Libertarian?

dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Libertarian?

Would luv some feedback from folks on this.

Libertarianism seems like an ideal system--in a perfect world. However, given that most people--I would argue at least a majority--out there are not, nor are they anything close, the "great unwashed" need rules & regulations to keep them, the idiots, in check.

From what I understand, this system says people should be able to self-govern. Period. End of Story. Well, again, in a perfect world.

Thoughts?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Reason forbid we take on a modicum of personal and social responsibility.

That's better than my god=darwin selfwordfiltering. I'm going to steal this from you. 


Father Vasily
Father Vasily's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
I just want to say that

I just want to say that freedom is more important to people around the world. Libertarianism is the free-est in America and anyone who wants freedom should be Libertarian. Anything else is lie thats say its for the people.

 

Liberty is being able to worship or not worship without others telling you what you can and cannot do. This is why I am Libertarian so I can do and be and believe what I believe without others like my old homeland says otherwise.

Democrat and Republican are becoming something like Soviet Rus and America needs to not forget that freedom and liberty are more important than is someone wants to smoke marijuana or have cigar in a restaurant. You say no to those then what next? The next thing you know some politics that tell you what you can read because it is wrong and then you are in line for bathroom paper and listening to state music because they say its good for you.

Be free and have a choice to believe what you want, live how you want and be what you want without anyone to say otherwise.

Fr. Vasily 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi

Zhwazi wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Reason forbid we take on a modicum of personal and social responsibility.

That's better than my god=darwin selfwordfiltering. I'm going to steal this from you.

 

I honestly hate sloganism, but I honestly do feel this way. Humans make or break humaninity by their decicisions, their attitudes and their goals. Fostering a dependendant society does not sustain us as a species, it prolongs our demise at best.

We need to work toward a global economy, that benefits all. Peace is not made by the barrel of the gun as Mao said, but from trade.

Peace comes from flat screen TVs and microwave ovens and low-rise denim pants. Trade is what unites us. Trade is what we all have in common. Comfort is what we all enjoy.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Peace is not made by the barrel of the gun as Mao said, but from trade.

Maybe I'm thinking of a different quote. But I always interpreted it as a version of "Peace through superior firepower", the principle that if you have the ability to do great harm to people, they'll have much less incentive to do any harm to you. 


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
And here comes the view

And here comes the view from the totalitarianist in the group.

 The problem with the Libertarian view is that no one plows the streets, maintains the roads and water supply, cleans the sewers, maintains a civil defense or prevents those in power from abusing and misusing the populace.

I know the response to that is 'we can hire someone to do that', but collusion, price gouging, lack of regulation and general greed would cause that system to abuse the consumer.  The laissez-faire approach gave us the Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, Carnegies and Rockefellers of the world; a land full of monopolies where the little guy was considered disposable.

The only freedom that matters is to be free in thought.  The ability to use your mind best comes when you are unencumbered from daily life - someone takes care of the garbage, you can call someone to deliver your dinner, etc, etc.  The more control that the government has while the people feel free to make their own choices, the better society will run.

I am a fan of big government - in fact, I just started working at the IRS.  I like Socialist policies of free health care, free higher education, pensions for all citizens, and income taxes weighted against the rich.  However, I realize that a society based on those things eventually runs out of funds, so I also happen to be in favor of passive eugenics, keeping the unfit from bearing children, and getting the elderly into their graves before they become medical problems.

Libertarians want to feel free by removing all supports that come from the government; Totalitarians want to be free by having the government take care of them.

 Just thought I'd let you all know how the other half sees it.

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy wrote: The

Family_Guy wrote:

The problem with the Libertarian view is that no one plows the streets, maintains the roads and water supply, cleans the sewers...

If the streets, water supply, and sewers were all privately and not publicly owned, this would not be a problem. A road owner who's street is unplowed will get no traffic and thus make no money off it. A poorly maintained road will not get traffic either. The water supply wouldn't be used beyond sustainable yeild, the owner of the supply would ensure that in the interest of future profits and resellability of the water supply. If the pipes break, they will have great incentive to get it fixed, otherwise they lose money. Backed up sewers would not get customers, and there is no logical reason to assume there can be only one set of sewers unless working from the statist assumption of monopoly, which there is no reason to assume under libertarianism.

