The Century of the Self: Can True Democracy Exist?

I'm guessing this has to do on the psychology of trust - peer pressure is one powerful example, where a person unconscious forces the conscious mind to "trust" their surrounding peers in a decision, despite wether they consciously agree with that decision or not.

Leaders and oligarchies were the beginnings of utilizing the power of mass psychology, albiet in primitive form, these people were able to sway the mass to their direction.

It is one thing to note however that leadership - hinted upon the trust on a single person, which although powerful is not as powerful as what we have today, which are symbolic systems.

In which, instead of putting our trust a tangible and relatable things such a person, we put our trust in symbols or concepts. Such as "America", "China", "Russia", "India" or "Japan", all of them have thier names & symbols, and although they may have their respective & individual cultures, it is their symbols and names that give them a tangible form.

Instead of a Leader in which you put your trust into, you put trust into a symbol which becomes more than the trust in the success of that symbol - it becomes self-referential - it becomes an identity to which now you will not only support, but protect.

I think that it is important to realize that as irrational as the human unconscious mind might seem, it follows a very predefined & predictable nature seen clearly only through a set of logics and the observation of large numbers. It is a good guess that through evolution, the unconscious was formed not to follow the rules of benevolent morals, mathematics or politics - but of the maximum possibility of survival.

In the end, i think that labeling human beings as "evil" ...is not constructive - it simplifies and ignores the intricacies of human nature, and puts blame on the human conscious without taking into account of the influence of the unconscious and the yet still unknown intricacies of the human mind.

slaughtering each other is going a bit far, but we would live in a hostile enviroment and people would be scared all the time. Please point out the inconsistencies cause I can't seem to find them



Well we have also tried to make faster means of transport for as long as humanity has existed, we are not even close to lightspeed but we dont give up because we want to improve een if the end goal is extremely hard to reach



Why does it always need to be so bloody? In my optimal system people will be able to choose authority without having to resort to voilence. All voilent revolutions end worse then when they begun.



Thats how it goes when you got different people living in the same place



For example if you choose not to follow the speed limits you are a danger to yourself and other people

As for your six examples, I'm not familiar with the laws in the U.S but where I live the things you stated are not against the law. Actualy in Europe the U.S is often mocked for having rediculous laws.



I am fully aware that it sounds like a paradox but thats how freedom works. How do you give freedom, to someone who willingly discards this freedom, without forcing him and thus not respecting his freedom. A very interesting book was writen on this topic by Erich Fromm Escape From Freedom. So you have a choice and you choose to not have a choice (sounds like a paradox but think about it and try to solve the problem of people tendencies to escape from freedom)




No I'm not the master of anyone, but sometimes protecting people means also protecting them from themselves. If for example I could save a man from killing himself I would do it and I would then try to help this man want to live again. When you have taken leave of senses you are not capable of deciding yourself. Much like you wouldnt leave a child to do as he pleases.



I don't feel superior in anyway and I will not tell people how to live their lives. As for collectivization thats not really what I call for, I believe but public and private property have their own role. However solidarity means, everyone giving a certain share of their income so that it can be distibuted among the people who really need it and who can use it to get their lives back on track.



I don't advvocate collectivization but you will need a central organ that oversees distribution on a grand scale if you want to to go smoothly.



Again I'm not an American but, where I live it is every persons duty to help a person that is in danger. For the police here it is not only there duty as citizen but its also part of the job they are paid for.




No they did it because society tought them to care



Not really people are made to believe that they can recieve divine punishment wish is far worse then being killed if you actually believe in eternal life.



True and A cynical conclusion would thus be that humans are beyond saving and doomed to live a cruel world. I just choose to try and improve even if a utopia is unreachable (wich it probably is) I would like to get as close as possible.




True, authority can make people evil but, it can also make people good.

The tone of the previously quoted segment compared to the tone of every other statement you made previous was inconsistent.



Not really an accurate analogy. Technology has improved, the systems of government haven't. The problems that plagued ancient governments still plague the modern governments.



Because Kings do not wish to relinquish their crowns.

Governments don't want citizens, they want subjects. They disdain those capable of thinking for themselves and endeavor to erase the individual. To amass people into collectives whose loyalty is ensured through dependence upon the collective and the government.

