What is the Non-Aggression Principle?

A fairly good definition, of how I try to make decisions in life, in terms of what I support politically. It explains where I come from, and why I seem to be an odd duck bashing a statist like Trump one minute, and then supporting one of his ideas the next.


Libertarianism is based on a single ideal, the non-aggression principle, so libertarian rhetoric tends to be remarkably consistent. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. They reject “first-strike” force, fraud or theft against others; they only use force in self-defense. Those who violate this “non-aggression principle” are expected to make their victims whole as much as possible. This “Good Neighbor Policy” is what most of us were taught as children. We were told not to lie, cheat, steal, not to strike our playmates unless they hit us first. If we broke a friend’s toy, we were expected to replace it.

Most of us still practice what we learned as children with other individuals, but we have grown accustomed to letting government aggress against others when we think we benefit. Consequently, our world is full of poverty and strife, instead of the harmony and abundance that freedom (i.e., freedom from aggression) brings.

Simply put, libertarians take the non-aggression principle that most people implicitly follow in their interactions with other individuals, and apply it to group actions, including government actions, as well.

You might have heard the Libertarian Party (LP) referred to as the “Party of Principle.” This is because the LP bases its programs and policy positions on the non-aggression principle.


https://www.theadvocates.org/aggression/

Libertarianism has it's dark side as well...

*   Can't find a job --  we can enslave you and make you labour for us;

*   Poor and homeless ?   Go away and starve..

*   Disabled ?  If your family is wealthy enough they can look after you;  if not,  go away and starve..

*   Police and emergency services and armies are there to protect the property of those who subscribe to them  --  if you can't afford to join us, then stand aside or be run over..

*   You don't seem to be using those resources ?  We want them..  Our army is bigger than yours, so stand aside or get run over.          

It's literally a caveman level policy..

So no Profits either than? Profit is a strike first theft.
Literally profit is the difference in value between the good or service and what your willing to supply it to someone that needs it.

Libertarianism is fine words constructed to be meaningless drivel to justify watching your fellow citizen starve or die of treatable illnesses

veya_victaous wrote:It's literally a caveman level policy..

So no Profits either than? Profit is a strike first theft.
Literally profit is the difference in value between the good or service and what your willing to supply it to someone that needs it.

Libertarianism is fine words constructed to be meaningless drivel to justify watching your fellow citizen starve or die of treatable illnesses

Of course you can have profits. Ever hear of Anarcho-Capitalism?

And there are entities besides the government that help other people. In fact, there are other entities far better at helping people than the government.

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work
If your profiting you are stealing value of me by exploiting my need, so that justifies taking it of you because if your going to steal than i can steal from you.
You still need a police force, or a private protection force that of course leads to a tit for tat armament of society.

And NO as seen by the USA in comparison the other western nation with a nationalized heath care system the government is better at helping ensure a minimum standard of living.

veya_victaous wrote:Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work
If your profiting you are stealing value of me by exploiting my need, so that justifies taking it of you because if your going to steal than i can steal from you.
You still need a police force, or a private protection force that of course leads to a tit for tat armament of society.

And NO as seen by the USA in comparison the other western nation with a nationalized heath care system the government is better at helping ensure a minimum standard of living.

Capitalism, has always worked far better than any form economy

If you think I am exploiting your needs, then you must be a failure to think you cannot make money.

I mean look how ridiculous your statements is, that you expect everyone, to be of the same mindset of you.

Look at how the best form of Marxism was. Pol Pot

What you and other lefties still fail to understand is how actually capitalism does more to solve poverty, than socialism does.

The worst part is you want to engineer humans a certain way, just as communism did and forget, people hated it.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:It's literally a caveman level policy..

So no Profits either than? Profit is a strike first theft.
Literally profit is the difference in value between the good or service and what your willing to supply it to someone that needs it.

Libertarianism is fine words constructed to be meaningless drivel to justify watching your fellow citizen starve or die of treatable illnesses

Of course you can have profits. Ever hear of Anarcho-Capitalism?

And there are entities besides the government that help other people. In fact, there are other entities far better at helping people than the government.

Charities and churches cannot successfully replace government-regulated welfare systems...

It is far too easy for charities and churches to favour specific groups, families and individuals, often ignoring the most needy among them..

The USA is a clear case in point --  have a look at how hard done by the disabled, the poor, the disadvantaged are --  30 million can't afford health cover, thousands of war veterans are homeless, half your disabled and handicapped citizens can't get the proper help, so much unnecessary  homelessness in the richest country on the planet.

