"Which Human Farm Is This?" Game

Yep- exactly right!

While I myself am not a libertarian, I must say that from all the real libertarians i do know and who understand the concept, that it is better not to vote at all then to vote for someone you know is not going to fit your beliefs.
Personally I am a volunterist - if i want something, I volunteer to take the full cost and get it. If i cannot afford it, i rough it out.
That being said, libertarians have a great concept - everyone owns their own life and is responsible for themselves. As such, it is wrong to make one life worse to better another. I am wondering, how do you see this as wrong?

I could apply the same rhetoric to anyone.

What I see as wrong are individual statements by individual people in individual posts.

What I also see as wrong are strawmen, such as creating a general nebulous and vague statement and claiming that anyone else expressed an opinion on it.

I will give you examples:
I am a Liberal. By that I believe in Human Rights.
Why are you against Human Rights?

But since you asked my opinion on your vague and general statement, I will provide it.

What you are expressing is called Social Darwinism. It is inappropriately named, since it is only focused on the survival of the fittest concept of Darwinian evolution, but I degrees.

Your rugged individualism mentality is based on how people lived in the 1800's.

Everyone responsible for their own life. Chopping wood and building your own log cabin. Hunting critters for dinner, and raising grain to feed the chickens and pigs. Maw sews her own clothes from the cotton she grows herself, dyed with berry juice she picked. You ain't taken to no taxman, you will run him off your property with the gun you forged yourself from the ore you mined.

We don't live like that anymore, and by WE I include YOU, because you are sitting in front of a computer right now.

Now, we have power grids, sewer systems, national highways, plumbing, cable TV, broadband internet, cell phones, supermarkets, mass-produced merchandise, cities and suburbs.

No man is an island.

You are NOT INdependant, no mater how much you want to believe it.
And no, DEpendant is not the only other option.
We are all INTERdependant.

We are all part of a single interconnected network. Every single life touches every single other life.

That means even if you have the best private doctor money can buy, a public health system benefits you indirectly by preventing rapid spread of disease among people with no other medical care, and keeping people healthy to work and consume and keep the economy functioning.

That means even if you have no children, a public school system that teaches all children for free benefits you indirectly as well.

Less children on the streets committing crimes, including crimes against you, and more educated children who grow up to be doctors to help you when you are sick, inventors to create the next great thing, or businessmen to revitalize the economy.

You think of this as making your life worse to make someone else's life better when in reality, it is simply an investment in this nation as a whole, and you benefit from that investment.

I am a socialist.

By that I mean we all have a responsibility to provide for the least of us so they can also become contributing members of society, thus making society as a whole better for everyone.

I am wondering, how do you see this as wrong?

I like

"Libertarians... Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves"
- Coyote

(i oppose statism, by the way, to keep my opinions clear, lol)

Three days and no reply- I call that running away.

We all do, no matter what your political party affiliation is.

Once you legalize Freedom, your choice to consume...or not consume marijuana will be legalized.

One up, to a better generation!

exactly, everyone knows this, that's why Shanklin has so many people who only vote up and comment on his posts. Ever notice how most of the comments are just a libertarian circle-jerk?

you suck current, why don't you just let the users remove the spam....we would actually get the job done.

Did you ever consider that these ads are not just spam but a focused attack on a liberal website? I'm sure if there was an easy way to stop this shit Current would have already done it.

you suck current, why don't you just let the users remove the spam....we would actually get the job done.

you suck current, why don't you just let the users remove the spam....we would actually get the job done.

Now the spammers are actually taunting the users and your site.

If you let the users remove the spam, then what's stopping them from removing other comments that they don't like?

Is this your website to say who posts to it and who does not?

Funny, you only comment on Shanklin posts also

Its all i have time for - its all i can manage to reply to asinine remarks like the one you just made.

sure, just like all the other shanklin posters

So this is your site one? wow - how much does it cost ya a year? and if i misread and it is not your site, then you have no right to tell me i cannot post to it as the actual site owner has yet to do so.

Thanks :-)

So, if you don't believe in cops, what do you do when you come home, see that your house was broken into, they stole everything of value, trashed the rest, killed your wife, and kidnapped your baby daughter?

@ Utopian - 1 - They break into my home, they are getting shot - sorry, I need no defense from others. 2 - If you were able to call the cops early enough on - the robber would still have stolen from you etc. Then What?
You may be timid and afraid of your own shadow, but stop using that as an excuse to have me pay for your 'protection'.

