Afghanistan

[JA37]

 

Man up and grow a pair. Move to Afghanistan and set up your business there. I promise that you won't be bothered by the big bad government.
None of that horrid infrastructure, education, protection or other nasty stuff to worry about.

Or quit bitching because you have to contribute, just like everybody else.

[1715555103]

1715555103

[1715555103]

1715555103

[Anonymous]

Man up and grow a pair. Move to Afghanistan and set up your business there. I promise that you won't be bothered by the big bad government.

Bad choice of country. I'm sure the US empire will happily bomb my business along with a couple hundred innocent civilians and just write it off as collateral damage.

Afghanistan was far better off without the US government, that's for sure.

[JA37]

Man up and grow a pair. Move to Afghanistan and set up your business there. I promise that you won't be bothered by the big bad government.

Bad choice of country. I'm sure the US empire will happily bomb my business along with a couple hundred innocent civilians and just write it off as collateral damage.

Afghanistan was far better off without the US government, that's for sure.

Hey, let the market handle it. I'm sure you can find someone to employ to run security for you. I hear the Mujahedin are fairly well trained and equipped.
Or do you perhaps prefer the security that a somewhat functional state has to offer? That comes at a cost you know.

[Anonymous]

Man up and grow a pair. Move to Afghanistan and set up your business there. I promise that you won't be bothered by the big bad government.

Bad choice of country. I'm sure the US empire will happily bomb my business along with a couple hundred innocent civilians and just write it off as collateral damage.

Afghanistan was far better off without the US government, that's for sure.

Hey, let the market handle it. I'm sure you can find someone to employ to run security for you. I hear the Mujahedin are fairly well trained and equipped.
Or do you perhaps prefer the security that a somewhat functional state has to offer? That comes at a cost you know.

I rather choose from various forces than can actually dissolve from failure to provide competitive services rather than choose from only one poor monopoly.

Yes, the market would serve my needs greatly.

[JA37]

Man up and grow a pair. Move to Afghanistan and set up your business there. I promise that you won't be bothered by the big bad government.

Bad choice of country. I'm sure the US empire will happily bomb my business along with a couple hundred innocent civilians and just write it off as collateral damage.

Afghanistan was far better off without the US government, that's for sure.

Hey, let the market handle it. I'm sure you can find someone to employ to run security for you. I hear the Mujahedin are fairly well trained and equipped.
Or do you perhaps prefer the security that a somewhat functional state has to offer? That comes at a cost you know.

I rather choose from various forces than can actually dissolve from failure to provide competitive services rather than choose from only one poor monopoly.

Yes, the market would serve my needs greatly.

Still, the US is a fairly safe place to live compared to Afghanistan. That was the case even without the US bombings. I'm sure you've heard of the Taliban? They were quite horrible to their own people you know. Far worse than the US. They still are. The US has accidents where civilians are killed. The Taliban specifically target girls schools.
Your "poor monopoly" seems to be far better than anything in the Afghanistan, past and present.

But the market is "Free" there. No regulations, no security, no infrastructure. Pristine, just how you like it. Why not go there? It does look like the utopia you're after.
Or go to Mogadishu perhaps. Same thing there.
Stay clear of Somaliland in the northern part of Somalia though. They have behaved badly and formed a government which does protect their citizens and have built infrastructure. The peace there must be unbearable.

[Anonymous]

Man up and grow a pair. Move to Afghanistan and set up your business there. I promise that you won't be bothered by the big bad government.

Bad choice of country. I'm sure the US empire will happily bomb my business along with a couple hundred innocent civilians and just write it off as collateral damage.

Afghanistan was far better off without the US government, that's for sure.

Hey, let the market handle it. I'm sure you can find someone to employ to run security for you. I hear the Mujahedin are fairly well trained and equipped.
Or do you perhaps prefer the security that a somewhat functional state has to offer? That comes at a cost you know.

I rather choose from various forces than can actually dissolve from failure to provide competitive services rather than choose from only one poor monopoly.

Yes, the market would serve my needs greatly.

