[QUOTE="UNHOLY_basic"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

In a democracy, they are punished. In an anarchist society, they get to go at it again. My dilemma is this:

Libertarians and Anarchists are for the most part just rich people who want to keep their estates safe with a gold-backed dollar, so in a world with more individual rights, wouldn't they be the first to be targeted by these crimes? Then why do they support them?

Hot-Tamale

It's just not rational. Humans are creatures of community.

I;m going to look at this a different way, as if regressing into a Libertarian-backed government would be taking away my rights to healthcare, social security, and government protection. If life is a fundamental human right, then so is healthcare.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Exactly. And that's what I don't get about anarchism. WHo would want to live in a stateless society like Somalia? I like my government-guaranteed rights, please, so I don't get murdered or robbed...:D

Hot-Tamale

And what about the murderers and thieves who don't care about your supposed rights?

In a democracy, they are punished. In an anarchist society, they get to go at it again. My dilemma is this:

Libertarians and Anarchists are for the most part just rich people who want to keep their estates safe with a gold-backed dollar, so in a world with more individual rights, wouldn't they be the first to be targeted by these crimes? Then why do they support them?

You don't ever think before you post do you? Libertarians are mostly college students, young adults, and intellectuals. Most rich people give heavily to either the Republicans or the Democrats, because the socialist government is the one maintaining the regulatory framework that allows them to stay rich in the first place.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="MarkSmith"]

"He who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor safety"-Ben Franklin

Hot-Tamale

So then you would die of starvation with no one to help you? That is true freedom.

Exactly. And that's what I don't get about anarchism. WHo would want to live in a stateless society like Somalia? I like my government-guaranteed rights, please, so I don't get murdered or robbed...:D

That's your problem. The government doesn't guarantee you your rights. Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were natural rights endowed to us by our Creator. The government exists only to protect those rights; it can't give them out or take them away.

[QUOTE="MarkSmith"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And in that you have the choice, freedom or security. Both sound good, but neither is desired in whole. Total freedom means that you are entirely dependent on yourself, and whether you live or die is solely dependent on your abilities. Total security means that you are simply one more cog in the gear, and you have absolutely no chance to be something other than what you are at birth.

A nation is only as strong as the will of its citizens. If the will is broken, as is the case in many dictatorships, benevolent or not, then the nation is broken. If the will is strong, the nation is strong. If the will becomes so strong that the people desire independence, then no amount of arms or laws will stop them from achieving their goals.

The best society combines the two, total freedom and total security. The reality is, however, a compromise between the two.

Hot-Tamale

"He who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor safety"-Ben Franklin

Ah, the timeless words of Ben Franklin. Of course, I don't believe that people should have unlimited rights. People shouldn't be able to murder, kill, or steal. How do you go about enforcing any laws w/out a government?

Remember, the Founding Fathers belived in government, that it would protect the people from the lawlessness and danger of anarchy.

I'm a Constitutional Minarchist. I have no problem with prosecuting murderers. Self defense is a natural right.

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"] Um, graduated from Stanford, Rhodes Scholar, Doctorate of Philosophy in Political Science from Oxford. Your wrong on that one. You might not like her, and might disagree with her 100%, but she's brilliant. btaylor2404

I would take George Bush to town in a debate about economics. He only got into Yale because of his daddy's last name, and his grades there were pathetic.

[QUOTE="UNHOLY_basic"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

A slave has no rights. Students have rights, they can make demands of the school. Taxpayers have rights, they provide the government with the means to fund itself. Indeed, it is only when you willingly give up those rights that you are truly a slave.

tycoonmike

And in that you have the choice, freedom or security. Both sound good, but neither is desired in whole. Total freedom means that you are entirely dependent on yourself, and whether you live or die is solely dependent on your abilities. Total security means that you are simply one more cog in the gear, and you have absolutely no chance to be something other than what you are at birth.

A nation is only as strong as the will of its citizens. If the will is broken, as is the case in many dictatorships, benevolent or not, then the nation is broken. If the will is strong, the nation is strong. If the will becomes so strong that the people desire independence, then no amount of arms or laws will stop them from achieving their goals.

The best society combines the two, total freedom and total security. The reality is, however, a compromise between the two.

"He who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor safety"-Ben Franklin

That article he linked is golden:

But recent regulatory reform, coupled with innovative technologies, has stimulated the development of financial products, such as asset-backed securities, collateral loan obligations, and credit default swaps, that facilitate the dispersion of risk.

:lol:

[QUOTE="MarkSmith"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

I am aware of that, but Greenspan was a proponent of the free market, there's no denying that.He even became an Ayn Rand disciple in the 1950's...

Hot-Tamale

That was well before he ran the Fed. You said that his execution as chairman of the Fed was similar to the theories of Von Mises. Greenspan ran the Fed like a Keynesian, not like an Austrian. Just admit that you found a few random facts on wikipedia, and then parsed them together into an argument that didn't make any sense.

Are you kidding me? Read this speech: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article577864.ece

Greenspan blames Keynesian economics for everything that went wrong in the world. You Anarchists would love him...

You obviously have no idea what minarchism and anarchism are even about. We view the Federal Reserve, the fiat monetary system, and the practice of fractional reserve banking as fraudulent. Under the Constitution, only gold and silver are recognized as legal tender, and it is Congress's job to coin money. Our Founders detested bills of credit, having seen first hand how the English monarchy abused them.

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Greenspan was a free market idealogue, like Mises:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=aJ8os6vTknLk

Hot-Tamale

I am aware of that, but Greenspan was a proponent of the free market, there's no denying that.He even became an Ayn Rand disciple in the 1950's...

That was well before he ran the Fed. You said that his execution as chairman of the Fed was similar to the theories of Von Mises. Greenspan ran the Fed like a Keynesian, not like an Austrian. Just admit that you found a few random facts on wikipedia, and then parsed them together into an argument that didn't make any sense.