, and other crap. In democratic governments everyone still tries to be rich and powerful. Even communist governments have people trying to attain money and power, though that is brutaly restricted to upper members of the government. So, I don't think libertarianism does anything different from a democratic government in that regard. The only major difference is that in a government democracy, the wealthy and powerful can pay the government to pass the laws they want, and then I have to pay the government to enforce those laws against me, while in a libertarian government the powerfully wealthy will have to pay to enforce those laws out of their own pockets.

What about mutual benefit? The most basic tennant is I make something you want, you give me something I want (like money), and we're both better off than before. Is everyone working for their own benefit by making sure their own desires are mutually beneficial to everyone else (thus everyone else will continue to give them money) not sufficient? Why not? And how is choosing to refuse to cooperate at the risk of not having others cooperate with you hypocritical? You still have a choice, and if you can survive by living in your own house and growing your own food, you'll still be OK. I don't see the choice as a hypocricy.

It looks like a line you drew. Does that line just change every time the market changes? And if yes, what's the point?


At least 30% of $5 isn't as bad as 30% of $15. Well, it is for investors, but doesn't make the price drop look as dramatic.

Well, a short while ago we discovered that the plaq caused by the Alzheimer's protein is the strongest and hardest material we know of, so we'll probably start harvesting old people to make body armor.
More recently we figured out how to cure certain types of cancer by injecting people with modified HIV viruses, using those as gene carriers to reprogram our T-cells, so maybe we'll start harvesting bug chasers for cancer cures.

Das' true too!

I actually haven't read much of Rand's stuff, and didn't realise this was an established rhetoric. I was just speaking from experience. I personally lived for others and got pleasure from helping others and watching them grow. Then I got taken advantage of, and got fucked over by a relationship where I continued to live for the other person and got hapiness from seeing them happy. I was happy as long as I made others hapy, and damn my own well being and needs. Then before I knew it, I've gone through a few nervous breakdowns, and found myself wallowing in depression with my self-worth being entirely dependent on how happy and well off I could make others be. Turned out that this wasn't actually hapiness at all. A few pills and smacks upside the psychological head by a good psychiatrist later, and I started doing stuff like forcing myself to go to the movies, amusement parks, and museums by myself. Basically I figured out, or showed myself, or forced myself, how to be happy by making myself happy, and making myself grow and become better off. I still like to be around others, and I still love helping others and watch them grow, but I no longer depend on other's growth to be happy, and most importantly no longer fear losing others, since I know I can still be OK if I need to be alone.
And true, we aren't all the same. Nor is what I tell you realy matters, since we each find our own truths about ourselves, and rarely believe what others say about us (took me six years of beating my friend upside the head with zero results, only to have him just one day figure it all out on on his own, for me to learn that one). So, thanks for letting me vent/rant

Better to learn from mistakes of others and yada yada yada...

Ah, fair enough (though I flickin HATE those associations with a passion)

I didn't mean so much "live alone" as "learn to make yourself happy without that hapiness depending on others." Regardless of how you spin it, you still basically said "the thing that makes me happy is pleasing others." And franky, I am not too surprised to hear you say that. And still hope you can, let's say, "get over" that. If there are no others, or if others are not pleased (or not made better by your standards), it sounds like you're saying you won't be happy. Worse, if others end up catching onto you and your personality, and start taking advantage of you without you realizing it, you will be happy. And that's just not right.

Gah! Stop it! No matter how you try to explain it away, that is a totally shitty way to live. Live for yourself, and love yourself first. Knowing how to live for yourself, have fun by yourself, and live without needing others to base your hapiness on, or give your hapiness to, is the number one rule of being happy in life. Mainly because then you won't need others to love you, or admire you, for you to have any self worth (and it does sort of seem like you are hoping quite hard on this forum that others will admire or like you). Doing what you're saying you're doing is also a guaranteed way to totally f*uck yourself over with a relationship when you get stuck with someone you don't like, but feel you need them, or need someone to keep happy and to live for, and are afraid of being on your own again. This is also a way to make sure crap like depression and self-loathing are no longer a problem in your life (though stupid brain chemicals can still interfere sometimes).
After you stop that, then you can get pleasure from helping others, even if it's for selfish reasons.