To quote Niccolo Machiavelli "Therefore A Wise Prince Will Seek Means By Which His Subjects Will Always And In Every Possible Condition Of Things Have Need Of His Government, And Then They Will Always Be Faithful To Him".



You've repeatedly stated that anyone who doesn't subject themselves to a ruler is a threat. You're repeatedly argued against a person's ability to choose which, if any government they can obey. You've even gone so far to say that those who do not desire to be ruled are threats. This statement is inconsistent with your previous rhetoric.



That's a very childish way to look at things. The world isn't black and white like that. If I don't support you, it doesn't mean I'm against you. It means I'm indifferent. Indifference is not opposition, it's simply not caring.



Remember how I keep mentioning force or fraud? Well that falls under force because if I choose to speed I am threatening the other drivers. Even Libertarians believe that if someone or something is a threat to the lives or property of others it should have a law. Not even touching on private roads for that argument.



All six examples were against the law in their various states. Now, who of the six do you believe is a threat and should be shot if they disobey their government?



If a person chooses to discard their freedom, they've made their choice. Just because Peter chooses to give up some freedom doesn't mean Paul should be forced to do the same. However, if the society you keep describing, simply because peter choose to give up some freedom then Paul should be coerced at gunpoint to "choose" (read coerced) to give up his freedom. I keep advocating because Peter made his choice, that choice only applies to peter and that Paul should be left unharnessed because he hasn't made that choice. Just because I choose to donate $100 to a charity, doesn't mean that someone should put a gun to your head and force you to donate $100 to the same charity.




Children lack the cognitive functions of an adult so the analogy isn't accurate. Despite your claims to not be anyone's master, you've taken it upon yourself to "save" these individuals who do not wish to live. That is a good example of you believing you're their superior. I take it you're against assisted suicide for those suffering from terminal illnesses or unbearable circumstances.



Inconsistent with your previous rhetoric. You've gone so far to say that those who don't "obey" your concept of a society are threats.







Collectivism: The political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production. As long as you advocate for a central government, you're advocating for collectivism.



Here in the States, we've chosen to arm ourselves for defense rather than relying on a government agent that isn't obligated to protect us. The concept seems bizarre to foreigners but, it's our culture of self-reliance. Most of our murder rate comes from gangs and cartels fighting over drug territory. The vast majority of gun owners are sane people who pray that they never have to draw their weapon, let alone use it.



Yeah, that's what I said. They did it because they cared, not because they were ordered to.



When was the last time "God" sent someone a citation? How about a court summons? had police arrive to arrest them?



So it's okay for you to "choose" government but, apparently anyone else is considered a "threat" if they don't choose the same option. We're back to the "With us or against us" mentality again.

I have to commend you for this quote, I am a huge fan of Penn and Teller and have watched thier show Bullshit since day 1. His youtube series is brilliant, but his self done camera work could use some work. I'd rep your post up but I can't rep more than once per 24.

That's true but you don't need coercion from the state or anyone really to do that.

You're basically saying that because we made govt. solve a problem(not really but I digress), not having it means we can't achieve our goal without it.

Not true, we have come really far from medieval fuedalism where power was either legitemized my god or heritage. I don't know how it goes in america but here we have made many laws by the tools provided in our liberal deomcracy




Also not true, where I live power shifts very often and had to be legitemized over and over again without bloodshed. I can't see things like Tiananmen Square happen here.



A man who didnt even see the French Revolution, he makes a comment about the system in the time he lived wich was a centrelization of power by the hierarchs. These hierarchs were nothing more then dictators for life, that is not how it is done today.



I could try to explain this seemingly paradoxal idea but I'll just quote I man who said it way better then I ever could






Well actually it is, when a group of people claim land and make rules they deem these rules neccesary for survival. If then other people come to this land, they will have to follow these rules because the group living there finds them essential. In not wanting to follow their rules you are automiticaly seen as a treat. Thats like saying I'm indifferent so I'm going to drive drunk and you can't tell me not to cause that would be treathening me with dead.

Remember how I keep mentioning force or fraud? Well that falls under force because if I choose to speed I am threatening the other drivers. Even Libertarians believe that if someone or something is a threat to the lives or property of others it should have a law. Not even touching on private roads for that argument.



