Intro to libertarian philosophy animation

[bluesbassman]

Here is a clever though purposefully basic introduction to liberty animation:

Philosophy of liberty animation (http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf)

I'm sure the leftist intellectuals on here will scoff at this mercilessly, as it is well beneath them. For a simpleton like me, however, I find it to be fairly well done and illustrative of fundamental political principles.

[TomCollins]

Good post.

What happens when I exercise my liberty to get all liquored up and drive 110 and smash into you and your family?

[coffeecrazy1]

Then you are deprived of your liberty, and punished for the depriving of theirs.

In my opinion, your life should be deprived as well. But...I do not have a problem with you getting liquored up or driving 110...it's the smashing into someone else that I would punish...otherwise, whose liberty has been deprived?

[El Barto]

Cool, you own your own body and no one else can own you (unless you are an unborn baby - then someone else owns you and can kill you at will). /images/graemlins/confused.gif

What if we both own land on a creek, and mine's upstream from yours. Can I dump my sewage directly into the creek?

[coffeecrazy1]

Sure...as long as it doesn't affect my portion of the creek. Do what you want to with your property, as long as it doesn't affect mine. I could care less if you want your part of the creek to be a cesspool, but I better not see a turd floating in my part of the creek.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
What happens when I exercise my liberty to get all liquored up and drive 110 and smash into you and your family?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should be convicted of negligent manslaughter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you can figure out how such a scenario obviously violates the "non-initiation of force" principle.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool, you own your own body and no one else can own you (unless you are an unborn baby - then someone else owns you and can kill you at will). /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Until your mother decides to give birth, you do not yet possess rights and she may kill you at her choosing.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cool, you own your own body and no one else can own you (unless you are an unborn baby - then someone else owns you and can kill you at will). /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Until your mother decides to give birth, you do not yet possess rights and she may kill you at her choosing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until you can speak, you aren't really human, and your mother may kill you at her choosing.

[vulturesrow]

How do libertarians feel about child pornography? From a policy perspective that is.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cool, you own your own body and no one else can own you (unless you are an unborn baby - then someone else owns you and can kill you at will). /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Until your mother decides to give birth, you do not yet possess rights and she may kill you at her choosing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until you can speak, you aren't really human, and your mother may kill you at her choosing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are human the moment after conception. You acquire rights the moment your mother chooses to create a biologically separate being.

But I didn't mean for this to degrade into an abortion debate. The more general concept of individual rights and their political manifestation are neither falsified nor primarily defined by their application to unborn babies, people who are comatose, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure...as long as it doesn't affect my portion of the creek. Do what you want to with your property, as long as it doesn't affect mine. I could care less if you want your part of the creek to be a cesspool, but I better not see a turd floating in my part of the creek.

[/ QUOTE ] But it will affect your part of the creek. It's a creek, after all, and you're downstream.

So you won't let me do what I want with my property? It sounds like you'd want there to be some regulations about how people do things, even things as mundane as disposing of sewage. Would you want me to put in a septic tank? That would probably catch most of the runoff, but if you sampled your water, you'd probably find some fecal bacteria in there. Should I have to install a whole filtration system? How can we be sure that it's absolutely not affecting you at all? Would there have to be inspectors to make sure I did the installation properly? Why should I let you impinge on my liberty and make me spend $10,000 just because you're squeamish about a few bacteria?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So you won't let me do what I want with my property? It sounds like you'd want there to be some regulations about how people do things, even things as mundane as disposing of sewage.

[/ QUOTE ]
He'd probably sue you for damaging his property. And according to your example, it sounds like he'd win.

[coffeecrazy1]

The fact that you're upstream and I'm downstream is irrelevant in terms of my rights or yours.

I'm not exactly sure how my statement leads to you to say that I'm in favor of regulations. I'm actually not...your rights to the creek end on your property line...that's the whole point of property rights.

My point was that I don't really care what you do, as long as it doesn't affect me. For that matter, that's why I would not support a gay marriage ban, despite my opposition to gay marriage. I would not throw a fit unless clergy were being compelled to violate the tenets of their faith...only then do I have a problem.

Dump or don't dump...I don't care. If you choose to dump, then you can do so, but you do not have the right to choose to dump your sewage such that it enters my property, unless I say it is okay. As to the means of keeping your sewage out of my section of creek, I could care less, so long as it gets done. Getting it inspected or it costing $10,000 is not my concern, nor is it an impinging of your rights. In fact, it is simply the cost of exercising those rights responsibly. No one ever said freedom was free.

As many of my libertarian brethren have said, your freedom ends where your fist meets my nose.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
How do libertarians feel about child pornography? From a policy perspective that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for all libertarians, but I think my view is typical.

Before I answer that specific question, I'll say that in general, a child does not yet possess full rights; they exist but are temporarily held in "trust" by the legal parent or guardian. Thus, a child has no "right" to cross a street without permission, but he or she has a right not to be abused or murdered by the parent.

As far as child pornography goes, a child cannot give meaningful consent to produce it or engage in sexual acts, and it would be abuse for a parent to make that choice for him (or her). Child pornography created without using children (such as by a computer or animation, etc) I think should be completely legal.

Of course this leads to the question of when does a person acquire the legal right to consent. I think the answer is actually very individual, and there is legitimate room for debate, which is the proper province of the philosophy of law. Although a libertarian political philosophy is simple in fundamentals, the application to specific cases can be complicated. (Which is true of any political theory.)

[coffeecrazy1]

As a libertarian, I also agree. Child pornography is a problem because the child cannot give consent. The same goes for bestiality. As blues said, when someone is able to give consent is a debatable point. But...that's a debate that I would like to be having, rather than a censorship one.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

As a libertarian, I also agree. Child pornography is a problem because the child cannot give consent. The same goes for bestiality

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a vegan?

[coffeecrazy1]

Um...not sure where you got that, but no...far from it. Is this going to say that animals can't consent to being slaughtered, therefore should not be?

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Um...not sure where you got that, but no...far from it. Is this going to say that animals can't consent to being slaughtered, therefore should not be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's where I'm going with this. It's hypocritical to say that it's okay to kill animals for food without their consent, while it's not okay to have to sex with them without their consent. It seems very arbitrary, and, as a libertarian myself, I don't like arbitrary things.

I eat meat btw. And as disgusting as bestiality is, I don't think I can tell someone else that they can't have sex with an animal when I'm eating an animal's flesh.

[ QUOTE ]
Dump or don't dump...I don't care. If you choose to dump, then you can do so, but you do not have the right to choose to dump your sewage such that it enters my property, unless I say it is okay. As to the means of keeping your sewage out of my section of creek, I could care less, so long as it gets done. Getting it inspected or it costing $10,000 is not my concern, nor is it an impinging of your rights. In fact, it is simply the cost of exercising those rights responsibly. No one ever said freedom was free.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that this is actually an incredibly restrictive philosophy. If you want to guarantee that no one is ever affected negatively by anyone else's actions, that necessitates an enormous and intrusive government for enforcement. Your utopia of liberty actually turns into a very restrictive society where no one can do anything.

Your rights are being impinged right now. You're being forced to breathe contaminants in the air. According to your philosophy, this invasion of your rights must be remedied by forcing everyone else to cease driving cars. After all, they're emitting carcinogens which you can't avoid breathing. Would you say that the inconvenience of everyone having to ride bicycles or walk isn't your concern, nor is it an impinging of their rights?

In fact, we'll have to shut down all the power plants and oil refineries, too. Among other things, they're causing global warming. That's causing sea ice to recede in the north, which is destroying Inuit/Eskimo hunting grounds. Their livelihood is being destroyed as a consequence of someone else's action. Clearly their rights are being violated, which must be avoided at all costs, correct?

I agree with you about gay marriage, etc. It's just that in the real world, people have overlapping and conflicting rights, and it's naive to simply say, "Everyone has rights and they should always be respected."

[coffeecrazy1]

Okay...fair point. As disgusting as bestiality is, you make a convincing argument for its legality. I stand corrected.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dump or don't dump...I don't care. If you choose to dump, then you can do so, but you do not have the right to choose to dump your sewage such that it enters my property, unless I say it is okay. As to the means of keeping your sewage out of my section of creek, I could care less, so long as it gets done. Getting it inspected or it costing $10,000 is not my concern, nor is it an impinging of your rights. In fact, it is simply the cost of exercising those rights responsibly. No one ever said freedom was free.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that this is actually an incredibly restrictive philosophy. If you want to guarantee that no one is ever affected negatively by anyone else's actions, that necessitates an enormous and intrusive government for enforcement. Your utopia of liberty actually turns into a very restrictive society where no one can do anything.

