FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: wrongfrog on November 16, 2012, 10:31:28 pm
-
So I found a "progressive libertarianism" page on facebook, and I looked through the pictures & comments to be entertained, and then I found this gem:
you could move. States competing with each other is good for you just like corporations competing for your dollars is good for you. If one state allows same sex marriage and another doesn't all the gay people can move, they can take their labor and their tax money with them, they can vote with their feet. I agree rights should not be up for a vote but there is some reason to the process of state competition.
this is in response to someone claiming that social issues such as LGBT rights should not be left to the states.
Do people not realize how you can't just fucking move if you don't like your state? More often than not, you're fucking stuck where you live if you don't have have an enormous amount of money. And that if you're, say, a teenager, that option is not even on the fucking table? I'm usually OK with Libertarians, but sometimes they say the most delusional bullshit like this. Why do Libertarians seem to think that competition is the one-stop solution to literally any problem? Does this bother anyone else?
-
There is nothing wrong with states having differing policies on particular issues; in fact, that's kind of the whole point of having a federal system.
But expecting this sort of competition to be a pill to cure all ills is pretty ridiculous, especially when dealing with large-scale systemic problems such as human rights abuses, pollution, etc.
-
Yeah, I'm all for some states' rights, but the assertion that states should "compete" with each other with HUMAN FUCKING RIGHTS and that'll somehow fix all our problems is ridiculous and downright delusional.
-
I have no issues with your rebuttal, just your title.
The dumbest thing I've heard from a Libertarian
After reading about the Ron Paul campaigns I can say you've got a long way to learn.
-
Libertarians are supposed to be sticklers about personal liberties when it doesn't harm others. I might be able to make a true No True Scotsman argument about him and Ron Paul.
-
Really? This is the craziest thing you've heard a Libertarian say? Compared to half the shit they say during elections, this seems downright rational. Hell, the way they worship their presidential candidates reeks of cultism.
-
Not the dumbest thing I've heard come from libertarians, but I do have issues with applying this rationale to civil rights issues. You end up with a few states that treat certain groups like human beings, some that treat them like second class citizens, and the rest with lots of rabid fundie grandstanding.
Personally, I wish the Supreme Court would get involved and finally settle the matter. They're supposed to be discussing whether to hear a few cases on same sex marriage on the 20th.
Really? This is the craziest thing you've heard a Libertarian say? Compared to half the shit they say during elections, this seems downright rational. Hell, the way they worship their presidential candidates reeks of cultism.
Not only that, then they turn around and accuse liberals of thinking Obama is the messiah. Must be one of those DARVO deals.
-
Not only that, then they turn around and accuse liberals of thinking Obama is the messiah. Must be one of those DARVO deals.
Libertarians (Ron Paul fanboys in particular) pioneered the information bubble. The conservatives only stole it and perfected it.
-
Even if that line of reasoning worked, that still wouldn't guarantee anything. The existence of poor people on welfare who vote Republican proves that people don't always act logically within their own self-interest. Even if the state suffered a massive loss of jobs from all the gays moving, that wouldn't guarantee that anything would actually change.
-
Man, and here I thought we were talking about Librarians.
-
Maybe we could use this thread to each post the stupidest bit of libertarian cant we've ever heard?
I'll start:
I once read a libertarian seriously argue that the government should deregulate petrol prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy so the people who needed it could get it. Can't find a cite, sadly.
-
I once read a libertarian seriously argue that the government should deregulate petrol prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy so the people who needed it could get it. Can't find a cite, sadly.
That would probably be Ron Paul.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/11/12/ron-paul-says-post-sandy-%E2%80%9Cprice-gouging%E2%80%9D-would%E2%80%99ve-helped-solve-the-gas-shortage/
(I'll quote directly from his House page (http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2023:in-praise-of-price-gouging&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69))
Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only those most in need of gasoline would have purchased gas, while everyone would have economized on their existing supply. But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas. Low prices signaled that gas was in abundant supply, while reality was exactly the opposite, and only those fortunate enough to be at the front of gas lines were able to purchase gas before it sold out. Not surprisingly, a thriving black market developed, with gas offered for up to $20 per gallon.
With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated. If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region. As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere? So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed.
-
Oh, don't get me wrong; I've heard plenty of things from Libertarians, and I'm sure this isn't the worst. I just purposely don't read up on them that often because they frustrate me. But feel free to turn this into a "Libertarians say the darndest things" kind of thread; that's what I predicted would happen anyways.
