What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Grave_n_idle]

I like the fact you're trying to use my own approach, but you're making a pig's breakfast of it - since your claim that you're being 'forced' to do anything is not opinion or belief, it's a simple statement of (in this case, lack of) objective fact.

Show me free land, devoid of sovereignty claims, where I can live and build a society of my choosing, then you'll be objectively correct

Irrelevant. If I have no food, I'm not forcing you to starve by not giving it to you.

No one is 'forcing' you, so your original claim was dishonest. I pointed that out, and you could have simply said "uh huh, I guess 'force' isn't technically true' - or reworded it in some other way that would have been factually meaningful - but instead, you cling to this hyperbolic pretense.

Enjoy it. After all, you're playing to an audience of one. No one else believes you.

[Melkor Unchained]

Who's agenda? Well, in the context of the thread, probably Joe Average 'libertarian'. Pry around a little and you'll likely rapidly find an issue that their appeal to liberty falls short on - commonly, it seems to be sexual/gender equality... but there could be others.

It's no secret: proponents of a political ideology will advocate said ideology at the expense of others. This is not a trait limited to libertarians or anyone else, and faulting them for it (as seems to be the case here, apologies if that's not what you're saying) seems misguided at best and irresponsibly myopic at worst. As far as sexual/gender equality goes, everyone has their lines: they're just in different places and sometimes on different issues. I'm sure if I pushed hard enough, I could find yours.

As to whether or not it's a general mechanism - I'd have to say no. Communism, for example, is at least theoretically exactly NOT that - indeed, one might argue it's the pushing of everyone else's agenda at the expense of your own. But communism is just one model that supports the not-a-general-mechanism theory. There are many forms of altruism.

Bolded for emphasis: The reason it failed was precisely because said theory failed to correspond to reality; communism is just as closed a system as anything else. Communism in practice (which is where it gains or loses its points with me, sorry) had little or nothing to do with "altruism." America is the most generous country on the planet in terms of charity donations, and it just so happens to be the closest to capitalist. Am I wrong to doubt that those facts are coincidental? Did any communist nation pay out as much in private or public foreign aid as America has?

Concerning the idea that a libertarian model wouldn't be 'at the expense of everyone else'... how could it not be? We're all interconnected.

Fair enough, but I guess what I'm getting at with that is that if you could wave a magic wand and institute your Perfect Government, you probably wouldn't shed very many tears for us Oppressed Libertarian masses (?). In the end, we all (regardless of affiliation) want to see our government realized, whether we know it ourselves or not.

And thanks for answering, by the way... I'm getting pretty jaded about asking questions that never get answered squarely.

[Grave_n_idle]

Who's agenda? Well, in the context of the thread, probably Joe Average 'libertarian'. Pry around a little and you'll likely rapidly find an issue that their appeal to liberty falls short on - commonly, it seems to be sexual/gender equality... but there could be others.

It's no secret: proponents of a political ideology will advocate said ideology at the expense of others. This is not a trait limited to libertarians or anyone else, and faulting them for it (as seems to be the case here, apologies if that's not what you're saying) seems misguided at best and irresponsibly myopic at worst.

As to whether or not it's a general mechanism - I'd have to say no. Communism, for example, is at least theoretically exactly NOT that - indeed, one might argue it's the pushing of everyone else's agenda at the expense of your own. But communism is just one model that supports the not-a-general-mechanism theory. There are many forms of altruism.

Bolded for emphasis: The reason it failed was precisely because said theory failed to correspond to reality; communism is just as closed a system as anything else. Communism in practice (which is where it gains or loses its points with me, sorry) had little or nothing to do with "altruism." America is the most generous country on the planet in terms of charity donations, and it just so happens to be the closest to capitalist. Am I wrong to doubt that those facts are coincidental? Did any communist nation pay out as much in private or public foreign aid as America has?

Concerning the idea that a libertarian model wouldn't be 'at the expense of everyone else'... how could it not be? We're all interconnected.

Fair enough, but I guess what I'm getting at with that is that if you could wave a magic wand and institute your Perfect Government, you probably wouldn't shed very many tears for us Oppressed Libertarian masses (?). In the end, we all (regardless of affiliation) want to see our government realized, whether we know it ourselves or not.

