|
My objection with libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism boils down to one question. "Who decides?" Who decides if a road gets built? Who decides what is scientific fact and what is hoopla? Who decides what we teach our children? Who decides that a given killing was just or unjust? Who decides that gold is valuable? In democracy, the politicians decide. In an ideal democracy, the politicians decide based on what their constituents want, because they accurately represent the wishes of their constituents. Yes, the current system isn't perfect, but it works. How the hell does anarcho-capitalism fix this issue of someone needing to decide something for the sake of everyone? How the hell does libertarianism do the same? jrodefield, why do you drive on roads or walk on sidewalks?
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It's not slavery. If parents having authority over children is akin to slavery, then all children are slaves since their parents set rules that they are supposed to abide by. If a five year old supposedly asserts his self ownership by running away, should the parents be permitted to go get him and take him home against his will? Of course they should. A child is not a fully formed adult. Children don't have the intellectual capacity and ability to make rational decisions and it is correct for them to not have the same rights as adults. Ah, discussion of rights without discussion of responsibilities. Of course children are "kind of like" the slaves of their parents. That's a great way to discuss the nuanced and complicated issue of childrearing. E: Answer the next post's question.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It is, as long as you sell yourself or your children into it. Hoppe supports it And it's a great thing that this libertopia will have a strong police and court system to make sure that no-one is coerced into "willingly selling" themselves into Oh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No it doesn't. To say "defending people or property requires the initiation of violence" is a contradiction in terms. Defensive violence is not initiatory. You have to have a coherent understanding of what legitimate property rights are before you can determine what is initiatory and what is defensive violence. Defensive violence must be proportional otherwise it becomes initiatory. If you shoot someone who is trespassing on your property you are committing aggression. The act of trespass is a far less serious act of aggression than shooting someone. If you tell someone they are trespassing and you make every effort to politely ask them to leave your property, then you are justified in using force to get them to leave. Who determines whether or not an act was defensive or initiatory? E: Looking for either a name or a role, here. Somfin fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, stealing the drugs would constitute an act of aggression. The fact that I would do the same in his position does not make me a hypocrite, nor does it make the non aggression principle invalid. Rather, it illustrates that desperate people without choices resort to whatever is necessary to maintain their life, even resorting to acts of aggression. Any reasonable system of justice would take into account these extenuating circumstances while still not excusing the violation of private property rights. Apparently you have trouble taking short posts seriously. Who determines whether or not an act was defensive or initiatory? What "justice system" (your exact words) would your libertopia have? What authority would that justice system have? Who decides any of this?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Caros posted:So you're going with option B. You are arguing that it is an inherently immoral act to steal from someone even to preserve your own life, but that you would, and you expect that anyone would in fact take that immoral action. It's the same brand of logic by which anti-abortion activists who believe that life begins at conception and the fetus has total rights are still okay with abortions in cases of incest or rape. They shouldn't be, because those fetuses are just as conceived and rights-granted as normal fetuses, but they know that that's what they'd want to be able to do. They also know they're too smart and rich and (usually) white to have any of the other extenuating circumstances under which abortions are performed. This is called holding two ideas in your head that are completely incompatible and not being able to realise that they are incompatible. And just in case you "skimmed" over my posts before, Jrodefeld, What "justice system" (your exact words) would your libertopia have? What authority would it have? Who would pay for it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
You really like tackling those straw men you set up for yourself, jrodefeld. Mind explaining how the justice system would work in a libertarian anarchy? Practical details, please. If you're not too busy shouting about how you're not a racist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
demonicon posted:Anarchy and or libertarianism just leads to monarchy, leads to feudalism, leads to democracy. Leads to dipshits thinking that without a justice system we'll have perfect justice because the perfect is BETTER than the good so WHY DO WE BOTHER WITH THE GOOD ANYWAY HUH
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Repeat after me, Time Preference has nothing to do with laziness! Time preference has nothing to do with laziness. Time preference has everything to do with perceptions of intelligence. Saving for the future is considered smarter than spending money now. Why do you insist on using "African culture" and "Negroid" as if those are useful terms? Do you really know that little about Africa? It's a loving continent you goddamned racist dolt. It'd be like me saying that I hate North America because everyone talks in that stupid slow drawl. Or saying that I hate Asia because everyone eats kimchi.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Tell me, jrodefeld, what is "African culture?" You're not a racist, you should be able to tell me that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The anarchist society would become a beautiful tapestry of different experiments in social order and organization. Each community will develop differently based on their values. People will have an endless variety of choices of where to live based on their values and cultural characteristics. Ah yes, because as soon as everyone has to pay for everything that anyone else provides, mobility will massively increase! The homeless will
