They'd either consider it not their problem and be isolationist about it, only protest and speak out about it, or go full Karl Popper and use force against an extreme violation of the NAP on behalf of slave owners.

My first response to you was in response to this:



I will admit I could have responded nicer.

The NAP has nothing to do with flaming other people in a discussion.
Not sure if you are joking about that or what.

If I get my ideal pick, I replace democracy with liberty.
People engage in voluntary and mutually beneficial arrangements.
If people want to voluntarily agree to vote on certain things within their groups thats fine.
Voluntary pooling of resources to address issues they agree are important. Their liberty and their income shouldn't be up to a vote.

The idea that an ignorant and easily manipulated majority get to force their views(or their candidates views, which often don't match up w/ the voters) on everyone else and trample on their rights and steal their money is terrible.

Democracy: the god that failed makes the case that even monarchy is preferable in some ways.
Instead of short term looting and pillaging and caving to pressure groups/special interests to get reelected there is more of an incentive in long term preservation and outcomes.

A less extreme alternative solution is a great reduction in the scope and power of government and a return to the purpose of the republic.
Very minimal and restricted government powers aimed at protecting liberties, like those in the bill of rights.
A vote for president+congress would be less divisive and disastrous if their role is greatly limited and its not two factions vying to force a plethora of views on each other on a federal level and spending trillions upon trillions of dollars.

My main problem with democracy is you always end up with two diametrically opposing sides swapping turns at the wheel, what does that lead to?
No long term thinking.
You cant put a 20 year plan into place if the jerks coming in next term hate the idea.
We had a national broadband network being built here that would have been future proof and had the entire country running at minimum 100 meg fibre optic connections, the conservatives got in and said they would save money by keeping half of it copper, now we have a piece of crap that will need to be maintained constantly that will not be able to handle our infrastructure.
This is not an outlier, this is common, this is a huge glaring flaw in democracy.
Taking turns at leadership means you have to get all your shit done in 4-8 years AND make it impossible to sabotage or sell off.

That's the result of the voting style. Places like the UK have many different parties that frequently go in and out of favor. The United States has first-past-the-post voting, so we will never have a viable third party.

Australia has a preference system that always leads to two parties.

How do you define liberty?

The dictionary definition of "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." seems generally adequate.

That seems incredibly vague to me. What are oppressive restrictions? I'm not sure if there is consensus on that...

speed limits on interstate highways not my fault someone else can’t drive fast without crashing when we clearly got a long ass haul ahead of us lmfao

inb4 taxes paid for it so they get to make the rules whatever

This post was edited by excellence on May 3 2020 10:01pm

My idea of liberty clashes with libertarianism because i believe in freedom of movement, i should be able to fish, hunt and prospect wherever i want without some asshole landowner with 22,000 hectares of land having the cops throw me off for trespassing when he owns half of the viable camping ground in my area.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on May 3 2020 10:02pm