And thanks for answering, by the way... I'm getting pretty jaded about asking questions that never get answered squarely.

The reason communism has failed? It hasn't.

It has failed on a macrocosmic state scale, because it has yet to be applied, and it's nearest incarnations have been as window-dressing for malign self-serving dictatorship. Communism can work just fine on a microcosmic scale (indeed, most family structures are basically benign communist dictatorships).

I'm not sure about your 'closest to capitalist' (that sounds like a nonsense claim, sorry) versus 'most generous' correlation is supposed to mean anything. Surely the great wealth of charitable donations is MORE likely to be connected to... well, America's great wealth?

Stepping back to address the first last - I'm not saying that pushing your agenda at the expense of others is peculiar to libertarians. I'm saying it matters more - because using the government as a weapon when you're theoretically against government control is massively hypocritical.

[Grave_n_idle]

And thanks for answering, by the way... I'm getting pretty jaded about asking questions that never get answered squarely.

I usually try. Unless, maybe, it's one of those dogpiles where you just get tempted to throw your hands in the air 5 pages in, because you just keep getting the same propaganda responses.

I don't agree with you all the time. Hell, I don't agree with you often... but at least you don't trot the party line out ad nauseum.

[Melkor Unchained]

Just to add to my last (and I'd add this in as an edit but I'm afraid it would get lost in the reply process and I really want to point it out:)

Pry around a little and you'll likely rapidly find an issue that their appeal to liberty falls short on - commonly, it seems to be sexual/gender equality... but there could be others.

Okay, but why do we get all the shit for that? In 2008, African-American voters in California voted against gay marriage in numbers somewhere around 8 to 1. I think it's more fair to say the above about people (or Americans?) in general rather than libertarians. I have a heavy suspicion it's time to stop pretending that lunatic libertarians and/or bible-thumpers are the only ones in this country with sexual/gender equality opinions that Various and Sundry Leftists might not agree with.

[Grave_n_idle]

Just to add to my last (and I'd add this in as an edit but I'm afraid it would get lost in the reply process and I really want to point it out:)

Pry around a little and you'll likely rapidly find an issue that their appeal to liberty falls short on - commonly, it seems to be sexual/gender equality... but there could be others.

Okay, but why do we get all the shit for that? In 2008, African-American voters in California voted against gay marriage in numbers somewhere around 8 to 1. I think it's more fair to say the above about people (or Americans?) in general rather than libertarians. I have a heavy suspicion it's time to stop pretending that lunatic libertarians and/or bible-thumpers are the only ones in this country with sexual/gender equality opinions that Various and Sundry Leftists might not agree with.

Kind of already been addressed - libertarianism seems counterpointed to use of government as a weapon in a way that isn't strictly speaking true of, for example, being black.

I was, of course, disgusted by that form of hypocrisy, too.

[Melkor Unchained]

It's no secret: proponents of a political ideology will advocate said ideology at the expense of others. This is not a trait limited to libertarians or anyone else, and faulting them for it (as seems to be the case here, apologies if that's not what you're saying) seems misguided at best and irresponsibly myopic at worst.


Bolded for emphasis: The reason it failed was precisely because said theory failed to correspond to reality; communism is just as closed a system as anything else. Communism in practice (which is where it gains or loses its points with me, sorry) had little or nothing to do with "altruism." America is the most generous country on the planet in terms of charity donations, and it just so happens to be the closest to capitalist. Am I wrong to doubt that those facts are coincidental? Did any communist nation pay out as much in private or public foreign aid as America has?


Fair enough, but I guess what I'm getting at with that is that if you could wave a magic wand and institute your Perfect Government, you probably wouldn't shed very many tears for us Oppressed Libertarian masses (?). In the end, we all (regardless of affiliation) want to see our government realized, whether we know it ourselves or not.

And thanks for answering, by the way... I'm getting pretty jaded about asking questions that never get answered squarely.

The reason communism has failed? It hasn't.

