|
Socrates16 posted:Not to mention throwing people into cages for owning a plant. States hold the powerful in check and minimize the harm they do. The powerful, racist, people driving the drug war would simply throw you into a cage for not being white in the absence of the state. But thanks to the state they can't do that. So instead they make silly laws about plants and such - ignore the laws when a powerful person breaks them - and throw the book at an undesirable person when they break them. It's not perfect but its a hell of a lot better than what they'd do if the state wasn't stopping them from doing worse. As we can see from looking at slavery which flourished until the state stopped it.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 06:59 |
|
|
# ? May 6, 2024 03:11 |
|
Ha ha yeah guys, got too much going on now, I mean I've spent hours writing dumb long posts and then creating a dummy account, but I've just got too much going on. Gotta scram! btw I'm not running away.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:00 |
|
rudatron posted:Ha ha yeah guys, got too much going on now, I mean I've spent hours writing dumb long posts and then creating a dummy account, but I've just got too much going on. Gotta scram! Two down. Wonder when the next guy with a Koch for a face is gonna show up. (I assume at least one of them exists)
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:05 |
|
Socrates16 posted:You're a very rare breed. Most statists are worried population control, not the need grow or maintain the population. The entire religious right is obsessed with forced childbirth and denying women access to contraceptives. They are unwilling to build a system that doesn't punish motherhood but they want children. /Shrug We are 7 billion strong and large parts of the planet are still agrarian so we have plenty of time to turn it around. But eventually this is a problem that will have to be dealt with. And if an cap libertopia were formed tomorrow it would be a problem you guys would have to solve immediately because mothers want nothing to do with your lunacy.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:07 |
|
I want to speak more broadly about private property rights. Many of you seem to think that enforcing private property rights (i.e. using force against a trespasser) is inherently an act of aggression rather than an act of defense. Then you go on to state that therefore libertarianism is not really about voluntarism and nonaggression but is in fact a justification for violence under the guise of “private property”. But why does the concept of private property exist? Private property exists as a response to the reality of scarcity. Conflict exists in society because desired resources are scarce. If we lived in a society where everything existed in superabundance, then there would be no need for property rights at all, and there would hardly be any conflict in society. The only acts of aggression we would have to concern ourselves with would be those against our physical bodies, since they would remain scarce. But since desired resources remain scarce we need to have a system of determining who gets to have jurisdiction over determining the use of what scarce resource. Thus we need private property rights. I am going to assume that you all agree with me that people should be free from aggression against their physical bodies. That people own themselves and that others cannot murder, rape or kidnap another. If you concede this point, and you also concede that desired resources are scarce, then you logically must defend some sort of property rights system. The reason to support private property rights is that we want to reduce conflict in society. If everyone has a clear understanding of who has the final say over the use of a scarce resource, conflict is minimized. Furthermore, being secure in the things that you homestead, i.e. having the right to defend that property that you have acquired, means that society can become more prosperous and produce more and more which benefits all members of society. Someone earlier said that it was in fact an act of aggression to use force to remove someone who was trespassing on my private property if they weren’t aggressing against me. Now, if I acquire private property in a legitimate manner, then that means that I have the right to determine its best use. If someone comes onto my land without my permission and they refuse to leave when asked, then are committing a violation of my rights. You want to limit the definition of “aggression” to an act of assault or battery, but regardless I must have recourse if my rights are being violated. Any enforcement of “law” is an act of force. If someone breaks “the law” then an agency of the law should be permitted to use force against them proportional to the offense committed. What you are suggesting is that the libertarian should abandon private property rights and simply apply the non-aggression principle to actual physical aggression against the physical bodies of the citizens. The predictable result of this is that conflict will exist EVERYWHERE. Since desired scarce resources exist everywhere, people will constantly be fighting over the use of those resources. Nobody is secure in anything he acquires because someone else can simply take it without consequence. The economy will never develop and humanity will be left at a subsistence