Okay, this is getting old...

[Maphisto86]

An excellent collection of most anti-Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist arguments can be found here: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html. While most of critiques listed have merit, some are pure bogosity and others full of straw men. I am new to many arguments from both sides so I am interested in what some of you think.

[MrBogosity]

I don't know of a single libertarian that takes Huben's bogosity seriously. He's a joke. Lots of people have sent him rebuttals, and he refuses to even acknowledge them. You're supposed to modify your arguments when that happens; he doesn't. He's a woo.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Hey, that's the same site someone on devart linked me to as his proof that "Ron Paul is wrong on just about everything."

Naturally, when I pressed him for details, he pulled the "you lack education" card.  (nevermind that he doesn't actually know what my education level even IS)

[Maphisto86]

I don't know of a single libertarian that takes Huben's bogosity seriously. He's a joke. Lots of people have sent him rebuttals, and he refuses to even acknowledge them. You're supposed to modify your arguments when that happens; he doesn't. He's a woo.

That's somewhat disturbing when someone does not accept posting other points of view. Yet he has posted critiques of his critiques . . . so is he just selective in picking the poorer ones? 

[Travis Retriever]

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Hey, that's the same site someone on devart linked me to as his proof that "Ron Paul is wrong on just about everything."

Naturally, when I pressed him for details, he pulled the "you lack education" card.  (nevermind that he doesn't actually know what my education level even IS)

The first comment on that blog entry:

Here come the RonDroids, all shouting "He's fer the Kawn-sti-two-shun!". Seriously, if Doktor Paul had his way you would be able to buy an African slave down at WalMart, with gold bullion no less.

Kudos to Trefayne for the compilation.

*facepalms*

[MrBogosity]

Yeah, because as we all know, the 13th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution...

*double-facepalms*

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Heh, I don't know.  The fantasy nerd in me thinks it would be pretty badass to have gold pieces for currency.  ^^;

[Travis Retriever]

On Shane's "What is the Free Market?" video I noticed I seem to be losing my "touch".
I also seem to have lost even more patience with Greywyn7 and hipity.
What can I say?  I'm getting sick of their same old tired arguments and bleating, as well as their constant devaluation of the strawman fallacy (which when you accuse a person of a strawman when he/she didn't use one is in fact, a strawman) along with that fact that it's a Monday...
Posted because I needed to vent, and because it was on topic; as Virgil said "This is getting old." >_<

[Travis Retriever]

Wow, busted!  So when talking about evolution, morals are self regulating but as soon as you get to human society, suddenly you need a central planner?  Could the guy be any more dishonest?

It's even worse than that.
It's more like:
Human societies when talking about evolution:  Rules/Morals are emergent.
Those same human societies when talking about the State:  morals are handed down by the God known as the State's central planners.

[Gumba Masta]

I would'nt call it dishonestly per se. I think it stems more from the observation that modern human society does not seem to be what one would call a natural enviroment and thus concluding that because of the seemingly absence of natural laws there is the need to impose law and order by an higher, albeit still human authority.

[Travis Retriever]

I would'nt call it dishonestly per se. I think it stems more from the observation that modern human society does not seem to be what one would call a natural enviroment and thus concluding that because of the seemingly absence of natural laws there is the need to impose law and order by an higher, albeit still human authority.

Define "natural".

[MrBogosity]

I would'nt call it dishonestly per se. I think it stems more from the observation that modern human society does not seem to be what one would call a natural enviroment and thus concluding that because of the seemingly absence of natural laws there is the need to impose law and order by an higher, albeit still human authority.

Except that it is. Human beings are a part of nature.

[Gumba Masta]

That's why I said "The seemingly absence".  I think in a man shaped world, meaning a city, that is mainly built from concrete and steel, surounded by electronical gizmos like fibre optical cables, cell phones and computer it is easy to think that human behavior has detached itself from self governing behaviors and needing outside guidance in our day to day lives all the while ignoring that many of the experienced problems stem from executive meddeling of "higher" goverement powers.
I apologise if seem like rambling. It's difficult for me to put my thoughts on this into words and I'm not sure that what I manage to put down actually conveys what I really mean.

[Travis Retriever]

A rebuttal to Thunderf00t's video by FlowCell: [yt]KBipkULRTQI[/yt]

[yt]qhdcymNtKRs[/yt]
Another awesome one from FlowCell (please uprate. )

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]qhdcymNtKRs[/yt]
Another awesome one from FlowCell (please uprate. )

To update, FlowCell had to disable comments on the above video because he got tired of hearing the same argument again and again from people who obviously didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.
Because of how poorly the concept of liberty is understood, he took it upon himself to make a video explaining the concept in greater detail.
It's an outstanding video that everyone here should watch.

[yt]ftd-AiOz_KI[/yt]