-
What did I say about who can have weapons and for what reasons that was incorrect?
-
I completely disagree with Alessan. You don’t have to be a military veteran to not go off on shooting sprees at slightest provocation.
I guess I’m just not going to get answer for this, because Terr knows the answer is nothing.
I’m going to keep asking until I get an answer. Just to rub Terr’s nose in it.
“Axiomatic” appears to be another one of those tricky words, like “tautology.”
Oh, I get it. Terr wants to enjoy the currency of the society he’s draining resources from, but not give back a certain percentage of the society’s currency, under the laws of the land, so that it can function.
I choose to call that theft.
I agree with you. It’s axiomatic.
That’s gotta be the party’s new slogan: Libertarianism, it’s Axiomatic!™
Enjoy the circle jerk.
I think this is uncalled for and rude in this forum. If you have a point to make, then make it. If you disagree, then say so.
Again, this is not appropriate for this forum. Be civil or go to the Pit.
Enough. It’s one thing to make a point, it’s another to call attention to the fact that you’re trying to annoy someone.
I just want an answer to my questions, or admittance that he has no answers. They’re simple relevant questions. All he has to do is say “nothing”.
Also Terr, how do you plan to control invasive species in Libertaria? I’m guessing you feel if someone wants to put some Kudzu like plant on their property, then that’s their right? (even if it quickly gets out of control)
We have been through this, previously. (Once, rather loudly just over a month ago.) A poster who simply refuses to answer a question is, in fact, providing an answer. You may take it as a dismissal of your question or you may take it as an inability to answer your question. You may not, however, persistently continue to ask the same question. That is too close to stalking and harrassment for this sort of situation.
Feel free to declare yourself the “victor” in the exchange, but do not repeatedly ask a question–particularly for the sport of “rubbing [one’s] nose in it.”
[ /Moderating ]
I’m internally translating Terr’s parting remark as to what actually might be said in a Libertarian court when the defendant declares “The defense rests, your Honor.”
In libertopia if the small village decides an invasive species needs eradication, they gather their nickels and get rid of the problem on the local level only. In Libertopia everyone is an expert on all subjects, you only need common sense and good ol’ GUMPTION. 
And military veterans have not been trained just to avoid shooting each other. They are taught (even indoctrinated) to defend the common good, which may include the necessity of shooting someone given a set of circumstances defined by the society. Someone who, by their actions, has placed himself outside of society. Not just outside of a civil contract, but outside of society as a whole.
Being Israelis does, as Alessan says, make this duty to society even more significant.
Again with the barely provoked shooting sprees?
The rest of us were aghast at your statements that in your version of Libertopia, people would shoot each other as a matter of course, a default first response, for transgressions against your version of property rights and/or contract agreements, and this would be accepted by the populace and by whatever you fantasized the government to be. Your heavily armed population and what the rest of us see as a lack of societal controls (both government regulatory and sociological) over gunplay are what we believe would result in a much more violent society. Nice to see you agreeing that the resulting shooting sprees do indeed qualify as “barely provoked”. You’ve brought a whole new visual to the concept of “Get offa my lawn, you damn kids!”.
If that happens, why you just sue the Kudzu-originator. You end up owning his property!
It’s axiomatic!
The fact that his property is now worthless, just like your own, being buried under Kudzu and all, is apparently irrelevant from a Libertarian point of view.
Who came up with this “Libertopia” idea-contract lawyers?
Apparently not in Terr-o-topia. There, everybody just sort of “grows into” a comprehensive knowledge of contract law by the age of majority.
They’d have to; the number of two-party and multiple-party contracts necessary in his society, and the ongoing, probably almost daily need to renegotiate and modify them, would require that the relationship between population number and number of contract lawyers be 1 to 1.
If they don’t grow into that knowledge they either end up getting shot or enslaved. Win - win! It’s axiomatic!
(Sorry, but I’m still wiping the iced tea off my monitor and keyboard. Haven’t had this good a laugh in ages.)
I believe that Terr has opined that all contracts would be “boilerplate”, so really, nobody would have to worry about them much. They would all be standard contracts, short and to the point, very fairly written in plain English, so we would not even need any lawyers!
And also, everyone would get a pony.
You nearly had me convinced with that “short and to the point, very fairly written in plain English” part. I was ready to accept the whole concept, hook, line and axiom. But you gave the game away when you tossed in that pony part. TANSTAAF-- er, ah --P(ony).
Instead of playing cowboys and indians, or cops and robbers, kids would play civil court. And court tv dramas would be accurate and educational! And schoolkids would sue their teachers for higher grades – and, by winning the lawsuits, they would, logically, justify those higher grades!
Yeah! It’s all taken care of by the invisible hand!
Grin! Me too… I love it when people declare victory by assertion. I’m right because that’s just the way the universe works! It’s the bare minimum of circular arguments: all done in one step!
The sad thing is that there are good and rational arguments to be made for some limits on government. We don’t want the government to be able to condemn property via eminent domain too easily. The Supreme Court decision over that, and subsequent limitations by federal and state governments, is a solid example. A specific government power was seen as too intrusive, and was rolled back a bit.
And, yes, I am still sympathetic to such moderate libertarian arguments as repealing motorcycle helmet laws, or the repeal of laws requiring us to wear seat belts while driving. I don’t agree with such repeals, but I don’t reject the arguments as absurd on their face.
But the idea that all government could be replaced by mutual agreement and contract laws… That’s absurd on its face. Axiomatically!
Trinopus