|
VitalSigns posted:Haha. "I don't have to provide any proof and you should just assume I'm right, now please go do the research to prove that I'm right. Research that I've already totally done but don't want to post because that would make you lazy." I am arguing in good faith. I already described how it was done. I'm truly sorry everybody is surprised that over 150 years ago the postal service was a shitload less accessible to people. And that they did not actually participate in meaningful universal service, not least because they only just started switching over to all mail being paid for by the sender instead of expecting the receiver to cough up the cash. Stuff like this is why Spooner thought his private system could totally do better, not recognizing that his business model wasn't sustainable even if it hadn't been blatantly illegal. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Aug 18, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
The real-life court civil court system has already been almost completely sidestepped in all matters of people v. business cases into arbitration, which are basically privatized courts. Arbiters find in favor of the large business interest upwards of 92% of the time. Why? First, they may be under contract with the corporation. Second, if they are not in contract, the arbitration organization wants repeat business from deep-pocketed clients, and having a reputation for siding with the little guy is death. So saying that courts will be impartial dispute resolvers in your DROstopia is madness
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:The real-life court civil court system has already been almost completely sidestepped in all matters of people v. business cases into arbitration, which are basically privatized courts. Arbiters find in favor of the large business interest upwards of 92% of the time. Let me add that this is in a world where refusing to deal with businesses with a mandatory arbitration agreement means that you only face the inconvenience of not having access to things like credit cards. But I'm sure that a world where not signing such agreements is met with instant eviction, a total bar to obtaining food and water, and an announcement to all that you and your property are unprotected and you may be looted, beaten, raped, enslaved, or murdered without retribution will shift the balance of power in arbitration agreements toward the consumer!  Oh and let's not forget that if you walk away from whatever deal your DRO is offering you, the first thing they do is go tell your spouse to divorce you right then, take the kids, get in their van, and start a new life somewhere else and never talk to you again or face the same death sentence as you*. Surely a company that can take your family away from you for pissing them off wouldn't have an unfair bargaining advantage! *And this isn't even a strawman: Molyneux touts giving the mafia free rein to use the threat of breaking up families as a lever in contract negotiations as a positive feature of his ideal society. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Again, consult the census data for the relevant times, see historical maps, and keep in mind what transport people had actual access to. The density map was just an illustration of general settlement patterns. Your local university or county library system probably has the appropriate historic maps. I literally just did all those things and wrote about how I did them. That was the long paragraph about Pocahontas County. Did you read it? I specifically selected an area with very low population density and poor infrastructure, and found what information I could about it. I actually checked several places and decided on Pocahontas County because I was able to find a good amount of information, and because it was exactly the kind of minimum-service area you were talking about. After studying the data, I found that even cherry-picking a case that was maximally favorable to your argument, you were completely wrong. As I said before, I do not believe that you actually did any research or verified anything you're saying. I think you just made it up, and at this point you're not even going to the trouble of fully forming your made up bullshit. quote:A half day one way travel by horse means an overnight stay somewhere in the process since they also have to come back home after spending time at the post office (and given how people did things back then, also spending time in town to purchase or sell things). I.e. days of travel. Since you mentioned earlier that not everybody had a horse that was an estimate for travel time by foot. I used the maximum distance of ~12 miles between post offices even though mathematically speaking it would be more appropriate to halve that because of the way they were spaced out. I also assumed a 3 mph pace, appropriate for cross-country hiking or a leisurely walk, as opposed to a more strenuous 4-5 mph. Thus four hours travel time, or 1/2 day. Somebody could leave home around 8AM, spend several hours in "town", and then head back to arrive home before 7PM, with daylight the whole way. Again, you're wrong, even