OSSR: John Wick's Libertarian Fantasy Utopia

[Libertad]

Coincidentally, Libertarians are all for social freedoms of gays, trans, minorities, etc. What people do in their personal lives, with their own body, as mutually consenting agreeing individuals or groups, is perfectly fine. That's the way things should be.

You earlier argued that it's not un-Libertarian to make a country all-white via restrictive immigration policies, and that the alt-right is "correct from a Libertarian point of view."

That doesn't line up with social freedoms. People like Richard Spencer (the very person who coined the phrase "alt-right") want to kick me out of the US because I'm not 'white' by their exclusionary standards, and I've lived in this country all my life. My own home and private property rights would be null and void in their dystopian vision.

[Wiseman]

And you make the classical argument of roads and taxes. What evidence is there to suggest that private enterprise won't build and maintain the roads? It would seem that businesses have an incentive to provide easy access via roads, rails, etc. to their establishments, both for customers and general logistics purposes.

Because that's what actually happens when people try to instate Libertarian policies. Roads and other infrastructure are left to crumble because nobody wants to pay for it themselves. Seriously, these ideas are historically proven to not work.

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/my_lib ... _debunked/

[deaddmwalking]

And you make the classical argument of roads and taxes. What evidence is there to suggest that private enterprise won't build and maintain the roads? It would seem that businesses have an incentive to provide easy access via roads, rails, etc. to their establishments, both for customers and general logistics purposes.

Because that's what actually happens when people try to instate Libertarian policies. Roads and other infrastructure are left to crumble because nobody wants to pay for it themselves. Seriously, these ideas are historically proven to not work.

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/my_lib ... _debunked/

I like this line:

The government won’t fix the roads, so these desperate entrepreneurs fill in potholes with shovels of dirt or debris. They then stand next to the filled-in pothole soliciting tips from grateful motorists. That is the wet dream of libertarian private sector innovation.

That's my nightmare scenario.

And you make the classical argument of roads and taxes. What evidence is there to suggest that private enterprise won't build and maintain the roads?

First off, I don't need to prove that private enterprise WOULD work. The system we have now does work - if you want to change the system, you need to prove that it would be at least as good. However, I do have ample evidence that private enterprise didn't provide solutions to most people.

I happen to live in the Tennessee Valley. When you were learning about the Great Depression and the 'Alphabet Soup' of programs (arguably when Libertarianism was refuted indisputably), the TVA and rural electrification figured prominently. I know it was taught because I lived in California at the time - it's not a local thing. New York City started getting electric lighting in 1880. It took a government act in 1933 to create the TVA and start adding electrical power. While individually people wanted electricity, and individually people were willing to pay for it, the actual act of collectively making all of the necessary arrangements required a level of coordination that exceeded individual ability. When you have to coordinate actions with thousands of neighbors spread over thousands of miles you need a fair bit of coordination. Fortunately, governments are created by associations of people for exactly that reason.

Having looked at my tax documents from 2018 I paid over $11k in Federal income taxes (which Turbotax tells me is an effective rate of 8%), and more than $20k in Social Security and Medicare taxes. I can promise you that $30k is not an insignificant amount of money to me - I certainly could have found things that I would have prioritized over road maintenance in North Dakota. I almost certainly would not have taken a long-term view and invested it toward my retirement. The government is not a 'thief'. The government, that is, the elected officials that I have had a voice in choosing, are tasked with taking a long-term view of the collective good. I find them to miss the boat in a lot of ways - especially Republicans who have abandoned effective government in many ways to focus on no government. Those exercises have been an unmitigated disaster.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, study up on the Kansas Public School system. And while you're looking at the Libertarian paradise that Kansas tried to create, look at the economic growth in the neighboring states. While committed to a Libertarian model economic growth STAGNATED and Public Services fell apart. Private Enterprise DID NOT fill the void.

Some things are too important to trust to altruism. It's ironic that we're communicating through the internet a perfect example of the kind of service that private enterprise completely failed to create.

[Iduno]

There was no other way this thread could have gone, is there?

We could also have done a compare and contrast between Punisher and John Wick.

[rasmuswagner]

It's terribly ironic, in the sense of dramatic irony, that you and your ilk believe that the only way for there to be peace and prosperity is at the end of swords, clubs, and guns, with shackles and chains.

It's almost like you think those tools are not widely used by private enterprise. But no, you couldn't possibly be that ignorant about history and current events. So what do you mean?

[Mord]

Libertarians assume that, given the freedom to do so, such personal needs would be met by groups and individuals mutually consenting (agreeing) to a contract which both parties agree to: a poor hungry man would not have to steal to eat, for he would be free to enter into any contract and agreement with anyone offering bread that he found favorable.

Since we are now engaged in a dialogue in which we get to assume how ideas would play out in reality without reference to the lessons of history, then I assume that under Communism everyone will always put forth the best of their ability and there will be no free-rider or principal-agent problems.

I am the greatest philosopher who has ever lived or will ever live. Socrates and Adam Smith were dickless punks compared to me. I win economics forever. Bow before your philosopher-king, you fucking peasant.