And when these home_truths are pointed out to the Republicans and the Libertarians and the Anarchists,  their reply is usually along the lines that "It's the poors' fault for being poor" and "it's not the governments role to look after the poor, the disabled, the homeless and the unemployed  !"

It is often said that the true worth of a society is shown by how they treat the most disadvantaged among their number..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Of course you can have profits. Ever hear of Anarcho-Capitalism?

And there are entities besides the government that help other people. In fact, there are other entities far better at helping people than the government.

Charities and churches cannot successfully replace government-regulated welfare systems...

It is far too easy for charities and churches to favour specific groups, families and infividuals, often ignoring the most needy among them..

The USA is a clear case in point --  have a look at how hard done by the disabled, the poor, the disadvantaged are --  30 million can't afford health cover, thousands of war veterans are homeless, half your disabled and handicapped citizens can't get the proper help, so much unnecessary  homelessness in the richest country on the planet.

And when these home_truths are pointed out to the Repiblicans and the Libertarians and the Anarchists,  their reply is usually along the lines that "It's the poors' gault for being poor" and "it's not the governments role to look after the poor, the disabled, the homeless and the unemployed  !"

It is often said that the true worth of a society is shown by how they treat the most disadvantaged among their number..

Well said wolf man. Have a thingy.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work
If your profiting you are stealing value of me by exploiting my need, so that justifies taking it of you because if your going to steal than i can steal from you.
You still need a police force, or a private protection force that of course leads to a tit for tat armament of society.

And NO as seen by the USA in comparison the other western nation with a nationalized heath care system the government is better at helping ensure a minimum standard of living.

Capitalism, has always worked far better than any form economy

If you think I am exploiting your needs, then you must be a failure to think you cannot make money.

I mean look how ridiculous your statements is, that you expect everyone, to be of the same mindset of you.

Look at how the best form of Marxism was. Pol Pot

What you and other lefties still fail to understand is how actually capitalism does more to solve poverty, than socialism does.

The worst part is you want to engineer humans a certain way, just as communism did and forget, people hated it.

Outright and total bullshit, Dodge...

Name just one pure 'free market' capitalist society that looks after its most disadvantaged and downtrodden citizens well..

Exploitation and pure greed is at the core of unbridled and unfettered capitalism.

P.S. Pol Pot was not a good example of a "Marxist", butmrather was a totalitarian uneducated criminal dictator.. Nor are veya or Eilzel examples of "Marxist communists"..

You really should learn a little about economic systems some day -- rather than simply and ignorantly regurgitating total crap from your favourite alt.right and zionist blogsites

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Capitalism, has always worked far better than any form economy

If you think I am exploiting your needs, then you must be a failure to think you cannot make money.

I mean look how ridiculous your statements is, that you expect everyone, to be of the same mindset of you.

Look at how the best form of Marxism was. Pol Pot

What you and other lefties still fail to understand is how actually capitalism does more to solve poverty, than socialism does.

The worst part is you want to engineer humans a certain way, just as communism did and forget, people hated it.

Outright and total bullshit, Dodge...

Name just one pure 'free market' capitalist society that looks after its most disadvantaged and downtrodden citizens well..

Exploitation and pure greed is at the core of unbridled and unfettered capitalism.

The whole of the EU

By the way Pol Pot was the most perfect example of Maxism to date

A society that tries to make people alll equal

It had to eradicate the educated

Have you even read Marx's ideas and how racists he was?

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work
If your profiting you are stealing value of me by exploiting my need, so that justifies taking it of you because if your going to steal than i can steal from you.
You still need a police force, or a private protection force that of course leads to a tit for tat armament of society.

And NO as seen by the USA in comparison the other western nation with a nationalized heath care system the government is better at helping ensure a minimum standard of living.

Capitalism, has always worked far better than any form economy

If you think I am exploiting your needs, then you must be a failure to think you cannot make money.

I mean look how ridiculous your statements is, that you expect everyone, to be of the same mindset of you.

Look at how the best form of Marxism was. Pol Pot

What you and other lefties still fail to understand is how actually capitalism does more to solve poverty, than socialism does.

The worst part is you want to engineer humans a certain way, just as communism did and forget, people hated it.

