Should radical libertarians move to Bir Tawil?

[SPC]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

[SPC]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

[SPC]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

Without a government, how would they be prevented from taking over?

Without violent coercion, who's going to prevent people from exercising violent coercion?

[SPC]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

Without a government, how would they be prevented from taking over?

Without violent coercion, who's going to prevent people from exercising violent coercion?

This is a very good question. Would you mind answering it?

It was a rhetorical question. The point is that you're making violent coercion inevitable by if you seek to utilize it to stop others from exercising violent coercion. It's akin to asking "If I don't chop off my leg,who's going to stop someone from chopping my leg off?"

[SPC]

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.

[SPC]

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.

Do you feel all government is the same, then?

There are varying levels of oppresion between governments. However, as far as the institution itself, they all function the same way. The only difference is in degree. For example, if we were in antebellum times, would you consider "If the slaves were freed, then someone might capture them and bring them into slavery" to be a valid argument against abolitionism?

[SPC]

So, then, anarchy is impossible because it will result in someone seizing control?

I never said that. It is just pointless to argue against your argument because it is so ridiculous. Your argument against anarchy is that if anarchy happened, than a government could take over. This is a stupid argument because the absence of anarchy necessitates of government having taken over at some point in the past. Thus, the worst case scenario you present is the status quo, so you're essentially conceding that through anarchy, we really have nothing to lose.

Do you feel all government is the same, then?

There are varying levels of oppresion between governments. However, as far as the institution itself, they all function the same way. The only difference is in degree. For example, if we were in antebellum times, would you consider "If the slaves were freed, then someone might capture them and bring them into slavery" to be a valid argument against abolitionism?

It's not a matter of "might". What safeguards would an anarchy have against takeover?

You've already asked this. Please refer to what I said the first time.

[SPC]

Put quite simply, it's ridiculous to have 600 men and women decide what's right and wrong. Excessive government causes more problems than it solves.

Yes, but we have those 600 men there to ensure that we don't have a society where six men decide what's right and wrong.

That would arguably be an improvement. If one out of 600 votes the wrong way, than they bear little responsiblity for it, since it will most likely not affect the outcome. If one out of six votes the wrong way, than they have much more responsiblity for it, since it has a good chance of affecting the outcome. I'd rather have six people without moral hazard than 600 people with moral hazard.