Comment: Errors in thinking or errors in fact?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Is it a political ideology? (see in situ)

Errors in thinking or errors in fact?

"I guess it is. But political ideologies are all about exercising power over others."

Instead of grouping everyone into one group, it may be more precise to know that there are opposites within the supposed monopoly of force.

Your statement compares to a more accurate statement:

A.
"I guess it is. But political ideologies are all about exercising power over others."

1a
Criminals exercise offensive, destructive, power over others.

2a
Those who avoid criminals exercise defensive, productive, power over criminals.

The non-aggression principle is not a synonym for pacifism, and it can be understood that pacifism is a political ideology.

Quoting:
- - - -

But I would even take issue with what you say as a philosophy: Libertarianism is the only philosophy that works.

Actually, everything works. Slavery, corporatism, socialism, statism. They all work. And in these systems, the ones on top enjoy the systems and the benefits they provide immensely. They use politics as a tool (a hammer) to maintain the status quo.

- - - -

If the definition of "works" means works to destroy things, then the all encompassing (monopoly) definition of "works" is a further confusion along the same lines as confusing offensive power with defensive power.

A.
It works for those who make it work for them in every case.

1a
It works for those who use power to take power from those who make power.

2a
It works for those who use power to defend against those who take power from those who make power, so that those who make power can make power instead of having power taken.

Quoting:
"Let me ask this question: What tools does Libertarianism as a political ideology have to combat the hammer of statism?"

Please consider excusing my offensive tactic of invading and occupying this conversation, please, I do not intend to destroy the conversation, my intention is merely to offer, for your consideration, a competitive viewpoint that may help you answer your question.

My assumption is such that the question was asked with the intention of finding the accurate, competitive, better, answers.

Then the question can be answered from many possible viewpoints, which may work to construct an answer that is viewable from many sides instead of viewing NO ANSWER.

To combat the hammer of statism, it may be a good idea to dispel the myth that "statism" is in some way a bad thing.

So the first defense against criminals who perpetrate crimes upon the innocent (hiding behind 'statism' or 'Religion' or 'ideology' or just hiding behind lies/false fronts/false flags/false names/false legal fictions etc.), the first defense is to accurately identify the actual criminals by their actual crimes.

Who, exactly, is perpetrating which crimes, behind whichever false front, such as "statism," and what can be done to avoid further injury to anyone?

Trial by Jury worked well enough.

Government by consent worked between 1776 and 1788 in the former Colonies known as united states of America.

Are there people, somewhere, claiming that the slaves were asking to be enslaved, and that the jurors were nothing more than a MOB ruled by criminal, immoral, thoughts: aggressors all?

Joe