Capitalism isn't Anarcho-Capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of self-ownership, private property, and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that, in the absence of statute (law by centralized decrees and legislation), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the discipline of the free market (in what its proponents describe as a voluntary society).[3][4]

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:

Capitalism, has always worked far better than any form economy

If you think I am exploiting your needs, then you must be a failure to think you cannot make money.

I mean look how ridiculous your statements is, that you expect everyone, to be of the same mindset of you.

Look at how the best form of Marxism was. Pol Pot

What you and other lefties still fail to understand is how actually capitalism does more to solve poverty, than socialism does.

The worst part is you want to engineer humans a certain way, just as communism did and forget, people hated it.

Capitalism isn't Anarcho-Capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of self-ownership, private property, and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that, in the absence of statute (law by centralized decrees and legislation), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the discipline of the free market (in what its proponents describe as a voluntary society).[3][4]

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

When did I say anything on Anarcho-Capitalism?

When did I say anything About Capitalism?

Your rant is meaningless since I never said Capitalism doesn't work, I said Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work. If there is no state law and law enforcement etc is simply private armies, capitalist mechanism wouldn't work since it reduces society to a 'might is right' scenario.

veya_victaous wrote:When did I say anything About Capitalism?

Your rant is meaningless since I never said Capitalism doesn't work, I said Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work. If there is no state law and law enforcement etc is simply private armies, capitalist mechanism wouldn't work since it reduces society to a 'might is right' scenario.

It seems to be the left trade mark, claim any response is a rant

Solcialism, has never worked, yet capitalism, has worked.

Its a no brainer really

Capitalism has faults that is for sure, but socialism, is pure evil.

Millions have died and suffered under such systems.

It should be placed alongside Nazism, as one of the great evils in history.

I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

Yeah Socialist policies like Public health care and Education are pure evil

But still your rant has nothing to do with this thread since we are not talking about capitalism versus socialism, we are talking about Anarcho-capitalism versus Mixed-Market (economies like Australia and the UK)

veya_victaous wrote:Yeah Socialist policies like Public health care and Education are pure evil        

But still your rant has nothing to do with this thread since we are not talking about capitalism versus socialism, we are talking about Anarcho-capitalism versus Mixed-Market (economies like Australia and the UK)

Why do the left constantly talk bollocks?

Where in the socialist bible, does it say about the NHS for example?

Health care and education came about under Captalist, Monarchies or theocratic systems.

Not socialism

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

because the core of the idea is NO Public services

that's a terrible idea, as proven by reality, Nations with higher public services have higher standards of living overall.
It's a good idea if your a multi-billion dollar corporation that doesn't want to have to pay tax or conform to any government regulations

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

because the core of the idea is NO Public services

that's a terrible idea, as proven by reality, Nations with higher public services have higher standards of living overall.
It's a good idea if your a multi-billion dollar corporation that doesn't want to have to pay tax or conform to any government regulations

So capatlist countries you mean, like Denmark?

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Yeah Socialist policies like Public health care and Education are pure evil        

But still your rant has nothing to do with this thread since we are not talking about capitalism versus socialism, we are talking about Anarcho-capitalism versus Mixed-Market (economies like Australia and the UK)

Why do the left constantly talk bollocks?

Where in the socialist bible, does it say about the NHS for example?

Health care and education came about under Captalist, Monarchies or theocratic systems.

Not socialism

There has never been a full capitalist society, the closet thing to pure capitalism is the black market, we are all mixed-market economies.
The economic model of using public taxation to fund education or health or any Public service is socialist. Under Pure capitalism (which Anarcho-capitalism is) all would be supplied by for profit corporations.
And under most other systems education has been pay to use or of religious doctrine.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

because the core of the idea is NO Public services

that's a terrible idea, as proven by reality, Nations with higher public services have higher standards of living overall.
It's a good idea if your a multi-billion dollar corporation that doesn't want to have to pay tax or conform to any government regulations

So capatlist countries you mean, like Denmark?

Are you fucking stupid?

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT CAPITALISM !!!!

IF you can't follow a thread don't post

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why do the left constantly talk bollocks?

Where in the socialist bible, does it say about the NHS for example?

Health care and education came about under Captalist, Monarchies or theocratic systems.

Not socialism

There has never been a full capitalist society, the closet thing to pure capitalism is the black market, we are all mixed-market economies.
The economic model of using public taxation to fund education or health or any Public service is socialist. Under Pure capitalism (which Anarcho-capitalism is) all would be supplied by for profit corporations.
And under most other systems education has been pay to use or of religious doctrine.