level. Society needs private property rights to deal with the reality of scarcity and to limit conflict. I cannot see any other rational principle by which a person can acquire property legitimately than the principle of original appropriation or homesteading. Some of you object to this principle because most usable and desirable land is not in a “natural” state. We have not had a history of respect for the libertarian principle of property rights and therefore land was stolen over and over again by colonialism, by States, by thieves and so forth. So how can any land be considered justly acquired? I believe there is no legal statute of limitations on justice. If proof can be presented that property was stolen from you or your ancestors, then that property should be returned to you. However, there is a natural statute of limitations. The farther back in history you go, the harder it is to find evidence of theft or of property titles. The purpose of a rational concept of private property acquisition is not to atone for all the theft in the past (this is impossible) but to eliminate theft going forward. I don’t know how this concept could be made any clearer. Civilization itself depends, literally, on the enforcement of private property rights. The reality of scarcity and the conflict that scarcity naturally produces means that the first owner, or the earlier owner of some scarce resource should have a better claim to authority over its use than anyone else. And the transfer of that scarce resource to a subsequent owner can only occur through voluntary sale, gift or trade. How can any of you seriously take issue with this?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:17 |
|
Human population, like the market, is self-correcting, so there is no need for preemptive statist policies to control it. Like with the market, emergent natural phenomena and social relations will merely spontaneously arise to deal with the imbalance and irrational numbers involved, as they have reliably for centuries. These emergent phenomena are known as starvation, disease, and war. The system works.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:19 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to speak more broadly about private property rights. Many of you seem to think that enforcing private property rights (i.e. using force against a trespasser) is inherently an act of aggression rather than an act of defense. Then you go on to state that therefore libertarianism is not really about voluntarism and nonaggression but is in fact a justification for violence under the guise of “private property”. "Resources are scarce, therefore the resources should belong in their entirety to a small number of wealthy individuals" Either you think abrogation of property rights at all for any reason is a slippery slope and poses an existential threat to civilization, or you think poor people shouldn't get rich people's resources (defined by you) as a matter of moral principle. The first is unfalsifiable and dumb, the second means you're a bad person Your philosophy is literally summed up in one line which makes no sense at all to a thinking person: "Upsetting the status quo of property rights is always the worst possible outcome and literally anything, up to and including letting an indefinite amount of people die unnecessarily, is preferable". That's ridiculous.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:19 |
|
Ok for the next one pretend you're a female libertarian because at this point im questioning if you're actually self aware, nevermind competent enough to create a community covenant.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:24 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to speak more broadly about private property rights. Many of you seem to think that enforcing private property rights (i.e. using force against a trespasser) is inherently an act of aggression rather than an act of defense. Then you go on to state that therefore libertarianism is not really about voluntarism and nonaggression but is in fact a justification for violence under the guise of “private property”. Because you haven't answered a very basic question, instead choosing to pontificate around the issue in the hopes that the original question was forgotten. You can argue, perhaps even coherently, that it is moral, legal, utiliatrian, or whatever, to expel a nonviolently resisting trespasser from your property. You cannot argue that this is not the initiation of force, which is the key sin in your cosmology. Flail as you might, you must choose either defense of property or the absolute unacceptability of aggressive force, because your attempts to diffuse the dissonance by simply defining it away is not convincing anybody.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:24 |
|
Many have asked about the feasibility of competing defense agencies and private dispute resolution agencies. You seem to think that we need a centralized monopolistic authority to provide "the law". I think this is a very dangerous concept that, as history has proven, is rife with abuse. I know some of you hate when I do this, but I am going to quote from Stefan Molyneux on this subject. I don't always agree with Molyneux but in this instance I think his insights are valuable. This isn't the final word, but I think it offers plenty of food for thought:quote:Dispute Resolution