-
Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only those most in need of gasoline would have purchased gas, while everyone would have economized on their existing supply. But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas. Low prices signaled that gas was in abundant supply, while reality was exactly the opposite, and only those fortunate enough to be at the front of gas lines were able to purchase gas before it sold out. Not surprisingly, a thriving black market developed, with gas offered for up to $20 per gallon.
With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated. If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region. As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere? So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed.
IF roads are blocked, dumbass, you can't get supplies in there. It's not like more money solves everything. But that's the exactly the sort of non-sense I'd hear from them.
There's also the FDR was a terrible president for introducing social security and unemployment benefits non-sense from Libertarians. Yeah, if you get fired for shitty reasons or because your old, you TOTALLY shouldn't get money. Speaking of which...
We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work
That's not how social security works, Libertarian Party. My Grandfather is almost 80 but he's still at his teaching Job. He's quite young and Spry for his age, since he's also a field biologist for Kansas State University.
-
Maybe we could use this thread to each post the stupidest bit of libertarian cant we've ever heard?
I'll start:
I once read a libertarian seriously argue that the government should deregulate petrol prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy so the people who needed it could get it. Can't find a cite, sadly.
I have read a libertarian who argued that the police forces, firefighters, courts, and laws should all be privatized.
-
We actually have in rural areas almost privitized firefighters. Guess what happens if you can't pay the fee.
-
I've been to that facebook page, and some of the people there are far from being progessive, one time I went there and most of them were buying into every welfare myth ever spoken.
-
Maybe we could use this thread to each post the stupidest bit of libertarian cant we've ever heard?
I'll start:
I once read a libertarian seriously argue that the government should deregulate petrol prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy so the people who needed it could get it. Can't find a cite, sadly.
I have read a libertarian who argued that the police forces, firefighters, courts, and laws should all be privatized.
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
I wouldn't really expect a libertarian to be supportive of states banning same sex marriage. Most probably wouldn't want states to enact marriages. It might just be an expansion of their claim, "if you don't like your job, get a new one".
-
We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work
Excellent. Also, deplore government-fostered forced water consumption, which robs everyone of the right to consume Coke.
Creating an alternative = removing choice. Genius.
-
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
I wouldn't really expect a libertarian to be supportive of states banning same sex marriage. Most probably wouldn't want states to enact marriages. It might just be an expansion of their claim, "if you don't like your job, get a new one".
So wait, instead of police, we should have...aggression insurance to pay off victims of theft? How will this solve things like rape and murder, exactly?
Oh, and then at the end he talks about how privatized JAILS owned by those companies are so great. The logic of Libertarians seem to lie in the fact that since government isn't the most efficient thing, we should trust our society in the hands of big companies, and that if anything goes wrong, the magic of competition will fix everything.
I sincerely hope these people don't come in power. It's honestly scary how they seem to be gaining popularity, though. Does anyone think they actually have any chance of actually enacting changes like this?
-
We currently have privatized jails. These are creating a prison-industrial complex where its in their best interests to run things like shit, while they lobby the government for more and more retarded offenses.
However that idea for the law enforcement companies doesn't make sense. If you are to do that sort of thing, the results are easy to see for a studier of history. The result is feudalism. National defense is privatized by a number of a small citizens who can easily control everyone that is offered by the national defense person. The reason for this is because defense is not easily privatized. My economics teacher gave an example.
If one person buys defense and he lives in a apartment block, nobody else in the apartment will need to buy defense. If everyone was FORCED to pay for defense that would be feudalism.
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
-
If one person buys defense and he lives in a apartment block, nobody else in the apartment will need to buy defense.
Why? I mean What stops the rent-a-cops from ignoring everything that happens to his neighbours? If there is only one paying customer then as long as that customer gets his service they have fullfilled the contract. Put up a sign on his door: "This apartment is protected by Lone Star inc." as long as the invading mongol horde only rapes and pillages his neighbours (If his service also covers noise pollution they might also come if the screams and gunfire are troubling him.)
And knowing that the criminals are a cowardly (and superstitious, but that is not important right now) and prefer defenseless victims they would probably prioritize those who aren't in a protection racket.
After all even if the cops don't get there in time to protect the customer they still would come after you.
-
What askold said.
Private defense with a single contract with one person doesn't follow being for the entire apartment block.
