> >It's more rational to
> >sacrifice a little freedom now, and reap unprecented autonomy later.
> I don't think it's rational at all. If you sacrifice freedom, you've
> already defeated yourself. How are you going to reap autonomy by a process
> of surrendering it?
I meant "sacrificing"/limiting freedom in the sense of being willing to make some concessions in order to make cooperation with not *completely* like-minded people possible. Also, it is wise to lay low until there's a good opportunity to take action, like for example Y2K (assuming that it has a major impact on society) or the Singularity. So basically we're in agreement here, it seems.
> >Because one person's freedom is another person's oppression.
> This is a fundamental misconception. To make clear what libertarians mean
> by freedom: my freedom is the ability to live _my_ life, using _my_
> resources as I see fit, without forcible interference; so is yours. It's
> not possible to uphold my freedom without at the same time upholding yours.
> Freedom in this sense cannot be oppression.
Ok, that clears things up...It was just another semantic matter. I was talking about freedom in the broad "do what you like and get away with it" sense, while you meant the more narrow Libertarian definition. Obviously, in the case of the former *any* attempt to limit someone's actions, including murder for kicks etc., would be "coercion" and a limitation of freedom.
> >Due to human nature it is currently impossible to create a non-coercive
> You need to support this. I hope to hell you're wrong.
Well, if I were wrong the world wouldn't be the way it is, would it? Libertarian societies would be the norm as, actively supported by the majority of (naturally individualistic, assertive and rational) people, they would quickly outcompete and replace any pockets of totalitarianism. This obviously hasn't happened so far, and the only logical reason I can think of is that (apparently) the majority of people doesn't embrace libertarian thought.