|
paragon1 posted:Not willing to pay, not enough to go around, seller wants the potential buyer to be in a weaker position at other negotiating tables, seller hates the buyer, buyer wants exclusive control of that resource and thinks they can easily take the seller in a fight. etc. Take your pick. Also the simple fact that water resource ownership is extremely contentious. Does the person who takes control of the source of the river have the right to dam it up or divert it and dry up the rest of the continent? We aren't talking about people charging a quarter to drink at a well. Should one person have the right to ruin the land of everyone downstream?
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why wouldn't they just sell the water? Or sell the rights to fresh water access? Those States that have greater access to desired natural resources will be sitting on a goldmine and they'll want to export that natural resource to others. Other States might have more forests and thus more lumber production, or more oil production or whatever. Free trade will be the most profitably way to improve everyone's standard of living. So, the loving Mexican drug lords? They are...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
If ISIL wants those oilfields so much, they would just buy them from the Iraqi government in a peaceful, mutually agreed deal. The idea that anyone would capture a natural resource in war is absolutely ahistorical and absurd. Edit: Hey, the Islamic State is seceding right now and forming a heterodox society unconcerned with politically correct hand-wringing over "women's rights". This is certainly a step forward in international liberty and a development to be encouraged and supported right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Also the simple fact that water resource ownership is extremely contentious. Does the person who takes control of the source of the river have the right to dam it up or divert it and dry up the rest of the continent? We aren't talking about people charging a quarter to drink at a well. Should one person have the right to ruin the land of everyone downstream? Um, obviously nobody would do that, so I don't have to justify the possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a weird hypothetical question for sure. But I'll answer this one personally. No, it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle to bet on when a person will die. The act of killing that person is illegal and should be punished harshly. This is not the same as saying "I am paying to assassinate someone" unless there is evidence that such an agreement was explicit and the participants knew or expected that someone would kill that person. But you just said that this isn't a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, which is the only deciding factor regarding whether or not you can aggress against someone else. If I have not violated the NAP by posting this bet, which you agree that I have not, then any legal action being taken against me is aggression, and you have no just cause to initiate that aggression. Honestly from the sounds of things you're just trying to apply current law and/or what 'makes sense' here rather than applying yourself with the 'consistent' ethics you so claim to adore. If it isn't aggression then what gives anyone the right to aggress against me by putting me in a Rape cage at the point of a gun and killing me if I refuse to surrender? How do you justify such statist policy? quote:This is not a hard question for libertarians to answer. Such a bet would leave a trail right to the assassin, who would be punished harshly. If there was ANY knowledge or expectation on the part of the betters that they were paying for an assassination, then they DID violate the non-aggression principle and should be charged with conspiracy to murder. This isn't the hypothetical you're being proposed. Sure I can assume that putting a huge one sided bet on the death of someone is likely to lead to that person's death, but I didn't conspire with anyone, I didn't hire anyone or direct anyone to do so. All I did was say "I bet ten million that steve smith will be dead by the end of the year." I clearly don't have knowledge of it and though you could argue that I recklessly endangered his life by placing this bet I in know way directly aggressed against him. Again, your assumptions here go to the statist view. I mean we statists are smart enough to just make this idiot scenario illegal off the bat for obvious reasons, but our justice system isn't entirely based on a binary Aggress/No Aggress system either. quote:If there are any decent and honest people who bet on such a thing who did NOT expect or want an assassination, then the very news that the person whose death date they bet on was murdered (rather than died of natural causes, hit by a bus, drown, etc) would immediately raise suspicions that the person who won the bet had committed the murder. And the reasonable person would probably inform the police who would investigate. These systems are not face to face, but third party escrow services. As the person putting up the "Totally not a hit for real guys I just think this guy looks so healthy I'm willing to pay ten million to one" I have no interaction with the person who killed him. And ultimately we aren't discussing whether or not the assassin is smart enough to launder the money and flee to Libarbados as soon as he is done, we're talking about whether or not the person putting a hit on someone would be worth it. quote:A few years ago there were a group of people online who ran a website where people could predict the day and year people thought Amy Winehouse would die. This was predictably seen as insensitive and offensive. In a libertarian society, betting of this sort would certainly be legal. There was no intention or thought of someone committing murder. The minute such an intention is made clear, even if it is a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" kind of understanding, these people have violated the non-aggression principle and could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Who decides when intent is clear or not? Again if I post "I really think this guy is going to live for twenty more years who wants to bet on million to one odds" any rational person can see that I'm probably calling a hit. But there isn't a contract, or a spoken agreement or anything of the sort. I guess the totally impartial and not at all easily bought off DRO Valhalla will determine what is intent? What if I just bet twenty bucks? Am I liable then? What if I Caros, bet a thousand dollars. For me that is a lot of money, i'd probably be doing something illegal. But what if I were Willard Mittington Romney the third? He makes ten thousand dollar bets at the drop of a hat for like... no reason at all. Is he responsible if someone really wants to cash in early? How do you prove that he isn't trying to do that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why wouldn't they just sell the water? Or sell the rights to fresh water access? Those States that have greater access to desired natural resources will be sitting on a goldmine and they'll want to export that natural resource to others. Other States might have more forests and thus more lumber production, or more oil production or whatever. Free trade will be the most profitably way to improve everyone's standard of living. Why would I sell you water when I can contractually have you give up all of your property to me as well as enter into a voluntary life of slavery?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why wouldn't they just sell the water? Or sell the rights to fresh water access? Those States that have greater access to desired natural resources will be sitting on a goldmine and they'll want to export that natural resource to others. Other States might have more forests and thus more lumber production, or more oil production or whatever. Free trade will be the most profitably way to improve everyone's standard of living. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb8OqoMraMI
