4 ms·

> It would be a large increase in government intervention, but those like Alex Jones and his supporters would see that as a huge gain in liberty I've got no co

> It would be a large increase in government intervention, but those like Alex Jones and his supporters would see that as a huge gain in liberty I've got no cognitive dissonance on this issue and to me it doesn't matter which govt. takes over. The state is the state and you want less of it, never more. > A liberal government does the complete opposite, it's authority in leadership comes from the people which are assumed to be independent sovereign agents. Nope. No such thing as a liberal government. It is an oxymoron as far AFAIC. Government by its very definition requires that the people give up some freedoms and allow a degree(large or small) of state intervention. I want less of it. Only the judiciary & law enforcement - and even then, way less of it than we have now. Everything else people should do for themselves at absolute local levels or even better, at the familial level. The King was the original sin but I'll still take a monarchical govt. over a democratic govt. any day. > As a reformed Anarcho-Capitalist Why did you abandon ancap ideology? I get that it may not be plausible to attain it in its entirety, but I still view it as an ideal - something to aspire to and get as close as possible to. Ideals are good to have because they act as a north star of sorts.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Only the judiciary & law enforcement What is the purpose of the judiciary and law enforcement if there is no legislative power? If there are no laws for the former to apply and the later to enforce—which is the case if there is no authority to create law—then they are pure waste.
- andromedavision 8y ago
  What's the purpose of having laws if they're going to change on the whims of the govt./legislature of the day? The FUNDAMENTAL law should be immutable. Write once and it never changes. No need for senators, mps and all those other useless positions that only consume from tax payers. If there are other nuances - because there'll be unforeseen occurrences and paradigm shifts like the advent of technology and its implications - then we rely on the judiciary and future similar occurrences rely on precedent to come to a judgement. Also, arbitration can really solve some of these cases in free market environment where parties involved can agree on an arbitrator and their differences can be resolved.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Only the judiciary & law enforcement What is the purpose of the judiciary and law enforcement if there is no legislative power? If there are no laws for the former to apply and the later to enforce—which is the case if there is no authority to create law—then they are pure waste.

andromedavision 8y ago
What's the purpose of having laws if they're going to change on the whims of the govt./legislature of the day? The FUNDAMENTAL law should be immutable. Write once and it never changes. No need for senators, mps and all those other useless positions that only consume from tax payers. If there are other nuances - because there'll be unforeseen occurrences and paradigm shifts like the advent of technology and its implications - then we rely on the judiciary and future similar occurrences rely on precedent to come to a judgement. Also, arbitration can really solve some of these cases in free market environment where parties involved can agree on an arbitrator and their differences can be resolved.