|
I think it's been offhandedly mentioned before, but Mafias perform many of the same functions that a Libertarian DRO theoretically would, though they don't base themselves off the same ideology. Given that Mafias actually loving exist in the real loving world and Libertarian DROs can only be found in certain fevered brains of ultra-utopian right-wingers, I'm going to call it as Mafia: Hell Yeah, Libertarians: Buncha Losers.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Corvinus posted:Given that Mafias actually loving exist in the real loving world and Libertarian DROs can only be found in certain fevered brains of ultra-utopian right-wingers, I'm going to call it as Mafia: Hell Yeah, Libertarians: Buncha Losers. Mafias only exist because the STATE makes their activities profitable! If there were no state, there'd be no money in drugs, prostitution or protection rackets. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 09:38
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
The Mutato posted:
Of course there's going to be "less overall crime" when you legalize vast criminal behavior and abolish anything resembling a functional justice system. The real question is will there be less rape, less murder, less theft, less fraudulent advertising, and the like. Feel free to show any proof what-so-ever that places lacking central governments have less of any of this. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Jrod has already discussed this. Based on a D/S curve, workers would have less demand for work the lower the wages are. This is also common sense. However, employers cannot just arbitrarily decrease wages, as competitors will simply undercut (overcut? the fact businesses are buying labor makes everything a little flipped upside down) them by offering higher wages. The market will find a point that is high enough for workers to agree to work for, and low enough that firms consider it profitable. Hey Mutato since you're looking at the thread again do you want to maybe take another swing at this little exchange because this answer makes it look like you're functionally incapable of understanding the question and I actually want to know how a Libertarian would answer it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey jrodefeld let's get your opinion on some other presidents. What about ehhhhhh THOMAS JEFFERSON? Does writing the Declaration of Independence balance out slave rapin'? Or do you think slaves can consent to sex and he simply kept his 15-year-old concubine and her children enslaved because their time preference was all hosed up and they would have ended up destitute without his firm hand and erect, fatherly penis? You really think it is a stretch to observe that State funded schools and the media mouthpieces that shape the views of millions would generally spread the view that State power is indispensable and we would be lost and destitute without them? Now, whether or not that view is true or not or whether the "gilded age" was a good era for the working man is a separate point. It is natural and logical that State financed and subsidized social institutions will be focused on self preservation first and foremost. Their job is to grant legitimacy to State power lest the population starts to consider alternatives to being subjugated by rulers. Furthermore I think it is entirely accurate to observe that most leftists and social democrats haven't actually spent much time studying the full history of the 19th century and pre-Progressive Era economy, which would naturally include studying different views and positions on the subject. Rather they tend to recite talking points that they have heard about how destitute everyone was without the State, how the "market" had caused all these hardships that wise, enlightened intellectuals had to step in on behalf of the people to curb the "greed" of the very wealthy. Sound familiar? The truth is that in the age of the internet, these opinions are shifting and people are able to access different views more readily than ever before. But remember that three generations at least of Americans grew up in an age where there were a small handful of tv networks and newspapers and only one story was presented to the masses, a view of history favorable to their interests that legitimized the power of the State. Propaganda is hard to overcome. There are a great number of more informed young people today (such as myself) who are exposed to the genuine historical record but most of the older generation and casual observers are fed a pro-State message and simply absorb these views without critical thinking. As for my views of other Presidents and the founding fathers in particular, I can say with total honesty that I don't like any of them. A big issue I have with other libertarians is their unabashed praise for the founders and the Constitution. I do think they neglect the seriousness of the slavery issue. Many, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, were vicious slave owners who beat their slaves mercilessly. I'm sure Jefferson raped his slave because no one in that position could possibly be in a position to grant consent. The founders were hypocritical and they tolerated or actively supported the institution of slavery. They permitted its existence even though it was clear to all observers that the Natural Rights basis for their rhetoric should have clearly forbid such an abomination. The Constitution created a central State when the Articles of Confederation were a far better system for protecting and preserving the values that people like Jefferson claimed to hold. The Constitution, far from restraining the central State, provided legitimacy to a central authority and permitted it to expand beyond the limits that the colonies were promised were placed on its functions, which began almost from day one. As Lysander Spooner said fifty years later or so, "Either the Constitution has permitted such a State as currently exists or it has been powerless to prevent it. Either way, it is unfit to exist." I'm not sure this is a verbatim quote but the phrasing is a VERY close approximation. I concur with the sentiment entirely. That is not to say that the founders did not do some good in their writings and I certainly agree with the bulk of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Most