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you know the definition to words, that means you're a racist. Got it. That sarcasm sounds awfully "collectivist," jrodefeld. Are you sure you're a real libertarian?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:would you notice differences in average IQ Oh okay you're fine with using IQ as the test for intelligence. Shine on you crazy racist diamond. Just admit that you and your heroes are all massive racists and we can move on to dealing with the problems of trying to institute a justice system in a libertopia.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted: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. Let's expand on this point. Anyone who has to come up with more than one explanation for why a thing they said isn't racist might just have said something racist. Anyone who has to come up with more than one explanation for why someone isn't a racist person is probably defending a racist. If you spend more time in your thread about loving economic systems explaining why you and your heroes are not racist than you spend explaining your economic system, you and your heroes are probably racist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you think the public outrage would be like if a prominent store chain instituted an open racially discriminatory policy? In a libertopia? No loving clue. You haven't explained why libertarianism will erase racism. In fact, without Government support and enforced integration, I suspect that a huge number of your libertopian enclaves will be far more racist than any community is able to be right now. If I state that on my property anyone with a skin tone darker than my tea is an object of property and mine to use as I wish, permanently, and I make that clear via posted warning signs, is it violence for me to enforce the rules of the property which I have stated, should a black person happen to be on my property?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Tell us why as a libertarian you worked for the city of santa barbara from 2006-2008 And then explain why you keep talking about your libertopia's justice system and police forces.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm leaving because I can't accept my racism or that of anyone I read Ah yes, "I win the argument and the argument is over because I can't actually convince you of anything because you're all big meanies." A better writer would have said "Let's agree to disagree." Instead you went the full nine yards and declared that your position was never even challenged and that we're all whiny losers. You've spent ten pages of this thread responding to nothing but the racism accusations, despite dozens of other questions being asked, and now you're saying that we're obsessed with racism. But anyway. How about you explain why you use the words "justice system" and "police" to describe a society in which neither exist?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:He already has, you have to literally believe they are inferior and state so. It's hilarious how naive it is. State it directly, in uncomplicated language, and without any actual metrics to back up your position. As long as you say that they have different fecundal temporality according to citable (but strangely uncited) studies, that's different than saying that they're too stupid to plan for the future, which means it's not racism. As long as you can point to a study that backs you up, you're right, and if you're right, you can't be racist. Incidentally, this is why libertarians are not racist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:In short, you made the bed and preceded to poo poo in it yourself, so it's not our fault that you have to lie in it now. Hey, that's not fair. He doesn't need to come back. But it'd be better if he did.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
It'd be more like an amusement park. An amusement park with bored stoners for ride operators and free two-by-fours and energy drinks for all attendees. And the authorities dress up like clowns and load people onto catapults on an increasingly less random basis, and we can only claim that, in the history of the park, most of these clowns haven't turned out to be child molesters. And for a long while anyone who went into one part of the park came out green and smelly without any real explanation why. And every now and again, usually when a tidal wave has swept through and shat radioactive waste all over the park so it needs to get shut down while the radium gets cleaned out of it, we form a gang and go to some kid's house where he's shooting a film of his Lego blocks, and we shout at him until he builds a Goku with his Lego blocks. Why it is always a Goku is never explained, because the attendees have a notorious hatred for every animated work that comes out of Japan, to the point where an entire sewer system was built onto the park just to house the people who like them. This sewer system has since become a self-sustaining ball of filth and hatred the likes of which our little park could never understand. And there's an art station and the only thing anyone draws is the same guy prolapsing his rear end in a top hat and pictures of things causing 9/11 and totally-ironic-you-guys Nazi iconography, regardless of what the theme is this week or what the medium is. And almost everyone in the amusement park is incredibly scornful and hateful toward the people who go downtown and the people who hang out in the public gardens because those places are free, and one of them includes a vocal minority of people who wish they were african-american blue-furred cats and got an extra hour in a ball pit, and the other one includes a vocal minority of people who wear dumb hats and hate women because they don't gently caress weirdos in dumb hats. And we think we're better because we paid ten dollars and we have the clowns who load people onto catapults. And every now and again someone really stupid shows up and shouts about how stupid they are and one of the clowns threatens to load them onto the catapult unless they roll around in a pile of poo poo for two hours, and immediately dozens of people start rolling around in the poo poo, and the threat becomes that unless the stupid person can roll around in the poo poo in a more thorough and evocative manner than the dozens of people who are already rolling around in the poo poo, they'll be put on the catapult, and this is not seen as a humiliating or debasing behaviour even when the guy inevitably leaves. And one of the great marks of superiority is exactly how long ago you bought your ticket into the park and how many times you've been loaded into the catapult without being flung all the way out of the park. The date you bought your ticket is tattooed onto your forehead when you first arrive and if it's recent it will be a source of endless mockery for no established reason. God help you if you try to set up a stall or a discussion house in the park with a date on your forehead that's from less than two years ago. And you can go to the mask shop and buy a cheap mask for yourself, or you can pay a lot more money to have one of the clowns run over and staple a mask to someone else's face. Traditionally, for no fuckin' reason, this is accompanied by a large red neon banner explaining exactly what it was that led you to the conclusion that paying ten dollars so that a clown will staple a mask to their face was the best option available to you. And after a long and particularly stupid discussion in which a couple dozen shitheads with nothing better to do shout at a man with cotton balls stuffed into his ears, you swagger on up here and say that this is a hopeful view of what people can achieve without force. But by all means, I'm sure we're a great example of exactly what society will become when force is replaced with bannings and probations. Somfin fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:But I mean with government regulators instead of mods. The website would be on servers like the ACA exchanges. Do you think that would be an improvement? Wait you think that Something Awful is hosted on some awesome private server and would have more problems if it was hosted on government-regulated servers? E: Wait you think that Something Awful is currently immune to government oversight?