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:24 |
|
Socrates16 posted:Hey all, I've got an early flight that I've already stayed up too late for, so I'm off to bed. I'll be really busy this week so I'll be MIA from this thread until next weekend, try not to miss me too much! haha
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:25 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to speak more broadly about private property rights. Many of you seem to think that enforcing private property rights (i.e. using force against a trespasser) is inherently an act of aggression rather than an act of defense. You stated on here, in this very thread, that if you ask someone to leave and they don't that counts as a form of aggression and you are then authorised to use force against them. I asked multiple times who would decide where the line between defence and aggression was drawn and you have repeatedly failed to answer. I ask you again. Who decides when defence becomes aggression? jrodefeld posted:If proof can be presented that property was stolen from you or your ancestors, Who do we present this proof to?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:26 |
|
And here is David Friedman on the subject:quote:POLICE, COURTS, AND LAWS---ON THE MARKET
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:27 |
|
Holy gently caress guys, how are you posting in this thread so quickly? The OP hasn't posted in over 150 posts, what the gently caress could you possibly be talking about that's so interesting?Socrates16 posted:I've always been surprised by most Goons' vehement hatred for libertarianism, especially considering that the SA forums are a great representation of what people can do when they're allowed to freely organize themselves. I don't know how many of you are gamers, but if you are, think about how idiotic politicians are when it comes to videogames. They're totally uneducated about the issue, yet they make policy based off the emotions of voters who are also ignorant. What you need to realize is that they're doing the same thing for every single issue. They're uneducated and belligerent, and playing off of your emotions. Oh, he has an alternate account Socrates16 posted:Out of curiosity, is it just me and jrodefeld that are libertarians in Debate and Discussion as far as you all know? I don't think I've ever seen another. I've poked my head in here from time to time but never posted until I saw this thread. Ancaps are all over facebook so its a bit of a shock being in a forum without more than a few. Then you haven't been here very long because SA was an unironic hotbed of libertarianism for many years, but during their discussions those libertarians kept encountering huge issues with libertarianism and eventually most of them realized that libertarianism is loving retarded
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:30 |
|
jrodefeld posted:The only acts of aggression we would have to concern ourselves with would be those against our physical bodies, since they would remain scarce. But since desired resources remain scarce we need to have a system of determining who gets to have jurisdiction over determining the use of what scarce resource. Thus we need private property rights. No, it means we need some sort of collective system for assigning the use of resources. Private property is just one possibility. jrodefeld posted:Furthermore, being secure in the things that you homestead, i.e. having the right to defend that property that you have acquired, means that society can become more prosperous and produce more and more which benefits all members of society. Which assumes everyone is homesteading and not, as would actually be the case, working for barely subsistence wages to buy enough food to survive as 1% of the country hoard their homesteads. jrodefeld posted:Now, if I acquire private property in a legitimate manner, then that means that I have the right to determine its best use. Only if you axiomatically assume a system of private property rights, which is not a given, and even then, not in all forms of systems of private property. You cannot argue universal truths by assuming a single narrow system of how things operate. jrodefeld posted:What you are suggesting is that the libertarian should abandon private property rights and simply apply the non-aggression principle to actual physical aggression against the physical bodies of the citizens. What we're suggesting is your definition of "violence" only applies if we all agree with your personal system of ethics. You don't get then to define the word "violence" as "whatever makes my system work." You are opening the box with the crowbar inside. jrodefeld posted:The predictable result of this is that conflict will exist EVERYWHERE. Since desired scarce resources exist everywhere, people will constantly be fighting over the use of those resources. Nobody is secure in anything he acquires because someone else can simply take it without consequence. The economy will never develop and humanity will be left at a subsistence level. Or alternatively, hear me out here, we could decide how those resources are to be used in a democratic fashion. You have set up a dichotomy between private property and endless war. This is disingenuous. Stop it. jrodefeld posted:I cannot see any other rational principle by which a person can acquire property legitimately than the