Services and goods offered at the barrel of a gun are immoral.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"
Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.
>> ^blankfist:
I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.


They're throwing rocks. I just assumed they'd want something a bit more effective at their disposal. Pardon me.


Throwing rocks is still a way of showing you being angry, but not wanting to do serious damage.

As stated, all guns would do is provide a medium for someone to do something really stupid.

Essentially, think the cascading events of V for Vendetta, and take this exact video as our grounds.

People are angry, some are protesting non-violently, some are throwing rocks (To me that says they're still disgruntled and showing it, but not wanting to do serious harm).

Then you get one or two idiots, who do something really stupid. Weather that's shooting a cop, or shooting another protester. This leads to someone else doing something stupid, be it the rest of the protesters who grow more violent due to the first stupid act, or the corrupt cops.

Either way, the other side is just going to arm themselves and get involved (Police to take down rioters, rioters to take down police).

The entire situation would become all out chaos.

I really can't see how having guns in this fight would cause it to go any other way. What else are you going to do? Stand there and wave them about saying "Hey look, I have a gun!"?

The fact that there's a lack thereof is probably saving dozens of lives.

I would say that if you don't have a shitload of guns - protest peacefully. Throwing rocks is just the dumbest fucking thing you can do. The stupid little bastards in Palestine have been doing it for centuries with the expected reward of fuck all...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"
Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.
>> ^blankfist:
I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.


They're throwing rocks. I just assumed they'd want something a bit more effective at their disposal. Pardon me.

>> ^volumptuous:

If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"
Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.
>> ^blankfist:
I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.



They're throwing rocks. I just assumed they'd want something a bit more effective at their disposal. Pardon me.

If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"

Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.

>> ^blankfist:

I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.

^blankfist:
1. Renting an apartment is a voluntary act.

So is choosing a country of residence.

2. You're not forced to rent an apartment at the barrel of a gun.

You're not forced to live in the US at the barrel of a gun.

3. There's also millions and millions of homes or apartments to buy or rent at competitive prices. And the prices are negotiable and varied.

There are plenty of countries to choose from. Multiple have no taxes (or government for that matter).

4. Moving to a different neighborhood and moving out of the country I was born in are NOT comparable in ANY analogy. That's an absurd notion.

Lots of people have no problem moving to another country regardless of where they were born. Changing citizenship requires more paperwork and more moving expense, but you are certainly free to do so. No one is pointing a gun at you saying you have to stay (though a landlord might end up pointing a gun at you if you refuse to pay).

If I don't like my rent, I move. If I don't like my taxes, I move. How is that absurd? I know there are taxes in the country I choose to reside within... that is not theft.

>> ^Psychologic:

How are taxes theft any more than rent for a place one chooses to live?
You don't have to like taxes, but that doesn't make it stealing.
>> ^blankfist:
...because I think taxation is theft


1. Renting an apartment is a voluntary act. Sure, we all "need" a home, but the act of renting is voluntary, because just as we all "need" to eat, the act of purchasing food at a restaurant or grocery store is a voluntary interaction.

2. You're not forced to rent an apartment at the barrel of a gun. But you are forced to pay taxes under threat of violence.

3. There's also millions and millions of homes or apartments to buy or rent at competitive prices. And the prices are negotiable and varied. Taxes on the other hand are forced upon you, and you cannot "negotiate" with the taxman.

4. Moving to a different neighborhood and moving out of the country I was born in are NOT comparable in ANY analogy. That's an absurd notion.

[edit] Also not saying you were making that comparison. I want to be preemptive.

I had a random guess as well. Most of the rail systems I am familiar with have a chamber the projectile travels down like the barrel of a gun. The main problem I have heard with this systems is the problem of bracing the projectile. How do you accelerate a metal object to super sonic speeds without it destroying the chamber via friction? Some had it in a jacket that was guided by a catapult like system on an aircraft carrier. This results in sparks, fires, and smoke because of the friction involved. I can't find details on this specific gun though beyond "they fired it".

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bae-producing-scaleddown-rail-gun-naval-weapon-01986/

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/12/ap-navy-dahlgren-railgun-test-121010/

The myth is SS is solvent for the next 50 years. The truth is its solvent only because government can tax to be so. And that's where SS apologists claim it's not a Ponzi scheme, because there's no promise of a return on investment (as in, you pay us but we have zero obligation to pay you.).

What gives the government the ability to tax you now to pay others yet gives them zero obligation to give you a return on your investment? Nothing except that it's welfare. It should be an investment into your retirement, but it's not. Why specifically?

Because the government has no obligations to its people, which has been proven in US Supreme Court cases. So, technically is it a Ponzi scheme? Not if you're not guaranteed a return on your investment. That just makes it theft at the barrel of the gun, doesn't it?

Liberals don't think that, @NetRunner. Oh, you meant modern liberals. Gotcha. The kind of self-prescribed liberal that believes they have the solution to curing matters of the heart using the barrel of a gun. That's some real bastardized freedom you got there.

Violence against the government only serves to strengthen them and gives them validation for their growing draconian laws. I agree it's sad that when the government aggresses against the people, people tend to think it was deserved and warranted because our indoctrination system teaches us what government does is right, just and good even if it's achieved at the barrel of the gun.

They put a laser in the barrel of the gun at 3" high (or whatever it was) then at the other end of the hangar they measured 3" high (or whatever it was) to ensure the laser was pointing in a straight line.

If they used a larger gun, the bullet would have flown farther, meaning they'd have needed a much larger hangar. And besides, why not use a pistol?

It's exactly true if you ignore air, the curvature of the earth, relativity, time spent traversing the barrel of the gun, and the inaccuracy of the gun. The vertical component of acceleration, due to gravity, would be completely unaffected by its horizontal velocity.

The vertical component of friction could be larger or smaller when the bullet is shot out of the gun. I don't know. It shouldn't have lift because of symmetry.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The only authority I have in this matter is that I live in another developed country- similar culturally to the US in many ways - that has a government run health care system that works- very, very well. And your "barrel of a gun" rhetoric reminds me of the Wingnut hyperbole seen at the townhall meetings. We pay for equatable healthcare through our taxes - no guns involved - and I wouldn't give it up for anything.