[EDantes]

What's your opinion on modern libertarian ideologies?

I generally favor smaller, limited government. But I find the more extreme camps of libertarianism (ex. "anarcho-capitalism" or "individualist anarchism") to be cult-like philosophically faulty as well.

The jist of them that I hear in modern politics is that taxation is always wrong regardless of the reason because it is "theft" or "aggression".

However from a philosophical point of view the notion that "aggression" is always wrong is easy to debunk:

1. If aggression is always wrong then there's no difference between shining a flashlight on a person and blasting them with a 100,000 gigawatt laser since both are "acts of directing photons" on a person without their consent.

Heck, even talking in a public place causes soundwaves to 'aggress' upon a person's eardrums without their consent, so according to them there is no difference between talking within hearing distance of someone, and blasting a megaphone right in their ear.

2. Likewise the idea that one has no obligations at all beyond what they voluntarily agree to has holes in it:

-By that logic then a parent has "no right" to set any rules for their child since the child didn't "voluntarily" agree to be born to them, therefore any parental discipline is an "act of aggression against a non-consenting individual").

-Likewise if the believe on has no obligations but what they verbally agree to then why stop at 'aggression' and not simply delve into pure nihilism; if one didn't "agree" to be born at all, why should one respect anyone's rights and not kill, rape, or steal as they see fit?

3. They also simply stop at "humans"; if the non-aggression views were applied literally then it should also mandate non-aggression against animals or militant veganism.

---

Plus libertarians simply argue a false dichtomoy that the only alternative to their literalist worldview is one of 'might makes right' or 'totalitarianism', even though this is false, as there are many other more well-thought out ethical and philosophical systems out there, such as those of Thomas Aquinas and Kant.

Not to mention most of the Founders themselves were not in favor of "no government" or "no taxation", just taxation with representation limited by the Constitution's provisions.

So what are your thoughts on these types of libertarian-ism?

[MMX2010]

I'm part of a group chat with libertarians.

We were discussing culture, and one of them insisted he was more cultured than me.

I asked, "American culture and American values or personal culture and personal values?"

He said, "Both", and tried to prove it using pictures of what he defines as culture.

Two of these were pictures of artwork the hangs in his apartment. One of them was a poster of the Joe Cool camera, and the other was a poster of an advertisement I didn't recognize. And a third picture was of all the books on his shelves.

I counter argued with the iconic photo of American troops raising the flag at the end of the battle of Iwo Jima. (You may not have heard of the battle, but you've seen the photo. Google it if you don't believe me.)

His final photo was of a shot taken from outside of his 50th floor apartment building. You see many buildings, a harbor, a ship. And he said it represented the best of what America can be, because American ingenuity and capitalism built those buildings.

I scoffed and challenged him to point out the one thing missing from his pictures that is present in mine.

He said, "A flag, and government propaganda." - but the correct answer is, "A person, a single human being let alone multiple humans working together."

Can you imagine trying to depict CULTURE without depicting a single human being? That's what I suspect most libertarians would do. Stripped of the emotional awareness of people-bonded-with-people, they define human beings strictly as economic units.

(It was no accident that the first three photos he showed me were if either advertisements or books. Those things, after all, are either meant to encourage buying and selling, or were meant I be bought and sold.)

[EDantes]

(04-28-2016 12:55 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

I'm part of a group chat with libertarians.

We were discussing culture, and one of them insisted he was more cultured than me.

I asked, "American culture and American values or personal culture and personal values?"

He said, "Both", and tried to prove it using pictures of what he defines as culture.

Two of these were pictures of artwork the hangs in his apartment. One of them was a poster of the Joe Cool camera, and the other was a poster of an advertisement I didn't recognize. And a third picture was of all the books on his shelves.

I counter argued with the iconic photo of American troops raising the flag at the end of the battle of Iwo Jima. (You may not have heard of the battle, but you've seen the photo. Google it if you don't believe me.)

His final photo was of a shot taken from outside of his 50th floor apartment building. You see many buildings, a harbor, a ship. And he said it represented the best of what America can be, because American ingenuity and capitalism built those buildings.