[hyzmarca]

But notice how, in your world-view, your utopia, you would mandate compassion and charity, thereby destroying both and undermining your own ideal, as the only way to secure something by law is the use of force, violence, coercion. You would compel people to love with guns. And rather than just allowing harm to happen, which is nature and circumstance taking its course and in which no one is culpable, you would, in your own words: distribute injury. You would seek to minimize and mitigate harm by taking the responsibility into your hands of harming everyone else. Thank you for admitting it.

Ah, but you're forgetting natural law. Life is violence. To live, one must kill. Without violence, life is impossible. To only way to avoid committing acts of violence against others is to commit suicide, which is just violence against oneself. Violence is inescapable. This is natural law. Kill and feast or starve and die.

Society and government mandate what violence is permissible and what violence is not. That is all. Eliminating them would not eliminate violence, it would merely make violence less predictable. This enhanced predictability of violence is what allows, and what causes, humans to organize into larger groups. And organizing into groups is the function of our moral instincts, and our empathy.

The problem is that you're assuming a nature that does not exist. You peel back the edifice of human institutions, but you don't peel back the edifice of humanity. You fail to simplify. And you fail to understand that humanity's place within nature. Nothing preys on us. There is a reason for that. Hierarchical structures are exemplary at the application of violence.

The idea that violence can be, or even should be, avoided is woefully naive.

But yes, taking a drop of blood from everyone is ultimately less harmful than taking a gallon from one person. A million people will hardly notice a pinprick, while the one will certainly find it difficult to live with his jugular sliced open.

There was no other way this thread could have gone, is there?

We could also have done a compare and contrast between Punisher and John Wick.

John Wick is an assassin who kills for reasons of money and honor. The Punisher is a soldier who kills because he needs a war to give his life meaning.

[ArmorClassZero]

Coincidentally, Libertarians are all for social freedoms of gays, trans, minorities, etc. What people do in their personal lives, with their own body, as mutually consenting agreeing individuals or groups, is perfectly fine. That's the way things should be.

You earlier argued that it's not un-Libertarian to make a country all-white via restrictive immigration policies, and that the alt-right is "correct from a Libertarian point of view."

That doesn't line up with social freedoms. People like Richard Spencer (the very person who coined the phrase "alt-right") want to kick me out of the US because I'm not 'white' by their exclusionary standards, and I've lived in this country all my life. My own home and private property rights would be null and void in their dystopian vision.

The Alt-Right observes that every nation has an ethnic interest in maintaining the existing ethnic majority status: only in predominantly white nations is this opposed and lambasted as an evil view (ironically, mostly by whites themselves). This is an accurate observation: to assume that a group of people in a particular territory they and their ancestors have occupied for centuries, cannot exclude from their land whoever they wish, paves the way for colonialism and dispossession - the same crimes the Europeans are crucified for. The existing peoples of a territory have every right to exclude from their land (which is their collective property) whoever they wish for whatever reason, because as was stated earlier, among the 1st principles are: You can't (justly) violate the Rights of others EXCEPT in self-defense. Private Property is one such Right. And the only legitimate (just) use of the Law (which is collective force) is to secure the Rights of others. That's it. That's all the Law can justly do. It is of course, possible for the Law to be used for other purposes, like how many here want the Law to be used as a tool to remedy people's misfortune. But the Law cannot do that without defeating its own purpose: without violating the Rights of others. And the individual Rights: Life, Liberty, Person, Property, Happiness are what is known as "negative" Rights, meaning that the only thing necessary to see that they are upheld and NOT violated is a negation of imposition and subjection - restraining from coercion, force, violence, etc. Nothing is required to obtain these Rights other than leaving people alone. Unlike what Frank and others here think, if you operate under the assumption that "I have a right to food," the implication is that, in order to see this "right" upheld and NOT violated, someone must give you food. And if that someone refuses, then what? Their solution: strong-arm someone (not them, of course) into handing it over.

You can legitimately restrict someone from entering your house, your private property. Likewise, as stated earlier, individual Rights, as Libertarians identify them, also apply to groups in the same respect: no individual and/or group can legitimately (justly) use force, coerce, or violence against another individual and/or group EXCEPT as a means of self-defense. If I break into your house, I am as in the wrong as I would be having illegally (without your agreement or consent) entered into the territory that is collectively you and your people's private property. This applies at every level: your home, your street, your neighborhood, your community, your district, your county, etc. etc upwards infinitely.

Richard Spencer isn't a Libertarian: pretty sure he's on record as calling Libertarians all sorts of names, and he seems to want a strong State with plenty of social welfare programs (exclusively for whites, of course.) And he would be in the wrong if he did try to kick you off your property (essentially claiming, by force, that it belongs to him and his.) Now, if Richard Spencer and his crew wants to find an as of yet unoccupied region and settle it exclusively with whites, he is free to do so. And once doing so, he and his community would be free to exclude whoever they wish from that territory. If you think I'm a nazi, or I have the wrong opinions, or you don't like my face or my hair or the clothes I'm wearing, you are within your Rights to deny me access to your home, your street, your neighborhood, etc. etc. scaling upwards infinitely. Many here would do just that based on their limited perception of me alone (which you could call prejudiced, but hey) but that's their Right, and I would defend it. I imagine I will probably be exiled from this forum soon enough, but whatevs. But feel free to continue this OSSR, and I look forward to reading Hoard The Spoils if you do one for it too.

