The government would be small, efficient, and have very little to do with the life private civillian

and as i said before, "private property and free market" are a state if government, not a type of government.
though there are governments that are incapable of allowing the system to exist.

Seriously take a walk in Los Amgeles or San Francisco and come back and argue universal suffrage with me.

Which raises the Q of who will be setting the time allotment for each profession? And under what standards will we be using? If we're aiming to have smaller govt, I think it is far more efficient to have a smaller govt via limiting its powers vs limiting the kind of voters or having a voting test

Having freedoms also implies having the freedom to fucking up

Freedom does not guarantee the best results

"Having freedoms also implies having the freedom to fucking up"
this, all of this.

Not just limiting the kind of voters

anarcho capitalism allows for monarchisim because it is a form of private ownership

all ancaps understand this

read some hoppe

Brue you are makeing things up now.

Limiting the kind of people who can hold office

<:ancap_ball:636787271466483712>

If all we're allowed to do and choose in our lives are optimum choices, from being healthy and never drinking, smoking, and only eating broccoli n kale. Is that freedom and a life worth living?

I can see where you logic chain is going, but it is not attached to anything. (brue)

I never argued for that

@TheGhostAgent freedom is only given to you by the state, freedom does not exist in nature

it does, it is just much more volatile.

I argued that social democracy and the ignoramuses who vote in favor of it will be the of freedom

lol.... well then we're at diametrically opposed ideologies here considering I'm from the school of J.Locke where rights are natural to us and recognized/protected by the State.

unless you are going to say that a man is slave to his own needs, and that could be seen as true in a way.

"Protected by the state"

LOCKE was a HACK

... Locke was a hack oh wow... so much wow

John locke didnt live in a time when universal suffrage was even a thing

his reasoning for those rights was because of the BIBLE - LOL

You say it so, therefore it MUST BE TRUE

the BIBLE says it so therefore it MUST BE TRUE

give me a break

the weakest foundation to build your natural rights philopshy on

house built out of cards

He fought for universal sufferage and was an abolitionist towards slavery from the start, but sure he's a hack...

"Having freedom also implies having the freedom to fuck it up"

You have the freedom to fuck it up for yourself, not vote to fuck it up for me

@TheGhostAgent all those are horrible things, and unnatural. some people are better than others, some people are smarter than others, the idea that we are all equal and come from a BLANK SLATE, was only because it was before GENETICS

Again I do not see what is so hard for you to understand, the term of service is two years unless they elect to make it a career or there is some form of horrific national disaster

Like the entire west coast is one giant forest fire disaster

LOCKE was the king of ENVIROMENTAL DETERMINISM. and he thought you can change anyone because of the enviroment. lie. some people are born short, some are born tall. enviroment has nothing to do with it. some people are born smart, some are born dumb. dare i say some races...

the foundational idea that all men are created equal has no evidence backing it. i cannot find any. it is just a statement egalitarians say to make themselves feel good. if you have evidence please show me some

@Brue do you not understand that people can be different and equal of the same time?
the problem is we don't have good words to say
"that a person is different in skill and the value it provides"
or
"all people are equal in value as an individual"
bolth of these are true.

"born short, some are born tall. enviroment has nothing to do with it."
if you don't eat well when you are growing you will be shorter then if you had eaten better.