Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you

[ElectricMucus]

[ElectricMucus]

[ElectricMucus]

I'm an anarchist gun owner and I don't really give a shit what anyone thinks about that.

Have a great day!

Thanks for underlining my point.

[hawkeye]

I have some respect for statists who make arguments and engage in discussions ( as long as they are civil).

This is just a child ranting.

[Mike Christ]

I've noticed this trend: people who refuse to use the edit or insert quote function and instead decide to post in succession, even up to three to four times in a row, are often in support of the state.

Why does this happen?

[u9y42]

The Juice News had an episode about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxHvHi-MdIM

One of my favorite quotes from that episode: "why don't you leave guns to the criminals, like us in the military?" 

[Elwar]

How libertarians see those who like to take away freedom from people:

[VincentX]

Giving up one's own bargaining chips seems to be the staple of the sheeple. 

[ElectricMucus]

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

[hilariousandco]

Is Atlas Shrugged worth reading? I always hear polar opposite opinions on it.

[ElectricMucus]

I think this thread is reason alone not to read it, at least I hope so.
Honestly I wouldn't know, or care.

[KonstantinosM]

Well, guns are necessary for survival up in Alaska.

The way I see it there needs to be an evaluation and a waiting period with a licence and gun & ammo registration.

The holder of the licence will have to keep descriptions of the safety measures kept and how the bullets were generally expended. (Hunting, stored, etc).
Any falsification on the form should be considered for taking back or placing restrictions on the licence.


I don't see why people need guns in cities and urban areas, especially those who do not need to hunt to survive... (If more than 80% of the meat you consume is store bought, you don't really need to hunt).


I had a lot of anarchist friends. Anarchism in Greece is a response to the crappiest, ultra-corrupt government of Greece. Huge loans were taken and politicians (presidents and others) took billions of euros in personal accounts. (That is why Greece has such a huge debt problem).

If the government is super bad, (North Korea level badness) anarchism is the fastest solution for the short-term. Anarchism would never work unless there were decentralized governments all over the place with the gaps in between being anarchist free-lands. (Go out of the limit of the city and get raped and beaten) all free of charge (legal).

[tcp_rst]

I've noticed this trend: people who refuse to use the edit or insert quote function and instead decide to post in succession, even up to three to four times in a row, are often in support of the state.

Why does this happen?

It's because when people aren't bounded by rules, regulations or laws, or there's no enforcement, the community norms inevitably drift to selfishness.

[mistress_magpie]

Socialists, like me, like bitcoin because it allows freedom and anonymity in transactions - which is as important to those fighting for change against dictatorships as it is for individual free-marketeers

[Mike Christ]

I've noticed this trend: people who refuse to use the edit or insert quote function and instead decide to post in succession, even up to three to four times in a row, are often in support of the state.

Why does this happen?

It's because when people aren't bounded by rules, regulations or laws, or there's no enforcement, the community norms inevitably drift to selfishness.

That makes sense, but this community does have rules--perhaps not explicitly stated but we can all see what they are by observation.  Do you think this occurs due to a person always being fed rules, that they become very poor at identifying them otherwise?

[u9y42]

Socialists, like me, like bitcoin because it allows freedom and anonymity in transactions - which is as important to those fighting for change against dictatorships as it is for individual free-marketeers

Hmm, are you sure it allows anonymity in transactions? 

[maxxoccupancy]

Authoritarian, socialist governments have disarmed and murdered 175 million of their own people during the 20th century alone.  Nearly every war-mongering president, prime minister, dictator, and ruler has been a proponent of big government and the agenda of the International Banking Cartels--the same people who put Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and other tyrannical regimes in place.

[ataulf]

At the beginning of politics there was a free market for force. Anyone who could round up a posse had his own little army that could provide protection in exchange for tribute - of food, gold, women, whatever. The successful posses became states, and as more land and people came under their protection they started establishing bureaucracies to manage it all.

Over the years many of these groups failed.

Nowadays force is controlled by a cartel known as the UN of about 200 of these groups who call themselves countries, have mostly agreed upon territories for their control, and support each other if any nascent group tries to challenge their monopoly. They've diversified somewhat from their original purposes - though they still exact tribute, they now offer more services in return.

Now, this is my critique of libertarianism:

We view the original state of nature as pure freedom. These groups formed corporations to provide security to their customers in exchange for tribute - payment - which was given to their shareholders: the warriors or nobility. Doesn't history then prove that over the course of time a state of infinite competition settles into one of multiple monopolies which band together to stamp out potential challengers in their market? This entirely disproves libertarianism's main argument that infinite competition will provide infinite freedom.

[maxxoccupancy]

As it applies in this context, not only should there be competition in the currency marketplace, but I believe that the world will be better off if we offer more than one viable cryptocurrency.  Almost everywhere in the market, you end up with 2-4 major players and a dozen or so mid-size players.  From social networking to soda, from cars to airlines, from cell phone makers to their service carriers, there are only a few big suppliers.  However, there are almost always a few small startups.

[Mike Christ]

We view the original state of nature as pure freedom. These groups formed corporations to provide security to their customers in exchange for tribute - payment - which was given to their shareholders: the warriors or nobility. Doesn't history then prove that over the course of time a state of infinite competition settles into one of multiple monopolies which band together to stamp out potential challengers in their market? This entirely disproves libertarianism's main argument that infinite competition will provide infinite freedom.

That's not the main argument; the main argument is on ethics, claiming that using coercion is immoral, and the use of systematic coercion through the state is still systematically immoral.