|
Jrodefield, if we had sentient fully autonomous robots, would they possess full human rights in your ideal libertarian world?
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
I can kill jrod in one anti government trigger pull on both information tech and healthcare. Jrod HIPPA regulation is now repealed, all healthcare providers exchange post it notes about your entire medical history and you must compete with other potential patients for care on the free market. I can conceive of every scenario you manage to come up with, and yet you, and others like you seem to be unable to even supply theoretical counter factuals and outright say "well that wouldn't happen because thats a statist idea". Yeah, it is, because it stands up to the rigor of history and practical application. Here I'll help you out just a little bit, libertopia might be possible in a highly technologically advanced post scarcity society, but its not going to come around by jumping at the shadows of "my stuff!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I agree with you about the Internet obviously, but that's just more proof that Libertopia would be lovely. It's perfectly consistent of him to go "well if the Internet is impossible without the state, then in principle it shouldn't exist in a moral society and I will be happy to abandon it once the state stops taxing me, but until they do that I'm going to use it". But admitting that the Internet would not exist, or would not be as functional as it is today in Libertopia would already in effect be admitting Libertarianism doesn't work/would cripple any business bigger than a hot dog stand. The entire department I work for right now at the company I work for would be hosed and with it the rest of the company would basically stop working. We're not even an IT company or anything but the Internet has become too important to get rid of. (Yeah to be fair we haven't given JRod a chance to answer and maybe he can think of a way to completely overhaul the fundamental physical hardware that doesn't violate the NAP but still functions, but all I can say is I really don't see how)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:
I first started asking the question in his triumphant return to the forums thread of his own creation, the fact that I'm such a hardcore statist that his eyes roll over my posts doesn't really give him the excuse of being ignorant of the theoretical. I know its a bone I just can't let go but I feel like it perfectly encapsulates the whole glaring problem with libertarian an cap thought, I don't need to waste time trying to figure out the multitude of vulgar implications of NAP or try to explain how the economic theories create more poverty and measurably less freedom because the forebearers of libertarianism never considered such a technology possible. It fundamentally alters how society can work, not does mind you but can. Yet libertopia can't make a phone call, its all just assumed and hand waved away, because oh well I pay taxes now so of course I'm allowed to benefit from my subjugation! But what if you weren't? It's not the statists with the lack of imagination here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Um, did you ever consider that without regulation, healthcare would get so cheap grannie could have afforded it? For the purpose of my question, please ignore all evidence of universal healthcare providing healthcare for all in almost every other nation on Earth, but do pay attention to the 1960s in the USA where healthcare was really cheap (assuming you only need treatment that was available in 1960)! Heh, look at you, empirically deriving useful data from past experiences and applying it to future events. Don't you know we don't need that bothersome drivel so long as we can logically conclude certain irrefutable things from first points such as *prolonged, squeaky faaaaaart*.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In every thread that touches on social justice, right-wing concern trolls show up to remind everyone that we're in the global top 1%, our No, the criticism is vastly different. Again, those criticisms are trying to imply that because there are instances of hypocrisy then the entire claim is therefore false. I've already said twice now that it has nothing to do with the validity of his position, only his claim to moral superiority. People can be hypocrites and still hold logically valid and consistent beliefs, but they cannot be hypocrites and claim to hold the moral high ground. If I went around saying that everyone who doesn't donate every penny that they earn that isn't needed to survive is immoral and that under that definition I was the most morally upstanding person on the planet then it would in fact be a valid criticism to point out that I do not actually do those things or even attempt to do so. Because it is in fact true that I lead a life of privilege and that I don't donate every extra penny I have to charities, but I'm actually not claiming that the cornerstone of my ethics depends on doing that nor would I ever do that. Jrod is making such a claim, however, and he is violating his own ethical system, and rather than admit it he is instead trying to come up with a post hoc rationalization for it. It's the "The only moral X is my X" argument. So, again, this has nothing to do with validity of arguments. Jrod's claims are judged on their own merits independent from him. I'm not saying that he needs to live out in the woods like a hermit for his ideas to be sound and justified, that would be an invalid criticism. I'm saying that his actions are not in line with his own ethics which goes against his claims of moral standing. e: TL;DR I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying he's immoral under his own definitions. