BIG Announcement! Leave Me Alone on sale now!

[abcdavid01]

Solution A is Jonathan Smith's Modest Proposal.

Jonathan Swift

Yeah, I knew that. Is that a pen name though? I sounds too perfect...hm, I guess not.

[abcdavid01]

Simple. Form a government according to common ideals, and fund reseatch for these long term projects. Or perhaps companies could research these. All I am saying is we shouldn't limit ourselves. I guess all I am asking for is interapping governments. A government should be like buying insurance, you choose which one is right for you. And depending on which system you choose, the answer to that question will be different. In other words, there is no one right or wrong governmnet, unless it is against the will of the governed. So how would you solve it? You answer is as right a smine, just don't force me to fund it.

But how is that really possible? From a systems theory perspective you'd have to look at things like transnational church authority where the Catholic church claimed rule over all Catholics regardless of nationality. It failed.

What if it was tied into property rights? People could own land and govern it as they please. What if one of the governments begins to restrict movement? They ban people from leaving in order to make sure they have enough taxes. What about illegal immigration? Would lead to wars.

Look, I get what you're saying to some degree. I wish the South had won the Civil War. It's important to be real about it though. Simply put, keeping the fags or the proles or the feminists in line...that's good for humanity. You can't go all moral relativism on me here and say it's not because that's not libertarian, but liberal. It's leftist. Here's where Libertarianism and Marxism collide.

Anarcho-capitalism is a similar chaos to Communism. There are easy ways to judge a nation. Is it productive? How are the birth rates? Is the population intelligent? What is the crime rate like? Of course there are different ways of handling things based on the temperament of the population, but I won't be having any moral relativism nonsense.

From a historical perspective Libertarianism in the modern form is a perversion of the aristocratic Austrians by Murray Rothbard.

[Cornfed]

On another note, and to reiterate what I said upthread, isn't this "book" a huge rip off by Kindle standards? Usually for $10 you get hundreds of pages of quality stuff that has practical use or literary merit. To ask $10 for 36 large type pages of derivative and naive adolescent essaying is outrageous. I guess it is on par with females writing short jack-off stories for other females in the romance section, but usually they don't charge that much.

[zacb]

On another note, and to reiterate what I said upthread, isn't this "book" a huge rip off by Kindle standards? Usually for $10 you get hundreds of pages of quality stuff that has practical use or literary merit. To ask $10 for 36 large type pages of derivative and naive adolescent essaying is outrageous. I guess it is on par with females writing short jack-off stories for other females in the romance section, but usually they don't charge that much.

actually, when I was putting it in pdf format, it said 150 pages. Now how it got to that, is anyones guess. Jeese, I hate doc formatting.

[zacb]

Simple. Form a government according to common ideals, and fund reseatch for these long term projects. Or perhaps companies could research these. All I am saying is we shouldn't limit ourselves. I guess all I am asking for is interapping governments. A government should be like buying insurance, you choose which one is right for you. And depending on which system you choose, the answer to that question will be different. In other words, there is no one right or wrong governmnet, unless it is against the will of the governed. So how would you solve it? You answer is as right a smine, just don't force me to fund it.

But how is that really possible? From a systems theory perspective you'd have to look at things like transnational church authority where the Catholic church claimed rule over all Catholics regardless of nationality. It failed.

What if it was tied into property rights? People could own land and govern it as they please. What if one of the governments begins to restrict movement? They ban people from leaving in order to make sure they have enough taxes. What about illegal immigration? Would lead to wars.

Look, I get what you're saying to some degree. I wish the South had won the Civil War. It's important to be real about it though. Simply put, keeping the fags or the proles or the feminists in line...that's good for humanity. You can't go all moral relativism on me here and say it's not because that's not libertarian, but liberal. It's leftist. Here's where Libertarianism and Marxism collide.

Anarcho-capitalism is a similar chaos to Communism. There are easy ways to judge a nation. Is it productive? How are the birth rates? Is the population intelligent? What is the crime rate like? Of course there are different ways of handling things based on the temperament of the population, but I won't be having any moral relativism nonsense.