I scoffed and challenged him to point out the one thing missing from his pictures that is present in mine.

He said, "A flag, and government propaganda." - but the correct answer is, "A person, a single human being let alone multiple humans working together."

Can you imagine trying to depict CULTURE without depicting a single human being? That's what I suspect most libertarians would do. Stripped of the emotional awareness of people-bonded-with-people, they define human beings strictly as economic units.

(It was no accident that the first three photos he showed me were if either advertisements or books. Those things, after all, are either meant to encourage buying and selling, or were meant I be bought and sold.)

True, I consider "individualism" more or less a myth; one's identity no matter how much of an 'individual' they consider themselves boils down who or what they identify with in values or behavior; beyond that they are simply an organism.

Likewise the great American entrepreneurs didn't do what they did "by themselves", they did it by knowing how to make others cooperate them.

Other than perhaps than someone living alone on a desert island like Robinson Crusoe (and who would want to do that?), there are really no "individuals".

[MMX2010]

Every time one of the members says, "All I want is to be left alone by the government!", I reply, "But that's not true. If that's all you wanted, you could have it tomorrow. Just move to the Alaskan wilderness and use your wealth to pay other people to work for you, and buy your food."

It pisses him off, and makes me laugh.

[ElFlaco]

I used to be interested in libertarian ideas. Libertarians are people in love with a theory, uninterested in whether their theory is compatible with human nature and unaware of the central role played by culture. The ones I have known personally are not astute observers of the social world.

[John Michael Kane]

(04-28-2016 01:57 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I used to be interested in libertarian ideas. Libertarians are people in love with a theory, uninterested in whether their theory is compatible with human nature and unaware of the central role played by culture. The ones I have known personally are not astute observers of the social world.

This is it in a nutshell. In a non-homogeneous society like modern day America, Libertarian ideals have no chance in Hell of ever being instituted. Simply put, identity politics are far more profitable than smaller government.

Also, Libertarianism is a huge joke when it comes to another practical reality; Women's Suffrage. Women, as a voting bloc, love, love, LOVE the idea of government taking care of them. It is simply impossible to have a small government and a government that simultaneously cater to the desires of collectivist women (which what virtually all single women are). Single women want everyone to pay for their healthcare, student loans, etc. Pay, pay, pay! If single women alone weren't allowed to vote, Obama couldn't have won the White House.

In short, being a Libertarian means being a short-sided Utopian. It is a wonderful philosophy for those who enjoy arguing over the finer and more arcane arts of political theory, but it has zero chance in reality of ever being implemented on a larger scale, due to the collective short-sidedness of allowing women into the political sphere in the first place.

[EDantes]

(04-28-2016 01:57 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I used to be interested in libertarian ideas. Libertarians are people in love with a theory, uninterested in whether their theory is compatible with human nature and unaware of the central role played by culture. The ones I have known personally are not astute observers of the social world.

True I consider them ideologues less interested in actually accomplishing anything but more interested in self-righteous posturing.

Akin to groups like PETA proclaiming that "meat is murder" yet apathetic to the fact that they have no actual chance of creating an "all vegan" utopia.

[Delta]

I'm generally in favor of libertarian views, and even I concede that "anarcho-capitalists" are pretty nutty.

They see no nuance. Their start with a conclusion; EVERYTHING would be better off left to private enterprise; and rationalize later. This leads to some whacky mental gymnastics and outlandish claims, such as:

-Private courts could settle all disputes, despite there being no law of the land to base their decision on. Also what happens if a defendant refuses to pay up? Or what if there are predatory court companies that specialize in helping plaintiffs manufacture bullshit lawsuits to extract money from people?
-A private criminal justice system could deal with criminals, despite there being no agreed upon definition of a criminal.
-No military would be necessary in an anarchist society, because apparently no entity would ever threaten a country that minds its own business.
-Private charity exclusively could take care of those in dire need, because there's no way charity could ever be short on funds and allow people to starve to death or die of treatable diseases. Then, of course, there are those anarcho-capitalists who see no problem with poor people dying in the streets.

These types annoy me because they make the movement look stupid. Libertarianism needs to focus on pragmatic solutions for incrementally reducing government intrusion, not ridiculous mental masturbatory theories that are unworkable.