Still, the US is a fairly safe place to live compared to Afghanistan. That was the case even without the US bombings. I'm sure you've heard of the Taliban? They were quite horrible to their own people you know. Far worse than the US. They still are. The US has accidents where civilians are killed. The Taliban specifically target girls schools.
Your "poor monopoly" seems to be far better than anything in the Afghanistan, past and present.

But the market is "Free" there. No regulations, no security, no infrastructure. Pristine, just how you like it. Why not go there? It does look like the utopia you're after.
Or go to Mogadishu perhaps. Same thing there.
Stay clear of Somaliland in the northern part of Somalia though. They have behaved badly and formed a government which does protect their citizens and have built infrastructure. The peace there must be unbearable.

The Taliban are a small crime syndicate compared to the suffering and murder instigated by US invasions and our civil drug wars. The motives have always been ulterior and the evil committed in the name of good has always been just that -- evil.

It's hardly "free". There's constant struggle over positions of tyrannical power. There is no hedge and there is no balance. I strive for a society of order, of competitive and accountable order; not a violent poltergeist of tyrants.

The lower parts of Somalia are only in struggle because the UN continues to instigate and challenge the sovereignty of its original people. The powers at hand only want economic gain; not peace.

In a society where the desired product is purely peace and protection, we would see a different paradigm. The forces in these situations do not share the same aforementioned motive.

[GideonGono]

The US has accidents where civilians are killed. The Taliban specifically target girls schools.

Of course! The noble democracy loving US Military would never target innocent civilians. Only the bad guys do that! We're the good guys!


My my, that American Propaganda machine is quite effective.

[JA37]

The Taliban are a small crime syndicate compared to the suffering and murder instigated by US invasions and our civil drug wars. The motives have always been ulterior and the evil committed in the name of good has always been just that -- evil.

It's hardly "free". There's constant struggle over positions of tyrannical power. There is no hedge and there is no balance. I strive for a society of order, of competitive and accountable order; not a violent poltergeist of tyrants.

The lower parts of Somalia are only in struggle because the UN continues to instigate and challenge the sovereignty of its original people. The powers at hand only want economic gain; not peace.

In a society where the desired product is purely peace and protection, we would see a different paradigm. The forces in these situations do not share the same aforementioned motive.

The US has a longer history of doing bad shit, I agree with that, and comparing evil is always hard. I do however believe that the US most of the time had the peoples interest in mind while doing things that history has shown to be bad mistakes, or acts that you would call "evil". I think that the people in charge actually believes that they protect Americans by torturing people, while the net effect most likely is the opposite.
The Taliban in comparison probably doesn't have the best interest for their people at heart. They denied healthcare and education to all women, denied music or other distractions for everyone. Justice was nothing of the sort. Basically you take everything bad about the US, amplify that, and remove everything good. That's Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

Hmm, no hedge or balance. Just groups of people struggling for power, with the most violent or well equipped winning, until someone more violent comes along. How is this not what you want? With no final authority that's what happens. Everyone with an agenda and a gun will try to put themselves in a position where they will be the de-facto authority. The real world example presented to you is what happens, not what you wish would happen in your fantasy. Why doesn't your hedge and balance come into play there?

Ehh, the lower parts of Somalia is in struggle because the Al-Shabab rape, kill and rob people. Most Somalis don't want them there but that doesn't stop the bandits from doing whatever they want since they're armed, dangerous and without opposition. The UN tries to help the civilians with food and medicine, something that they're sorely lacking. The Al-Shabab tries to deny the civilians this luxury.

I agree with you, however in a society where those elements exists, some way to deal with it must be present. I too wish for world peace and good will towards man. Shit just happens and then you have to deal with it. Wishing that things were a different way doesn't do much.

[AyeYo]

Why Afghaniland?

I've been pointing out Somolia as the ultimate libertopian paradise for quite awhile now.  None of these guys seem to be getting up and moving though.  I wonder why?

[NghtRppr]

Why Afghaniland?

I've been pointing out Somolia as the ultimate libertopian paradise for quite awhile now.  None of these guys seem to be getting up and moving though.  I wonder why?

