How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[Richy_T]

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.

Yes, we fail to start shooting people when they start to oppress us. We're only human after all. It's a flaw that could be fixed.

[cunicula]

The NAP does not guide every single action, it merely gives a limit to some actions. It is proscriptive, not prescriptive. The idea that people who hold it as an important principle are some kind of automatons is laughable.

Could have fooled me. Is there a reverse Turing test we can subject them to?

More seriously, you seem to make a serious effort to represent yourself as automatons to the outside world. See quote below.

[Richy_T]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

I believe that anything logically consistent cannot possibly be moral.

I believe that there can be no absolute truths


(Yes, that's supposed to be ironic)

[FirstAscent]

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.

Yes, we fail to start shooting people when they start to oppress us. We're only human after all. It's a flaw that could be fixed.

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.

[Richy_T]

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.

I know enough physics to know that's true. I know enough politics to know your agenda behind stating it and where to start looking for the flaws.

However, if you enter a discussion with someone and they refute your claim, you need to back it up. If you're not willing to do so and you just dismiss the person, you should just admit you're here to assert, not discuss and then kindly leave.

[cunicula]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

I believe that anything logically consistent cannot possibly be moral.

I believe that there can be no absolute truths


(Yes, that's supposed to be ironic)

Great, then why do you try to derive morals from one set of first principles?

[myrkul]

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.

I admit that AnCap is not perfect. If you want perfection, you're shit out of luck. It is, however, better than any other system presented. To paraphrase, "No one pretends that AnCap is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that AnCap is the worst form of societal organization except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[Richy_T]

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.

That it's better than your shitty solution is good enough for me. Perfection is the enemy of the good.

[FirstAscent]

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.

I know enough physics to know that's true. I know enough politics to know your agenda behind stating it and where to start looking for the flaws.

However, if you enter a discussion with someone and they refute your claim, you need to back it up. If you're not willing to do so and you just dismiss the person, you should just admit you're here to assert, not discuss and then kindly leave.

But you never actually refuted anything I said. You only claimed my assertions couldn't be true. Please revoke any statements you made about my assertions as a whole, or actually refute them. You can start with my statements about climate change, then proceed to my statements about libertarian think tanks and their propaganda. I'm waiting, because I never heard any refutation from you, only statements from you that my assertions had no merit.

[cunicula]

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.

Yes, we fail to start shooting people when they start to oppress us. We're only human after all. It's a flaw that could be fixed.

Nah, empathy for our oppressor is a beautiful expression of humanity.

[myrkul]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

I believe that anything logically consistent cannot possibly be moral.

I believe that there can be no absolute truths


(Yes, that's supposed to be ironic)

Great, then why do you try to derive morals from one set of first principles?

Whooooosh!

[Richy_T]

Great, then why do you try to derive morals from one set of first principles?

Who says I am? My morals are different from the ethical and legal systems I would like to see prevail.

[FirstAscent]

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.

I admit that AnCap is not perfect. If you want perfection, you're shit out of luck. It is, however, better than any other system presented.

Let me understand: your system, essentially untested, not deployed, and with many detractors, is better than any other system?

[cunicula]

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.

I admit that AnCap is not perfect. If you want perfection, you're shit out of luck. It is, however, better than any other system presented. To paraphrase, "No one pretends that AnCap is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that AnCap is the worst form of societal organization except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Wait, if it's not perfect then why do you cling to it? I mean Statism has some good elements, Communism has some good elements, and libertarianism has some good elements.

Why can't we mix all three?

Why do we have to have one consistent ideology? Isn't that kind of limiting?

[Richy_T]

But you never actually refuted anything I said. You only claimed my assertions couldn't be true. Please revoke any statements you made about my assertions as a whole, or actually refute them. You can start with my statements about climate change, then proceed to my statements about libertarian think tanks and their propaganda. I'm waiting, because I never heard any refutation from you, only statements from you that my assertions had no merit.

I wasn't talking about me. Others have weighed in. I was more interested in picking apart the mechanics and context of your "argument". Something I have no intention of rehashing.

[Richy_T]

Nah, empathy for our oppressor is a beautiful expression of humanity.

Nope, it's a subtle form of spiritual suicide.

[myrkul]

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.

I admit that AnCap is not perfect. If you want perfection, you're shit out of luck. It is, however, better than any other system presented.

Let me understand: your system, essentially untested, not deployed, and with many detractors, is better than any other system?

Yes.

[myrkul]

Nah, empathy for our oppressor is a beautiful expression of humanity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[FirstAscent]

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.

I admit that AnCap is not perfect. If you want perfection, you're shit out of luck. It is, however, better than any other system presented.

Let me understand: your system, essentially untested, not deployed, and with many detractors, is better than any other system?

Yes.

I see nothing but confidence (over confidence) and opinion here. Enjoy your bubble of beliefs.

[Richy_T]

Wait, if it's not perfect then why do you cling to it? I mean Statism has some good elements, Communism has some good elements, and libertarianism has some good elements.

Why can't we mix all three?

Statism and communism cannot tolerate libertarianism. The opposite is not true.