Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Pistolero]

No, a minarchist is a minarchist if they believe an ideal government does nothing, and only absolute necessities for maintaining a functioning one should be allowed to cause deviation from that ideal. Basically, if you're allowing stuff that violates your principles just because it helps people, you've endorsed the principles that allow people who like freedom to be socialists.

A minarchist is a minarchist because they think government doing things that help people and make society work better is bad? Only a government that does nothing is good? I can only think that I have not made my question clear enough, because you're effectively trying to answer it by repeating it back to me with a period instead of a question mark. Why is government that does things bad? Why is government that does nothing good?

[Bauglir]

Typically because they believe governments are inefficient, or corrupt, or too at risk of becoming inefficient and/or corrupt. My experience, anyway, it's not a view I hold so I can't argue it as well as I might. At any rate, the general belief I encounter is that a government can't be trusted to handle any more than it absolutely has to, and sometimes not even that. "A government that can give you everything you want can take everything from you" sorts of things. Not sure if that's the exact quote, though.

[Pistolero]

That line of reasoning essentially says 'if we can't do it efficiently, it shouldn't be done' which rules a military, and new systems development in particular, right out. 'If there is danger of something becoming corrupted, that thing should be avoided' rules a police force out strongly. As soon as someone accepts either of those, the door is already open, the principle is violated. So, if we can recognise the benefits of a military and a police force in spite of our principles, why not anything else?

Returning to intellectual property laws that were being discussed earlier, they have worked as an incentive to development for over a thousand years, a nation without them would never develop anything of its own. Even if you're a critic of intellectual property law who does not agree that it aids development, there is also the fact that said nation would have a difficult time maintaining international trade if they allowed citizens to use ideas that someone elsewhere in the world developed. For example the US currently only establishes free trade agreements with countries that have some form of intellectual property law. Why would any other country be different?

It still makes no sense to me, but thanks for explaining.

[Bauglir]

That line of reasoning essentially says 'if we can't do it efficiently, it shouldn't be done' which rules a military, and new systems development in particular, right out. 'If there is danger of something becoming corrupted, that thing should be avoided' rules a police force out strongly. As soon as someone accepts either of those, the door is already open, the principle is violated. So, if we can recognise the benefits of a military and a police force in spite of our principles, why not anything else?

It still makes no sense to me, but thanks for explaining.

The trouble is that I agree with you and am trying to wrap my head around a viewpoint I don't agree with, but I suspect GlyphGryph was not actually arguing in favor of it either.

[Pistolero]

Yeah I understand and appreciate the effort. I'm certainly finding myself unable to do it.

[Nivim]

Yeah I understand and appreciate the effort. I'm certainly finding myself unable to do it.

It's not all that difficult; it's just an opinion based on strong emotional support without sufficient evidence or logic to go with it. As I recall, most of the world's people hold beliefs matching this criteria anyway, so this particular wrongness goes largely unchallenged.

[Aqizzar]

I'm pretty sure everyone in the last couple pages was making pointedly easy to attack arguments supporting minarchism, as ways of illustrating its faults, and getting a little too clever about it.  I have a suspicion that nobody present is actually a minarchist.  At least, I don't think so.

[Leafsnail]

Well, the standard alternative to incorporation is proprietorship/partnership. The obvious legal solution is everyone involved with the company is liable in proportion to their involvement with whatever went wrong.

Man, that's like a vaguer and far less enforcable version of the law as it currently stands!  Brilliant.

Next we'll just erase every law and replace it with "You will receive a punishment proportional to the badness of whatever you just did".

[Bauglir]

WELCOME TO ANCIENT CHINA

[Vector]

Major sad: this discussion is currently dovetailing with my course on the rhetoric of legal theory.

Fucking hell.

It's like I majored in two horrible catch-alls: "Everything with numbers" and "everything with words."

BRB, drowning self in textbooks

[Bauglir]

Man. Papercuts to the lungs does not sound like a fun way to go. This has nothing to do with the topic, I admit.

[Aqizzar]

It's like I majored in two horrible catch-alls: "Everything with numbers" and "everything with words."

Be glad you took the "everything with numbers" one at least.  I focused entirely on the "everything with words", and not only is that doing me jack post-grad, but precisely because of arguments like these, I don't even really like words anymore.

[Vector]

Yeah, I'm having one of those days today.

Too bad I have to read Leviathan this evening.  The ENTIRE FUCKING WHALE.

[KaelGotDwarves]

On the bright side, if you all had gone with social theory you would have come out hating people

^{_{A sociologist is about half of a sociopath}}

[Urist Mcinternetuser]

I'm a liberal. I don't really like the two parties, but I definitely like the democrats more, especially the really liberal ones. I absolutely detest the tea parties.