Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (41323)	11/16/2005 7:04:11 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

(ordered anarchy seems like a contradiction in terms but it isn't necessarily so, particularly in theory, practice can of course be a bit more difficult and messy than theory) "Oxymoron" is the term I'd use. Give an example of "ordered anarchy". Where or when has it been seen? If it's so great. why isn't it still around? I don't think oxymoron is appropriate. The two ideas are not necessarily opposite. I suppose it depends on what definition of anarchy you use. I'm using it in terms of no government. In theory there can be ways of organizing things without any formal government. In practice there has been no large scale, long term, implementation of the idea, but it could work on small scales for a time. Anarcho-capitalists (and probably others as well) have ideas for wider/larger implementation of the idea, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so I'm not really going to make an extensive argument for their ideas. The whole point of the parenthetical comment was to recognize that the idea exist, and while it might not be practical, some people think it is, and my post was not a rejection of it or an argument in support of it. The fact that libertarianism doesn't work in the real world isn't an argument against it? 1 - "Libertarinism and anarchy are indistinguishable in some versions." does not equal "The fact that libertarianism doesn't work in the real world" 2 - "Libertarianism doesn't work in the real world" hasn't been demonstrated. In fact I would submit that libertarianism has worked in the real world, the US used to be fairly libertarian. at most it makes for an argument against the most extreme forms of libertarianism (and then only with the unstated assumption that any form of anarchy is automatically horrible). If people actually LIKED anarchy, you'd see it. Lots of it. They don't. "Better ANY gov't than anarchy" seems to be the rule. I wasn't rejecting the unstated assumption, merely pointing out that it was unstated. Where are you on this? Message 21888872 Are you advocating something specific in that post? Tim

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (41323)	11/17/2005 9:28:31 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Respond to of 90947

Message 21893592

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (41323)	11/17/2005 7:19:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

In addition to my previous response I would like to add that even if you don't support the strongest more extreme forms of libertarianism, that doesn't mean you have to consider libertarian ideals to be wrong or worthless or something that should be ignored. You can accept the basic principle that restriction of individual liberty is a bad thing, but still feel some restrictions are justified. You can argue against something based on the fact that it limits/decreases individual liberty without having to argue for a minarchist state, let alone argue for anarcho-capitalism. Tim