History of Freedom

[jet57]

"Purest democracy is anarchy"

Interesting point. I can agree inasmuch as everyone has a say but no authority. Other end of the spectrum would be majoritarian democracy. But I'm not sure how anything in between could not be majoritarian. Sure, elect representatives, but then they legislate by majority vote. And then you run into another problem, representatives have no stake in the game, in power, sure, but the liberty of the people to pursue happiness, no. They end of selling favors to special interests and handing off authority to an army of bureaucrats who try to please too many to the harm of more. --Is anarchy the only real democracy. Like we have in the free market were it not for the State creating and protecting monopolies.

Purist democracy is direct democracy. Anarchy is no government at all.

Your "History of Freedom" OP video is an opinion by Charles Koch that goes nowhere. The proofs that I've given you show exactly what he and his brother are up to.

[Chris]

Purist democracy is direct democracy. Anarchy is no government at all.

Your "History of Freedom" OP video is an opinion by Charles Koch that goes nowhere. The proofs that I've given you show exactly what he and his brother are up to.

Proofs? LOL, state them in syllogistic form.

As for democracy, thanks for the dictionary definition.

Lummy offered another definition, and I tied it to the topic, freedom/liberty. Anarchy is rules without rulers.

[jet57]

Proofs? LOL, state them in syllogistic form.

As for democracy, thanks for the dictionary definition.

Lummy offered another definition, and I tied it to the topic, freedom/liberty. Anarchy is rules without rulers.

It's quite clear that you don't know what you're talking about. My posts stand as facts.

[Chris]

It's quite clear that you don't know what you're talking about. My posts stand as facts.

Nice ad hom.

Consider the case of anarchocapitalism. There is no state. Everything is owned privately, be that individually or in groups. There would still be a social order governing interaction. One would expect a system of contracts so they people could exchange goods and services, much like today's market, as well as associate for different purposes like protection, building roads and bridges, much like things were done before some found they could rent seek the government to use taxes for those purposes. This brief sketch would be a pure democracy in which everyone gets to choose their actions and interactions and in which there would be no government monopoly on force to coerce any choices. Cpmplete negative liberty. No restrictions as the video says of freedom.

Now if you want to address what I just said, great, but your silly ad homs are unimpressive.

[Captdon]

FDR was an oligarch. And his "new deal" was just a glorified bribe meant to keep the masses from revolting against an exploitative political system.

He did what was necessary to keep the people from revolting period. The right or wrong of it may be up for grabs but not his reason.There was almost no economy left when he took office. My parents generation were the voters then. I'll believe them over some young know nothing.

[MisterVeritis]

He did what was necessary to keep the people from revolting period. The right or wrong of it may be up for grabs but not his reason.There was almost no economy left when he took office. My parents generation were the voters then. I'll believe them over some young know nothing.

FDR's reason was power.

Your attitude is why you may never become wise. We can know a great deal more than your parents because we can see things never revealed to them.

[jet57]

Nice ad hom.

Consider the case of anarchocapitalism. There is no state. Everything is owned privately, be that individually or in groups. There would still be a social order governing interaction. One would expect a system of contracts so they people could exchange goods and services, much like today's market, as well as associate for different purposes like protection, building roads and bridges, much like things were done before some found they could rent seek the government to use taxes for those purposes. This brief sketch would be a pure democracy in which everyone gets to choose their actions and interactions and in which there would be no government monopoly on force to coerce any choices. Cpmplete negative liberty. No restrictions as the video says of freedom.

Now if you want to address what I just said, great, but your silly ad homs are unimpressive.

What has any of that to do with "The History of Freedom"? The OP is not a history of freedom; it's Charles Koch trying to talk everybody into a House of Lords.

[Chris]

What has any of that to do with "The History of Freedom"? The OP is not a history of freedom; it's Charles Koch trying to talk everybody into a House of Lords.

Anarchy is about freedom, freedom from governmental restrictions. Oh, wait, I said that. If you quote what I post, do try to address it.

I listened to the OP video. Nowhere does Koch speak of creating a House of Lords. Why do you make things up?

[jet57]

Anarchy is about freedom, freedom from governmental restrictions. Oh, wait, I said that. If you quote what I post, do try to address it.

I listened to the OP video. Nowhere does Koch speak of creating a House of Lords. Why do you make things up?

So, you don't what the House of Lords is or how it works and the connection to the oligarchy we have in this country now.

And - you're saying that Koch wants anarchy; am I reading that right?

[Chris]

So, you don't what the House of Lords is or how it works and the connection to the oligarchy we have in this country now.

And - you're saying that Koch wants anarchy; am I reading that right?

So, you don't what the House of Lords is or how it works and the connection to the oligarchy we have in this country now.

That's incoherent, grammatically, and contextually, the context of your false claim that Koch in the video advocates a House of Lords--remember saying that? I suppose that's what happens when you make things up, you need to double down, get confused, and become incoherent.

And - you're saying that Koch wants anarchy; am I reading that right?

Grammatically coherent but contextually incoherent. You challenged what has anarchy to do with the video and I responded both are about freedom. Koch is not an anarchist, he's a minarchist who advocates for freedom.


Take a deep breath next post, think, answer with some coherence.