But what about the roads? Common argument against Libertarian/Anarchy Debunked.
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Because almost nobody wants to move there. They don't have people swarming them by the millions.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the Original Poster (mssr Deprave) has made several untenable assumptions
ill deal with the main one. libertatians = anarchists
thats a whole basket full of wrong there. Libertarians believe that every man has the same rights, and as long as those rights do not intersect at cross purposes, then government should keep out of their business, when two or more individual's rights conflict, then government's role is to arbitrate the dispute to ensure the least infringement for all concerned.
Example: bob breeds racehorses his neighbor tom has a plowhorse. one day tom's plowhorse kicks a hole in bob's fence and nails the shit out of one of bob's prized mares. Bob is upset, and insists that tom pay him for the repairs to the fence, for the financial burden of tending his mare while it gestates a racing plowhorse, and then tom must buy the racing plowhorse offspring at the same price bob gets for his racehorses. bob thinks this is a keen idea. tom disagrees.
tom feels he should not pay for bob's shitty fence that was already falling down, bob should accept that ponies gonna pony, and his mare was asking for it, and was kind of a slut already, and bob should pay tom stud fees for gifting bob's mare with his horse's strong, virile, and potent seed.
the courts (government) must now adjudicate a solution to this dispute which will hopefully result in a fair resolution. other than that, the government should let tom and bob do their thing without interference or heavy taxation.
Libertarian Solution: bob and tom split the cost of the fence, tom pays bob for the feed and care related to the gestation and birth, tom pays bob a nominal fee after the colt is old enough to leave it's mother, the racing plowhorse colt is now tom's responsibility, and he has the fastest plowhorse in the county.
Legalist Solution: both men sue and counter sue each other until both go broke paying court's and lawyer's fees.the government seizes their land and sells it to a multinational corporation who builds their US headquarters for their Shipping Jobs to China Division, and rung the whole thing at a loss for tax purposes.
Socialist Solution: the plowhorse and mare are both siezed, killed, and boiled into glue, tom and bob are sent to gulag in siberia, and the premier builds his new dacha on what was formerly their land.
Democratic Socialist Solution: a blue ribbon panel is convened to examine the feasibility of racing plowhorses generating clean green energy to fight global warming, ten years and $50 million later the results are inconclusive, and the whole program is scrapped, all the racing plowhorses are killed and their bodies left to rot on tom and bob's land.
Neo-Con Solution: Blame democrats
Liberal Democrat Solution: blame ronald reagan or ron paul
Anarchist Solution: bob and tom fight to the death in the village market, while the crowd bets on the outcome
Poseur Anarchist Solution: tom and bob adhere to some elaborate conflict resolution ritual they saw in International Douchery Magazine last month, and both wind up giving each other full release handjobs while noam chomsky jacks off in the corner.
ill deal with the main one. libertatians = anarchists
thats a whole basket full of wrong there. Libertarians believe that every man has the same rights, and as long as those rights do not intersect at cross purposes, then government should keep out of their business, when two or more individual's rights conflict, then government's role is to arbitrate the dispute to ensure the least infringement for all concerned.
Example: bob breeds racehorses his neighbor tom has a plowhorse. one day tom's plowhorse kicks a hole in bob's fence and nails the shit out of one of bob's prized mares. Bob is upset, and insists that tom pay him for the repairs to the fence, for the financial burden of tending his mare while it gestates a racing plowhorse, and then tom must buy the racing plowhorse offspring at the same price bob gets for his racehorses. bob thinks this is a keen idea. tom disagrees.
tom feels he should not pay for bob's shitty fence that was already falling down, bob should accept that ponies gonna pony, and his mare was asking for it, and was kind of a slut already, and bob should pay tom stud fees for gifting bob's mare with his horse's strong, virile, and potent seed.
the courts (government) must now adjudicate a solution to this dispute which will hopefully result in a fair resolution. other than that, the government should let tom and bob do their thing without interference or heavy taxation.