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Personally, I think it's adorable that you all think that the state helps poor people more than it steals from them. Well tell us mister high horse up there on your high horse, how would the poors benefit if there were no services available for them?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:I'm asking a simple question. Would SA be better if it was directly run by government? All right, then, smartypants, how do you think it would be different? E: And please, answer without using cliches. Direct answers only.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Ronald Reagan ballooned fedgov spending. Personally, I think tax rates are irrelevant on a federal level because of the government's printing press and small government folks are not focusing on the important issues by talking about it, but that's kind of a complicated issue that is a bit O/T. How would SA be different if it were run by the government?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Their incentives would be warped. Their priority would probably be keeping SA more family friendly. They would probably make it more simplified so it would be easier for them to mod. They(presumably) wouldn't have years of experience on the boards understanding the members and how things work around here. Assuming they had arrest powers, some jerk regulator could go on a power trip and arrest a goon. I'm gonna break this response up. Their incentives would be warped. Warped how? Their priority would probably be keeping SA more family friendly. Why the hell would they do that? That's something that private companies who want to target families and children do. They would make it more simplified so it would be easier for them to mod. Wait are you saying that a wasteful bureaucratic government would make things simpler? They wouldn't have years of experience... Have you met a government employee? They know all the ways around the system, they know all the customers. Also, well done moving the goalposts to make this a government takeover rather than the government having always run SA. Assuming they had arrest powers, some jerk regulator could go on a power trip and arrest a goon. You think that goons are protected by some form of anonymity on here? This is your worst-case scenario? A simpler, easier-to-use site with somewhat subtler 9/11 references in its photoshop contests, with a new staff of moderators (none of which would be Aatrek) able to come down harder on idiots, and undefined 'warped incentives?' Right now, the site's 'incentive' is to make money. That's why you paid five bucks for your spangly new avatar, rather than getting it for free. You're gonna need to work harder to scare me, Socrates16.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Of course, otherwise they'd get scammer tags. Unless their personal law office declared scammer tags illegal. Which it would of course have no reason to do as it isn't getting any money from the oh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Caros posted:The bizzare thing to me is that they don't see it. I guarantee you that Jrodefeld is going to come back and if he says anything on the topic at all its going to be that I'm totally wrong, and that the essay there is not a full throated suggestion of a totalitarian nightmare, because people 'voluntarily' choose to do business with these companies. And that he's won the argument and he's leaving the thread again and he doesn't want to see the issue brought up ever again because he doesn't want to deal with it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted: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 I love how the example that they give included surveillance, but it's totes okay when my
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Oh wow. That's a hell of a cat to let out of a bag, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted: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 America is full of people trying to play the "Freemen on the Land" card in our court system, and the court system absorbs the hit and moves on, punishing the idiots for their idiocy in the process. That is because it is a system designed specifically to deal with outlying cases and dumb fuckers trying to exploit the foibles of the system. We have entire cities full of people whose jobs are to think really hard about ways people will exploit our existing systems and figure out ways to either justify that exploitation or prevent it. We have entire industries made up of people who have done nothing with their lives but learn the labyrinthine subsystems- subsystems that we have put in place to prevent people loving with the system- so well that they can freely dance through it without a single penalty. And the system accounts for these people too. It checks their power. It is loving robust. From what we've seen in this thread, a libertopia- whether an exploitative one or a benign one- would fall if a single guy decided not to play along and nod and smile and act as a perfectly informed perfectly rational individual. Which would happen, because everyone has a 'gently caress the system' gene in them somewhere, and some small part of all of us wants to see what happens when the five thousand cards in this carefully balanced house come tumbling down.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Also, please respond to Also please explain why my assessment of DRO stuff is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If you were literate, you'd turn into a libertarian. QED If you were literate, you'd read what jrodfeld posts and realise he's a moron. We continue debate with him as if he was reading what we were writing. Therefore, we must not be able to read.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:We could always discuss my proposed Road Warrior Economy. I think it has some merit provided you can maintain a 24/7 state of alertness for the rest of your life. I propose an economy based on emptyquotes and apologetic D&D not-quite emptyquote accessories.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 07:09
|
|