Quote:
...maintains a civil defense or prevents those in power from abusing and misusing the populace.

There is no need to maintain a defense against outside invaders under libertarianism. You already have gun nuts with BFG-50s, enough AKs to arm a few units, rifles that'll hit a dime at 200 yards, and more AR-15s in more configurations than you want to bother imagining, to say nothing of all the shotguns, SKSs, Mosin Nagants, deer rifles, and more handguns in civilian hands than rifles in military hands. Given the choice, people will arm themselves with heavier weapons than any military cares to issue in significant numbers.

As for a defense against criminals, what there is demand for, there will be a supply for. Private Defense Agencies would probably be paid for by subscription. We already know this works by taking the example of the subscription fire departments. Road owners will want the drunks kept off the streets. Homeowners will want people on call and patrolling their neighborhood. There will be companies that get paid for this, because there are paying customers for this.

And under my system, there wouldn't *be* anyone in power to absue or misuse the populace. There'd be no government in the first place. Businesses operate strictly on a voluntary basis. Walmart does not force you into it's stores at gunpoint or compel you to operate the register. They wouldn't have anything resembling "power".

Quote:
I know the response to that is 'we can hire someone to do that', but collusion, price gouging, lack of regulation and general greed would cause that system to abuse the consumer.

Collusion exists only where the companies know that no competitor will step in and undercut them. Price gouging after natural disasters is actually a good thing, as it convinces people to consume as little as possible at a time when resources are scarce, as well as leading others to rush supplies into the area to seek higher prices. Price gouging in other times would be corrected by competition. Lack of regulation is simply the lack of things which impede businesses from producing, and because production is a good thing, lack of regulation is a good thing. Greed is not bad if it motivates people to create goods and services to sell for money. Only in government is greed harmful. The concept of the system abusing the consumer is really an absurd one. The vast majority of people are producers and all people are consumers. To think that we can harm ourselves the 8 hours of the day we produce to benefit ourselves the 8 hours of the day we consume is just stupid, as we can only hurt ourselves.

Quote:
The laissez-faire approach gave us the Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, Carnegies and Rockefellers of the world; a land full of monopolies where the little guy was considered disposable.

You are misusing the term laissez-faire. It was not laissez-faire that made them, it was government privilege. Laissez-faire and government privilege are incompatible. 

 

Quote:
The only freedom that matters is to be free in thought. The ability to use your mind best comes when you are unencumbered from daily life - someone takes care of the garbage, you can call someone to deliver your dinner, etc, etc. The more control that the government has while the people feel free to make their own choices, the better society will run.

The more people are siphoned out of the job market to bureaucratically manage such tasks, the fewer more valuable goods are produced, and the lower the standard of living. 

Quote:
I am a fan of big government - in fact, I just started working at the IRS.

I hope you get tarred and feathered. 

Quote:
I like Socialist policies of free health care, free higher education, pensions for all citizens, and income taxes weighted against the rich. However, I realize that a society based on those things eventually runs out of funds, so I also happen to be in favor of passive eugenics, keeping the unfit from bearing children, and getting the elderly into their graves before they become medical problems.

Do you believe you have the right to force it down my throat?

Quote:
Libertarians want to feel free by removing all supports that come from the government; Totalitarians want to be free by having the government take care of them.

Freedom from responsibility is called slavery.

Quote:
Just thought I'd let you all know how the other half sees it.

Let's see, in a nutshell:

1. People are stupid. But some people become bureaucrats, like me, therefore I am omniscient, because while everyone else is stupid, I am not. I know what is best for you better than you know what is best for you. Therefore you should do as I say because it is for your own good.

2. If I believe X, I have the right to force you to support my delusion. If I like income taxes, I have the right to make you pay. If I think I am Santa Claus, I have the right to force you to make toys.

3. WAR IS PEACE - FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

4. An economy without government intervention will be terrible, but we can't actually try it out in order to prove it. 

That about right?


