Mister-poundy fist "real world" ism is just macho-state trash.
Somalia may or may not be an example of polycentric law, well Zimbabwe is an example of democracy.
And africa is covered with states, some autocratic, some democratic. Therefore all states will end up just like that. Oh no, wait, that reasoning is only valid when criticising polycentric law.
They don't even ask what my positions are. They just attack straw men of arguments I made years ago, which creates the bizarre situation where I'm arguing against spawktalk's straw man of a position I don't even hold anymore regarding my defense of my anti-public definition of the state.
And what's more hilarious is that when I propose an actual solution, i.e. moving to and taking over Alaska, libertarianrealist just scoffs and instead proposes a slow decline and doom. He doesn't actually propose that, he just has no proposal. But I hear no other serious proposals. Texas? South Carolina? Even if those states did secede, we'd just get GOP, George Bush / Mike Huckabee ism, and they'd let in the blacks and mestizos, and over time those groups would stand strong against freedom, as they always do.
These fools cry about being straw-manned, and maybe I'll take their noise seriously when they stop straw-manning me. How about reserving judgment? You don't have to have an opinion about everything.
These blustering clowns are anti-conceptual, anti-nuance, straw-manning partisans who don't even ask questions. Anti-conceptual, anti-experimentation, anti-thought meatheads. Libertarianrealist does not engage in thought experiments, or the full continuation of principles to unreal ends. For example, advocacy of a state being mugging. We don't say the bullet killed the person, but the gunman did. Extend this out further, and the voters pulled the trigger. Oh, they didn't enforce the law, the bullet did?
- Now after I made this argument, I didn't jump to all sorts of conclusions and develop all sorts of opinions. Libertarianrealist did that for me, because he can't imagine someone else forming incomplete thoughts and having a muddled area. Because he's a meathead. The whole "realist" trashcan comes to conclusions and forms opinions too fast, has a great dirth of "I thinks" and "I could be wrongs" in what they say.
And for people who want to know what I think, I refuse to answer that. It is easy to find, and I also refuse to give custom answers to the same old objections. If you think you have some new argument (you probably don't), then you can make it. But if it's not new, I'm probably going to just block you. Because by posting that comment, either you are lying about me by implying that the argument was not addressed, others will see the comment and imagine that it is some new objection when it is probably YEARS old and has been addressed many times, or it is genuinely a new argument that fully understands my arguments, in which case you don't need to be pointed to where I flesh out my position. I know it would be easier just to point those who ask to where I explain my views, but this is a matter of principle. If you argue without understanding, once, you can go to hell.
Maybe my counter is wrong, in which case your new argument can incorporate the old response and show why the old response is wrong.
And I refuse to assist anyone who has made a straw man argument. Once you have done that, you have left the world of discussion and entered the world of verbal combat, and you can go to hell.