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Yeah but we're all immoral to some degree. He could just as easily take a comment like "one person dying of preventable disease from lack of money is too many" and accuse us all of immorality and sanctimonious hypocrisy for not donating  to a medical charity. And it wouldn't faze us because we'd just say "No, our system is still morally superior to the one you advocate that would be set up to systematically kill even more people for lack of care"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but we're all immoral to some degree. He could just as easily take a comment like "one person dying of preventable disease from lack of money is too many" and accuse us all of immorality and sanctimonious hypocrisy for not donating At that point we're just devolving morality into statistical processes and as a whole I don't think society benefits from that as much as I want to turn the future of humanity into The Culture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:But admitting that the Internet would not exist, or would not be as functional as it is today in Libertopia would already in effect be admitting Libertarianism doesn't work/would cripple any business bigger than a hot dog stand. The entire department I work for right now at the company I work for would be hosed and with it the rest of the company would basically stop working. We're not even an IT company or anything but the Internet has become too important to get rid of. Would it really cripple big businesses though? Libertarianism is just feudalism with a facelift. It's got all the underlying mechanisms: everything is property including people, he who owns the land is the unquestionable ruler of his domain, anything can be contracted and will be enforced by whichever party has the most money and the biggest army, and at the top is a king who was the most successful warrior and tyrant and by virtue of that has the property right to make the law and declare his ascension retroactively legal. Now granted, Tsarist Russia wasn't exactly an example of a smoothly-functioning modern state in 1913, but it was able to support infrastructure and had businesses larger than a hot dog stand. Edit: I'll concede that Tsarist Russia wasn't a pure holy Libertarian society though, since in 1861 Alexander II did cave to the demands of thieving foreign democrats and liberals and initiated force against the landowners to deprive them of their contractual rights over the labor of their serfs. But it was pretty close. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but we're all immoral to some degree. He could just as easily take a comment like "one person dying of preventable disease from lack of money is too many" and accuse us all of immorality and sanctimonious hypocrisy for not donating Yes, but I'd bet each and every one of us is willing to admit that we do immoral things all the time. I know I do. But I don't think Jrod would agree, he seems to imply that it's not immoral when he does it because [reasons].
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, but I'd bet each and every one of us is willing to admit that we do immoral things all the time. I know I do. But I don't think Jrod would agree, he seems to imply that it's not immoral when he does it because [reasons]. While it might point to a character flaw of JRod or a common one among libertarians, I don't really think it provokes any substantial discussion. There is enough meat for the wolves to tear at, this just seems weak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:Even ignoring the bankruptcies and the pain caused to families that can't get care, I fully believe that many, many people will die from preventable illness because the free market says they don't deserve to live. Lol bankruptcy only exists because of government legislation. In libertopia you discharge your delinquent debts with a prison stay or a pound of flesh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Lol bankruptcy only exists because of government legislation. In libertopia you discharge your delinquent debts with a prison stay or a pound of flesh. Oh I know. Just easier to say it that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:While it might point to a character flaw of JRod or a common one among libertarians, I don't really think it provokes any substantial discussion. There is enough meat for the wolves to tear at, this just seems weak. I mostly agree, but he presents his superior moral standing as an example of the superiority of libertarianism as a whole. So it's worth pointing out that this isn't necessarily true when he tries to do that. Nintendo Kid posted:Jrodefield, if we had sentient fully autonomous robots, would they possess full human rights in your ideal libertarian world? Sentient or sapient?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Answering one logical fallacy (moral high ground) with another logical fallacy (ad hominem attack) is a perfect example of "two wrongs don't make a right." Better to ignore the high ground fallacy, or point out its irrelevance in the first place. Then again, maybe fighting fire with fire is the only way to short a praxeologist's circuits?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:Oh I know. Just easier to say it that way. Yeah I figured.