But what about the roads? Common argument against Libertarian/Anarchy Debunked.

here in the USA we dont hold with "natural rights" bullshit. we have constitutional rights. these rights are enshrined in the constitution, bill o0f rights and the various legitimate ammendments that adhere to the framework established in 1778

1: protection against govt infringement of the right to assemble in groups, talk crazy shit, and go to the church temple synagogue or moonlit clearing of your choice.
2: protection against govt infringement of the right to own armaments, and carry them on our persons, the right to defend our selves, and the responsibility to defend our neighbors in time of banditry or war.
3: protection against govt. troops squatting in your house or property, except in narrow circumstances during a time of war
4: protection against govt searching your person, belongings papers correspondence or hidden stash of porn without a court order
5: protection against govt coercion of testimony against yourself, requirement that govt hold a jury trial for any criminal matter, and you have the right to mount a defense
6: protection against govt infringement of the many rights granted the accused in any court proceedings
7: protection against govt obstruction in civil matters, and requirement that a jury hear any serious civil matter (including civil fines in excess of $20
8: protection against govt institution of impossible bailments or wacky punishment schemes or barbaric torture or shaming rituals (excepting the republican nomination process)
9: protection against govt infringement on any right not expressly protected
10: protection against govt infringement on any other unstated rights, and against expansion of govt's role in the affairs of the states or the peoples.

note they all protect the people and the stat4es against the federal government, thats what real libertarians want. protection from a grasping government and sticky fingered politicians. not anarchy, or your repeatedly insinuated "minarchy". the friedmans can eat a sack of rotten cocks. niether one could survive without mommy fed and her endlessly full teats.

self professed anarchists and self proclaimed hyphenated libertarians are all just silly neckbeards who whinge about every form of government being imperfect, and demand their favorite solution, which would in the real world result in ACTUAL ANARCHY! this is not a good thing. that is the collapse of society, and our constitution, libertarians do not want this, the only asshats who want this are the dumb fucks who watch Road Warrior and beat off.

Dr Kynes said:

here in the USA we dont hold with "natural rights" bullshit. we have constitutional rights. these rights are enshrined in the constitution, bill o0f rights and the various legitimate ammendments that adhere to the framework established in 1778

1: protection against govt infringement of the right to assemble in groups, talk crazy shit, and go to the church temple synagogue or moonlit clearing of your choice.
2: protection against govt infringement of the right to own armaments, and carry them on our persons, the right to defend our selves, and the responsibility to defend our neighbors in time of banditry or war.
3: protection against govt. troops squatting in your house or property, except in narrow circumstances during a time of war
4: protection against govt searching your person, belongings papers correspondence or hidden stash of porn without a court order
5: protection against govt coercion of testimony against yourself, requirement that govt hold a jury trial for any criminal matter, and you have the right to mount a defense
6: protection against govt infringement of the many rights granted the accused in any court proceedings
7: protection against govt obstruction in civil matters, and requirement that a jury hear any serious civil matter (including civil fines in excess of $20
8: protection against govt institution of impossible bailments or wacky punishment schemes or barbaric torture or shaming rituals (excepting the republican nomination process)
9: protection against govt infringement on any right not expressly protected
10: protection against govt infringement on any other unstated rights, and against expansion of govt's role in the affairs of the states or the peoples.

note they all protect the people and the stat4es against the federal government, thats what real libertarians want. protection from a grasping government and sticky fingered politicians. not anarchy, or your repeatedly insinuated "minarchy". the friedmans can eat a sack of rotten cocks. niether one could survive without mommy fed and her endlessly full teats.

self professed anarchists and self proclaimed hyphenated libertarians are all just silly neckbeards who whinge about every form of government being imperfect, and demand their favorite solution, which would in the real world result in ACTUAL ANARCHY! this is not a good thing. that is the collapse of society, and our constitution, libertarians do not want this, the only asshats who want this are the dumb fucks who watch Road Warrior and beat off.