of them were certainly impressive men who were clearly educated in the Enlightenment Era tradition of Natural Rights and Classical Liberalism. Unfortunately they mostly betrayed the people by suckering them into ratifying the Constitution with promises that the central State will be limited to the expressly delegated functions spelled out explicitly in the document. We know how that turned out. The voluntary Union ended with the Civil War and the Hamiltonian vision of an expansive central State was on its way to completion. With the elections of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th century along with the creation of the third central bank of the United States, this transformation was complete. I contend that it was all a ruse from the very beginning. So to answer your question, we should criticize the founders harshly for tolerating slavery. We can acknowledge their rhetorical achievements in the advancement of Classical Liberalism and Natural Rights theory which influenced countless thinkers who vastly improved upon their accomplishments while not glossing over their sizable, and often heinous, actions and betrayals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Of course there's going to be less overall crime when you abolish laws and abolish the justice system. This is just ignorant, there would still be polycentric law. Voyager I posted:Hey Mutato since you're looking at the thread again do you want to maybe take another swing at this little exchange because this answer makes it look like you're functionally incapable of understanding the question and I actually want to know how a Libertarian would answer it. Awkward, I have to leave now but I promise to come back and make another post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Having competing currencies would make lots of basic transactions a complete pain in the rear end. Not really. There is absolutely no reason why the market would tolerate fifty or more currencies on the market. A small handful of currencies that people choose for their transactions would undoubtedly become the standard which all businesses would adopt. People would choose a currency for its success in conforming with the qualifications that have historically been sought after in a "money", specifically portability, divisibility, durability, its stability over time as a store of value, etc. We see this phenomenon even today. For online transactions we see that people overwhelmingly choose Paypal for buying and selling things. Though many alternatives exist, we don't have any trouble buying things online or selling them. Remember it is just individuals who will determine how many or how few of an item there are on the market. For the reasons you mentioned, the people will not want to have so many currencies that it becomes a hassle to go shopping because every store accepts a different currency. The people wouldn't want that and neither would the business. The businessman wants to sell to as many people as he can so he would need to be able to accept as many forms of payment as possible with as little hassle to the customer as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Furthermore I think it is entirely accurate to observe that most leftists and social democrats haven't actually spent much time studying the full history of the 19th century and pre-Progressive Era economy, which would naturally include studying different views and positions on the subject. Says the man who believes war is impossible without fiat currency. How are you going with that by the way, champ? jrodefeld posted:There are a great number of more informed young people today (such as myself) who are exposed to the genuine historical record Says the man who believes war is impossible without fiat currency. jrodefeld posted:Not really. There is absolutely no reason why the market would tolerate fifty or more currencies on the market. A small handful of currencies that people choose for their transactions would undoubtedly become the standard which all businesses would adopt. Except this didn't happen until the government centralised the currency. jrodefeld posted:We see this phenomenon even today. For online transactions we see that people overwhelmingly choose Paypal for buying and selling things. You're aware that PayPal is not a currency, right? I mean, kudos for not bringing up BitCoin, but PayPal is not a currency. jrodefeld posted:For the reasons you mentioned, the people will not want to have so many currencies that it becomes a hassle to go shopping because every store accepts a different currency. The people wouldn't want that and neither would the business. The businessman wants to sell to as many people as he can so he would need to be able to accept as many forms of payment as possible with as little hassle to the customer as possible. Bullshit motherhood statements with absolutely no basis in reality or historical precedent. Stop making statements like this. Saying "well XYZ will happen" with literally zero proof or evidence does not back up an argument, it makes you look like a zealot. Your ideas literally only function when you a priori assume that your ideas function. But, again, let's ignore all that. Jrodefeld. Address the fact that you were completely wrong about the ability of non-state actors to wage war without fiat currency, or shut the gently caress up and stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Hey jrodefield, what do you have to say about human trafficking? It's a "free market" enterprise existing entirely independently of states, and it's pretty horrendous, but states do manage to minimize it through legal enforcement. How would a DRO deal with a decentralized problem like human trafficking?jrodefeld posted:Furthermore I think it is entirely accurate to observe that most leftists and social democrats haven't actually spent much time studying the full history of the 19th century and pre-Progressive Era economy, which would naturally include studying different views and positions on the subject. No, it's really not accurate at all. I'm aware of the different views and positions regarding the pre-Progressive Era economy, I just disagree with them. Are you aware that many of the posters in this thread actually used to be libertarians? You're probably the last person who