Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

Are you planning on saying anything at all that might be relevant?

Stop focusing on people, start focusing on content. Or leave.
(editado)

Enlighten us, why is this?

'Us' or 'you'? As if you mean 'you' in stead of 'us' it is completely useless to write this down AGAIN as it has been mentioned many times before, like exploitation of the weak, monopolies, greed and power, etc but you keep denying this and I know all your answers already.

Many tried to discuss this with you, not only in this topic but also the Dutch topic and most probably also the Belgium topic, but you will keep defending you points and you are to stubborn to give in just a little bit to really make it a discussion and not some monologues.

And this is also something I already told you before, this ideology of yours is like your religion and the more I tell you you could be wrong, the more I will encourage you to believe you are right and make you kick back harder, and therefore it is impossible to discuss this subject with you and a waste of my time. Just as religion is undiscussable with a fundamentalist as that will also become nothing more as one way monologues.

EDIT: not meant as an insult btw, but this is how it is for me and as you can see I'm not the only one.

(editado)

You don't see the flaws in the theory you admire. Tell them to me, if you can't you don't have any content. Or are as stubborn as I suspect.

I don't see the flaws (Schepel has pointed some flaws (according to him) to me, but I do not consider them flaws; income inequality is not necessarily a bad thing imo). If you are so critical about libertarianism, you should have no trouble at pointing the flaws.

this ideology of your is like your religion

I do not have a religion, you know that.

not meant as an insult btw, but this is how it is for me and as you can see I'm not the only one.

Didn't consider it an insult, not at all. Coming from a leftist, it's rather a compliment ;-)

And yes, I know a lot of people have serious problems with what I stand for (and the way I'm defending it). The people who do share a certain characteristic ;-)

I hope I have the time this weekend to spend some time on this in the library, you just gave yourself a huge target on your back. ;-)

Point out the main points of your theory. In some sentences, references to contributors and maybe books (preferably in english because my french is ok for conversations but sadly not for legal to the extent I wish it was). So that I finally got a clue what you base your theory on. Like if you had to write a small paper, 2 books for the main theory, 3 books for the details, as an example.

If you manage that (if you have a clue about it summarizing your ideas and pointing to contributors and books will take you some thought and 10 minutes at maximum) I hope I have on one of the three upcoming weekends one day in the library, to actually give it some work.

Yeah, I'm not going to do that. I'm not writing a paper for you so you would find me worthy enough to respond to. If you want to know what my ideas are, read the topic.

Damn it I did not ask for a paper, write down what the specifies of your theory are, who are the contributors you got them from. If you know what you are talking about you should be able to do that.

The Road to Serfdom -> Friedrich Hayek
Anarchy, State and Utopia -> Robert Nozick
La Loi by Frédéric Bastiat.

are these the three you are basing it on?

And von Mises with his basic Ideas?

Yep.

I don't see the flaws (Schepel has pointed some flaws (according to him) to me, but I do not consider them flaws; income inequality is not necessarily a bad thing imo). If you are so critical about libertarianism, you should have no trouble at pointing the flaws.
- Limited protection of the 'commons' (atmosphere, biodiversity, oceans), also because privatisation is not always feasible and doesn't always provide an incentive to be prudent with it (in some cases privatisation can actually lead to destruction). edit: In case somebody is already reacting on the last statement, privatisation does not lead to the destruction, as in that would not happen if there was no privatisation, but it doesn't stop it either).

- Vulnerability because of non-initiating of violence as a country, hence, other countries can theoretically be really nasty, but you cannot do anything about it. (not applicable in case there is a world government). I can remember that I pointed this out to you before.

Income equality is not a flaw of the system, but something that can undermine the support for the system and eventually create a revolution. The other things are not flaws on the sense that the individual moral liberty is not guaranteed, but they can both ultimately lead to a destruction of a libertarian society and state. In a purely communistic system, if less and less gets produced each year because of the lack of incentives, you can still all share what is there and it will not change the fact that you share everything. But people will start wondering at some point why they have less and less and question the system.
(editado)

I have already said that I don't exactly know how environment and animal rights for instance must be dealt with in a libertarian society. So yes, I do recognize those might be flaws.

Vulnerability because of non-initiating of violence as a country, hence, other countries can theoretically be really nasty

Well, we're not going to redo that Dutch discussion in English, but you know I am not against a public army because that is a pure public good.

Income equality is not a flaw of the system, but something that can undermine the support for the system and eventually create a revolution.

Although I'd blame the revolutionists in that case, that might happen if people are not solidary (which most people claim to be as they 'like' taxes because taxes would be 'solidarity' like they say).

Well, we're not going to redo that Dutch discussion in English, but you know I am not against a public army because that is a pure public good.
But that is a purely defensive army. It invites non-violent aggression against your country. If that gets really bad it could potentially lead to a movement that propagates a ministry of foreign affairs or an offensive war, which would be both against the principles of the system. It is not a really strong argument, trade embargoes etc. hardly ever initiated revolutions either, but theoretically it is a problem. Or a price you can choose to pay.

It invites non-violent aggression against your country.

Well, we discussed this on the Dutch forum, didn't we?

Exactly there where I made this point in that topic (p. 269) the topic changed, so that discussion was never really finished.

p.269 of that topic.