We have guards for my neighborhood but you're batty if you think they can protect everyone and that I wouldn't call the local cops in case of break-in or whathaveyou.
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Legitimately? ...you can't.
(http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/Thats_the_joke3.jpg)
-
A libertarian/anarchist coworker once said the following to me in response to my argument that socialism is the natural extension of democracy and capitalism is inherently antidemocratic.
If you think about it, the market is really a better form of democracy than voting. In democracy, I get to vote only once every few years, and I have no influence over the process other than that, but Bill Gates can do a lot more than just vote. He can use his money to influence politicians. If we let the market decide everything, then I can "vote" every time I buy something, so it's much more fair.
-
And what about those who don't have money?
-
My incredulity at the statement is even more basic than that. He was saying that voting is unfair because people with more money can influence the governmental process more than people with little money, and proposed an alternative in which the ONLY measure of power would be wealth.
-
That would just give MORE power to the rich and take away what little the 99% have...
Libertarian logic.
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Privatize enforcement.
Remember that business we were discussing about cops having to enforce all the laws, not just the non-crappy ones? Yeah, imagine they worked on commission instead. Quotas are bad enough, I can try to imagine what kind of bullshit would go on in a system paid for how much it was used. Aside from a few cases I can already think of where private jails have already managed this.
-
We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work
Excellent. Also, deplore government-fostered forced water consumption, which robs everyone of the right to consume Coke.
Creating an alternative = removing choice. Genius.
Even worse, it robs 8 year olds of the right to work in coal mines at 15 cents an hour, and robs us of the right to buy bread adulterated with sawdust. Oh, the humanity...
*clutches pearls*
-
And what about those who don't have money?
In short? Fuck them.
The objectivists (Ayn Rand's ilk) rationalize this by claiming your wealth is a direct result of your hard-work and ingenuity; i.e. the more hard-working and entrepreneurial you are, the more money you have. Thus poor people are simply lazy fucks who refuse to work for an honest pay. While not all libertarians think like this, its kind of sad that this kind of thinking has been basically co-opted by today's Republican party to be their gospel. As for libertarians who don't believe this, I can't speak for what their rationale is for income disparity.
-
That's the weirdest thing. My boyfriend cares a lot about people and thinks they are just being held back by their government assistance. He talks about communities taking care of people and stuff. Honestly I think he doesn't understand what exactly communism is. Same linguistic beginnings as communal and community. Though he considers himself a libertarian.
If one person buys defense and he lives in a apartment block, nobody else in the apartment will need to buy defense.
Why? I mean What stops the rent-a-cops from ignoring everything that happens to his neighbours? If there is only one paying customer then as long as that customer gets his service they have fullfilled the contract. Put up a sign on his door: "This apartment is protected by Lone Star inc." as long as the invading mongol horde only rapes and pillages his neighbours (If his service also covers noise pollution they might also come if the screams and gunfire are troubling him.)
And knowing that the criminals are a cowardly (and superstitious, but that is not important right now) and prefer defenseless victims they would probably prioritize those who aren't in a protection racket.
After all even if the cops don't get there in time to protect the customer they still would come after you.
I'm not talking about Law Enforcement, but national defense.
If someone bombs your apartment building everyone in it is going to be defended. Wars tend to be non-discriminant.
-
Wars are usually fought for the purpose of control of a region or a resource. The fighting takes place because there is an opposing army that wants to prevent the previously mentioned objective. If a country does not have a military force defending it (for this example replace nation with "sovereign citizen" or whatever these libertarians prefer.) there is no need to fight a war or bomb the place when you can simply occupy/loot it. Even in the rare occasions where the war has been aimed at the destruction of a nation it can be done with a bit of precicion.
-
Wars are usually fought for the purpose of control of a region or a resource. The fighting takes place because there is an opposing army that wants to prevent the previously mentioned objective. If a country does not have a military force defending it (for this example replace nation with "sovereign citizen" or whatever these libertarians prefer.) there is no need to fight a war or bomb the place when you can simply occupy/loot it. Even in the rare occasions where the war has been aimed at the destruction of a nation it can be done with a bit of precicion.
So basically, you're going to get robbed by any state that has a nation state and government because they can force capitulation of any 'free society.'
-
That is what happened to americas and africa and australia etc.
There was some free land and resources just waiting to be taken.
(By free I mean that the locals who by most legal interpretations should have been considered owners did not have the means to stop the land being taken away from them.)