should be allowed to say anything about whether or not someone knows enough history, considering the vast number of historical inaccuracies that you've been using QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Many, including [...] George Washington, were vicious slave owners who beat their slaves mercilessly. Every jrod post should be followed by a giant flashing wall of neon text saying "CITATION NEEDED." The above depiction of Washington would be straight-up character assassination if the source of the slander weren't a laughingstock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Nice touch on the scare quotes there. I'm with David Stockman on this one. While I do consider taxation theft, while government actually exists higher direct taxation and less borrowing and credit expansion by the central bank would be preferred. I want people to grasp the real cost of an expansive central State without the obfuscations. Of course I would bring all tax rates down to 0% and disband the State as quickly as possible. The truth is that by lowering the top marginal tax rate from 75% (I think?) to 29% did indeed spur economic growth but of course any tax cut that substantial would. If a tax cut such as that was proposed in the abstract I would support it. However I really don't care too much about fiddling with the tax rates. Because as long as the State is expanding it's budgets, the people WILL be taxed one way or another. Unless you couple tax cuts with an actual commitment to cut back the State and drastically reduce its size and shrink its budgets, this is just a distraction in my view. It had some short term benefits to boost economic growth and Laffer was not entirely wrong when he made the claim that, to a degree, lower tax rates can spur economic growth which can increase revenue past what it would be even with higher tax rates. But even this assertion exposes the Reagan Administration's complete lack of desire to actually shrink government. They sold their tax cuts on the promise that it would bring in MORE revenue to the State! Revenues MAY have gone up slightly in some cases but spending went up so much faster that the National Debt quadrupled and Reagan dealt with huge deficits year after year. One of the worst things about a conservative like Reagan is that since people EXPECT the government to shrink, people let their guard down and the State grows even more than under supposedly "big government" social Democrats. As for Reagan's supposed deregulation, I don't believe he deregulated as much as some people tend to think. There is no question that right wing Supply Side economics is sort of a euphemism for corporate welfare and favoritism. Words like "regulation" are complicated because what you mean by regulation and what I mean by regulation are probably two different things altogether. So much of popular "deregulation" is really a front for corporate welfare and monopoly privilege granted by the State. It is like when I hear liberals trying to sell me on Cap and Trade because it is a "free market" solution to climate change. Subsidizing big business has nothing to do with the free market. Also many efforts to deregulate are counterproductive or even harmful. If you only remove some regulations but not others all you do is tilt the playing field in favor of some and not others. It may not really move you closer to a genuine free market with free entry and competition. I want to remove ALL Federal regulations which would allow the market regulations to work on a fair playing field. It is entirely fair in my view to criticize the Republican party of Reagan as corporate welfarists but it was not because they supported the free market. They may have reduced the total number of regulations but they didn't support the free market, rather they supported a sort of socialism for the rich. Some regulations counter other worse regulations. The best solution would be to have NO State interventions into the private economy and allow the market to regulate business behavior through private property rights, the court system, free competition and the non aggression principle. Having a large and powerful central State and thinking you can stamp out Corporate welfare and 1% cronyism is an impossible pipe dream. The powerful always find a way to exploit such a system to their advantage. The market is a far better regulator if you understand that acts of aggression should be seen correctly as illegitimate and subject to societal sanction and restitution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Every jrod post should be followed by a giant flashing wall of neon text saying "CITATION NEEDED." The above depiction of Washington would be straight-up character assassination if the source of the slander weren't a laughingstock. We could just buy him that as an avatar, but the one he picked for himself is frankly a better warning sign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Mafias only exist because the STATE makes their activities profitable! If there were no state, there'd be no money in drugs, prostitution or protection rackets. You call it a protection racket, I call it a contractual agreement where the farmers give me a substantial portion of their crops in exchange for my benevolent protection (from myself, mostly). Still waiting to hear how the Mexican American War wasn't massively profitable for the United States.