You did not pay attention to what I wrote.
I said YOU COME HOME and then see that the house was robbed.
You were not there when it happened.
And the robber did not have a gun- until they started robbing your home.
Then they found YOUR gun and killed your wife.

If you think this is about cowardice, then you are proving my point- this is about intelligence. It seems you sold yours to buy an inflated ego.

The real world is NOT an action-movie.

don't forget to bury the dead wife, and goodluck having AllState track down your kidnapped child.

All the police are are people. People with guns. They have no power other than to use violence and to threaten to use it. Anyone can do this. It's not some great moral thing in this society that the use of violence has been monopolized.

People oppose police because the police act as a literal monopolization on violence.
I think your comment on "what would you do" is silly.
A world without cops doesn't have to mean a world without justice. A world with cops guarantees some lack of justice.

I find your slew of comments silly and unthoughtful.

Shanklin puppet with bad taste in music

notice how there is no response

It's a good thing there are no killers or robbers or rapists and all people are good, it's also a good thing that normal people are organized enough and get paid to track down all these people. Do some police overstep their authority? Yes. Do most police? no. You're not living in the real world, there are services that are necessary. Go somewhere where there are no police and then try to make that claim.

Well, You have not thought this through.

No, police are not simply people with guns who use violence for power. That would be mobs, and mobs occur in anarchy.

Instead, we have these things called laws. Laws exist so that we, as a society, determine how we want people in that society to behave. Google the phrase "Social Contract".

And yes, because we have laws, we must have consequences for those laws, or the laws are meaningless.

The wonderful thing about laws is that even the police must follow them, or they too suffer those consequences.

A world without consequences for actions IS a world without justice.

A world without people to find out the details of a case to present those details to court that determines what the consequences are IS a world without justice.

A world without people to bring criminals to justice, because frankly, they will not come on their own, is a world without justice.

If my question of "what would you do" was silly, you could answer it.
The fact that you cannot shows how silly your position is.

Crimes occur.
They occur every day.
And unlike what captain testosterone thought, you can't solve them all by assuming you will always be there with a gun.
We NEED people to investigate crimes, apprehend suspects, determine guilt or innocence, and dole out the consequences.

I admit I have some issues with our adversarial justice system, but unlike you, I don't want to toss all of civilization out with the bath water.

And I have been debating anarchists on this website for quite some time- and none have been able to support their beliefs. All simply run away after a few tough questions, because their idealized beliefs have nothing to do with the real world of real people.

Yep, that's the pattern over and over with these Anarchists in Libertarian clothing.

They post inflammatory and ridiculous statements filled with their brainwashed keywords like "state violence", one of us challenges them, they post a bunch of personal attacks, we challenge them again, and they run away.

Even their leader Mike keeps running away from the hard questions these children just can't answer, because they just don't understand human nature.

I'm positive every single one of them grew up in upper-middle class households in the suburbs.

"Laws exist so that we, as a society, determine how we want people in that society to behave"
~Laws should only exist to protect people against infringement, not to 'determine' how people behave. People should be left to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

""Social Contract"
~Just because you have society does not mean you need state violence. In fact, the more statism you get, the farther you get from civilization.

"The wonderful thing about laws is that even the police must follow them, or they too suffer those consequences."
~Where have you been?!?

"We NEED people to investigate crimes, apprehend suspects, determine guilt or innocence, and dole out the consequences."
~You need to google dispute resolution systems

"All simply run away after a few tough questions"
~It's that anarchists/voluntaryists realize that arguing with fools is futile... name someone who ran away? Name them. I will get them here to defend themselves and they won't run away. Better than any Keynesian/Neocon I've ever met.... must of them can't even accept the fact that government = force..... something a second grader can comprehent.

@Utopian,
Clap clap - great rhetoric - though you never responded with any real examples. Did you know that there is a difference between fact and platitudes?

"That would be mobs, and mobs occur in anarchy."
Example? What I thought. I will start here because you are better at shooting off bull then reality. The largest mob that comes to mind are the Sons of Liberty that started in the mid 1760's. If you bothered to read anything (as I stated before - try Robert Middlekaufs Glorious Cause) - you would know that these 'mobs' as you put it very rarely did any physical damage to anyone. What they did do is find corrupt officials and take their ill gotten gain, burn their warehouses, kidnap them etc, but never actually hurt them. In other words, they dispensed justice when those cozy to the crown and parliament failed to do so. your turn missy.

