Quote from: Atlas on June 30, 2011, 10:42:41 AM

Quote from: bonker on June 30, 2011, 10:29:22 AM

Quote from: Atlas on June 30, 2011, 10:10:07 AM

Quote from: bonker on June 30, 2011, 10:06:27 AM

Quote from: caveden on June 30, 2011, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: hugolp on June 30, 2011, 09:26:12 AM

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

A society with no set standard of subjective values. How is this terrible?

"Standard of subjective values" - this is an oxymoron. If I am to entertain your absurd philosophy, please make your argument coherent.

Regardless, I would propose that a state of decadent nihilism is bad as it ultimately destroys individual liberty.