-
That is what happened to americas and africa and australia etc.
There was some free land and resources just waiting to be taken.
(By free I mean that the locals who by most legal interpretations should have been considered owners did not have the means to stop the land being taken away from them.)
Africa actually successfully defended their lands in some areas. Like Egypt and Ethiopia. Americas in the middle America and Peru were also similar to European styles, to the point that Spanish just replaced the rulers there with their own ruling class in some areas without changing the structures that much. They were just too weak.
On the other hand, in the Americas where land was owned in common and the like, it was hard for Europeans to understand they were encroaching on the land of Native Americans up there sometimes, and other times they just regarded them as primitive savages to be thrown off their lands. But since it was foreign to them, they just took what they wanted.
Any libertarian free society would be at the mercy of any sovereign state essentially. Though I think the best example, I've found, of Libertarian society is the description of America in Snow Crash. It sort of runs decently because other people aren't interested terribly in invading.
-
Any libertarian free society would be at the mercy of any sovereign state essentially. Though I think the best example, I've found, of Libertarian society is the description of America in Snow Crash. It sort of runs decently because other people aren't interested terribly in invading.
Heh, heh, heh. That's right, forget about your friendly neighbors to the north. We'd never invade.
We'll just wait for you to Balkanize, invite the blue states to join us in a nice new North American confederacy and let the red states rot.
-
Any libertarian free society would be at the mercy of any sovereign state essentially. Though I think the best example, I've found, of Libertarian society is the description of America in Snow Crash. It sort of runs decently because other people aren't interested terribly in invading.
Heh, heh, heh. That's right, forget about your friendly neighbors to the north. We'd never invade.
We'll just wait for you to Balkanize, invite the blue states to join us in a nice new North American confederacy and let the red states rot.
Oh, well, in Snow Crash Canada and Europe have the same thing happen as America. Japan I think has it happen as well. China is the primary remaining sovereign state.
-
Road warrior, North American edition, it is then. :)
-
Road warrior, North American edition, it is then. :)
Just read the book, it's fascinating. But it really makes me happy to be living in a sovereign state instead of a "Free Society." Since he approaches the idea from a neutral perspective. There's some good to the society, but there's also a lot of bad too.
-
That's the weirdest thing. My boyfriend cares a lot about people and thinks they are just being held back by their government assistance. He talks about communities taking care of people and stuff. Honestly I think he doesn't understand what exactly communism is. Same linguistic beginnings as communal and community. Though he considers himself a libertarian.
It is incredible how many normally rational people can make an implicit case that black people are being held back by push factors and then complain, in virtually the same breath, about the bad job market. Double think, bitches.
[/quote]A libertarian/anarchist coworker once said the following to me in response to my argument that socialism is the natural extension of democracy and capitalism is inherently antidemocratic.
If you think about it, the market is really a better form of democracy than voting. In democracy, I get to vote only once every few years, and I have no influence over the process other than that, but Bill Gates can do a lot more than just vote. He can use his money to influence politicians. If we let the market decide everything, then I can "vote" every time I buy something, so it's much more fair.
High school and early university economics regularly claims this. When I pointed out that, you know, 1% of people get 30% of the votes, the teacher didn't really have anything to say about it. I imagine he went on to tell the next year the same thing.
To be a bit Marxist for a minute, the underlying means of production to capitalism are far from democratic. Nor are they really market-based. Corporations aren't run like markets. It's a bureaucratic, hieratic economic system. It's about information and always has been. It's about achieving a single, simple task quickly. You do not typically use much reason. This is not a system you would call democracy.
-
A libertarian/anarchist coworker once said the following to me in response to my argument that socialism is the natural extension of democracy and capitalism is inherently antidemocratic.
If you think about it, the market is really a better form of democracy than voting. In democracy, I get to vote only once every few years, and I have no influence over the process other than that, but Bill Gates can do a lot more than just vote. He can use his money to influence politicians. If we let the market decide everything, then I can "vote" every time I buy something, so it's much more fair.
High school and early university economics regularly claims this. When I pointed out that, you know, 1% of people get 30% of the votes, the teacher didn't really have anything to say about it. I imagine he went on to tell the next year the same thing.