Your rights are being impinged right now. You're being forced to breathe contaminants in the air. According to your philosophy, this invasion of your rights must be remedied by forcing everyone else to cease driving cars. After all, they're emitting carcinogens which you can't avoid breathing. Would you say that the inconvenience of everyone having to ride bicycles or walk isn't your concern, nor is it an impinging of their rights?

In fact, we'll have to shut down all the power plants and oil refineries, too. Among other things, they're causing global warming. That's causing sea ice to recede in the north, which is destroying Inuit/Eskimo hunting grounds. Their livelihood is being destroyed as a consequence of someone else's action. Clearly their rights are being violated, which must be avoided at all costs, correct?

I agree with you about gay marriage, etc. It's just that in the real world, people have overlapping and conflicting rights, and it's naive to simply say, "Everyone has rights and they should always be respected."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are arguing that making everything public and abolishing property rights makes things less restrictive? Hmm...I thought that's what the Soviet Union did.

What you are overlooking is my right to consent. You never asked me if it was okay for you to dump your stuff in my creek...you just wanted to know if you could do it, regardless of my feelings. I have gotten so much farther with people simply by asking. Maybe it would be better to dump sewage in the creek...but you never asked me.

What I am defending is my right to say no, if I so choose. Most people give their consent to things like pollution because of the upside of pollution...which is the product of all those factories. Almost everyone seems to not have a problem with breathing a few fumes in exchange for electricity, hot water, and the ability to drive around in a car...myself included. So...I am consenting to the necessary evils of modern convenience.

However, I am not enjoined from running off and joining a commune in the middle of the woods. As strange as they are, no one faults the Amish for sticking to their beliefs.

As to your global warming/melting of ice caps argument, I would say that any statement that invokes chaos theory as part of its proof is in trouble. Global warming is not a proven fact...it is still being debated as to its harmfulness, or whether it actually exists as a result of our actions, or simply as the result of the Earth oscillating through its own geologic and atmospheric cycles. And...how come we haven't heard about the epidemic of starving Eskimos and Inuits yet?

No, it is not naive to say that...it is American, and it is the best part about our country to say so. The cynicism in this country is overwhelming and suffocating. The thing that drives most mainstream individuals from both sides of the political divide up the wall about libertarians is our overriding optimism about people and their capacity for goodness. Believing that "the real world" can never change is the exact reason why it never does.

Libertarianism is inherently romantic. The majority opinion now is that of cynics, with little to no faith in the divinity or ascendancy of mankind.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Um...not sure where you got that, but no...far from it. Is this going to say that animals can't consent to being slaughtered, therefore should not be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's where I'm going with this. It's hypocritical to say that it's okay to kill animals for food without their consent, while it's not okay to have to sex with them without their consent. It seems very arbitrary, and, as a libertarian myself, I don't like arbitrary things.

I eat meat btw. And as disgusting as bestiality is, I don't think I can tell someone else that they can't have sex with an animal when I'm eating an animal's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference between beastiality and being carnivorous.

One type of animal eating the flesh of another is totally natural. However, sex between different types of animals, for the most part is unnatural.

Therefore, it's perfectly alright to be a meat-eating libertarian that shuns acts of beastiality.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

One type of animal eating the flesh of another is totally natural. However, sex between different types of animals, for the most part is unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is unnatural, but you're going to have a very hard time finding libertarians who are against gay rights.

Outlawing something because it is unnatural is irrational. Who decides? I could argue that most of modern civilization is unnatural.

EDIT: You can be a meat-eating libertarian who shuns bestiality. I fall into this category. However, I do not wish to impose my beliefs on this matter on others.

[ QUOTE ]
So, you are arguing that making everything public and abolishing property rights makes things less restrictive? Hmm...I thought that's what the Soviet Union did.

[/ QUOTE ] No, I'm arguing that libertarianism is a naive and generally useless political philosophy.
[ QUOTE ]
What I am defending is my right to say no, if I so choose. Most people give their consent to things like pollution because of the upside of pollution...which is the product of all those factories. Almost everyone seems to not have a problem with breathing a few fumes in exchange for electricity, hot water, and the ability to drive around in a car...myself included. So...I am consenting to the necessary evils of modern convenience.

[/ QUOTE ]
But the point of libertarianism is that you don't have to consent. If we are to respect everyone's rights fully, if one single person refuses that bargain, then everyone has to stop using cars.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I am not enjoined from running off and joining a commune in the middle of the woods. As strange as they are, no one faults the Amish for sticking to their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ] Why should they have to move? This is like me telling you to move your cabin if you don't like my sewage.
[ QUOTE ]
As to your global warming/melting of ice caps argument, I would say that any statement that invokes chaos theory as part of its proof is in trouble. Global warming is not a proven fact...it is still being debated as to its harmfulness, or whether it actually exists as a result of our actions, or simply as the result of the Earth oscillating through its own geologic and atmospheric cycles. And...how come we haven't heard about the epidemic of starving Eskimos and Inuits yet?

[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/smile.gif I thought you might be skeptical. Okay, I'll skip this whole debate and just say that there are any number of other examples. Lead smelting plants give lead poisoning to the surrounding community. Mines create toxic waste pits. Or take an example from Jared Diamond's book Collapse. Because of certain properties of Montana soil, if I irrigate land that is uphill from your farm, the excess water will seep down to the bedrock, pick up a lot of salt, and end up in your fields. After a decade or so, you'll get maybe half the yield you used to get. Should I be allowed to irrigate? All these may or may not be necessary evils for the modern economy, but the point is that under a strict libertarian ethic, they could not exist because of their harmful effects on their neighbors.

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that drives most mainstream individuals from both sides of the political divide up the wall about libertarians is our overriding optimism about people and their capacity for goodness.

[/ QUOTE ] This isn't a question of inherent virtue or evil. It's just that it is logically impossible to guarantee everyone all their rights all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One type of animal eating the flesh of another is totally natural. However, sex between different types of animals, for the most part is unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is unnatural, but you're going to have a very hard time finding libertarians who are against gay rights.

Outlawing something because it is unnatural is irrational. Who decides? I could argue that most of modern civilization is unnatural.

EDIT: You can be a meat-eating libertarian who shuns bestiality. I fall into this category. However, I do not wish to impose my beliefs on this matter on others.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, turning new people on to the libertarian ideal is going to be pretty [censored] hard if we get labeled as approving of beastiality like you do.

Beastiality involves an abusive situation. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is not abusive. I see them as being totally different activities.

I suppose that since you eat meat, you approve of people torturing animals for entertainment eh?

[lehighguy]

It really depends on how we classify animals philisophically.

If they exist somewhere inbetween an inanimate object and a human being then perhaps they are afforded some but not all of the rights a human is afforded.

Same for an unborn fetus. Until the fundamental question of wether something is alive, dead, partial/potential live and what rights each of those states affords them it is impossible to take a posistion on the issue.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]



You know, turning new people on to the libertarian ideal is going to be pretty [censored] hard if we get labeled as approving of beastiality like you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if we can clearly make the distinction between what is legal and what we approve of. I'm sure that as a libertarian, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

When I argue that I'm in favor of ending the drug war and making drugs legal, usually the next thing people say is something to the effect of: "So you think people should do drugs?" I then explain to them the difference between believing something should be legal versus believing whether you or I should be doing it.

I definitely do not support animal cruelty. They are ways to deal with someone who tortures animals without resorting to government intervention.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It really depends on how we classify animals philisophically.

If they exist somewhere inbetween an inanimate object and a human being then perhaps they are afforded some but not all of the rights a human is afforded.