[Centurion]

Semi dupe: thread-53991...ibertarian

(04-28-2016 02:11 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

This is it in a nutshell. In a non-homogeneous society like modern day America, Libertarian ideals have no chance in Hell of ever being instituted. Simply put, identity politics are far more profitable than smaller government.

I think smalller government is way more profitable because of how parasitical government is.

(04-28-2016 02:11 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Also, Libertarianism is a huge joke when it comes to another practical reality; Women's Suffrage. Women, as a voting bloc, love, love, LOVE the idea of government taking care of them. It is simply impossible to have a small government and a government that simultaneously cater to the desires of collectivist women (which what virtually all single women are). Single women want everyone to pay for their healthcare, student loans, etc. Pay, pay, pay! If single women alone weren't allowed to vote, Obama couldn't have won the White House.

Most ideologically pure Libertarians(non minarchists) are anti-democracy, so this entire point is moot.

(04-29-2016 01:24 AM)Delta Wrote:  

I'm generally in favor of libertarian views, and even I concede that "anarcho-capitalists" are pretty nutty.

They see no nuance. Their start with a conclusion; EVERYTHING would be better off left to private enterprise; and rationalize later. This leads to some whacky mental gymnastics and outlandish claims, such as:

I'd argue the non-ancap has to rely on the mental gymnastics to justify government.

(04-29-2016 01:24 AM)Delta Wrote:  

-Private courts could settle all disputes, despite there being no law of the land to base their decision on. Also what happens if a defendant refuses to pay up? Or what if there are predatory court companies that specialize in helping plaintiffs manufacture bullshit lawsuits to extract money from people?
-A private criminal justice system could deal with criminals, despite there being no agreed upon definition of a criminal.

No evidence government courts are superior to non government courts. The "law of the land" would be NAP(and the standard criminals are judged against). Predators don't stop existing in government.

(04-29-2016 01:24 AM)Delta Wrote:  

-No military would be necessary in an anarchist society, because apparently no entity would ever threaten a country that minds its own business.

Not necessarily no military, just that it would be voluntarily funded.

(04-29-2016 01:24 AM)Delta Wrote:  

-Private charity exclusively could take care of those in dire need, because there's no way charity could ever be short on funds and allow people to starve to death or die of treatable diseases. Then, of course, there are those anarcho-capitalists who see no problem with poor people dying in the streets.

No evidence that charity is less efficient than government, so it becomes a moral argument for/against theft and ends justify the means etc.

(04-29-2016 01:24 AM)Delta Wrote:  

These types annoy me because they make the movement look stupid. Libertarianism needs to focus on pragmatic solutions for incrementally reducing government intrusion, not ridiculous mental masturbatory theories that are unworkable.

Seasteading/agorism doesn't seem unworkable.

[John Michael Kane]

When I say government is "profitable", I don't mean keeping a balanced budget or low taxes. I mean that larger government makes it easier to have crony insider kickbacks. Government contracts are the lifeblood of many sectors. There's simply too much money on the table to ever dismantle the system willingly. And certainly not with women being allowed to vote, as wont as they are to prefer largesse. That is why libertarian ideals are just pie in the sky.

[Phoenix]

Libertarians are fully justified in their moral stance, but aren't always capable of extrapolating that out to practicality. That's not really a mark against them though. When you've fallen from a pear tree, you've little experience in what an apple tree would look like.

States are fundamentally founded on anti-morality. Murder, theft, false imprisonment, enslavement, we all recognize as immoral acts. But when the state does it, we all call it pretty words like 'peacekeeping', 'tax', 'corrective services', and 'regulations'. That isn't because of anything fundamentally different about a state, but merely that humans have a tendency to justify away negative things that happen to them or that they are doing. It's called demoralization. Sometimes it's better to delude yourself that the state is OK, preach that, and get rewarded; than it is to exhaust and sadden yourself, fight against it and be punished. None of that alters the fact that the state is based on evil.

