|
When someone says that they're libertarian this story immediately runs through my head:quote:I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Also, in a stateless world who resolves disputes, from where do they draw their authority, and how do they enforce their decisions?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
quote:If you are a frontiersman and you come across previously unowned and unused natural land and you build a house, build a fence, graze cattle and plant crops, then that which you altered through your labor becomes your property. That is, no one has a better claim to maintain final decision making authority over that scarce resource than you. Who gets to decide whether a piece of natural land was unused before you built your house, fence, etc? If I decide that your front yard is unused natural land and place some cattle on it because you haven't mowed the lawn in awhile, how do you respond?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Also, since I am putting it out there explicitly that I am a libertarian market anarchist, I would appreciate it if you could first tell me what your views are. Are you a social democrat? A Marxist? A left anarchist like Noam Chomsky (are there any of those on this site)? Why does that matter? The viewpoint of your opponent does not change the validity of their arguments. You need to be able to debate your position on its own merits. quote:If someone murdered your wife or family member would you want that person dead? What punishment would you think is just? Maybe, like me, you oppose capital punishment on moral grounds. Then you should have the right to have the person physically removed from society as punishment for the murder. What if someone murdered your wife and someone else's, and that other victim believes that capital punishment is the only suitable solution? What if he murdered 1000 wives and each person had an opinion on what was justified as a punishment?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not saying it does. A discussion is a two way street though. But it is pretty easy for a critic to sit back and nitpick about every possible issue that could arise in a proposed political order, but what is their alternative? The way to critique a proposal is not to point out that some difficult issue might arise, but rather how does a proposed society compare to any other valid alternatives? The issue is one of comparison. This is the libertarian thread, so it makes sense to talk about libertarianism here. If you want to discuss other systems, then that either belongs in threads belonging to those other systems or in a thread about these kinds of systems in general. quote:I don't know what the optimal solution is to this dilemma. Fortunately I don't have to know. Why the gently caress not? Don't you want to talk about libertarianism? If your first response to my first argument is "uhh I don't know I'm sure it'll all work out for reasons" then you're basically just wasting everyone's time quote:In an anarchist society, private arbitration services will compete for your patronage. The justice system in a libertarian world will be geared towards restitution but each arbitration service will have stipulations and policies regarding situations like this. Maybe the most recent victim will have a greater say in the punishment. Maybe a democratic vote from the victims of the murderer will rule the day. There are many viable possibilities. Who runs the justice system? What if I decide that I'm the only valid judge and that all decisions made by your justice system are invalid? If someone kills your family and that guy does not consent to be judged by your justice system, then are you allowed to initiate violence upon his person? What if he kills himself before you can initiate violence, can you initiate violence on his family, or take his belongings, or something? What happens if I bribe the arbitration service that we're using? What if I walk into the court room and say right to your face "I've bribed the judge" and he permits me to kill you as retribution for wasted my time with a frivolous lawsuit? This is all completely legal in your system. What if I take you to an arbitration service and bribe the judge to give me all of your stuff? You've obligated to agree based on whatever stupid contract you signed with the arbitration service, right? What else could you do, would you initiate violence on my person? You've basically exchanged "might makes right" with "buying power makes right", which is hosed up. When you let everything be dictated by market forces alone then you create a really lovely place. quote:I oppose capital punishment not because I think some people don't deserve death but because I believe that spiritually everyone should have the opportunity to make amends for their actions. Whether they make any effort to seriously repent is unknowable but everyone should have the opportunity in my view. Also, I think the idea of revenge is an understandable impulse but it is still not healthy for society. But if another victim strongly favored the death penalty and I couldn't convince them otherwise, I would allow them to make the final determination. I don't really care why you oppose capital punishment but okay
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is a huge difference between voluntary democracy and coercive democracy. If you are hanging out with a group of friends and you say "who wants to go see a movie?" and a majority say yes, then that is a form of democracy. No one is compelling you to do anything. In the case of an arbitration agency that is representing the victims of aggression, this would all be stipulated in the contract and terms of service that those people agreed to. It is not compulsory. A) Criminal commits a crime B) You hire an arbitration service C) Arbitration service demands that the criminal pay you restitution D) Criminal tells arbitration service to gently caress off, because he is his own person and you can't compel him, and he's innocent anyway What now? Guess your society is just hosed?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Without public education, you wind up with a permanent underclass that is unable to advance in society due to no access to education. This is bad for the economy and bad for the society. You have difficulty understanding economics and history, but I thought that you'd at least have okay reading comprehension
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