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Family Guy, Zhwazi, If I

Family Guy, Zhwazi, If I believed in God I'd pray like hell that neither of you ever has the chance to institute any policy, or anti-policy  (ehh) in this country.  I've been following this thread and have read a ton of anecdotal nonsense. Where is the practical application?  "If, shoulda, coulda, woulda", doesn't mean a thing when it's backed up by more of the same. But "if" it's any concession to you, Zhwazi, I'd gladly help you tar n' feather Family Guy.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Edger wrote: Family Guy,

Edger wrote:
Family Guy, Zhwazi, If I believed in God I'd pray like hell that neither of you ever has the chance to institute any policy, or anti-policy (ehh) in this country.

We represent two polar opposite views. Any policy that is instituted is going to be either one that I'd institute or one that he'd institute. So unless total stagnation is what you want, you're a bit out of luck. 

Quote:
I've been following this thread and have read a ton of anecdotal nonsense. Where is the practical application? "If, shoulda, coulda, woulda", doesn't mean a thing when it's backed up by more of the same.

We're arguing political theory, I'm arguing largely from an ethical standpoint. Do you want me to argue from a pragmatic standpoint too? I can do both.

Quote:
But "if" it's any concession to you, Zhwazi, I'd gladly help you tar n' feather Family Guy.

More the merrier.


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
I love the idea that the

I love the idea that the forces of capitalism will be enough to prevent people from getting screwed over by the forces of capitalism - as that is what I seem to get out of your premise.

As we both know, people can be convinced to believe some really insane things, such as religion.  What's to stop some shoddy company with a slick marketing campaign from peddling inferior products to consumers under your plan?

Heavy regulation of a field, telling people what they can and can't do and having consequences and repercussions for trangressions is how you prevent the consumer from being bilked.  Personally, I wish the average consumer was slightly more intelligent, which would be the only fighting chance your system would have.

Wal-Mart doesn't put a gun to your head and force you to buy their products, but they do chew up competition by artifically lowering prices and relying more and more on sweatshop labor to do it.  Your suggestion, near as I can tell, is to allow all businesses to use sweatshop labor or do anything at all possible to lower prices, no matter the consequences on society as a whole.

In the sewers scenario, let's have two private companies own some sewer lines.  Company A is financially healthy because they don't repair their ancient lines - they instead pay Company B to not install sewers near them and have a stranglehold on their captive audience.  As there is no government regulation for this sort of bribery and collusion, Company A is free to screw all of its consumers until such a time as it deems necessary to actually do work.

It's a doomsday scenario, but it's far more likely without governmental control than with it.  As for tarring and feathering me for working for the Feds, whatever floats your boat.  The tax brackets should be weighted far more against the wealthy than they currently are.

Libertarians seem to have this idea that if you take the leash off the pet, it will still walk right next to its owner.  The moment you loosen control on your average animal, it runs amok.  I see no solution to that problem by relaxing government regulation.

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy wrote: I love

Family_Guy wrote:

I love the idea that the forces of capitalism will be enough to prevent people from getting screwed over by the forces of capitalism - as that is what I seem to get out of your premise.

The forces of capitalism are not trying to screw people over. Why do you assume they do? 

Quote:
As we both know, people can be convinced to believe some really insane things, such as religion. What's to stop some shoddy company with a slick marketing campaign from peddling inferior products to consumers under your plan?

Consumer backlash. Lawsuits. Nobody trusting the company and therefore not listening to another word they say as if it were honest. Etc. 

Quote:
Heavy regulation of a field, telling people what they can and can't do and having consequences and repercussions for trangressions is how you prevent the consumer from being bilked.

The customers will tell producers what they can and can't do. The legislatures are not involved in such interactions and have no right or obligation to interfere. 

Quote:
Personally, I wish the average consumer was slightly more intelligent, which would be the only fighting chance your system would have.

Which proves point 1 of what I took out of your post. 

Quote:
Wal-Mart doesn't put a gun to your head and force you to buy their products, but they do chew up competition by artifically lowering prices and relying more and more on sweatshop labor to do it.