Personally, I live for curiocity. Wanting to travel and see the world with its exotic cultures, foods, and architecture, wanting to learn about random stuff like history, philosophy, music, or interesting people, and wanting to learn about technology and see what the next big invention or gadget will be.

One, you lucky bastard. Closest I've come to Gaga is have her walk by while i waved.
And two, that doesn't sound at all pleasant, unless there was enough alcohol involved to disinfect the entire event (doubtful).

One other point of total weirdness I remembered on the way home that libertyville may have issues with: one totally obnoxious form of trolling in SecondLife was for people to put up ugly or offensive billboards on their own property, which were very visible to the neighbors and passers-by. Stuff like very pornographic photos, aborted fetuses, mutilations, etc. At least in SL you can file a complaint and have the item, as well as the troll, removed. In libertyville, trolling will likely evolve onto a whole new and unpredictable level (though likely also much more physically harmful for the trolls).

For some people, I would suspect very much so. I must admit the idea of living in a country/world like that sounds very exciting, and makes me think of the romanticised versions of such places, such as the outer worlds of the Firefly TV show, or the fairly exciting world that SecindLife used to be, where if you have the drive and the time, you can learn fun trade and skills, travel around the world, compete with others, fight off and outsmart trolls and pirates, make lots of money, be defeated temporarily by a bout of bad luck, and come roaring back on your own wits and determination. Granted if I was living in that world and was stuck with some disease in some crappy location with no food, money, or any job prospects, it would all stop being fun very quickly.



That's the part I have no answers to. Perhaps there will be enough of a market for these services that a few people, or small groups of people, will be able to suport themselves and their own training? There are already private security forces used by malls and corporations, almost CIA skill level corporate espionage groups, and now even assassin services available today for Bitcoin I imagine in a more volative world these skills will become more valuable.

Ack! No, no no. It's "common sense is just common, not sensible." What AyeYo was saying is the generally understood common sense. It just didn't make any.

Not sure what you're asking...


True. Thus as mentioned, it would be more efficient to maintain small strike teams and weaponised robots. I think armies are a waste of money, though people and militias still train on their own "for fun."
Actually, forgot, there is another factor as a defence against warring invaders. I mentioned earlier in this discussion that just a few years ago, hostilities between India and Pakistan rose to the point where they were pretty much ready to go to all out war. However, since in the last decade India became the word's tech support and outsourcing district, India as a whole couldn't just take a few days off to go to war. As a result, the business community slapped the government and army down HARD, and basically forced them to avoid war. Hopefully as things progress this way globaly, invading hordes will all start to agree that it's cheaper and more profitable to trade with people and get their finished products and knowledge than just go in and take their raw resources.

I believe it has a lot of interesting, and possibly valid ideas, and while I was on SecondLife (before the admins cracked down on free markets by banning all in-world banks and financial services) had a lot of fun watching and participating in it, but there are still a whole lot of issues within that system that I don't know the answers to, and that I don't yet understand myself, and thus can't support the system, not can be sure it will succeed (or fail). In short, I find it interesting and like it, but can't fully support it.
In this discussion I was just trying to ask questions of the people who are against it to see if they can reason out the answers to the issues they were bringing up themselves. Some of their points were somewhat blatantly obviously answerable, and I wanted them to figure out the answers. I believe that if you tell someone the answer, they will be skeptical, but if they come up with the answer themselves, they will trust it. For the most part, I believe that you can't argue against something you don't even understand, and was hoping to get them to at least understand their own points before bringing actual valid concerns about them. It got rather immature rather quick though.

*shrug* You either don't, back down, go into hiding, and fight a guerilla war, or you get everyone who believes they may be threatened by those hostile groups with nukes together, and you all together raise money to pay for an army to protect yourselves from that group? Same deal, really, except you'll be paying the army directly instead of the money coming from taxation. Of course, people who live on the border with the hostile group will be screwed, since they will likely be the only ones paying for the army, while the people further away will think it's not their problem.
Other option may be to, instead of wage a full-on war, hire an assassination group against the leaders or owners of those nukes. Cheaper and more precise, though may fail more spectacularly. Again, similar to current government setup, with only differentce being direct payment.