I believe that the whole decision making system is flawed. Fact is that we can scientifically prove what solution is the most optimal for a much larger set of problems using the power of contemporary computers then by any other means (using politics, management, religion etc.). If each activity of our species would be analyzed and solved in this way, there would be no management and you would go to work to actually do work. (I.e. you would try to come up with a better theory/technology/methodology, create and algorithm for it and prove that it is indeed the best one.)
I really have a problem with people bashing libertarianism, because it is probably the most misunderstood political ideology out there. Most libertarian jokes make me go "huh" more than anything else. Why don't we pick on the people who are actually ruining the world right now?
"I totally agree. For instance the Gulf Oil Spill would have never happened if there hadn't been so much government involvement! And look at Northern Mexico. To many damn Federales has caused the poor oppressed people to revolt in support of their completely ethical international trade. And a good thing there was no UN interfering in the totally ethical Rwandan repopulation effort. Geeze there are so many examples of good non-government that it makes you wonder why people even try it."
Okay, the Gulf Oil spill resulted from the inability to homestead and own ocean property. The oceans are an open access commons by design resulting in... a tragedy of the commons! Wow, who'd have though that could happen? Also, the government capped the liability of the companies involved.
I'm not even sure what the second part of your point was even about. Maybe I'm just too tired to read it carefully.
The third part of your statement is completely a red herring. Yes, people can act unethically outside of government. However, if I were to add up all of the deaths caused by government actions over the years (wars, executions, purges, failed top down reforms) it would number in the hundreds of millions. We could give tit for tat examples of people doing bad things in government and outside of government all day, but that would be missing the point.
Oh yeah, and I'm usually high when I post, so all of you nit pickers can suck a choad.
I totally agree. For instance the Gulf Oil Spill would have never happened if there hadn't been so much government involvement! And look at Northern Mexico. To many damn Federales has caused the poor oppressed people to revolt in support of their completely ethical international trade. And a good thing there was no UN interfering in the totally ethical Rwandan repopulation effort. Geeze there are so many examples of good non-government that it makes you wonder why people even try it.
While I do agree with your arguement, I really wish you would have chosen a more professional way to say it.
"You're basically perpetuating the myth that without government, people would simply harm each other on a regular basis. People don't need the government to have ethics, ..."
This part is great. It's put very simply, and it does a great job of getting the point across.
This part... not so much. It detracts from the rest of the arguement. By throwing around insults before even stating your point you make yourself, as well as anyone who potentially agrees with you, look juvenile and not worthy of attention.
"...and the more government I see, the less ethical the world becomes."
The only problem with this part is that it's based entirely on your own anecdotal evidence. Really not such a big deal, but I'm a bit of a stickler for the details.
Put simply, you're making us look like jackasses, you jackass.
(See, when you put the insult at the end it adds emphasis without being disregarded as a baseless insult.)