View Single Post
  #139  
Old 11-27-2007, 09:14 AM
Zygote Zygote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,051
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]

You can call America a dictatorship, but using such a buzzword (especially, incorrectly) does not help your argument. Call it playing semantics if you want. Like I said, your argument can be made without using false buzzwords.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense but this is non-sense. you get the point. i said you can call it whatever you want. representative mob rule monkeypoo. i dont care

[ QUOTE ]

When did I say that?


[/ QUOTE ]

You said that iraq was wrong because the system was forced. The only way you can get around this is to say that government today are voluntary institutions, which isn't true, and if thats the case then you must believe we're in anarchy right now.

why did the taxmen need all those guns if people had a choice?

you and moorobot should also realize that america descended into civil war not long after inception. Do you think all state voluntarily joined the union too btw??

[ QUOTE ]

I don't recall us ever trying to force the Native Americans to adopt democracy. A group of people deciding to adopt democracy is far different from a group of people invading another group of people, forcing them to adopt democracy and then leaving. Trying to equate all governments to the Iraq invasion is ridiculous IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

its not ridiculous if you understand the principled difference we're focusing on is a government of voluntary arrangement and one that is coercive. You really believe the American government was voluntarily formed by all members?

[ QUOTE ]

Not really. I don't claim that democracy would be a good system for everyone. I also don't claim "democracy will be good for solving problem X in every circumstance."


[/ QUOTE ]

wat do you claim democracy can do? what is democracy good for?

i never said it had to work in every circumstance, but demcoracy should be able to work in the circumstances that the system is designed to solve, but also my point was democracy has made these situations WORSE.

if democracy only works when people got along before hand then why have democracy? is the system not preached as a just means of solving issues among divided individuals?
Reply With Quote