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Who would pay the police to investigate the hit? Jrod said a reasonable person would inform the police but who would pay them? E: Also, I like how Jrod has now transitions to decrying most of humanity as morally bankrupt while simultaneously positing a moral system where no one violates ethical limitations on violence like the NAP. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In fairness to jrodefeld, I don't think it's productive to demand that he defend The Dumbest poo poo A Libertarian Ever Posted On Reddit® Hey, he took this one up on his own. I just posted it a few pages back because I thought it was funny, not because I figured he'd try to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Who would pay the police to investigate the hit? Jrod said a reasonable person would inform the police but who would pay them? Presumably the friends and family of the assassinated person. If you're killing for money, that's probably unavoidable. But if you're killing for fun in Libertopia, the trick is to target vagrants and prostitutes that no one of any means will miss or care about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:a horrific Shadowrun dystopia. Libertarians all think they're going to be Lofwyr instead of the wageslave orc that gets sacrificed in an Aztechnology blood ritual. YES I AM A HUGE NERD
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
I just can't get this Mitt Romney example out of my head. Mitt Romney puts a standing fifty thousand dollar bet on the head of say... twenty people he hates. That is two million, a drop in the bucket for him, and its a bet that can be won by anyone who can guess the date an individual will die in the upcoming year. How do you prove Mitt Romney is hiring a hit? Maybe he just has a gambling addition and is exercising his quirky rich person behaviour to gamble in an especially ghoulish fashion. Who the gently caress are you to say different. So what if thirteen of the people on that list have ended up being horribly murdered on the exact dates guessed by some of his winners. He isn't responsible for poo poo! He's never even met these people!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh hey you're back. Why should I want to abolish the Supreme Court which is currently restraining bigots in Texas from violating my human rights, and support secession so the heterodox ideology of fag-bashin' and abortion-banning can be given a chance? Shouldn't an anti-democratic Libertarian like you appreciate that there's a body of elite officials restraining democracy and oppose making my rights subject to directly-elected Texas judges? If the State of Texas is violating your rights, I naturally oppose that on principle. I'm sure you'll recall that decentralized States are not the end goal of any libertarian. The fact that one political unit is oppressing you versus another is not that important. It is the violations of your rights that are important. I support decentralization so that libertarian policies can start to gain traction and be implemented at the local level. I would advocate that EVERYONE follow suit. If different States seceded, then some states like Texas might adopt draconian policies in some instances. But the trade-off would be that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to oppress you in other ways. We would never have had the Iraq War for example. Or the Drone Program that has killed thousands overseas. This is not great consolation for people who become oppressed by their local government, but this is only the first step to a freer society. It is not the endgame. If Texas seceded and then outlawed abortion and gay marriage, then I'd support gays and pro-choice women moving to a more pro-liberty state while at the same time doing everything to encourage and promote pro-liberty reforms to the Texas state government. On the other hand, Texas would probably have no state income tax and more economic freedom than some other states. It would be a trade off in terms of liberty. But what If I created a State-less libertarian free market society while you created a working anarcho-syndicalist society? We could proliferate better ideas about governance and people could vote with their feet and move to one of the freer and more prosperous states. And no, this "voting with your feet" is NOT the same as acquiescing to the legitimacy of State oppression. Every person has the right to tell any State to gently caress off if they are violating your rights. If you move from Texas to Libertopia a Socialist or Anarcho Syndicalist state that doesn't mean you concede that there is a social contract in Texas that legitimizes their denial of your right to get married or have an abortion. What it DOES mean is that by moving you create one less tax payer (if your state has taxes) and one less economic participant which reduces the state revenue and economic prosperity of that state. This sends a signal. Look, this is not a perfect solution. But we are living in a world of centralized and very oppressive States. We don't have freedom now and our rights are continually violated. In the large picture, secession and decentralization are an important first step of a strategy to break up these entrenched monopolistic political power centers to move towards a more free world. It is true that some territories that secede may enact oppressive policies that limit rights in a way that they are not limited currently. But on balance, I think we will gain more than we lose. I mean if Texas passed a law mandating prayer in school I'd think "wow, that is really loving stupid law." However I am not going to live their and I'm sure most of you won't either. So it won't affect us. If the Federal Government institutes a law like this it will affect all of us without question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If everything you said here is true, then you should be absolutely opposed to democracy. If people are truly as ignorant and incompetent as you claim, then you should never want