Same for an unborn fetus. Until the fundamental question of wether something is alive, dead, partial/potential live and what rights each of those states affords them it is impossible to take a posistion on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may ask, how do you classify animals philosopohically, and why?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dump or don't dump...I don't care. If you choose to dump, then you can do so, but you do not have the right to choose to dump your sewage such that it enters my property, unless I say it is okay. As to the means of keeping your sewage out of my section of creek, I could care less, so long as it gets done. Getting it inspected or it costing $10,000 is not my concern, nor is it an impinging of your rights. In fact, it is simply the cost of exercising those rights responsibly. No one ever said freedom was free.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that this is actually an incredibly restrictive philosophy. If you want to guarantee that no one is ever affected negatively by anyone else's actions, that necessitates an enormous and intrusive government for enforcement. Your utopia of liberty actually turns into a very restrictive society where no one can do anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

The error in this "criticism" is that you claim a logical consequence of a libertarian philosophy is that it implies no one may do anything which "negatively affects" to any degree another person or his property. The damage must non-negligible; that is decided in context on an individual basis. This criterion is already common in criminal and civil law, and there is nothing non-libertarian about that.

Most libertarians would agree, for example, that one does not have the right to emit fatal concentrations of poisonous gas which may waft into another person's property. This obviously is a non-negligible initiation of force. On the other hand, the mere act of breathing produces a small amount of carbon dioxide, but that is not sufficient to claim a libertarian philosophy demands that your neighbor must hold his breath.

To what degree constitutes "non-negligible" harm is certainly a legitimate matter of debate, and those issues may indeed be complex, in which both parties of a dispute may have legitimate claims. Libertarianism maintains that such issues should be untangled and decided on the basis of individual rights, including property rights. Similarly, government regulations regarding pollution should be defined on that same basis.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with you about gay marriage, etc. It's just that in the real world, people have overlapping and conflicting rights, and it's naive to simply say, "Everyone has rights and they should always be respected."

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world, libertarianism implies that such complex issues should be decided on the basis of individual rights. There is nothing "naive" about that, and your characterization is a strawman.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference between bestiality and being carnivorous. It's perfectly alright to be a meat-eating libertarian [who] shuns acts of bestiality.

One type of animal eating the flesh of another is totally natural. However, sex between different types of animals, for the most part is unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot proceed with a construction of political ideology having as starting axioms both "natural laws" and human choice --aka liberty. Sooner or later, you run into unsurpassable contradictions.

Either bestiality is a human choice (and the other animals have no say in it, just like they have no say when we eat them) or it is against the laws of nature (and we have no business screwing a goat). BTW, it should be easily proven that getting screwed is a better/lighter fate than getting eaten. (Hmm, that last one could be misconstrued by perverts here /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.)

You should know already that there is little or nothing "natural" about man-made morality.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, turning new people on to the libertarian ideal is going to be pretty hard if we get labeled as approving of bestiality like you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the age-old misunderstanding about proponents of freedom. When I defend the right of a person to wear the swastika, salute like a Roman and sing Horst Vessel, this does NOT mean that I support Nazist ideas or that I "approve" of fascism.

It means what it says it means. It means that I support the right to have Nazi ideas. It's a completely different thing.

I do not support bestiality and I do not intend to get married to another man any time soon. But I have no problem whatsoever with other people who (in fact, I support their right to) get married as a couple of two males. Nor with people who wanna [censored] a goat.

...I wonder what PETA thinks about tender loving relationships between men and their goats, by the way.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the age-old misunderstanding about proponents of freedom. When I defend the right of a person to wear the swastika, salute like a Roman and sing Horst Vessel, this does NOT mean that I support Nazist ideas or that I "approve" of fascism.

It means what it says it means. It means that I support the right to have Nazi ideas. It's a completely different thing.

I do not support bestiality and I do not intend to get married to another man any time soon. But I have no problem whatsoever with other people who (in fact, I support their right to) get married as a couple of two males. Nor with people who wanna [censored] a goat.

...I wonder what PETA thinks about tender loving relationships between men and their goats, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, we agree. Very well said, Cyrus.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference between bestiality and being carnivorous. It's perfectly alright to be a meat-eating libertarian [who] shuns acts of bestiality.

One type of animal eating the flesh of another is totally natural. However, sex between different types of animals, for the most part is unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot proceed with a construction of political ideology having as starting axioms both "natural laws" and human choice --aka liberty. Sooner or later, you run into unsurpassable contradictions.

Either bestiality is a human choice (and the other animals have no say in it, just like they have no say when we eat them) or it is against the laws of nature (and we have no business screwing a goat). BTW, it should be easily proven that getting screwed is a better/lighter fate than getting eaten. (Hmm, that last one could be misconstrued by perverts here /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.)

You should know already that there is little or nothing "natural" about man-made morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just say you don't think [censored] a goat is abusive toward the goat or abuse of animals for human pleasure is acceptable in your opinion. Quit with the semantic jig already.

EDIT: I stand firmly behind my belief that using animals for sustenance is part of the natural order. Abusing animals is not. And frankly, I don't understand why you say natural order must be separated from political ideology.

[Darryl_P]

Sounds like sound reasoning to me. Taking it further, then, I assume your stance is the same on a human who abuses animals to satisfy his psychological needs? You respect people's right to do that even though you don't agree with it?

After all, it can be argued that beating a dog 10 times a day is still not as bad as killing him, right?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I could care less if you want your part of the creek to be a cesspool

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is my main problem with the libertarian thought. I'm not greatly read up on the subject, but at least as presented here this is a major drawback, one that is large enough for me to dismiss the idea, even though parts of it is great.

So, I'm free to do what I want with my land, poison it as much as I like, as long as it doesn't seep into your property, right?

So, what about those most affected by this poisoning? Those who will have this land when I'm dead and gone. Why do we completely ignore their right to a poison-free environment?

This, among other things, is why I strongly belive we need a government and a set of laws to protect the environment (for example).

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarianism maintains that such issues should be untangled and decided on the basis of individual rights, including property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm free to do what I want with my land, poison it as much as I like, as long as it doesn't seep into your property, right?

So, what about those most affected by this poisoning? Those who will have this land when I'm dead and gone. Why do we completely ignore their right to a poison-free environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be blunt, that isn't a right. They have a right to be informed of the true condition of the property that they are considering purchasing, and if they don't like the condition they don't have to buy it.

Do I owe damages to the "future owner" of my car when I wreck it? No, the damage is taken into account when the two parties negotiate the sale.

Your implication that some potential future owner is harmed when I "damage" my property assumes that this potential future owner (who you can't even positively identify) has a CURRENT property right in my property.

Maybe the future property owner doesn't mind a poisoned piece of property. Maybe he just wants a cheap piece of land to park some rusted out cars on.

You're trying to make your personal preference into a right.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[/ QUOTE ]

An arbitrator. It's not that hard, really.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[/ QUOTE ]

An arbitrator. It's not that hard, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? Who appoints the arbitrator? What if one of the individuals refuses to participate or abide by the arbitrator's decision? How is the arbitrator compensated? What if one of the parties cannot afford the costs of arbitration?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
To be blunt, that isn't a right. They have a right to be informed of the true condition of the property that they are considering purchasing, and if they don't like the condition they don't have to buy it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I happen to belive that we should strive to make the earth inhabitable for not only us but also for those coming after us.

[ QUOTE ]

Your implication that some potential future owner is harmed when I "damage" my property assumes that this potential future owner (who you can't even positively identify) has a CURRENT property right in my property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I realize that I cannot identify the "future owner". That's why I think there need to be laws on what you cannot do. In order to make reasonably sure that the land will still be usable in 100 years.

[ QUOTE ]

You're trying to make your personal preference into a right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it reasonable that the current owner of the land, one in a never-ending string of owners, should be allowed to completely destroy it? As I said from the start, to me this is clear and plainly such a big problem that I cannot understand how anyone seriously considers it.

[vulturesrow]

Much as they dance around the issue, libertarians dont deal well with externalities. I do enjoy watching the dance however.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarianism maintains that such issues should be untangled and decided on the basis of individual rights, including property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a legitimate function of the government and court system. In fact, according to libertarianism, it's the *only* legitimate function. The government (if it exists) should be strictly limited to protecting individual rights. Settling property disputes is certainly part of that.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[/ QUOTE ]

An arbitrator. It's not that hard, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? Who appoints the arbitrator? What if one of the individuals refuses to participate or abide by the arbitrator's decision? How is the arbitrator compensated? What if one of the parties cannot afford the costs of arbitration?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. The latter is a specialized subset of the former. According to libertarianism, setting property disputes (as they are now) is certainly a legitimate function of the government.

Anarcho-capitalists claim even these minimal functions can be handled by private firms, but that's a different debate...

[coffeecrazy1]

Forgive my idiocy, but what are you referring to with the word "externalities?"