assuming the conditions that are most favorable to your argument. A more reasonable example--a man on horseback traveling six miles--would make the trip in an hour or at most two. quote:And they'd also have to travel the same distance to use the US postal service to get the same services Spooner's outfit was offering (direct door to door delivery in the most major cities, since the US postal service at the time was only offering that in the same places Spooner was). It's amazing how you don't understand this bit. It's more that I don't give a poo poo because it's irrelevant. The original point that the guy made, posts and posts ago, is that Spooner's company was able to compete with the USPS because he performed only a tiny number of routes that were absolutely the easiest and cheapest to carry and had the highest volume of mail to generate profit on. The USPS maintained routes absolutely everywhere, including frontier areas with very low volumes of mail, which were money-losing propositions. Another source I found at the website of the Kansas Historical Society showed that in 1855, one year after Kansas was organized as a territory and at a time when the population was still in the low five figures, the USPS had upwards of 60 offices throughout the area of white settlement [the search engine returns 66 results but a few of those are repeated entries due to name changes or closed during that year, so round down]. As I've proved my point, and you've refused to even try to prove yours, I'm done with this discussion. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Sorry, everything you posted indicates it still takes days for most people in the time period to be able to get mail and get home.Additionally:EvanSchenck posted:The original point that the guy made, posts and posts ago, is that Spooner's company was able to compete with the USPS because he performed only a tiny number of routes that were absolutely the easiest and cheapest to carry and had the highest volume of mail to generate profit on. Nope, that wasn't the point. Here's what he said: Typical Pubbie posted:Riiiiiiight, and this wouldn't have had anything to do with Spooner's postal service not having a last-mile mandate No one had a last mile mandate in the vast majority of the US at the time period Spooner's service was running. The only places with a meaningful last mile mandate where the very same major cities Spooner operated in, and a few others he tried to operate in later, but the blatant illegality and unsoundness of the company combined to prevent the expansion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Sorry, everything you posted indicates it still takes days for most people in the time period to be able to get mail and get home.Additionally: So you're being absolutely pedantic and ignoring the substance of his quote for the literal reading of it? Spooner's Postal Service competed wat all with the US postal service because the USPS has to serve a massive number of remote and unprofitable areas rather than focus all of its business between the four most heavily populated and easily travelled areas in the US. Do you actually deny that fact? Because that is the important part of the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Caros posted:So you're being absolutely pedantic and ignoring the substance of his quote for the literal reading of it? Yes, he is
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Sorry, everything you posted indicates it still takes days for most people in the time period to be able to get mail and get home. This is irrelevant. The question is whether those routes were profitable on their own or whether their operations were subsidized by more profitable routes back east. It doesn't matter how often farmers in the Nebraska Territory actually checked their mail. They weren't self-sufficient islands: they had to go into town to sell their produce and to pick up supplies (tools, cloth, bullets, gunpowder, tobacco, etc) that they didn't make themselves. Mail was one of those supplies, and the ability of frontiersmen to place mail orders, obtain credit, pay debts, etc was pretty crucial to their livelihoods and to development on the frontier. Which is why the Constitution enumerated establishing a post office as a congressional power, and why the government shut down people who tried to undercut the USPS in the big cities and therefore interfere with the government's ability to provide essential infrastructure to the developing territories. Are you arguing that rural routes weren't subsidized by urban routes? Or are you arguing that despite the dependence of frontiersmen on goods delivered from back east, somehow most people didn't actually bother to use the postal service and goods and credit just kind of showed up somehow when they needed them? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Caros posted:So you're being absolutely pedantic and ignoring the substance of his quote for the literal reading of it? Spooner's Postal Service competed wat all with the US postal service because the USPS has to serve a massive number of remote and unprofitable areas rather than focus all of its business between the four most heavily populated and easily travelled areas in the US. No, the US postal service did not meaningfully service remote and unprofitable areas to begin with in that time frame. In that time, local post office operations were very limited outside the few core cities of the country, and mail volumes were quite low outside them. The post office of the time offered a small fraction of the services that would become "typical" by the end of the 19th century, especially if you weren't in a major city. Again, complaining that Lysander Spooner's mail company didn't serve "the last mile" in most of the country is foolish when the post office of the time also didn't do that. The substance of the quote is to pretend that not doing something that the postal service also wasn't doing was some sort of bad mark against the company only. On top of all this, his entire company that attempted to just take the most profitable routes barely made profit out of it even before the rightfully deserved fines and charges for gross violations of the law came into it. And the sole "useful" feature he had in 1844 when it started, namely having a slightly cheaper cost to send things, was eclipsed by the US postal service bringing down its normal rates within a year or so according to already planned guidelines. VitalSigns posted:This is irrelevant. The question is whether those routes were profitable on their own or whether their operations were subsidized by more profitable routes back east. It doesn't matter how often farmers in the Nebraska Territory actually checked their mail. They weren't self-sufficient islands: they had to go into town to sell their produce and to pick up supplies (tools, cloth, bullets, gunpowder, tobacco, etc) that they didn't make themselves. Mail was one of those supplies, and the ability of frontiersmen to place mail orders, obtain credit, pay debts, etc was pretty crucial to their livelihoods and to development on the frontier. Which is why the Constitution enumerated establishing a post office as a congressional power, and why the government shut down people who tried to undercut the USPS in the big cities and therefore interfere with the government's ability to provide essential infrastructure to the developing territories. Spooner's routes were only barely profitable themselves, since his company was only organized out of his weird pseudo-religous views on business. And in most cases quickly descended to unprofitability before the company'd been around for a full year. To rant on about how unfair his company was is to ignore it never had significant takeup, especially after the post office finished lowering and standardizing rates at the same time they finally got consistent stamp issues available. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, the US postal service did not meaningfully service remote and unprofitable areas to begin with in that time frame. You keep repeating this but you still haven't sourced it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:You keep repeating this but you still haven't sourced it. I did, all your posts even reinforce it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure wealthy people would be able to afford premium treatment or their own private armies, but what about the poor? What's more cost-effective for investigation: respecting privacy, getting warrants, and adhering to Bill of Rights protections? Or is it cheaper to require subscribers of basic service to install cameras in their homes and allow DRO police to dig through their poo poo whenever? And remember that poor neighborhoods have higher crime rates, so they're already going to be paying a premium for protection and have basically no ability to renegotiate their contracts because the alternative is death. If I'm a DRO, it's in my self-interest to collaborate with other DRO's to keep prices high and costs low with a cartel agreement and work together to push out newcomers rather than to engage in profitability-destroying competition. And the barriers to newcomers are pretty high, since only having a recognized DRO will allow you to engage in commerce, so as the established DRO I can threaten to cancel coverage to any business that accepts upstart WhiteKnightDRO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I did, all your posts even reinforce it. I think I get what I did wrong now. Here's my new argument: Guys, I looked at some unspecified maps and interpreted them in an unspecified way. That's a source. Also, all the things you say actually prove what I'm saying. Do I win now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
I'm honestly not even sure what the argument is here. Before 1863, the USPS would only deliver to homes in some cities, and only for an additional charge. In 1863 congress instituted free home delivery, but only in cities where it was profitable to do so (at least at first I guess?). Rural delivery wasnt instituted until like 1902, and was wildly unprofitable. At the time that Spooner's American Letter Mail Company was operating, the postal service only did "last mile" deliveries in big cities, and charged an additional fee for it. sources: http://www.psmag.com/blogs/the-101/a-short-history-of-mail-delivery-52444/ http://about.usps.com/publications/pub100/pub100_020.htm this is the dumbest loving derail jfc