We shouldn't have to.

[RandyFolds]

Afghanistan was far better off without the US government, that's for sure.

Wow...in your meager 17 years on this earth, you have managed to become quite omniscient. When did you spend time there before the US occupation? How long? What do you remember most?

[AyeYo]

Why Afghaniland?

I've been pointing out Somolia as the ultimate libertopian paradise for quite awhile now.  None of these guys seem to be getting up and moving though.  I wonder why?

We shouldn't have to.

And I shouldn't have to move away if someone nextdoor to me decides to purchase a nuke, but you don't seem to agree with that.

You can stay where you are voluntarily, in which case you're agreeing to all taxation, implied contracts and obligations, etc. or you can choose to move to libertarian utopia: Somolia.

[NghtRppr]

Why Afghaniland?

I've been pointing out Somolia as the ultimate libertopian paradise for quite awhile now.  None of these guys seem to be getting up and moving though.  I wonder why?

We shouldn't have to.

And I shouldn't have to move away if someone nextdoor to me decides to purchase a nuke, but you don't seem to agree with that.

You can stay where you are voluntarily, in which case you're agreeing to all taxation, implied contracts and obligations, etc. or you can choose to move to libertarian utopia: Somolia.

By staying where you are, you agree that I can do whatever I want.

[AyeYo]

Why Afghaniland?

I've been pointing out Somolia as the ultimate libertopian paradise for quite awhile now.  None of these guys seem to be getting up and moving though.  I wonder why?

We shouldn't have to.

And I shouldn't have to move away if someone nextdoor to me decides to purchase a nuke, but you don't seem to agree with that.

You can stay where you are voluntarily, in which case you're agreeing to all taxation, implied contracts and obligations, etc. or you can choose to move to libertarian utopia: Somolia.

By staying where you are, you agree that I can do whatever I want.

LOL!!! YES! That's exactly my point!

By staying where you are, you agree that the government you're under can do whatever they want.  If you don't like it, move to Somolia and no John Law will bother you.

[NghtRppr]

By staying where you are, you agree that I can do whatever I want.

LOL!!! YES! That's exactly my point!

Cool. So I can do whatever I want. Thanks.

By continuing to post in this thread, you agree with me.

[FirstAscent]

By continuing to post in this thread, you agree with me.

Really?

[NghtRppr]

By continuing to post in this thread, you agree with me.

Really?

Absurd isn't it? I agree. Just as absurd as saying, "by staying on your own property, you're agreeing to be taxed".

[NghtRppr]

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.

Start digging into your philosophical thoughts.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Start digging into your philosophical thoughts.

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

[RandyFolds]

So, when you own land in California, is it really your land like, say, a sofa is? I know that I can remove a cushion from my sofa. But can a landowner remove any oak tree from their parcel of land anywhere in California? If not, why not?

Hmm. Something is going on here. Maybe owning a parcel of land in California is not like owning a sofa.

You can take the cushion off the sofa, but god help you if you cut that tag off the cushion...

So maybe land is like a sofa...if you are a 14-year-old trollmod.

[NghtRppr]

So, when you own land in California, is it really your land like, say, a sofa is? I know that I can remove a cushion from my sofa. But can a landowner remove any oak tree from their parcel of land anywhere in California? If not, why not?

Hmm. Something is going on here. Maybe owning a parcel of land in California is not like owning a sofa.

You can take the cushion off the sofa, but god help you if you cut that tag off the cushion...

So maybe land is like a sofa...if you are a 14-year-old trollmod.

I'm a college student and the only person trolling here is you. You suck at it too.

[FirstAscent]

So, when you own land in California, is it really your land like, say, a sofa is? I know that I can remove a cushion from my sofa. But can a landowner remove any oak tree from their parcel of land anywhere in California? If not, why not?

Hmm. Something is going on here. Maybe owning a parcel of land in California is not like owning a sofa.

You can take the cushion off the sofa, but god help you if you cut that tag off the cushion...

So maybe land is like a sofa...if you are a 14-year-old trollmod.

I'm a college student and the only person trolling here is you. You suck at it too.

