It’s not even that it’s that they are deciding what the definition of the idealogy is based only on the most unhinged thoughts of the obnoxious voices of that ideology.
But I’m sure that .ml represents all Communists and socialists correct? It’s totally an accurate representation because they call themselves those words
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
In a purely libertarian society, parks wouldn’t last long. They would either become prohibitely expensive and yet another thing only for the rich, or they would be harvested and the land mined.
Making them public is the only way to ensure they remain as they are.
Oh yeah, right wing libertarian (based on private property) seems a bad thing for forest, without specific system. I was talking about left wing libertarianism (without private property).
Conversely, I shouldn’t have to spell out my beliefs in order to be treated as a person
I’m certain that you’re aware that words like communism, socialism and Marxism have a plethora of negative propaganda associated with them. Likewise, terms like libertarian are also dragged through the mud routinely.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
Your comment is so lacking depth of understanding that it hurts.
Whenever I see discussions about Communists, I always think about the gulags and death camps in the USSR. Russia was an empire before it was overrun with Communists. Human nature indeed. /S
Maybe you should refer to yourself as a geolibertarian instead of just as a libertarian. It would prevent some misunderstandings.
That’s an interesting read. It’s quite a bit different than what I’m used to people who call themselves libertarians talking about. I still think it would unwind and would be ruined by human nature, but it would be interesting to see such a system in action.
You can’t be both a libertarian and pretend to care about parks and forests. Pick one.
That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.
It’s not even that it’s that they are deciding what the definition of the idealogy is based only on the most unhinged thoughts of the obnoxious voices of that ideology.
But I’m sure that .ml represents all Communists and socialists correct? It’s totally an accurate representation because they call themselves those words
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
In a purely libertarian society, parks wouldn’t last long. They would either become prohibitely expensive and yet another thing only for the rich, or they would be harvested and the land mined.
Making them public is the only way to ensure they remain as they are.
Oh yeah, right wing libertarian (based on private property) seems a bad thing for forest, without specific system. I was talking about left wing libertarianism (without private property).
Conversely, I shouldn’t have to spell out my beliefs in order to be treated as a person
I’m certain that you’re aware that words like communism, socialism and Marxism have a plethora of negative propaganda associated with them. Likewise, terms like libertarian are also dragged through the mud routinely.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
Annnnnnnd what? When did I dehumanize you? Human nature is precisely why I think a libertarian system would be a disaster.
I agree.
Whenever I see discussions about Libertarians, I always think about that town, Grafton, that got overrun with libertarians. Human nature indeed.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
The book is a very nice read.
Your comment is so lacking depth of understanding that it hurts.
Whenever I see discussions about Communists, I always think about the gulags and death camps in the USSR. Russia was an empire before it was overrun with Communists. Human nature indeed. /S
It wouldn’t kill you to read
But based on your username, that may not be in your skill set
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Maybe you should refer to yourself as a geolibertarian instead of just as a libertarian. It would prevent some misunderstandings.
That’s an interesting read. It’s quite a bit different than what I’m used to people who call themselves libertarians talking about. I still think it would unwind and would be ruined by human nature, but it would be interesting to see such a system in action.