Again just a mistake made in the U.S these rediculous laws don't exist where I live and if they did they would be revoked in no time. We let cappable people make rational decision about laws. Abortion for example is allowed in Belgium since 1990 because the Belgians decided it as rational to allow it.



I don't think you get the point of escaping from freedom, it's a human reaction people are scared of the responsibility that comes with ultimate freedom just like people are scared of the mortality that comes when denying god. This what makes authority so effective and wide spread in humanity it's what humans do.




Someone who has taken leave of senses also lacks the ognitive functions of an adult, so if you think it is ok to treat a child like that it is logicaly also ok to treat people who have the cognitive functions of a child like that.

And no im not against euthanasia, actualy Belgium was the second country to allow this. But this is different, those people will never have a normal healthy live again, they are beyond saving.



Again, read the Kant quote, for a society to work there has to be a certain level of obidiance. Also it' not "my" concept of society its "our" concept of society. A good society i not made by an individual



For some reason (not meant as an insult) Americans have a hard time understanding the Europian concept of solidarity that had grown since the industrial revolution. I suppose it's an idea Europe inhereted from his history that America didn't. Just like you inhereted firearms and we don't get that.



Not true I believe that Economy should be private still bound by certain rules but private in essence.



Thousend upon thousands lost their lives in the crusades, all in the name of a God. God is an even bigger escape from freedom then government is.



Again not "me" but "us" stop trying to paint me as a selfish individual when I advocate a system that represents everyone.

Kings for Presidents, Tithes for Taxes, Swords for Guns, self-serving noblemen for self-serving bureaucrats, the peasants still look to their lords for safety and security. In 5,000 years, nothing significant has changed besides the names.




I don't know where "here" is but, I digress. Power never changes hands in most countries. The same oligarchy control everything and determine who is the newest puppet on the throne. Here in the U.S our king is decided by the political class. Same goes for every other country around the world. The "people" don't actually decide anything beyond the superficial. I advise you to take a long examination of things beneath the surface in your government.



You don't pay much attention to government do you? The dictators are still there, the terms are just shorter. Every modern dictator whether it's military Junta, democracy, Republic all attempt to make their populace dependent upon them.



I could try to explain this seemingly paradoxal idea but I'll just quote I man who said it way better then I ever could



You enlightenment people and your perversion of reasoning amuse me.






Americans thought those laws were "rational" as well. People in China thought it was "rational" to implement a 1 child policy and now they have a grossly out of balance gender ratio. People used to think owning others was "rational" or that having Kings and Queens who were appointed by God to rule other them was "rational". You find gun control "rational" and I find it ridiculous. You enlightenment people think in binary terms in a dynamic world.



I very much understand it and even agreed with it to a degree. if a person voluntarily gives up their freedom to another person, group or organization they are more than welcome to it but, because Peter gave up his freedom doesn't mean that Paul and entirely different person should be subject to the decisions that another person made. As I said, if I choose to donate $100 dollars to a charity, I can and should not be able to browbeat you with a hammer until you likewise donate $100 dollars. That's the problem with you bloody enlightenment types, everything is so binary it's laughable.




You keep stepping back into this "I'll decide for them" mentality. You keep denying it but, then immediately use possessive rhetoric as if you own them like a car or a house. Either the person owns themselves or someone else owns them.



The language barrier is a huge part of our misunderstanding. After thinking about it, I realize when you say obedience you're not referring to it as one think in a totalitarian regime like North Korea. I believe you've been interpreting my position as "I don't like law X, I'll just ignore it".

Side note: A good society is made up BY individuals. You can't have a building without the bricks, you can't have a society without the individual because individuals make up the groups that create a society.



The quote I posted is more of an argument that using government to give money to poor isn't compassion. Voluntarily giving money yourself to poor people is compassion.



We do have professionals who deal with crime however, the police can't be everywhere at once and we use firearms to defend ourselves until the police can arrive. It's this notion of self defense that you Europeans had whipped out of you over the past 2,000 years.




You didn't answer the questions. I reiterate "When was the last time "God" sent someone a citation? How about a court summons? had police arrive to arrest them"?