And what is your major? After answering that, feel free to address ownership of land.

[NghtRppr]

So, when you own land in California, is it really your land like, say, a sofa is? I know that I can remove a cushion from my sofa. But can a landowner remove any oak tree from their parcel of land anywhere in California? If not, why not?

Hmm. Something is going on here. Maybe owning a parcel of land in California is not like owning a sofa.

You can take the cushion off the sofa, but god help you if you cut that tag off the cushion...

So maybe land is like a sofa...if you are a 14-year-old trollmod.

I'm a college student and the only person trolling here is you. You suck at it too.

And what is your major? After answering that, feel free to address ownership of land.

I major in Computer Science, with a minor in Mathematics. I also have credits from Oxford University in philosophy.

I'll let you come up with your own argument for why owning land and other kinds of property should be considered different kinds of ownership and how that's relevant. You seem keen to play the skeptic but once you make a claim, you should back it up.

[FirstAscent]

So, when you own land in California, is it really your land like, say, a sofa is? I know that I can remove a cushion from my sofa. But can a landowner remove any oak tree from their parcel of land anywhere in California? If not, why not?

Hmm. Something is going on here. Maybe owning a parcel of land in California is not like owning a sofa.

You can take the cushion off the sofa, but god help you if you cut that tag off the cushion...

So maybe land is like a sofa...if you are a 14-year-old trollmod.

I'm a college student and the only person trolling here is you. You suck at it too.

And what is your major? After answering that, feel free to address ownership of land.

Computer Science and with a minor in Mathematics. I also have credits from Oxford University in philosophy.

I'll let you come up with your own argument for why owning land and other kinds of property should be considered different kinds of ownership and how that's relevant. You seem keen to play the skeptic but once you make a claim, you should back it up.

I don't need to come up with an idea to energize the discussion here. Certain ideas are already in implementation. I posted rather recently here about ownership of land in California. If you wish, pretend that's my idea because I agree with it. However, it's real, so you might want to address it in that context.

Computer science: write a simulator and apply GP using functions encoded as s-expressions which will let you evolve solutions to political problems.

[NghtRppr]

I don't need to come up with an idea to energize the discussion here.

I said argument, not idea. You made a claim, back it up.

[FirstAscent]

I don't need to come up with an idea to energize the discussion here.

I said argument, not idea. You made a claim, back it up.

Not yet. Obviously, reasoning already exists, hence the law. You are free to now explain your opinion of it.

[NghtRppr]

I don't need to come up with an idea to energize the discussion here.

I said argument, not idea. You made a claim, back it up.

Not yet. Obviously, reasoning already exists, hence the law. You are free to now explain your opinion of it.

Let me know when you want to back up your claim. Until then, stop wasting my time.

[FirstAscent]

I don't need to come up with an idea to energize the discussion here.

I said argument, not idea. You made a claim, back it up.

Not yet. Obviously, reasoning already exists, hence the law. You are free to now explain your opinion of it.

Let me know when you want to back up your claim. Until then, stop wasting my time.

Don't be a dick. Let's assume I'm not making any claim. File your grievances with the state of California. They're regulating property owners. Ownership of your property in California is not like owning a sofa. What is your take on it?

[NghtRppr]

Let's assume I'm not making any claim.

But you are. Why do I have to do all the work while you go "ZOMG NUKES"? Let me poke holes in your arguments for a change. At the very least you can see how it feels to make a logical argument. I think you could use the practice.

[FirstAscent]

I actually don't think the mathematics are complex. Actually, one of the big obstacles I see are the auto manufacturers' objections to it, where they would claim that a competitor slipped in a couple autos that made the top tier, thus knocking the auto maker's models further down, and giving them a very stressful year. The key is to smooth out the process for everyone.

Perhaps newly released models get slipped into the middle tiers regardless of specs, and are given a six to ten months or so to migrate to their respective slot, giving the auto makers some time to adjust to the constantly changing market. If the model is inefficient, at least the auto maker has an opportunity to compete before it gets knocked down. And if it's seriously efficient, at least the other auto makers get a chance to sell their models at a slight advantage for a short period of time.