However, I think these questions could be taken to the next level. What is the biological root of 'evil'? I'm of the opinion that good and evil are two modes of the human species. Similar to grasshoppers, which have a peaceful grasshopper mode and a swarming locust mode.

In either modes of the human species, there is natural and sexual selection. In either mode, men of intelligence, high energy, physical stature and appearance, and social savvy etc rise to the top.

In the 'good' mode however, it is the moral man who rises to the top, by being wealthier and virtuous and earning a higher reputation. This expression of the traits allow him to attract a more genetically fit wife, and to better provide for his offspring. The men at the bottom go without.

In the 'evil' mode, it is the psychopath who rises to the top, by being more ruthless and violent and cunning in his domination of others. This expression of the traits allow him the power to survive whilst killing others, which also attracts more women interested in their own preservation, and allows him to reproduce more. The men at the bottom both go without and die in droves.

The barometer of which mode you are in is simply your personal freedom. Under Hitler or Stalin, your intelligence (cunning) and class (political) can mean the difference between ending up in a pile of bodies, or in a relatively safe political office. Under a free society, your intelligence (virtue) and class (aristocratic) can mean the difference between being wealthy and successful, and being a down-and-out pauper.

The core of this is voluntary action. If your interactions with others are voluntary, you are free. If your interactions are coerced, you are not. It doesn't matter if the robber is wearing a hoodie or a uniform.

The practicality aspect seems to revolve around this: the inflection point between those two modes. How do you preserve freedom without removing freedom? How do you stop robbery (policing) without becoming a robber yourself (taxing)? How do you stop violence (defence) without becoming violent yourself ('defence')? This is the core constitutional question.

Most of the libertarian (or 'anarcho capitalist') thinkers seem to think it could all happen automatically under a system of contracts, which would be based around insurance and defence companies. All of these theories are automatically false: if it could be done, why hasn't it been? And if it has, why hasn't that system survived? The simple answer is that states are more powerful. Your libertarian individualistic republic simply cannot survive a Ghenghis Khan, with his power to violently throw his entire nation's men at you. All of your atomized defence and insurance companies simply cannot co-ordinate and form battle-ready hierarchies fast enough, nor have enough ready resources and men (there is a free-riding incentive to pick a company that is less prepared to fend of external attacks) to fend off such an attack. It is impossible.

I think the center of the inflection point, from a constitutional perspective, is closer to the medieval tradition of 'fealty'. Under that system, military/policing hierarchies would form by (voluntary) quasi-lifetime pledges of allegiance. This sits between the extreme of the 'social contract' (i.e. born into state slavery for life with no control over terms and conditions), and 'security contracts' (the misplaced belief that security can just be 'bought' and shopped around for like electricity or cable TV).

[Orion]

While i also approve of personal liberties, and to some extent the right for free association and i generally approve of attitude of low interference of government into business it need not to interfere, i consider libertarian idea to be dangerous in general, for it's declared goal is to undermine any form of accumulated power.

While civilizations were always in some way flawed, they were always a superior alternative to wilderness and unleashed materialistic hedonism. In fact, we already live in an age of unleashed materialistic hedonism. The only thing libertarians complain about is that government is preventing them from using their potential to grab more than what's allowed according to law.

In opposition to that anglo-saxon mercantilism, materialism, consumer-pariah intellectual path, i support idealism. Civilization reduced to practicality is nothing but a mob in disguise.

On the other hand anarcho-capitalism is a completely autistic idea. To this day nobody seems to be able to answer is who in anarcho-capitalism will prevent groups of people from forming power centers. And what makes them think nobody will ever prevail, but there would be some kind of balance in power, when in reality, all kind of market competition eventually leads to monopoly, or oligopoly.

[captain_shane]

I'm pretty much an anarcho-capitalist at heart, but I understand that it would be practically impossible to remove the State from our affairs these days. Far too many people think that government is inevitable and will always be there. Why do you think we're told every election to get out and vote for A or B, and that democracy is the greatest and best thing ever invented? Because democracy gives people the false illusion that they're the one's making the choice and that we are one with the State. People won't willingly cut off something that is apart of themselves.

I'm a believer of true freedom, and the State is only there to remove freedoms of individuals in favor of power for the few.

