Picky,picky.

Indeed.

Marriage Under Attack!

- more at the link if you can stomach it.

 The lie of homosexuality attempts to weakened the institution of marriage by trying to dilute and defame its purpose. Trying to change the natural use (Romans 1:26-27) which God intended. One man and one woman in covenant relationship for life. Anyone who escapes this awful lie of homosexuality (I was born that way) is truly blessed. You see, God did not make any mistakes. Submit yourself to God, resist the devil, and he will flee from you! (James 4:7).

I still prefer the governance structure with the regularly scheduled elections and orderly transitions of power. 

both mythologies the difference in the US is that churches don't have militarized goon squads commanded by self anointed god-like rulers....yet. 

both mythologies the difference in the US is that churches don't have militarized goon squads commanded by self anointed god-like rulers....yet.

both mythologies the difference in the US is that churches don't have militarized goon squads commanded by self anointed god-like rulers....yet.

I'll get yelled at for this but for some the state is god.  many don't realize/will never admit that, but it's true nonetheless.

hundreds of millions murdered (democide) trillions up trillions stolen and forced at gun point to cooperate in their scams.

yeah, i think i'll vote for that.

(talk about indoctrination! and i thought gods were detrimental. seems we can't just leave bad enough alone)

fair and equitable government is no less a fallacy/fantasy.

Like I said, I understand well that libertarian ideology holds that if we just eliminate all rules and regulations, the free market will supposedly self regulate and make everything hunky dory.  This notion ignores human nature.  Businesses that see an opportunity to game the system regardless of the absence of rules (such as by setting up a trust) will usually not hesitate to do so.  It is in their self interest to take whatever advantage they can obtain.  Free market competition that is fair and equitable is a fallacy IMO.

(...) Free market competition that is fair and equitable is a fallacy fantasy IMO. 

When the current system is run by politicians holding for sale signs, businesses, especially those seeking a legal leg up on their competition, or sweetheart government contracts, will bite. If we level the playing field by eliminating government corruption, then free market competition will enable all businesses to compete which usually ensures the best product at the best price (and a fair shot without political discrimination).

(...) speaking of war, why do countries invade?

Because it is utopian (or possibly dystopian) and insular (if not parochial). A country 'ruled' by anarchism (not necessarily anarchy) would likely be no match for countries with other systems.

It seems to me that this sort of dispute resolution framework suffers from the same fundamental flaw that underlies libertarianism:  A reliance upon the assumption that, no matter how powerful or wealthy, people (or corporations) will behave themselves.  It's a fatally naive assumption IMO.

Just as the idea that government - if composed of the correct, morally upstanding people - will behave itself.  I don't like one power structure any better than the other.

It seems to me that this sort of dispute resolution framework suffers from the same fundamental flaw that underlies libertarianism:  A reliance upon the assumption that, no matter how powerful or wealthy, people (or corporations) will behave themselves.  It's a fatally naive assumption IMO.

As I understand this framework, DROs are hired arbiters by two or more people, who have voluntarily entered into a contract, to settle possible (future) disputes. (I think DROs hire security or collection agents to perform this task if all else fails.) So Stan defaults, Molyneux says DROs are well within their right to remove property by force, per Bob and Stan's endorsement, which could be a easy as towing a vehicle or as difficult as eviction. If you read on (or any of his other stuff) he points toward the preferred method of non-violent incentive - economic ostracization. Stan also realizes that he becomes the aggressor by taking (or refusing to return) someone's property that he didn't pay for. This whole scenario also assumes that there is no appeal which he says is unlikely.

Regards

In the abstract, in our complex world, I tend to agree. But boil it down to something very simple, like an argument between neighbors over, say, a fruit tree that hangs over the other's property. They argue about who owns what fruit, but one of the neighbors has a terrible stutter, so it's very difficult for the poor guy to get his point across. So he hires someone to listen to his problem 'offline' when his stuttering is not exacerbated by stress, and then the 'speaker' argues for him.

Of course that's a gross oversimplification (I'm very good at those), but the idea is, sometimes you need somebody to speak for you. Now that our legal system has gotten too complex for anyone to really understand, it's even more important for someone who is familiar with the system (such as it is) to speak for you. Lawyers are one of the many necessary evils of a civilized society, at least one that's as large as ours.