I know it can work, one way or another, and I know it's necessary too. Auto makers just aren't being forced to compete effectively - it's analogous to an oligopoly, in a sense: "Don't rock the boat too much, fellows - keep our customers believing that heavy and not so efficient is the best we can do - sell them fashion and glamor - don't make the efficient cars too comfortable - we need to get everyone to want to buy into the heavier and bigger!"

I'm glad Volkswagen is daring to be different, and as a result, showing what is really possible.

It makes me want to puke when I see you talking about how you'd like to run other people's businesses and control their lives.

Horrible, isn't it? Getting the auto makers to actually compete and deliver what is technologically possible. Perhaps we can regulate them to add a dispenser in the door which provides barf bags.

[The Script]

Man up and grow a pair. Move to Afghanistan and set up your business there. I promise that you won't be bothered by the big bad government.
None of that horrid infrastructure, education, protection or other nasty stuff to worry about.

Or quit bitching because you have to contribute, just like everybody else.

And if you like government regulation so much, why don't you grow some balls and move to North Korea? I promise that you wont be bothered by that irritating concept of individual liberty and it's annoying advocates, libertarians.  You'll get plenty of education, protection and will get to take part in the huge "We Love the Dictator" celebrations that they have.

Or quit bitching because you dont get to trample everyones rights and don't get to control their lives.

Since when did you become a straw-burning troll, JA17? I am disappoint.

[Bind]

Afghanistan outlawed opium manufacture and production because of the perceived plague such drugs has brought to its people. This decreased the world supply of opium, thus decreased profit from said opium by an equal amount. After they outlawed opium, Afghanistan fell to single digit percentages of world supply. Now its back up to 75%-95% of world supply. Opium trade proceeds fund world governments, corporate, and world banking interests. It is an interesting fact that shortly after the outlawing of opium, they were invaded via the war on terror, then after the new friendly government was installed, they were back up to the leading world supply of opium, ironically just in time for the next growing season and harvest.

Afghanistan has been considered a critical strategic geographic trade location for the region for centuries because of its warm water port to the Caspian Sea. Russian military, political, and historian figures have stated that the USSR invaded it when trade negotiations broke down back prior to the russian invasion for its warm water port and arguably for a piece of the drug profits pie becasue of its crumbling economy and infrastructure that eventually led to the dissolution of the USSR.

Global trade and oil interests tried to negotiate with Afghanistan to run a pipeline to the Caspian Sea and to use the warm water port for trade and drug shipments. Afghanistan denied them. Shortly thereafter, there was a worldwide propaganda campaign against the Taliban and Afghanistan that fueled world outrage against them that led to the war on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Today, they are working on the pipeline and global trade now runs through the warm water port at the Caspian Sea, thanks to the friendly government installed in Afghanistan and the beautiful gift known as democracy that Afghanistan never asked for.

[JA37]

And if you like government regulation so much, why don't you grow some balls and move to North Korea? I promise that you wont be bothered by that irritating concept of individual liberty and it's annoying advocates, libertarians.  You'll get plenty of education, protection and will get to take part in the huge "We Love the Dictator" celebrations that they have.

Or quit bitching because you dont get to trample everyones rights and don't get to control their lives.

Since when did you become a straw-burning troll, JA17? I am disappoint.

The quote was a response to a claim that "OMG everything is the governments fault. EVERYTHING". I just pointed out again, that if you don't like governments there are several places in the world where you won't be bothered by a government.
I have NEVER, nor will I EVER, advocate totalitarian rule. I am very strong believer in democracy and personal liberty, although I see that both need to be regulated to be beneficial. As long as you live in a society you will have to adapt to that fact.
Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.
Who decides what's extreme? We do. "We the people ..." to borrow from the US constitution.

[Sannyasi]

*troll shits in this thread*

[NghtRppr]

Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.

There would still be governments under libertarianism. The difference is that they would be forced to compete with each other rather than allowed to stagnate. By forcing governments to compete, it is exactly "we the people" that get to decide what shape the government takes.