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Says the man who believes war is impossible without fiat currency. How are you going with that by the way, champ? I'll answer this and clarify my position. I don't think I said war was impossible without fiat money. However, I will take back what I really did say, which was something along the lines of "no modern large scale war was waged without fiat money". I shouldn't have said this. I don't have a comprehensive and exhaustive enough understanding of each and every war of aggression that States have engaged in to make such a sweeping statement. However my larger point is still valid. The fact remains that fiat money makes it much easier for States to go to war, it permits larger and more prolonged conflicts than would otherwise be possible. The activities of imperialist superpowers like the United States in the present day rely especially on fiat money to maintain their occupation and aggressive projection of strength. My point of course is that I believe we need to limit the ability of States to wage aggressive war as much as possible. If you value peace at all, I contend that you should favor a commodity money. Remove the ability for States to expand credit at will and monetize their debts and we could have preventing the deaths of countless millions of innocent victims of aggressive war and imperialist aggression. So I retract my overly rigid and sweeping statement that aggressive, imperialist wars are impossible without fiat money and simply state the clear historical reality that fiat money makes it far easier for heads of State to go to war. Frankly that should be more than enough reason to oppose central banking credit expansion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Every jrod post should be followed by a giant flashing wall of neon text saying "CITATION NEEDED." The above depiction of Washington would be straight-up character assassination if the source of the slander weren't a laughingstock. George Washington's treatment of slaves: quote:Sources offer differing insight into Washington's behavior as a slave owner. On one end of the spectrum, Richard Parkinson, an Englishman who lived near Mount Vernon, once reported that "it was the sense of all his [Washington's] neighbors that he treated [his slaves] with more severity than any other man." ... What is clear is that Washington frequently utilized harsh punishment against the enslaved population, including whippings and the threat of particularly taxing work assignments. Perhaps most severely, Washington could sell a slave to a buyer in the West Indies, ensuring that the person would never see their family or friends at Mount Vernon again. Washington conducted such sales on several occasions. quote:In addition to having overseers monitoring work on site, George Washington utilized a number of methods to try to control the labor and behavior of the Mount Vernon slaves. Since work as a house servant or skilled laborer was viewed as higher-ranking than field work, Washington could threaten to demote an artisan who would be punished by becoming a field worker. I don't mean to "slander" the founders unfairly but I consider the deification of previous presidents to be simply one more method by which the State creates a sense of legitimacy. If the very men who created this State are widely viewed as great, near-perfect mythical figures then popular resistance to such an institution is bound to be lessened. I don't want to sugar coat the faults of Washington, Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln to name just three deified former Presidents who have State apologists falling over themselves to heap hyperbolic praise upon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Oh thank the gods, motion! For the record, no, you're still wrong. There is nothing special about fiat currency that allows a state to more easily wage war aside from your assertion that it is easier for people to "feel" the impact of war when they are directly taxed for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
quote:So I retract my overly rigid and sweeping statement that aggressive, imperialist wars are impossible without fiat money and simply state the clear historical reality that fiat money makes it far easier for heads of State to go to war. Fiat money makes almost all economic activity easier. Large scale warfare is a type of economic activity. So I guess you are kind of right. I wonder though if you've ever heard the phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll answer this and clarify my position. I don't think I said war was impossible without fiat money. However, I will take back what I really did say, which was something along the lines of "no modern large scale war was waged without fiat money". I shouldn't have said this. I don't have a comprehensive and exhaustive enough understanding of each and every war of aggression that States have engaged in to make such a sweeping statement. Why do Libertarians, most specifically you and Mutato, seem to have this completely retarded idea that wars are funded up front? They almost never are, and the aggressing force certainly isn't. I mean, do you honestly think that before a war is waged all the top military brass gathers up and says "Alright, everybody turn out your pockets and let's see how much scratch we have to work with here. Hmmm, alright, I think this'll just about pay for 30 cruise missiles and a light frigate. Let's go to war, boys!" Historically many armies were funded after the fact by the spoils of war they would claim. And if we return to a commodity based currency that would be even easier and much more desirable. What's a more lucrative target, Fiat-Paperland or Gold-Cointopia? Congratulations, Jrod, by choosing to carry around large amounts of precious metals and gemstones on your person you have now become person of interest #1 to Viking DRO, the largest and best funded DRO on the planet, so strong and powerful that no other DRO will oppose them and their army of money-hungry murderers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Most people with the talent to be a successful assassin know that being an assassin would make them filthy rich. However very very few them would want to become assassins. Am I correct in assessing that your system requires people to behave morally on their own accord and has no recourse for when they don't?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do Libertarians, most specifically you and Mutato, seem to have this completely retarded idea that wars are funded up front? They almost never are, and the aggressing force certainly isn't. I mean, do you honestly think that before a war is waged all the top military brass gathers up and says "Alright, everybody turn out your pockets and let's see how much scratch we have to work with here. Hmmm, alright, I think this'll just about pay for 30 cruise missiles and a light frigate. Let's go to war, boys!" Colin Powell's lunch money could surely afford a campaign against the Somali Pirates. I'll bet if we go ask Oliver North for his allowance we could even expand it into working some kind of stability into the region!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