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Answering one logical fallacy (moral high ground) with another logical fallacy (ad hominem attack) is a perfect example of "two wrongs don't make a right." Better to ignore the high ground fallacy, or point out its irrelevance in the first place. Ad hominems aren't always a fallacy, though. quote:An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3] Saying "you're a hypocrite on this one thing therefore everything you say is wrong" is a fallacy. Saying "you're a hypocrite in this one area therefore you can't use that one thing as a meaningful example to support your position, but other examples are still valid" is not. -EDIT- People are right though, it's not that big of a deal. I just wanted to point out that ad hominems aren't always fallacies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Jrodefield, if we had sentient fully autonomous robots, would they possess full human rights in your ideal libertarian world? Talking about sentient robots is dangerously close to having an interest other than tirelessly repeating mises.org talking points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Lol bankruptcy only exists because of government legislation. In libertopia you discharge your delinquent debts with a prison stay or a pound of flesh. This is great. Bankruptcy in a libertarian society would essentially be violence on someone else's person, right? You owe debts forever, no matter the circumstances of life. Insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
I was trying to figure out how bribery would work, but is 'bribery' even a concept in an-cap land? If I were a witness to a crime and was offered $30,000 to forget I saw it, wouldn't it be in my interest to do so? As far as I can tell lying doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I was trying to figure out how bribery would work, but is 'bribery' even a concept in an-cap land? If I were a witness to a crime and was offered $30,000 to forget I saw it, wouldn't it be in my interest to do so? As far as I can tell lying doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. Lying might be considered aggression, it's impossible to tell because Libertarians won't ever give a concrete definition of what aggression actually is. But I'm pretty sure that choosing not to speak wouldn't be considered aggression. Silence isn't lying, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I was trying to figure out how bribery would work, but is 'bribery' even a concept in an-cap land? If I were a witness to a crime and was offered $30,000 to forget I saw it, wouldn't it be in my interest to do so? As far as I can tell lying doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. Rothbard wrote a whole article that was posted earlier in this thread celebrating blackmail as a noble free-market transaction where one party shrewdly requests payment in exchange for not exercising his right to free speech. If payment is refused, and you exercise your God-given right to speak by telling everyone about some sexual affair and the girl's father or brother kills her, well nothing immoral about that! If you know the secret will put hee life at risk, you'd be treating yourself unethically if you didn't set a high enough price! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Lying might be considered aggression, it's impossible to tell because Libertarians won't ever give a concrete definition of what aggression actually is. But I'm pretty sure that choosing not to speak wouldn't be considered aggression. Silence isn't lying, after all. If lying was aggression, it could also nicely make false advertisement and fraud illegal, but then it would make lying itself a crime, like if I lie to a girl at a bar and say "Oh yeah I totally am a senior partner at my firm" when I'm only a junior partner. I suppose you could restrict it to lies in the context of economic transactions, but then aren't sex and romantic relations economic transactions? Really Makes Ya Think VitalSigns posted:Would it really cripple big businesses though? Libertarianism is just feudalism with a facelift. It's got all the underlying mechanisms: everything is property including people, he who owns the land is the unquestionable ruler of his domain, anything can be contracted and will be enforced by whichever party has the most money and the biggest army, and at the top is a king who was the most successful warrior and tyrant and by virtue of that has the property right to make the law and declare his ascension retroactively legal. True, I suppose any company that wants the Internet bad enough could just send the Google Unit for Loss Prevention and take control of the lands needed to lay the cables down to give whoever needs it Internet access, or if the land is owned, purchase it at a fair market rate (once the current resident gets a nonagressive display of force to remind them of the consequences of saying no). Even if the owners of that land claimed it was aggression, it's pretty clearly in everyone's interest to ignore it. It's just that this would mean Google would basically have to own roughly 1/10 of the Earth in order to keep the Internet service uninterrupted. quote:Edit: I'll concede that Tsarist Russia wasn't a pure holy Libertarian society though, since in 1861 Alexander II did cave to the demands of thieving foreign democrats and liberals and initiated force against the landowners to deprive them of their contractual rights over the labor of their serfs. But it was pretty close. I'd say the Merchant Republic of Novgorod was probably closer, but sadly in that tyranny you did not have the freedom to be property yourself, so I might be wrong on that  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:This is great. Yeah it would literally be a return to debtors prisons and penal colonies if not out and out slavery/organ harvesting. They didn't have bankruptcy in England and that's how we got Georgia and Australia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Is it me, or does Libertarian thought overlap heavily with Conspiracy