I'd suggest reading Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State for futher understanding of these issues.

Quote:

Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in “capital”) into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources (“production”) and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual
exchange, the productivity and hence, the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously. The only “natural” course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by “mixing his labor” with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others. The social path dictated by the requirements of man’s nature, therefore, is the path of “property rights” and the “free market” of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the “jungle” methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange. The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the “ economic means.” The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another’s goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed “the political means” to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the “natural” path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual
or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short-run, the predator is acting
contrary to his own true nature as a man. We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the timespan of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute. One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern “Ruritania,” a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself “King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania”; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the “family of nations,” and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.

[captain_shane]

(04-28-2016 01:15 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Every time one of the members says, "All I want is to be left alone by the government!", I reply, "But that's not true. If that's all you wanted, you could have it tomorrow. Just move to the Alaskan wilderness and use your wealth to pay other people to work for you, and buy your food."

It pisses him off, and makes me laugh.

Moving to Alaska won't remove the Government from you life. You still have to pay "tribute" to the State through income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and now being forced to buy State run healthcare. Just because you don't live in front of the Capital Building doesn't mean they have any less control over your life.

[MMX2010]

The state is inevitable for two reasons.

One, it has been scientifically proven over and over again that the maximum number of people you can be acquainted with is 150. Beyond 150, everyone else is just an abstract concept whom you're not even acquainted with, meaning they're much easier to rob, cheat, and lie to. Since we simply MUST live in communities greater than 150, we also MUST have laws and redresses against the inevitable robbing, cheating, and lying.

Secondly, while I don't agree with some of the details of Phoenix's two modes, I do agree that powerful people will always exist. Some of these people will be beneficial for the rest of us (the 95%), and some will be sociopathic and harmful. But, in both cases, the 95% will never agree to let powerful people function without some form of violence-backed surveillance.

That violence-backed surveillance is called Government.

[Phoenix]

(04-29-2016 11:28 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

But, in both cases, the 95% will never agree to let powerful people function without some form of violence-backed surveillance.

That violence-backed surveillance is called Government.

Nope, powerful people are the government. The 'violence-backed surveillance' isn't aimed by the people at the powerful. It's the other way around, as any history book will tell you. I have no idea how you got this 180.

[MMX2010]

Yes, any history book will tell me that the government has never accomplished anything in behalf of the majority of people.

There are no laws that increase public health.

There are no laws that make food safer.

There are no laws that define what a criminal is, and tell us what ought to be done with them.

There are no laws preventing the exploitation of children.

Every law, even those which so apparently serve the 95%, are secretly designed to benefit the powerful 5%, at the expense of everyone else.

[Phoenix]

(04-29-2016 12:35 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Yes, any history book will tell me that the government has never accomplished anything in behalf of the majority of people.

There are no laws that increase public health.

There are no laws that make food safer.

There are no laws that define what a criminal is, and tell us what ought to be done with them.

There are no laws preventing the exploitation of children.

Every law, even those which so apparently serve the 95%, are secretly designed to benefit the powerful 5%, at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, all of that is true.

I'm sure the illusion of an altruistic selfless government comprised of angels is more comfortable. But I cannot entertain that myself. It meets only the message they wish to be believed, not the one that is true.

[captain_shane]

(04-29-2016 12:35 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Yes, any history book will tell me that the government has never accomplished anything in behalf of the majority of people.

Quote:

There are no laws that increase public health.

Like what?

Quote:

There are no laws that make food safer.

Oh, the FDA. Yeah, they care about public safety

Quote:

New Harvard study reveals Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and how FDA cannot be trusted with public safety
A new article with title of “Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs" is set to be published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME). The article written by Prof. Donald W. Light, Joel Lexchin, and Jonathan J. Darrow present evidence that about 90% of all new drugs approved by FDA over the last 30 years have little or no advantages compared to the existing drugs.

The article points out how FDA who supposedly must be in charge of public health and safety is nothing more than a puppet ran by giant pharmaceutical and drug companies. The fact is that the medical industry has become a leading cause of death and just in US, annually, 12,000 people die due to unnecessary surgeries, 7,000 people die due to medical errors, 20,000 people die due to other errors, 80,000 people die from infections acquired at the hospitals and 106,000 people die from adverse side effect of medications.