We put "fiat currency" side by side with "industrialization, machining, and interchangeable parts" and claim that "fiat currency" was the primary driver behind modern large scale war? If so, why then has war reduced scale dramatically over the past 40 years since we completely dumped the idea of gold reserves?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
I won't tolerate these harsh criticisms of jrodefeld now, we're bros united against the evil founding fathers. (Although it would be nice to hear where he was going with that whole "fiat currency makes it easier to go to war" thing that was utterly disproven...) Instead, I will pivot to the equally deluded but somewhat more disingenuous and less persistent The Mutato. The Mutato posted:Because it is risky and people find it very hard to find a justification to be violent towards innocent people with out some sort of intense outgroup otherising. Explain how Valhalla DRO is going to brainwash a bunch a people enough to go to war without religion, nationalism or indoctrination from childhood going on. Is this happening again? Ancaps have this habit of assuming that in "free societies" there will be no more bigotry or intolerance, because there will be no indoctrination. But indoctrination is created by people, not states. In many cases, religious and political groups use states to disseminate their particular forms of indoctrination. But they often indoctrinate people just fine without any help from the state at all. For example, the Mormon church has always been a group of people formed by free association. Far from being in league with the government of the United States, at times they have been in a state of war against it. Yet they have prospered, and there are millions of people around the world who now hold their beliefs, beliefs which everyone else on Earth would consider false and a product of indoctrination (for example that ancient Jews in canoes traveled to the United States, became Native Americans and waged massive battles for which there is zero archaeological evidence). There you go, stateless indoctrination. And there are plenty of other examples. Al Qaeda. MEK. The Moonies. Lyndon Larouche. Stephan Molyneux (holy crap I listened to a few minutes of him talking to a caller to his podcast, he is using classical brainwashing techniques). Do you propose that cult forms of indoctrination will somehow be eradicated once the state is abolished? It seems like in the proposed "free society" the only overriding principle to which all persons will be required to pledge fealty is the NAP. But as this and other threads have shown, it's not like people are just going to roll over and accept this without question. So how do you inculcate belief in the NAP, and at the same time remove all traces of other forms of indoctrination, and at the same time remove central authority?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:There is no system anywhere that has ever existed which can guarantee "100% employment" my dear goon. The closest thing to that is old Stalinist Russia just making up poo poo work for people and paying them fuckall for it- pointless work for pointless pay, and even then it wasn't 100%. The sheer population means that you can never have EVERYONE working, but that's part of why societies develop systems to take care of those it can't or won't employ. And that's okay. Just because there hasn't been such a system does not mean that it is not possible under some new future system we have not devised yet. Nor does it mean that there aren't policies we can enact now that would create meaningful jobs for everyone who wants one. It doesn't have to all be make-work. I don't agree that a large population makes it impossible. It certainly increases the administrative challenge, but I believe it can be managed. I'm expressing the opinion that I don't find the Capitalist system acceptable, nor do I particularly like the various bandaid policies we've employed to cover up some of its more egregious offenses. I'd rather construct something entirely different. What that is, exactly, I don't know. But I know that Libertarianism isn't it. quote:Manias aren't unique to capitalism but they can, admittedly, be easily exacerbated by it presuming such exploitation is allowed. You can make rules and regulations to disallow it of course, and I'm all in favor of that. But sometimes manias are justified, so keep that in mind. Obviously not, but Capitalist economies have the proudest history of devastating bubbles and bursts. Moreover, in complex Capitalist economies, without sufficient state intervention, these episodes are essentially an unavoidable outgrowth of regular operation. I won't dispute that these things can occur in other systems, but they can be regulated in Capitalism and other systems much more effectively than they have been (as you have noted), and they may have no part to play in some better, future system. quote:Now as for the unequal and arbitrary distribution of wealth.. ...Uhm, well you find that everywhere. Oh sure commies like to roar about how equal everything is, but then Animal Farm happens- it's inevitable. Some people will be at the top, others will not be. The trick is in social policies that prevent this inequality from becoming so gross that we recreate The Bad Old Days instead of working to make Better Tomorrows. You'll note that I said unjustifiably unequal and arbitrary. I recognize that some degree of inequality in inevitable, but we don't need to accept distributions which are morally repugnant to us. Capitalism clearly promotes unjustifiably unequal and arbitrary distributions, and we can take positive steps to remedy them, as we have in the past, or we can invent new methods to deal with it, based on the tremendous amount of research we've conducted on the distribution of income and wealth. We can reinstitute our very highest progressive income taxes and institute a tax on wealth, or we can invent new systems of resource distribution that tackle these problems directly and effectively. We don't need to turn to systems that were invented 100s of years ago and have been found wanting. I'm not a Communist. I am not a Communist. Not a commie, me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