Click to expand...

it sounded so reasonable and straight forward; he was using facts, evidence, and logic ..... and then.... its like a 14year old hi-jacked the old man's keyboard.

Justin00 said:

it sounded so reasonable and straight forward; he was using facts, evidence, and logic ..... and then.... its like a 14year old hi-jacked the old man's keyboard.

Click to expand...

He must have wanted the libs to understand part of what was written.

deprave said:

blah blah blah poli-sci jargon... market anarchy blah blah blah more poli-sci jargon...OK now that is firmly cemented...


I think that The Free market anarchist could be completely wrong... blah blah blah, even more poli-sci jargon with some economics bullshit stirred in for leavening.

Click to expand...

"market anarchy" and "the free market anarchist" are the crux of your ramblings. there is no such thing

"Market Anarchy" in your context is some hare-brained scheme by which a market (co-operative transfer of goods and services through an agreed upon method of value exchange eg. money or currency) can be regulated not by an outside authority, but by the invisible hand of the market. riiiiiiiight

an anarchist's market is what you get in somalia. authoritarian rule by whichever asshole has his gun pointed at you right now. ten minutes later, fuck yeah!! new "market management" from a different dickhead with a gun! now thats efficient exploitation of the weak, afraid and unarmed! pure anarchy at it's finest!

a "Market Anarchist" is just an asshole with a gun. whoever is cramming this nonsense between your ears has serious problems, and needs an extended vacation in ethiopia, or cameroon for some real world examples of "anarchist theory" in practice.

Mr Neutron said:

In a nutshell, what is the counter argument to natural rights?

Click to expand...

I did not word the post so well that your replying to, the better way to put it would be that the core argument is, Should government be limited because of Naturual Rights or should it be limited because of the consequences, so that debate is focused around 'Why should government be limited'. In the example I used with the Friedman, one argument Dan I believe concludes that government should enforce security because of the consequences and and Milton felt it was just because of natural rights. So I guees my entire response there was somewhat irrelevant in one sense but is relevant to the point that not all libertarians believe that natural rights is the reason for limiting government because of X. So to say that all libertarians default to naturual rights on any issue is not a valid point when each view is different even in the same school of thought.

Dr Kynes said:

"market anarchy" and "the free market anarchist" are the crux of your ramblings. there is no such thing

"Market Anarchy" in your context is some hare-brained scheme by which a market (co-operative transfer of goods and services through an agreed upon method of value exchange eg. money or currency) can be regulated not by an outside authority, but by the invisible hand of the market. riiiiiiiight

an anarchist's market is what you get in somalia. authoritarian rule by whichever asshole has his gun pointed at you right now. ten minutes later, fuck yeah!! new "market management" from a different dickhead with a gun! now thats efficient exploitation of the weak, afraid and unarmed! pure anarchy at it's finest!

a "Market Anarchist" is just an asshole with a gun. whoever is cramming this nonsense between your ears has serious problems, and needs an extended vacation in ethiopia, or cameroon for some real world examples of "anarchist theory" in practice.

Click to expand...

Omg you give another cliche "liberal" argument lmfao this is priceless.

society exists for mutual support, and security. without it we would be just the scared little hairless monkeys at the bottom of the food chain trying to fight off lions with pointed sticks. "anarchist theory" would put us back there in a few generations. scratching through the rubble of our forgotten past tying to stay one step ahead of the chuds, supermutants and deathclaws. scared, helpless, naked and desperately rubbing sticks together trying to rediscover the ancient technology of "fire"

Dr Kynes said:

society exists for mutual support, and security. without it we would be just the scared little hairless monkeys at the bottom of the food chain trying to fight off lions with pointed sticks. "anarchist theory" would put us back there in a few generations. scratching through the rubble of our forgotten past tying to stay one step ahead of the chuds, supermutants and deathclaws. scared, helpless, naked and desperately rubbing sticks together trying to rediscover the ancient technology of "fire"

Click to expand...