"Instead, we have these things called laws. Laws exist so that we, as a society, determine how we want people in that society to behave. Google the phrase "Social Contract"."
Laws that dispense what justice? You mean laws that form a society as you would have it? And i am sorry to say, the 'law' these days is nothing more then a farce. Example - as someone already stated - speed traps. Those accomplish what exactly? Another example - saftey inspection stickers etc - who do those benefit again? And what justice is it to throw a guy in jail if he does not want to have said inspection sticker on his car? Sorry once again you have offered no examples save for your one on the horrible burleg situtation which i will again address later. As to social contract - bullshit. I never signed it so i am not obligated to it - (not that it is anything that can be signed as it only exists in theory) - bite me.

"The wonderful thing about laws is that even the police must follow them, or they too suffer those consequences."
You obviously do not live in Bensalem PA where cops break rules on a regualr basis.

"A world without people to bring criminals to justice, because frankly, they will not come on their own, is a world without justice."
Oh my - aren't you the deluded one? Example - let those affected handle it. Oh wait a sec - people like you chose to be victims because you refuse to take measures to protect yourself. You scream for protection (which no one close to you would provide - probably because of your annoying demeanor) - and cannot even pay for that. So you scream to have laws pass that make me pay for your protection, and then said law then forces me to live by your standards. Sorry, I consider you more of a criminal then most theives at this point.

If you have been debating anarchists, then you must not have met a real one yet. I am not an anarchist either - just another guy who shows some common sense and takes responsibility for his own life. Someone pointed out to you already that cops rarely catch kidnappers - guess you weren't listening. That or you have no answer. But thats not even the problem. The problem is people like you thinking that because a law is in place making something illegal, that it will stop, and the wonderful cops will make this happen. And you think anarchists are the dilluded ones?

"They post inflammatory and ridiculous statements filled with their brainwashed keywords like "state violence", one of us challenges them, they post a bunch of personal attacks, we challenge them again, and they run away."
Who was running away? I have to sleep sometime. And its not that we run from hard questions - we just get exasperated when people like you replace fact, refuse to cite examples, and then scream your own bs rhetoric back. The word hypocracy comes to mind.

"I'm positive every single one of them grew up in upper-middle class households in the suburbs."
Once again proving how little your beliefs reflect reality. I grew up in a military family and have never been rich. Heck even after years of barely getting by I barely in the middle class so to speak. What this tells me is that your views bring failure. Rather then study and change your views, you seek to have laws pass that bring everyone else down to your level of comfortability. How typical.

ok - try for 1 sec to wrap yourhead around this. My family is just as aplbe and trained to defend themselves as i am. This means that yes, you are a coward because you refuse to take the reponsibility to defend what you get.

Inflated ego? For knowing i can defend myself? No. This is a basic right, and i chose to be knowledgable enough in it to effectively use it. You want your rights protected and for someone else to provide that for you - why?

Proved your point? Sounds like I am not the one with the ego problem here.

The world is not an action movie?
Really? You mean that it really is impossible to shoot all day and never run out of bullets? Man I wish i knew this in my army days ;-)

"Laws should only exist to protect people against infringement, not to 'determine' how people behave. People should be left to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others."

I stated what laws ARE. I agree under a government based on Human Rights, that is what they SHOULD be. The point remains: we need Laws.

"Just because you have society does not mean you need state violence. In fact, the more statism you get, the farther you get from civilization."

All rhetoric and soundbytes, and all debunked.

"Where have you been?!?"

In the real world- where humans understand that humans are imperfect beings. The existence of criminals, both in uniform and out, simply proves MY point- that we NEED laws.

"You need to google dispute resolution systems"

Been there, done that, debunked those, and you ran away.

"It's that anarchists/voluntaryists realize that arguing with fools is futile... name someone who ran away? Name them. I will get them here to defend themselves and they won't run away."

YOU.

Here is one- on the topic of "dispute resolution" replacing courts:

http://current.com/news/92660071_libertarians-issue-warning-to-tea-partiers.htm#...

No reply- you ran away. So, I rephrased it, and posted it again when you came back:

http://current.com/news/92766754_is-obama-a-keynesian.htm#92769237

No reply- you ran away.