You don't even need to brainwash people to go to war, simple logic and a sense of self-preservation is all that is needed. Lets take a look at two hypothetical DROs and what they offer as they have been presented in this very thread; The Jrodefeld & Mutato United DRO Cost: Between 10.00-8000.00$Goldbux$/month, price due to fluctuate with market forces. Offers: -Will write up and/or review any and all contracts the client enters into. The DRO holds the ability to reject contracts brought forward for review, and if the client persists in signing anyway they shall be dropped immediately. Contract sessions cost between 1.00-50.00$Goldbux&/half hour. -Will arbitrate between any two clients within J&MU DRO. All decisions final and are only subject to third party review at client's expense. Arbitration sessions cost between 5.00-200.00$Goldbux&/half hour. -Will set up arbitration with a third party DRO for all disputes between J&MU DRO clients and clients of any other DRO. Costs for the third party arbitration are split between the clients, J&MU DRO assumes no liability for costs or losses from arbitration ruling. FInders fee of 3.00-75.00$Goldbux$. -Will, in very specific cases, send a Dispute Officer to the client's premises to arbitrate between a client and trespasser. One time fee of $80.00$Goldbux$ minimum, cost due to other fees as needed. -Allows you to purchase food, shelter, be employed, travel, and overall function in society. This luxury is free to the client by of the grace and goodwill of J&MU DRO. Hm. Ok, that seems all right I suppose. Could be fairly cheap, could be incredibly pricey, as determined fairly by market forces. But let's take a look at Valhalla DRO. Valhalla DRO Cost: 50.00$Goldbux$, or the head of a rival DRO officer, presented to your local Jarl. An oath of honor and fealty also required. Offers: -As much free meat as you can eat and mead you can drink. -Free shelter and clothing. -Any and all arms and armor as produced by our own gunsmiths and engineers and/or scrounged from the dead. -Glory and honor as our master strategists lead you into battle. Being lead into battle may be mandatory if a minimum of volunteers do not step forward. -All the goods and riches as you can carry after every battle. -A sense of comradery and community as you forge everlasting friendships, find love, and even raise a family in our ultra-safe Longhouse™ Compounds, which keep you safe from any weaker cowardly DROs that dare challange the might of Valhalla! Note, patrolling the outer wall or surrounding areas is highly encouraged, and not only keeps your friends and family safe, but nets a 10.00$Goldbux$/hr salary. Sign up today! Well drat. I know which one I'm joining!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Words and things. Okay. Hey man, I can go for that. Capitalism sure has its fair share of flaws, no denying that. If we can all come up with a better system that's more capable of making life better for everyone overall I'm all for it, though I don't see that happening anytime soon- we'll need some significant jumps in both sociological norms and, I think, technological/scientific developments. In the meantime we'll just have to take what we've got and hammer it into a shape that serves the whole of humanity to the best of our abilities. That's my biggest point at the end of the day. Gonna need a really big hammer, sure, but I'd like to think we can, as they say down here in the South, "git'r done." I'm a stupidly optimistic person like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
It pretty much makes me one note but I'd really love jrod to talk about how really anything would work that wasn't worked out by some historical libertarian figure. I don't know how you all stomach arguing with the ghosts of libertarians past for so long and so extensively. Their philosophy is so utterly broken at a fundamental level and yet you keep giving it more credit than it is due by debating these higher level concepts. Some examples of what I mean: How gasoline pumps would be audited for actually dispensing the amount of fuel they claim to. How a road exists without the public at large just deciding that cutting through someones yard is more efficient like wild deer. How millions of people a year don't die to pharmaceutical testing. How gasoline doesn't still have lead in it literally posioning the entire population for corporate or DRO profit. How DROs without massive military or espionage forces compete against those that do. How libertopia doesnt die in a month to ebola. How resources of any kind, food, water, oil, information dont immediately become thunderdome battles. I mean poo poo there have been some mild attempts at lampooning the concept of DROs just because not accepting their premise makes the whole thing a non starter but even that is giving them too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You don't even need to brainwash people to go to war, simple logic and a sense of self-preservation is all that is needed. Lets take a look at two hypothetical DROs and what they offer as they have been presented in this very thread; You forgot Da Capo's DRO -You've got a nice house here. -Would be a shame if something were to… happen to it. -Pay us 75.00$Goldbux$ and we'll make sure that won't happen!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:You forgot A business model pioneered by Marcus Licinius Crassus, one of Julius Caesar's fellow triumvirs and his day's richest man in Rome. There was no organized fire brigade in Rome during the Republic and Crassus, as a truly innovative entrepreneur, saw a market ripe for exploitation. When fire broke out in private property within the city he'd roll up with a work gang of his own slaves and offer to put out the fire--for a negotiated fee, of course. Given their dire straits Crassus's clients often found the invisible hand of the market setting that fee extremely high, but that's just economics for you. If they refused he'd leave and take his slaves with him, and usually bought up the destroyed property on the cheap days later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