You watch too much T.V..what are you even talking about now? Is this another movie?

Dr Kynes: Next time you are arguing with the "liberals" about libertarianism and the tea party I will be sure to quote you on the somalia stuff here when they use that argument against you lol

deprave said:

Omg you give another cliche "liberal" argument lmfao this is priceless.

Click to expand...

thats not a liberal argument, i dont cotton to liberal anything. thats a factual argument. it has been shown time and again throughout history. when government in a region fails, the region is either gobbled up by a neighboring government, or the society descends into anarchy, and not the cute fuzzy anarchy of poli-sci classes and liberal wankers stroking their soul-patches while fantasizing about how awesome shit would be if the evil old USA fell.

"anarchist theory" is just marxist communism wrapped up in a new party dress. it touches all the marxist bases including but not limited to:
absolute fairness
all people are equal in all ways
equality of opportunity will always result in equality of outcome
all disputes will be handled fairly and justly by the individuals involved, without violence because, inside everybody is a fuzzy bunny.
no authority is needed because fuzzy bunnies dont fight, they LOVE
what if we all just you know, shared everything
man im so high right now, dude! what if im not actually high, but everybody else is really low... man... thats heavy
dude, why do they call them fingers if i never seen them fing?
wait... what?

Dr Kynes said:

thats not a liberal argument, i dont cotton to liberal anything. thats a factual argument. it has been shown time and again throughout history. when government in a region fails, the region is either gobbled up by a neighboring government, or the society descends into anarchy, and not the cute fuzzy anarchy of poli-sci classes and liberal wankers stroking their soul-patches while fantasizing about how awesome shit would be if the evil old USA fell.

"anarchist theory" is just marxist communism wrapped up in a new party dress. it touches all the marxist bases including but not limited to:
absolute fairness
all people are equal in all ways
equality of opportunity will always result in equality of outcome
all disputes will be handled fairly and justly by the individuals involved, without violence because, inside everybody is a fuzzy bunny.
no authority is needed because fuzzy bunnies dont fight, they LOVE
what if we all just you know, shared everything
man im so high right now, dude! what if im not actually high, but everybody else is really low... man... thats heavy
dude, why do they call them fingers if i never seen them fing?
wait... what?

Click to expand...

lol Ok Rush...communism lol..I believe I laid out pretty clearly how disputes and law could work, just a couple of examples, of course there are many possibilities...This is a very simple argument again minimal government vs no government, the need for a single entity with a monopoly on power vs the bennifits of not having this. I feel like you didn't read any of my posts really.You just shut this out also so you aren't really adding much just being a smartass. Repeating what you hear on talk radio.

you act like this "anarchist theory" bullshit is new or something. it was kicking around back in the mid 80's too, and nobody was fooled. the same dimwits who thought anarchism would save the world and create a new utopian society were the same twats who wound up getting che gueverra tattooed on their awesome tat-sleeves right next to john lennon or some chinese symbol which im pretty sure meant "free eggroll with 2 entrees". marxists have been trying to rebrand their failed socio-political theories since the 60's when most of the world figured out that the shit doesnt work.

in a couple years youll look back with shame on your "ideas" from this period, and i daresay youll be glad this forum's secrets will stay hidden in a haze of dope smoke.

Dr Kynes said:

you act like this "anarchist theory" bullshit is new or something. it was kicking around back in the mid 80's too, and nobody was fooled. the same dimwits who thought anarchism would save the world and create a new utopian society were the same twats who wound up getting che gueverra tattooed on their awesome tat-sleeves right next to john lennon or some chinese symbol which im pretty sure meant "free eggroll with 2 entrees". marxists have been trying to rebrand their failed socio-political theories since the 60's when most of the world figured out that the shit doesnt work.

in a couple years youll look back with shame on your "ideas" from this period, and i daresay youll be glad this forum's secrets will stay hidden in a haze of dope smoke.

