Is anarchism/minarchism/anarocapitalism hostile towards libertarianism?

[violence]

To be fair i called you a d bag after you were being one. So your excuse for being obtuse isn't valid.

[AntonLee]

I agree with Kat

Should I make this my sig line?

[thinkliberty]

To be fair i called you a d bag after you were being one. So your excuse for being obtuse isn't valid.

I don't like violent police thugs. That does not make me obtuse.  You saying: "i think i would come kill you and take your stuff" makes you the one being obtuse. Please stop being hypocritical.

So your excuse for a violent police force to collect "mandatory taxes on things like trade, tariffs and the like is not valid. Because you can't come up with a excuse for it, except you are going to kill people and take their things and call people a d' bag that point out the flaws in your way of thinking.

To be fair there is no need to call anyone names. You are the only one doing that.

[violence]

I never said anything about myself being in favor of tariff taxes i simply asked a what if question to those with anarcho-capatalist views. You flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions, and saying i want thug police makes you a d bag

[thinkliberty]

I never said anything about myself being in favor of tariff taxes i simply asked a what if question to those with anarcho-capatalist views. You flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions, and saying i want thug police makes you a d bag

I thought we were talking about your idea of mandatory taxes on trade, tariffs and the like. I did not realize you were taking it so personal.

You asked about a lame violent idea and I answered letting you defend where your idea was coming from.

I used logic and reason to answer your question and you went "flying off the handle" calling me a d' bag and telling me you would kill me and take my stuff if certain things happened even though I had done nothing to you.

[violence]

I never said anything about myself being in favor of tariff taxes i simply asked a what if question to those with anarcho-capatalist views. You flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions, and saying i want thug police makes you a d bag

I thought we were talking about your idea of mandatory taxes on trade, tariffs and the like. I did not realize you were taking it so personal.

You asked about a lame violent idea and I answered letting you defend where your idea was coming from.

I used logic and reason to answer your question and you went "flying off the handle" calling me a d' bag and telling me you would kill me and take my stuff if certain things happened even though I had done nothing to you.

learn to read. you must have went to gubment skool.

its a plain as day question and there was no hint of it being my own opinion

[thinkliberty]

I never said anything about myself being in favor of tariff taxes i simply asked a what if question to those with anarcho-capatalist views. You flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions, and saying i want thug police makes you a d bag

I thought we were talking about your idea of mandatory taxes on trade, tariffs and the like. I did not realize you were taking it so personal.

You asked about a lame violent idea and I answered letting you defend where your idea was coming from.

I used logic and reason to answer your question and you went "flying off the handle" calling me a d' bag and telling me you would kill me and take my stuff if certain things happened even though I had done nothing to you.

learn to read. you must have went to gubment skool.

its a plain as day question and there was no hint of it being my own opinion

I know how to read. You've already called be a douche bag so I guess you still want to go on with the personal attacks, but I won't go there, because I am better than that.

I answer this in my last post:
You asked about a lame violent idea (your very simple question) and I gave you a simple answer and let you defend where your idea was coming from.

I think you gave us a hint of your own opinion. with the name calling the personal attacks and when you said that you would kill me and take all my stuff.

You could have said "I don't believe in violent police thugs" and I would have agreed with you and answered neither do I. For some reason you decided to say you would kill me and take my stuff. (why would anyone say that? I guess it would have to be a guy that has the screen name "violence." Why don't you tell me why you said it? I would like to know your opinion on that. Where do your violent ideas come from?)

[violence]

I never said anything about myself being in favor of tariff taxes i simply asked a what if question to those with anarcho-capatalist views. You flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions, and saying i want thug police makes you a d bag

I thought we were talking about your idea of mandatory taxes on trade, tariffs and the like. I did not realize you were taking it so personal.

You asked about a lame violent idea and I answered letting you defend where your idea was coming from.

I used logic and reason to answer your question and you went "flying off the handle" calling me a d' bag and telling me you would kill me and take my stuff if certain things happened even though I had done nothing to you.

learn to read. you must have went to gubment skool.

its a plain as day question and there was no hint of it being my own opinion

I know how to read. You've already called be a douche bag so I guess you still want to go on with the personal attacks, but I won't go there, because I am better than that.

