Meryuma wrote:Minarchist Territory of Pineland wrote:And I've already told you I'm not dismissing your arguments, or trying to apply any ad hominem. I am simply asking you, and waiting for, your own detailed portrayal of how you would achieve your means of survival, in a world shaped by your own definition of economic freedom, which from the discussion so far seems to be akin to that of a hypothetical world where employment and bosses do not exist (or at the very least, a boss isn't in charge of their own company). So, how will you pull this off? If I was dismissing anything, it was the credibility of ideological sheep, who sprout an ideology name and think it equates to a sophisticated answer. I was actually trying to give you more credit, and allow you to explain your individual perception and methodology.
I'm not exactly asking you to split the atom here. I can't dismiss something, if you haven't even said it yet.
Saying "nuh-uh I didn't" and making accusations based on my refusal to answer a fairly irrelevant question, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
I was referring to you going on about how my argument was wrong because it's "Marxist" when I talk about you committing ad hominems and stuff, BTW.
The question isn't irrelevant, you just don't want to answer it, because you haven't got an answer.
I wasn't saying your argument was wrong
because it was Marxist, I was just saying I wanted you to provide a pragmatic methodology, that wasn't just a vague ideology name that you conformed to. Because that's not your own independent thought or reasoning. Because I do not treat "BECAUSE MARX SAYS SO" as a legitimate answer, I want people to actually think for themselves. This is a debate that has mentioned 'personal freedom' after all.
Coincidentally you still haven't provided anything...
I think that concludes things.
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Liberty of Republic wrote:You equate free for all in having a job and stuff as economic freedom? Your joking right?
Economic freedom is when(and I pulled out my handy dandy dictionary for you)freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft.
Which is exactly what I said, and is exactly what Libertarians oppose.
Why do you hate freedom so much?
I love how you're trying to implement a framework here, where you think conforming to simple narrative, binary divisions equates to being universally politically aware.
The appeal to ridicule fallacy is adorable as well.
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:And I am sorry as soon as you enter the state into this, it is not free anymore. And apparently YOU want more state intervention, which means LESS freedom.
Who said anything about the state?
Well the fact that if you don't have a job, or even purposely refuse employment, because you equate it to an 'oppressive hostage situation', the state is the only way you'll actually achieve your means of survival.
Because the smurf village commune is a blind faith fairytale.
So yeah, state intervention. Which the libertarians oppose, which you don't seen to get.
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Though, since you brought it up, does state intervention in a man holding a roomful of people hostage at gunpoint mean, for everyone aggregately, more or less freedom overall?
Oh wait, I see where this is going.
1) Firstly, the state will be seen as a saviour, to save work-shy people from having to actually get off their arse and take self responsibility
2) But afterwards, it's still important that people maintain their continuous red flag waving agenda, so we'll claim it's oppressive fascism that the state even exists at all
3) We'll also bitch about how oppressive the high tax rate is, for the impoverished communities.
4) But then we'll still claim that the nationstate is still oppressive, even if the libertarians are successful and remove the omnipresent state, and reduce the tax rate, because it's now back to not wiping people's arses for them.
5) But then still portray the image that you're for a grassroots society, when the state has given you plenty of opportunity to empower yourself, but you complain the state isn't looking after you enough.
Lather, rinse, repeat. And then wonder why people don't take you seriously.
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Same goes for personal and political freedoms too. Which the Libertarian party supports.
Except they don't.
Except they do, it's just your definition of freedom seems to be 'anything that isn't socialist'.
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."
http://www.lp.org/platform
Except that's the exact opposite of what they actually try to implement.
Actually no, libertarians take control over their own life, without any moral obligation to help other people. This is universally established.
If you don't understand this, then I dread to think how you're ACTUALLY going survive if a grass roots, collectivist commune actually came to light.
You don't want a job, or a state, then you will starve. That is the real world.