From a historical perspective Libertarianism in the modern form is a perversion of the aristocratic Austrians by Murray Rothbard.

I get what you are saying. I understand your point about moral relativism. I just think that with thing slike gay marriage and such, it is better left in the hands of the church. That is when it was more successful in terms of management. Have you read Gary North? He is a libertarian, but basically he wants Heaven on earth, which I disagree could happen, but I digress. So there are traditionals in libertarian circles. But back on subject.
I am not saying I want this or that immoral thing, but lets face it, every system fails. All I am doing is putting my lot with an idealogy that wants to leave me alone. And btw, there are things I disagree with on with some libertarians. While gays will always be gays, I thonk unless we hand marriage over to the church, and not "legalize" gay marriage, I think that could set a terrible presedent, and lead to reverse discrimination. But in short, I believe the only ways to advance anything is throuh living it. Doe stha tmean I should go pick up some hookers right now? No. But does it mean maybe finding greener pastures where people will leave me alone? Yeah. An dI think that is what happier abroad is all about, finding you rplac ein the world. In all, I just want a free market, where I can be an entrepeneur, where I won't be put behind bars for a little mistake, where I can ingest what I want, and generally just be free. Mayb eI am asking a lot, but I just want to fulfill my God given desires. Now what othe rpeople use libertarianism for is their business, but for me personally, I would not mind in the least if we went back to the Articles of Confederation. Honestly that would be my ideal government. But since it has drifted so much, I have to make and create alternatives.

[abcdavid01]

Yeah, I still consider myself libertarian, just a really old school one that's nothing like the modern ones who lean towards Anarcho-Capitalism. I'm fond of the really early libertarians, many of which supported monarchy in the Austo-Hungarian Empire. I know every economic restriction has a social component (restriction of choice), but I just think there are obvious things that every legal system can agree on. No one thinks murder is right and if they did that society wouldn't last long. So if there's no moral relativism then there's laws that can be made that are almost unquestionably good. Drug use may be individual, but they damage families and are the cause of most burglaries. I'm not saying I support the corrupt drug war, but there are better solutions. Singapore's doing an amazing job of drug prevention, but their methods might not work for every society. It's important to look at who's really going to restrict your freedoms in society. Is it more likely a criminal or a cop? I'd say a criminal. Laws have been relaxed since the sixties, which is a tendency towards anarchy, and it made the crime rate increase dramatically, which is tyranny. Anarchy gives rise to tyranny. If a society is responsible and has lower crime it can enjoy more freedom. Besides crime there are other unresolved issues like declining birth rates. I wouldn't mind legal action taken to increase it as long as policy is implemented well.

Because moral relativism doesn't exist there are certain things that are just obviously good regardless of what population you look at. As an Austrian I understand the benefits of free markets, but I also recognize how unnatural it is with regards to human nature and the family structure, which is a socialist institution proven to increase prosperity. And at the end of they day sometimes authoritarianism is necessary to prevent utter chaos. See: U.S. wars in the Middle East. We brought liberty...and chaos. Also how Rhodesia was an incredible success, a boon for the African population, but some PHD's called it racist and now we have Zimbabwe. If Zimbabwe is liberty (as all the Western leaders said it was) then I don't want it.

[zacb]

I don't disagree with you per se. My bigger points were directed more towards Cornfed. I believe that society is kind of a chicken or an egg thing. On one hand, you don't want society to turn into a lynch mob and kill everyone. On the other hand, you don't want the disease of tolerance to "lovingly" force you to be tolerant. I agree there should be absolutes, I just think it comes down to how it should be dealt out. Which is better? I honestly don't know. ZThe only thing I do know is that I don't know lol.

[momopi]

For those with an interest to learn about the Libertarian Party and its believes, simply look up your local chapter and attend their next monthly business meeting, or meet-up event. Say hello and talk to people who are there to express their political ideology.