@Wiseman: So a Govt selling off land to outside investors irrespective of the property rights of the present owners (presumably against the people's wishes as a whole) constitutes a Libertarian policy? A Govt that pockets the sale of such lands? A Govt that subsidizes industries at the expense of the poor? A Govt that still (steal?) collects taxes, presumably to pay for their officials and their security - such as a militarized police force that refuses to uphold personal and private property rights? A Govt that gives gangs and cartels free reign (see the previous sentence), which, incidentally, formed around trafficking drugs (mostly) which is what happens when you criminalize something that is in demand by huge numbers of people, Prohibition in the USA being a prime example - that Libertarian wonderland?

@DeadDMWalking: The Great Depression didn't refute free markets or Libertarianism. Markets fluctuate, prices rise and fall. Sometimes people panic, or make poor investments, take bad loans, and spend frivolously. Curiously, the Govt tried numerous spending schemes and jobs programs to help alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. That's interesting - where did the Govt get all this money for these schemes? I wonder if taxing people, price controls, subsidies, and printing money out of thin-air, has anything to do with businesses hurting, people unable to find employment, forclosure, and bank failure. Hmmm...

But it is interesting you mention the TVA. As Wikipedia states (admittedly citation needed): "Many private companies in the Tennessee Valley were bought by the federal government. Others shut down, unable to compete with the TVA. Government regulations were also passed to prevent competition with TVA." Huh, the Fed bought private companies (with whose money? and this is during the Depression?) and others shut down unable to compete (I imagine it would be hard to compete with someone who has an effectively infinite budget), and then made it illegal to compete. Very interesting stuff.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, study up on the Kansas Public School system. And while you're looking at the Libertarian paradise that Kansas tried to create, look at the economic growth in the neighboring states. While committed to a Libertarian model economic growth STAGNATED and Public Services fell apart. Private Enterprise DID NOT fill the void.

What Libertarian paradise? How is cutting taxes on business owners, while keeping them for everyone else a Libertarian paradise? How is cutting taxes on business owners while maintaining Govt spending at all a model of Libertarian economics growth? Sounds like more crony capitalism, more mercantilism. Think about this for more than 2 seconds: They said cutting taxes on business owners would result in job creation, but why would that create jobs when the average consumers don't have any more money than they did prior to the cuts? There isn't more demand, why would businesses hire more employees? But at least they were honest about their aims: Gov. Brownback is on record as saying, over and over, that he thought they would see increased revenue. I imagined their plan was to increase revenue, keep spending the same, and then pocket the profits. And according to Wikipedia, in order to offset the loss of revenue from cutting the income tax, he increased the sales tax! So the average consumer, on top having what they earn stolen from them, is now paying MORE for everything! And then he's at a loss to explain why they didn't see the growth they expected! Fucking brilliant!

But no wonder people here think I'm arguing in favor for oligarchs and plutocrats - you guys think Libertarianism is wanting the Govt to show favoritism to business and corporations, while shitting on the poor. No wonder.

[ArmorClassZero]

It's terribly ironic, in the sense of dramatic irony, that you and your ilk believe that the only way for there to be peace and prosperity is at the end of swords, clubs, and guns, with shackles and chains.

It's almost like you think those tools are not widely used by private enterprise. But no, you couldn't possibly be that ignorant about history and current events. So what do you mean?

A business cannot get your money unless you give it to them. A Govt is, by definition, the authority in any particular region with a monopoly on force. A Govt is the biggest bandit on the block.

Libertarians assume that, given the freedom to do so, such personal needs would be met by groups and individuals mutually consenting (agreeing) to a contract which both parties agree to: a poor hungry man would not have to steal to eat, for he would be free to enter into any contract and agreement with anyone offering bread that he found favorable.

Since we are now engaged in a dialogue in which we get to assume how ideas would play out in reality without reference to the lessons of history, then I assume that under Communism everyone will always put forth the best of their ability and there will be no free-rider or principal-agent problems.

I am the greatest philosopher who has ever lived or will ever live. Socrates and Adam Smith were dickless punks compared to me. I win economics forever. Bow before your philosopher-king, you fucking peasant.

Except... history backs me up on this. The US had the most economic freedom of any nation: people were free to enter into just about any contract they wished, because at the time, the Govt had not yet extended its reach so far as to tell people what they must pay, agree to work for, who they could or could not hire, etc. And the US grew faster and more prosperous than every other nation as a result.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

On a scale from one to ten, how evil would I be for pirating this game? Is that violence?