Answer those specific questions with an specific answer and quit pontificating about the ills of religion.

Side Note: I'm an Atheist, so rambling on about the ills of religion is preaching to the goddamned choir. Now answer the bloody questions.



You are a selfish individual because the system you advocate only represents you. You've openly attacked the very concept of a sovereign individual with your rhetoric of "solidarity" which is code for blind obedience to a single ideal that runs along the veins of European Fascism. A society where all must be unified in the pursuit of a single ideal. That makes you a selfish individual because of how you and others believe you have the right to impose your beliefs on others in pursuit of this grand society.

LustfulAngel is our resident and openly proud Fascist. Your rhetoric over the course of our conversation reminds me of him almost word for word. Lots of talk about unity, endeavoring for some lofty ideal and how we must all sacrifice for society to advance enough to achieve this goal. The likewise demonetization of the "threat" of the sovereign individual. Lots of talk about obedience to a central authority, etc.

the size of the group in power, and the way they recieve power has changed drastically.




Well it happens here you can deny it all you want but, that will not change facts.



the opposite, power is constantly validated and leaders can lose their power very quickly here. example: The belgian king was against the abortion law and he used his power to stop it, as a result the king was dethroned for a day and the law still passed.
But Belgium has a really unique and complicated structure wich is hard to understand for foreigners.



Just calling it gibberish is ignorance, the man perfectly explains how individual freedom can coexist with a structured society. You just choose to ignore it cause it destroys the whole idea you so frightfully hang on to. I can understands why it scares you Allegory of the Cave

I could try to explain this seemingly paradoxal idea but I'll just quote I man who said it way better then I ever could



You enlightenment people and your perversion of reasoning amuse me.



True and I got nothing to prove my rationality and neither have you. I can only hope that in time we will keep getting rid of unjust laws and instal better ones instead.



Not at all, you liberals just feel too see that a shared society doesnt mean giving up our individuality. Your radical pursuit of individuality leads to alienation, hate, fear,... A cold hostile enviroment without any cooperation.



So answer the question "Why doesnt this apply to at child but still applies to someone with the mental capability of a child?". Is a child not a worthy person in your eyes? You find yourself superiour to a child? SO far for respecting the individual. A true liberal would find the parent-child relation unfree for the child.



ofcourse I don't, the Kant quote, wich you refused to understand, explained that very well.



I totally agree on that, diversity is beautifull and desireable. I love being an individual and I would hate being swallowed by the collective. However there is a way to make a society function as a collective (the professional sphere as you will) while still maintaining individuality (the private sphere)



I was just saying that Americans have a hard time comprehending solidarity because they have never seen a good system put it in actions.



Then why doesnt it show in statistics, you don't have less victims even if you have the means to protect yourself.
Honsetly I feel more safe if I know that the drunk guy on the street doesnt have the means to blow my head clean of. By giving people so called means to defend themselves, you also give people means to destroy others. Also in a humanitary world no man deserves to die not even someone who went on your property and stole what was yours.



Historically unaccured, first of all americans share the european history until about 300 years ago. And the idea od self defense has never been whipped out, its the idea of tools made for killing that we oppose, We oppose voilence, Guns give unlegitemized power. To oppose power with guns will ultimately be your downfall. Tell me "how many people did Ghandi shoot to get india free?"



I didn't answer it because frankly, it was a stupid question and you know the answer to it. Religion is a mental cage that works in different ways then laws. Honestly these mental cages are the real danger to freedom.



Calling me a fascist goes really far, I am opposed to every fascist regime. You can demonize your opponents and call them fascists but this doesnt make you right. I have in every post stated things that are clearly opposed to fascist ideals

Those who influence one regime, influence their successor and the successor after that. The "people" are just peasants who go through a mock election to determine their new King.

To quote you "you can deny it all you want but, that will not change facts."



You actually have a king and yet you deny what I keep telling you. A king is "legitimized" by the very God you scoffed at. Your detachment from reality is amusing.



I consider the man a gibbering buffoon because I am a counter-elightment type much like Friedrich Nietzsche. The only person who has shown fear is yourself by treating everyone who doesn't follow your doctrine as a threat.