OP, do you believe that the government banning lead-based additives to gasoline was unreasonable aggression and that burning lead should be permitted? Free market, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Not the best example there, Captain not-so-glib. I believe that that's an intentional misspelling.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
OP, have you ever seriously considered moving to one of the world's many stateless paradises?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm going to focus on the charge of racism that you made towards the libertarians "because this is an issue that I feel comfortable discussing and I have no counterarguments for anything else" Surely I'm not the only one who has notices that you refuse to discuss anything except for accusations made toward specific libertarians. Any real criticism of your retarded libertarian philosophy has been completely ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Libertarianism permits me to kill a man and press his wife and children into slavery. Yes, this is a violation of the nonaggression principle. But who's going to stop me? If the local privatized police forces attempt to come after me, then I can just bribe them to look the other way because there's no governing body that would punish them for accepting bribes. If on a personal basis they won't accept bribes, then I can just go somewhere beyond their jurisdiction. Libertarians know that this is true, but they don't care because they want a world where they can steal, rape, and murder without repercussions. They imagine that they won't be the victims, so it's okay.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Jrodefield what happens when your nonaggression principle is broken in your anarchist society? In the absence of a state, who decides punishment, who enforces that punishment, and who pays for this enforcement? If you had no money to pay for private security or private arbitration, then wouldn't it be de facto legal to rob and murder you in such a society?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Demanding that only white English speakers be able to immigrate here and recognizing that black people have a lower IQ isn't racism you dummies
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Is this just a direct lie on your part or were you really ignorant of that? Said every critic of libertarianism ever. Seriously, it's as though the whole school of thought only retains extreme idiots or pathological liars. Other absurd lies spread by libertarians: 1) Wars only happen because of fiat currency 2) Boom/bust cycles only happen because of government intervention 3) Miscellaneous racist statements 4) Intentional redefinition of terms whenever it suits their purpose, "it's violent for you to walk across my lawn without my permission, but it's not violent for me to shoot you for doing so" 5) Holocaust denial and other attempts at revising hostory
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The reason we're still harping on this, jrodefeld, is that through all of the threads you've started you've yet to demonstrate why and how a libertarian society would shun racism. Sure, "the state did it," but one reason that blacks in the south and in the inner cities have remained poor, is that plenty of private citizens have been racist too, in their hiring, renting, and selling practices. In fact I think we've suggested convincingly (see I'm arguing just like you now!) that in the absence of the state, racism would gain a whole variety of avenues through which it could be expressed. You don't get it, slavery only existed because the state mandated that everyone should own slaves. There are no examples of stateless societies owning slaves. And racism only exists because of the state, too, which is why it's impossible for real libertarians to be racists
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You have the right, in this country, and in every nation where any semblance of private property rights, to expel, violently if necessary, black people from your home or private property. Is this racist? If you are expelling them from your home because they are black, then of course it is! But because a racist could not permit a black person, a Jew, or a Mexican to come to his dinner parties, does that mean we should force all home owners to admit anyone into their homes or private gatherings that we, as a society, would like? When you spend this much time and effort trying to dance around different definitions of racism in an effort to prove that you're not racist, then you're probably a racist. "When Ron Paul wrote that the negro is fleet-flooted, it was intended as a compliment! If that's a racist statement, then all compliments are racist!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm going to take a break posting until tomorrow. When I return I am going to retire the whole "racism" thing. If you want to believe Rothbard and Hoppe are racists, fine. I can't convince you otherwise no matter how much evidence I provide. You haven't provided any evidence showing otherwise you loving shitbag
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:So, basically DRO's are more controlling over our freedoms than a State is? Good to know. And not just a little more controlling, but way more controlling. The idea is basically to have a state that can monitor everyone at all times in order to enforce free market principles, but of course the state won't be allowed to violate those principles (why not? Because). This is anarchy because the agencies that govern every aspect of your life aren't called governments
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
EVE Online is a good example of what happens when libertarianism runs wild. Stealing poo poo that belongs to other people is what everyone does, and war chiefs rise and collapse in extreme violence all the time. As time goes on, people start banding together and creating non-libertarian governments, usually monarchies but Goonswarm decided to form a communist coalition just because it made all of the little libertarian try-hards mad. This was so successful that they're now the leading alliance in the game, owning more conquerable space than anyone else. It turns out that lovely little inter-squabbling libertarian poo poo-holes are no match against a well-organized state. It turns out that people are lovely. People scam and cheat each other even if they gain nothing from doing so. When your philosophy relies on everyone being an economically motivated perfectly rational actor who opposes violence, you've already made so many flawed assumptions that any ideas springing from those assumptions will have no relevance in our world. This is libertarianism, and it is loving stupid. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