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm arguing that libertarianism is a naive and generally useless political philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ] And you're doing a poor job of it, since the current, non-libertarian system of government in this country would support my claims against you.

[ QUOTE ]
But the point of libertarianism is that you don't have to consent. If we are to respect everyone's rights fully, if one single person refuses that bargain, then everyone has to stop using cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting this? Where does it say that libertarianism is not about having to consent? What I am for is giving people the right to say "no" when it comes to the infringing upon their property and rights...nothing more. And, frankly, the car example is false because the owner of each car does not own the road.

[ QUOTE ]
Why should they have to move? This is like me telling you to move your cabin if you don't like my sewage.


[/ QUOTE ] Apples and oranges here...see my above point about not owning the road.

[ QUOTE ]
Because of certain properties of Montana soil, if I irrigate land that is uphill from your farm, the excess water will seep down to the bedrock, pick up a lot of salt, and end up in your fields. After a decade or so, you'll get maybe half the yield you used to get. Should I be allowed to irrigate? All these may or may not be necessary evils for the modern economy, but the point is that under a strict libertarian ethic, they could not exist because of their harmful effects on their neighbors.


[/ QUOTE ] I really don't know how many times I have to say it...IT'S FINE IF THE OTHER OWNER CONSENTS! Your view of libertarianism ignores completely the fact that people want to work together to achieve greater goals. Just because they have the right to say no does not mean that they will.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just that it is logically impossible to guarantee everyone all their rights all the time.

[/ QUOTE ] I disagree. It's logically impossible guarantee people will exercise their rights all the time. Otherwise, we'd all be hermits. I'm not saying rights will not be subordinated...but I am saying that the person with the rights should be the one who decides which rights are subordinated, not some third party bureaucratic government entity.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive my idiocy, but what are you referring to with the word "externalities?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"Externalities" is a boogieman that statists use to justify government intervention.

The idea is that sometimes actions have impacts on people that aren't directly involved in the action. Sometimes these are good, sometimes they are bad. A factory dumping sludge into your river is a supposed externality.

Private property rights, when properly enforced, remove externalities. If there is a definitive owner of the river, instead of it being a "common", then polluters of that river will be pursued for damages.

[PoBoy321]

Interesting animation, it brought up some of the reasoning behind libertarian philosophy that I hadn't thought about, but certainly raised some questions.

When a collective group, namely the american people, williingly decide collectively that they will enact a system of elections to appoint government officials who will act on their behalf to regulate their life, liberty and property, what is the libertarian stance on the validity of such a system? Granted, the regulation of life, liberty and property are opposed to libertarian views, but, at least as far as the video made known, they are not opposed to people willingly appointing officials act on their behalf.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting animation, it brought up some of the reasoning behind libertarian philosophy that I hadn't thought about, but certainly raised some questions.

When a collective group, namely the american people, williingly decide collectively that they will enact a system of elections to appoint government officials who will act on their behalf to regulate their life, liberty and property, what is the libertarian stance on the validity of such a system? Granted, the regulation of life, liberty and property are opposed to libertarian views, but, at least as far as the video made known, they are not opposed to people willingly appointing officials act on their behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue isn't how or even whether groups of individuals choose government officials, but rather what power does the government possess. If said officials don't initiate force against uninvolved third parties while acting on their constituents behalf, such a system would not be condemned by libertarians.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

The issue isn't how or even whether groups of individuals choose government officials, but rather what power does the government possess. If said officials don't initiate force against uninvolved third parties while acting on their constituents behalf, such a system would not be condemned by libertarians.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that libertarians are only opposed to the current American system of government with regards to international issues? Who are these "uninvolved third parties"? Non-americans? Nonvoting americans? Americans who did not vote for the candidates who were ultimately elected?

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Forgive my idiocy, but what are you referring to with the word "externalities?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"Externalities" is a boogieman that statists use to justify government intervention.

The idea is that sometimes actions have impacts on people that aren't directly involved in the action. Sometimes these are good, sometimes they are bad. A factory dumping sludge into your river is a supposed externality.

Private property rights, when properly enforced, remove externalities. If there is a definitive owner of the river, instead of it being a "common", then polluters of that river will be pursued for damages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns the air?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The issue isn't how or even whether groups of individuals choose government officials, but rather what power does the government possess. If said officials don't initiate force against uninvolved third parties while acting on their constituents behalf, such a system would not be condemned by libertarians.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that libertarians are only opposed to the current American system of government with regards to international issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]

Who are these "uninvolved third parties"? Non-americans? Nonvoting americans? Americans who did not vote for the candidates who were ultimately elected?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone required to sacrifice his or her liberty or property to the government against his (or her) will. The "American people" are made up of individuals. The government steals a significant portion of my income (i.e. "taxes"), forbids me to do this, compels me to do that, etc etc. I never consented to any of it.

This essay explains what I mean (http://jim.com/treason.htm)

[ QUOTE ]

It seems like you are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. The latter is a specialized subset of the former. According to libertarianism, setting property disputes (as they are now) is certainly a legitimate function of the government.

Anarcho-capitalists claim even these minimal functions can be handled by private firms, but that's a different debate...

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you have the government resolving disputes, then libertarianism is done. The rest is just an excercise in line drawing. Which is not to say that debates about the exercise are not worth having. But we can lose the high-falootin' "consent" and "liberty" rhetoric, and we can stop calling taxes "theft".

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Who owns the air?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody. However, everyone breathes it, and pollution can damage you. If someone pollutes the air and causes you damages, sue them. Take action.

Don't back a system that lets people damage others with impunity.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
When a collective group, namely the american people, williingly decide collectively that they will enact a system of elections to appoint government officials who will act on their behalf to regulate their life, liberty and property, what is the libertarian stance on the validity of such a system? Granted, the regulation of life, liberty and property are opposed to libertarian views, but, at least as far as the video made known, they are not opposed to people willingly appointing officials act on their behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]

If (and only if) everyone (and I mean EVERYone) agrees, then it's fine. If there are dissenters, the the resulting regime is coercing some.

Don't aggregate everyone into a single collective that makes one decision.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Once you have the government resolving disputes, then libertarianism is done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The rest is just an excercise in line drawing. Which is not to say that debates about the exercise are not worth having. But we can lose the high-falootin' "consent" and "liberty" rhetoric, and we can stop calling taxes "theft".

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, "stop making my desire to oppress others look bad by using the correct terms".

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It seems like you are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. The latter is a specialized subset of the former. According to libertarianism, setting property disputes (as they are now) is certainly a legitimate function of the government.

Anarcho-capitalists claim even these minimal functions can be handled by private firms, but that's a different debate...

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you have the government resolving disputes, then libertarianism is done. The rest is just an excercise in line drawing. Which is not to say that debates about the exercise are not worth having. But we can lose the high-falootin' "consent" and "liberty" rhetoric, and we can stop calling taxes "theft".

[/ QUOTE ]

If the government really never initiated force (which would imply among many other things, that it didn't impose compulsory taxation), and strictly limited itself to a police and court system which only enforced laws protecting individual rights (i.e. retaliatory force), then few if any libertarians would object.

If you prefer not to call this "libertarianism" we can give it a different name if it makes you happy.

[Il_Mostro]

Sue before whom? I certinly don't accept your court to rule over me, I want mine, and mine says I can pollute as much as I like.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Sue before whom? I certinly don't accept your court to rule over me, I want mine, and mine says I can pollute as much as I like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Free market laws and courts (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html)

[Il_Mostro]

I'll read it more thoroughly later on. But what I saw in a quick read-through was a lot of wishful thinking.

But basically it seems like it would go something like this, I pollute, because my court says I can. You say I can't but I refuse to negotiate, because my court says it's ok. So you'll shoot me. Would that be the gist of it?

[vulturesrow]

How are you going to pay for police and courts? What about national defense?


Also, is coercion always a bad thing?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll read it more thoroughly later on. But what I saw in a quick read-through was a lot of wishful thinking.

But basically it seems like it would go something like this, I pollute, because my court says I can. You say I can't but I refuse to negotiate, because my court says it's ok. So you'll shoot me. Would that be the gist of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all. Nor is it "wishful thinking." There are criticisms one could make, but not those. You should read the essay.

[Il_Mostro]

Yeah, I'll try and find the time. If nothing else I can always be horrified about all strange people out there /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I wasn't completely serious about the "you'll shoot me" part, btw, sry...

