It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: johnwick

I prefer personal liberty or something else. Usually it's the liberals who spout off about being socially liberal and then they launch into all the great social programs and being progressive and SJW and stuff.

So I guess that phrase has engendered an allergic response in me.



Hard to imagine why, I mean it all works out perfect every time they implement some feel good program.

Sarcasm off




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can't, which probably means that it doesnt' even do well in that setting, making your claim that much more of a cop out.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That would not be a very good example as their entire Confederacy was imperiled by French, Dutch and English settlers from the onset.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

OK, so we've got some working examples of what freedom would look like to you, but we still haven't distilled it down into some kind of digestible definition. We haven't yet really pegged what "it" is. It sounds like you just want to be left alone, correct?


Oh god yes!!!!

In the worst possible way!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

A psychopath's playground.
edit on 1-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
I can't, which probably means that it doesnt' even do well in that setting, making your claim that much more of a cop out.


Wait, you said it never got past the 'tribal' level and cannot show examples of this and I am the one coping out?

Maybe when you can back up what you and the Original Poster are claiming can we get past your dual disingenuousness.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can't, which probably means that it doesnt' even do well in that setting, making your claim that much more of a cop out.


There is a reason it hasn't been tried.

It doesn't create a power structure for the elites to manipulate to their advantage.

It debases their power.

They can not allow that to happen.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Wait, you said it never got past the 'tribal' level and cannot show examples of this and I am the one coping out?

I was logiaclly deducing that if it ever worked, which I don't really believe anyway, that it would work in small populations like those often found in tribes.

I was being generous taking a bit of the onus off of you.


Maybe when you can back up what you and the Original Poster are claiming can we get past your dual disingenuousness.

That there are no examples? I think that is a given.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
There is a reason it hasn't been tried.

It doesn't create a power structure for the elites to manipulate to their advantage.

It debases their power.

They can not allow that to happen.

Wait and if it is tried these people will just vanish? They will not try to regain and reimplement the power structure?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: johnwick

A psychopath's playground.


How do you figure?

Because laws stop law breakers?

Think of it like this.

A convenience store posts a sign that says no hoods or masks worn in store.

Under the idea that people won't rob the place if their faces can be seen.

Blindly failing to see, that anyone willing to rob the place doesn't give a damn about their rule about hoods or masks.

The only people the rule will even effect are the people that wouldn't rob the rich place.

In other words, most laws only restrict the law abiding people.

Those that break the law don't care if you make another.

It isn't like it magically stops them from doing something.

That is the fallacy of the liberal mindset.

They think that rules matter to people who don't give a damn about rules.
edit on 1-4-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I was being generous taking a bit of the onus off of you.


Why would there be an onus on me when you are the one claiming it has been previously fully instituted?


That there are no examples? I think that is a given.


Why would there be examples of a full Libertarian government when it has never been applied before on that scale?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
How do you figure?

See my previous post.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Why would there be an onus on me when you are the one claiming it has been previously fully instituted?

I never said that.


Why would there be examples of a full Libertarian government when it has never been applied before on that scale?

I know, right?
edit on 1-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I didn't say he was right. I was just offering a suggestion as to what he was referring to.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: johnwick
There is a reason it hasn't been tried.

It doesn't create a power structure for the elites to manipulate to their advantage.

It debases their power.

They can not allow that to happen.

Wait and if it is tried these people will just vanish? They will not try to regain and reimplement the power structure?


Without centralized authority how could they?

They set a little dictatorship in say Kansas city.

Everyone would leave for places not under their brutal control.

They are now powerless again.

That is why decentralized control is the best check against tyranny.

Populations do vote with their legs.

Always have.

In a place the size of america, there is no place to go to escape the federal gov.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I never said that.


Cut the crap. You:


...because it has never worked past the tribal setting...


Where was Libertarianism tried at the 'tribal setting'?



I know, right?


Actually, by your answers, no, you do not know. It is painfully obvious your understanding of the Libertarian ideology, both historical and contemporaneous, is non-existent.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I didn't say he was right. I was just offering a suggestion as to what he was referring to.


Appreciated my friend. It is obvious that he was just making vague fulminations.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Where was Libertarianism tried at the 'tribal setting'?

Like I said, I don't know. It was a guess that that type of environment could be a place where it might work. Emphesis on "might".



Actually, by your answers, no, you do not know. It is painfully obvious your understanding of the Libertarian ideology, both historical and contemporaneous, is non-existent.

I know what it is and I see why it would fail and that that is the reason it is non-existent.

A bit like the question about the chicken and the egg.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
Without centralized authority how could they?

They would be free to set it up. That is how the wild west ended up being part of the union.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Where was Libertarianism tried at the 'tribal setting'?

Like I said, I don't know. It was a guess that that type of environment could be a place where it might work. Emphesis on "might".



Actually, by your answers, no, you do not know. It is painfully obvious your understanding of the Libertarian ideology, both historical and contemporaneous, is non-existent.

I know what it is and I see why it would fail and that that is the reason it is non-existent.

A bit like the question about the chicken and the egg.


Why would it fail?

Centralized authority serves nobody but those at the top of the food chain.

Us regular folks don't survive because of a giant federal gov.

We survive despite it.

It does more harm than good forca majority of its citizens.

It is the problem.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join