Libertarian Solution: bob and tom split the cost of the fence, tom pays bob for the feed and care related to the gestation and birth, tom pays bob a nominal fee after the colt is old enough to leave it's mother, the racing plowhorse colt is now tom's responsibility, and he has the fastest plowhorse in the county.
Legalist Solution: both men sue and counter sue each other until both go broke paying court's and lawyer's fees.the government seizes their land and sells it to a multinational corporation who builds their US headquarters for their Shipping Jobs to China Division, and rung the whole thing at a loss for tax purposes.
Socialist Solution: the plowhorse and mare are both siezed, killed, and boiled into glue, tom and bob are sent to gulag in siberia, and the premier builds his new dacha on what was formerly their land.
Democratic Socialist Solution: a blue ribbon panel is convened to examine the feasibility of racing plowhorses generating clean green energy to fight global warming, ten years and $50 million later the results are inconclusive, and the whole program is scrapped, all the racing plowhorses are killed and their bodies left to rot on tom and bob's land.
Neo-Con Solution: Blame democrats
Liberal Democrat Solution: blame ronald reagan or ron paul
Anarchist Solution: bob and tom fight to the death in the village market, while the crowd bets on the outcome
Poseur Anarchist Solution: tom and bob adhere to some elaborate conflict resolution ritual they saw in International Douchery Magazine last month, and both wind up giving each other full release handjobs while noam chomsky jacks off in the corner.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Tens of thousands of American citizens move there every year
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i gotta demand a source on this one!
if ten thousand people do anything, even for one year shit would have been noticed, especially in mexico. the PRI would snap a fat ass Gringo Immigration Tax down on those ten thousand honkies, and would take great delight in publicly deporting any illegals they find.
deprave
New Member
In response to gankstar:
There is many view points that seperate libertarians from anarchist. I could write a novel on the arguments between the two but they blend togather a lot because they both share the core thought that "Government is evil". There are many libertarian and anarchy philosophies which vary greatly.
Let me give a few examples of disagreements:
A libertarian would say that a government which governs least governs best, the anarchist argument is that a minimalist government will eventually bloom into a monstrous government and that the state is not necessary.
in economics comparing market anarchy vs minarchy(libertarian) both believe in free market but a minarchist would argue that state intervention is sometimes a necessary evil and serves the free market correctly by the people through its intervention while the market anarchist would argue that a state always corrupts the free market. (maybe not the best choice of words but I typed that rather quickly) Please refer to political philosophy section on wikipedia. Although I will be glad to answer specific questions because this would take a lot of writing to explain this all to you.
There is many view points that seperate libertarians from anarchist. I could write a novel on the arguments between the two but they blend togather a lot because they both share the core thought that "Government is evil". There are many libertarian and anarchy philosophies which vary greatly.
Let me give a few examples of disagreements:
A libertarian would say that a government which governs least governs best, the anarchist argument is that a minimalist government will eventually bloom into a monstrous government and that the state is not necessary.
in economics comparing market anarchy vs minarchy(libertarian) both believe in free market but a minarchist would argue that state intervention is sometimes a necessary evil and serves the free market correctly by the people through its intervention while the market anarchist would argue that a state always corrupts the free market. (maybe not the best choice of words but I typed that rather quickly) Please refer to political philosophy section on wikipedia. Although I will be glad to answer specific questions because this would take a lot of writing to explain this all to you.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Without checking, I wouldn't disagree with the numbers​ but I believe that a large portion of that southbound tide is repatriation of Mexicans going back home.
deprave
New Member
I am sad you see it that way. I clearly argued in the very first sentence that many libertarian philosophies are not anarchy and thats my very argument for exactly why many libertarians do believe in roads in minimalist government scenarios (or as they are today). I again clarified this in another response to you but your still not getting that. There is more than one kind of libertarian.