That first one was also the origin of my "butcher, a baker and a candlestick maker" story, which got no reply, so I posted it again, with more detail, but this time to Mindcruzer:

http://current.com/news/92706900_libertarian-congressional-candidate-thomas-hill...

... and he had no reply.

And, I posted that story again, to you, as part of explaining to you the difference between Communism and Socialism:

http://current.com/news/92726212_north-carolina-us-senate-debate-mike-beitler-l-...

... and again, you ran away with no reply.

There were countless more examples- but that is what I came up with from a quick Google search.

Not just you and me- but countless discussions on this website between Libertarians and Current regulars the pattern is always the same- the Libertarian runs away when faced with questions they cannot answer.

Plenty of others here have noticed the pattern as well.

I'm collecting a series of arguments that make Libertarians run away- the "manhunt homeless people" one, and the "butcher, baker, candlestick maker" one, and the "Health Club" one.

Maybe we can make them into a kind of Libertarian pest-control strip.

You did not pay attention to what I wrote.
I said YOU COME HOME and then see that the house was robbed.
You were not there when it happened.
And the robber did not have a gun- until they started robbing your home.
Then they found YOUR gun and killed your wife.

Your wife may know how to use a gun, but the real world is NOT an action movie.
In the movies, the bad guys all have awful aim, and never hit anyone.
While the good guys can fire one shot, and take down three men.

In the real world, good guys sometimes die, and bad guys sometimes get away.

But instead of addressing the reality of the scenario, all you can do is whip it out and measure it.

If you think this is about cowardice, then you are proving my point- this is about intelligence. It seems you sold yours to buy an inflated ego.

AGAIN:
YOU COME HOME.
YOUR WIFE IS DEAD.
YOUR CHILD IS MISSING.
YOUR HOME IS RANSACKED.

There is no bad guy there for you to go Rambo on.

And, in YOUR alternate reality, no police department to call for help.

I'll ignore your claim that I did not post examples for when you notice my examples.

And as for your criticism of laws, it simply shows you want to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

You are bitching about speed traps and stickers, when I'm talking about catching rapists, murders and thieves.

If you want to opt out of the Social Contract, you can do so at any time. Just renounce your citizenship and move away. You can be a nice little survivalist in the desert, drinking distilled urine and fertilizing your crops with your own crap.

No cops will bother you, and no cops will help you.

As for police breaking laws- again- you want to toss the baby out with the bath water. When smart people see flaws in a system, they work to fix the flaws. People like you want to toss the whole system, and live like cavemen.

"and cannot even pay for that. So you scream to have laws pass that make me pay for your protection, and then said law then forces me to live by your standards. Sorry, I consider you more of a criminal then most theives at this point. "

LOL!!!

Pay for protection? That's the improved world you would have?
Instead of having SOME corrupt cops who take bribes, have them ALL be corrupt and take bribes?

So the poor who cannot afford protection get none?
Well, grab your gun and let's start the homeless manhunt!
Great fun for families of all ages! Kidnap some homeless people, and set them lose in a field for us to shoot for sport! Yeah! We will have long pig for dinner tonight!

No crime there since they could not afford to pay for justice, right?

"I am not an anarchist either - just another guy who shows some common sense and takes responsibility for his own life."

LOL!!! No, you have no common sense whatsoever- if you did, you would know we are INTERdependant as much as we are INdependant. Were you planning on building the computer in front of you from logs and stones you find in the woods?

"Someone pointed out to you already that cops rarely catch kidnappers - guess you weren't listening. That or you have no answer."

That was posted to someone else- but my answer is simple, and stated repeatedly already:

It is better to have cops who only sometimes catch kidnappers, than to have no cops at all, so no kidnappers ever get caught, so any pedophile can grab any Lolita they want whenever they want with no fear of consequences.

Oh, other than if the Lolita's dad is Rambo.

"But thats not even the problem. The problem is people like you thinking that because a law is in place making something illegal, that it will stop, and the wonderful cops will make this happen. And you think anarchists are the dilluded ones?"

Oh, without a doubt you are deluded if that is what you think my position is.

Repeatedly people like you have this naive belief in absolute perfection- and that if it is not reached, all should be abandoned.

No human being with an IQ above 80, meaning an IQ above yours, believes that existence of laws makes crime stop occurring.

We just know that if you weed the garden, you get a garden with less weeds.
If you don't weed the garden, the weeds continue to multiply, and choke out the plants.