such people to have a say in government policy. Did I say that people are incompetent? No. I said that people are often times misinformed and believe things that correspond with their preexisting worldview. Also, I'm not arguing in favor of the current system as it stands, I'm arguing against your system. You are the one proposing the change, and what you're proposing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Saying "Well, it's not any worse than what exists" isn't a rational argument that's derived from logic and reason. And someone who derives poo poo from logic and reason ought to know that. quote:You even cite statistics about Romney voters and people who vote against their own self interest without realizing it. I agree with you. But then how can you expect generally good results from government policy when it is predicated on the will of the people who have elected these representatives who run it? Well, here's the thing - the current system does offer a system for change. Every four years, people get together and decide who gets to run the country for the next four years. So yeah, if people massively gently caress up, there's at least a system to correct those mistakes within four years. In your system, such correction doesn't exist. Now, Jrodefeld, I do some work in design. I study usability. I'm going to tell you one of the essential things you MUST consider in every design of every product, system, whatever - what happens when things fail. Is there a mechanism to correct the problem or mistake. If there isn't, then you got a problem. You don't have a mechanism to correct the problem. quote:People certainly act irrationally. However, people have a greater incentive to act in their self interest when the effects of their actions are immediately apparent. Remember that value is subjective. When a person goes in to Best Buy to buy a new television or computer, they will buy what they want, which product satisfies their criteria best. And the market will react to reflect that. A lot of people make consumer choices that I think are stupid but what position am I in to say whether these people made the "right" choice? This is called an equivocation. For someone who talks about logic and reason so much, you are really bad at utilizing it. Yes, I buy a 4K TV, it may be stupid since there isn't a lot 4K content out there and most stuff doesn't even display in 4k and it is questionable if it really is better for most people. But the impact is what? I have a TV with a higher resolution than what I desire? If you chose HD-DVD, so what? You don't get any more content for your player. It still works. The stakes are so low. Now Jrodefeld, since I used to work in Walgreens, I have a bit of an unfair advantage over you. See, we have these people called Weights and Measures. And they are state employees. And they come into stores, and they weigh packages and make sure that we aren't screwing our customers over. So if that 16 oz package of cookies only has 13 or 14 oz, they'll confiscate the package they weighed, and make me take the rest off the shelf (they'll usually weigh a few more too). And then they'll fine me. Which we then pass on to the cookie-manufacturer. So, in your society, how are we supposed to make sure that when we buy a 16 oz package of cookies, that we get 16 oz of cookies, and not 13 or 14 oz. For cookies, it's just lost money. But what about medications, where the values listed on the package can mean the difference between helping you and having no impact or even possibly killing you? Well, hey. If the effects of my actions are immediately apparent, I guess when I die, I'll know not to buy that brand of medication again. Oh wait. I'm dead. I guess I'll resort to haunting the executives of the company. But ironically, there is consumer protection, even when you drop money at Best Buy. So for example, if I sell a Blu-ray player, but it doesn't play Blu-ray discs, but only DVDs, then I can be slapped with false-advertising. The consumer protection laws in the US would kick in and gently caress me up. Finally, what happens if the effects are't immediately apparent. See, there's not always an easy cause and effect. Maybe that asbestos was the cause of some poor sap's cancer, but that was 20 years ago. How do I know? How will I act in my self-interest. You're also assuming people will reach the right conclusions. Take food poisoning. It is almost impossible to determine from a single person what caused food poisoning because of the time it can take to manifest itself. But people still blame something they ate, even if it might not have actually caused the food poisoning. So how does your system work in this world? quote:The most important point though is that if people make mistakes as a consumer, they risk their own capital and not anyone else's. Or other people's lives, or other their health, or their property. There's a lot more risk than you realize. quote:If you honestly think that people make MORE informed decisions on who they vote for and which ballot initiatives they support than they do on what sort of consumer products they buy or which jobs they take, then you are living in another world. That is not how people act in this society. People are unconscionably ignorant when it comes to voting. All the polls reflect this. Well, I did present that as a problem. However, a problem with my system is not the support for your system. The argument against me isn't the argument for you. You know, someone who derives things from logic and reason ought to know that by now. quote:I never understood why people like yourself think that showing examples of people behaving irrationally somehow amounts to proving a fatal flaw in libertarian theory, yet you support democracy where the ignorance of an individual voter can and does have society wide detrimental effects. Well, your system is based upon " people hav[ing] a greater incentive to act in their self interest when the effects of their actions are immediately apparent." Your system removes the protections that are here in our society. Our society has checks and balances to prevent one misinformed or grossly wrong person from loving everything up. Your society doesn't. You often talk about how people will have all this information to act rationally, and so when I tell you that people don't act rationally, that's a pretty big problem for you. quote:There is no "human nature" argument that comes out favorably for democratic government. If people are inherently good and rational, then the State is not necessary as people will self organize into functioning private societies where the needed functions of civil society will be funded privately. If people are inherently evil and irrational, then the State is FAR too dangerous to tolerate as this amounts merely to granting some of these irrational and dangerous citizens power to violently dominate the others. As Caros said, people are complex. I'm rational at times and irrational at others. I have areas of expertise and areas where I know far too little to really be able to make a good choice. For