It has failed on a macrocosmic state scale, because it has yet to be applied, and it's nearest incarnations have been as window-dressing for malign self-serving dictatorship. Communism can work just fine on a microcosmic scale (indeed, most family structures are basically benign communist dictatorships).

I'm not sure about your 'closest to capitalist' (that sounds like a nonsense claim, sorry) versus 'most generous' correlation is supposed to mean anything. Surely the great wealth of charitable donations is MORE likely to be connected to... well, America's great wealth?

And why do they have that wealth? Is it because our government has bent over backwards to ensure that Everyone Makes The Same Amount? Fuck no.

I agree that communism works just fine with a few people (but would contend that it gets progressively worse the more you add,) although as an economic system it was a perfect example of theory dictating practice.

Stepping back to address the first last - I'm not saying that pushing your agenda at the expense of others is peculiar to libertarians. I'm saying it matters more - because using the government as a weapon when you're theoretically against government control is massively hypocritical.

This encapsulates precisely the sort of intellectually irresponsible BS that I can't stand in Libertarian Haters. How are we "using the government as a weapon?" We want to dismantle the EXACT GODDAMN MEANS by which that is being done as we speak. Big Government and Big Business are friends, not enemies. Why do our opponents insist on laboring under the notion that a libertarian agenda would see the rise of Tyrant Cartels? If libertarianism were so friendly to corporate interests, why do their candidates receive no corporate backing?

It's an honest question, I'm not trying to mock you by asking it. These are the fundamental questions I've never been able to answer or understand: liberals seem interested in curtailing Corporate Oppression by expanding the power of government, which corporations have endorsed and corrupted for over a century. We want to detach government from special interests (whether said interest is non-profit or not) and we're "using the government as a weapon?" Where do you get that exactly?

[Grave_n_idle]

The reason communism has failed? It hasn't.

It has failed on a macrocosmic state scale, because it has yet to be applied, and it's nearest incarnations have been as window-dressing for malign self-serving dictatorship. Communism can work just fine on a microcosmic scale (indeed, most family structures are basically benign communist dictatorships).

I'm not sure about your 'closest to capitalist' (that sounds like a nonsense claim, sorry) versus 'most generous' correlation is supposed to mean anything. Surely the great wealth of charitable donations is MORE likely to be connected to... well, America's great wealth?

And why do they have that wealth? Is it because our government has bent over backwards to ensure that Everyone Makes The Same Amount? Fuck no.

I agree that communism works just fine with a few people (but would contend that it gets progressively worse the more you add,) although as an economic system it was a perfect example of theory dictating practice.

Stepping back to address the first last - I'm not saying that pushing your agenda at the expense of others is peculiar to libertarians. I'm saying it matters more - because using the government as a weapon when you're theoretically against government control is massively hypocritical.

This encapsulates precisely the sort of intellectually irresponsible BS that I can't stand in Libertarian Haters. How are we "using the government as a weapon?" We want to dismantle the EXACT GODDAMN MEANS by which that is being done as we speak. Big Government and Big Business are friends, not enemies. Why do our opponents insist on laboring under the notion that a libertarian agenda would see the rise of Tyrant Cartels? If libertarianism were so friendly to corporate interests, why do their candidates receive no corporate backing?

It's an honest question, I'm not trying to mock you by asking it. These are the fundamental questions I've never been able to answer or understand: liberals seem interested in curtailing Corporate Oppression by expanding the power of government, which corporations have endorsed and corrupted for over a century. We want to detach government from special interests (whether said interest is non-profit or not) and we're "using the government as a weapon?" Where do you get that exactly?

Again, addressing last first - why are you talking about corporate cartels? I was rather more thinking of some of our libertarian posters, and people like Ron Paul who do so much for the libertarian cause by claiming the libertarian line even as they are leaning on government power to do their theological or moralistic work for them. If those same people WEREN'T being all 'hands off' about government control, perhaps I wouldn't feel they were so hipocritical when they talked about what sexual practises the law should allow, or whatever. I'd still think them wrong, maybe evil - but at least not hypocritical. Well, unless they were condemning gay sex while banging their gay lover, or whatever - but that goes without saying.

