That's why I say were it not for optimists, pessimists would kill themselves. Were it not for pessimists, optimists would die of their own stupidity. :P

Hello, sorry for the slow response. This was written quite some time ago and I don't think I'd apply either "libertarian" or "anarchist" to myself anymore. In fact, I'm pretty much done with labeling. That said, I still retain a good deal of the same goals and ideas other libertarian anarchists do. (Upon rereading, I was really disappointed with my writing. haha)

I don't have such a pessimistic view of humanity as to say that the one with the most guns wins, but it certainly helps. It seems to me that people will probably always get a perverted version of the society "they" think they want. So I think if people wanted a small, local, friendly, free society, they'd probably get it. The problem is in getting there, defining what that means in practice, and ironing out the inconsistencies and determining how to address issues which can't go away: like public goods, law, etc. But there's power in numbers and ideas. Those win out if there's enough cooperation.

I don't see "government" or "hierarchy" ever going away, but that depends on how those things are defined. Hierarchy could be benign as having a fairly flat organization with more trusted and respected decision makers. So long as there are disparities in aptitude, there will be hierarchy of some sort. Though we can always try to figure out the best rules to make sure those hierarchies don't consume themselves. Government is simply the enforcement of those rules.

Thank you for the compliments. Hope I answered your questions.

Good stuff, but how do you regard Social Security and Medicare?

"god"

I'm not saying that Ron Paul is useless, but he's being put forward as a cure. Essentially he's been deemed THE solution to the libertarian collective action problem. I see no problem in using his talking points as gateways to something else, but that's not really about voting, that's about educating.

I'll let Emma Goldman field this one: if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

I would guess you're right. Sometimes I find it difficult to determine exactly what Keynesians believe, but I seriously doubt a competent Keynesian, which I'm sure there are many, would make such an argument. I don't think it's Keynesianism that's the problem, per se, the liquidity trap argument might make sense if you agree with their assumptions. I think this problem is caused by GDP worship. I can't think of much else.

Should I assume you meant "how?" Asking "why" doesn't make much sense.

What math? What equations? Y = C + I + G? How does that matter? Rising unqualified production is not equivalent to improved well-being. The facts are simple. Things were destroyed. Replacing them means diverting resources away from other uses.

If you would like to offer a specific criticism of my take or of the Broken Window Fallacy, I'd welcome it. But please don't expect me to take your three line appeal to macro authority very seriously.

No, I'm irrational! :P

I guess as a consequentialist with "enlightened" values, that's a good way of understanding it, but I do think liberty is valuable in itself (though more valuable to certain people). And yes, I regard libertarianism as being a part or approach to the way ordinary ethical theory is done.

You're right, libertarians regard liberty in a different way than average politicos. This research seem to confirm that. Libertarians have different value systems. But I don't think that can replace questions of what it is to be a "good person" even if libertarianism should definitely be part of answering that question.

It sounds like you're understanding me and I'm in agreement with what you're saying. I've been really getting into idealist thought recently so I think that's reflective.

I didn't know there was a word limit, but I don't know how to fix it, unfortunately.