I answer this in my last post:
You asked about a lame violent idea (your very simple question) and I gave you a simple answer and let you defend where your idea was coming from.

I think you gave us a hint of your own opinion. with the name calling the personal attacks and when you said that you would kill me and take all my stuff.

You could have said "I don't believe in violent police thugs" and I would have agreed with you and answered neither do I. For some reason you decided to say you would kill me and take my stuff. (why would anyone say that? I guess it would have to be a guy that has the screen name "violence." Why don't you tell me why you said it? I would like to know your opinion on that. Where do your violent ideas come from?)

i said it as a joke and to piss you off.

you really have a screw loose.

and i'm pointing out the huge flaw in your anarcho belief. i believe the correct role of government is to protect the rights of individuals. without government fullfilling this proper role, i would kill you and take your stuff. (or someone else would, or a group of people, or a group of people who formed a government).

at no time in history has anarchism ever existed, and it will never exist, no matter what you do, it will NEVER exist.

Now, personally i would be very happy, and this would be a perfect world, having NO STATE. i would love that very much, but it can't happen. having government fulfill its proper role, would make everyone free.

Without law, there can be no freedom.

[thinkliberty]

i'm pointing out the huge flaw in your anarcho belief. i believe the correct role of government is to protect the rights of individuals. without government fullfilling this proper role, i would kill you and take your stuff. (or someone else would, or a group of people, or a group of people who formed a government).

The only thing you have pointed out is that you are caught up in circular reasoning.

You are for killing people and stealing their stuff (with your government) so that you don't kill me and take my stuff? (or someone else would, or a group of people, or a group of people who formed a government).  Yep classic case in circular reasoning.

What if I protected my things with locks so it would not be worth your time to try and kill me and take my things? What if someone else protected my things or a group of people protects me or my things without forming a government? Then I would have protection.

You don't need a government to protect you, if you live in a society that cares about the rights of the individual.

You say "at no time in history has anarchism ever existed, and it will never exist, no matter what you do, it will NEVER exist." and I will counter with at no time in history has the internet existed and the world has never been so connected. So just because something has never happened before does not mean it will ever work or exist.

People never thought it would be possible to go to the moon or fly around the world in a single day, but they do now because of technology.

The ancient Greeks did not have the internet, so I realize they don't have a clear picture of the modern world and freedom or the law.

[KBCraig]

I hereby move this thread be relocated into "endless debate and whining".

[AntonLee]

seconded

[John Edward Mercier]

I think the last long post is also flawed reasoning.
The current government format is a group of protective collectives. Its really not a single entity.
These collectives are formed through associative beliefs of behavior... but are generally not geographical in nature do to physical limitations. The push/pull that we see in politics is the interaction of these intertwined groups as expressed by Joseph Priestley to Thomas Jefferson.

So in essence, we are all anarchists... that may momentarily form a minarchy... but seldom a permanent one due to variations in believes.

[Ryan McGuire]

Why do I always find all the really good threads after they've devolved into ad hominem ridden crap?

Through the OP I stumbled onto this article which I thought was really quite good, and I thought I'd post some comments here regarding it, but I think I'll save it for a different venue.

[thinkliberty]

I think the last long post is also flawed reasoning.
The current government format is a group of protective collectives. Its really not a single entity.
These collectives are formed through associative beliefs of behavior... but are generally not geographical in nature do to physical limitations. The push/pull that we see in politics is the interaction of these intertwined groups as expressed by Joseph Priestley to Thomas Jefferson.

So in essence, we are all anarchists... that may momentarily form a minarchy... but seldom a permanent one due to variations in believes.

The current government is a group of protective collectives that claims to be a single entity. The United States of America and/or the state of NH. These collectives are formed through associative beliefs.. but they are geographical in nature due to physical borders.

The push/pull we see in politics is the collectives trying to take control of the a single entity -- the government and it's monopoly on violence.

So in essence we are not all anarchists. The USA is not a minarchy or momentary. 200+ years is pretty permanent considering the average life span of a person is about 70-80 years. 

[Russell Kanning]

Why do I always find all the really good threads after they've devolved into ad hominem ridden crap?

maybe the good threads attract lots of posts .... and the crazy attack posters finish them off