zeal posted:A business model pioneered by Marcus Licinius Crassus, one of Julius Caesar's fellow triumvirs and his day's richest man in Rome. There was no organized fire brigade in Rome during the Republic and Crassus, as a truly innovative entrepreneur, saw a market ripe for exploitation. When fire broke out in private property within the city he'd roll up with a work gang of his own slaves and offer to put out the fire--for a negotiated fee, of course. Given their dire straits Crassus's clients often found the invisible hand of the market setting that fee extremely high, but that's just economics for you. If they refused he'd leave and take his slaves with him, and usually bought up the destroyed property on the cheap days later. Wasn't he accused of starting some of those fires too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wasn't he accused of starting some of those fires too? It would be in his rational self-interest!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
It seems like we're going in circles between people who believe that the mafia existed; that the KKK was perfectly happy to entirely self-fund bigotry suppression, and lynching; and that it is in fact profitable for ISIS to collect dues by extortion and sieze valuable assets like oil fields; and the people who know that all of those organizations are made-up by statist kindergarten indoctrinators, but I want to bring up a new subject. jrodefeld, in your second post, you said: jrodefeld posted:This will all get sorted out in short order during a transition to a free economy. The State protections and privileges including the entity called the limited liability "corporation" will fall to the side and these businessmen will no longer have a shield to protect them from liability for their actions. But you also say we'd have a system of polylaw where competing courts use different bodies of law in order to win market share from petitioners. So why wouldn't courts and DROs that recognize the limited liability corporate form exist? As the CEO of Wal-Mart, it's obviously beneficial for me if courts ruled that I wasn't personally liable for debts or judgments beyond my investment in the company, and the same is true for shareholders. There would undoubtedly be DROs and courts that would recognize this huge market of big business that wants corporate protections. Now you might say "well it's not in that CEOs self-interest if other corporations were protected too" but it undoubtedly is (which is why corporations insist on those protections today from the state). As Wal-Mart CEO, the odds that I'll be the victim of a tort that exceeds the value of another big company is vanishingly small and even if I were I'd have the resources to deal with it. But the chance that a customer, or employee, or just someone else will be a victim of a tort by my company or that I might make contracts (say pension obligations) that the company can't pay out when they're due, is actually conceivable. It'd be well worth it to shield my house and other assets from collection if my company's pension fund defaults. So it's clear there'd be a market for it. You might say "consumers, workers, and creditors would never accept such an arrangement" but they do now. Employers and consumers commonly give up even more rights than this by agreeing to binding arbitration even though they'd be better off with recourse to a state justice system. Wal-Mart's creditors could require the Waltons to personally co-sign Wal-Mart's instruments if they wanted, but they don't. So why wouldn't this happen in Libertaria? Okay, so Freedom Industries spills a metric fuckton (1.1 standard fucktons) of chemicals into the Elk River, doing hundreds and hundreds of times the company's assets in damage to the environment. A class action lawsuit is filed with their DRO (Wal-DRO, the same one used by most corporations), but the company has already moved its assets into a shell holding and it actually owns nothing, and the CEO isn't personally liable for the company's damages. The plaintiffs claim it's bullshit, but the DRO is only willing to agree on a court that will recognize limited liability. So now what? Either the plaintiffs' DRO already had a preexisting agreement with Wal-DRO to use those courts and the judge follows corporate law and refuses to seize any assets beyond what Freedom Industries currently owns; or they don't have an agreement. So now the plaintiff's DRO has a choice: agree to one of Wal-DRO's acceptable venues that follows corporate law, or get its own judgment and go to war with Wal-DRO to seize the assets (Wal-DRO will fully back Freedom Industries' CEO's right to use force to defend his property from the aggression of those who don't recognize his right to form voluntary corporate associations with separate assets from his own). We have already logically deduced that war is unprofitable even if you win, and it's disastrous if you lose (as they probably will since Wal-DRO is favored by the top 10% of society and is well-funded and equipped). On the other hand, you could just capitulate to Wal-DRO's law, which might piss off your customers, but are they really going to drop you as their DRO when going without a DRO is a death sentence in Libertaria? It's not like they'll be able to find another DRO capable and willing to make and win a war against Wal-DRO anyway...and even if they do drop you, losing their membership fees is far cheaper than losing a war. So yeah, why would competing systems of law lead to the abolishment of limited liability corporations when the rich have an obvious desire for them, and even with a State monopoly on justice today, they still have the power to require customers and employees to agree to give up their recourse to State courts and go to binding arbitration instead? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
