>>61
enjoy your anarchy then, and fuck your constitution, we're talking libertarianism as a political ideology/direction(just for those of you that insist on libertarianism not being an ideology) here, not american constitutional-woshipping. Justice to some is Injustice to others, in a democracy the justice of the majority may very well seem as injustice to the minority, if the minority did not accept this it would not be a democracy, it would be anarchy/war, that's what the social contract is all about, the state is there to ENFORCE the social contract, that is force it upon those who do not follow it.
when did i ever criticize machiavelli? His works are primarily of historical value, but if you look at the prince which is what most people think of, it talks of how a ruler should rule, both by giving and exploiting and doing whatever is necessary, to stay in power, this doesn't contrast with my own perceptions, but it's certainly not something i can condone, but maybe libertarians can?
That's right, utilitarianism is based solely on facts, but some factors that you need to calculate when figuring out the facts are somewhat untangible and if you actually want to predict anything you'll need game theory.
Sure, i'd rather invest in microsoft, but would we ever have reached the space-age then? alot of the very practical things we have today are by-products of major projects launched by governments around the world because it wouldn't be profitable for companies to be the first to do it.