principle of original appropriation or homesteading. Some of you object to this principle because most usable and desirable land is not in a “natural” state. We have not had a history of respect for the libertarian principle of property rights and therefore land was stolen over and over again by colonialism, by States, by thieves and so forth. So how can any land be considered justly acquired? Hmm, yes, how COULD any land be considered justly acquired? Interesting question. jrodefeld posted:I believe there is no legal statute of limitations on justice. If proof can be presented that property was stolen from you or your ancestors, then that property should be returned to you. However, there is a natural statute of limitations. The farther back in history you go, the harder it is to find evidence of theft or of property titles. The purpose of a rational concept of private property acquisition is not to atone for all the theft in the past (this is impossible) but to eliminate theft going forward. "gently caress you, got mine." jrodefeld posted:Civilization itself depends, literally, on the enforcement of private property rights. Repeating this does not make it any more true. jrodefeld posted:The reality of scarcity and the conflict that scarcity naturally produces means that the first owner, or the earlier owner of some scarce resource should have a better claim to authority over its use than anyone else. And the transfer of that scarce resource to a subsequent owner can only occur through voluntary sale, gift or trade. Because this is only the case when you a priori assume your conclusions are correct before you make them. You're right, when you construct your argument under the assumption that only libertarianism works, libertarianism is the only way things work! Congratulations! You still haven't answered my question about why QMBank is forced to back its promises with precious metals and why my customers can't simply be allowed to trust me.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:36 |
|
Well, I was too slow to catch Socrates, but I am not wasting the I suppose I will put it in more concrete terms. Just because one thinks a government is necessary does not mean everything needs to be run by a government, or that the current government they reside under is particularly good. You seem to keep thinking that all Government is an American Bourgeois Democracy. Believe it or not, there are different forms of government. It's true! Even then, I would take Western Democracy over what Libertarians seem to support, because at least voters have a small amount of power they can use to defend themselves against the interests of the powerful and the capitalists. Also. This may be completely off topic (and/or retarded. As I am sure you have noticed, I am terribly self conscious about posting in D&D), but I have thought a lot on the subject of libertarianism and charity. I believe that all things being equal, the least charitable will be most likely to succeed in such an environment. If you have however many individuals, all with the same amount of capital, anyone who does not spend money on charity will get a step ahead of the rest. Capitalism is a system that selects for greed. At least with the system used now, people get some of the money back via tax breaks. However, even that isn't all that important, because private charity is a terrible idea. Most of the services provided by charity would be better provided by the government, and funded by taxes. In a market of charities, donations are not just used to provide a service. They are wasted on CEO incentives. They are wasted on advertising wars as pet shelters compete with hospitals who compete with soup kitchens for who gets the money. And in the end, while you claim that the government makes the poor poorer, statistically, charity acts as a regressive tax. The poorest 20% of Americans gives 3.2% of their income to charity, despite rarely even being able to get the tax benefits. The richest 20%, on the other hand, give a whole 1.7%, usually to schools rather than soup kitchens or relief for the poor. Controlled by a government, the waste on advertising funds could be removed. Controlled by a government that wasn't entirely in the pocket of capitalist interests, the services would be provided at a lower expense to the poor, those than need them most.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:38 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Now, if I acquire private property in a legitimate manner 1) In the absence of a state, who determines whether the manner used to acquire some property was legitimate? If your answer is "private arbitration", what motivation does a thief have to agree to private arbitration? jrodefeld posted:Any enforcement of “law” is an act of force. 2) In the absence of a state, what is a law? jrodefeld posted:I believe there is no legal statute of limitations on justice. 3) In the absence of a state, who decides what is legal? 