@Tiberius
I dont want you to think that I am one of these usual brainless zombies who troll around making factless statements and baseless fearmongering about "liberterian fashism".
I dont have any objection to political schools which work within the framework of democracy, I myself am a strong advocate of decentralisation of goverment and do acknowlege the benefits a free market brings to a sociaty.
But the main point arround which my opinion evolves in terms of social and political matters is efficiency and a record of positive results. I do not give notice to "prophets" who cannot deliver concepts and do not show eaven the slightest sign of daugth. I prefer pragmatic aproaches and the best politician to me is the one who is his own worst critic, the reevaluation of ones political and sociatal concepts aswell as the demonstration of it`s results and predictions with statistics, studies and facts in general, is to me far more importent than insisting on a dreamish plan ignoring factual evidence against it. The logistics behind a political plan which can give a percentage of certainty towards efficiency and if it actualy, works are far more importent to me than the philosophical concept behint that idea.
My main issue with a completly liberterian goverment would probably be a "moral" argument you have probably been confronted with very oftern.
This is more a philosophical argument than a "actual political" one. If I debate current political issues - I always insist on "examples" and facts - from meatspace - which are presented to back up statements, aswell as I want other participants to demand facts from me.
The "moral" argument, of my concern is:
"How can one be certain, that a collective within a sociaty - which is not bound to regulations, which insure the healthy state of this sociaty, will put effort into assuring the healthy state of this sociaty?"
To me doing so is "a gamble"
I am not a big friend of philosophical debates. I like facts to back ones arguments up. So if you would be more interested in giving a link to a study which answeres this question, backed up with meatspace facts rather than defending a motion (which is rethoricaly harder than speaking against a motion) I`d be eager to read it.
I dont want you to think that I am one of these usual brainless zombies who troll around making factless statements and baseless fearmongering about "liberterian fashism".
I dont have any objection to political schools which work within the framework of democracy, I myself am a strong advocate of decentralisation of goverment and do acknowlege the benefits a free market brings to a sociaty.
But the main point arround which my opinion evolves in terms of social and political matters is efficiency and a record of positive results. I do not give notice to "prophets" who cannot deliver concepts and do not show eaven the slightest sign of daugth. I prefer pragmatic aproaches and the best politician to me is the one who is his own worst critic, the reevaluation of ones political and sociatal concepts aswell as the demonstration of it`s results and predictions with statistics, studies and facts in general, is to me far more importent than insisting on a dreamish plan ignoring factual evidence against it. The logistics behind a political plan which can give a percentage of certainty towards efficiency and if it actualy, works are far more importent to me than the philosophical concept behint that idea.
My main issue with a completly liberterian goverment would probably be a "moral" argument you have probably been confronted with very oftern.
This is more a philosophical argument than a "actual political" one. If I debate current political issues - I always insist on "examples" and facts - from meatspace - which are presented to back up statements, aswell as I want other participants to demand facts from me.
The "moral" argument, of my concern is:
"How can one be certain, that a collective within a sociaty - which is not bound to regulations, which insure the healthy state of this sociaty, will put effort into assuring the healthy state of this sociaty?"
To me doing so is "a gamble"
I am not a big friend of philosophical debates. I like facts to back ones arguments up. So if you would be more interested in giving a link to a study which answeres this question, backed up with meatspace facts rather than defending a motion (which is rethoricaly harder than speaking against a motion) I`d be eager to read it.