My microeconomics Teacher (An early university Economics class) was a big on the idea that the government can more efficiently distribute some services, while capitalism more efficiently distributes most of them. Thus why government tends to be good, and how taxes either increase the supply costs (Thus shifting its line) or decrease demand income (Thus reducing its line) depending on who they are laid upon. Also how minimum wage is a complicated, but sensible process. It figures upon the idea that the loss of demand will be made up by how much better it will be for those who are hired. Most of the time, Minimum wage is put slightly over where the Labor market would be during the good years and helps Counter dropping wages during bad years. He... was a big on regulated capitalism because it helps control the dips in the economy that happen naturally due to the fact economics is a pendulum more or less.
-
Privatized law enforcement? All I can picture is gangs of toughs headed up by the likes of Tony Soprano.
Yeah, buy our insurance. Cause like maybe one day you're walkin' past the construction site and a guy drops a concrete block on your head? We can make this thing not happen.
And if you don't, suddenly you find yourself hauled into some kangaroo court on trumped up charges and sent to a labour camp in North Dakota.
Yeah, that would work. Can't see a problem there at all.
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.
If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.
If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.
And the result would be disputes that would at least occasionally wind up turning into gangland-style violence between the enforcers of rival law firms as each fights over turf and "customers." Or into actual open warfare if, say, Baker & McKenzie decided that they wanted to expand by forcibly annexing DLA Piper's territory, with the losers' assets and customer base being serviced by the winners and their personnel being fired. Literally.
Bring back the magic and we're all living in a neverending Shadowrun campaign. You know, on second thought, this doesn't sound so bad...
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.
If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.
That sounds hilariously more complicated than just letting a sovereign state do it. Isn't the idea that it'd be less complicated, smoother, and better without the government? Even if we accept his insane logic and don't talk about how it's in the interests of companies to trump up expenses or make their 'debtor' prison last forever... that whole system seems very complicated. Even worse than our current legal system. Each lawyer not just has to learn one set of laws and precedents from one system, they have to learn 2 or more of those things. We already have a standardized system that is very complicated. dispersing this complication across several different systems is just going to result in a retarded complicated forest of legalese that nobody but experts could penetrate.
This... reminds me of... Computer Operating systems. Each COS requires programmers to program a program differently for each to make it complicated. If we had lots, making programs would be inherently more expensive or they would simply choose to make it for a few operating systems. But we instead have three, with one as the primary and you can program for just it and be generally A-Okay. It's more efficient to monopolize it, oddly enough.
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.
If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.
That sounds hilariously more complicated than just letting a sovereign state do it. Isn't the idea that it'd be less complicated, smoother, and better without the government?
He's a philosophical libertarian, not a pragmatic one. His oppisition to the government is due to the fact that he thinks using force against "innocent" people is immoral, and you can only use force if they violate the Non Aggression Principle.
Of course, using morality to justify your form of government is bull since everyone has different moral codes on what counts as the most ethical system.
Even if we accept his insane logic and don't talk about how it's in the interests of companies to trump up expenses or make their 'debtor' prison last forever...
What's even more disturbing is that this person used the death penalty as an example, and had the criminal in question be executed because the law firm of the victim would have lost a greater percent of customers than his firm if they didn't.
-
Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.
-
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Legitimately? ...you can't.
(http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/Thats_the_joke3.jpg)
Thank you, because I couldn't tell that you can't actually privatize laws. There is no way I was looking for the dude's explanation and not an actual step-by-step process of actually privatizing laws. You are totally not deliberately being an asshole right now.
How the fuck do you privatize laws?
Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.
If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.
That sounds hilariously more complicated than just letting a sovereign state do it. Isn't the idea that it'd be less complicated, smoother, and better without the government?
He's a philosophical libertarian, not a pragmatic one. His oppisition to the government is due to the fact that he thinks using force against "innocent" people is immoral, and you can only use force if they violate the Non Aggression Principle.
Of course, using morality to justify your form of government is bull since everyone has different moral codes on what counts as the most ethical system.
Even if we accept his insane logic and don't talk about how it's in the interests of companies to trump up expenses or make their 'debtor' prison last forever...
What's even more disturbing is that this person used the death penalty as an example, and had the criminal in question be executed because the law firm of the victim would have lost a greater percent of customers than his firm if they didn't.
So using force against innocent people is immoral, but how do we define "innocent" under this ridiculous scenario? If law firm A makes littering illegal and law firm B has it be legal, and person Q (a customer of B) commits the crime on person W's (a customer of A) lawn, isn't Q technically innocent under B's laws? How is A then justified in using force against Q?