4) In the absence of a state, who decides what is just? jordefeld posted:If proof can be presented that property was stolen from you or your ancestors, then that property should be returned to you. 5) In the absence of a state, to whom do you present this proof, and then who enforces the returning of your property? jordefeld posted:Many have asked about the feasibility of competing defense agencies and private dispute resolution agencies. You seem to think that we need a centralized monopolistic authority to provide "the law". I think this is a very dangerous concept that, as history has proven, is rife with abuse. I know some of you hate when I do this, but I am going to quote from Stefan Molyneux on this subject. I don't always agree with Molyneux but in this instance I think his insights are valuable. This isn't the final word, but I think it offers plenty of food for thought: "I don't actually have an opinion of my own because I'm a guy who skims books rather than reading them, but here's a quote that I think is relevant *shits in own mouth*" e: Your first quote requires people to voluntarily sign contracts with a central authority. Not only does that define a state, but it also requires both parties to sign with the same central authority. Under such a system, it's "legal" to kidnap, rape, and murder your family so long as I don't sign a dispute resolution contract with you. Furthermore, the author realizes that this is the definition of a state, but then handwaves it away as "superstition" because, historically speaking, a private company has never replaced a state before, therefore it's impossible. That's right, if you create a governing body with all of the features of a state but call it a private company, then by libertarian logic it is definitely not a state. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:40 |
|
Your second post, jrodefeld, has the same issues as the first: do not sign a contract with the person from whom you intend to steal, and you're good to go. This author goes on to discuss disputes which do not have a pre-signed contract in place. The answer, of course, is having private security forces that install surveillence equipment in every home and on every street, and then the burglar gets a phone call and some men showing up at his door. This is not at all like a police state because _______. In other words, justice systems in libertopia can only function if we have 24/7 surveillence of all places at all times. This is to secure your FREEDOM. He also explains that if you don't have enough money to pay for detectives and the like then yes, it's basically legal for your family to be kidnapped, raped, and murdered (because if you really cared about them you'd pony up the extra Ron Paul Liberty Dollars for SECURITY LEVEL 4 GOLD SERVICE) And then there's this: quote:Not many murderers would wish to live under laws that permitted them to kill--and be killed. That's pretty loving naive, kind of like all libertarian ideas QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:54 |
|
Caros posted:JRod. I for one am actually happy to move the topic beyond the racist tendencies of your philosophers. We've reached the point where everything has been said that can be said on the matter. No one reading this thread will be convinced by your non-arguments, regarding this issue, but the thread is becoming a bit of a circle jerk. In fairness of actually giving you a new topic to stick your foot in I'm actually going to offer you several options below as to what I think would be a good source of future discussion. you can pick from them if you want, or you can try something else, I'm just going to offer them to you. However, before that I do want to touch on one teeny, tiny little thing. I'm not going to respond to the stuff you said about Molyneux right now. I don't want to get sucked into that diversion. I'll say that I do know about Reason Magazine. They are not my favorites to say the least. I am not particularly a fan of any of the Koch funded libertarian outlets. Some of the Reason people do good work but I don't read them usually. It was a "weird bit of grammer failure". I know Reason Magazine. I don't know about the "Pro apartheid" or holocaust denial articles that were published in the 1970s. That is what I meant to say. I wasn't born when these articles were published. It may be true that they gave a platform to some hateful people. I don't think its fair to judge Reason magazine today for some stupid article they published forty years ago though. I already wrote two posts about criminal justice but I'd rather talk about Gary Chartier for a minute. Yes, I think he could be considered a "left" libertarian, but I've read his work and our views are not that far apart. He calls himself an anarchist and he wrote a recent book called "The Conscience of an Anarchist". He did indeed abandon libertarianism to join the left proper for a decade or so but he is one of us again and he does use that experience to sell libertarian ideas to those on the left. Consider this recent article on Mises.org about Gary Chartier: http://mises.org/daily/5355/the-anarchist-conscience Quite complimentary. Gary Chartier has been interviewed on Tom Wood's show and he contributes to the Mises Institute website and I've even seen his articles on LewRockwell.com. He certainly is more left-leaning than someone like Hoppe, but the substance of his ideas are quite close to what I believe. He's not the only one either. There is an entire tradition of libertarians, even libertarian anarchists who make arguments that appeal to the left. Consider this article that Sheldon Richman wrote: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libertarian-left/
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:56 |
|
