The Libertarian Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Libertarian Thread

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 6, 2024 02:21

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Axetrain posted:

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.

It does seem like Libertarians don't really have a problem with someone having a "monopoly on force" per se, just that it happens to be "the state" that's wielding it and not a private company and not them.

On Stefan Molyneux:

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 11:07

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

TheRamblingSoul posted:

On a more serious note, how does a DRO not constitute a state authority besides mental handwaving and moving goal posts to satisfy the emotional need for "logical consistency" by libertarians for their own made up rules? At the heart of it, it just seems like one giant head game to confuse people into thinking human compassion is illogical and should be rejected to embrace selfishness, authoritarianism, and violence as the stable state of human experience.

I believe the idea is that the Libertarian will be in control of a DRO so he can turn "state authority" into a tool for his own purposes.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2014 15:07

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

For anyone else keeping score, the rest of our dear OP's posts in the Mike Brown thread:

jrodefeld posted:

I think that is a pretty unfair blanket statement to make. "White people dislike black people". I'm not denying that real, systemic racism exists but I don't believe that most average white people dislike black people and they certainly wouldn't go out of their way to hurt them the way these out of control skinhead State-employed thugs do. Race is certainly a part of the motivation for why these majority white police terrorize certain communities but I think the larger reason is the lack of power that these people have. They are easy victims. The Drug War has a lot to do with creating this mentality.

I don't understand why you wouldn't expect that if the community had choices about who they feel comfortable protecting them that would lead to the same level of brutality. If for no other reason that a narrow interest in seeking profits, a private defense agency who is representing a community would want to keep their customers reasonably happy. If you have the choice to simply refuse to pay a defense agency who is providing nothing of value to you, then that automatically compels more discipline on the part of the defense agencies that are seeking your business. There is a very real cost to abusing your customers in a market with multiple competing firms whereas with a State monopoly people have absolutely no choice. The salary of the police are paid through tax dollars. And you have no choice but to pay those taxes because their collection is backed up by force.

Now, suppose that the community in question thinks the primary motivating factor contributing to police brutality is race and even with a competing private defense contractor, white people would use the opportunity to oppress the black community. Then they would likely choose to hire a black owned defense agency. Maybe a prominent black leader within the community will lead and be an entrepreneur and start a small scale business to provide security for the community? Someone who lives among the people, someone who they trust.

I'm not saying that allowing competition and choice for the community about who they would like to serve them and protect the peace is a panacea for all potential problems. But there are only two alternatives. A State monopolized police system or a competing private defense system where the community has a choice among multiple agencies who can represent them.

I don't think there is a single other scenario where you would defend a monopoly over free competition. You would probably be up in arms if and when a Wal Mart comes to town and drives out multiple mom and pop businesses. This would be a bad situation because the power and leverage Wal Mart possesses due to their monopoly privilege means that they could jack up prices, reduce the quality of their product and service and abuse their customers to a level they would never tolerate if they had options.

Why doesn't this same sound logic apply to a service so vital as providing protection and keeping the peace? After all, Wal Mart won't actually kill you they'll just provide poor customer service. The State monopolized Police will murder blacks in cold blood and get away with it. They will lock down a community in Marshall Law. The stakes are a little bit higher.

jrodefeld posted:

I understand the anger. Anyone would feel the same in a situation where innocents are being prayed upon by predatory thugs dressed in military armor. However I think it will prove to be counterproductive for the cause of reform if the looting gets out of hand. The protesters need to remain non violent as much as possible. If the police are literally assaulting you, you have every right to fight back. Don't tolerate that. But stand your ground, articulate your concerns in an intelligent way and remain peaceful. It is important for the people watching from afar to know who the real aggressors are.

jrodefeld posted:

There is a big difference between Corporate Fascism and a free market. But seriously, take a good look at what socialized police services has produced! An emerging police state, a war on drugs, entire communities that fear being murdered by an occupying force, and escalating incidents of abuse and racism. And no real accountability or productive change for the better.

I would like to expand the range of choices for people who have very few to begin with.

jrodefeld posted:

You are absolutely right. The State and private sector are more and more indistinguishable due to State privilege and corporate special interest lobbying. But small businesses still exist in this country. Entrepreneurs still make a go of it despite the legal obstacles placed in their path.

But you should know by now that, as an anarchist, I oppose the existence of the State and I would favor every effort to reduce its size, influence, and power.

But I would indeed not favor any sort of "privatization" that involves government grants, subsidies and special favors. The last thing we want or need is a military contractor, paid with tax dollars, substituting for local police. We don't need Blackwater policing our small towns. That is not privatization. That is just another example of State police protection, albeit one that benefits a certain special interest.

What I want is for the State to remove itself from the business of police protection. Then permit the people who actually live in those communities to decide what they should do for their collective defense. Then they should choose to pay for a contractor or defense company of their choosing. If the State were involved in any way in this decision, or artificially limited the choices available to that community, I would consider this NOT a free market and not representative of what I am proposing.

jrodefeld posted:

Wait, so I'm not supposed to start up a thread just for myself AND I'm not supposed to contribute to existing threads? I had some things to say about this incident in particular. I'm not taking over the thread, I just posted a couple of times. Believe me, I'll go back to the libertarian thread and continue that discussion.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2014 14:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Libertarian Thread