Theory thought? Both have false, perhaps even delusional, beliefs of how things work in reality, leading to... both deny empirical evidence that contradicts them, or dismiss evidence without actually refuting it. Both divide things into a binary all-good/bad dichotomy; Libertarianism believes state control is all-bad, and lack of state control is all-good. Both are believed primarily by those who feel a lack control (cf. Stephan Lewandowsky regarding conspiracy theories). For Libertarians, the vast majority are middle-class white males, not the elite. Insert China Miéville's Libertarianism as a philosophy of capitalist inadequacy. Believers of conspiracy theories are common among Libertarians, much like racial supremacy is common among them. For a prominent example, Rothbard believed that fluoridation was creeping socialism. Studies have found that believing in one conspiracy theory increases the chances of believing in multiple, even contradictory, conspiracy theories. Jrod himself has made posts that strongly suggest he believes in certain conspiracy theories. If Libertarianism is a form of conspiracy theory, then that could explain why there are so many visible Libertarian whackjobs. Edit: Oh forgot to mention that both create their own small, segregated, group-thinking community of "experts" which they are incapable of going outside of. Libertarianism: quote multipage mises.org poo poo, namedrop some Hans-Hermann Hitler, refer to some Stefan "I Hate Women" Molyneux. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:For Libertarians, the vast majority are middle-class white males, not the elite. Insert China Miéville's Libertarianism as a philosophy of capitalist inadequacy. This is actually the first crack in my Libertarianism that eventually broke the whole dam wide open: seeing the recession happen in real time. As the economy was collapsing on our heads, the ultra-wealthy heroes of capitalism who for years had protested the unfairness of taxes and regulations and FDIC insurance fees were wailing and moaning about how it wasn't fair their banks were imploding and they needed hundreds of billions of government dollars (but don't you dare attach any strings or oversight, that's socialism!) and sneering at the losers who couldn't pay their mortgages (and didn't have friends in congress to hand us a billion or so). Why is it when I see Libertarians active politically, it's always for tax cuts, it's always for food stamp cuts? Why is it always for policies that enrich the wealthy? Why line up behind the most right-wing Republican candidates? Where's the Libertarian anti-war vote, the anti-corporate welfare vote? Why not start there, start with the military-industrial complex and corporate subsidies rather than teaming up with Republicans to go after the pittance we spend on the poor while starting more wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Another big part of conspiracy theories and libertarianism is the belief of holding secret or suppressed knowledge. Go back and reread how Jrod talks about Austrian Economics being unable to be brought to America until after the 1930s, and how he's constantly linking to articles and essays. He thinks that he has found an obscure font of knowledge and that this makes him special.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Another big part of conspiracy theories and libertarianism is the belief of holding secret or suppressed knowledge. Go back and reread how Jrod talks about Austrian Economics being unable to be brought to America until after the 1930s, and how he's constantly linking to articles and essays. He thinks that he has found an obscure font of knowledge and that this makes him special. There is also the feeling that you can solve any problem or understand any academic domain by simply channeling your ultra-logical reasoning powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You don't know what you are talking about. In a libertarian society the people who protect us from violence are: Police, defense contractors, courts, injunctions, the law, restitution, etc. This is how we protect people from violence and punish criminals that engage in violence. How old are you? Because if you're older than 5 years old, then this is just the saddest, most pathetic thing I've ever seen. Do you really think this way? I don't know where to begin with your vision of the world, because it is so far removed from reality it's like trying to figure out how to read Japanese with only a copy of Pokemon as your guide. So I'll start with your definition of the law, and surprise, surprise, it's a Jrodefeld special. See, that's what I'm going to call it from now on every time you use incredibly broad terms without properly defining them and trying to sell that off as a clear vision. I hope it catches on here. What is violence? Seriously. What is violence? Because once again, it's this broad, almost meaningless term. For example, you mention that the police wouldn't be punishing people against selling or using drugs. But why shouldn't we punish people for dealing heroin? Have you ever seen the impact of a heroin addiction? Well, I assume you haven't. It's terrible. There was somebody I knew. When he was younger, he was pretty cool. But he started doing heroin. And now, he's hosed up. The last time I saw him, his mind was so shot that it was like that dude from Memento. He kept saying "Hey, it's Cemetry Gator! I haven't seen him in five years! What's up man?" like every five minutes. And it wasn't like he was repeating himself. It's was like he actually hadn't seen me five minutes ago. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6339a1.htm Here. An actual, factual source. Over 3000 people died from heroin overdoses in 28 states in the year 2012. So, here's a drug that's killing people. And you don't call that loving violence? How dare the police go after people who deal heroin! They're not harming anyone. Except the 3000 people who died. And their families. And their friends. What about matters of public safety. For example, seatbelts. Now, not wearing my seatbelt isn't an act of violence. It's an act of carelessness. But what's the harm? Well, let's think about the long term impact of this minor infringement on my freedom. For example, not wearing a seatbelt can make you a human projectile, causing injury to others. It can also increase the extent of your injuries, thus requiring more medical resources, and thus money. And I'm sure in your libertarian society, doctors will be compelled to provide life-saving emergency care, even if they're not sure that people can pay. And if somebody dies? Well, you got to do something with the body. Who's going to clear the wreckage off the road and dispose of your corpse? It's not like if you can't pay, that suddenly, we're going to just let your body lie out in the open sun. Are we? In your libertarian society, how do you pay for a service like corpse removal from your highways? I mean, why should I pay? I don't kill people, and I don't die on the highway. We came up with a solution. Here's a little jaunty song you can sing. You probably know the tune. T - it's for the things you get from it. A - means you absolutely have to pay for it. X - means xylophone, because x is always for xylophone And T-A-X spells "TAX"! It's okay. I'll get back to my point about how only outlawing violence is just really monumentally stupid. Now, what about drunk driving? Will there be drunk driving laws? The Sock Puppet Version of JRodefeld posted:In a stateless society, drunk driving would not be economically intelligent. People would not get drunk and drive because it would not make sense from a free market stand I mean, it really isn't. It's loving reckless, and it can cause a lot of damage, but the potential for destruction doesn't make something violent. After all, I can build a house, and that house could collapse, killing everybody inside, but that doesn't make the act of building a house violent. Even though I am slamming sharp nails into the corpses of trees and then asking people to live inside of it... so maybe house building is violent (see, what happens when you give us the Jrodefeld Special? Anything becomes violent!). But I think most people would define violence as maliciously causing physical harm to someone's body or property (the libertarians in the room can just say property because they think they're property). So, is driving drunk violent? It's not malicious. It's careless. Or ignorant. Maybe you don't realize how drunk you are. It doesn't matter when you plow down a young family because you're too drunk to drive. It had a "violent" outcome. But was it really a violent act? Should we outlaw rugby, karate tournaments, UFC, boxing, ice hockey, and football? All of those are require "violence." Literally. Have you've seen UFC? Have you seen how those people leave the ring? It's violence. Oh wait. You see, your law is so loving broad it allows me to ban sport! Well, I guess I would expect that form a nerd. Now, I'm going to ignore where the police are going to come from and all the structure that we need in place, because really. How am I supposed to tear down a fantasy world? Instead, I'm going to talk about payment. The law works best when it is applied to everyone, as equally as possible. However, you say that there won't be a monopoly on the courts or the police, nor will there be any compulsory payment. So how does it work? So, let's say your parents get murdered, and your family didn't pay for police services? Will their killers walk free? Now you might say "Cemetry Gator, you ignorant slut, the killers will have to pay for their investigation!" But what if the police never find the killers? Who pays? Do the police pay? Or do you pay? What if you can't pay? Off to debtor's prison with you because the police couldn't find the killers. God help you if they get the wrong guy. Getting a refund from Target is hard enough. Getting a refund from the police has got to be a nightmare. Or let's say everybody on your street pays for police protection but you. Now, you're a freeloader. You're getting security because they're getting security. It's not like the cops are going to say "Hey, it looks like those guys are going to Jrodefeld's hose. Let them go!" What if you have competing police forces? Are they going to let criminals heading into their competitors territory go scott free? After all, criminal activity targeted at your house makes everybody else unsafe. How does policing work when there isn't one police force, but rather many private police forces? Because once again, security comes from having people who have wide jurisdiction. You can't keep the town safe is you can't protect the entire town. And even so, with multiple police forces, what happens if your parents, who are contracted to be protected by Company A get killed in the store owned by people contracted by Company B. Who does the investigation? Security is one of those things that can't be easily quantified. Even if you never dial the police for help at all in your life, you are still receiving the benefit of their services. Which is why the police are a public service, and not a private one. Basically, I would have to pay all of the police forces because I am getting something from all of them. My refusal to pay doesn't lose me anything. And what do you do when you provide someone with a service? You charge them. And how do we charge people. Well, I wrote a jaunty little song. You