Addressing the reasons why America has such wealth? Massive amounts of easily available resources don't hurt. For example, almost exactly a quarter of ALL the world's potable fresh water is in the Great Lakes. Large surface area, abundant resources, a kick-start into existence, and the benefit of the western world as an incubator and ally - none of that hurts, certainly. America has had great wealth because it took great wealth in it's formation, occupied great wealth, and has continued to expand into great wealth, militarily where necessary. America IS the new Roman Empire, in other words.

Whether it is 'capitalist' or 'communist' is basically irrelevant to that equation.

[Melkor Unchained]

And why do they have that wealth? Is it because our government has bent over backwards to ensure that Everyone Makes The Same Amount? Fuck no.

I agree that communism works just fine with a few people (but would contend that it gets progressively worse the more you add,) although as an economic system it was a perfect example of theory dictating practice.


This encapsulates precisely the sort of intellectually irresponsible BS that I can't stand in Libertarian Haters. How are we "using the government as a weapon?" We want to dismantle the EXACT GODDAMN MEANS by which that is being done as we speak. Big Government and Big Business are friends, not enemies. Why do our opponents insist on laboring under the notion that a libertarian agenda would see the rise of Tyrant Cartels? If libertarianism were so friendly to corporate interests, why do their candidates receive no corporate backing?

It's an honest question, I'm not trying to mock you by asking it. These are the fundamental questions I've never been able to answer or understand: liberals seem interested in curtailing Corporate Oppression by expanding the power of government, which corporations have endorsed and corrupted for over a century. We want to detach government from special interests (whether said interest is non-profit or not) and we're "using the government as a weapon?" Where do you get that exactly?

Again, addressing last first - why are you talking about corporate cartels? I was rather more thinking of some of our libertarian posters, and people like Ron Paul who do so much for the libertarian cause by claiming the libertarian line even as they are leaning on government power to do their theological or moralistic work for them. If those same people WEREN'T being all 'hands off' about government control, perhaps I wouldn't feel they were so hipocritical when they talked about what sexual practises the law should allow, or whatever. I'd still think them wrong, maybe evil - but at least not hypocritical. Well, unless they were condemning gay sex while banging their gay lover, or whatever - but that goes without saying.

Addressing the reasons why America has such wealth? Massive amounts of easily available resources don't hurt. For example, almost exactly a quarter of ALL the world's potable fresh water is in the Great Lakes. Large surface area, abundant resources, a kick-start into existence, and the benefit of the western world as an incubator and ally - none of that hurts, certainly. America has had great wealth because it took great wealth in it's formation, occupied great wealth, and has continued to expand into great wealth, militarily where necessary. America IS the new Roman Empire, in other words.

Whether it is 'capitalist' or 'communist' is basically irrelevant to that equation.

I leapt on the 'corporate cartels' train because it follows mostly the same track I've seen in these sorts of debates. The general line of reasoning seems to be that libertarians want a mostly powerless government (which I don't see as being necessarily the same thing as a small and properly defined government), and that as a result corporate interests will run amok and ruin society. Yet that is exactly and perhaps justifiably what some liberals claim is happening in America right now, and I don't think very many of us would describe our government's operation as "libertarian" in nature. It has never been explained to my satisfaction how a libertarian platform is more appealing to these people than Big Government Republicanism, and last time I checked it wasn't the former who received obscene campaign contributions year-in and year-out.

Your last is intriguing to me though. Are you saying that America is as generous as it is because of the (admittedly awesome) real estate on which it resides? To be fair, Russia (while not having anything quite like the Great Lakes) had some primo real estate and plenty of natural resources too, but they oddly have yet to be exploited to the same extent which America has enjoyed hers with the notable exception of petroleum. I do not consider our respective economic histories to be entirely irrelevant to that.

[GeneralHaNor]

Enjoy it. After all, you're playing to an audience of one. No one else believes you.

Actually plenty of people believe me, my ideology isn't as foreign as you would like to believe.

[The Archregimancy]

With apologies for the snipping to focus on a tiny pedantic point....

