The Monopoly on Violence

[Smitty-48]

it's like Victor David Hanson says

throughout history, whenever you had a surplus of useless af egg headed academics

those people have no other role but to incite a revolution for its own sake, it's the only job they can do

these academic egg heads are who becomes the Khmer Rouge & Co.

[Martin Hash]

If it’s not a meritocracy then incompetent people, who by far outnumber the competent, in a democracy will be guiding civilization into a train wreck.

[Fife]

[Martin Hash]

<watch this>

I listened to this because fife asked me too...

As I've stated many times here and in my books, Libertarianism requires mysticism: they somehow think Natural Rights will protect individuals; bullshit, the only Natural Right is the Right of Violence. The only thing keeping me from taking your stuff, raping your wife & killing you is stronger males. You by yourself cannot compete with me and my lusty cousins coming to commit harm, and if you join in defense with your own cousins then you just created a government for violence, mocking the very principle of libertarianism.

[Fife]

<watch this>

I listened to this because fife asked me too...

As I've stated many times here and in my books, Libertarianism requires mysticism: they somehow think Natural Rights will protect individuals; bullshit, the only Natural Right is the Right of Violence. The only thing keeping me from taking your stuff, raping your wife & killing you is stronger males. You by yourself cannot compete with me and my lusty cousins coming to commit harm, and if you join in for defense with your own cousins, then you just created a government for violence, mocking the very principle of libertarianism.

What's wrong with voluntary participation in / submission to a "government for violence?" We do it every time we go to a venue with private security on site.

(I don't really think you would come rape my friends or kill me without an involuntary police force kneeling on your neck. I mean, if you really wanted to do that, those guys wouldn't stop you from trying.)

[Martin Hash]

<watch this>

I listened to this because fife asked me too...

As I've stated many times here and in my books, Libertarianism requires mysticism: they somehow think Natural Rights will protect individuals; bullshit, the only Natural Right is the Right of Violence. The only thing keeping me from taking your stuff, raping your wife & killing you is stronger males. You by yourself cannot compete with me and my lusty cousins coming to commit harm, and if you join in for defense with your own cousins, then you just created a government for violence, mocking the very principle of libertarianism.

What's wrong with voluntary participation in / submission to a "government for violence?" We do it every time we go to a venue with private security on site.

(I don't really think you would come rape my friends or kill me without an involuntary police force kneeling on your neck. I mean, if you really wanted to do that, those guys wouldn't stop you from trying.)

Gangs of thugs made the world.

It only takes 1 psychopath (1% of the population), or even a sociopath (4% of the population, most of this forum) to take over if there are no armed men stopping him. If all I had to do was snap my fingers with total security, and if you had something I wanted, including your wife, I'd just snap.

[Smitty-48]

<watch this>

I listened to this because fife asked me too...

As I've stated many times here and in my books, Libertarianism requires mysticism: they somehow think Natural Rights will protect individuals; bullshit, the only Natural Right is the Right of Violence. The only thing keeping me from taking your stuff, raping your wife & killing you is stronger males. You by yourself cannot compete with me and my lusty cousins coming to commit harm, and if you join in defense with your own cousins then you just created a government for violence, mocking the very principle of libertarianism.

nothing is being driven by the masses anyways, everything is being driven by geopolitics

the anarchists naively thought they could bring the state down too in the wake of the First World War

[Smitty-48]

I listened to this because fife asked me too...

As I've stated many times here and in my books, Libertarianism requires mysticism: they somehow think Natural Rights will protect individuals; bullshit, the only Natural Right is the Right of Violence. The only thing keeping me from taking your stuff, raping your wife & killing you is stronger males. You by yourself cannot compete with me and my lusty cousins coming to commit harm, and if you join in for defense with your own cousins, then you just created a government for violence, mocking the very principle of libertarianism.

What's wrong with voluntary participation in / submission to a "government for violence?" We do it every time we go to a venue with private security on site.

(I don't really think you would come rape my friends or kill me without an involuntary police force kneeling on your neck. I mean, if you really wanted to do that, those guys wouldn't stop you from trying.)

Gangs of thugs made the world.

the downfall of the Wokemar Republic is the same

I can promise you that the Woke will meet their reckoning, it's just not going to be in a liberty jubilee

international socialism or national socialism, those are the options, take your pick

[Martin Hash]

If people have an advantage over others, they want to maintain it, and the ones that don’t, want to force those that do to give up theirs.

There will always be those who will do what it takes to keep what is theirs: they might not all be successful but those that are run everything.

[Martin Hash]

international socialism or national socialism, those are the options, take your pick

Since my premise is that socialism is evolutionarily stable with liberty rising above that base condition when there is enough enlightenment, as the world situation devolves, liberty naturally disappears, leaving the battle between the two socialist extremes: those who have nothing to lose, and those that have something to lose: plebiscite vs. aristocracy