[Grek]

Unlike what Frank and others here think, if you operate under the assumption that "I have a right to food," the implication is that, in order to see this "right" upheld and NOT violated, someone must give you food. And if that someone refuses, then what? Their solution: strong-arm someone (not them, of course) into handing it over.

The right to food IS self defense. You, yourself, require food to not die. If you do not have food, you will expire. If the choice is starvation or theft, the correct answer is theft. Or, if you want to be organized about it, taxation.

[Whatever]

The US had the most economic freedom of any nation: people were free to enter into just about any contract they wished

millions of people were literal slaves

fuck all the way off

[deaddmwalking]

This is an accurate observation: to assume that a group of people in a particular territory they and their ancestors have occupied for centuries, cannot exclude from their land whoever they wish, paves the way for colonialism and dispossession - the same crimes the Europeans are crucified for. The existing peoples of a territory have every right to exclude from their land (which is their collective property) whoever they wish for whatever reason, because as was stated earlier, among the 1st principles are: You can't (justly) violate the Rights of others EXCEPT in self-defense.

I own private property. Are you saying that I should have the right to invite as many people from whatever places I want to regardless of your desires as my neighbor?

Are you saying that anyone from any other country should have the right to buy property and invite themselves in?

It is my experience that my neighbors and I have a collective interest in maintaining certain 'standards' that mitigate personal rights to property. That's why anyone who moves into my neighborhood is automatically assessed HOA dues and subject to the restrictions and covenants.

[Username17]

I'm disappointed. When AC0 was ranting that the inheritance of rich white people had to be protected but we didn't have to give reparations to black people or Native Americans I was hoping to get some deep crazy cuts about how "Finders Keepers" was derivable from natural law and we had to respect the possessions of anyone who got away with a crime for a certain amount of time. Turns out it was just boring white supremacy.

Lame.

-Username17

[Mord]

On a scale from one to ten, how evil would I be for pirating this game? Is that violence?

According to the official Libertarian Violence Scale, pirating this book rates at about the same level as stealing bread to feed your starving children, organizing a labor union, or carrying out a Bolshevik revolution.

In normal people terms, I think that's about a 1 out of 10.

[ArmorClassZero]

Ah, but you're forgetting natural law. Life is violence. To live, one must kill. Without violence, life is impossible. To only way to avoid committing acts of violence against others is to commit suicide, which is just violence against oneself. Violence is inescapable. This is natural law. Kill and feast or starve and die.

Society and government mandate what violence is permissible and what violence is not. That is all. Eliminating them would not eliminate violence, it would merely make violence less predictable. This enhanced predictability of violence is what allows, and what causes, humans to organize into larger groups. And organizing into groups is the function of our moral instincts, and our empathy.

The problem is that you're assuming a nature that does not exist. You peel back the edifice of human institutions, but you don't peel back the edifice of humanity. You fail to simplify. And you fail to understand that humanity's place within nature. Nothing preys on us. There is a reason for that. Hierarchical structures are exemplary at the application of violence.

The idea that violence can be, or even should be, avoided is woefully naive.

But yes, taking a drop of blood from everyone is ultimately less harmful than taking a gallon from one person. A million people will hardly notice a pinprick, while the one will certainly find it difficult to live with his jugular sliced open.

Killing animals and plants to eat might constitute violence in the strictest sense of the word, but we're not talking about violence against animals or plants (except as they relate to human beings) - we're talking about violence on human beings and their property by human beings. Of course, killing animals or plants for the hell of it makes you an asshole, but that's besides the point.

Society and Govt may mandate what violence is permissible or not permissible, but that doesn't necessarily mean their mandated violence (or lack thereof) is legitimate i.e. just, which is the concern.

I don't think violence can be or should be avoided. But I think there is a time and place and just cause for violence - self-defense. That's the only legitimate (just) use of violence. I don't see how you can argue any other way. You talk about human nature and simplifying things - how can you get simpler than "govt leaves people alone, except to uphold self-defense when the individual is not able"?

@Almanac: It's a bit different with non-physical things. I mean, if I buy a thing, make a copy of it, and then give you a copy of the thing I bought, have you stolen anything?

Now if I stole the thing, and you knew or suspected I had stolen the thing, and I made a copy of it, and then gave you a copy, are you then also a thief? Are you culpable at that point? I'm honestly not sure.

@Grek: If I don't have food, and no food is given to me, was I harmed? You clearly think so, but I was no better or worse off than before. My condition did not change. And the choice would be: starve, steal, or work. Except that, due to Govt intervention, you (assuming you are my employer) and I cannot agree to any contract that the Govt does not consent to. I could not agree to work for $4 for 1 hour, enough to buy some McDonalds, because the Govt would not agree to that contract because it would be "unfair" to me in their eyes: how dare we agree to to this mutually beneficial contract of 4$ for 1 hour! How dare us! For shame!

I own private property. Are you saying that I should have the right to invite as many people from whatever places I want to regardless of your desires as my neighbor?

Are you saying that anyone from any other country should have the right to buy property and invite themselves in?

