Yes, a lot of Libertarians are completely 100% anarchists, however I've never been persuaded that way. I do call myself an anarchist, but in reality I'm a minarchist (minimal government).
I tend to agree with 90% of what the American Libertarian Party and the UK Libertarian Party go with, since they are minarchist in nature (as the anarchist Libertarians say creating a political party is itself anti-anarchistic).
As for people who cannot exersize free choice, of course choices will have to be made for them by their parents or carers. I've already argued on this forum in favour of viewing children as "property" of their parents (in a simplistic way), and I don't advocate letting children run riot. Of course, if an anarchist family wants to do that, that's up to them. I doubt it'd work, but kudos to them for trying
I'm sure there are arguments for letting 16 year olds have alcohol, although I'd prefer to see some level set for which all intoxicants are allowed (18 just springs to mind because at 18 you tend to be more mature). Over here, the smoking age is 15, which is abhorrent in my opinion.
Surely that's an error in the justice system rather than an error of economics / privitisation. Unless I'm thinking down the wrong tracks...you are being very vague. Are you talking about how companies can "buy" their way in courts by using clever lawyers to delay trials and get out of court settlements?
I tend to agree with 90% of what the American Libertarian Party and the UK Libertarian Party go with, since they are minarchist in nature (as the anarchist Libertarians say creating a political party is itself anti-anarchistic).
As for people who cannot exersize free choice, of course choices will have to be made for them by their parents or carers. I've already argued on this forum in favour of viewing children as "property" of their parents (in a simplistic way), and I don't advocate letting children run riot. Of course, if an anarchist family wants to do that, that's up to them. I doubt it'd work, but kudos to them for trying
I'm sure there are arguments for letting 16 year olds have alcohol, although I'd prefer to see some level set for which all intoxicants are allowed (18 just springs to mind because at 18 you tend to be more mature). Over here, the smoking age is 15, which is abhorrent in my opinion.
(January 6, 2010 at 7:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Effectively they do... money speaks.. and there are different laws for the wealthy and the poor.. and not just on a superficial level.
Surely that's an error in the justice system rather than an error of economics / privitisation. Unless I'm thinking down the wrong tracks...you are being very vague. Are you talking about how companies can "buy" their way in courts by using clever lawyers to delay trials and get out of court settlements?
