Anarcho-capitalist prefers human extinction to taxes:

[IcarusAngel]

The Libertarian Sasha Volokh on his blog argued that it would be immoral to tax people to stop an asteroid, regardless of how much damage it would do. But it's also immoral to tell people about it, because that might cause people to panic and thus threaten the rights of the property owners.

Someone at the Mises Institute actually responded to this and agreed with it, even if the asteroid was going to annihilate the human race. See:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/02/would-anarcho-capitalists-allow-earth.html

(That is a good blog for debunking Austrain economics, just as Ayn Rand contra human nature debunks objectivism.)

This Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian movement has a morality/view of the world that is even worse than the Nazis. The Nazis would have never allowed the destruction of the entire human race, although they would have inadvertently done much damage to themselves as well. Of course, if the world blows up there would be no longer any "property," and all capitalist-property has no "true owner" as you can trace most property back to the person who originally stole it (such as the theft of property from the Indians) [1], according to their standards, which prevents other alternatives from posting (see this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-communists-can-t157168/index.html)). The anarcho-capitalist cult should be treated with the same contempt as fascists, imo, and should now be ignored.

All that said, how would competing socialist cooperatives handle the situation? Imagine there is certain spot of land that must be used to destroy an incoming asteroid. What if a well-recognized socialist commune, functioning independently of all others, refused to allow people to use that property.

Would it be ethical to violate their commune and force them off the land? If so, how do you determine when it is ethical to interfere with the rights of another commune, and when it isn't? Couldn't socialism just as easily transform into tribal warfare as anarcho-capitalism since socialists generally haven't outlined a clear set of rights for the commune?

[1]“For central to Nozick’s account is the thesis that all legitimate entitlements can be traced to legitimate acts of original acquisition. But, if that is so, there are in fact very few, and in some large areas of the world no, legitimate entitlements. The property-owners of the modern world are not the legitimate heirs of Lockean individuals who performed quasi-Lockean… acts of original acquisition; they are the inheritors of those who, for example, stole and used violence to steal the common lands of England from the common people, vast tracts of North America from the American Indian, much of Ireland from this Irisih, and Prussia from the original non-German Prussians. This is the historical reality ideologically concealed behind any Lockean thesis.” -- Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue

[The Man]

So what? What else can you expect from a batshit ideology that only exists on the internet.

[Die Rote Fahne]

To the gulags with this tool.

[Hebrew Hammer]

An anti-tax tool on the Colbert Report the other day said something similar last night. That he wouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy 2% of America, even a little, if all the grandmothers in America were in a room, filled with bombs and the only way to save them was to do this or some such scenerio.

[RGacky3]

So what? What else can you expect from a batshit ideology that only exists on the internet.


Believe it or not there are people in congress who view ayn rand as their idol.

[Bronco]

It's hilarious how Murphy tries to pass off the destruction of the entire human race as a trivial thing: "Just because an asteroid threatens to destroy all human life, that alone is not sufficient to justify violating people's rights", as though something else is needed on top of the extinction of humans to finally justify a small tax being implemented?

[Sir Comradical]

These anarcho-capitalist n00bs wimped out on this one. Their argument should have been this. If an asteroid is set to hit earth, there will be a demand in the market for saving the planet, this would induce corporations to ask for asteroid insurance from their insurance companies. Because the insurance companies would go out of business if an asteroid hits, they'd invest the massive premiums they've charged into a missile defence program for earth. As usual the "working class" will free-ride from the sacrifices made by these companies because the military defence of earth is a non-excludable service. In any case the market works!

If I were a libertard, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.