If a single person is lovely and doesn't act in perfect economic self-interest then the libertarian model has already failed. And it turns out that a lot of people are lovely
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Maybe what we need is just one person to engage jrod, we all discuss the problems with his libertarian ideas and then we have a single messenger who sends a single pressing issue via PM to jrod. And then that messenger posts jrod's reply in the thread and we repeat the process. That way there are no distractions. I know that this will never work because jrod would just never reply to legitimate problems and would instead just go on a tirade about how DR RON PAUL isn't a racist but I thought it was a cool idea
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:It's a shame forum invasions are frowned upon these days, there aren't enough libertarians here to answer all these great questions. As a freeman on the land and a voluntary participant in the free market of ideas, the illegal FUHRER PRESIDENT FOR LIFE LOWTAX REGIME can't forbid you from seeking out libertarians and telling them how loving stupid they are
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:If my DRO decides that the cost of resolving things in my favor is too great when measured against potential loss from dealing with my enemy's DRO, and all the DRO's use the same industry standard calculations to reach the same conclusion, what are my alternatives? Suicide
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Verus posted:So I was thinking more about DROs just now, and I'm wondering: Haven't you been reading the thread? Everyone in ancap libertopia has 24/7 Literally the only way for the DRO scheme to work is if all crimes are directly observable at all times, such that there is no doubt of guilt or innocence. It also requires assuming that the individuals running these organizations are incorruptible, infallible, and affordable. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Thanks for the reply. I'll freely admit that if you were to keep one welfare program in the brave new negative tax world, it should be Medicare/Medicaid but that's also a relatively smaller program ($700b versus the entire federal welfare/social security budget at around $2.3 trillion). The U.S. prints more than that amount of money a year and so there's no reason why it should have to be funded by As a progressive, I'm generally supportive of a minimum income. But there are some questions to consider, and the answers to these will likely change depending on your political philosophy: To what value do you set the minimum income? How do you deal with shithead conservatives who would want to have the minimum income set way below the poverty line? Or even worse, a shithead Congress that takes a working minimum income and either eliminates it or cuts it such that it places people way below the poverty line? How do you deal with shithead conservatives who believe that people will simply choose not to work? Does the minimum income change based on how many kids you have? Does it change if you have a crippling disability? Is there a limit to these adjustments? You suggested keeping Medicare/Medicaid, but what about people who live in states where Medicaid is poo poo? Do we try to compensate for that? I think that an acceptable answer to these questions is "get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and create a national health service paid for by tax revenue". Do you agree or disagree? Does the minimum income change depending on where you live, due to cost of living differences around the country? How do you feel about the idea that Nixon only wanted a guaranteed minimum income so that it would be easier to eliminate or cut "the nanny state" in the future? A single plan is much easier to eliminate or cut, after all. And an unrelated question: do you believe that Ron Paul is a libertarian, like most do?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 20:42
|
|
taxation through theft
|
isildur posted:Christ, this thread makes me want to devil's advocate for libertarianism, just so it has someone who isn't useless advocating for it. At least the arguments would be more interesting. Socrates16 is already doing that. He keeps trolling the thread and making thinly-veiled arguments in favor of socialism and the schmucks in this thread keep falling over themselves trying to debate him on libertarianism. No one is seriously as stupid as Socrates16 pretends to be e: He said that private enterprise would never lead to rape or slavery, as though that's not exactly what has happened throughout the existence of private enterprise. No one actually believes that libertarianism will end rape. Even actual libertarians don't think that, their counterargument would be more akin to "you hopefully won't be raped, but if you are then it'll be caught on the cameras throughout your house and then your contract with the local DRO will lead to swift justice plus a big cash settlement and you'll be able to retire on a big pile of Ron Paul Liberty Bucks" QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
tbp posted:The banking system hasn't collapsed though. I put the blame more on the government for not enforcing proper regulations than the banks for doing whatever they were allowed. That's like drinking a gallon of bleach and then getting mad at the government for not stopping you So if you believe that the government is responsible in this case, then you would agree that the government should enact better controls on the banks and do a better job of enforcing them, yes? I'm on board with that. We should regulate banks and enforce the gently caress out of those regulations so that poo poo like this can't happen again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
tbp posted:That's not like that, because ultimately there was relatively small amounts of harm for the people in the institutions and those institutions themselves. Then it's like taking ipecac for no reason; all that it does is make you miserable for awhile, but no real harm is done to you. But the loving nanny state should have stopped me from drinking it and having to vomit all morning for nothing quote:And yes, I do. If there was no state, would the banks still not be at fault?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Cheekio posted:Hypocrisy is a pretty common among libertarians who end up needing to rely on a public safety net: If the government hadn't stifled my innovation as a natural-born captain of industry then I wouldn't have had to go on the dole in the first place
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 09:15
|
|