Perhaps in Belgium the word "threat" is more subdued but, in the English language calling someone a threat has significant implications.



So much for remaining civil. That's two veiled insults you've lobbed at me.



As long as government exists, unjust laws will be the norm as every facet of the population attempts to achieve preferential treatment through those laws. Poor people demand handouts, rich people demand tax cuts, farmers demand subsidies.







That a blatant lie and I've lost respect for you because of it. i advocate for a society where people can voluntarily choose to cooperate. You demand blind obedience to your concept of what society should be and the death of those who disagree because they are "threats".



Children are wards to their parents, their property if you will, upon reaching adulthood they are their own person and no longer the property of another. Your failure to see that a child is not an adult and thus should not be treated as such in the eyes of the law is baffling.



I haven't refused to understand anything. I read it, disagreed with it and labeled the man a babbling lunatic.



This doesn't fit with your previous statements. You've been actively hostile to the very concept of a sovereign individual and now, you're claiming it's beautiful and desirable. At the same time, you're hostile with cooperation and demand obedience. No wonder Kant's ramblings make sense to you.

Then why doesnt it show in statistics, you don't have less victims even if you have the means to protect yourself.[/quote]

It does show, the FBI has statistic that stated 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by privately owned firearms. However, our European worshiping "Liberals" use our media to exaggerates gun violence, distort gun statistics, portrays gun owners as horse shoe sucking lunatics.

The evidence is there, the malicious misrepresent the facts for personal gain.



Congratulations, you've just told the world you think a rape victim should just lay back and take it because they shouldn't have a means to protect themselves. if a person is breaking into your home with the intent to kill you, you shouldn't protect yourself because that scums life is apparently more valuable than yours.

Protect the criminal, demonize the victims. You Europeans are so bloody backwards.



It takes an adult to buy cutlery in the U.K. Tasers are illegal in Germany. There are restrictive laws around Europe that penalize a person attempting to protect their own life. The idea of self defense is demonized in parts of Europe. It's been whipped out of you in the last few centuries.



It was to prove a point that you're scared to admit.



I wasn't calling you a Fascist. I was stating that you rhetoric echoes the very things he speaks of with the same language and tone. You may not be a fascist but the tone of your rhetoric sounds like our resident Fascist.

Don't pull it out of context, a king in name that can be stripped of power is no king as you meant it.




I have equal respect of Nietzsche as for Kant, both were great minds, both constributed a lot to this world. They are not to be cast of as idiots, this does not mean all they said is sacred and true though



You hammer on this treat to much, it was just a logical deduction. If the laws are meant as protection (I think they should), then breaking these laws is logicaly considered dangerous. So someone who breaks these laws is dangerous.

Thats just pure logic, you look too much at the current laws and call them unjust, it's about the true meaning of laws not about the current state of them.
Perhaps in Belgium the word "threat" is more subdued but, in the English language calling someone a threat has significant implications.



Not meant as an insult, you just come of as an individual who is scared of the concept of government because of what "evil" governments have done. Im telling you that this system can be corrupt but it's the system that makes us human and running from it won't solve any problems.

But talking about insults
















I will break that curse.If there is any such thing as peace, I will seize it. I won't give up



I say it's impossible, you say it's possible. You can say its a lie but that won't solve anything.
I suggest you lay out a detailed description of how this would work and I will then tell you what problems I think will arise

until then I still believe this:




What is this contradictory nonsense, freedom is either a birthright or it's not. Who is going to determin when you are an adult and when a child. Give me one good reason why children are an exception. If to give someone birth means you posses him, well then I don't see how a man can ever be free.



Why so radical, the art of thinking is taking ideas from many sources and putting them together. If you shut ideas out and label them as lunatic you are not openminded and thats why I called Allegory of the Cave.



It's funny cause it does fit, thats the beauty of it all. I wonder why you are so radical and I wonder even more why you are trying to paint me as a radical. Every radical system fails, as a system becomes more radical it will be very good at certain things but screw up other thing really bad.
For example: fascism is a very effective system in terms of work and progress, but at the price of any individual freedom.
Communisme is a very free enviroment but it stuns progress.

So I am not a radical like you, I take points I think are good from every system and I try to merge them. Thats why you can hear me defending Liberal ideas while also defending democratic ones for instance.



