Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
You don't think a culture that respects individual rights would be less likely to commit mass murder? Haven't the largest body counts come from collectivist societies like Stalinist USSR and Maoist China? Is there no room for hierarchical thinking here, ie if we attempt to adopt these principles as best we can we may have a murder or two, but avoid millions murdered, and therefore the attempt at adoption is good? Should be throw our hands up because nothing on this earth is perfect, or should we try to forward the best system currently conceived?
This is a common argument that is kind of an inside joke in libertarian circles. To say that a nation whose government was violently overthrown and then entered a failed state situation is a libertarian one is incorrect. The United States pre-1913 would be a much closer example of the principles of self-ownership, property rights and laissez-faire being implemented than tribal lands whose cultures (African and Middle Eastern) have never held the ideal of individual rights.
Also, interestingly, there is literature on Somalia and how when the government fell, it was a net benefit for Somalians. It is a poor comparison to say Somalia is less good than America, therefore anarchy is bad, rather one should compare Somalia itself pre and post government fall, and/or compare it to the relevant African nations surrounding it. Please read this article for a more fleshed out version of this point: Anarchy in Somalia
No Kyle your system has not been conceived in the real world and worked,it doesn't work.
Any system which is ok with child sex abuse is not ok.