example, I don't really understand cars. I understand how to make them go forward, how to stop that going forward, and that's about it. But when you get into the nuts and bolts, I'm hopeless. However, I know a lot about healthcare. Which means while I can make more informed decisions about healthcare and weigh the information that people are giving me, I can't do the same with cars. If you gave me really bad information about how cars work that is basically total nonsense, I couldn't call bullshit. Because nobody is an expert on everything. And when you don't really understand something, you can't weigh the information you're being presented with accurately. I derived that from logic and reason. I thought you would have done the same. Maybe you're not so good at this logic and reason stuff. quote:The only coherent position you could take, following your line of thinking, is if you supported the lifetime rule of a wise and enlightened monarch who will force wise and good policy on everyone else. And I'm sure you don't support such a thing because "enlightened" rule is a myth. We all know power corrupts and giving any one man or group of men unlimited power and expecting them to act selflessly with wisdom and compassion is absurd. Right. But you know what, the current system hasn't worked out all bad. Good things have happened, and we have overcome some problems. Are there new problems? You bet. But that still doesn't support your proposal. quote:In reality people are a mix between good and bad, rational and irrational. But value is subjective and trusting people to make judgments in their own self interest, risking their own property, to improve their lives and satisfy their desires is a lot more rational than expecting these people to learn enough about the complexity of politics and the workings of government institutions and the platform of different candidates to make informed and rational decisions most of the time to ensure wise policy is completely irrational. Right. It's a lot more rational to expect people to learn the intricacies about how EVERYTHING THEY DEAL WITH works. Yeah. so my dad better read up on computers. And I better read up on ovens. I mean, how do I know if I going to get an oven that will actually work as advertised? Yeah. That's really rational. It's almost as if people today DON'T make decisions in their best self interest. Can you explain why that is Jrod? HEY EVERYONE! LOOK AT THE IDIOT WHO BELIEVES IT IS RATIONAL TO EXPECT THAT PEOPLE CAN LEARN ENOUGH ABOUT EVERYTHING THEY ENCOUNTER TO MAKE GOOD JUDGMENTS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS! HE MUST NOT HAVE USED LOGIC AND REASON TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION! quote:I consider what you have to say. I am unlikely to be persuaded but it is not impossible. I have and do change my political views. You really misunderstood it then. Maybe it's my fault. I'm not a good debater. quote:I've put forward a more rational means of waking people up to consider radical alternatives to social organization. It is not just arguing from potential. There are real world examples of societies that reform in the direction of liberty with predictably beneficial results. The liberalization of markets, and the diminishing of State controls and central planning has and continues to allow middle classes to emerge amid a torrent of rising prosperity and capital investment in nations that once were unbearably impoverished. The fact that these nations aren't complete, Stateless libertarian paradises doesn't mean that we don't have real world evidence that lends empirical credibility to libertarian reforms. Where are these examples? Because you haven't presented them. Also, it's funny. We're talking about the death of the middle class today, and there's been a whole ton of deregulation. quote:We really are at an impasse. Because of various "human nature" arguments, many or most leftists see a catastrophic failure for a libertarian society. The best way, therefore, to move in the direction of a freer society is to work to decentralize existing States. We live under a crusty, stagnant and outdated political order in my opinion. If we must have States, it would be an improvement to have more choices in terms of which political jurisdiction and rules we want to live under. That's a leap in logic if I ever heard one. Man, you must not have reached that conclusion through logic and reason. quote:I think this should have appeal across the ideological spectrum. Yes there is a chance that some small political jurisdictions could enact very oppressive laws. And decent people everywhere should oppose such injustice. But on the other hand, other political jurisdictions could enact radical and revolutionary reforms and policies that create great prosperity and high living standards. On balance, I believe human liberty will flourish more in a decentralized world than one with few, highly centralized and all-powerful States. Well, what's to prevent the states from becoming highly centralized and more powerful. You do realize how we got into the current boat we are in. After all, the people in the State next to our State (using your definition of state) have some resource we really need, so we are going to take their state over by force, because we don't believe in negotiating with that state. But that wouldn't happen. quote:You can disagree of course. That is the whole point of having these discussions. Well, it would be nice if you actually listened to what we said instead of always going back to square one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Like all matters of justice regarding the poor and rich in Libertopia, you prove Mitt Romney is culpable with a massive donation to the biggest DRO in exchange for double-plus-ultra-platinum service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like all matters of justice regarding the poor and rich in Libertopia, you prove Mitt Romney is culpable with a massive donation to the biggest DRO in exchange for double-plus-ultra-platinum service. Brilliant! We'll call it "The Varangian Package"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:And while having more money doesn't equal having more happiness, necessarily, there are a lot of people who basically belong to the working poor. They have to decide do they eat this month or pay the power bill, and what about the rent? These are decisions people have to make every day. And Johnny needs braces. And Linda needs a new dress for her school's play. And you got cancer. Money can't buy happiness, but it can sure as gently caress buy your way out of a lot of unhappiness. Money doesn't buy virtue, but it's a lot easier to be virtuous when you're not worried about how you're going to pay for both food and shelter this month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What it DOES mean is that by moving you create one less tax payer (if your state has taxes) and one less economic participant which reduces the state revenue and economic prosperity of that state. This sends a signal. So why aren't you sending this signal