FDA Corruption

Quote:

There are no laws that define what a criminal is, and tell us what ought to be done with them.

Drinking alcohol used to make you a criminal, now it's smoking a plant or any number of things. These aren't meant to help public safety, only extract more money and get useful slave labor for prisons.

Unconstitutional Drug Laws

Quote:

There are no laws preventing the exploitation of children.

I'm not for forced child labor at all, that's against human sovereignty, but to keep someone from voluntarily working is also wrong.

Quote:

Every law, even those which so apparently serve the 95%, are secretly designed to benefit the powerful 5%, at the expense of everyone else.

Your blind trust in Big Daddy Government is frightening. I suggest you look into the human experimentation our nice government has done.

I'll list a few for you:

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, by the U.S. Public Health Service. In the experiment, 400 impoverished black males who had syphilis were offered "treatment" by the researchers, who did not tell the test subjects that they had syphilis and did not give them treatment for the disease, but rather just studied them to chart the progress of the disease. By 1947, penicillin became available as treatment, but those running the study prevented study participants from receiving treatment elsewhere, lying to them about their true condition, so that they could observe the effects of syphilis on the human body. By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive. 28 of the original 399 men had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis. The study was not shut down until 1972, when its existence was leaked to the press, forcing the researchers to stop in the face of a public outcry.

In 1955, the CIA conducted an open-air biological warfare experiment near Tampa, Florida and elsewhere in Florida with whooping cough bacteria. It was alleged that the experiment tripled the whooping cough infections in Florida to over one-thousand cases and caused whooping cough deaths in the state to increase from one to 12 over the previous year.

During the 1950s the United States conducted a series of field tests using entomological weapons. Operation Big Itch, in 1954, was designed to test munitions loaded with uninfected fleas (Xenopsylla cheopis). In May 1955 over 300,000 uninfected mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti) were dropped over parts of the U.S. state of Georgia to determine if the air-dropped mosquitoes could survive to take meals from humans. The mosquito tests were known as Operation Big Buzz. The U.S. engaged in at least two other EW testing programs, Operation Drop Kick and Operation May Day.

In 1963, 22 elderly patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn, New York were injected with live cancer cells by Chester M. Southam, who in 1952 had done the same to prisoners at the Ohio State Prison, in order to "discover the secret of how healthy bodies fight the invasion of malignant cells". The administration of the hospital attempted to cover the study up, but the New York medical licensing board ultimately placed Southam on probation for one year. Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected him as their Vice President.

From the 1950s to 1972, mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York were intentionally infected with viral hepatitis, for research whose purpose was to help discover a vaccine. From 1963 to 1966, Saul Krugman of New York University promised the parents of mentally disabled children that their children would be enrolled into Willowbrook in exchange for signing a consent form for procedures that he claimed were "vaccinations." In reality, the procedures involved deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of patients infected with the disease.

From 1942 to 1944, the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service conducted experiments which exposed thousands of U.S. military personnel to mustard gas, in order to test the effectiveness of gas masks and protective clothing.

In 1953, the CIA placed several of its interrogation and mind-control programs under the direction of a single program, known by the code name MKULTRA, after CIA director Allen Dulles complained about not having enough "human guinea pigs to try these extraordinary techniques". The MKULTRA project was under the direct command of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb of the Technical Services Division. The project received over $25 million, and involved hundreds of experiments on human subjects at eighty different institutions.

From 1964 to 1968, the U.S. Army paid $386,486 to professors Albert Kligman and Herbert W. Copelan to perform experiments with mind-altering drugs on 320 inmates of Holmesburg Prison. The goal of the study was to determine the minimum effective dose of each drug needed to disable 50 percent of any given population. Kligman and Copelan initially claimed that they were unaware of any long-term health effects the drugs could have on prisoners; however, documents later revealed that this was not the case.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Government is here to help you.

[MMX2010]

Can you explain the backtracking from your first statement to the next?