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, "stop making my desire to oppress others look bad by using the correct terms".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. No matter how many times I use the word banana to refer to a peach, a peach is not a banana.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you going to pay for police and courts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, how do you pay for insurance, food, and medicine? Those who want to buy those services can pay for them.

[ QUOTE ]
What about national defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we are getting somewhere. This is known as the "public goods" problem, which arrises since large-scale defense services naturally aren't easily excludable.

Here is an excerpt from this web site (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part15) which discusses a number of solutions to the public goods problem:

"Perhaps most fundamentally: government is not a solution to the public goods problem, but rather the primary instance of the problem. If you create a government to solve your public goods problems, you merely create a new public goods problem: the public good of restraining and checking the government from abusing its power...

Many economists seem to be aware of this difficulty; in particular, public choice theory in economics emphasizes the externalities inherent in government action. But a double standard persists: while non-governmental externalities must be corrected by the state, we simply have to quietly endure the externalities inherent in political process.

Since there is no incentive to monitor the government, democracies must rely upon voluntary donations of intelligence and virtue. Because good government depends upon these voluntary donations, the public goods argument for government falls apart. Either unpaid virtue can make government work, in which case government isn't necessary to solve the public goods problem; or unpaid virtue is insufficient to make government work, in which case the government cannot be trusted to solve the public goods problem."


[ QUOTE ]
Also, is coercion always a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd describe it as a moral "standard" rather than an out of context "rule" that initiatory coercion is morally wrong.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In other words, "stop making my desire to oppress others look bad by using the correct terms".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. No matter how many times I use the word banana to refer to a peach, a peach is not a banana.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wilkpedia:

" Theft (also known as stealing) is in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent."

"A tax is a compulsory charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state (e.g., tribes, secessionist movements or revolutionary movements)."

Since the money I make is included among my property, and I never gave consent to any tax, this implies taxation &lt;==&gt; theft.

[ QUOTE ]
and I never gave consent to any tax

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's get this straight: You (1) knew before you made this money that it was subject to tax; (2) had the opportunity to arrange your affairs so that you wouldn't have to pay taxes; (3) did not so arrange your affairs; and (4) undertook to make the money despite the tax, but still claim you never gave consent?

Ummmm..ok.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
(2) had the opportunity to arrange your affairs so that you wouldn't have to pay taxes;

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how I could do this.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you going to pay for police and courts? What about national defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way I pay for everything else. With money.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, is coercion always a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you're a thug, then it's not.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Well, how do you pay for insurance, food, and medicine? Those who want to buy those services can pay for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, taxes are ok with libertarians then?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Now we are getting somewhere. This is known as the "public goods" problem, which arrises since large-scale defense services naturally aren't easily excludable.

Here is an excerpt from this web site which discusses a number of solutions to the public goods problem:

"Perhaps most fundamentally: government is not a solution to the public goods problem, but rather the primary instance of the problem. If you create a government to solve your public goods problems, you merely create a new public goods problem: the public good of restraining and checking the government from abusing its power...

Many economists seem to be aware of this difficulty; in particular, public choice theory in economics emphasizes the externalities inherent in government action. But a double standard persists: while non-governmental externalities must be corrected by the state, we simply have to quietly endure the externalities inherent in political process.

Since there is no incentive to monitor the government, democracies must rely upon voluntary donations of intelligence and virtue. Because good government depends upon these voluntary donations, the public goods argument for government falls apart. Either unpaid virtue can make government work, in which case government isn't necessary to solve the public goods problem; or unpaid virtue is insufficient to make government work, in which case the government cannot be trusted to solve the public goods problem."



[/ QUOTE ]

dont have time to read the link right this second, but how does the quoted material address national defense?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I'd describe it as a moral "standard" rather than an out of context "rule" that initiatory coercion is morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes or no will suffice. Is coercion good or bad? Seems that libertarians takes coercion is bad as axiomatic. If thats the case, then we might as well stop the discussion because clearly there are times when coercion is acceptable, perhaps even required.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
The same way I pay for everything else. With money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like AC society is full of filthy rich people. Also, my question was in response to that statement that a libertarian would accept it if gov't limited its role to police and courts.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I guess if you're a thug, then it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proof that you are completely blinded by your ideology. Anyone with half a brain can construct plausible scenarios where coercion isnt bad.

[NobodysFreak]

yeah, I'm curious about this, too, seeing as how I hate paying taxes.

I'd like to just stop paying them altogether, but then the IRS comes knocking, gets the police to tackle me to the ground. I get shackled and sent to a cage. My wages get garnished, but if I stop that I get tackled and sent to a cage again.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Now we are getting somewhere. This is known as the "public goods" problem, which arrises since large-scale defense services naturally aren't easily excludable.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Public goods" is another boogieman. Food and shelter are "public goods", should they also be nationalized?

The fact is, in the absence of government-supplied military defense, individual actors WILL demand some form of defense, and someone will supply it. A likely scenario that would develop would include a system of financial vehciles (eg options) and insurance policies that would fund defense specialists.

Of course, a free market defense force would not need to be nearly as large as the current US military, both because there would be no desire to waste money on offensive expeditions and because the threats from other states to a stateless "nation" (especially one that embraces non-coercive cooperation) would be vastly diminished.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess if you're a thug, then it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proof that you are completely blinded by your ideology. Anyone with half a brain can construct plausible scenarios where coercion isnt bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coercion can be justified if it's in response to other coercion that someone else initiated. I still don't believe that's "good", only justifiable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(2) had the opportunity to arrange your affairs so that you wouldn't have to pay taxes;

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how I could do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Renounce your citizenship and move somehere without taxes.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same way I pay for everything else. With money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like AC society is full of filthy rich people. Also, my question was in response to that statement that a libertarian would accept it if gov't limited its role to police and courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there very well may be poor people in an AC system. There would be fewer of them, but they would still exist. Chairity would take care of most of them.

We have chairitable institutions that take care of people nowadays even though the government is supposedly caring for everyone; I don't see any reason why that would be stopped or even reduced in an AC system where people have more control over how their money goes to help others.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, how do you pay for insurance, food, and medicine? Those who want to buy those services can pay for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, taxes are ok with libertarians then?


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I pay for whatever goods and services I want with my own money. That's not "taxation." Police and legal services should be no different. Libertarians oppose compelling individuals to pay for anything by force, e.g. by taxation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd describe it as a moral "standard" rather than an out of context "rule" that initiatory coercion is morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes or no will suffice. Is coercion good or bad? Seems that libertarians takes coercion is bad as axiomatic. If thats the case, then we might as well stop the discussion because clearly there are times when coercion is acceptable, perhaps even required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, then no. And I agree, then it makes no sense to continue a political debate if we don't agree about the foundational ethics.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Coercion can be justified if it's in response to other coercion that someone else initiated. I still don't believe that's "good", only justifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say someone has a medical condition that renders the violently delusional but can be completely controlled by medication. They dont take their medication but havent gotten violent yet, but you happen to know that it is only a matter of time before this happens. Is it okay to "coerce" them into taking their meds?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(2) had the opportunity to arrange your affairs so that you wouldn't have to pay taxes;

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how I could do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Renounce your citizenship and move somehere without taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was waiting for that one.

This assumes oppressors that tax have more legitimacy than my own property rights. I reject that. "Get out of here or give me some money" is still coercive.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say someone has a medical condition that renders the violently delusional but can be completely controlled by medication. They dont take their medication but havent gotten violent yet, but you happen to know that it is only a matter of time before this happens. Is it okay to "coerce" them into taking their meds?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(2) had the opportunity to arrange your affairs so that you wouldn't have to pay taxes;

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how I could do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Renounce your citizenship and move somehere without taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the "social contract" argument rears it's ugly head. An oldie but a goodie.

