somalia fallacy.


sounds like nonsense.
can you substantiate this claim?


libertarianism is about as far from fascism as you can get. pure nonsense claim.






how is it detrimental to ethics? whose ethics?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 23 2017 03:56am

somalia isnt a fallacy, it's an area with mucho gracias individual rights


free market mathematic models arent working on well on humans
maths dont cheat, humans do.


we can start with private police & judges


free market babies & slaves should not be a problem... After all thousands years of history are nothing vs Holy Liberarianism...



Damn i had something essential to add but i forgot


Edit yes !

- Libertarianism will divide the society, that will end up in getting annexed by another country (if it doesnt fall to fascism before)

=> So like i said it's just a movement for less state rights and more individual rights, and that can be good, example: China. Finally it's all about being moderated.

YOU MUST PAY TAXES CAMBO, YOU HAVE TO.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Oct 23 2017 03:59am

So you're just a hypocrite then? Ok.

I'm totally open to honest debate. Just couldn't be arsed debating something as ridiculous as libertarianism. But I've given you the chance and now I'm the one who has to come up with a proposition?

Ok sure. Whatever.

First you should probably let us know just how far you're willing to go with this schtick. I mean are you for or against welfare for example?

the somalia = libertarian argument is, tho.


what models? how are they not working well? are they tied to the core of libertarianism?
what does that have to do with a "human factor' libertarianism supposedly isn't considering?

Private and voluntary court systems and security aren't fascism.

this is gibberish.

all societies have the potential to be overtaken by force. a libertarian social order doesn't preclude a strong military or alliances.
A more efficient allocation of resources, freedom to own weaponry, opposition to wars of aggression, and a strong economy would be pros for defense and peaceful coexistence.

we see throughout history that places without a tight central government are typically much harder to effectively take over and control, even with overwhelming military advantages.


'moderation' might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside but you arent making an argument here.


yes or the road pirates will come and get me. i know.

i wont dance on command so i'm a "hypocrite". nice logic. you've outdone yourself again. no actual hypocrisy there just feelings.

and then you go right back to the asinine assertion that libertarianism is ridiculous and you cant be bothered with it.
you dont understand it, haven't read any books on it, habitually refuse to debate it, but you claim its somehow ridiculous and beneath you.
what do you think that says about you?

how gracious of you to give me a 'chance'
i am against forced redistribution of wealth. i am not against voluntary welfare arrangements.

Antarctica ? List me libertarians countries or be damned, infidel.


"free market" model, no regulations, "Robber barons" era is back, congrats


Eveybody will be judge and policeman. No problem... Oh wait.


No regulation and no rules is more likely no ethics too...
It's just a call for civil war.


I doubt a libertarian social order will be able to fund a central army.
Libertarians hippies will be absorbed, corrupted, and recruited, by & for foreign countries.
Their guns cant do much against VX gas anyway. But i heard is very good for suicide.


You are splitting instead of accepting a moderated governement still strong enough to counteract giant conglomerates, that is the key for equilibrium, on the top of that controlled elections & fundings, well it's mostly Europe, even if it's not perfect.


Pay your taxes or the local libertarian Warlord (or Lord) will take your children as slaves, while you will be forced to clean his toilets.

What you think ? [insert your N.A.P memes here]

You're welcome. I am benevolent on occasion.

So by 'voluntary welfare agreements' you mean what? Charity? You want a middle-ages system of church-run hospitals (not the same thing as hospitals today, houses for the poor and dying) or?

Because I think it's a fantasy to believe that people will just voluntarily throw enough money around to keep anything like the welfare state the US has today and even that is not good enough to keep the dying and disabled from often experiencing extreme poverty.

do you think extreme poverty is something often happening in the usa? credibility?

Extreme poverty was eliminated thanks to capitalism in the 20th century

Dems have to hyperbole to make any of their arguments relevant

Depends on your definition of extreme poverty. If, like me, you would define it as not having enough money to feed your family properly or to pay your utilities and rent then yes. I would say so. If it means living on the street becausde you are mentally ill and there is little to no help available for you then yea. I would say so.

If someone sleeps in a cardboard box then that is, in my eyes, pretty extreme poverty.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 23 2017 03:29pm