Low prices are good for consumers. Sweatshop labor is good for poor countries. Sweatshops are an unfortunate stage in the industrialization of any country. The US is only where it is today because we had sweatshops at one time. 

Quote:
Your suggestion, near as I can tell, is to allow all businesses to use sweatshop labor or do anything at all possible to lower prices, no matter the consequences on society as a whole.

As I said, sweatshops are an unfortunate stage in the industrialization of poorer countries. As the countries become richer, they'll be able to afford the hardware that'll help them move beyond sweatshops. However much they lower prices, they are doing good for society as a whole. Unless you are meaning to say that high prices are good for society, which few people are silly enough to believe. 

Quote:
In the sewers scenario, let's have two private companies own some sewer lines. Company A is financially healthy because they don't repair their ancient lines - they instead pay Company B to not install sewers near them and have a stranglehold on their captive audience. As there is no government regulation for this sort of bribery and collusion, Company A is free to screw all of its consumers until such a time as it deems necessary to actually do work.

Let's go on a cause and effect chain.

Company A neglects sewers

Sewers back up. Customers dissatisfied. Customers willing to pay more fore sewer service.

Company B sees this and knows that it can make more by stealing A's customers than by the subsidy A gives it. B demands more money.

Sewers get worse. Prices willing to be paid go up again. B demands more, or threatens to compete.

Company A eventually finds that the amount of money it pays B to stay out is more than it would cost A to clean the damn sewers.

Alternatively, A can no longer pay B the additional subsidy, and B goes to work building sewers and competes with A.

A goes bankrupt as consumers ditch. 

Problem solved. 

Quote:
It's a doomsday scenario, but it's far more likely without governmental control than with it.

No it's not. 

Quote:
As for tarring and feathering me for working for the Feds, whatever floats your boat.

Actually it's a traditional tax collector treatment. It's the American Way. 

Quote:
The tax brackets should be weighted far more against the wealthy than they currently are.

Hey, I plan to be wealthy someday. Now I hate you even more.

Quote:
Libertarians seem to have this idea that if you take the leash off the pet, it will still walk right next to its owner. The moment you loosen control on your average animal, it runs amok. I see no solution to that problem by relaxing government regulation.

A poor metaphor, unless you are implying that the government owns the citizenry as slaves.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Father Vasily

Father Vasily wrote:

Democrat and Republican are becoming something like Soviet Rus and America needs to not forget that freedom and liberty are more important than is someone wants to smoke marijuana or have cigar in a restaurant. You say no to those then what next? The next thing you know some politics that tell you what you can read because it is wrong and then you are in line for bathroom paper and listening to state music because they say its good for you.

Be free and have a choice to believe what you want, live how you want and be what you want without anyone to say otherwise.

Fr. Vasily

Cool! So you won't mind if i walk up to you in the restaurant while you're eating and have me stick my dirty, hairy asshole in your face? It's my right to do so and well, that's just me being me, it's just who i am. Who are you to impinge on my freedom? 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Cool! So

dassercha wrote:

Cool! So you won't mind if i walk up to you in the restaurant while you're eating and have me stick my dirty, hairy asshole in your face? It's my right to do so and well, that's just me being me, it's just who i am. Who are you to impinge on my freedom?

Keep in mind, you're in somebody else's resturaunt, and the owner is going to have you banned from ever entering the resturaunt again. And if it's your resturaunt, you'll find your customers leaving you with an empty resturaunt and a lot of overhead.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: dassercha

Zhwazi wrote:
dassercha wrote:

Cool! So you won't mind if i walk up to you in the restaurant while you're eating and have me stick my dirty, hairy asshole in your face? It's my right to do so and well, that's just me being me, it's just who i am. Who are you to impinge on my freedom?

Keep in mind, you're in somebody else's resturaunt, and the owner is going to have you banned from ever entering the resturaunt again. And if it's your resturaunt, you'll find your customers leaving you with an empty resturaunt and a lot of overhead.

