The Exigent Duality
Check - 10:00 CST, 5/27/24 (Sniper)
It's kind of fun hearing Mark Dice discuss Libertarianism, since I can't recall him previously giving his opinion about the subject. He calls their reasoning as to how a society could function without a formal state apparatus "convoluted"-- but that seems disingenuous, since the hypothesis is quite easy to follow.

Conflict is expensive, and without a state being able to force-confiscate and print infinite currency, only the tiny percent of pure sociopaths would choose conflict instead of the much more ROI-friendly cooperation. And because the percent of pure sociopaths is so tiny-- one, maybe two percent of the human species-- their attempts at evil would happen in such a vacuum, people would push back against them almost immediately.

That's the theory anyway-- I'm merely suggesting that it's not convoluted.

How would Mark argue against something like, let's say, the forced military conscription presently being proposed in England? If he says he's for it, then would he be opposed to mandatory conscription in factories? If not, on what grounds, since he mocks the idea of the non-aggression principle? Libertarianism is the only philosophy I've encountered where people are actually trying to use their brains and make sense-- which is why Trump encountered a mix of cheering and booing at their convention.

I would accept from Mark, "Yes, Libertarians are more or less absolutely correct in their reasoning-- what they say makes sense, and they are logically consistent. But at this moment in time, if we were to attempt a dissolution of the State, our already-violent country would become essentially uninhabitable." I've come around to the notion that different ideas have their places at different moments in time: a century in the making, I think this moment calls for some kind of strong-arm dictator to take control of the military, and clean house.

It's a risky strategy, but we're at the point where the building is going to collapse-- is it better to let it fall randomly, or to have a controlled demolition? One hundred years of bad chess moves seemingly leaves us with no remaining good ones.