Us smart people know that actions MUST have consequences.

If we want a culture based on human rights, than actions that infringe on those rights MUST have consequences created by that culture.

THIS is common sense.

why don't you get mike beitler here?

your writing style needs some work, but besides that, who would deal with drug cartels and gangs? Those are pretty big and organized

You libertarians sure are full of yourselves, I'm pretty sure it's a requirement of your party. Anyone who reads Ayn Rand and thinks there are good ideas in there has to be a selfish teenager.

By who - you? I am sorry, I am trying to hard not to laugh to make any real response ;-)

I am not a teenager though. Oh, and I have never read Ayn Rand either. To be honest, I am not a real libertarian either. I have been around long enough to know that to confide to one set of ideals only is a self made prison. There is a time and place for all things, and as such, I tend to be flexible when it is needed. However, I have also read enough to know that once people find a belief they like, that they will cling to it even when it becomes detrimental. The trick is knowing enough to correctly implement a philosophy or ideal. So far, this is what I get upset at. I see patterns repeating themselves over and over, all because people follow then to a tea. You try to tell them – they ignore you.
To be honest, I really am not trying just to argue. I just hate arguing talking points vs fact and historical trends. So far, I hear more talking points than anything else. At the moment, I am trying to ignore Utopian sky not because she makes points I cannot answer, but because she always answers me with the exact some points in different wording. I went from being a young punk who believes the world is an action movie to a flat out Rambo who would be completely unable to find my families killer should it happen. Not once did she answer my question on how mobs come into being. Not once did she answer my explanation on Afghanistan. Not once did she answer my note on Russia. Not once did she address the Sons of Liberty comment. Not once did she make an intelligible argument for social contract. Plus she defends the police saying they just need more power etc.
Now all things being fair – what am I supposed to think? Especially when she is telling me that she is educating me??? Oh yeah, and she is still telling me to grow up. I am 30 years old, been around the world twice. Speak 2 languages, read more books than I care to count (currently halfway through the oxford history of the united states as that is my current project), served in the army for 10 years, and am currently a network engineer. And I need the education??? I am the one who needs to sit quietly and accept talking points I know to be wrong as fact???
Sorry – no way, no how. Sure I could write a pretty little retort and play troll games all day, but I simply lack the time. So go ahead, vote this down like always, reply with the typical one sided snarky comment, and think you actually won anything meaningful…done playing this stupid game……

'Cause he lost, fired his Campaign Manager, and has been crying in a corner for 10 days now.

"I am trying to ignore Utopian sky not because she makes points I cannot answer, but because she always answers me with the exact some points in different wording."

And I do that BECAUSE you cannot answer those points. If I say "the sky is blue" and you keep asking me "what color is the sky" anyway am I supposed to change my answer? No- I'm just shocked why you don't grasp the answers you are given.

"I went from being a young punk who believes the world is an action movie to a flat out Rambo who would be completely unable to find my families killer should it happen."

If you think that individual human beings should run out and find the criminals who infringe upon their rights, that is simply crazy. And yes- that makes you a Rambo.

"Not once did she answer my question on how mobs come into being."

Yes, I did- repeatedly.
Big guy.
Gun.
Says "Me leader now!"
No one to stop him.
He now leader.

"Not once did she make an intelligible argument for social contract."

You never ASKED me to define the term for you!
If you did not know what it meant, just ask!
Or, just Google it.

"Plus she defends the police saying they just need more power etc. "

Not ONCE did I ever say anything even close to anything like that.

"Now all things being fair – what am I supposed to think? Especially when she is telling me that she is educating me?"

Well, obviously, that you need to be educated- because you are not doing very well in reading comprehension.

"Oh yeah, and she is still telling me to grow up."

You started on this website, from your very first post to me, with a stream of personal attacks, hyperbole, strawmen, and other childish behavior. If you don't want people to tell you to grow up, then grow up.

"Sure I could write a pretty little retort and play troll games all day, but I simply lack the time. "

The problem was, you came here as a troll. And, now you want to be treated as something more. If you want to elevate yourself from troll status, then do so- it's up to you, not me.

So far, this little post of yours support my statement about you- grow up.

Learn how to support your positions with reason instead of juvenile behavior, and people will treat you better.

Four days and no reply- I call that running away.

Five days and no reply- I call that running away.

