1
-1

[–] Crashmarik [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

You don't even understand why that it isn't an answer and that's kind of sad. It's the whole problem with libertarians they don't realize people can disagree but both be completely correct from their philosophy.

If you used force to defend "Your property" from people that don't believe in private property they would feel perfectly justified in killing you.

1
0

[–] beren 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

You don't have an argument, you only have assertions that "things would be really bad if libertarians had their way", but absolutely zero evidence or arguments to back it up. There is no situation that is illegal today where someone commits violence against anyone else that would suddenly be OK under a libertarian philosophy.

And now you're trying to back out a little bit with the "but we're both right..." which is also nonsense and not an argument.

Again: libertarian philosophy ONLY states the initiation of force is immoral, now if you want to make some kind of argument that states the initiation of force is needed, then make it. Otherwise, you're just going to keep flopping around in circles with your goofy assertions that "things would be bad".

1
-1

[–] Crashmarik [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

No we both aren't right at all. You are completely wrong. For someone who whines and bitches about assertions you sure make lots of them.

Tell me again how Libertarianism deals with hordes of people that feel they are entitled to your stuff ? It doesn't. The libertarian solution is magic.

libertarian philosophy ONLY states the initiation of force is immoral

Yeah how lovely historically nations that start wars win them. Libertarian philosophy breaks down and relies on magic to deal with this problem.