Homicide rate

Now compare it to West-Europe and tell me wich has the most effective policy.



Putting worlds in my mouth again, demonizing me. Ofcourse a victims can protect themselves, if this is the only way to avoid harm they are allowed to kill a person. This doesnt mean this person deserved to die, it means the victim deserved harm even less. But tell me how will you defend yourself against a man with a gun? You want every crime to end in a shootout, in wich I might add the victim has a high chance of dieing?

Protect the criminal, demonize the victims. You Europeans are so bloody backwards.



If anything in European media victims are glorified. Being a victim doesn't give you any more rights, the criminal should be punished though but as a human not an animal.



statistics show that people in the US are less save then in West-Europe even though they might not have the means to defend themselves. Atleast criminals don't have the means to slaughter people en masse.



Actualy iy is your radical view that reminds me of a fascist, while you might not believe in the same ideas you are equaly radical and agressive.

Also you made me curious about this lustfull angel, why isn't he here to defend his views? While im having fun and this conversation is certainly enlightning we could use a different view to keep it fresh.

I hammer on it because you're not getting the point. Your entire worldview is too binary for a dynamic world. A government that can properly represent you will not properly represent me because you and I have opposing values. Just because I hold opposing values doesn't make a threat to everyone else. Everything you say requires a perfect government and that perfect government must be run upon your ideals for that utopia you desire to be achieved. In order for that to occur then those who do not share your ideology must be eliminated or as some dictatorships have put it "reeducated". That's a problem with such "utopias", they are a dream for some and a nightmare for others.



I am not scared of government. My views can be summed up by this quote by H.L. Mencken






Video



Do you need a gun to your head to encourage you to help another person? If so, you're right and a coercive monopoly is indeed required for you to function as a human being. However, not all of us require a gun to our head to be altruistic. Such as the example I posted about the Japanese volunteering to clean up the nuclear facility. People help because they are altruistic, because they had an innate solidarity ingrained into them by their family, friends, society and not because a government ordered them to sacrifice themselves.





Libertarian Theory and Children's Rights



I don't appreciate the dishonest way you frame this argument. If me disagreeing with Kant is "not being open minded" then you are likewise guilty of the same for shutting your mind to the concept that people don't need to be browbeaten through a coercive monopoly to be altruistic.



Hate the individual but, they are beautiful? There's been several contradictions in your posts. You praise the individual but, then quote Kant about telling people not to question but, then insist that we much criticize an debate every laws which contradicts the Kant quote of not questioning.

Your entire position is an accumulation of contradictions that can only be achieved if everyone was of like minded obedience to a central ideology. An obedience of such that requires the removal of individuality and replacing of that individuality with a collective identity.

quote]So I am not a radical like you, I take points I think are good from every system and I try to merge them. Thats why you can hear me defending Liberal ideas while also defending democratic ones for instance.[/quote]

That explains why you're views are so paradoxical, so contradictory and seem like the patchwork of concepts. You're political views are an emulsion and everyone knows what happens to emulsion's over time.



You're being intellectually dishonest by trying to imply that there is but, a single factor that explains it all. European countries lack the violent cultures of some demographics that the U.S is plagued with. In other words, you lack the gang culture that we do but, I guess you'll blame guns for that too.

Link.

If murder rates increased with gun ownership, then why isn't Switzerland a sea of blood in the Alps? Why does Finland with a higher gun ownership rate have a lower murder rate than Hungry? Why do Poland and France have a higher murder rate than Germany when Germany has a higher gun ownership rate?



The same way I would handle any attacker by using whatever is available to me. Anyways, the argument that every home invasion would turn into a shootout is a gross exaggeration. If you bother to do some research, most of the mass shootings in American take place where guns are banned. The highest murder rates are in cities with strong anti-gun laws such as Washington D.C. which had a marked increase in murders whose numbers were skewed downwards because of political cover ups. Then once the handgun ban was lifted the murder rates WENT DOWN. In Kennesaw, Georgia they passed a law making it mandatory for every household to have a gun unless the person was prohibited by law (such as a violent felon) and their murder, home invasion and property damage rates WENT DOWN.