Click to expand...

and perhaps you will look back on this thread, and actually read it, and realize your just some guy popping in here being a dick and repeating Glenn Beck talking points instead of joining the discussion or adding to the discussion. .This is a very simple argument again minimal government vs no government, the need for a single entity with a monopoly on power vs the bennifits of not having this. I largely agree with you on the few points you have made, even on my initial post, I am just playing the role as a market anarchist so we can discuss this and laying out the arguments. You on the otherhand...are just kind of being a dick.

wait im glen back AND rush limbaugh? who do i gotta sodomize to become sean hannity as well?

fact is bro, anarchism really is just re-branded marxism, without the high flown rhetoric and chatter about radicalized proletarian revolution. run the points together and youll see where the two "theories" are really just one. libertarians are about liberty, anarchists are about anarchy, unless you live in a world of perfect kind giving strangers who all just want to share, anarchy will always result in authoritarian powergrabs by the asshole with the biggest warband, or your region being subsumed by a nearby power (armenia in the 1890's anyone?)

That is social anarchy your talking about, I whole heartily agree with your opinion of social anarchy. so the argument is this which I laid out back on page 8 between Market Anarchy and Libertarians is this:

Deprave From page 8 said:

It is a valid argument and one that I feel torn on so its difficult for me to argue for because of I tend to side with libertarians when it comes to this myself. I will simple say the market anarchist argument so we can evaluate this further, again very deep here though but lets just scratch the surface. The core argument of course is that some centralized authority is needed and to really get into this we have argue specifics. Why is the state needed? You argue that mafia type entrepreneurs will restructure such a society omtp a hierarchy of minions. Your dispute is that leaving this up to the hand of the free market is justification for a centralized monopoly of power to prevent this. In essence this is really the best argument against market anarchy because its also the argument anarchist use against libertarianism ironically (A minimalist state will snowball into a monstrous totalitarian regime, they very type of thing libertarianism opposes) The libertarian argument against anarchy is thus that a leaderless society will eventually turn into a society with a centralized power because of these very social issues. So the market anarchist say that, No centralized power can ever possibly be a good thing while Libertarians argue that this minimum is required....OK now that is firmly cemented...


I think that The Free market anarchist could be completely wrong in every single one of their guesses about how this voluntary market might organize itself to prevent such a thing from happening. But even if they are, I feel that does not mean that a coercive centralizer monopoly of power is the solution. It just means that we need a free market in order to figure out what the solution is. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the free market employed ingenious solutions that have yet to even be conceived. We already know that the “solutions” offered by coercive centralized monopolies will always be one-size-fits-all and provided in a shortage or excess at a lower quality and higher price and, worse yet, increase the likelihood for totalitarianism and aggressive mass warfare, the very core argument again. But if we don’t know what a voluntary market’s solution would be, then that is a reason to try it out and see what happens, not to give up and simply pretend to know that the result will be worse than a state. I have laid out here only some simple suggestions they have made, they are just that suggestions, I think its fun to speculate on how it might work instead of just shutting it out. I don't think its fair to shut it out on some "hunch" rather without at least first devling into that deeper. Again theres one thing market anarchist and classical liberals can agree on is that the state is corrupt and non-agression principals as well so I think its fair to give it a try given the argument that a minimalist government will grow into a totalitarian eventually..

Click to expand...

The thing that annoys me about the road argument, is that people think we can't get rid of any taxes for the sake of the roads. they don't understand that their income tax doesn't go towards roads.

THINK OF THE ROADS!!!!!

OK, OK, let's settle down. Sheesh, everybody take a break.

I will once again reiterate....When the slaves were set free we didn't know who would pick the crops...this was argued endlessly.."But if men are free then how will we survive?" This is not a reason to disimiss liberty, we got our freedom and the crops were harvested...we made it.

question do we also pay for the street lights (repairs and electricity )that light all the roads and hwy or will we drive around fucked up roads in the dark.