I disagree

You're silly, and none of my time or self worth is invested in this, lol. I will consider it no victory to "prove you wrong" or to prove i have a bigger internet penis than yourself.

You claimed civilization started 100,000 years ago..
I think you've claimed Gandhi held elected office..

As far as i can tell, your self worth, ego, and emotional framework depend upon a kind of rigorous self righteousness and indignation at other people on the internet (of all "places").
I mean... what is there to get from this?

Do you really think being loud enough and rude enough changes anyone's mind?

I will gladly run away from an raving whirlwind of self righteous anger and bizarre (and arrogant) claims about history and anthropological data that, as far as i can tell, are nonsense.

I'm not worried about it, man. I'm not sure why you are either.

Wow- that reply in and of itself, combined with your constant rude posts filled with personal attacks and pure arrogance suggests you need some serious introspection.

Perhaps you should stop projecting your personality problems on others, and deal with your own.

Yes, Throwing logic at a person who is illogical is a waste of time. Yet, that is what I have been doing, repeatedly.

And whenever I do it with Libertarians, they run away.

Like this person Claybird- his very first post to me was an insult out of nowhere. His posts have all been arrogant and condescending, and yet- he projects those characteristics on me.

In your case, your posts have all been illogical- hyperbole, strawmen, and slippery slope arguments. SO, you project that lack of logic on me.

Lou call me a "liberal hack" because you are a libertarian hack.

I have that effect on people- I mirror them. I speak to people with their own language.

That's why I stopped replying to Myzelplyk, because they were simply insults back and forth, nothing more. No way to elevate the conversation, and I was tired of going down to his level.

And yes- I did not reply to your water-powered car outburst, because it was a bizarre emotion-based attack based on your personal hostility towards me.

What I said to the previous poster is that the articles I quoted were factual, and that the cars were real and took the trips described.

You went on a tangent on if water-powered cars are worthwhile or efficient. Again- your inability to follow a discussion.

I replied that they were just doing research- I don't know, and YOU DON'T KNOW what the research will yield.

You then claimed absolute knowledge of all things physics, so I suggest you report back to Hawking and get back to me. Again- your arrogance.

Mindcruzer, I know you don't like me, but chill out.

Learn that you are never going to convince anyone to be a Libertarian if YOU don't even know what it means to be a Libertarian.

And just because you don't know what it means to be a Libertarian does not mean that i don't know what it is to be a Liberal.

"What I said to the previous poster is that the articles I quoted were factual, and that the cars were real and took the trips described.

You went on a tangent on if water-powered cars are worthwhile or efficient. Again- your inability to follow a discussion.

I replied that they were just doing research- I don't know, and YOU DON'T KNOW what the research will yield."

Evidently you still don't understand. Also, you seem to have completely dodged talking about the video I took the time out of my day to show you, which was the main point of my post. So, get back to me on that?

"You then claimed absolute knowledge of all things physics, so I suggest you report back to Hawking and get back to me. Again- your arrogance."

Showing how something can simply not be true via applying the laws of thermodynamics is arrogance? OK... you lunatic. Hawking would laugh at you too.

"Learn that you are never going to convince anyone to be a Libertarian if YOU don't even know what it means to be a Libertarian."

Jajajajaja. The only one here who doesn't know what it means to be a libertarian is you.

"Mindcruzer, I know you don't like me, but chill out."

I don't take any of this stuff to heart, and I don't hate you, I just find you annoying at times.

Oh trust me- I find you very annoying as well, mostly because you don't grasp logic. Such as your tendency to slide down slippery slopes- like changing my phrase "don't like" to "hate".

On water powered cars- you won. I am convinced that water powered cars will not work. Not from your emotion-laden arguments- but from my own googling. I still say the reports themselves were true accounts of events that occurred, not "weekly world news" type stories, thus making your tangent about the reality of the technology irrational.

No, I did not watch the video- since you posted the video, than launched a bunch of insults at me, indicating you were not even going to reply anyway. So, when your internal conflict of "am I talking to Utopian or am I not talking to Utopian" is over, tell me. Politely this time.

And on Libertarianism- over and over all you have done is insult people for making statements about Libertarianism that you claim do not describe Libertarianism.

Over and over, I have explained to you that those statements are based on what Shanklin and his minions post, so blame them.