Again gibberish, when many countries have capatalist systems.

The view its not a full capitalist system, is avoding the reailty, that they do function on Capitalism..

@ Dodge...

Why do you keep on using alt.right/neo-nazi websites and propaganda videos to support your anti-social/pro-corporatist rants  ???

All you are doing is further demonstrating your economic ignorance..

P.S.  'Yaron Brook' is a clueless and uneducated Tory_suckup dickhead.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

@ Dodge...

Why do you keep on using alt.right/neo-nazi websites and propaganda videos to support your anti-social/pro-corporatist rants  ???

All you are doing is further demonstrating your economic ignorance..

P.S.  'Yaron Brook' is a clueless and uneducated Tory_suckup dickhead.

Which shows how clueless you are.

Please show me one link I have posted that is Alt-right or neo-nazi you fucking retard?

You think anyone right of Pol Pot is a nazi, you pathetic wetwipe

You continually daily make yourself look a complete twat

Yaron Brook is Jewish you retard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaron_Brook

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Of course you can have profits. Ever hear of Anarcho-Capitalism?

And there are entities besides the government that help other people. In fact, there are other entities far better at helping people than the government.

Charities and churches cannot successfully replace government-regulated welfare systems...

It is far too easy for charities and churches to favour specific groups, families and individuals, often ignoring the most needy among them..

The USA is a clear case in point --  have a look at how hard done by the disabled, the poor, the disadvantaged are --  30 million can't afford health cover, thousands of war veterans are homeless, half your disabled and handicapped citizens can't get the proper help, so much unnecessary  homelessness in the richest country on the planet.

And when these home_truths are pointed out to the Republicans and the Libertarians and the Anarchists,  their reply is usually along the lines that "It's the poors' fault for being poor" and "it's not the governments role to look after the poor, the disabled, the homeless and the unemployed  !"

It is often said that the true worth of a society is shown by how they treat the most disadvantaged among their number..

It's often the governments fault for keeping people poor. It's good for the people in government.

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

Because people love the use of force against others, when it's being used to further their ideas.

Live and let live is a foreign concept to most people anymore. They have been indoctrinated to believe the State should enforce certain ideas instead of protecting people's ability to have them. The left and the right just argue about what others should be forced to do.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

Because people love the use of force against others, when it's being used to further their ideas.  

Live and let live is a foreign concept to most people anymore.  They have been indoctrinated to believe the State should enforce certain ideas instead of protecting people's ability to have them.  The left and the right just argue about what others should be forced to do.  

A typical anarchist's approach to their critics when they don't actually have any answers to those valid 'real world' criticisms...

"Shoot the messengers" instead,  rather than address those criticisms..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Because people love the use of force against others, when it's being used to further their ideas.  

Live and let live is a foreign concept to most people anymore.  They have been indoctrinated to believe the State should enforce certain ideas instead of protecting people's ability to have them.  The left and the right just argue about what others should be forced to do.  

A typical anarchist's approach to their critics when they don't actually have any answers to those valid 'real world' criticisms...

"Shoot the messengers" instead,  rather than address those criticisms..

I'm not an anarchist. I just know that government is force and something that is very dangerous. History has proven as much.

You think it's the solution to everything. It's cool. I don't want the government to force you to agree with me.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


A typical anarchist's approach to their critics when they don't actually have any answers to those valid 'real world' criticisms...

"Shoot the messengers" instead,  rather than address those criticisms..

I'm not an anarchist. I just know that government is force and something that is very dangerous.  History has proven as much.  

You think it's the solution to everything.  It's cool.  I don't want the government to force you to agree with me.  

Nobody here has even suggested that gov't regulation and necessary oversights is a "solution to everything..";   but rather consider it a necessary evil in a half-civilised world...

What has been pointed out several times over, is that so many important areas --  such little things as environmental concerns, defence, pollution, human rights, workers' rights, social cohesion and public safety, health care, education, looking after the poor and the disabled, 'fair' trade, and so on --  would be that much worse off, if left to market forces and 'laissez faire' attitudes..

At the core of "Libertarian" principles is that "the central responsibilty of government is the protection of private property.." --  in other words, genuine 'Libertarians' believe in the liberty and freedom of wealthier and stronger people to screw over the poorer and weaker members of society, snd the environment in general, while no tax dollars should ever be spent on education, healthcare or advancing the quality of life for the community as a whole in a "libertarian" society.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why do the left constantly talk bollocks?