So to sum up dispute resolution: Have a contract with a dispute resolver in the tagline! If the dispute resolvers in your area are corrupt, just run away! That's totally justified, and correct to do. Don't worry that lots of people might have to disappear this way, there's a whole area of the map just for you. If that fails, start your own dispute resolution service, promising never to be corrupt! This will be a great idea as long as no-one notices and you never have any greed, and whatever inordinate fine was just levied on you in this example hasn't left you completely destitute and therefore unable to start up a loving business. Otherwise someone might corrupt you, and then you'll have to compete with the next guy to start up their own disupte resolver! Never mind that the old one is still around and has more resources and more backing than you, as proven by the fact that they were given enough money to go straight evil. You'll do fine, champ! Also there are national registries of debt trustworthiness but it's private and therefore better than a government system which would be identical except it would run on taxes WHICH ARE THEFT. Also this This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. Which kind of amazingly ignores the historical fact of company towns where the residents are paid in scrip and all of the businesses are privately owned by the company. Also it nicely dodges the issue of cartels. Which, fair enough, cartels aren't even real. To sum up police and courts: Coercion protection services! Basically protection payments to the mob, but these ones have Also there are competing law services out there, but they'd probably all end up identical because of course they would. Also the highest value would be honesty, because customers would go elsewhere if it wasn't, of course. And there would be capital punishment in some laws even though it would be banned from others, even though that would mean that some arbitration services are straight-up able to kill people even though that's against the law according to other arbitration services. And what would solve that? Money! Anti-death-penalty courts would just pay death penalty courts to not kill people! It's a good thing literally everyone in this society can choose to run away whenever they feel like not paying the mob to install cameras in their homes, and then drag them in front of their personal court to sentence them to have all their money given to the mob before they're executed because it turns out they like pre-apocalypse Bruce Springsteen and this is a Ke$ha town. Oh, and running away? That's also against the law, and yes, this security company is in the security cartel. Jesus, man, think these things through. You'd think your heroes would have.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 07:57 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I don’t know how this concept could be made any clearer. Civilization itself depends, literally, on the enforcement of private property rights. The reality of scarcity and the conflict that scarcity naturally produces means that the first owner, or the earlier owner of some scarce resource should have a better claim to authority over its use than anyone else. And the transfer of that scarce resource to a subsequent owner can only occur through voluntary sale, gift or trade. But you no longer have a State, no central court, no central police, no central authority. How, then, can you enforce anything? Because not everyone is going to go along with your gentlemans agreement and accept the authority of Dispute Resolution Firm #46363. Wouldn't the enforcement of such a firm be against Libertarian principle anyway, since a third party is enforcing it's will on you and making you do things you don't want to. The whole premise of libertarianism is contradictory, since your private proptry rights cannot, generally, be enforced except by.....force itself. I note that you've refused to answer my post before and ignored the failings I've pointed out to you. Not such a perfect philosophy if you choose when to defend it and when not to. I.e why should I, a businessman, care what Stan has done to you or anyone else, as long as I can ensure Stan's compliance in any agreement (and I would naturally do so, knowing his past through some magical authority who has the ability to alert everyone everywhere to someone's "contract-rating" lolohgod) I really wouldn't care. If this is what your whole system hinges on to not fall on its face and be devoured by the hordes willing to abuse it, you're in for a shock. CrazyTolradi fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:09 |
|
Somfin posted:Which kind of amazingly ignores the historical fact of company towns where the residents are paid in scrip and all of the businesses are privately owned by the company. Also it nicely dodges the issue of cartels. Which, fair enough, cartels aren't even real. IIRC the last time jrodz curled out a thread into D&D he had literally zero knowledge of the historical fact of company towns and company scrip. Also the standard libertarian boilerplate to cartel behaviour is that cartel behaviour can only exist because of the State, because Reasons.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:12 |
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:IIRC the last time jrodz curled out a thread into D&D he had literally zero knowledge of the historical fact of company towns and company scrip. The standard handwave is to declare that monopolies will dissolve on their own as a matter of course and that if they don't it's because of The State