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I think I get what I did wrong now. Here's my new argument: That is indeed what you did when you asserted that because n some counties you only had to spend a half day traveling, the postal service was just the same there as in cities where the postman would deliver to your door, sometime smultiple times a day for a business address, and all with cheaper postage than paid out in the boonies. Slanderer posted:I'm honestly not even sure what the argument is here. Before 1863, the USPS would only deliver to homes in some cities, and only for an additional charge. In 1863 congress instituted free home delivery, but only in cities where it was profitable to do so (at least at first I guess?). Rural delivery wasnt instituted until like 1902, and was wildly unprofitable. The postal service actually did start delivering to the door in some cities starting in the 1840s about the time that Spooner started his stupid private mail system. 1863 is when the post office declared that this service would now be available in all cities and most large towns, rather than being confined to (at first certain small areas of, and then later the whole territory of) the largest cities. This also included it being done for free, in some of the areas. Incidentally, the move in 1863 was as part of responding to a need to keep the country together in the face of the Civil War, and especially for the many people left behind by their soldier family and friends. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think I've solved the problems with DROs. I would found a DRO that cost no money to join, but instead you were required to help on night raids killing and robbing non members. Because you'd naturally outnumber and out desperate the other DROs you'd have the competitive advantage you need to stay afloat. Clearly no one would be interested in joining such an organization. Street gangs can only exist because they are propped up by the state
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Anyway, regarding DROs---my argument against them has been the current state of ISPs. Most areas are served by one or two companies, and no matter how much they suck you are forced to do business with them if you want Internet access. It's hard to start a new ISP because the initial costs are high, no existing ISP will lease infrastructure to you (unless the government forces them to), and existing ISPs will actively try to destroy you (undercutting their rates to unprofitable levels in your region, subsidized by other areas, for instance). DROs, similarly, have an incentive to stop new DROs from being formed. Since they rely on mutual recognition (basically treaties) to function, it is in the best interest of all existing DROs to refuse to recognize and form agreements with a new DRO, and forbid their customers from doing business with people using that new DRO as well. They also have a strong incentive to merge together, or at least to secretly collude with each other. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I'm honestly not even sure what the argument is here. LogisticEarth posted about how much he liked Lysander Spooner because he beat the USPS at its own game. Somebody else replied to point out that he didn't actually do that, because his service only operated in a handful of major cities and didn't have to subsidize unprofitable rural routes. He also said something that was incorrect about last mile delivery. Fishmech seized on that and then further argued that "most" Americans were days of travel from the nearest post office and therefore had no postal service at all anyway, functionally speaking. I asked him for a source on that claim (still waiting) and then I did a little research to find that even in a worst case scenario (a county deep in the Allegheny Mountains with <3 people/mi.^2) most of the population was less than 10 miles from a post office. Apparently that means he now won, and he won so hard that he's now inventing things I didn't argue to win even harder. quote:this is the dumbest loving derail jfc Basically I forgot that Nintendo Kid was Fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The postal service actually did start delivering to the door in some cities starting in the 1840s about the time that Spooner started his stupid private mail system. 