Nope. Worked in service industry for ages, many friends are business owners and none of them allow cigars. They are doing just fine. Here's an idea: How 'bout opening a cigar bar/pub or "cigar-friendly" restaurant/bar or whatever and it's a win-win? 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Nope.

dassercha wrote:

Nope. Worked in service industry for ages, many friends are business owners and none of them allow cigars. They are doing just fine. Here's an idea: How 'bout opening a cigar bar/pub or "cigar-friendly" restaurant/bar or whatever and it's a win-win?

Cigars? I must've taken figurative bullshit as a literal statement. Forgive me for picturing you shoving your ass in someone's face and not picturing cigar smoking.

If it's your property, do whatever you want, it's yours.

If it's not, you need to respect the property rights of the owner.

If you don't like people smoking around you, leave. Go take your money somewhere else. The business owner will get that message soon enough. 

Smoking a cigar is very different from shoving your hairy ass in someone's face.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy wrote:

Family_Guy wrote:

I love the idea that the forces of capitalism will be enough to prevent people from getting screwed over by the forces of capitalism - as that is what I seem to get out of your premise.

As we both know, people can be convinced to believe some really insane things, such as religion. What's to stop some shoddy company with a slick marketing campaign from peddling inferior products to consumers under your plan?

Nothing. Nothing stops them from doing that now. I'm reminded of the old SNL skit where Dan Akroyd markets a "Bag O' Glass" as a child's toy.

The law in the US is usually retroactive, typically, no damages can be sought until an injury happens or breach of contract is made.

Companies market shitty and dangerous products on occasion - they end up getting taken to court.

Still, there are some safegaurds. UnderWriters Laboratories and Consumer Reports are a perfect example. Essentially, these private companies test out a product and give it their seal of approval. The companies that underwrite in such a fashion stake their future and reputation and prosperity upon their evalutation and approval. This is a direct example of private industry setting a standard for safety and quality - without government being involved.

Personally, if I'm going to buy a wood chipper, I want a wood chipper that's been put through the paces. I'll pay more for one that is as well. An organization like UL approving a product means quite a bit to me, I look for such things when I make a purchase.

 

Quote:
Wal-Mart doesn't put a gun to your head and force you to buy their products, but they do chew up competition by artifically lowering prices and relying more and more on sweatshop labor to do it. Your suggestion, near as I can tell, is to allow all businesses to use sweatshop labor or do anything at all possible to lower prices, no matter the consequences on society as a whole.

No, actually the end result of globalization is to eliminate such practices. Sweat shops only exists now due to disparate conditions between the 1st and 3rd and 2nd world economies. Raise the standard of living in one place and you are on the way to raising it everywhere. It's a tough road and a long road to hoe, but we will get there. Trade is a ubiquitous force, and it dissolves arbitrary lines in the dirt.

Quote:
In the sewers scenario, let's have two private companies own some sewer lines. Company A is financially healthy because they don't repair their ancient lines - they instead pay Company B to not install sewers near them and have a stranglehold on their captive audience.

Why do you assume its a captive consumer base? Seems to me this is a prime place for savvy person to step in and make a mint. Start a new sewer company. Start a septic tank company and service. There's more than one way to flush a toilet and make a buck on it.

Quote:
It's a doomsday scenario, but it's far more likely without governmental control than with it.

Why, exactly? Why is private enterprise more prone to corruption than public systems? I see it as more prevalent and, in fact, encouraged in public systems. Government gigs are very lucrative, and the cash traded and favoritism and cronyism shown is evident. I admit there is also abuse in private enterprise, but often said abuse involves the government in some capacity.

Quote:
Libertarians seem to have this idea that if you take the leash off the pet, it will still walk right next to its owner. The moment you loosen control on your average animal, it runs amok. I see no solution to that problem by relaxing government regulation.

I don't get this analogy or rationale at all, I don't think I ever will.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
  dassercha responding to

 

dassercha responding to this quote: READ!!!!! This was a literal stmt from this poster, Father so-and-so: 

Quote: 

"America needs to not forget that freedom and liberty are more important than is someone wants to smoke marijuana or have cigar in a restaurant."

and then you... 

Quote:

 "Smoking a cigar is very different from shoving your hairy ass in someone's face."