Where did the government get the authority to make the proverbial "offer I can't refuse" in the first place? I never consented to such an arrangement. It's no different than if a Mafia boss enters a neighborhood and demands that everyone pays him 10% of their wages or move. Nor does it make a difference if the majority in the neighborhood "voted" to allow him to do that.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Lets say someone has a medical condition that renders the violently delusional but can be completely controlled by medication. They dont take their medication but havent gotten violent yet, but you happen to know that it is only a matter of time before this happens. Is it okay to "coerce" them into taking their meds?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be completely clear, you know it is only a matter of time before this individual hurts someone, perhaps even kill someone. All he has to do is take his meds, but he forgot and now he wont because he thinks he doesnt need them. You are going to let him hurt or kill someone rather than coerce him to take the medicine?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
It's no different than if a Mafia boss enters a neighborhood and demands that everyone pays him 10% of their wages or move. Nor does it make a difference if the majority in the neighborhood "voted" to allow him to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters, especially if you, as a member of that community, implicitly agreed that your community would vote to appoint a member of the community to regulate the community. Just because you disagree with the official does not make them a thief and a murderer.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say someone has a medical condition that renders the violently delusional but can be completely controlled by medication. They dont take their medication but havent gotten violent yet, but you happen to know that it is only a matter of time before this happens. Is it okay to "coerce" them into taking their meds?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be completely clear, you know it is only a matter of time before this individual hurts someone, perhaps even kill someone. All he has to do is take his meds, but he forgot and now he wont because he thinks he doesnt need them. You are going to let him hurt or kill someone rather than coerce him to take the medicine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making threats is correctly considered a form of initiatory force, and therefore it's not against a libertarian philosophy to employ protective force in that case. Thus, if a criminally insane person threatens to commit a violent act, regardless of his intentions, he may properly be restrained by the government.

Since in your hypothetical, not taking the medication is entirely equivalent to making a violent threat, the person may be stopped. Whether that action takes the form of forcing him to take his meds or committing him to an institution is a legitimate matter of debate.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's no different than if a Mafia boss enters a neighborhood and demands that everyone pays him 10% of their wages or move. Nor does it make a difference if the majority in the neighborhood "voted" to allow him to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters, especially if you, as a member of that community, implicitly agreed that your community would vote to appoint a member of the community to regulate the community. Just because you disagree with the official does not make them a thief and a murderer.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is I never agreed, implicitly or otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the "social contract" argument rears it's ugly head. An oldie but a goodie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this to be your admission that you are able to arrange your affairs so as not to pay taxes, and you have chosen not to.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did the government get the authority to make the proverbial "offer I can't refuse" in the first place? I never consented to such an arrangement. It's no different than if a Mafia boss enters a neighborhood and demands that everyone pays him 10% of their wages or move. Nor does it make a difference if the majority in the neighborhood "voted" to allow him to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. In this country, "the government" is not some disembodied thing wholly distinct from the governed, and therefore your Mafia boss analogy is nonsensical. Your issue, fundamentally, is that you do not like the consenual bargains that are available to you. You want to pick and choose the benefits of living in this country you want and the costs that you are willing to pay. But, sorry, they do not come a la carte. Rather, this country is, with certain immaterial exceptions, made up of individuals that have freely consented to be bound by its bundle of laws in exchange for the entire bundle of benefits. The same consensual bargain is presented to you. It is shameful for you to make a choice and then complain about "coercion".

[ QUOTE ]
Much as they dance around the issue, libertarians dont deal well with externalities. I do enjoy watching the dance however.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the only time you and I agree about anything. Ever.

[ QUOTE ]
How are you going to pay for police and courts? What about national defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be completely clear, you know it is only a matter of time before this individual hurts someone, perhaps even kill someone. All he has to do is take his meds, but he forgot and now he wont because he thinks he doesnt need them. You are going to let him hurt or kill someone rather than coerce him to take the medicine?

[/ QUOTE ]

So we know, with 100% accuracy, that he will take violent action, and the meds are the ONLY thing, again, with 100% accuracy, that can prevent it.

It's funny how these hypothetical edge cases always depend on these bizzare conditionals that move them from "hypothetical" to "fantasyland".

Who will determine that he should be so compelled? Once you give an agency power to compell, it will seek out additional excuses to exert its power.

If you could identify with 100% certainty who will be harmed by the man should he not take his meds, and if that man objects to the harm, I would consider that to be sufficient to compell him to take his meds. In that case we have a clear indication of who is harmed (and in this case he is "harmed" by the threat of action, not the action itself) and he takes action indicate his preference to not be so harmed (by objecting). In this case, the potential victim would be justified in application of force.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, a free market defense force would not need to be nearly as large as the current US military, both because there would be no desire to waste money on offensive expeditions and because the threats from other states to a stateless "nation" (especially one that embraces non-coercive cooperation) would be vastly diminished.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this...you guys are starting to tempt me...

Damn, just when I thought we were getting somewhere...

[ QUOTE ]
This assumes oppressors that tax have more legitimacy than my own property rights. I reject that. "Get out of here or give me some money" is still coercive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of seems like the stream example. Someone's being coerced to buy a filter to use his creek how he wishes. If that's not coersion then I don't really think suggesting you move somewhere else is coersion. He can't live how he wishes without modifications, you can't live how you wish without modification. If one's not coersion how is the other?

Okay. I admit that it sucks to be born into an agreement you later don't want (let's forget about how you prospered under the system as a kid. I sure as hell needed government assistance when I was young). But you do have the right to up and leave at any time. Or you can stay and try to be part of the solution. Once again, I know it sucks that that's the situation you're in, but at least you're not a black person in the 1850's, or a woman in Saudi Arabia now. Most people here like the system as a whole, but would modify some things (like more or less taxes). Majority rules, brotha.

I haven't done much research on libertarianism, so I may have just come across looking like a dumbass. I don't know. I apologize if I do. However, I did meet Badnarik. When someone asked him about how the country would be ran without taxes, he sounded like a [censored] bumbling idiot though.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
This kind of seems like the stream example. Someone's being coerced to buy a filter to use his creek how he wishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's only being coerced not to interfere with someone else's use of his own property. If I am coerced not to drive my car through my neighbor's yard, this is not oppression, even though I'm prevented from doing what I wish with my car.

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not coersion then I don't really think suggesting you move somewhere else is coersion. He can't live how he wishes without modifications, you can't live how you wish without modification. If one's not coersion how is the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the coercion, but the initiation of it. When Person A does somethng that impacts Person B's use of Person B's property, he has comitted an aggression.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. I admit that it sucks to be born into an agreement you later don't want (let's forget about how you prospered under the system as a kid. I sure as hell needed government assistance when I was young). But you do have the right to up and leave at any time. Or you can stay and try to be part of the solution. Once again, I know it sucks that that's the situation you're in, but at least you're not a black person in the 1850's, or a woman in Saudi Arabia now. Most people here like the system as a whole, but would modify some things (like more or less taxes). Majority rules, brotha.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because the oppression that we currently endure in the US is less than it has been in the past or that is currently experienced elsewhere, you're ready to excuse it?

I would say that pointing out oppression and offering alternatives IS being part of the solution.

[vulturesrow]

What is so bizarre about a mental illness to cause violent delusions that can be controlled by medicine? I dont consider that a stretch at all. But then again given that you call proven and recognized economic concepts as myth, I cant say I am altogether surprised.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Who owns the air?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody. However, everyone breathes it, and pollution can damage you. If someone pollutes the air and causes you damages, sue them. Take action.

Don't back a system that lets people damage others with impunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if there are 5 factories that are polluting, but I cant figure out which one is producing the pollutants that actually damaged my lungs?

Also, how is the factory going to compensate? No amount of money is going to restore the functionality to the destroyed lung tissue?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Just say you don't think [censored] a goat is abusive toward the goat or abuse of animals for human pleasure is acceptable in your opinion. Quit with the semantic jig already.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not semantics.

We are talking about the libertarian ideology. Like any ideology, the least we demand from it is consistency. One cannot, for instance, invoke Axiom A and Axiom non-A at the same time, in order to constrcut an ideology, any ideology, including the libertarian ideology.

Since we are talking about the libertarian ideology and not the Christian ideology, we cannot be invoking at the same time the need to have individuals making free choices on their own as long as their choices do not hurt other human beings AND the over-riding rule of a natural, supreme law (such as the Bible or PETA or whatever).

For the record, /images/graemlins/grin.gif I have never engaged in bestiality nor do I intend to, in the near future to screw a non-human. I mean, I would not do that even to Saddam Hussein and he is as close to non-human as it gets. /images/graemlins/grin.gif This is about legitimate use of logic in constructing our argument -- I'm not defending the practice.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you say natural order must be separated from political ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because individuals who make free choices, as individuals should, according to the libertarian ideology, choose what to obey and what not to obey, including which parts of the so-called "natural laws" or "natural order". It's their free choice. You choose to obey the "natural order" as you see it, the other guy chooses not to acknowledge such a "natural order".