It is my experience that my neighbors and I have a collective interest in maintaining certain 'standards' that mitigate personal rights to property. That's why anyone who moves into my neighborhood is automatically assessed HOA dues and subject to the restrictions and covenants.

Line by line: Yes, but only to your house and the boundaries that constitute your private property. No block parties or anything like that without my and your neighbor's consent.

Actually, yes, I think that holds up. You would have to buy the property though, but it can't be from the Govt, which is supposedly representative of the citizens (those already here.) The Govt would 1st have to sell it to the citizens, thus making it private property. If you chose to sell it to immigrants, that's your prerogative. However, the immigrants would still have to follow all legal immigration rules (which amounts to getting consent at every level: nation, state, county, town, etc. on down.)

You say you and your neighbors have standards that mitigate personal rights to property, but what you said isn't contradictory to Libertarian principles: in your example, the HOA and such is you and your neighbor's collective rights, as the neighborhood is your collective property. It checks out.

@Whatever: Slavery was, of course, the exception. That and tariffs. That doesn't invalidate what I said. The US had the most economic freedom of any nation. But in case you weren't aware, slavery is a violation of human rights. Interestingly enough, slavery was legal by law - that is, authorized by the Govt. But that didn't make it right, now did it? Just because something is legal doesn't make it just. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it just.

@Frank: You say my argument is white supremacy... because I recognize human rights? Because you disagree with my principles? How is recognizing that people have a right continue living on the land their ancestors lived on for centuries (amounts to private property rights) at all white supremacy? That's literally the argument most people make AGAINST the Europeans colonialism...

[deaddmwalking]

[
You say you and your neighbors have standards that mitigate personal rights to property, but what you said isn't contradictory to Libertarian principles: in your example, the HOA and such is you and your neighbor's collective rights, as the neighborhood is your collective property. It checks out.

Well, turns out you support government after all.

Not only did my neighbors form an HOA to collectively govern concerns around common properties (the pool, the clubhouse, the entrance gardens) and standards of care (yard maintenance, decoration, etc), we also formed a city council to create regulations on licensed businesses so when we have hail damage we know we are dealing with a reputable company that can fulfill their needs. We also empowered them to set building codes to ensure that the houses we live in (and the repairs we make) aren't going to result in our deaths due to shoddy construction and shoddy work. We recognized that these types of local concerns are bigger than our neighborhood, so we authorized larger and more extensive areas of government oversight. Now, when I buy food from the grocery store it isn't 90% lead!

I'm glad that you agree that my neighbors and I have a legitimate need to create governing bodies to ensure oversight and control of all the ways individuals or corporations might try to disrupt my rights to enjoy my private property safely and securely.


Edit - Why is it that libertarians don't understand or accept that hiring 'the government' to handle things is often cheaper and more effective than hiring 'private contractors'. I don't need a whole security guard, and I don't need a whole Armored Division - by breaking out ownership collectively without a profit-seeking motive my neighbors and I enjoy services that we could not obtain on our own at a lower price than a corporate stock company. It certainly couldn't be that they feel it is unfair that the stock owners don't have more investment options? $100 in the S&P in 2010 would be worth $285 now - I don't see how privatizing my utilities would help ME but I sure how it would cost me more money.

[Libertad]

On a scale from one to ten, how evil would I be for pirating this game? Is that violence?

The book is hosted for free on MagPie Games, so it's neither moral nor immoral.

But feel free to continue this OSSR, and I look forward to reading Hoard The Spoils if you do one for it too.

I already finished writing it; I wrote up this review several years ago, so my posts were copypasta jobs.

The Alt-Right observes that every nation has an ethnic interest in maintaining the existing ethnic majority status: only in predominantly white nations is this opposed and lambasted as an evil view (ironically, mostly by whites themselves). This is an accurate observation: to assume that a group of people in a particular territory they and their ancestors have occupied for centuries, cannot exclude from their land whoever they wish, paves the way for colonialism and dispossession - the same crimes the Europeans are crucified for. The existing peoples of a territory have every right to exclude from their land (which is their collective property) whoever they wish for whatever reason, because as was stated earlier, among the 1st principles are: You can't (justly) violate the Rights of others EXCEPT in self-defense. Private Property is one such Right. And the only legitimate (just) use of the Law (which is collective force) is to secure the Rights of others. That's it. That's all the Law can justly do. It is of course, possible for the Law to be used for other purposes, like how many here want the Law to be used as a tool to remedy people's misfortune. But the Law cannot do that without defeating its own purpose: without violating the Rights of others. And the individual Rights: Life, Liberty, Person, Property, Happiness are what is known as "negative" Rights, meaning that the only thing necessary to see that they are upheld and NOT violated is a negation of imposition and subjection - restraining from coercion, force, violence, etc. Nothing is required to obtain these Rights other than leaving people alone. Unlike what Frank and others here think, if you operate under the assumption that "I have a right to food," the implication is that, in order to see this "right" upheld and NOT violated, someone must give you food. And if that someone refuses, then what? Their solution: strong-arm someone (not them, of course) into handing it over.