Addressing the reasons why America has such wealth? Massive amounts of easily available resources don't hurt. For example, almost exactly a quarter of ALL the world's potable fresh water is in the Great Lakes.

Russia (while not having anything quite like the Great Lakes)

It might be worth pointing out that the Russians have 20% of the world's total unfrozen fresh water reserve in a single lake.

There might, however, be a discussion there on the impact of relative accessibility of resources in addition to the ongoing discussion over economic systems.

[Melkor Unchained]

With apologies for the snipping to focus on a tiny pedantic point....

Russia (while not having anything quite like the Great Lakes)

It might be worth pointing out that the Russians have 20% of the world's total unfrozen fresh water reserve in a single lake.

There might, however, be a discussion there on the impact of relative accessibility of resources in addition to the ongoing discussion over economic systems.

Well yeah, relative to the rest of the country--I'm thinking mostly about the Mississippi and its tributaries here--I would not hesitate to bet that said fresh water is in all probability widely more accessible in the US than this water is to Russia. GnI is correct to an extent, but I have a hard time believing that the US would be as generous with its wealth (which can be but isn't always the result of an abundance of natural resources) if it were run more closely to communism than it presently is to capitalism. If that makes any sense.

[The Archregimancy]

There might, however, be a discussion there on the impact of relative accessibility of resources in addition to the ongoing discussion over economic systems.

Well yeah, relative to the rest of the country--I'm thinking mostly about the Mississippi and its tributaries here--I would not hesitate to bet that said fresh water is in all probability widely more accessible in the US than this water is to Russia. GnI is correct to an extent, but I have a hard time believing that the US would be as generous with its wealth (which can be but isn't always the result of an abundance of natural resources) if it were run more closely to communism than it presently is to capitalism. If that makes any sense.

Your point does make sense, and that's not what I'm quibbling with (if I'm indeed quibbling with anything) - my point is more that in this one specific case, accessibility of resources might play a role in addition to (rather than instead of) the organisation of the system that exploits those resources. Lake Baikal is in the middle of Siberia, after all.

While not disputing that the Mississippi is the larger river, again, Russia does fairly well here - the Volga is the largest river in Europe in terms of length, volume and watershed. That it drains into a closed system (the Caspian) may make it less strategically valuable than its nearest North American counterpart (notwithstanding access to the Black Sea via the Volga-Don canal), but it arguably remains as vitally important to inland shipping and transport in the interior of European Russia as the Mississippi system is to the interior of the United States.

And, again being pedantic, the Mississippi is largely irrelevant to the ability to exploit the fresh water in the Great Lakes - which drain to the sea through the St. Lawrence, and therefore through Canadian territory.

[Lackadaisical2]

With apologies for the snipping to focus on a tiny pedantic point....

Russia (while not having anything quite like the Great Lakes)

It might be worth pointing out that the Russians have 20% of the world's total unfrozen fresh water reserve in a single lake.

There might, however, be a discussion there on the impact of relative accessibility of resources in addition to the ongoing discussion over economic systems.

One thing which ought to be pointe dout, its not the size of the lake, its the motion of fluid, so to speak. The watershed for the greatlakes is relatively small for it's size, thus we could pump out a ton of water from them, but we'd have no lakes at the end of it all. (not to mention pissing off the Canadians)

[Mike the Progressive]

I guess I'm a libertarian, but I'm certainly not radical about it. I tend to think we should keep the DOE, I'm not for abolishing SS, just reforming it. But my main issue is having lower taxes (though progressive) and less government spending, as to not increase the debt anymore and not discourage private competition.

[Kobeanare]

I was rather more thinking of some of our libertarian posters, and people like Ron Paul who do so much for the libertarian cause by claiming the libertarian line even as they are...talk[ing] about what sexual practises the law should allow

What the hell are you on about?

[Sibirsky]

Again, addressing last first - why are you talking about corporate cartels? I was rather more thinking of some of our libertarian posters, and people like Ron Paul who do so much for the libertarian cause by claiming the libertarian line even as they are leaning on government power to do their theological or moralistic work for them. If those same people WEREN'T being all 'hands off' about government control, perhaps I wouldn't feel they were so hipocritical when they talked about what sexual practises the law should allow, or whatever. I'd still think them wrong, maybe evil - but at least not hypocritical. Well, unless they were condemning gay sex while banging their gay lover, or whatever - but that goes without saying.