Simple as that.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume your stance is the same on a human who abuses animals to satisfy his psychological needs? You respect people's right to do that even though you don't agree with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally? Well, personally, I "respect" nothing of the sort.

You folks are confusing my efforts in this thread (and other threads) to ensure consistency in our arguments. I am simply trying to help along with the definition of the libertarian ideology -- which is an interesting ideology, actually, since it advocates "total freedom" for the individual. (There is a lot to be said about that notion. We would start with De Sade- per force! But that would be for another thread.)

I do not approve of hitting animals. I frown upon people scre*wing animals.

I believe that a free society is one whose citizens choose to make laws which then become obligatory for one and all citizens. Among such laws, I believe that there should be one which renders all forms of bestiality and unnecessary abuse of animals outlawed and punishable, on account NOT of some heterodox morality (such as The Bible's or Numerology or the Torah) but on account of what I, HUMAN believe that morally is right.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you are deprived of your liberty, and punished for the depriving of theirs.

In my opinion, your life should be deprived as well. But...I do not have a problem with you getting liquored up or driving 110...it's the smashing into someone else that I would punish...otherwise, whose liberty has been deprived?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well put.

[ QUOTE ]
No, he's only being coerced not to interfere with someone else's use of his own property. If I am coerced not to drive my car through my neighbor's yard, this is not oppression, even though I'm prevented from doing what I wish with my car.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see how this makes the case that you are 'coerced' to move somewhere else when I suggest you move if you don't want to pay taxes. But agree to disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
So because the oppression that we currently endure in the US is less than it has been in the past or that is currently experienced elsewhere, you're ready to excuse it?

I would say that pointing out oppression and offering alternatives IS being part of the solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to excuse anything, because I don't think it's oppression. What I meant is you have the option to leave, whereas those people didn't/don't.

If the guy wants to use the stream completely in the fashion he wants to he must spend money on a filter. If you want to use your money completely in the fashion you desire you must find a place that does not tax it. For both desires someone 'must' do something. Where we disagree, I guess, is whether or not you being taxed interferes with someone's right/property. I would argue that you not paying taxes would. I believe people have the right to some level of security , say, when a hurricane leaves them penniless. But that's sappy liberal stuff that we'll obviously disagree on. I don't really see the point of discussing that.

And yes, you are being part of your solution! Just like I may hate the guy in office, and feel oppressed by the judges that have made it illegal to get an abortion or make it illegal for me (in the unlikely event I'll ever want to) to have sex with a dude, I'd rather stay and fix the problem. I wouldn't feel coerced to leave the country, though.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What if there are 5 factories that are polluting, but I cant figure out which one is producing the pollutants that actually damaged my lungs?

Also, how is the factory going to compensate? No amount of money is going to restore the functionality to the destroyed lung tissue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Joint torts are not amazingly complicated.

Compensation may not "repair" actual damages, but will certainly dissuade polluters, especially in an environment where there's no central government providing protection for polluters.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What is so bizarre about a mental illness to cause violent delusions that can be controlled by medicine? I dont consider that a stretch at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a stretch, either, but that's not what you specified. You specified a condition where you can be 100% certain that someone will become violent and where you can be 100% certain that the meds will prevent it. I'm still unclear on if the meds are the ONLY fix for the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
But then again given that you call proven and recognized economic concepts as myth, I cant say I am altogether surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, he's only being coerced not to interfere with someone else's use of his own property. If I am coerced not to drive my car through my neighbor's yard, this is not oppression, even though I'm prevented from doing what I wish with my car.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see how this makes the case that you are 'coerced' to move somewhere else when I suggest you move if you don't want to pay taxes. But agree to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe in property rights? It appears not. If I own some land, and someone comes to me and says "give me some money or get the hell out" then that is coercion, unless you believe the taxer has more right to the land than the landowner.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to excuse anything, because I don't think it's oppression. What I meant is you have the option to leave, whereas those people didn't/don't.

If the guy wants to use the stream completely in the fashion he wants to he must spend money on a filter.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you don't have rights to do whatever you want "completely in the fashion he wants to" - you only have the right to do whatever you want *as long as you do not invade or aggress against someone else (or their property)*. Dumping sludge in a manner where it will invade someone else's property is aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to use your money completely in the fashion you desire you must find a place that does not tax it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're trying to equate the aggressive action of a polluter with the victimization of a taxpayer? The taxpayer is not the aggressor, the state is!

[ QUOTE ]
For both desires someone 'must' do something.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're comparing a polluter who "must" avoid invading someone else's property with a taxpayer that "must" allow himself to be victimized. This could be the worst analogy I've ever seen.

[ QUOTE ]
Where we disagree, I guess, is whether or not you being taxed interferes with someone's right/property.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it NOT???

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that you not paying taxes would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, *not* paying taxes interferes with my own use of my property?

[ QUOTE ]
I believe people have the right to some level of security , say, when a hurricane leaves them penniless. But that's sappy liberal stuff that we'll obviously disagree on. I don't really see the point of discussing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I see, so others have a right to my property. I'm a slave to the faceless masses?

[BCPVP]

Question pvn:

Who enforces the decisions made through these lawsuits under anarcho-capitalism?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Who enforces the decisions made through these lawsuits under anarcho-capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. The market will decide. It's possible that police forces could be vertically integrated with their own arbitration service, and could function as their own enforcement service as well. More likely, police and judicial services would be seperate.

In most cases, force will not be needed to enforce a decision. In minor commercial disputes, if one violates a judgment, he would likely be subject to commercial ostracism. Financial institutions, vendors, road-owners, etc may choose to decline his business as long as he continues to violate the terms of the judgement. This alone is pretty strong encouragement.

For more serious (especially violent) acts, marshalls of some sort (either directly employed by the judical firm or hired out by the plantiff) could be directed against the criminal to enforce whatever restitution/punishment is recommended.

[BCPVP]

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to be hostile with these questions. I'm geniunely curious.

[ QUOTE ]
In most cases, force will not be needed to enforce a decision. In minor commercial disputes, if one violates a judgment, he would likely be subject to commercial ostracism. Financial institutions, vendors, road-owners, etc may choose to decline his business as long as he continues to violate the terms of the judgement. This alone is pretty strong encouragement.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's possible. Couldn't it also be possible that because they ignore the decision, they've found a way to cut expenses and thus might be more successful? Wouldn't that encourage, instead of discourage, the negative behavior?

[ QUOTE ]
For more serious (especially violent) acts, marshalls of some sort (either directly employed by the judical firm or hired out by the plantiff) could be directed against the criminal to enforce whatever restitution/punishment is recommended.

[/ QUOTE ]
How would the recommended restitution/punishment be decided in a consistent manner? Is consistency even important? What if the "criminal" hires his own firm to protect himself from the plaintiff's? Is it just a shootout till one side wins? If so, then it sounds like the plaintiff's firm is going to need quite a bit of money in order to put their life on the line. Not everyone has that kind of money, so how would such a system not be incredibly biased towards the poor?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's possible. Couldn't it also be possible that because they ignore the decision, they've found a way to cut expenses and thus might be more successful? Wouldn't that encourage, instead of discourage, the negative behavior?

[/ QUOTE ]

But who's going to do business with this guy? You can cut expenses all you want, but if nobody will buy from you or sell supplies to you, you're going to have a hard time.

Would you do business with someone that had a BBB record showing that he didn't deliver what he was paid for, or someone that didn't pay for stuff he ordered?


[ QUOTE ]
How would the recommended restitution/punishment be decided in a consistent manner? Is consistency even important? What if the "criminal" hires his own firm to protect himself from the plaintiff's? Is it just a shootout till one side wins?

[/ QUOTE ]

Companies that engage in such shootouts are probably going to go out of business. Customers of such services are looking for objective, efficient, and peaceful delivery of such service. In other words, it's to everyone's benefit if judicial services have fair appeals processes. Shootouts are not attractive to customers. Any security firm that engages in violence to prevent a judgement that had been decided and appealed in a fair manner would itself face commercial ostracism.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No. You can do anything you want on your property until what you do travels to my property and impacts me.

Just because society is free doesn't mean we're absolved of responsibility for our actions.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

When a collective group, namely the american people, williingly decide collectively that they will enact a system of elections to appoint government officials who will act on their behalf to regulate their life, liberty and property, what is the libertarian stance on the validity of such a system?