1863 is when the post office declared that this service would now be available in all cities and most large towns, rather than being confined to (at first certain small areas of, and then later the whole territory of) the largest cities. This also included it being done for free, in some of the areas. It doesn't really matter that they *did* deliver to homes in some places (and had been doing this long before the 1840s), because this was a profitable additional service that they charged extra for. They were at no point before 1863 obligated to do "last-mile" deliveries anywhere, so this was never a matter of contention during the time period of Spooner. I'm agreeing with you, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I did, all your posts even reinforce it. No, even a quick glance tells me that you're wrong. He even spelled it out, if a man left at 8am and spent hours in town he could still be home by 7pm. That's a day. Singular. No overnight stay of any kind. This of course assumes that the person is lazy and leaves late in the morning rather than just after dawn, which would be around 5-6am. Look, just admit that you didn't do the research. It's already obvious you didn't and you're just making yourself look worse in the process of doubling down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, even a quick glance tells me that you're wrong. He even spelled it out, if a man left at 8am and spent hours in town he could still be home by 7pm. That's a day. Singular. No overnight stay of any kind. This of course assumes that the person is lazy and leaves late in the morning rather than just after dawn, which would be around 5-6am. I did do the research. His assumptions still leave most people unable to get to mail and back without taking multiple days. I'm really sorry that you people have trouble understanding the underutility of the postal service in the early republic; especially once migrations really kicked off. That you might be able to do it if your isolated farm was on good direct roads just reinforces how unlikely you were to have good service if you were a normal person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I did do the research. His assumptions still leave most people unable to get to mail and back without taking multiple days. I'm really sorry that you people have trouble understanding the underutility of the postal service in the early republic; especially once migrations really kicked off. Do you even understand what population density even means? Most people lived in higher density areas, which is why they were, you know, of a higher density.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do you even understand what population density even means? Most people lived in higher density areas, which is why they were, you know, of a higher density. No, most people did not live in higher density areas during the time period in question. The US was heavily argicultural and rural with the added bonus of being in the midst of vast amounts of people from more densely populated areas being in the process of migration westward. You're forgetting that 1849 was not 1949, in other words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
E: Rounding error
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do you even understand what population density even means? Most people lived in higher density areas, which is why they were, you know, of a higher density. Just let him have this. Speaking of DROs, I had a question. If a particular DRO was more economically successful and grew to become larger than its competitors, what incentive would it have to continue negotiating fairly with other, smaller DROs in incidents involving its clients? If the super-DRO could throw its weight around and bully or intimidate the small firms to ensure judgments in favor of its clients, all the incentives would be in that direction. The usual answer is that people would boycott the company that did this, but rational self-interest would lead people to seek a company that gave them the best value for their money, meaning that bullying for favorable judgments would bring in more clients and be economically beneficial to the super-DRO. Is this one of those things where the problem is resolved by everybody else in society spontaneously and voluntarily rising up to punish the bad actor?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:26% of the US population lived in New York City alone in 1850, you clod. 515,547 / 23,191,876 equals 2.2% not 26% you clown. Although maybe in your wacky alternate universe New York City had an extra 5.5 million people in 1850 versus reality where it didn't hit 6 million people until the mid 20s? Even if I'm exceedingly generous to you and grant you all of the current 5 borough's population in 1850 to "New York City" despite it only being Manhattan at most in real history, you only get 696,115 people - 3% of the US population. (Only 3.5 million in total lived in urban areas in 1850)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Speaking of DROs, I had a question. If a particular DRO was more economically successful and grew to become larger than its competitors, what incentive would it have to continue negotiating fairly with other, smaller DROs in incidents involving its clients? The same way that private industry was so good at eliminating workplace injuries, closing down dangerous factories, and mandating things like emergency fire exits. Employers who operated factories with dangerous working conditions found that they could no longer attract employees because more conscientious competitors sprang up and lured away all of their workers by promising things like basic safety precautions and "not locking workers in firetraps 12 hours a day".