Addressing the reasons why America has such wealth? Massive amounts of easily available resources don't hurt. For example, almost exactly a quarter of ALL the world's potable fresh water is in the Great Lakes. Large surface area, abundant resources, a kick-start into existence, and the benefit of the western world as an incubator and ally - none of that hurts, certainly. America has had great wealth because it took great wealth in it's formation, occupied great wealth, and has continued to expand into great wealth, militarily where necessary. America IS the new Roman Empire, in other words.

Whether it is 'capitalist' or 'communist' is basically irrelevant to that equation.

Of course it's the resources. Which would explain Africa's economic might and why Hong Kong and Singapore are struggling. Oh wait...

Freshwater? Brazil ranks 1st on that list. Indonesia comes 3rd. China 4th. Colombia 6th. Peru 7th. India is 8th. In other words, there is little correlation between freshwater resources and economic well being.

America being the most generous because it has the most wealth to share is a logical conclusion. But why is it the wealthiest? Not a god damn thing to do with resources. Unless you count economic freedom as a resource.

Go ahead deny it. The pilgrims had your system of economic organization and starved. Then they organized their tiny economy our way and flourished. Communism has failed anywhere and everywhere. Certainly, tyrants ruling over the masses did not help. But of course, neither did communism, socialism or whatever you want to call it. The lack of private property and free markets is what hurt them.

[GeneralHaNor]

Go ahead deny it. The pilgrims had your system of economic organization and starved. Then they organized their tiny economy our way and flourished. Communism has failed anywhere and everywhere.

I don't know, I would assume the Amish are pretty "Communistic" in nature
Technophobia, and Theocracy aside.

[Sibirsky]

Go ahead deny it. The pilgrims had your system of economic organization and starved. Then they organized their tiny economy our way and flourished. Communism has failed anywhere and everywhere.

I don't know, I would assume the Amish are pretty "Communistic" in nature
Technophobia, and Theocracy aside.

They sell their products though. One Amish guy in PA was raided at 5 am for selling milk that had not been inspected. That makes them capitalist.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=144557

[GeneralHaNor]

I don't know, I would assume the Amish are pretty "Communistic" in nature
Technophobia, and Theocracy aside.

They sell their products though. One Amish guy in PA was raided at 5 am for selling milk that had not been inspected. That makes them capitalist.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=144557

The question I would ask here is why he was selling his products

I happen to know some Amish people pretty well, when you get past the fundie religious aspect, they are downright generous and good people.

Typically if anyone in an Amish community is selling anything, they are selling only to outsiders, the community itself has no need for money, no need to profit. If the community is attempting to raise funds, it's because they need something that only the outsiders can provide, or because outsiders have demanded "payment" for something else (EG Taxes on property)

They are usually only capitalist, when necessity demands them to be so.

[Political Spectrum]

They sell their products though. One Amish guy in PA was raided at 5 am for selling milk that had not been inspected. That makes them capitalist.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=144557

The question I would ask here is why he was selling his products

I happen to know some Amish people pretty well, when you get past the fundie religious aspect, they are downright generous and good people.

Typically if anyone in an Amish community is selling anything, they are selling only to outsiders, the community itself has no need for money, no need to profit. If the community is attempting to raise funds, it's because they need something that only the outsiders can provide, or because outsiders have demanded "payment" for something else (EG Taxes on property)

They are usually only capitalist, when necessity demands them to be so.

Fair enough. They don't get into his reasons for selling. I have an issue with him being raided at 5 am. Less so the fact that the milk was not inspected. As long as the buyer is aware of the inspection, or the lack there of, I have no issue with something like that being sold.

EDIT: Is a puppet of Sibirsky

[Fultzlandshiretownton]

Apparently lack of state intervention is what allows the state to take over businesses. What are you smoking in what universe?