right now and reducing government revenue and removing your economic participation from the USA? You constantly complain (legitimately) about your taxes funding the Iraq War, why don't you move to Nauru which has much lower taxes than the United States and no military whatsoever? Is it possibly because there are legal and economic barriers preventing you from just up and moving to another country? The kind of barriers that make your moral support of oppressed people moving away from oppressive governments a useless sentiment in the lives of most people? jrodefeld posted:Look, this is not a perfect solution. But we are living in a world of centralized and very oppressive States. We don't have freedom now and our rights are continually violated. In the large picture, secession and decentralization are an important first step of a strategy to break up these entrenched monopolistic political power centers to move towards a more free world. It is true that some territories that secede may enact oppressive policies that limit rights in a way that they are not limited currently. But on balance, I think we will gain more than we lose. I mean if Texas passed a law mandating prayer in school I'd think "wow, that is really loving stupid law." However I am not going to live their and I'm sure most of you won't either. So it won't affect us. If the Federal Government institutes a law like this it will affect all of us without question. I live in Texas right now, dude. The instant the Supreme Court goes away, Texas' anti-abortion and anti-sodomy laws will be back in full force. They were never repealed. Both Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas were Texas cases whereby the Supreme Court stopped Texas from enforcing its laws. It would definitely affect me because I live there. There is no "if" Texas oppresses minorities. Texas will oppress minorities by democratic vote and it's weird that an opponent of democracy such as yourself would rather give a majority of Texans even more power to violate individual rights than retain a Supreme Court manned (or should I say womanned) by elite legal and constitutional scholars like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor with the power to overturn state laws that violate minority rights?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the State of Texas is violating your rights, I naturally oppose that on principle. I'm sure you'll recall that decentralized States are not the end goal of any libertarian. The fact that one political unit is oppressing you versus another is not that important. It is the violations of your rights that are important. I support decentralization so that libertarian policies can start to gain traction and be implemented at the local level. I would advocate that EVERYONE follow suit. Okay, first of all.. could you start answering people rather than dancing around their questions saying something mostly unrelated. Second, Texas is apparently the Mises go to state for talking about secession, likely because they expect that they are most likely to bite. Vital signs is asking you what the gently caress you think is going to happen when Texas inevitably jumps back half a century on civil rights the moment the big mean government is not breathing down their neck. This is not a hypothetical. Texas rolled out draconian Voter ID laws the loving day they were able. quote:This is not great consolation for people who become oppressed by their local government, but this is only the first step to a freer society. It is not the endgame. If Texas seceded and then outlawed abortion and gay marriage, then I'd support gays and pro-choice women moving to a more pro-liberty state while at the same time doing everything to encourage and promote pro-liberty reforms to the Texas state government. On the other hand, Texas would probably have no state income tax and more economic freedom than some other states. It would be a trade off in terms of liberty. But incremental change can't happen! You talked about the fact up thread that anyone who believes that we can democratically change government policies is an idiot, so I guess I'm glad to have you join us idiots! While we're on the topic of you being an idiot... you do realize that we have a functional example of a state with no income tax. Kansas has brutally slashed its tax rates and cut all income tax off 200,000 businesses. The predictable result is an enormous budget crisis and a rape and pillage of civil services that people depend on in an effort to patch it up. Just this very week Brownback violated his own state surpreme court as he cut education again. In Kansas there are schools where you need to take an extra year of high school to get all your credits because they aren't offering enough courses for you to graduate. If that sounds like a bad idea, guess what, it is! Kansas has not significantly improved in any of the economic markers that we've been told that they would, because shockingly when you cut state services to the bone after cutting taxes to the bone it doesn't really improve anything. Having an extra thousand dollars at the end of the year doesn't help when there are no loving schools for your kids to go to! But what If I created a State-less libertarian free market society while you created a working anarcho-syndicalist society? We could proliferate better ideas about governance and people could vote with their feet and move to one of the freer and more prosperous states. And what if I were a pretty pink unicorn that shot lasers out of my rear end? Are you ever going to explain how you believe this loving myth of yours is supposed to take flight? To answer your question however, your state would collapse and we'd have an awkward East/West germany issue going on for decades as we try and reintegrate your barely literate peasants into real human society again. quote:And no, this "voting with your feet" is NOT the same as acquiescing to the legitimacy of State oppression. Every person has the right to tell any State to gently caress off if they are violating your rights. If you move from Texas to Libertopia a Socialist or Anarcho Syndicalist state that doesn't mean you concede that there is a social contract in Texas that legitimizes their denial of your right to get married or have an abortion. How is it different? You have the right to tell the state to gently caress off right now by leaving the US... so why don't you do tha- Oooooh right, because you like living in a state with safe food and water and all the benefits of society. Seriously though, how is your solution of love it or leave it any different from my solution of "Go live in the stateless empty quarter?" Other than the fact that you would hate it? quote:What it DOES mean is that by moving you create one less tax payer (if your state has taxes) and one less economic participant which reduces the state revenue and economic prosperity of that state. This sends a signal. If every libertarian moved out of the US it would send this exact same signal! Why don't you? quote:Look, this is not a perfect solution. But