How can you be so sure those buildings weren't aggressing against his fires?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Honestly, VitalSigns? I wouldn't even bother with the long explanation post. We all know that once he acknowledges it the answer will invariably and be "it's always the fault of the State. The State is responsible for all evils. The State started the Korean War. The State assassinated JFK. The State killed John the Baptist. All evils everywhere forever in perpetuity are the fault of States and Statists." I mean I'd love to have an actual debate but we never get anywhere except with one or occasionally on a rare day in June in England when the skies are clear for five minutes at 4 AM before the bells ring we might get two people to actually discuss things. But Jrod will never give you a straight answer. But maybe the problem is me. Jrod and his fellows tire the hell out of me for the most part- I broke my brain busting cranial rear end to study economic theory and social histories and what have you, and watching twats like this just piss it away to say "oh well only our magical fantasy land really matters" so dismissively aggravates. At least SedanChair is here to make me chuckle with his assholery, along with a few other choice goons who make the laughs worth the effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Valhalla DRO sounds like it'd make for a fun game.SedanChair posted:Of course. Hoppe would probably say that the HRE was itself libertarian, or at any rate preferable to democracy, as the weaker and less sensible peoples of Europe gravitated towards placing their trust in a natural master. Comely wives and fertile lands likewise gravitated to the emperor. It certainly puts a new spin on the tales of Robin Hood. What would he be like, what would he do in Libertopia? Oh, and is that second article a real thing? Speaking of inheritance, one of the things that's really bothered me is, doesn't just about every bit of wealth or property have really clouded title? Like, it's all tainted with what a Libertarian would call coercion and aggression, and what everyone else would call buckets of blood and human misery. Like in the US, everything being contaminated by slavery and indian murder. Even if you ignore modern racism and coercion, being long in the past makes it much worse, because of, uh, compound interest(?) and basically paying off a ton of opportunity costs over the years. Which leads into the really big question, what is Libertarian Year Zero going to be like? Like, all the tales so far are about what Libertopia is going to be like, but I'm more interested in how it is going to be founded and set up? What do you have to do to create it, make it a little self-sustaining? How do you divest state assets is a big question, and what do you do about wealth that was earned through the coercion that was so common prior to Year Zero? Like, the obvious and straightforward solution would be to divide up all the wealth and property in the world among everyone equally and saying "Okay, Year Zero, you're on your own, good luck, free market.". Maybe adjust for Human Development Index if you're willing to trade simplicity for accuracy. Is that an accurate guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Valhalla DRO sounds like it'd make for a fun game. To the libertarian, Robin Hood is the villain of the story. A dastardly monster who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. Remember, these are the same people who consider Ebeneezer Scrooge to be a true hero and captain of industry until he goes soft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Honestly, VitalSigns? I wouldn't even bother with the long explanation post. Yeah but I'm genuinely curious why he thinks competing systems of law won't heavily favor those that benefit the rich. Sorry my post was long, but if I just asked that simple question, I'd get back "ah but in a free market, a rational person wouldn't agree to use those courts, so they wouldn't QED", but since a rational corporation would obviously only want to use those courts I felt like I needed really drill down into whether my DRO would really risk a war for me when it would be obviously unprofitable, so not only would I be unable to find another DRO willing to do it, but even by insisting I risk getting my coverage revoked (which is an instant death sentence). Actually, there's another question. How do I sue my DRO if I believe it hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain? It's obviously not going to represent me, and is another DRO really going to be eager to sign on a customer that's already shown himself to be difficult and a liability risk? And even if they would, could I get reasonable rates now that I have a "pre-existing condition" (ie, a well-funded private army that wants to head off future betrayals by its customers by "making an example" of me?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're giving way too much credit to the DRO, and you're assuming that one day the charges would suddenly increase. We're going in circles here: it's not necessary for the DRO to raise rates, they've either always been high enough to cover the cost of a standing army (for defensive purposes, we swear) or they can acquire investment capital through 3rd parties or through DRO customers who are interested in profiting from a nice glory-filled war. Even better say that he doesn't have the ability to appreciate how to use his resources, or appreciate property in a capitalist context and thats why he and everyone in his DRO must be forced out and forced to live in Reservations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Just say he has WMDs so we have to seize his assets to keep him from making more mustard gas. Nobody requires proof of any of that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually, there's another question. How do I sue my DRO if I believe it hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain? It's obviously not going to represent me, and is another DRO really going to be eager to sign on a customer that's already shown himself to be difficult and a liability risk? And even if they would, could I get reasonable rates now that I have a "pre-existing condition" (ie, a well-funded private army that wants to head off future betrayals by its customers by "making an example" of me?) Kill your attackers and offer their weapons as a show of good faith to the local Jarl and not only shall you be protected but we will promise that you will live to piss upon the corpses of those who sought to do you harm as their DRO headquarters burn to the ground around them. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Kill your attackers and offer their weapons as a show of good faith to the local Jarl and not only shall you be protected but we will promise that you will live to piss upon the corpses of those who sought to do you harm as their DRO headquarters burn to the ground around them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHoBpRlMsbw
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:04
|
|