[hashman]

Afghanistan was far better off without the US government, that's for sure.

Wow...in your meager 17 years on this earth, you have managed to become quite omniscient. When did you spend time there before the US occupation? How long? What do you remember most?

I think it is not "omniscient" but "empathetic";  being able to imagine what it would be like with a foreign invading army in your town, taking all the farming profits and doing the things young guys with guns and uniforms are likely to do.  Imagine the thousands of people who would answer with "yes, I was better off when my family was alive".  However, empathy requires thought, something generally discouraged in political propaganda from all sides. 

 

[FredericBastiat]

I have NEVER, nor will I EVER, advocate totalitarian rule. I am very strong believer in democracy and personal liberty, although I see that both need to be regulated to be beneficial. As long as you live in a society you will have to adapt to that fact.

Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.
Who decides what's extreme? We do. "We the people ..." to borrow from the US constitution.

I'd like to clear up a few things in your response. You've mentioned what appears to be three different types of government (democratic, republican, libertarian, and totalitarian)

None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.

A republican government tries to represent the rule of law thru delegation of authority to legislators, adjudicators, and executors who represent a majority but violate contract to do it, even though they say otherwise. I assume you're referring to the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence where it mentions "consent to be governed". It would be a great idea except that the consent part was taken away, hence no competition, contract or consent.

Totalitarian governments is where all other governments end up eventually given enough lattitude. I hate compromising any personal liberties for any reasons. People get hurt when you do that.

[FirstAscent]

None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.

And libertarians don't offer up unified and consistent protection of systems which will break down when divided, all so arbitrary rights can be awarded to each individual.

[Hawker]

Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.

There would still be governments under libertarianism. The difference is that they would be forced to compete with each other rather than allowed to stagnate. By forcing governments to compete, it is exactly "we the people" that get to decide what shape the government takes.

Isn't that exactly what you have in Afghanistan?  Lots of competing "governments" one of which is US backed, one of which is Indian backed and one of which is Pakistan backed.  How exactly does that benefit the Afghans?

[BitterTea]

Afghanistan outlawed opium manufacture and production because of the perceived plague such drugs has brought to its people. This decreased the world supply of opium, thus decreased profit from said opium by an equal amount.

Do you mean increased? When demand remains constant and supply falls, profits increase.

[BitterTea]

Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.

There would still be governments under libertarianism. The difference is that they would be forced to compete with each other rather than allowed to stagnate. By forcing governments to compete, it is exactly "we the people" that get to decide what shape the government takes.

Isn't that exactly what you have in Afghanistan?  Lots of competing "governments" one of which is US backed, one of which is Indian backed and one of which is Pakistan backed.  How exactly does that benefit the Afghans?

We seek not cut-throat, by any means necessary competition (that's government), but non-violent competition.

[Hawker]

Extremism is bad, in every colour, shape or form it presents itself. That goes for both the extreme form of government rule, as in North Korea, and it's counterpart, a complete lack of government rule.

There would still be governments under libertarianism. The difference is that they would be forced to compete with each other rather than allowed to stagnate. By forcing governments to compete, it is exactly "we the people" that get to decide what shape the government takes.

Isn't that exactly what you have in Afghanistan?  Lots of competing "governments" one of which is US backed, one of which is Indian backed and one of which is Pakistan backed.  How exactly does that benefit the Afghans?

We seek not cut-throat, by any means necessary competition (that's government), but non-violent competition.

So how would you stop India and China and whoever else arming and directing one of your "governments?"

[FredericBastiat]

None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.

And libertarians don't offer up unified and consistent protection of systems which will break down when divided, all so arbitrary rights can be awarded to each individual.

I think, given the opportunity, there would be groups of individuals who would collectively provide services in a number of ways to protect an individual's liberties. Inconsistencies already abound now. I'm not sure that will ever go away. If a system was perfect, it wouldn't need itself to exist as people would just do the "right thing" in the first place.