we are living in a world of centralized and very oppressive States. We don't have freedom now and our rights are continually violated. In the large picture, secession and decentralization are an important first step of a strategy to break up these entrenched monopolistic political power centers to move towards a more free world. It is true that some territories that secede may enact oppressive policies that limit rights in a way that they are not limited currently. But on balance, I think we will gain more than we lose. I mean if Texas passed a law mandating prayer in school I'd think "wow, that is really loving stupid law." However I am not going to live their and I'm sure most of you won't either. So it won't affect us. If the Federal Government institutes a law like this it will affect all of us without question. You don't have rights to violate without the state unless you believe in made up natural rights, in which case I have a natural right to punch you in the dick if I ever see you. Don't loving try to violate my natural right Jrodefeld, it is logically derived if we start from the a priori believe that I hate you and that I should be allowed to punch people in the dick if I hate them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is no "human nature" argument that comes out favorably for democratic government. If people are inherently good and rational, then the State is not necessary as people will self organize into functioning private societies where the needed functions of civil society will be funded privately. If people are inherently evil and irrational, then the State is FAR too dangerous to tolerate as this amounts merely to granting some of these irrational and dangerous citizens power to violently dominate the others. This is a false dichotomy. I strongly suspect that the only person in this thread who believes that there exists some perfect governmental form, based on deduction from first principles, to be yourself. Pure anarchy is simply ineffective at organizing society to pursue large-scale goals like infrastructure. Private for-profit companies are inferior to collective organizations at the provision of important things like health care, food, and water. So, if you value these things being available to the public, then some form of government is morally required. But on the other hand, the vast majority of us believe it's morally wrong to govern someone without their consent. These morals conflict--any collective group will sometimes work against the desires of one individual or another. Some people, such as yourself, retreat into a make-believe black-and-white world where you can derive a perfect, mutually-consistent moral system from first principles and then sacrifice that health and happiness of actual people at the altar of your axioms. Those of us who operate in reality, though, prefer to face the conflicts in our moral codes and work out some kind of compromise. Here is where the argument for democracy is located: it offers a method of providing for collective organization that responds to the desires of its individual constituents. People who feel that they have a say in their government are willing to give the necessary consent to the government as a whole, even though they know individual decisions will sometimes go against their wishes. But just because most of us support some form of democracy doesn't mean we think it's perfect! In America, for example, most peoples' say in the government is purely an illusion. Further, consent of the governed is largely coerced, both by militarized police and by the fact that it's tremendously difficult for the average person to "opt out". People have lots of ideas on how to fix this, whether by reforms within the system or by breaking things down to emphasize more local government. But the general idea that we seek an ever-improving compromise between moral needs remains central, and ignoring it will always make your proposed system ultimately evil. ninja e: God drat, this thread has moved fast while I was typing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm fine with accepting Soviet Russia as a historical example of communism, the UK as a historical example of progressivism, and Somalia as a historical example of ancap libertarianism. That's basically what they are. History colors all situations. There is another historical example of libertarianism, or at least of libertarianism being realized Honduras. Almost no government. You pay the police to solve crimes, plenty of private protection agencies around. You can easily get drugs, and prostitutes without having to worry about laws for them being under 18. Best of all property owners are able to protect their livelihoods from ex employees trying to agress against them. Really my problem with libertarianism is the idea that there are natural rights, rights only exist because people within a society agree that the person within can be given various privileges. If a society decides that the idea of a person holding items or lands of a significant value is antiethical to the societies values they can prevent such a practice from continuing, Now a person might try to commit violence to prevent a society from doing this, but in the end society will win. We are entirely products of our societies and are also entirely subject to its whims. Libertarianism seems to think it has somehow gotten around this, and really it hasn't. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:There is another historical example of libertarianism, or at least of libertarianism being realized Honduras. Almost no government. You pay the police to solve crimes, plenty of private protection agencies around. You can easily get drugs, and prostitutes without having to worry about laws for them being under 18. Best of all property owners are able to protect their livelihoods from ex employees trying to agress against them. This is the part that always astonished me once I got over my libertarianism. Property isn't real, its not a thing that exists in any solid form but a concept. Saying that you can base your entire ideology, and make that ideology logically correct based on amorphous fictional concept like property rights just seems utterly loving insane to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Caros posted:To be fair the Somalia argument was never very convincing to me as a libertarian. It was a wartorn shithole before government, and unsurprisingly it was a wartorn shithole afterwords. If anything there is some small argument to be made that Somalia has seen improvement in some sectors over the past couple of decades through general economic improvement. Saying "Somalia! HA!" isn't really all that different from Jrods "Soviet Russia, HA!" argument, the prevailing factors at the time really have a lot to do with success or failure. I appreciate you acknowledging this. I think you have described the Somalia example accurately. This is one example that rightfully pisses off libertarians. It is a lazy example that is used by people who know next to nothing about libertarianism. It is as if opponents just search out some chaotic and violent place and simply assume that a collapsed government means that it is a Rothbardian libertarian society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I appreciate you acknowledging this. I think you have described the Somalia example accurately. This is one example that rightfully pisses off libertarians. It is a lazy example that is used by people who know next to nothing about libertarianism. It is as if opponents just search out some chaotic and violent place and simply assume that a collapsed government means that it is a Rothbardian libertarian society. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually consider the comparison and realize why bitching about bread lines and genocide in Russia as a critique of socialism is a pretty stupid thing to do, but I'm not going to cross my fingers or anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
