You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Where has "pure libertarianism" worked?
I thought that libertarians live by the NAP rules. So if someone uses force, then it's okay to use force on them, strip them of their freedom. As long you are not the initiator of force, or better said, not the one who breaks the NAP rule, then it becomes unethical to use force on you.
What I'm trying to say is, yes there will always be people who try to force others to do stuff, but there should be rules in place to deal with those who are dangerous. When are they dangerous, when they break the NAP.
Yet if you approve of democracy and argue that regardless of what democracy is, "reality" is different so "deal with it" or "play the game" you agree that democracy or Might is Right, Majority Rules, is ok, and, even if that's only a "majority that chose to play the game", you cannot abide by NAP, wouldn't you agree?
I don't approve of democracy. For the reasons you gave. If the majority wants to attack you, yes, in a democracy it might be ethical, but it breaks the NAP. The NAP should be the supreme rule, not the majority. So I do agree.
I am a capitalist, so I think people should rather vote with their money.