might know the tune... wait, I already sang that one. Also, please show how it will be a less violent society. After all, I could start my own police force and say that all the people I killed were using violence against me, and I am the police, and of course my competitors are going to say I am a vicious murderer. But look at me and this stack of cocaine. Do I really look dishonest to you? So what's my loving point? My point is Jrodefeld, shut the gently caress up. You are an idiot. Your views are simplistic and lacking in anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Yeah I don't get the wide-eyed belief that if we just stop voting on laws and let the market handle it there'll be so much less aggression in the world. Like, we've seen real DROs. They have existed and do exist. They are called the mafia, and if you are their customer, you're probably paying them to protect you from their own muscle smashing up your store or you're paying them outrageous rates on a loan. If you actually are a part of the group and they really do protect you, if you feel you're being treated unfairly you can't vote with your feet and pick another mafia. They will not call a focus group to reevaluate their processes to improve customer retention. They will loving kill you to send a message to everyone else. A rival of theirs will not protect you, unless you can offer a whole lotta money or something else to make your rear end worth starting a mob war over. The other mafias aren't interested in taking on customers that were disloyal to the last one unless you can pay the gently caress up, because otherwise you're just going to be a lot of trouble. Dismantling democratic government will only empower the mob. This is obvious, but I guess as Libertarians after we've smashed the state, we are supposed to just smirk to ourselves while the mafia is shaking us down and think "see now this just proves that everyone should renounce violence and aggression, we were right all along".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I'm still trying to reconcile a name like "Non-aggression principle" with the idea of a society essentially governed by warring private military contractors and the people who pay them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
No see mafia's can only exist with state protection, ie prohibition All large criminal orgs and corporations all exist because of the government, if the government was gone it would be a pacifist meritocracy because.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:No see mafia's can only exist with state protection, ie prohibition All large criminal orgs and corporations all exist because of the government, if the government was gone it would be a benevolent pacifist meritocracy because. Fixed this for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I don't get the wide-eyed belief that if we just stop voting on laws and let the market handle it there'll be so much less aggression in the world. Well clearly the market would have a demand for a mafia that doesn't burn your house down and kill your family if you don't pay protection fees. And after enough bad word of mouth and negative reviews get around, well, that first mafia will be packing their bags pretty quick!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
After reading jrod's reply to Caros about healthcare in a libertarian society, I have to ask you, jrod: How would healthcare be rationed in a libertarian society? In Canada where I'm from, like probably any nationalized system, it's rationed by need. You need that brain tumour taken out right now? You get that brain tumour taken out right now - this is basically what happened with my dad, twice. In the US, it seems to be based on ability to pay. So I'm genuinely curious - in a libertarian society, how would healthcare be rationed? By need? By ability to pay? By something else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Silver Spooner posted:So I'm genuinely curious - in a libertarian society, how would healthcare be rationed? By need? By ability to pay? By something else? It's the second one. That one right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
But without the FDA keeping me down, I can just go to my buddy Darryl who'll mix me up a miracle serum for my cancer from secret ingredients for 20 bucks that I'll wash down with a big glass of raw milk, so there's nobody who'll be left out from lack of money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I don't get the wide-eyed belief that if we just stop voting on laws and let the market handle it there'll be so much less aggression in the world. Except this would never happen in a libertarian world because rational actors would recognize the DRO violating the NAP and vote with their dollars and feet before said DRO could ever accumulate that much advantage to begin with and *long, low, wet fart rising into a squeaky crescendo*
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I don't get the wide-eyed belief that if we just stop voting on laws and let the market handle it there'll be so much less aggression in the world. I think it's pretty obvious that people who murder anyone who refuses to do business with them don't ever end up on top. After all, anybody who heard about it would just decide not to do business with a NAP-violating psychopath like that! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:It's the second one. That one right there. Yeah are there really people left in the thread who can't spoof a jrodefeld response at this point? Just tack on a bunch of paragraphs about how in ancap wonderland everything would work out for the best, and there you go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 06:09
|
|