Where in the socialist bible, does it say about the NHS for example?

Health care and education came about under Captalist, Monarchies or theocratic systems.

Not socialism

There has never been a full capitalist society, the closet thing to pure capitalism is the black market, we are all mixed-market economies.
The economic model of using public taxation to fund education or health or any Public service is socialist. Under Pure capitalism (which Anarcho-capitalism is) all would be supplied by for profit corporations.
And under most other systems education has been pay to use or of religious doctrine.

Again gibberish, when many countries have capatalist systems.

The view its not a full capitalist system, is avoding the reailty, that they do function on Capitalism..

IF you don't understand economics has more than 2 economy types than yes they are capitalist BUT
IF you are having an advanced discussion like maddog and myself then you would refer to the dozens of types of economic systems that fall in between. Anarcho-Capitalism which maddog suggested is arguably the most extreme form of capitalism, I do not rate it compared to the Mixed market economies we already have Particularly the ones that are in the more socialist side of the mixed market spectrum (that includes Australia, UK and Scandinavian countries) The US is already on the Capitalist end of the mixed market spectrum. (the best example of this is health care: ours is state funded and the majority of hospitals owned by the state, yet even Obama care is just Subsidizes heath insurance with care and facilities outsourced to Private enterprise)

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


A typical anarchist's approach to their critics when they don't actually have any answers to those valid 'real world' criticisms...

"Shoot the messengers" instead,  rather than address those criticisms..

I'm not an anarchist. I just know that government is force and something that is very dangerous.  History has proven as much.  

You think it's the solution to everything.  It's cool.  I don't want the government to force you to agree with me.  

Nobody here has even suggested that gov't regulation and necessary oversights is a "solution to everything..";   but rather consider it a necessary evil in a half-civilised world...

What has been pointed out several times over, is that so many important areas --  such little things as environmental concerns, defence, pollution, human rights, workers' rights, social cohesion and public safety, health care, education, looking after the poor and the disabled, 'fair' trade, and so on --  would be that much worse off, if left to market forces and 'laissez faire' attitudes..

At the core of "Libertarian" principles is that "the central responsibilty of government is the protection of private property.." --  in other words, genuine 'Libertarians' believe in the liberty and freedom of wealthier and stronger people to screw over the poorer and weaker members of society, snd the environment in general, while no tax dollars should ever be spent on education, healthcare or advancing the quality of life for the community as a whole in a "libertarian" society.

100% agree

veya_victaous wrote:Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work
If your profiting you are stealing value of me by exploiting my need, so that justifies taking it of you because if your going to steal than i can steal from you.
You still need a police force, or a private protection force that of course leads to a tit for tat armament of society.

And NO as seen by the USA in comparison the other western nation with a nationalized heath care system the government is better at helping ensure a minimum standard of living.

in that case...why would I make (or do) anything for you.....

what do YOU think YOU can do as a fair means of exchange? few on here could offer me anything I cant already do for myself, (except perhaps wolfie...he's got HUNNY....yum) and the rest requires a corporate structure to make...i.e electronic goods (at least the components therof...I CAN build a computer from component level (i.e. chips and resistors level) I CANT make the chips etc.... but what could YOU offer me that I cant already do for myself eh veya....what skills have YOU got that is relevant to me that I could take in exchange??? profit...is that proportion of the cost to you that pays for MY time and skills in making said item........that then allows ME to pay someone to do something for me....and it wont be something YOU could do as a "return favour"

you are the archetypical "want it all shoved up your ass. the world owes me a livng spoilt brat."
indeed a snowflake.

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

The question that MUST be asked when talking of libertarianism, is who stands to gain the most.

How does it help low income earners?
How does it help average people who get stricken with terminal illnesses?
How does it help million dollar corporations?
How does it help the wealthy?
How does it help students?
How does it help consumers?
How does it help the environment?
And so on.

Veya basically touched on it already; but which of the above gains the most? Which would lose out?

Then you see why we should be wary of libertarianism.

Some good posts Wolf, Veya and Elizel - +1 for all of you.

Maddog good thread +1

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

The question that MUST be asked when talking of libertarianism, is who stands to gain the most.

How does it help low income earners?
How does it help average people who get stricken with terminal illnesses?
How does it help million dollar corporations?
How does it help the wealthy?
How does it help students?
How does it help consumers?
How does it help the environment?
And so on.