Keep in mind that the state didn't take them over until AFTER their catastrophic failures; before them, all we had was bush playing the fiddle while the banking sector burned.

They were how the government insured debt. They have always been controlled by government. Central banks are government disasters

[Meryuma]

For example - even if there were some kind of global anarchistic revolution, that doesn't mean no entities would exist that could crush the system. Indeed, history seems to suggest (rather strongly) that whenever there is a power vacuum, where no external force seizes control, localised and direct application of force fills the gap.

That's why it's important to build the new society within the shell of the old. If the transition to anarchy is peaceful and emphasizes building alternative institutions, it will have no power vacuum.

And like what Trots said, you're the extreme case of libertarianism where you believe people should be given the choice to murder others.

You can be an anarchist and still oppose murder.

Show me free land, devoid of sovereignty claims, where I can live and build a society of my choosing, then you'll be objectively correct

Irrelevant. If I have no food, I'm not forcing you to starve by not giving it to you.

No one is 'forcing' you, so your original claim was dishonest. I pointed that out, and you could have simply said "uh huh, I guess 'force' isn't technically true' - or reworded it in some other way that would have been factually meaningful - but instead, you cling to this hyperbolic pretense.

Enjoy it. After all, you're playing to an audience of one. No one else believes you.

1. I believe in a lot of his points, being a market anarchist myself.
2. He's saying that we're forced to live under a state, not that we're literally forced to live in a specific state. You're misunderstanding him.
3. In some of your other posts, I've noticed an "altruism good, egoism bad" mentality which I find quite bothersome.

I guess I'm a libertarian, but I'm certainly not radical about it. I tend to think we should keep the DOE, I'm not for abolishing SS, just reforming it. But my main issue is having lower taxes (though progressive) and less government spending, as to not increase the debt anymore and not discourage private competition.

Reformed Social Security and a bit less taxing and spending ≠ libertarianism.

Again, addressing last first - why are you talking about corporate cartels? I was rather more thinking of some of our libertarian posters, and people like Ron Paul who do so much for the libertarian cause by claiming the libertarian line even as they are leaning on government power to do their theological or moralistic work for them.

Ron Paul and Bob Barr do not in any way, shape, or form represent the entire libertarian movement, nor does Rand Paul... and yes, some people actually do think that Rand Paul is a libertarian. Hint: he's not.

Kind of already been addressed - libertarianism seems counterpointed to use of government as a weapon in a way that isn't strictly speaking true of, for example, being black.

I was, of course, disgusted by that form of hypocrisy, too.

Sure, there are some hypocrites of the type you describe, but there are also some non-voting/anti-voting market anarchist libertarians.

[Melkor Unchained]

And, again being pedantic, the Mississippi is largely irrelevant to the ability to exploit the fresh water in the Great Lakes - which drain to the sea through the St. Lawrence, and therefore through Canadian territory.

Heh. For some reason last night (I again blame the 8+ beers I drank) I thought the Mississippi had tributaries that originated in the Great Lakes. While it's true that the source of the Mississippi is relatively near the lakes, they don't actually intersect and I don't think any of its tributaries do either (not even the Ohio). You'd figure I'd have realized that given that I live so close to the damn things and have been to the source of the Mississippi...

So yeah, that's true pretty much. Sibirsky raises an interesting point about fresh water though--I had no idea about any of that. To play Devil's Advocate, I think GnI is correct to an extent--he at least has a point in that North America has some pretty badass real estate and most of it is within America's borders. Surely this has played a role in our (relative) financial and political success, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume we'd be this prosperous under a more communist system (which is the implication if you're going to say "Whether it is 'capitalist' or 'communist' is basically irrelevant to that equation.")

[Grave_n_idle]

1. I believe in a lot of his points, being a market anarchist myself.

Lots of people share politics somewhat like his.

But do you believe that he is being physically compelled to kowtow to an oppressive regime, or is it landing somewhere between an insulting metaphor (insulting to those who really ARE forced to live under certain oppressive regimes), and nonsensical hyperbole?

If you honestly believe that HaNor is literally forced to enjoy First World conditions against his will, then I stand corrected and he's playing to an audience of himself and one.