Where are my libertarians?

[Greoric]

I'm not biting. Educate yourself.

You didn't answer my question. There's a reason I asked it.

 

[Thurisaz]

You didn't answer my question. There's a reason I asked it.

I know. I'm not into that game.

 

[Undying Poster]

Libertarianism kills itself because it has literally no protection. What absolutely free trade means the whole of Africa could immigrate in and good luck having and preserving your precious freedoms then.

What does trade have to do with immigration?

 

[Thurisaz]

What does trade have to do with immigration?

Free trade entails free movement of labor and services, otherwise it is by definition restricted trade.

 

[Undying Poster]

I'm not biting. Educate yourself.

What an awful source. Surely you hyperlinked that so nobody can outright see how terrible it is, right?

 

[Greoric]

I know. I'm not into that game.

You're not into that game because you don't have a defensible position.

 

[Thurisaz]

What an awful source. Surely you hyperlinked that so nobody can outright see how terrible it is, right?

Take your best shot, buddy, don't just posture.

 

[Thurisaz]

You're not into that game because you don't have a defensible position.

I'm not into it because I'm not interested in reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Undying Poster]

Free trade entails free movement of labor and services, otherwise it is by definition restricted trade.

Oh, if we're doing the whole strictly following the definition thing, I guess we're not a capitalist nation and communism has never really existed.

By the way, you're still wrong, labor never was a part of free trade

 

[Greoric]

Free trade entails free movement of labor and services, otherwise it is by definition restricted trade.

It implies free movement of goods and services. That mentions nothing about the free movement of people.

In the libertarian example, who do you think is the better caretaker and security of land. An individual and his property, or a bureaucrat and his federal jurisdiction?

 

[Greoric]

I'm not into it because I'm not interested in reductio ad absurdum.

I wasn't reducing anything to an absurdity. I was asking if your property was an open thoroughfare for anyone that wanted pass through. If not, why?

 

[Thurisaz]

It implies free movement of goods and services. That mentions nothing about the free movement of people.

So you think labor isn't either a good or a service.

Nice to know, because that's all I need to know about your logical consistency.

 

[Greoric]

So you think labor isn't either a good or a service.

Nice to know, because that's all I need to know about your logical consistency.

Is their movement attached to a productive activity? Then welcome!

Care to answer my question though? Is your property an open thoroughfare for vagrants? If they became a problem, would you do something about it?

 

[Thurisaz]

Is their movement attached to a productive activity? Then welcome!

Which is why free trade is national suicide.

Care to answer my question though?

I already told you I won't.

 

[Greoric]

Which is why free trade is national suicide.

I already told you I won't.

Wait so excluding productive immigrants is suicide?

Also must've missed the post where you said that. If you would defend your property against thoroughfare then why wouldn't the land owners on the edge of a free society?

 

[Thurisaz]

Wait so excluding productive immigrants is suicide?

Nice reading comprehension you have.

Also must've missed the post where you said that. If you would defend your property against thoroughfare then why wouldn't the land owners on the edge of a free society?

You're obtuse. We're done.

 

[Greoric]

Nice reading comprehension you have. That's all.

You're obtuse. We're done.

OK sure. Concession accepted.

 

[WiolentOne]

I'm here.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Yeah you're in SA. Elaborate if you would.

Not certain what elaboration you're looking for. I'm just pretty sure that I have a better appreciation for the difficulty of governing the ungovernable than you do since making the nation ungovernable was the strategy used by my country's leading party to become the leading party.
It's also been an on-again off-again strategy of various groups in the time since.

It tends to depend on foreign governments being sympathetic to your cause, and it hasn't really worked out to our benefit.

As it is now with modern weaponry, if a population has it in their mind that they're free individuals that don't believe they need to be coerced to pay for services or have "security" you can bet your ass the conquering force (whether domestic or foreign) is going to be in for a shit show.
My second section was in response to your, "what if everyone can't agree on the services they want?" My answer is that they don't have to. That's the point of not electing someone to make decisions for the group and compel the funding of those services.

Nothing here points to the abolition of violence as a resolver of problems.
And the statement I initially responded to hints at a resignation on your part to the necessity/unavoidabiltiy of violence as a coercive tool.

You sound like you want to remove violent governments, but don't really have any idea what to replace them with that won't also utilize violence.

 

[Ichibanner]

Libertarian views fit me well but I registered as a Democrat to vote in primaries, I'm a lifetime NRA member, and Conservative enough to believe we need to reign in our Government (Libertarians believe in this), balance a budget, stop illegal immigration, and put our Country and citizens first.

I don't care if you suck on a joint or a dick as long as it doesn't affect me or my family.