You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Left-Wing Libertarianism Viable?
We know that a voluntary society is the best one,
We know that in the same way we know unicorns are the best horses.
Which is to say we don't because such a thing has never existed and most likely never can exist due to human nature.
What a narrowminded response. That is like saying, people can't have voluntary interactions and everything
mustbe based on violence.............
A very narrowminded mindset you are in. So you can't imagine a voluntary society? But you don't realize that already 90% of what people are doing in their day-to-day life is voluntary.
It's just the the other 10% that has to be changed.
Humans came a long way from chained slave caravans, into an imperfect taxation system. So who is to say that it can go further than this?
We're a long way from chained slave caravans because it was made illegal.
Your examples really prove my point, you can point out all the consensual sex in the world but rape still happens. You need to prove it would happen less if there were no government to arrest the perpetrators.
Or maybe because human empathy and worldview has changed throughout the millenia.
Actually it's the government that arrests voluntary sex participants (prostitution), while in most cases let's the rapists go free (like in Europe with some of the migrants).
So the government doesn't do a good job preventing violence (hello, they are doing it), but also it does inflict a lot of violence on it's own.
Pointing out that the current system is imperfect does nothing to prove yours is better.
If you think human empathy has improved then prove it. Difficulty: Donald Trump just got elected with promises like killing the families of everyone associated with ISIS and building a wall the prevent people from leaving an impoverished region.
Well he got elected with a 40% population voting for him, and it's not like the population had a choice right?
I mean he came up with 100 different promises and only 1 of those were the middle-eastern problems, so could it be that the population elected him for the other 99 promises?
Usually policies come in a giant package, and you might only like 1 thing in that package but the other 99 are also shoved down your throat in an election. So quite possibly the voters didn't have a chance to vote on every single issue and voted in an entire policy package.
This is why I think direct democracy is superior consensus method, because you can vote on every single issue, and not have to tolerate things that you don't like for 4 years.
Need to point out to you that Hitler also won the election with only 40% of the population voting for him?
This is very much on point. The comparisons between Trump and Hitler began even before the primaries were over. In fact, Trump made very few actual promises and left things pretty ambiguous with everyone trying to figure out what actual plans he had. His entire campaign centered around ISIS, Mexicans, and repealing Obamacare.
His campaign earned him endorsements from groups like the KKK, a white supremacist organization, and other Nazi groups in the US.
And yes, the people did have choices. As a libertarian you probably get most of your information from libertarian sources, but from everything I've seen libertarian and anarchist news sources are pretty much conservatives from a political angle... meaning that they all work their hardest to demonize liberals/Democrats. For instance this radio host stating Democrats are "Children of Satan." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-children-of-satan_us_5947325ce4b0f15cd5bc501c
So aside from Clinton actually being a very good choice for President, there was an actual Libertarian candidate.
So yes Trump only got 40% of the population to vote for him (if not less) by spouting Nazi-like rhetoric and earning the endorsements white supremacists.
That's still 40% of the population who either actively wanted Trump to kill Muslim children and kick Mexicans out of the country, or who were at least accepting enough of those plans to vote for him.
Except that's not true. We've had this discussion before, and you want a consensus of something like 97%... which would, at the very least, leave 3% of people tolerating policies they don't like indefinitely. Moreover you'll probably never get that high of a consensus on anything, so what you'll actually have is 90% of people tolerating things they believe should be illegal like murder or rape.
What a horrible view on human nature you must have? That is one of the biggest lies you're told - that humans would be so raving mad without a government. We don't have problems now you mean? Rapists, murderers, terrorists, corruption, child abuse.. In a society without a state, everyone would have to step up their responsibility-game. Sure, these people would still exist, but they'd be fewer. To be born under the barrel of a gun most likely increases the chances you will become a violent person. Taxation is theft!
See my reply to @profitgenerator, you basically made the same flawed argument.