So I guess Jrod is once again all caught up on the thread without responding to anything in a substantive way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
I think the USSR is pretty important for anyone who wants to talk about communism, but any honest criticism has to acknowledge the huge gains in living standards as well as the mass murder and starvation. Just like any analysis of capitalism that focuses solely on the mass murder and starvation inherent to that system is incomplete if it doesn't recognize the advantages compared to mercantilism, etc. The question is: knowing the history of actually existing communism/capitalism, how can we preserve the advantages and limit the disadvantages? And then: is our best idea of communism better than our best idea of capitalism? But of course jrod believes he's already found the perfect political theory, so he doesn't care about trying to improve our ideas but rather propagandizing for Mises's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:So I guess Jrod is once again all caught up on the thread without responding to anything in a substantive way. I'm just glad he's back safe and sound in our forum. Like the return of a comfortable familiar blanket full of crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:I'm just glad he's back safe and sound in our forum. Like the return of a comfortable familiar blanket full of crazy. I do wonder if he posts elsewhere. I mean I know he has in the past and during his breaks, but I think when he is on a post binge here he's largely contained, and I feel that is sort of a service worth being proud of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Wait a minute wait a minute we wouldn't have the Iraq War? Why? You think Royal Dutch Shell doesn't have what it takes to fund an invasion of Iraq? What happens to gigantic oil and gas companies anyway? It's not like anybody else can get it out of the ground. Jrod what is your plan for the multinationals in a transition to an NAP world?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jrod what is your plan for the multinationals in a transition to an NAP world? Exactly the same as his approach to child abuse, spousal abuse, public safety, fire departments, minority oppression, monopolies on essential goods and services, company towns, and getting punched in the dick by Caros: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wait a minute wait a minute we wouldn't have the Iraq War? Why? You think Royal Dutch Shell doesn't have what it takes to fund an invasion of Iraq? Actually I kind of don't think that, not today. It's not the 1500s anymore, you can't just roll up to some uncontacted island with firesticks and enslave everyone anymore (although don't get me wrong: anywhere that this can be done cheaply, Libertarian companies would do it). That's why, when countries like Iran and Iraq started nationalizing their natural resources, these companies went to our politicians, begging and bribing them to instigate coups or outright invade, because it's pure profit when the US government is helpfully paying the $2 trillion to control the country for half a decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wait a minute wait a minute we wouldn't have the Iraq War? Why? You think Royal Dutch Shell doesn't have what it takes to fund an invasion of Iraq? Let me tell you about Shadowrun
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I appreciate you acknowledging this. I think you have described the Somalia example accurately. This is one example that rightfully pisses off libertarians. It is a lazy example that is used by people who know next to nothing about libertarianism. It is as if opponents just search out some chaotic and violent place and simply assume that a collapsed government means that it is a Rothbardian libertarian society. In what way is it an inaccurate example of ancap libertarianism? The government has no authority there. According to the arguments that you made on deontological ethics, any form of government is inherently immoral and we should seek out a society with no government, consequences be damned. If you're going to posit that any government is immoral, then why doesn't a region with no government count as an example of a region with no government? If you try to trot out the fact that a lot of people there aren't abiding by the NAP, then I have some bad news: that actually further discredits libertarianism as a defunct ideology that can't survive even the most basic of sniff tests. I'm willing to concede that Somalia was hosed first and foremost by historical circumstance if you're willing to admit the same for Soviet Russia. But come on, if you really believe that Somalia is a poor example of an ancap society then at least do me the service of providing another bullshit handwavey explanation as to why you think it's a poor example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In what way is it an inaccurate example of ancap libertarianism? The government has no authority there. According to the arguments that you made on deontological ethics, any form of government is inherently immoral and we should seek out a society with no government, consequences be damned. If you're going to posit that any government is immoral, then why doesn't a region with no government count as an example of a region with no government? If you try to trot out the fact that a lot of people there aren't abiding by the NAP, then I have some bad news: that actually further discredits libertarianism as a defunct ideology that can't survive even the most basic of sniff tests. Yeah, even though it feels wrong, I think I need to agree with Jrod here. Even if we posit that government is the big evil, the other half of libertarianism is basing it on these "self-evident" axioms like "humans act" and other stupid poo poo. While Somalia does not really have government, I think it's also somewhat misguided to claim that they are libertarian in the sense Jrod is. No libertarian deontology involved, for example. So yeah, the messy state of Somalia is not based on the axioms of libertarianism, but the absense of a state. They might be libertarian by the definition that they are stateless, but they're not Libertarian in the an-cap sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Obviously Somalia is no more an ancap's dreamland than it is for an anarcho-syndicalist, but on the other hand Somalia is something that libertarians (and other anarchists) need to contend with from the perspective of "what about your ideology prevents your society from turning into Somalia once the government is gone?" Just like a Marxist needs to have an answer to "how do you deal with the potential of your revolution leading to Stalin 2.0?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