Uhhhhhhh, not according to most Americans... 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
dassercha

dassercha wrote:

 

dassercha responding to this quote: READ!!!!! This was a literal stmt from this poster, Father so-and-so:

Quote:

"America needs to not forget that freedom and liberty are more important than is someone wants to smoke marijuana or have cigar in a restaurant."

and then you...

Quote:

"Smoking a cigar is very different from shoving your hairy ass in someone's face."

Uhhhhhhh, not according to most Americans...

Show me the data that leads you to this conclusion. Because that's arguably the stupidest thing said in this debate so far.


Father Vasily
Father Vasily's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
dassercha not funny

What with buttocks in face?

I talk of freedom to be free and have mutual respect for others but I get a buttcoks in face? 

 You make no sense to me with freedoms and buttocks in my face as some sort of joke. If joke then I not laugh because you not funny, with putting buttocks in my face. What is funny is trying put buttocks in face of priest. Not many can say that, no? haha

I talk not of freedom to interfere with personal rights of other but I speak of personal freedom to choose. I choose to have cigar: you choose to moon priest with smelly buttocks. You choice, as long as you no infringe on cigar time and supper with smelly buttocks. I think I have better end with cigar. All you get is smelly buttocks which need cleaning. But why you moon priest in restaurant where I can have cigar? This is where you rude and not even about freedom. Long time ago in Russia we fought against people who thought they could tell others what they can and cannot do. They were called Faschist. THey tell people what they do or not. You no want to be like then no.

Christos Anesti,

Fr. Vasily 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I must admit that I haven't

I must admit that I haven't read much of this thread because there is so much and I'm so busy essaying. It depends what is meant by libertarian. Certainly I believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, and not impinge upon others' liberties. I'll accept JS Mill's On Liberty. However, I do not believe that rights/liberties are innate, interests are, and rights should reflect any interests a being has (other animals have interests too but I will explain my view on this another time, it doesn't necessarily lead to vegetarianism) so long as that interest doesn't involve harming another's interests.

One thing I do see is that some liberties such as economic liberty do impinge upon others' interests. I am a Marxist on many levels and do not believe Capitalism works in the best interests of everyone in the world or even works at all on a long term basis since it has to be environmentally damaging (and I'm not talking about heavy industrial pollution here) but the very system rests upon making products that could be made to last break easily and be thrown away. I am not a red, Russian style Commie. In fact, like Marx I'm unsure of what is next but it's what I plan to spend my academic life (after MA and PhD) trying to work out.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Read New Libertarian

Read New Libertarian Manifesto and Agorist Class Theory, which was based on a work called "Agorism Contra Marxism". They're both about 30 page PDFs, pretty big text, so they're easy reads.

You'd have to define Capitalism too. Every different side of the debate around Capitalism uses Capitalism to mean something different. I use it to mean free market. Some use it to mean the corporate-state system (which I disagree with). Some use it to mean something similar to Fascism. I've read one defintion where someone called Marxism "State Capitalism". Unless the word has been defined, no meaningful discussion can take place about capitalism. 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't have time to read

I don't have time to read them now. As for my definition of capitalism. Those definitions you give are simply just settings for capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system of production and distribution based upon the means of production (including the worker's labour power) being owned as private (or state property), that is the worker owns nothing of it and gains nothing from the product he/she makes. He/she has simply sold his/her labour power to the employer. Read some Marx.

As for the person who called Marxism state capitalism, they're getting Marxism and the Soviet style "communist" state mixed up. All "communist" countries were in fact state capitalist. I actually maintain that communism has never actually existed. If you actually read Marx you will see that he almost definitely doesn't envisage anything like even Lenin's Russia. Marx is however very vague about hat communism is, or should be.

I personally am not a communist in either form. Marx thought communism would be the next and last form of society. I on the other hand think the next type is a co-operative based, controlled market economy. I could tell you more if you want later but I'm very busy right now. I do however think that perhaps communism will be the last one, but it would have to grow out of co-operativism not from capitalism. It is not for any of us in this epoch to figure out what that would be like any more than the Romans figure out capitalism. I am however a Marxist in my critique of capitalism in all environments and of course in the dialectical materialist approach to history.


momentimori
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

 

As for the person who called Marxism state capitalism, they're getting Marxism and the Soviet style "communist" state mixed up. All "communist" countries were in fact state capitalist. I actually maintain that communism has never actually existed. If you actually read Marx you will see that he almost definitely doesn't envisage anything like even Lenin's Russia. Marx is however very vague about hat communism is, or should be.

