Wasn’t there someone at UC Berkely who actually did get away with running around buck naked all day long?
Arrg I just wasted an hour and a HALF now typing page after page on this subject. And I forgot I don’t freaking care. And yet I keep typing 
Nobody acts with the GROUPs best interests in heart. They act with their own best interests. It’s basic human nature, it hasn’t changed in 10,000 years. It’ll probably be around for another 10,000. Unfortunate sure, but overall makes life a lot more amusing.
It makes an interesting arguement to repeal tax laws. But you’re stuck with the problem of trying to enforce what laws to exist with no money, except what people will voluntarilly will give up.
If the government didn’t threaten to throw us in jail for not paying taxes, NOBODY WOULD. But the second the cops don’t show up to stop a mass murderer from killing a family everyone yells. The same can be implied to a WHOLE mess of other situations. It’s those sticking points that turns Libertaria to Libertopia. Because it’s largely the same Utopian society idea that’s been kicked around by people for the last 400-odd years, with different names and definitions.
One interesting situation kept comming up when we discussed this halfbaked society in college.
Take age of consent regulations:
At what age is someone allowed to make decisions regarding what they can consent to? And if you make a law regarding when someone is allowed to act freely, are you then removing freedom from people? And itsn’t that against the Libertarian’s stance?
It’s a nasty catch 22. Do you remove rights from people because there is a chance that they are unable to act in their own best interests?
Libertropolis?
Libberry, R.F.D.?
Liberdale?
Union of Libertarian-Lovin’ States?
Liberdonia?
Libersylvania?
Liberandonionia?
It won’t have any name. People will just call it whatever they want. I prefer to call it “Herb.”
excellent point.
I think (and I’m not searching to find out) that I’ve stayed mostly out of the Libertaria threads, and this is probably not the thread in which to ask the question, but still -
While it seems that citizens of Libertaria would be free from governmental (and perhaps physical) coercion, it seems that they would very much be victims of economic coercion. Am I misinterpreting how things would potentially work?
Dewey, your source for news of the nekkid…
Dewey:
I once spent 5-6 pages debating Libertian about Liberopolis. The bottom line is that in the face of anunswerable objection Libertarion dissembles, poses, plays hurt or otherwise does whatever it takes to evade an acknowledgement of error or illogic.
There’s been a pattern of this behavior when getting Lib over the idea that creationism was a valid theory, That atheists aren’t all scum, and that nobody ever said “Up the Butt, Bob,” on the dating game.
Libertarian’s beleif in Libertarianism however is not logic or reason based. It’s faith based.
Libertarian knows in his heart that Libertarianism is emminently practical and therefore any question or evidence to the contrary must be flawed or disingenuous.
So if you want a satisfying debate on Libertarianism, you need to go elsewhere.
Well of course not. It was on The Newlywed Game (and the quote was slightly different).
Scylla, if we refused to engage posters solely because they held their beliefs dogmatically even if the face of overwhelming evidence, there’d be a much narrower pool of people around here to discuss things with. 
amarinth: While it seems that citizens of Libertaria would be free from governmental (and perhaps physical) coercion, it seems that they would very much be victims of economic coercion. Am I misinterpreting how things would potentially work?
IMHO, no, but IANALibertarian. I think most libertarians would object to the use of the term “coercion” except for flat-out illegal force or fraud. I think most of them would also maintain that the freer structure of Libertaria would make it easier for people to avoid economically coercive situations. I don’t buy it, but to be fair, it’s not like we’ve managed to eliminate economic coercion in our own society either.
We’re not Trekkies, we’re Trekkers, dammit!
[hijack]
That’s a lie and you know it, unless you have an exceptionally narrow definition of ‘drive-by posts’.
[/hijack]
This thread surprised me a great deal. I’m not a very experienced poster, and so my previous post was out of synch with the thread I posted it in. I assumed no one had really noticed it because of that.
But lo! a new thread is born!
It seems to me that Libertarian is more concerned with Dewey’s tone than with Dewey’s arguments. While discussions of tone can be important, I think it’s bad pool to spend so much time arguing about tone that you ignore content. And so let’s hear some content.
Is the scenario I borrowed from Dewey a realistic description of what might happen in Liberteria?
Oh by all means, discuss. Just remember not to waste any courtesy patience or respect on them.
Have a happy meltdown, Lib.
Hey, back the heck off, Demo. People have made some good points about the double-standard on rhetoric and tone, but that’s a million miles away from a meltdown. The man’s got a different perspective from you and me and Scylla, but that’s no reason for you to start tossing around one-line insults like that.
Sheesh, can we just kill this thread and talk about the real issues in GD?
Hey, there’s an s in your name, isn’t there?
(Backing off).
This is not the thread you are looking for.
We can go about our business.
Move along.
I’d be all for it, but it sadly does not seem one is able to disagree with Libertarian without being accused of mocking him.
I, for one, am disappointed. I find him interesting, but I’m not about to grant him any special latitude because he is the sensitive sort, or pretend to agree or understand where I do not.