Your first statement says that the government is the powerful people, implying that the non-powerful people get nothing positive from the existence of government.

But your second statement acknowledges that non-powerful people do indeed get something positive from the government, which substantiates my argument that government is inevitable because it offers a way for non-powerful people to perform violence-backed surveillance on the powerful.

However, rather than acknowledging that my argument is substantiated, you say, "I'm sure the illusion of an altruistic selfless government comprised of angels is more comfortable."

Not only, Phoenix, did I never say that's what government is, but I also don't believe that's what government is. Furthermore, it's irrelevant to my argument whether government is "altruistic, selfless, and comprised of angels".

Don't you see how childish your reaction is, especially in response to an effective argument against libertarianism that contained no insults whatsoever?

[Phoenix]

^ I was just following your lead. My statement was narrow:
"Nope, powerful people are the government. The 'violence-backed surveillance' isn't aimed by the people at the powerful. It's the other way around, as any history book will tell you. I have no idea how you got this 180."

Clearly narrowly aimed at the 'violence-backed surveillance of the powerful' claim.

In response, you threw out the following random lines:
"Yes, any history book will tell me that the government has never accomplished anything in behalf of the majority of people.
There are no laws that increase public health.
There are no laws that make food safer.
...
"

That's clearly a non sequitur chick-like argument tactic.

Don't accuse me of argumentative vices when you started it.

[MMX2010]

The laws that increase public health are aimed at the powerful people who administer public health, as well as the corporations who would perform actions against public health just to make an extra dollar for their shareholders.

So are the laws that make food safer, prevent child exploitation, and define criminality.

[captain_shane]

(04-29-2016 01:55 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The laws that increase public health are aimed at the powerful people who administer public health, as well as the corporations who would perform actions against public health just to make an extra dollar for their shareholders.

So are the laws that make food safer, prevent child exploitation, and define criminality.

Care to address anything else in my post?

[MMX2010]

No, because your post isn't well-constructed.

1. Your position is the extreme minority political opinion. Thus, in order to get what you want, politically, you have to convince a lot of people who disagree with you, to agree with you. Laughing snarkily at someone who disagrees with you is effective when you're in the majority, or when you've already won, or when you know you're going to win tomorrow. Otherwise, laughing snarkily is ineffective and childish.

2. Complaining about the current system isn't the same thing as providing a new, better one.

3. Complaining about the system is irrelevant to my argument that the system itself, (indeed, any form of government), is inevitable. Complaining about something that exists, which I believe to be inevitable, validates my argument.

4. Lastly, and most importantly, libertarianism rests entirely upon the guiding hand of "the free market". The majority of people define "the free market" as "a force which exists to maximize profits". The majority of people are quite unintelligent, but they already know that corporate crime exists, and that the major motivation to commit corporate crime was "to maximize profits".

NO ONE witnesses major corporate crime and thinks, "You know what? Let's eliminate corporate crime by getting rid of the government."

You must overcome that simple hurdle (which is only one among many hurdles) in order to create a libertarian society. And right now you don't have an argument that'll overcome that hurdle.

[Phoenix]

Yeah captain_shane already covered what I wanted to say in more detail.

You'd be surprised how corporations and the government actually interact:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/09...85616d4353
http://www.mintpressnews.com/corporation...nt/203447/

Unsafe food is ultimately a contract violation and doesn't need an FDA. Competing standards bureaus would be superior to one government bureau because of simple logic -- if you have one car company will cars be better or worse than multiple competing car companies? Same applies for standards rating agencies who can publicly attack each others records in the marketplace.

Child 'exploitation' is vague. As the do-gooders who actually go into 3rd world countries and shut down sweatshops will know -- it's awful effective at making child prostitutes. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...weat-shops . Everyone likes to forget that those children were sent to the factory by their parents not because their parents were bad, but because they were good. Better life than horrid subsistence toil on a farm from dawn til dusk for the rest of your life.

The government defining criminality is equally awful, just by looking at their track record. They define criminality -- but since they're doing the defining, they can define this to be legal too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks . They'll also define refusing to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals a crime too. Also smoking a plant or even owning it. The positive law of a government is dreadful at enforcing natural law.