-
This is my problem with the extreme anti-government types: government is a natural phenomenon. Destroying it will merely result in warlordism.
-
Just popping in to say that this law privatization talk is givin me a migraine because of how convoluted it is, in practice.
-
Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.
Cause movies are an accurate portrayal of society.
That said, the State Governments establish law, with some Federal and Local laws put in. But it is not established by private firms. The DA office is run by the government, as well as Judges. Only civil lawyers and some defense attorneys are private. We generally have libertarian laws regarding services compared to other places (Especially health care. Silly that.) but the law itself is not established by libertarian methods.
-
So using force against innocent people is immoral, but how do we define "innocent" under this ridiculous scenario? If law firm A makes littering illegal and law firm B has it be legal, and person Q (a customer of B) commits the crime on person W's (a customer of A) lawn, isn't Q technically innocent under B's laws? How is A then justified in using force against Q?
I suppose property rights would come into play here, and since person Q littered on W's property he would have to be punished for it.
-
So using force against innocent people is immoral, but how do we define "innocent" under this ridiculous scenario? If law firm A makes littering illegal and law firm B has it be legal, and person Q (a customer of B) commits the crime on person W's (a customer of A) lawn, isn't Q technically innocent under B's laws? How is A then justified in using force against Q?
I suppose property rights would come into play here, and since person Q littered on W's property he would have to be punished for it.
Except with private enforcement of law exactly how do we know who's property belongs to who? No central legal requirements would leave no solid paper trail, no clear definition of even what ownership consists of.
I'd give it about 20 minutes before people were being bought and sold under this set of laws. This breed of libertarian seems to forget there's no higher source of rights which enforces itself. About all we've got is government and decency. Thus we need government.
-
What strikes me as odd with Libertarians is how they're the kind of people from whom you normally hear the "communism can't work because of human nature" argument, while most Libertarians also factor out human nature in their philosophies. Funny how that works out.
-
Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.
Cause movies are an accurate portrayal of society.
Correct. Mario Puzo's books, and the films based around it, are a relatively close fictionalisation of stuff that happened.
Private law is basically the Mafia. It exists. You pay Don X to protect you- to enforce black market contracts, to punish thieves, to do little favours and so on. In return, the Mafia has all the power. The merit principle doesn't apply, because every job is a gift. And it's very violent. It doesn't work at all like glibertarians say it would.
As a smart person once said about Milton Friedman- the real weakness with his ideas is that they have been tried.
-
Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.
Cause movies are an accurate portrayal of society.
Correct. Mario Puzo's books, and the films based around it, are a relatively close fictionalisation of stuff that happened.
Private law is basically the Mafia. It exists. You pay Don X to protect you- to enforce black market contracts, to punish thieves, to do little favours and so on. In return, the Mafia has all the power. The merit principle doesn't apply, because every job is a gift. And it's very violent. It doesn't work at all like glibertarians say it would.
As a smart person once said about Milton Friedman- the real weakness with his ideas is that they have been tried.
Oh, you meant in the Mafia. I thought you meant US system of laws were that way. Yeah, I can see it that way.
-
Apologies for not being clear. I didn't mean it as an attack on the American legal system or anything- obviously, Australia has bad gang violence also as do numerous other countries. I just thought everyone would associate the Godfather with the Don.
-
Apologies for not being clear. I didn't mean it as an attack on the American legal system or anything- obviously, Australia has bad gang violence also as do numerous other countries. I just thought everyone would associate the Godfather with the Don.
You can also see libertarian national defense and Law in Feudalism.
-
What strikes me as odd with Libertarians is how they're the kind of people from whom you normally hear the "communism can't work because of human nature" argument, while most Libertarians also factor out human nature in their philosophies. Funny how that works out.
Ever notice how people tend to be unable to see the obvious flaws with their religious beliefs (while they have no problem pointing out the flaws in others)?
-
Private law is basically the Mafia. It exists. You pay Don X to protect you- to enforce black market contracts, to punish thieves, to do little favours and so on. In return, the Mafia has all the power. The merit principle doesn't apply, because every job is a gift. And it's very violent. It doesn't work at all like glibertarians say it would.
As a smart person once said about Milton Friedman- the real weakness with his ideas is that they have been tried.
Huh. I always thought private law would lead more to like something out of an Old West style Pinkertons. Those who could afford law and security would hire a "police force" to enforce the laws as they (the monied class) deemed fit.