What Did Che Guevera And Kim Il Sung Have In Common?

[ajoknoblauch]

I can see how it may seem like this.

But remember, when talking about Libertarianism, anarchy does not mean chaos.

As far as the cars turning around in the middle of Libertador - people in a Libertarian society would be free to create their own roads and enforce their laws as they see fit. This is all complicated and seems unnatural, and I'm not going to lay all this out here, but the fact is that economy and social pressures restrict people more than laws do, until the laws become repressive and counter-productive.

So, if I want to create a road through your front yard (or back yard, for that matter), I should be free to do so.

 

[steveinbsas]

Many of my personal beliefs coincide with "libertarianism." However, I think this conversation highlights what I think are one of its flaws when applied to a large, pluralistic society like the US. You can't have any set of laws that all of the people will agree to. And, ultimately, you will have to force a certain sector of the population to abide by some laws.

Please correct me if this is not consistent with the above quote:

In order to "force a certain sector of the population to abide by some laws" in a pluralistic society like the US, it is necessary for the government to deprive (or at least threaten to deprive) some individuals of their property or liberty (by imposing fines and imprisonment) for not paying taxes, not obeying an order to report for military service (when applicable), not catering a gay wedding, not buying health insurance, etc.

I don't see how a "sector of the population" can be forced..to "abide by some laws."

"You" (the government) still has to wait until any of the laws are broken to take any action, and even then, only against the individual.

 

[ElQueso]

Parallel lines never meet. It's axiomatic.

I guess you've forgotten your high school geometry (amongst other things, I'm sure). If I'd told the geometry teacher such a thing without providing her a mathematical proof she'd give me an 'F'.

I'm not even asking for a mathematical proof. Your could have attempted to describe your proof, but you show a complete lack of ability to do anything more than draw "parallels" where they don't exist.

Your kind of proof is good for guys like Goebbels, though. Propaganda 101. I'm betting you haven't forgotten a thing from that class.

'F'

 

[ARbound]

I dont see ANY racism in neither of both photos.

I am 100% positive sure that if you show these pictures to any spanish speaking neutral person in the world, they will tell you that its not racism.

Still, after 2 years of being on this forum and even after a break I still can't tell if you're just a troll, a kid without
much school work to do, or simply full of shit.

We can debate the ethics of free speech (I'm pretty close to being a frees speech absolutist), we can talk about how
children or people with Autism Spectrum disorders do not understand why something is racist or inappropriate, hell you
can even argue to the rest of us that you think white people are the Übermensch and that you believe in eugenics, but
I'm not going to waste my time explaining the reason why a cupcake, with super dark black icing, oversized pink lips,
and called "Little African" is racist and offensive.

I'm white, it's offensive to me. If you want a black person to answer you I can email my ex boyfriend the pic and ask him to explain
to you the reason why it is disgusting and post what he says.

Before you argue the culture relativism point that "what's considered racist in America isn't considered racist here" realize it doesn't
matter how you perceive it if you're not the one the remark/image is about. When a news reporter in Buenos Aires said the reason there
are motochorros is because of "Bolivianos y Paraguayos de mierda!" it's similar to someone from the United States saying "I'm sick of
these n*****s shooting people all the time."

Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you wish and earnestly believe, and I'll defend your right to, but I don't have to agree
with it or defend its content, especially when you're culturally tone deaf or just don't care.

ElQueso's long text summed up into two images:

I think you were looking for this:

yours ignores us libertarian left types

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Please correct me if this is not consistent with the above quote:

In order to "force a certain sector of the population to abide by some laws" in a pluralistic society like the US, it is necessary for the government to deprive (or at least threaten to deprive) some individuals of their property or liberty (by imposing fines and imprisonment) for not paying taxes, not obeying an order to report for military service (when applicable), not catering a gay wedding, not buying health insurance, etc.

I don't see how a "sector of the population" can be forced..to "abide by some laws."

"You" (the government) still has to wait until any of the laws are broken to take any action, and even then, only against the individual.

So, you don't think the government should deprive Dylann Roof of his liberty for having exercised his Second Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, I wonder where libertarian politicians get their funding? http://tinyurl.com/pwrs2vd

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Libertarian left type are commonly known as anarchist.

Going on topic, the answer is simple: totalitarism, both were totalist leaders.

 

[steveinbsas]

So, you don't think the government should deprive Dylann Roof of his liberty for having exercised his Second Amendment rights.

That's a good question. It helps me make the point that he wasn't forced to abide to the law against killing nine people.

The government only took the action of depriving Dylann Roof of his liberty after he allegedly (and obviously) committed the crime.

And you know very well that killing people was not an exercise of his Second Amendment Rights.

When a government can "force sectors of a population to abide by some laws" it can start with yellow armbands with stars and end up with striped pyjamas.

Or it can start by forcing individuals to buy health insurance...

 

[ajoknoblauch]

That's a good question. It helps me make the point that he wasn't forced to abide to the law against killing nine people.

The government only took the action of depriving Dylann Roof of his liberty after he allegedly (and obviously) committed the crime.

And you know very well that killing people was not an exercise of his Second Amendment Rights.

When a government can "force sectors of a population to abide by some laws" it can start with yellow armbands with stars and end up with striped pyjamas.

It was not a question. It was a callout of libertarian stupidity or, if you prefer, willful ignorance.

Nothing summarizes it better than https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/611998683442380800

 

[ElQueso]

So, if I want to create a road through your front yard (or back yard, for that matter), I should be free to do so.

You are demonstrating your ignorance about Libertarianism. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, or evil, it's simply something that should be corrected when possible. Considering all the information, although at a "primer" level, previously in this thread, I'd think you'd get the idea that that would not be acceptable in a Libertarian society.

It is, however, acceptable in most societies nowadays. It's called Eminent Domain. People like you use it as an excuse all the time to take the property of others for things they think are "good for everyone".

 

[ajoknoblauch]

You are demonstrating your ignorance about Libertarianism. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, or evil, it's simply something that should be corrected when possible. Considering all the information, although at a "primer" level, previously in this thread, I'd think you'd get the idea that that would not be acceptable in a Libertarian society.

It is, however, acceptable in most societies nowadays. It's called Eminent Domain. People like you use it as an excuse all the time to take the property of others for things they think are "good for everyone".

No, you are demonstrating your ignorance. I and everybody else who finds it convenient will drive anywhere we feel like it. We are merely exercising our objectivist freedom, and any attempt to stop us in an infringement on our liberty.