you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're assuming that libertarian world everything would work perfectly, but this a fallacy. Conflicts would exist as exists today, but they would be solved in a better way: based on natural law and property rights.

See the fallacy you're committing:

Nirvana fallacy The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No I'm not assuming it would work perfectly, in fact I'm arguing the opposite in this conversation

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You assumed that libertarian arguments are invalid just because it won't give us a perfect social order, but as i said: [in a libertarian society] conflicts would exist as exists today, but they would be solved in a better way: based on natural law and property rights

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well I thought we were talking specifically about libertarian-capitalism/anarcho-capitalism, as per the original post, and I was pointing out its fatal flaw