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:DROs, similarly, have an incentive to stop new DROs from being formed. Since they rely on mutual recognition (basically treaties) to function, it is in the best interest of all existing DROs to refuse to recognize and form agreements with a new DRO, and forbid their customers from doing business with people using that new DRO as well. They also have a strong incentive to merge together, or at least to secretly collude with each other. "We are terribly sorry, Madam. Our background check indicated that Frederick Phelps, your alleged husband, is a customer of Securator Protection Agency, a minor DRO which is not a member of Maine Dispute Resolvers Association. For this reason we are unable to recognize your marriage. We also remind you that the terms of the Standard Feminine Security Package categorically forbid intimate contacts with individuals who are not protected by a legitimate DRO." True freedom!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Just let him have this. Yeah, this is one of those things where you get a handwave about how abusive monopolies are only possible due to the government because the free market is ~magic~.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
So I'd never actually thought about this too much before but doesn't the NAP basically destroy the concept of private property? Like, if the one rule is that you can't initiate force, how exactly would you be able to kick people off your land if they are just peacefully hanging out? They arent initiating force against you so I guess your hands are tied. Or how would you defend intellectual property? No one is committing an act of violence by copying an idea so there's not really anything you can do about it. I'm sure the libertarian answer is to redefine the word force into some sort of convenient nonsense but seriously, this has to have been addressed at some point by someone in the an-cap scene when they realized they just reinvented literal communism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:So I'd never actually thought about this too much before but doesn't the NAP basically destroy the concept of private property? Like, if the one rule is that you can't initiate force, how exactly would you be able to kick people off your land if they are just peacefully hanging out? They arent initiating force against you so I guess your hands are tied.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Criminals: This one is tricky. But that doesn't mean that a stateless society cannot deliver a system that is superior to the current one. Most ancaps believe that retribution will shift towards recompensation rather than punishment. If a criminal is clearly too dangerous for society, or does not have the means to recompensate the victims, there would be private institutions the provide the criminal with shelter and food in exchange for work. It would be in the criminal's best interest to agree to a contract with these companies because they would be denied service in wider society - eg. unable to buy goods from grocery stores because they have a poor reputation. Additionally these private "prisons" will have an incentive to provide favourable conditions to the "prisoner", since he will be able to move himself to a competitor if he wishes. I can't tell if you are serious or if you are joking. I mean, it seems like being a criminal would be pretty sweet here since I could form my own gang (AKA, a DRO that settles things through the use of murder) and just take whatever I want and society won't be able to do anything. I mean, I won't agree to a contract to work in a prison in exchange for not terrorizing society. This is the world you describe. In reality, it would just become vigilante justice, and we'd have a clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:So I'd never actually thought about this too much before but doesn't the NAP basically destroy the concept of private property? Like, if the one rule is that you can't initiate force, how exactly would you be able to kick people off your land if they are just peacefully hanging out? Ah but see by kicking them off your land you're not initiating force, you're acting in self-defense by defending your property since clearly they are the aggressors. EDIT:I can't find the article but maybe someone else remembers where I read this. It basically tookdown the NAP as simply a matter of perspective. I.e. Your worldview determines who is aggressing and who isn't. I can't find my bookmark and didn't push it to my kindle 
blugu64 fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Ah but see by kicking them off your land you're not initiating force, you're acting in self-defense by defending your property since clearly they are the aggressors. So then when the police arrest you for living in their country and not paying taxes, that's aggression because...?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:So then when the police arrest you for living in their country and not paying taxes, that's aggression because...? Taxes are theft, police are thugs, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Taxes are theft, police are thugs, etc. I think the finally started breaking down the wall with a libertarian friend when i told him taxes are the use fees for living in a country. If you can kick bums of your property thanks to property rights, why cant nations? Youve signed a lease with them allowing you have specific lands under your ownership, how is it any different from any realty/rental company?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:So then when the police arrest you for living in their country and not paying taxes, that's aggression because...? Because they are using force against you to make you pay taxes. Come on! And after all, the government has a monopoly on governing, since it's not like you can move to another country! Look, if you're going to keep bringing reality and common sense into this argument, Libertarianism is never going to work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQj1qlsjVoM Just watch this video and accept everything. Ignore the parts that don't fit in with reality like a good boy. Stop asking stupid questions that show how idiotic this all is! I mean, Edgar is just paying market prices. It's all fair. It's you stupid people insisting that people should be able to afford to live from their jobs that are causing the problems!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I think the finally started breaking down the wall with a libertarian friend when i told him taxes are the use fees for living in a country. If you can kick bums of your property thanks to property rights, why cant nations? Hopefully then he comes to the conclusion that property is theft in the same way that taxation is theft, and becomes a left-anarchist instead of a right-anarchist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
So how are DROs not just states run as multinational corporations instead of as democracies/whatever? I suppose many would have armed forces in any given major city or area in which they operate. Oh, and of course, some disagreements between DROs would be settled by violent conflict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:So how are DROs note just states run as multinational corporations instead of as democracies/whatever? Because they say they're totally not states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:14
|
|