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:14 |
|
CrazyTolradi posted:But you no longer have a State, no central court, no central police, no central authority. How, then, can you enforce anything? Because not everyone is going to go along with your gentlemans agreement and accept the authority of Dispute Resolution Firm #46363. Wouldn't the enforcement of such a firm be against Libertarian principle anyway, since a third party is enforcing it's will on you and making you do things you don't want to. Yeah but see you agreed and you wouldn't have agreed if they weren't both trustworthy and honest and didn't go to the Nines Law Firm (home of TV's Judge Stemblammer!) and didn't enforce their decisions through the enforcement wing of Overarch Coercion Protection (We're the only ones for three hundred miles in any direction! Check a map!) who only take a reasonable 74% of your income as a fee. And they're letting you off easy for this, because litigation in their system usually raises your rates to 84% for eight months, but you gave them a kid to test new steroids and training methods on so they're dropping it to 82% for nine months. That's a whole lot of savings! Pretty soon you'll have enough gold to pay off the loan on your house that you had to take out because taking out a loan on your house every year is part of the Nines' new law book. It's a deal they've got worked out through the Bleedemdry loan arrangement service. Hey, at least you're better than those shitbirds out in South Texas. Their coercion protection firm takes 93% of all income, cash only, otherwise you get the electric chair for breaking the local ordinances against not paying 93% of your income to Death's Head Coercion Protection (with the infamous Rodeo Snipers!). Somfin fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:16 |
|
icantfindaname posted:"Resources are scarce, therefore the resources should belong in their entirety to a small number of wealthy individuals" You are a piece of work "icantfindaname", seriously. Your responses are juvenile and filled with hyperbole. I went out of my way to stress that if the "status quo" has stolen their resources then we absolutely should upset the status quo. In the United States in 2014, the status quo is literally drowning in stolen loot expropriated from the taxpayers by the State. The large banks are flush will stolen loot. The military industrial complex is flush with stolen loot. The big corporations are flush will stolen loot and ill gotten gains due to State granted monopolies. You're drat right I want to upset this status quo. But your reading comprehension skills are lacking, so I am not surprised you wouldn't grasp my position even though I have spent a dozen pages articulating it.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:18 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I am not surprised you wouldn't grasp my position even though I have spent one page articulating it and eleven pages getting massively offended by people calling my various libertarian jerk pillows racist. I can't wait to hear what you think of my summaries, jrodefeld.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:22 |
|
How would the radio spectrum not become an overlapping clusterfuck of interference in a libertarian society?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:24 |
|
fibblins posted:How would the radio spectrum not become an overlapping clusterfuck of interference in a libertarian society? Or any kind of overall communications infrastructure, or any kind of infrastructure at all for that instance. How am I supposed to know that Stan is a two time double crossing no gooder when I'm only on Dialemup's local area internetwork, but it doesn't connect to Speedyspeedo's tincan and string phone service that the Contract Rating company uses in the area he usually operates in? And why can't Stan just bribe the contract rating company with a take of his scam earnings? For the right price, surely they'd be able to come to an arrangement. It is, after all, a free market society. Bribery, scamming, racketeering, extortion, what a wonderful system! You'd almost think the people who came up with it had no idea about human nature and could only see the universe from their own view!
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:27 |
jrodefeld posted:I want to speak more broadly about private property rights. Many of you seem to think that enforcing private property rights (i.e. using force against a trespasser) is inherently an act of aggression rather than an act of defense. Then you go on to state that therefore libertarianism is not really about voluntarism and nonaggression but is in fact a justification for violence under the guise of “private property”. I grew up on hill farms in Scotland. Hill walkers would walk on the land without the laird's permission, which is perfectly legal in Scotland so long as you don't cause any damage, litter, leave gates open etc. Should the laird have been able to stop them? Would restricting people's freedom of movement out of respect for a rich guy's owndership rights make my country more free? "scarcity" doesn't matter in this instance; they weren't stopping him profiting off the farm workers' labour by walking on the land.