Easy answer. Government is not given carte blache to regulate all aspects of life. There exists a constitution that outlines what government can and cannot do.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But who's going to do business with this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure some still would. Do all businesses that pollute immediately go out of business?

[ QUOTE ]
Would you do business with someone that had a BBB record showing that he didn't deliver what he was paid for, or someone that didn't pay for stuff he ordered?

[/ QUOTE ]
But in the example I gave, the business would stil be delivering what it promised and doing so in such a way as to save on costs. That's usually seen as a positive, yes?

[ QUOTE ]
Any security firm that engages in violence to prevent a judgement that had been decided and appealed in a fair manner would itself face commercial ostracism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or a windfall from those who would look to do the same thing.

I noticed you didn't address the question about whether this system is biased towards the poor. How likely is it that the poor will have to put up with a lot of injustice because they can't afford what the "judicial" firms charge, much less what the "enforcement" firms charge?

[vulturesrow]

Dude, its utopia, there are no poor people. And if there are, they will be taken care of. Dont sweat it.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But who's going to do business with this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure some still would. Do all businesses that pollute immediately go out of business?

[/ QUOTE ]

But firms that pollute are (in general) polluting "common" property (such as rivers, which in the US are generally not privately owned), and they are generally given immunity from the government (which sets arbitrary "standards" and has other regulatory methods which permit pollution). In cases where companies actually pollute enough to cause definitive harm (eg Union Carbide), market forces deliver swift punishment.

I'm working on a post about "externalities" like pollution (in cases more minor than the gross examples like Union Carbide). Externality theories generally assume to know the preferences of people in general, when that's obviously impossible. Basically, if the "externality" doesn't cause the "victim" to take action, his lack of action is indicitave of his not being bothered by it. Since economics is concerned with human *action* (i.e. preferences), and NOT worried about why the actors choose those actions or preferences, we can discount the theory of externalities. If one is imposed upon, he can take action.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you do business with someone that had a BBB record showing that he didn't deliver what he was paid for, or someone that didn't pay for stuff he ordered?

[/ QUOTE ]
But in the example I gave, the business would stil be delivering what it promised and doing so in such a way as to save on costs. That's usually seen as a positive, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm missing something in the example, then. Who is the guy screwing? He's delivering what he promised, so where is he unethically cutting costs?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any security firm that engages in violence to prevent a judgement that had been decided and appealed in a fair manner would itself face commercial ostracism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or a windfall from those who would look to do the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. But only if there are so many people that have no respect for order that they outnumber the people that do. In that case, I would argue that even a centralized state would fall apart, so this is not a detrimental aspect of anarcho-capitalism.

[ QUOTE ]
I noticed you didn't address the question about whether this system is biased towards the poor. How likely is it that the poor will have to put up with a lot of injustice because they can't afford what the "judicial" firms charge, much less what the "enforcement" firms charge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I did mean to address that. In general, a poor person will have little trouble in commercial cases - we have plenty of lawyers who will argue cases on contingency. The services of the arbitrators will almost assuredly be paid by the liable party. Since arbitration in a free market would be much more efficient than in a state-monopoly market, such fees could be waived (or absorbed by contingency attorneys).

For criminal cases, as we've discussed before, the extremely poor will have to rely on chairity. The current existence of legal aid foundations (depsite the state) that assist the poor in legal matters bodes well for their continued existence without state "competition".

Of course, the poor will probably get service that is not quite as good as the rich will, but that situation exists now, doesn't it? Yet there is no call for the total nationalization of all legal services (making even the rich use state-supplied attorneys, for example).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, a poor person will have little trouble in commercial cases - we have plenty of lawyers who will argue cases on contingency. The services of the arbitrators will almost assuredly be paid by the liable party. Since arbitration in a free market would be much more efficient than in a state-monopoly market, such fees could be waived (or absorbed by contingency attorneys).

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured this would be the case in civil cases.

[ QUOTE ]
For criminal cases, as we've discussed before, the extremely poor will have to rely on chairity. The current existence of legal aid foundations (depsite the state) that assist the poor in legal matters bodes well for their continued existence without state "competition".

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like that. While I agree that *some* of the costs will be made up in charity, I don't think it would be even close to adequate. I have a problem with justice being bought and sold in the manner that it would be in such a society.

Your answer appears to be "let's cross our fingers that there's enough generous people out ther". While I find libertarianism increasingly attractive, the inability of anarcho-capitalism (as you've described) to deal with how the less fortunate will recieve adequate justice will probably keep me from ever supporting it. I would rather we were all a little "oppressed" and recieved some justice than we were all "free" and only those who can afford it would get justice.

*damn, I'm starting to sound like a lib!*

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Much as they dance around the issue, libertarians dont deal well with externalities. I do enjoy watching the dance however.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best post regarding libertarians that I've ever seen.

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who enforces the decisions made through these lawsuits under anarcho-capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. The market will decide. It's possible that police forces could be vertically integrated with their own arbitration service, and could function as their own enforcement service as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. So in your fantasy AC utopia, we get Judge Dredd.

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In general, a poor person will have little trouble in commercial cases - we have plenty of lawyers who will argue cases on contingency. The services of the arbitrators will almost assuredly be paid by the liable party. Since arbitration in a free market would be much more efficient than in a state-monopoly market, such fees could be waived (or absorbed by contingency attorneys).

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured this would be the case in civil cases.

[ QUOTE ]
For criminal cases, as we've discussed before, the extremely poor will have to rely on chairity. The current existence of legal aid foundations (depsite the state) that assist the poor in legal matters bodes well for their continued existence without state "competition".

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like that. While I agree that *some* of the costs will be made up in charity, I don't think it would be even close to adequate. I have a problem with justice being bought and sold in the manner that it would be in such a society.

Your answer appears to be "let's cross our fingers that there's enough generous people out ther". While I find libertarianism increasingly attractive, the inability of anarcho-capitalism (as you've described) to deal with how the less fortunate will recieve adequate justice will probably keep me from ever supporting it. I would rather we were all a little "oppressed" and recieved some justice than we were all "free" and only those who can afford it would get justice.

*damn, I'm starting to sound like a lib!*

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you're starting to sound like a smart conservative worthy of respect from a lib.

-ptmusic

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Who enforces the decisions made through these lawsuits under anarcho-capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. The market will decide. It's possible that police forces could be vertically integrated with their own arbitration service, and could function as their own enforcement service as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. So in your fantasy AC utopia, we get Judge Dredd.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

And lets not forget that I recieve money in return to irreperable damage to my lungs.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
And lets not forget that I recieve money in return to irreperable damage to my lungs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you get in the current system?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. So in your fantasy AC utopia, we get Judge Dredd.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't. Wanton violence and summary judgement is unprofitable.

[Triumph36]

You've forgotten - anarcho-captalism would change our currently short-sighted, pig-headed executives into perfectly self-interested and rational people. They wouldn't pollute anymore.

Honestly the more I hear about anarcho-capitalism the more it sounds like Marxism turned on its head - whereby people must undergo a fundamental change in their worldview before it is even possible.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly the more I hear about anarcho-capitalism the more it sounds like Marxism turned on its head - whereby people must undergo a fundamental change in their worldview before it is even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense, you've got that right. It actually requires people to respect one another and the concept of order. It can withstand some jerks, but if *everyone* is a jerk, the system will not work.

Of course, any system will fail if the participants do not believe in it (whether their "belief" is induced under threat of violence or by rational, voluntary agreement).

It provides positive feedback, where voluntary cooperation creates dividends (financial and otherwise), whereas state-dominated systems depend on negative feedback (state violence) to keep everyone in line.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
And lets not forget that I recieve money in return to irreperable damage to my lungs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you get in the current system?

[/ QUOTE ]

A means of prevention.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Compensation may not "repair" actual damages, but will certainly dissuade polluters, especially in an environment where there's no central government providing protection for polluters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or the coporation can write off the cost of litigation as an acceptable one and continue with business as usual. But Im sure that would never happen in a society ruled by self interest.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Or the coporation can write off the cost of litigation as an acceptable one and continue with business as usual. But Im sure that would never happen in a society ruled by self interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, you think that doesn't happen now?

You think government *prevents* pollution? They specifically allow it, and provide protection for polluters.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Wait, you think that doesn't happen now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
You think government *prevents* pollution? They specifically allow it, and provide protection for polluters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some forms yes.