To the bold: there's quite a few non-majority white countries which accept boatloads of immigrants. Lots of Gulf Arab states rely upon Indians and Pakistanis for blue collar labor (to varying degrees of indentured servitude) and Hong Kong has a lot of immigrants as well of both laborers and businessmen. And that city's often ranked the most capitalist territory/city-state/etc in the world among many polls!

Indonesia actually holds up multiculturalism as a good thing, and is enshrined in their equivalent Constitution. This is b/c it's a huge archipelago with many different ethnic groups and languages among the islands. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika!

The idea that it's only self-hating whites who are fine with losing their majority status is well, an alt-Right myth.

To the italics: I'll probably start worrying when Latino immigrants begin forcing Anglo children to speak Spanish and give up Protestantism in Catholic boarding schools. This has yet to happen, so the alt-Right is tilting at windmills. The anti-immigrant woes a hundred years ago were freaking out about Irish, Jews, you name it, under similar pretenses. And now, they're still a minority in the USA, and more or less integrated into the larger melting pot while also contributing businesses and infrastructure of their own. A Libertarian wet dream!

[ArmorClassZero]

@DeadDMWalking: Did I ever say I was against Govt? Nope. I am against Govts using force, violence, coercion, etc. for anything other than self-defense of personal liberty and private property (which applies equally to individuals and groups.) (However, I am strongly opposed to our present Govt due to violations of Rights as said 20x now.)

I oppose taxes on the grounds that they are not voluntary. HOA fees are not taxes, as by purchasing the property (before even purchasing it) in a territory with a HOA, one is agreeing to abide by their standards. It is a contract with mutual agreement and consent. Furthermore, penalizing non-complicit homeowners is legit, since they are violating a contract they initially agreed to. So that checks out, no?

You say you guys formed a city council. That implies you're being financed, at least in part, by taxes. Taxes are largely involuntary, compelled to by force. You would need the consent of all that you purport to govern for this to be legit. Otherwise, not good.

You say you formed the council to create regulations on licensed businesses so you know they're reputable. Isn't this a bit redundant? Surely, if the business has been licensed by the Govt, at any level, they have met certain quality standards? Or are licenses just a way to generate more revenue for the Govt? Hmmm... Driving up the cost of business makes it more costly for consumers. Also how did you empower these businesses? Did you allot to them tax-payer dollars to develop and set a system of building codes? Not good. Also, isn't that further redundancy? If a business does shoddy work, they will inevitably go out of business. It is unfortunate that some people may get hurt along the way, but that's what personal responsibility is for: as a consumer your responsibility is to do your homework and verify the quality of the business you're hiring. Likewise, it is in the businesses best interest to sell food that isn't contaminated - doing so will cause them to lose business fast, to their own detriment. Govt oversight in these cases is just increasing costs to the consumers on two fronts: they not only have to pay for your bureaucracy to do all the over-seeing, in order to comply with all of these rules and regulations, businesses must hire additional personal, which in turn, raises prices to compensate, hurting the consumer further.

But I suppose that, agreeing to pay theses licenses and abide by these regulations is a tacit agreement and contract in and of itself. It just makes things more costly, which retards wealth and growth and prosperity.

But then, I also think people who disagree or want to live differently should be able to secede, but most Govts (at any level) will not recognize their Right to do so.

[Foxwarrior]

I oppose taxes on the grounds that they are not voluntary. HOA fees are not taxes, as by purchasing the property (before even purchasing it) in a territory with a HOA, one is agreeing to abide by their standards. It is a contract with mutual agreement and consent. Furthermore, penalizing non-complicit homeowners is legit, since they are violating a contract they initially agreed to. So that checks out, no?

So taxes would be fine if the government handed everyone a contract at age 18 where you agree to pay taxes in exchange for not being thrown out of the country?

[Iduno]

John Wick is an assassin who kills for reasons of money and honor. The Punisher is a soldier who kills because he needs a war to give his life meaning.

In the movies I've seen, however, their motivations are quite similar. John Wick killed a bunch of mobsters because one killed the dog his dead wife bought him. Frank Castle killed a bunch of mobsters because one killed his wife and child. Both men are affected by grief, and lash out organization protecting the person who made them feel powerless. They do some good, but neither has as much interest in doing so as getting revenge.

Blah Blah Blah

[deaddmwalking]

@DeadDMWalking: Did I ever say I was against Govt?

You did call them 'the biggest thieves. Are you saying that you're not against theft?

Nope. I am against Govts using force, violence, coercion, etc. for anything other than self-defense of personal liberty and private property (which applies equally to individuals and groups.) (However, I am strongly opposed to our present Govt due to violations of Rights as said 20x now.)

I don't know what you mean by 'present government'. I'm opposed to the current administration because of their violations of human rights, but I'm not opposed to our democratically elected system of government that includes obligations to the governed.

I oppose taxes on the grounds that they are not voluntary. HOA fees are not taxes, as by purchasing the property (before even purchasing it) in a territory with a HOA, one is agreeing to abide by their standards.

Choosing to live in a country that has an established system of government and taxation also means abiding by their standards. Fortunately, one of our standards is that you're allowed to complain.

