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

You could have just laughed about it instead you go "instant defend libertarian cause" .

I cannot stand that people get misinformed on the pursue of liberty and a free society. I just can't ;-)

And besides that clearly the majority of the people think it's fine this way. I agree with your statement that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority but that's less worse then the minorty dictating the majority.

If one is a democrat, one acknowledges that the left is right when claiming that government actions should depend on what is best for the majority, regardless of what damages it does to the minority. Like I said, democracy in that sense is a form of communism. The other people have no right to vote on how much money they'll take away from me against my will.

Then I don't think there are many democrats. Because that way you could hypothetically be killed if you don't pay taxes according to the law just becasue the majority voted for it. I don't think many people would vote for laws like that.

Besides that wouldn't we be living in a stone age time if every place in the world would have been libertarian since the beginning of mankind ? I can't see how proper education/infrastructur/technology would have been developt if people since the start only took care of thereselves/family/clan....?

And besides that I highly doubt that a majority of people would fit in a libetarian society, simply because they are not "smart" enough to survive. These kind of people are more likely to be victimized by inmoral "libertarians" because inmoralty isn't a crime.

The other people have no right to vote on how much money they'll take away from me against my will.
umm, yes they do. Government, in representative democracies, is the collective will of the people of that political unit. The collect political will of each political unit (city, county, state or country) decide what is important for them to spend money on, and how they will fund it. So yes, the collective will of each political unit you live in, through some government constitution, bylaws, or common law, has legal taxing authority to access your income/wealth. You may not like this, but it is the truth, and you can not say it is not so.

Because that way you could hypothetically be killed if you don't pay taxes according to the law just becasue the majority voted for it.

Well, you do get killed if you don't pay your taxes and you defend yourself against being kidnapped (by the police).

Besides that wouldn't we be living in a stone age time if every place in the world would have been libertarian since the beginning of mankind ?

I don't see why that would be the case. Private entrepreneurship is the key to economic progress. Why would that disappear if there was no big government? By the way, big government is only a relative recent situation.

And besides that I highly doubt that a majority of people would fit in a libetarian society, simply because they are not "smart" enough to survive.

Let evolution do its work ;-)

Government, in representative democracies, is the collective will of the people of that political unit.

There is no collective will of the people. Only individual preferences. The 'collective will of the people' is just the preferences of the majority. They have no (moral) right to claim anything that is not theirs. The minority should be protected.

You may not like this, but it is the truth, and you can not say it is not so.

Well, I'm not denying the legal right. Just like the Jim Crow laws were legal too. I'm rejecting any constitution that gives such legal rights to a government.

---

Private entrepreneurship is the key to economic progress. Why would that disappear if there was no big government?

Maybe just because private entreneurship that will take power by corporatism will define new rules to protect themselves from the mass and they would choose easily or terror or democracies to let sleep the mass as done all first capitalist leaders when revolutions in 19th century happened... The new order (merchants, worthies, bankers, annuitants) took power not for giving place to entrepreneurship but with power in their hands, they could'nt choose anything else but creating government to protect their new power...

Don't you see that the richest people protect themselves creating complete closed areas to live ? Why ? To permit entrepreneurship ? No, just to keep their power... Humankind is ilke that whetever you want...

And private entrepreneurship is a key to encomical progress but in the utopian world as yours, i can give my utopian wolrd, that collectivism and rationalist world will be the most efficient economic world... But that mean only to avoid human nature :-p

I'm rejecting any constitution that gives such legal rights to a government.

The collective will (government) can do some things more effective than individuals.
I like to have my trash picked up and taken away.
I like to have my food inspected.
I like to have a government watching out for environmental problems and putting controls into place.
I like knowing that if my city, town or state has a horrible natural disaster that the government will help.

And to pay for these services there must be taxation. You can not just declare that you will not help to support a government
Libertarianism is just as utopian as communism.

I'm rejecting any constitution that gives such legal rights to a government.
Ok, so do you also reject ANY collective services offered by the government?

Then I don't think there are many democrats. Because that way you could hypothetically be killed if you don't pay taxes according to the law just becasue the majority voted for it. I don't think many people would vote for laws like that.

Democracy is not the dictatorship of majority.

It is a false construction of democratic principles. People get confused by ethimology of that word, but it's still an error.

Like I said, democracy in that sense is a form of communism.

I can't get it,
how democracy (not majority dictatorship), that is a theoric form of government,
is likecommunism, that is an economic theoric system that doesn't allow private property.
Is like comparing a ship with a cow..

Private entrepreneurship is the key to economic progress.

Is ONE of the keys to...
Imagine if you ain't got any money (state provides them), or security (state provides them), or trade laws and tribunals (state does it), and so on..

The collective will (government) can do some things more effective than individuals.

That's exactly what I don't believe. The examples you've given: the free market can provide for those services too.

You can not just declare that you will not help to support a government

Well, you're right, I can't. Because if I don't, the government will threaten my life. Apparently, you don't think it's a problem that the government can threaten people if they refuse to cooperate with them. I reject that initiation of violence.

Ok, so do you also reject ANY collective services offered by the government?

Of course not. (Classic question though.) Look, I'm forced to pay taxes. I'm not going to continue paying taxes and then not use the services they provide. Apart from the financial aspect (one does not have to money to pay twice for those services: one time in the form of taxes and once to a private company who also offers those services), there's also the fact that the government has claimed monopolies on certain areas. It's either using the government's services, or no services at all. If you're intellectually honest, you'll see that you can't expect me to not use those services, even if I believe the government should not offer those services.

I can't get it,

There's a lot of things you don't get. Look, let's keep it simple to keep you on board: communism is a collectivist system that says that everything belongs to the collective, and that that collective (in the form of the almighty state) can decide what should happen with it.

Democracy transfers a part of the private ownership in a country to the collective (the state), after which that collective decides what should happen with it.

Do you see the similarities now?

Imagine if you ain't got any money (state provides them)

Uhm, money wouldn't disappear if the state removed the monopoly on that. That's a ridiculous claim. People will find ways to pay. See the human history. There were ways to pay, even if there was no state to provide money.

or security (state provides them)

The same story. Private companies can provide for that. Don't take your imaginations for real.

or trade laws and tribunals (state does it)

See above.

Uhm, money wouldn't disappear if the state removed the monopoly on that. That's a ridiculous claim.

ahahahah..
pretty the same..

The same story. Private companies can provide for that. Don't take your imaginations for real.

ok, guy, keep you imagination for your uthopia.
Private companies..

World Happiness ReporT

it's a mistery how big taxation and great state intervention.. create happiness!!!

You seem to have problems with the difference between correlation and causality.

Big taxation and state intervention create happiness just like more pirates reduce Earth's temperature.



Or that research that showed that couples with kids are on average less happy than couples with kids. You would probably conclude that kids cause couples to be less happy. However, the point was that couples who were unhappy were more likely to break up when they didn't have kids, so a lot of the unhappy couples didn't exist anymore.

They call this the Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

lol, still using this fake argument?

Everybody knows that pirates has short clothes and often use to stay without shirt.
So is natural that climate influence their number..
:P

Serioulsy: only you can use this answer.
It is an argument. Not a prove.
Any man still alive intellectually would have read and make his idea about, but you're as dead. You already know what to think, before to read and before to know..