Certainly, but his answer would straight up just be "the NAP is not being followed in Somalia, and maybe they'd do well if they were following it". Like, their deontological ethics system is super important to Jrod and other libertarians, even it is also patently insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If different States seceded, then some states like Texas might adopt draconian policies in some instances. But the trade-off would be that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to oppress you in other ways. We would never have had the Iraq War for example. Or the Drone Program that has killed thousands overseas. But the Federal Government doesn't just oppress me. What about all the good things that governments can do? For example, provide me with income so when I had to take a few months off of work to get surgery, I wasn't destitute. Or provide the interstate highway system that allows businesses to make my life more convenient. How about creating a postal service that guarantees me that I can reach people anywhere in the country. What about in the UK, where the government provides a healthcare system an overwhelming majority of the people like. You see, you can't just talk about the bad things states do and ignore the good things. In that way, you're creating a straw man. Which is not something someone who was using logic and reason would do. quote:This is not great consolation for people who become oppressed by their local government, but this is only the first step to a freer society. It is not the endgame. If Texas seceded and then outlawed abortion and gay marriage, then I'd support gays and pro-choice women moving to a more pro-liberty state while at the same time doing everything to encourage and promote pro-liberty reforms to the Texas state government. On the other hand, Texas would probably have no state income tax and more economic freedom than some other states. It would be a trade off in terms of liberty. Income tax is not oppression. The fact that I have to pay taxes is not an infringement on my liberty. I don't know where you got such a bizarre notion from, but you're making a huge logical leap there. Let me ask you a question - why do you think that the democratic process can't enact change, yet you could enact change in your Hypothetical Texas? Do you think that those reforms would come through. What if the Hypothetical Texas motto is "No taxes or homosexuals?" quote:But what If I created a State-less libertarian free market society while you created a working anarcho-syndicalist society? We could proliferate better ideas about governance and people could vote with their feet and move to one of the freer and more prosperous states. I'm confused by what you're saying. I'm really confused here. I don't recall any of us saying "You know, Jrodefeld, we got you. You can't leave the oppressive United States of America because by leaving here, you are legitimizing the social contract that we say you must live under!" Clearly, you aren't using logic and reason here. So like many other people have asked - why don't you leave the United States for a country that you would find more appealing to your worldview. I mean, it's clear. You don't think our country is a good country. You don't think that our current system of government is a good system. You think that this is an oppressive regime that is crushing you by offering roads, education, and police officers. You don't like the infrastructure that a majority of the people are in favor of. It just seems like this country and you are just not good fits. Why do you insist on staying here. Why do you insist on talking about secession. Take your ball and go elsewhere. We're playing baseball. Stop insisting that we let you give soccer a chance here. quote:Look, this is not a perfect solution. But we are living in a world of centralized and very oppressive States. We don't have freedom now and our rights are continually violated. In the large picture, secession and decentralization are an important first step of a strategy to break up these entrenched monopolistic political power centers to move towards a more free world. It is true that some territories that secede may enact oppressive policies that limit rights in a way that they are not limited currently. But on balance, I think we will gain more than we lose. I mean if Texas passed a law mandating prayer in school I'd think "wow, that is really loving stupid law." However I am not going to live their and I'm sure most of you won't either. So it won't affect us. If the Federal Government institutes a law like this it will affect all of us without question. See above about why don't you get the gently caress out of the country then. I mean, it doesn't matter the size of the state, you can always leave. Guess what - there will always be oppression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually I kind of don't think that, not today. It's not the 1500s anymore, you can't just roll up to some uncontacted island with firesticks and enslave everyone anymore (although don't get me wrong: anywhere that this can be done cheaply, Libertarian companies would do it). That's why, when countries like Iran and Iraq started nationalizing their natural resources, these companies went to our politicians, begging and bribing them to instigate coups or outright invade, because it's pure profit when the US government is helpfully paying the $2 trillion to control the country for half a decade. Yeah I should have been more clear. They probably wouldn't raise their own army, but they have more than enough money and influence that some likely coup plotter is going to want to do their bidding. Oh that's right I forgot, in a libertarian society coups would vanish. Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh that's right I forgot, in a libertarian society coups would vanish. Never mind. Coups would be both a violation of NAP and property rights. Therefor, the company that you took over in the coup would be restored to the dead family you just killed in the coup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Exercu posted:Certainly, but his answer would straight up just be "the NAP is not being followed in Somalia, and maybe they'd do well if they were following it". Ah, but if taxation is considered violence, then the lack of taxation makes Somalia far, far safer than any western nation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:07
|
|