The Sixteenth Amendment was passed in 1913. Keep in mind that it required 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate and it was then ratified by 36 states (of 48 at the time) before being ratified by 8 more after it went to law. So unless you're over 100 years old, you've had ample opportunity to relocate to a place that has a government more in line with your values.

You say you guys formed a city council. That implies you're being financed, at least in part, by taxes.

No, it doesn't. It does imply you can't parse English. Let me rephrase.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

What I mean is that my neighbors and I inherited a system of government created by our forebears that we approve of and support. Many of us have taken an oath to defend the Constitution.

Taxes are largely involuntary, compelled to by force.

You are not required to earn money or generate taxable income. You are not required to reside in or be a citizen of the United States. You can avoid taxes. However, taxes are not 'largely involuntary'. They are 'largely agreed to by the governed' and while we may quibble about how they are spent, we agree that government represents our needs and that taxation is a legitimate form of spending on societal goods that individuals would not do specifically.

For myself, I'm actually fine with a doubling of my income tax. However, I'm not going to VOLUNTEER to pay double; there's a certain amount of fairness that I expect.

If a business does shoddy work, they will inevitably go out of business. It is unfortunate that some people may get hurt along the way, but that's what personal responsibility is for: as a consumer your responsibility is to do your homework and verify the quality of the business you're hiring.

Well, it's very kind of you to add a whole bunch of extra work and responsibilities on my shoulders, but that's one I don't want. I'm very busy making money for my self, my family, the businesses I support, and the government that addresses so many needs for so many other people. I'm already paying someone to do the vetting for me - why would I want to do that myself - and expect every other person to do it as well. Doing it tens of thousands of times is not nearly as efficient as having a vetting authority do the work for everyone. Again and still, that's why we create government and that's why we elect officials to pass laws that benefit us directly. I am not okay with 'some people being hurt' because a business steals from me because they are not legitimate. Especially if there is no government office to hold those businesses accountable, there isn't really any way to ensure that they 'necessarily go out of business'. They can just change their name.

Likewise, it is in the businesses best interest to sell food that isn't contaminated - doing so will cause them to lose business fast, to their own detriment.

Again and still, you have no knowledge of history. Go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

But then, I also think people who disagree or want to live differently should be able to secede, but most Govts (at any level) will not recognize their Right to do so.

No, nor should they. Would you like to have a separate discussion about secession? Lincoln was right - if you allow a disaffected minority to leave every time they dislike the majority's decision, you eventually necessarily devolve into a nation of individuals. That's bad. You can't have an army if YOU ARE THE NATION.

[Whatever]

@Whatever: Slavery was, of course, the exception. That and tariffs. That doesn't invalidate what I said. The US had the most economic freedom of any nation.

Holy shit, he doubled down.

The wealth of the United States was built on two of the greatest crimes in history: the chattel slavery of millions of African people and their descendants, and the systemic genocide of Native people from sea to shining sea. Both spanned centuries, and continue in attenuated forms through the present day.

For the United States to have had "the most economic freedom" you would have to entirely discount the freedoms of Native people and Black people as irrelevant to the calculus (and women too). Which, of course, he does. Then and now.

Libertarian ideology protects, supports, and empowers every form of structural bigotry and structural inequality in society at large. That's what it's for.

[ArmorClassZero]

To the bold: there's quite a few non-majority white countries which accept boatloads of immigrants. Lots of Gulf Arab states rely upon Indians and Pakistanis for blue collar labor (to varying degrees of indentured servitude) and Hong Kong has a lot of immigrants as well of both laborers and businessmen. And that city's often ranked the most capitalist territory/city-state/etc in the world among many polls!

Indonesia actually holds up multiculturalism as a good thing, and is enshrined in their equivalent Constitution. This is b/c it's a huge archipelago with many different ethnic groups and languages among the islands. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika!

The idea that it's only self-hating whites who are fine with losing their majority status is well, an alt-Right myth.

To the italics: I'll probably start worrying when Latino immigrants begin forcing Anglo children to speak Spanish and give up Protestantism in Catholic boarding schools. This has yet to happen, so the alt-Right is tilting at windmills. The anti-immigrant woes a hundred years ago were freaking out about Irish, Jews, you name it, under similar pretenses. And now, they're still a minority in the USA, and more or less integrated into the larger melting pot while also contributing businesses and infrastructure of their own. A Libertarian wet dream!

Briefly: Are these immigrants to the Arab Gulfs on the equivalent of temporary work visas? Are they expected to return to their native countries after an allotted time? And are they arriving in such numbers that could challenge or displace the ethnic natives?

Hong Kong is ~92% ethnically Han Chinese.

You cite Indonesia as an example of a diverse multicultural nation, but notice how each ethnicity effectively has its own territory among the islands where the majority of that ethnicity can be found.

The anti-Irish, anti-Italian sentiment was mainly due to bigotry against Catholicism plus the fact that an influx of low-skill manual laborers meant employers could afford to hire them for less than the current American laborers. Some of the anti-Italian, anti-Eastern European sentiment was based on fears that these immigrants would bring with them political ideas antithetical to the American way of life, i.e. socialism and communism.