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:28 |
|
fibblins posted:How would the radio spectrum not become an overlapping clusterfuck of interference in a libertarian society? Oh! This actually reminds me of a fun piece of Libertarian Fanfic I read a while back. One of the plot points was that radio ended up being completely unusable due to interference, so everything had to run via wires, or terrible lovely IR transmitters.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:30 |
|
jrodefeld posted:You are a piece of work "icantfindaname", seriously. Your responses are juvenile and filled with hyperbole. I went out of my way to stress that if the "status quo" has stolen their resources then we absolutely should upset the status quo. In the United States in 2014, the status quo is literally drowning in stolen loot expropriated from the taxpayers by the State. The large banks are flush will stolen loot. The military industrial complex is flush with stolen loot. The big corporations are flush will stolen loot and ill gotten gains due to State granted monopolies. Dissolving the state will just allow these entities to keep their stolen loot by becoming the new power in the land. If all this stolen property should be returned to the people then who will enforce said redistribution? There is no loving framework here, no judge, no legal system to make decisions, no bureaucracy or enforcement agency to carry out any decisions. It's loving nothing. Axetrain fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:32 |
|
Axetrain posted:Dissolving the state will just allow these entities to keep their stolen loot by becoming the new power in the land. If all this stolen property should be returned to the people then who will enforce said redistribution? Obviously a private arbitration company, which would have absolutely no conflict of interest given that it has to operate on free market principles and has just been entrusted with all of the wealth in the entire world.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:35 |
|
Yeah guys I'm a rebel, a real revolutionary. That's why I advocate for the abolishment of things people today actually want, like schools and clean air. Real hero of the common person.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:37 |
|
Somfin posted:Obviously a private arbitration company, which would have absolutely no conflict of interest given that it has to operate on free market principles and has just been entrusted with all of the wealth in the entire world. I get that you understand that this is ridiculous but how can Libertarians not understand that these "DRAs" or whatever just become the new government.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:38 |
|
This is kind of from the first page, but as a general question, if a private company builds a road, then it seems to be a reasonable expectation to pay a toll to the company for using that road. If the state builds a road, why are taxes then not considered an acceptable means of paying for the use such state-built roads? To expound the point a little further, if the problem with taxes is that they are used to pay for state-provided assets and services that an individual taxpayer might not need nor use, would the Libertarian viewpoint still have a problem with very specifically itemized taxes?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:39 |
|
Axetrain posted:I get that you understand that this is ridiculous but how can Libertarians not understand that these "DRAs" or whatever just become the new government. We've got one in the thread. Let's ask him. jrodefeld, would you, could you, pretty please, explain the difference between a privately-owned dispute resolution authority and a government?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:41 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is kind of from the first page, but as a general question, if a private company builds a road, then it seems to be a reasonable expectation to pay a toll to the company for using that road. If the state builds a road, why are taxes then not considered an acceptable means of paying for the use such state-built roads? It's been said before but I'm starting to be sure that when it boils down to it that Libertarians are fine with taxation/government force, they are just upset that said taxes aren't just going straight into their bank accounts.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:43 |
|
Listen. We could totally smash the state as it exists today, and it still wouldn't make your sociopathic hyper individualist nightmare any more palatable. In my utopic dreams I hope for a consensus driven democracy, something like an updated Iroquois Confederacy, that would force links between different groups to bind the whole together. But even they had enforcement of law when they needed it. Your system is basically just feudalism again. You haven't escaped the state, just regressed it.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:44 |
|
Somfin posted:We've got one in the thread. Let's ask him. As a free market entity, the privately-owned DRA/DRO would clearly refuse any bribes..surely?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:45 |
|
|
# ? May 6, 2024 03:11 |
|
CrazyTolradi posted:As a free market entity, the privately-owned DRA/DRO would clearly refuse any bribes..surely? Of course, otherwise they'd get scammer tags.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:47 |