Theres your problem, all libertarians don't side with natural rights, although a lot do and its a good statement you have made here when taken in general scope its fairly accurate for a vague generalization atleast compared to your other vague generalizations, I will give an example of two philosophers libertarian who disagree on this. Father and Son even, Milton and Dan Freidman. Milton believed in naturual rights under all circumstances, Dan did not. These philosophers are both classical liberal and I don't even have to venture outside this realm to prove my point, these men largely agreed on most everything, however when it comes to natural rights they had disagreements.
absolutelyridiculous, I love how you just generalize all these philosophies into one solid category, this is simply not every solution proposed and doesn't fit the scope of what your arguing again.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Chalk me up with the minarchists. cn makes a point about a definite need for something other than "tribal" type of self governance once you get beyond a certain size and perceiving it as a necessary evil is a good analogy, much different than the general perception that exists today.
Just like the disparity between the rich and poor is of great concern, the disparity of power between DC and the rest of the country concerns me, even more. What do congressmen/women have to gain or lose (personally) with Obamacare? They all have insurance coverage that would make any monarch envious. Not to mention their retirement. If congress does not have to live by the laws that they pass, what the hell good are they?
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
In a nutshell, what is the counter argument to natural rights?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But but but don't be raggin on International Douchery ... the centerfolds are awesome. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
...that they are artifice. cn
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
A manufactured control device?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No, just made up in the minds of men. Not actually natural. cn
deprave
New Member
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..
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Are they actually douchin'?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
They're UNdouching. Wet and wild. cn
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
gotcha, thanks
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
AmericansSee also: Mexicans of American descent
The largest number of Americans outside the United States live in Mexico. According to Mexico 2010 Census, there are 738,103 Americans living in the Mexican Republic.[SUP][10][/SUP] Mostly, people who come from the USA are students, retirees, religious workers (missionaries, pastors, etc.), Mexican-Americans, and spouses of Mexican citizens. A few are professors who come employed by Mexican companies to teach English, other English teachers, and corporate employees and executives.
These residents often don't stay the whole year, with many retirees living half of the year in the USA to keep their retiree benefits, while others, known as "snowbirds", spend only the winter months south of the border. The American community in Mexico is found throughout the country, but there are significant concentrations of U.S. citizens in all the north of Mexico, especially in Tijuana, Mexicali, Los Cabos, San Carlos, Mazatlán, Saltillo, Monterrey and Nuevo Laredo. Also in the central parts of the country such as San Miguel de Allende, Ajijic, Chapala, Mexico City and Cuernavaca, and along the Pacific coast, most especially in the greater Puerto Vallarta area. In the past few years, a growing American community has developed in Mérida, Yucatán.
Many Americans Moving to Mexico in Search of the American Dream
Mexico is now the host nation for the largest American expatriate community in the world.
March 30, 2009 |
MERIDA, Mex. – At some point last fall, the one millionth American established residency here in Mexico. That makes Mexico the host nation for the largest American expatriate community in the world. There are now more Americans living in Mexico than there are in the U.K. or Canada.
MEXICO CITY — It sounds almost too good to be true: a
health care plan with no limits, no deductibles, free medicines, tests, X-rays,
eyeglasses, even dental work — all for a flat fee of $250 or less a year.
To get it, you just have to move to Mexico.
As the United States debates an overhaul of its health care
system, thousands of American retirees in Mexico have quietly found a solution
of their own, signing up for the health care plan run by the Mexican Social
Security Institute.
The system has flaws, the facilities aren't cutting-edge,
and the deal may not last long because the Mexican government said in a recent
report that it is "notorious" for losing money. But for now, retirees say
they're getting a bargain.
"It was one of the primary reasons I moved here," said Judy
Harvey of Prescott Valley, who now lives in Alamos, Sonora. "I couldn't afford
health care in the United States. … To me, this is the best system that there
is."
It's unclear how many Americans use IMSS, but with between
40,000 and 80,000 U.S. retirees living in Mexico, the number probably runs "well
into the thousands," said David Warner, a public policy professor at the
University of Texas.