Violence exists independently of firearms. Banning guns doesn't stop violence, those who would commit violence simply move to another implement.



Every mass shooting has been in "gun free zones". So it's actually areas that are free of guns such as schools, movie theatres, etc are where people are less safe because nobody is allowed to defend themselves. Also, as I noted earlier Europe lacks certain minority cultures that the U.S does and that guns themselves are not the cause of violence. Guns are merely tools and it is how the owner chooses to use that tool that decides in the end.



Aggressive? You're the one calling people threats and demanding obedience. I've kept advocating that people don't need a gun to their head to cooperate while you've advocated the opposite. Apparently believing that people will cooperate without a gun to their head is a "radical" notion.

Allow me to ask you yet again. Do you need a gun to your head to cooperate with another person? When you were in College/University did you have someone pointing a gun at your head when you were working with another student to finish a project of studying together? When you go to work and a coworker asks for assistance is there someone with a gun to your head telling you that if you do not help them then you will be shot for not cooperating?

I hope you're beginning to see the point I've been trying to make over the last day or so. That you don't need a gun to your head to cooperate with someone. Unless you do need that gun, then I must ask, what the bloody hell is wrong with you to need a gun pointed at you to feel the desire to assist someone?



How the bloody hell should I know? I'm not his keeper.

Under a libertarian society, people are allowed to choose voluntary socialism. If a group of people wanted to purchase land and own it in common, they would be allowed to do so as long they don't coerce people into joining or giving up his property.


I...don't how how creating a "govt", would fix humanity or suppress all the negative aspects.

Living in a "freer" society doesn't mean people will live in complete solidarity or that humans will suddenly start raping and pillaging. Most people don't follow laws because they fear the consequences or they respect govt. authority.


Also it's pretty silly to call FPOD a fascist. Even if you don't agree with him, it's not a proper reason to call him that.

couple of questions, What if all land is owned by such a group? Who saveguards the idea of property, what if I don't respect property and just use what I want? What happens to criminals?



probably not all, but as many as possible hopefully.


What keeps them from doing this then, and just saying they won't doesnt solve it. Today there is only proof of the fact that humans can act as savage beasts.



I think you failed to read my post correctly sir, I kindly invite you to read it again.

Also, how in the world does that post earn you rep? seems like some kind of buddy clan to me.

If all 6,973,738,433 on the planet agree to such a society then there isn't much of an argument. As for how land is handled, there is the homesteading principle and then voluntarily acquiring the property from it's previous owner.

One could argue that every government in existence acquired it's land through force and by extension stole it's land from it's rightful owners making the very existence of that government illegitimate.

If I was to explain it to a child I would say. Bob finds some wood on the ground and builds a house. John then approaches Bob and throws him out of his house and occupies the house himself. Who does the house belong to? That's right, the house belongs to Bob.

Here's a video that explains a lot.



Anarchists argue that a coercive central agency is not required. I posted a video of Stephan Molyneux explaining the case for Anarchy.



You have a short memory. I've posted links and gave numerous accounts of Altruistic behavior in other people. None of those behaviors were enforced by a central coercive agency. People did it because they cared and had solidarity.

1) That "what if" question would imply a lot of things, and would have had to be followed by many events, ones that you didn't explain. It would be pretty hard to get all property, especially if there are those who don't want to live in such a manner. There are consequences if you break certain rules, obviously.

2)What do you mean what keeps people from doing this? Ask any men(or women) what's stopping them from hurting others or taking their property away from. It's because it's wrong. One could easily argue that its' if it weren't for a religion that you don't like is the reason why we have morality, but any rational intelligent person knows otherwise. It's as you said earlier, humans are social beings, we trade with each other in hopes of both participants being better off, we respect each other and our properties to avoid unnecessary conflicts(most of us). Dude, I can go on a gigantic lecture on how human behaviors were developed and which traits and cultural information was passed down, why and how too, although that would be great in another thread.

3)Quit your hating son.

If you read my first post I'm not saying we should not have a govt, or that we shouldn't use some sort of socialism(if it's voluntary of course), but that it should be forced upon everyone.

