I like them, except two. It shows obvious bias, so I corrected it.
LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull with Bovine Trichomoniasis.
PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors move into your house, share ownership of your cows and help you take care of them, and you all share the milk and sleep together in the same bed.
thanks
Tortoise, I thought it was a bias. That clears it up for me. Should I have said?
LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull from a carpetbagger.
Is that better? I understand you were trying to do the negative of all the others but that one. Should I include this one?
FEUDALISM: You have two cows. You gain your milk plus a portion of the peasants’ cows milk.
Or this one?
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. You get milk from everyone else’s cows and they fight your struggles for you.
I just thought I would let you know, good luck in avoiding Bovine Trichomoniasis just like you do with Ebay when it already affects around 16% of the herds in America with the federal mandated testing on the bulls. Take away that federal mandate and it would skyrocket, but I am sure the average person would still avoid it, right?
I didn’t really mean to interrupt your propaganda. Continue on. I have only one question left to ask:
How do you know if you are a Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist?
You think that rather than send our boys to die in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should just shoot them here and save the shipping cost.
I just had to invent one:
TORTOISEISM: You never get milk from the cow because one is too slow. 
Your OP is well indicative of your political leans 
It’s really entertaining, but informative to some degree.
this is my description of all social and political standpoints i have seen inplace
BottomLineism: the government takes your cow and gives you a shiny rock that can be traded for less than the value of a cow. inevitably the rock will become worthless resulting in the need for unjust procural of neighbouring governments cows (war)
i enjoyed this post because i have long held it in mind that one of the most truly valuable things in this world are cows
I saw that on a poster once. The same exact thing.
^^ Yes, it’s a fairly well known poster. He wasn’t trying to claim they were original.
It seems you are arguing for libertarianism based on pragmatic, utilitarian, or consequentialist reasoning (as most other political philosophies are argued). I would think the strong suit of libertarianism would be justice and fairness in terms of negative rights.
Negative rights are a fallacy. You can’t uphold negative rights without positive action. How do you enforce a negative right if no one has the positive right of protection? That’s where Libertarianism and anarchism crumble into mere ideologies
I wouldn’t consider the right of protection a positive right. It is the state of upholding the negative rights. People are not receiving something, but avoiding removal. Supporting it may require infringing on negative rights, but if done correctly only one, the right to property through taxation, which is pretty much unavoidable.
I find libertarianism to be one of the fairest of political philosophies, but I’d prefer it to be supplemented with providing social services of only the most objective needs and the most direct of ways. I am not a proponent of it in the sense of less governement, but in the sense of complete protection of negative rights, other than taxation. I guess that would best be described as libertarian democrat.
Where does this state come from? What makes a police officer or a soldier obligated to help YOU and not only themselves? You are personally happy with your negative rights. You have no obligation to help anyone. Yet you expect others to help YOU without obligation when your negative rights are infringed? That makes no sense, but then again that is the libertarian way. It’s ok for YOU to have no obligation to others, but you don’t care if others are not awarded that same “freedom” from obligation.
This was answered when I mentioned taxation. Taxation goes to services in which people voluntarily provide their skills and efforts in exchange for money.
No one in libertarianism has any obligation, but to pay taxes in order to protect people from any obligations other than that taxation.
This doesn’t make sense, as I have explained above, there is no obligation but the taxation required of any government. I think you’re just responding in an emotional manner to what you percieve is some philosophy based in greed or privledge, which to your credit some do, however many others follow it because it is fair system that protects rights. I certainly don’t think “greed and priveldge” motives apply to me as I would like to see objective basic needs met directly in addition to those protected rights. Again libertarian democrat, not libertarian. That being said I can still certainly see how those not out for themselves could still be libertarians.
Question:
Where do your “objective basic needs” come from and what are they? How can they be objective if not everyone agrees on what they are? Are talking about “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? More than that? Less?
I recognize the slight ambiguity of objective. At the very least the scientificly defined medical requirements…food, water, shelter, healthcare. There can always be arguement, but this is about as unobjectionable as you can get if you have a government that is going to provide any social services at all, meeting basic needs. A system that directly addresses needs everyone can identify with without removing any undue rights (just reasonable taxation).
Yes but again, what are these “undue rights”? A slave state could provide it’s slaves with rations, and housing, and health care, but I’m assuming that would be against some of your “undue rights”…
Again, the only right removed is the right to property through taxation, that’s it. You can’t keep all your property, some of your money is taken to provide these basic needs and protection of your rights. Just taxation.
The only right removed from where? You don’t need property to live. I’ll even say that you don’t need property to live a (subjectively of course) happy and meaningful life. You are saying that there some rights that we have outside of basic needs for life. Where do they come from? Locke/Jefferson?
And if you are saying that only negative rights are inherent, that everyone has the right to be free from actions imposed upon them by others, tell me how this is even feasible in a society where people are constantly interacting and may not even be aware of the effects their actions have on others. Libertarianism is anti-union. Workers do not have the positive right to organize against a corporation. Doesn’t a corporation by definition impose their actions on their workers? What obligation does a worker have to follow the company directive? If it is none, then what is stop companies from firing everyone who does not follow orders? How do these people then support themselves for their basic needs without giving up those inherent negative rights? Do you not see the circular problem here?