Veya basically touched on it already; but which of the above gains the most? Which would lose out?

Then you see why we should be wary of libertarianism.

It helps by not aggressing against them. I thought the title was sorta self explanatory.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not an anarchist. I just know that government is force and something that is very dangerous.  History has proven as much.  

You think it's the solution to everything.  It's cool.  I don't want the government to force you to agree with me.  

Nobody here has even suggested that gov't regulation and necessary oversights is a "solution to everything..";   but rather consider it a necessary evil in a half-civilised world...

What has been pointed out several times over, is that so many important areas --  such little things as environmental concerns, defence, pollution, human rights, workers' rights, social cohesion and public safety, health care, education, looking after the poor and the disabled, 'fair' trade, and so on --  would be that much worse off, if left to market forces and 'laissez faire' attitudes..

At the core of "Libertarian" principles is that "the central responsibilty of government is the protection of private property.." --  in other words, genuine 'Libertarians' believe in the liberty and freedom of wealthier and stronger people to screw over the poorer and weaker members of society, snd the environment in general, while no tax dollars should ever be spent on education, healthcare or advancing the quality of life for the community as a whole in a "libertarian" society.

You support government aggression at levels far higher than I do. That's what this thread is all about. Lowering levels of state mandated force against it's citizens.

The problem is, is you are trying to disguise aggression as help to make yourself feel better.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Nobody here has even suggested that gov't regulation and necessary oversights is a "solution to everything..";   but rather consider it a necessary evil in a half-civilised world...

What has been pointed out several times over, is that so many important areas --  such little things as environmental concerns, defence, pollution, human rights, workers' rights, social cohesion and public safety, health care, education, looking after the poor and the disabled, 'fair' trade, and so on --  would be that much worse off, if left to market forces and 'laissez faire' attitudes..

At the core of "Libertarian" principles is that "the central responsibilty of government is the protection of private property.." --  in other words, genuine 'Libertarians' believe in the liberty and freedom of wealthier and stronger people to screw over the poorer and weaker members of society, snd the environment in general, while no tax dollars should ever be spent on education, healthcare or advancing the quality of life for the community as a whole in a "libertarian" society.

You support government aggression at levels far higher than I do.  That's what this thread is all about. Lowering levels of state mandated force against it's citizens.  

The problem is, is you are trying to disguise aggression as help to make yourself feel better.  

Bull cookies.

So tell me, what mandated forces against you would you like to see lowered?

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You support government aggression at levels far higher than I do.  That's what this thread is all about. Lowering levels of state mandated force against it's citizens.  

The problem is, is you are trying to disguise aggression as help to make yourself feel better.  

Bull cookies.

So tell me, what mandated forces against you would you like to see lowered?

Most of the ones that agress against people.who are not harming others.

Have some sort of consistant guide or philosphy that you live by. The NAP is a good one.

In a nut shell, it says gay married people should be allowed to protect their pot plants with assault weapons. Neither the left or the right can embrace that position because one of those positions offends or scares them.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Bull cookies.

So tell me, what mandated forces against you would you like to see lowered?

Most of the ones that agress against people.who are not harming others.  

Have some sort of consistant guide or philosphy that you live by. The NAP is a good one.  

In a nut shell, it says gay married people should be allowed to protect their pot plants with assault weapons.  Neither the left or the right can embrace that position because one of those positions offends or scares them.  

NAP?

Oh come on. You can give me a better example than that. I know I’m a girl but I can take it

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Most of the ones that agress against people.who are not harming others.  

Have some sort of consistant guide or philosphy that you live by. The NAP is a good one.  

In a nut shell, it says gay married people should be allowed to protect their pot plants with assault weapons.  Neither the left or the right can embrace that position because one of those positions offends or scares them.  

NAP?

Oh come on. You can give me a better example than that. I know I’m a girl but I can take it

The NAP is what this thread is all about.

It's short for non aggression principle. It's a guideline to treat people fairly and equally and to refrain from using force against them except in self defense. Read the original post.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

NAP?

Oh come on. You can give me a better example than that. I know I’m a girl but I can take it

The NAP is what this thread is all about.

It's short for non aggression principle. It's a guideline to treat people fairly and equally and to refrain from using force against them except in self defense.  Read the original post.  

Ok duh. You got me. Cold medicine blurring my brain.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again gibberish, when many countries have capatalist systems.

The view its not a full capitalist system, is avoding the reailty, that they do function on Capitalism..