Delegating away, and thus monopolizing, power of governance is always a bad idea (violates contract). At that point, there is very little incentive to improve. Besides, the NAP is very eloquent and simple. If you were to attempt to educate everybody to provide services with that axiom as a cornerstone, anybody drifting far afield of that would be called to task relatively quickly. Notice I didn't say force its use, just notify.

Most people are aware when their personal liberties are being encroached upon. Given that fact, I think many would find laws relatively easy to understand and create. Any person or persons violating that provision on a consistent basis would find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned as it would be difficult to last long in that state of operation. Violent monopolies change that significantly because they are not allowed to fail. Corruption can only grow in that situation.

[speeder]

You people must not say what is good, or evil, based on your own culture standards.



For example, a culture where self-defense is considered evil and thus that people must rely on state, is good, or evil?

A culture were self-defense is considered good, to the point that people are constantly fighting, is good, or evil?


A culture with declining population as women increase in wealth is good, or evil?

A culture with strong numbers in base work, but with women working mostly caring for their children, is good, or evil?

[Hawker]

None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.

And libertarians don't offer up unified and consistent protection of systems which will break down when divided, all so arbitrary rights can be awarded to each individual.

I think, given the opportunity, there would be groups of individuals who would collectively provide services in a number of ways to protect an individual's liberties. Inconsistencies already abound now. I'm not sure that will ever go away. If a system was perfect, it wouldn't need itself to exist as people would just do the "right thing" in the first place.

Delegating away, and thus monopolizing, power of governance is always a bad idea (violates contract). At that point, there is very little incentive to improve. Besides, the NAP is very eloquent and simple. If you were to attempt to educate everybody to provide services with that axiom as a cornerstone, anybody drifting far afield of that would be called to task relatively quickly. Notice I didn't say force its use, just notify.

Most people are aware when their personal liberties are being encroached upon. Given that fact, I think many would find laws relatively easy to understand and create. Any person or persons violating that provision on a consistent basis would find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned as it would be difficult to last long in that state of operation. Violent monopolies change that significantly because they are not allowed to fail. Corruption can only grow in that situation.

Surely the problem is Afghanistan is that there are thousands willing to fight and die for their right to impose their beliefs on other Afghans?  They have been able to do so for the last 40 years with no sign of an ending.  There is no monopoly of violence in Afghanistan.  You can't realistically say that the militias will "find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned" any time soon.

[FredericBastiat]

Surely the problem is Afghanistan is that there are thousands willing to fight and die for their right to impose their beliefs on other Afghans?  They have been able to do so for the last 40 years with no sign of an ending.  There is no monopoly of violence in Afghanistan.  You can't realistically say that the militias will "find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned" any time soon.

It's the imposing part that makes it impossible. In a libertarian environment you don't impose. Afghans are under a Islamic Republic. That means their religion rules the people which is not in any way conformant with the NAP. You pick a country like that and attempt to compare it with even basic human rights and that's about as far away from libertarianism as you can get. There is no means to compete at all and probably never will be.

[hmongotaku]

Besides being the top growing opium country, it's also has 1 billion dollars worth of lithium on der hills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YNbfpQNqk&feature=related

Like McCain said, He don't care if we're in there for another 100 years!

[Hawker]

Surely the problem is Afghanistan is that there are thousands willing to fight and die for their right to impose their beliefs on other Afghans?  They have been able to do so for the last 40 years with no sign of an ending.  There is no monopoly of violence in Afghanistan.  You can't realistically say that the militias will "find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned" any time soon.

It's the imposing part that makes it impossible. In a libertarian environment you don't impose. Afghans are under a Islamic Republic. That means their religion rules the people which is not in any way conformant with the NAP. You pick a country like that and attempt to compare it with even basic human rights and that's about as far away from libertarianism as you can get. There is no means to compete at all and probably never will be.

A country like that? Its worth remembering that until the destruction of the Afghan state in the 1970s, it was a peaceful land and Kabul was a very popular tourist destination.  The present mess in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of the destruction of the Afghan state. 

Afghans are now under several Islamic governments that are competing against one another and in most cases backed by foreign governments.  That surely is the point is talking about the place - it shows the alternative to a strong democratic government is violent competition between putative governments.