Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[wufwugy]

I would put it this way: any understanding of the human world is going to have to sample from a lot of sources. You're relying heavily on one source. I'm chipping away at it to show that it isn't the be all end all.

So I bring up violence as a means to an end because it is obviously under-represented in your Libertarian beliefs. Literally the central belief of Libertarianism is that it's just not a problem. You can respond by saying, "But look at the richness of my beliefs!" and I'll still be here, kicking dirt in the eye of your Goddess Libertine.

I agree that libertarianism does not message well. I try to use historical and economical reasoning; whereas many libertarians just say "but if there was no violence..."

[a500lbgorilla]

I agree that libertarianism does not message well. I try to use historical and economical reasoning; whereas many libertarians just say "but if there was no violence..."

Spoon made a great post about the 48 laws of Power in his AMA than got me reading it. It's an incredible book that samples from an unreal range of historical sources about Kings and courtiers and art dealers and conmen. I think it'll show you that libertarianism doesn't exactly explain the lay of the land.

[wufwugy]

Spoon made a great post about the 48 laws of Power in his AMA than got me reading it. It's an incredible book that samples from an unreal range of historical sources about Kings and courtiers and art dealers and conmen. I think it'll show you that libertarianism doesn't exactly explain the lay of the land.

It definitely doesn't in most of the world. Most of the world is a dirt poor technological backwater with little commerce. You can go pretty much anywhere in Africa with guns and take over, but if you did that in Silicon Valley, even if the US military didn't exist, you'd find contracted security forces with bigger guns sent to kill you and keep the flow of commerce intact.

I think the paradigm shifts only when commerce creates enough cooperation and technology for marauders to be weaker than security interests.

[a500lbgorilla]

It definitely doesn't in most of the world. Most of the world is a dirt poor technological backwater with little commerce. You can go pretty much anywhere in Africa with guns and take over, but if you did that in Silicon Valley, even if the US military didn't exist, you'd find contracted security forces with bigger guns sent to kill you and keep the flow of commerce intact.

I think the paradigm shifts only when commerce creates enough cooperation and technology for marauders to be weaker than security interests.

It's about what powerful people do behind closed doors. It's a very modern belief that the power is with the people. Maybe that isn't the entire story.