IF you don't understand economics has more than 2 economy types than yes they are capitalist BUT
IF you are having an advanced discussion like maddog and myself then you would refer to the dozens of types of economic systems that fall in between. Anarcho-Capitalism which maddog suggested is arguably the most extreme form of capitalism, I do not rate it compared to the Mixed market  economies we already have Particularly the ones that are in the more socialist side of the mixed market spectrum (that includes Australia, UK and Scandinavian countries) The US is already on the Capitalist end of the mixed market spectrum. (the best example of this is health care: ours is state funded and the majority of hospitals owned by the state, yet even Obama care is just Subsidizes heath insurance with care and facilities outsourced to Private enterprise)

Advanced conversation?

Oh my

Again the point has gone so badly over your head, its rocketed the moon.

The reality is this and I never denied there is many forms of Capitalism and even the US is not a complete Capitalist system. No country is but the vast majority are based on working capitalist system. 

I have never even claimed capiltalistic systems are perfect. They are far from it, but they have always advanced societies and led to the abilities of social care.

No system on socialism, has ever worked. This is self evident and the closet working system to Maxism, was the Khmer Rouge

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I think there is something to be said though, in Maddog's post. Why has everyone fucked it off without exploring the idea in a new way?

The question that MUST be asked when talking of libertarianism, is who stands to gain the most.

How does it help low income earners?
How does it help average people who get stricken with terminal illnesses?
How does it help million dollar corporations?
How does it help the wealthy?
How does it help students?
How does it help consumers?
How does it help the environment?
And so on.

Veya basically touched on it already; but which of the above gains the most? Which would lose out?

Then you see why we should be wary of libertarianism.

It helps by not aggressing against them. I thought the title was sorta self explanatory.  

The view of libertarians, as I understand it, is to remove government involvement from most areas of life as much as possible.

While some libertarians see the result being some sort of utopia (not at all disimilar to the communist extreme- real anarchism) where everyone is free to get on with their own life without any interference from the state, the truth is the world is not and never will be structured to support that kind if system to the benefit of all.

A few are far better placed to 'look after themselves' than others. Nothing is more telling of that than any country without a decent nationalised healthcare system.

So again, who would inevitably gain the most?

Interesting Eddie.

As its due to capitalism, that we have the finanaces that you even have an education, a health care system and social security.

Nasty capitalism eh

Didge wrote:Interesting Eddie.

As its due to capitalism, that we have the finanaces that you even have an education, a health care system and social security.

Nasty capitalism eh

That's not entirely true, is it.

While we have a capitalist market economy, it is socialist principles brought social security, the NHS and free education for all. If the UK was purely capitalist, we'd have to pay directly for all those things.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:Interesting Eddie.

As its due to capitalism, that we have the finanaces that you even have an education, a health care system and social security.

Nasty capitalism eh

That's not entirely true, is it.

While we have a capitalist market economy, it is socialist principles brought social security, the NHS and free education for all. If the UK was purely capitalist, we'd have to pay directly for all those things.

But how would you have implemented these system, without the wealth?
No socialist policy introdcued free education by the way

Nobody said it was purely capitalist either.

I am saying, that when people berate Capitalism, they should remind themselves that it is because of the wealth generated that such policies we have to today, could only have gotten off the ground due to this.

Its also the wealth generated by capitalism, that continues to maintain these systems.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:Interesting Eddie.

As its due to capitalism, that we have the finanaces that you even have an education, a health care system and social security.

Nasty capitalism eh

That's not entirely true, is it.

While we have a capitalist market economy, it is socialist principles brought social security, the NHS and free education for all. If the UK was purely capitalist, we'd have to pay directly for all those things.

That's the welfare state, which is funded by capitalism. The better capitalism works, the more welfare the state can distribute. Socialism is the state controlling the means of production.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It helps by not aggressing against them. I thought the title was sorta self explanatory.  

The view of libertarians, as I understand it, is to remove government involvement from most areas of life as much as possible.

While some libertarians see the result being some sort of utopia (not at all disimilar to the communist extreme- real anarchism) where everyone is free to get on with their own life without any interference from the state, the truth is the world is not and never will be structured to support that kind if system to the benefit of all.

A few are far better placed to 'look after themselves' than others. Nothing is more telling of that than any country without a decent nationalised healthcare system.

So again, who would inevitably gain the most?

Everyone that wanted more freedom.