Since I was brought into the conversation, I shall enter it gleefully and with dignity. I first would like to do so, in stating as I've always stated that Fascism and Libertarianism though of different means, have the same fundamental understanding and emphasis on society. For after all, I first saw the Ron Paul movement. So, what made me shift from Libertarianism to Fascism, was the fundamental flaws I had seen in the Movement.

First, even if the Honorable Paul had been elected Senate Democrats/Republicans would've effectively made him a lame duck president. A position that's different from the horde of "representatives" who are more interested in maintaining the validity of their party's existence rather than the good of the country.

Secondly, even if the honorable Paul had Democratic/Republican cooperation, the Libertarian philosophy as a whole rejects "force", in other words it rejects governance. Its true in that individual actions cannot be governed, nor should they be. But there's value and stability to be had in a government that effectively utilizes the various skillsets of our country.

Its true that there is good, but there is also evil. To expect the 'good' to triumph over the 'evil' without any effort on the part of senior officials is naivety at best, if not outright dangerous. A traffic officer has the ability to navigate traffic and in doing so(albeit it slows the flow of traffic down), it ensures the safety of those who follow its laws.

I believe Libertarianism to be the traffic officer who chooses not to engage in his capacity at all, rather he believes dressing as an officer alone will convince those on the road to drive safely. Another example I used was that of a watchdog with neither a bark nor a bite.

Philosophically, it is not "force" that is evil but to the means with which force is used. If the "force" of government is used to maximize the efforts of its citizens for the betterment of all people, then how can the Libertarian call that evil?

It is "force" used to separate the country from the haves and have nots, to capitalize on our workers for the benefit of a few that is truly evil. Indeed, whether it be Democracy, Communism or an Aristocracy which leads to this end.

In short, the Fascist doesn't deny individual value, nor individual contribution. But rather, its the acknowledgment that the individual is a part of the country, that the well being of the nation and the individual are connected.

To put it bluntly: Under our current government, we bailed out those "too big to fail" correct? I would've taken either one of two steps: A: I would've let those corporations die out, and prop up up and coming corporations who more valued our community and our country. Or B: Along with the corporations, I would've bailed out the people as well.

A democracy valued a class of people over another, deceiving the people to believing otherwise. I, on the other hand valued both equally. In fact, a citizenry can always create a society. A corporation can only be a part of it.

I don't want to detract the thread to discuss Fascist Economic Ideology, which differs from both Keynes economics and capitalist economics which dictates the market should be absolutely free to its own inhibitions. If, however those participating in the thread would like to do so, then I'll make a post supporting the economic provisions of fascism.

For now, I believe this evaluation of democracy(and other leftist ideologies) which were rejected soundly by both the Founding Fathers and by those of the Third Position should prove two fallacies: The fallacy of democratic "government" and that said government ever was for and by the people, but rather for the political elite.

The signing of the Magna Carta was a political ploy on the part of the King that gave the subjects some rights, but still held them in subversion to England. Why else did the Founders revolt against England?

Are you seriously implying that people wouldn't be held accountable for their actions in a "libertarian" society?

Isn't that seen in Fiery's defense of Anarchy? Libertarianism is simply a very soft step towards the idea of governance, while upholding the anarchic ideology. A passive form of government is not sustainable, which is why the Founders crafted a Republic after experimenting with a libertarian/anarchic society(Before the social union, different states had different currencies. Trade and such was of course difficult)

Again, it's still the initiation of force to meet a certain goal, that could have been solved without it. You're basically arguing that because a govt can do it and was made to do it, it's the only thing that can accomplish something.

To quote George Washington:



However, I'd disagree partially with Washington. The danger isn't in the servant(government), the danger lies within the servant forgetting that it is indeed a servant and not a master.

But the basic fundamental truth being that government is force, it is only possible to govern, to maintain a society with a reasonable level of force and to what ends said force is used for.

For an anarchic society to exist, humankind must aspire to the qualities of leadership. However, this is the reason democracies have failed: So very few men were born to be leaders of themselves, much less of others.

Hence, here's another quote from George Washington:



Fascism is the synergetic unison between individual will and collective prosperity. The question isn't about force, the people themselves have become force. To quote the Matrix: You are The One.

Fascism brings about the ultimate capability in humanity, by realizing humankind's limitations and elevating humanity's strengths.