Message from @Grenade123

Discord ID: 467835460593647619


2018-07-14 23:14:21 UTC  

Lmfao. And thatcm is what makes discussions so fun. So, I am a bit ignorant on this. What is Big L libertarian vs. Little L libertarian?

2018-07-14 23:15:39 UTC  

Big L is for the Libertarian Party and its ideals and platform. Little l is for principles that dictate whether or not you vote or you support the Big L or any of its candidates.

2018-07-14 23:17:07 UTC  

One can support Liberty without supporting the party.

2018-07-14 23:18:02 UTC  

Ahh. Okay. I havent heard of those terms until Tim did a month or two back on one of his hour long podcasts, and I havent heard him distinguish between the two. I never really cared to ask before either. 😂

2018-07-14 23:19:04 UTC  

It's an inside thing. Most people are like you and "Wha?" lol

2018-07-14 23:19:44 UTC  

I fully understand the position, I was in an ancap server. There is nothing here I haven't heard before. My issue with it is humans

2018-07-14 23:20:15 UTC  

@Grenade123 im listening.

2018-07-14 23:20:59 UTC  

The Libertarian Party leans right, but there are left-leaning libertarians as well.

2018-07-14 23:21:33 UTC  

I'm a Social Libertarian.

2018-07-14 23:25:00 UTC  

Was that your result on the 8values test?

2018-07-14 23:25:03 UTC  

First, what are the chances of getting everyone on Earth following such a principal and not get greedy? Who is stopping the warlord before he gets to powerful? If not all people are following it, then how do you defend yourself again a state. How do you stop say Russia? While it's true an armed population is one hard to conquer, when you are not facing a standing army then it's just a matter of time, conquering one community after another. When we look at the third party in arbitration, what stops corruption? What stops a kangaroo court? Sure, what we current have isn't great. But I fail to see how you stop the formattion of a state, if a group of people wish to form a state?

2018-07-14 23:25:33 UTC  

I'm a social liberal, according to that.

2018-07-14 23:25:51 UTC  

I think it did, @possumsquat93

2018-07-14 23:27:53 UTC  

@Grenade123 I think that is a better explanation than what was going on earlier, and I think actuslly refutes it far better. And it is more along the lines of what I agree wutb.

2018-07-14 23:28:29 UTC  

Ah, but it is supported by my previous idea.

2018-07-14 23:29:02 UTC  

A "stateless" society can only be permitted to exist by the strongest entity.

2018-07-14 23:29:33 UTC  

Much like any current state is allowed to exist so long as larger states don't invade.

2018-07-14 23:30:26 UTC  

They don't just invade willy nilly though, nor have they ever really

2018-07-14 23:30:49 UTC  

Willy nilly depends on your view point

2018-07-14 23:30:49 UTC  

There's usually a larger purpose for it, and it's weighed against cost and difficulty

2018-07-14 23:31:05 UTC  

I would consider religious reasons to be Willy nilly

2018-07-14 23:31:25 UTC  

I wouldn't, but even with that in mind, there's a reason why Afghanistan still exists

2018-07-14 23:32:14 UTC  

@Grenade123 that would be an improper use of Willy Nilly than.

2018-07-14 23:32:38 UTC  

As it falls flat in the face if what that phrade means.

2018-07-14 23:32:52 UTC  

You are right, they don't invade without reason

2018-07-14 23:33:07 UTC  

To be more specific, states don't attack states solely on the basis that the former is larger/stronger than the latter

2018-07-14 23:33:14 UTC  

TIME TO FREEDOM THE ALFS

2018-07-14 23:33:21 UTC  

No, but that doesn't refute my point

2018-07-14 23:33:21 UTC  

There's usually some perceived benefits

2018-07-14 23:33:38 UTC  

Being the wrong type of government can be a reason

2018-07-14 23:33:49 UTC  

Or just happened to be a good spot to attack their enemy

2018-07-14 23:33:52 UTC  

Well it's part of a larger question, since you seem to think conquering is a given

2018-07-14 23:33:55 UTC  

Look at Hawaii

2018-07-14 23:34:35 UTC  

We annex it, illegally by our own laws at the time, because it was a good place for a naval Base.

2018-07-14 23:35:13 UTC  

Okay, so what problem is presented by ancapistan if these things happen anyway?

2018-07-14 23:35:35 UTC  

The fall of any given superpower is inevitable. Nobody stays on top forever

2018-07-14 23:37:50 UTC  

My point is that a standing army or organized and recognized government increases the effort another someone to invade. And try and tell me that a place which has a standing army isn't a state in it's own regard.

2018-07-14 23:38:41 UTC  

If you are just a bunch of small communities, then you better be a bunch of militant communities, or living in a place that never has strategic value.

2018-07-14 23:38:49 UTC  

I don't know that I'd necessarily agree. Certainly central organization can help efficiency but it also provides easy targets for victory

2018-07-14 23:39:21 UTC  

A certain amount of it obviously boils down to how brutal the invading force will be

2018-07-14 23:39:38 UTC  

Or how easy the population gives up