There's no need for Latino immigrants to force Anglo children to speak Spanish. The white Americans in those parts of the country are mostly just leaving. It's a phenamon called "white flight", which is effectively white Americans ceding territory to Hispanic immigrants. And there has been a sizable demographic shift in the past few decades: approximately 17% of the US population is now Hispanic. If the Govt of the USA will not enforce the borders (as the USA is the collective private property of American citizens), they are effectively betraying the American people.

@Fox: It would be a start.

@The Rest Of You Guys: I guess I'm done (for today anyway). Thanks for the laughs. I learned some things, hopefully you guys did too (cue insults like, "Oh yeah, we learned Libertarians are [expletive]," and "Actually, we already knew Libertarians were [expletive].")

I would like to leave you guys with some food for thought, since DeadDMWalking mentioned Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, but it will probably go wasted:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/20 ... r-big-meat | "By the turn of the 19th century, about 500,000 [people] a year were coming to visit the stockyards and the packinghouses."

https://books.google.com/books?id=jTyfQ ... at&f=false | "Government inspection was, along with the banking regulation and the crude state railroad regulatory apparatus, the oldest of the regulatory systems. By 1904, 84% of the beef slaughter by the Big Four packers in Chicago, and 100% of the beef slaughtered in Ft. Worth, was being inspected by the government; 73% of the packers' entire US kill was being inspected. It was the smaller packers that the government inspection system failed to reach, and the major packers resented this competitive disadvantage. The way to solve this liability, most of them reasoned, was to enforce and extend the law, and to exploit it for their own advantage. [...] Roosevelt erred in sending to the slaughterhouses two inexperienced Washington bureaucrats who freely admitted they knew nothing of canning. The major result of the hearings was to reveal that the big Chicago packers wanted more meat inspection, both to bring the small packers under control and to aid their position in the the export trade. [...] According to the minutes of the meeting, the packers responded to this proposition with "loud applause" and not with a shudder. [...] Swift & Co. and the other giant packers told the public in large ads: "It is a wise law. Its enforcement must be universal and uniform.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungl ... l_response | "Sinclair rejected the legislation (the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act), which he considered an unjustified boon to large meat packers. The government (and taxpayers) would bear the costs of inspection, estimated at $30,000,000 annually."

[Libertad]

Many South Asian workers have had their passports withheld upon arrival, forcing them to work long-term in the country. There are some statistical analysis suggesting that they comprise very large minority groups. The United Arab Emirates is projected to have a majority population that is not Emirati Arab by 2040-2050. The UAE, also being the more liberal of the Arab nations, actually built a Hindu temple to attend to the religious needs of said workers.

As for Han Chinese, I don't know enough about how Chinese people perceive themselves racially-speaking, but I do know that there's some big cultural gaps among inter-Chinese groups. Mainlander Chinese, Hong Kongers, and Taiwanese people all intermingle in Hong Kong, and since the 1997 handover there's been more Mainlanders visiting Hong Kong.

Regarding Indonesia, the same thing can be said about the US in several cases. And given they're all under one government, I presume that there's some inter-cultural trade and exchange along with unified federal laws; due to the separation of sea Indonesia heavily relies upon radio and the Internet for communication between the isles, so they're not exactly their own separatist enclaves.

There's no need for Latino immigrants to force Anglo children to speak Spanish. The white Americans in those parts of the country are mostly just leaving. It's a phenamon called "white flight", which is effectively white Americans ceding territory to Hispanic immigrants. And there has been a sizable demographic shift in the past few decades: approximately 17% of the US population is now Hispanic. If the Govt of the USA will not enforce the borders (as the USA is the collective private property of American citizens), they are effectively betraying the American people.

I guess you're not a traditional Libertarian after all, but an Alt-Righter using the mantra of "maximum freedom" for their own purposes. A lot of classical Libertarians are all about open borders and globalism (globalism as in the interconnectedness of trade, not the Secret Cabal of Jews kind).

You earlier claimed that it's all fine and dandy for US businesses to pay Mexican immigrants below minimum wage and that this is all consensual, but now you're saying that their presence is basically an invasion that requires the intervention of the State. But if these white people are supposedly packing up of their own volition ('white flight') without force or coercion, how exactly is the collective property rights being violated as long as said immigrants are renting/purchasing houses and working honest jobs?

There are many different Latino groups, and not all are living in their own ethnic enclaves. Cuban-Americans in particular assimilated well to the US. There's still plenty of white people living in Arizona, New Mexico, and California, and the presence of Spanish-speaking majority neighborhoods is in no way a zero-sum game of 'ceding territory.' Lots of Jewish/Slavic/etc neighborhoods in New York were not majority-English speaking either. And nowadays nobody thinks it odd when they see some guy with a Goldstein or Kowalski surname on a job application form. Soon it will be the same way with Gutierrez and Domingo, and already is in several places in the USA.