If you have your own definition, it is up to YOU to define it- NOT up to you to point to some entire book and say "it's in there somewhere". That's what someone who does not understand their own beliefs does.

We all have numerous labels we use to describe ourselves- I'm Liberal, Atheist, Gay, Transhumanist, Socialist- and I can, and have, defined all of these characteristics as to what they mean to me.

You have not done that.

It's easy to run away from logical, reasoned arguments against Libertarianism if you simply scream "that's not Libertarianism" while never stating what it IS.

All I can tell you is whatever the hell the label you want to put on the beliefs of Shanklin and his sock puppets, that belief is completely nuts.

"You have not done that."

Oh, sorry, I was unaware that I am supposed to prove myself to you, random person posting on a random website. I am not going to debate libertarianism with you, so you can forget that ever happening. But you're right about one thing, Shanklin is a fool who only drives people away from the idea of true liberty. However, you should watch the video, because it would maybe stop you from throwing "Social Contract" in peoples faces, which is in fact one of your arguments against libertarianism.

weird how you only comment on shanklin posts

sock puppet puke

Actually, the world would be full of leaders! We would all lead ourselves!

There would be no wars. There would be minor disputes and relatively minor conflicts that would erupt everynow and again, but no wars as we know it. yet war is a means of establishing control over a people, so without it, government would either be inherently small, or simply not exist.

Mobs.

Until one guy beats the crap out of you, and says "I'm leader now!"
You will then have a totalitarian dictatorship, and will yearn for the days of a constitutional republic.

@Utopian - Once again you prove your ignorance. But to be fair let me ask you - when has lack of strong government led to mob rule? Also remember the the strongest governments in the world are controlled by the biggest tyrants (hitler, stalin etc). Its called a book = you should try reading one sometime.

Also - if you are that worried about someone taking control of you by force - why do you support govt so much? Same thing. You see noone minds a tyrant as long as they are among the tyrants favored children. Nazi Germany was a bad place to be a Jew, but I am sure a person who was given their stolen property would not have complained. Let me let you in on a little secret - government is under control of the majority (mobs) who vote them in. In other words - you do not mind mobs either as long as they are your mob. i will will admit, you definately prove to me that we ceratainly do not live in an enlightened age.

Oh, I just love the irony of stupid people insulting my intelligence.

Lack of strong government ALWAYS leads to mob rule- look at the Mexican drug cartels who have taken over because the government is too weak to stop them. Look at the Russian Bratvia. After the chaos of the fall of the USSR, they grew to become bigger than the Mafia.

And look at the Mafia- granddaddy of them all. They rule Sicily.

And for you to jump to the opposite extreme- Hitler, Stalin, etc, just shows you lack basic reasoning skills. Sorry, if you want to participate on this website, you have to learn about basic logic. Learn what a "slippery slope" is. Learn what a "Straw man" is.

And most important- learn with an "ad hominem attack" is, thus how juvenile your posts are.

Because so far all you are doing is perpetuating the stereotype of a typical Libertarian- a loud mouthed, egotistical little naive child who's teenage angst makes you rebel against all authority. A whiny little brat who bitches because daddy didn't buy you are car for your sweet sixteenth, so you are going to burn the house down.

So, now let's see if you can learn to be a grown-up and participate in discussions using your brain instead of your hormones. I doubt it though.

The leaders of the faction groups that would form from the Anarchy.

"if you are that worried about someone taking control of you by force - why do you support govt so much? Same thing. "

Consent of the Governed.

I'm only 16 AND have Autism, and even I understand that.

"In a world without leaders who would start all our wars?!?!"

Famous war starter, Warren McWarstartington.

All you have is ad hominems. UtopianSky is right, so you hurl insults that have nothing to do with what is being said.

"If people were perfect, you wouldn't need a government. If people weren't perfect, you wouldn't dare have one."

You lack of imagination and an undersstanding of anthropological and economic theory frustrates and depresses me.

Hitler was elected into power.

You favor one group using violence over the other.

Just because you get to have an infinitesimal and ritual show of power to choose from a selected pool of wealthy individuals to rule you, doesn't mean you aren't being ruled.

Well said . You know your history .

Don't forget , Religions , controlled by wealthy families have started many a war .

It would also rain candy, and farts would smell like febreeze, c'mon really?

Don't forget tribal Afghanistan and Pakistan, most lawless areas are ruled by warlords

After he killed all his opponents

...What?

What is this I don't even....