 

 

I thought under Marx's definition of communism there is no such thing as scarce resources.

My reading of it is that once our surplus get so large that it becomes impossible for the bourgois to maintain a monopoly on the means of production and resources. This would make the class, capitalist and nation state systems collapse making way for Marx's ideal communism.

The problem with this view is it is impossible for us to escape the problem of scarcity of resources. Even if we had Star Trek style replicators resources would not be inifinite; we'd still have limiting factors like energy


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
momentimori wrote: Jacob

momentimori wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:

 

As for the person who called Marxism state capitalism, they're getting Marxism and the Soviet style "communist" state mixed up. All "communist" countries were in fact state capitalist. I actually maintain that communism has never actually existed. If you actually read Marx you will see that he almost definitely doesn't envisage anything like even Lenin's Russia. Marx is however very vague about hat communism is, or should be.

 

 

I thought under Marx's definition of communism there is no such thing as scarce resources.

My reading of it is that once our surplus get so large that it becomes impossible for the bourgois to maintain a monopoly on the means of production and resources. This would make the class, capitalist and nation state systems collapse making way for Marx's ideal communism.

The problem with this view is it is impossible for us to escape the problem of scarcity of resources. Even if we had Star Trek style replicators resources would not be inifinite; we'd still have limiting factors like energy

Energy and matter are interchangeable. Technically, if we had Star Trek replicators, the majority of the entire global economy would collapse overnight. The only need for labour would be in the creation of replicators and repair of them. Everything else would be entertainment. And once you have one replicator, you can use it to create more. So you're only stuck on the repair part. Which also takes care of itself as long as there's at least one replicator that functions properly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
How does economic

How does economic libertarianism differ from current "free market" capitalism? Is it based on the premise that the corrupting factor of today's economic system is that it is regulated to the unfair benefit of certain parties, and true laissez faire capitalism would subject even the oldest and largest concentrations of economic power to the threat of market forces (in a way they are not currently due to corporate "welfare" and bail-outs)?


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Yup, that's the gist of it.

Yup, that's the gist of it.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
momentimori wrote: My

momentimori wrote:

My reading of it is that once our surplus get so large that it becomes impossible for the bourgois to maintain a monopoly on the means of production and resources. This would make the class, capitalist and nation state systems collapse making way for Marx's ideal communism.

Indeed in Marx' time up until the Great Depression that was the case. Constant boom and bust. And, in the busts communist parties did in fact get much stronger. However capitalism evolved. The key to success for it is what I call 'in-built obsolescene' (I didn't coin the phrase but I'm not sure who did) that is that products that are non-consumable/disposable (i.e. for long-term use eg, cars, computers, even houses) are not made to last so there is a permanent demand for such products in order to keep those industries going (if those industries collapse other industries lost a consumer base since there would be higher poverty and unemployment). In-built obsolescense is a crutch for capitalism, but I would argue not a sustainable crutch since in fact there are only so many resources the planet can offer before an environmental catastrophe is caused. Capitalism will fall, either by this catastrophe or by successful revolutions (that is not to say there may not be peaceful transitions also). Sorry about the italics, my computer is far to slow to respnd to my correction of the mistake. 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
momentimori wrote: I

momentimori wrote:

I thought under Marx's definition of communism there is no such thing as scarce resources.

Are you talking about a gift economy or similar? I think the issue is how the resources are treated rather than if a scarcity exists.
Quote:

My reading of it is that once our surplus get so large that it becomes impossible for the bourgois to maintain a monopoly on the means of production and resources. This would make the class, capitalist and nation state systems collapse making way for Marx's ideal communism.

The extraction of surplus value expoits the workers, the workers gain class consciousness, the class struggle heats up, the workers' revolution happens, the workers set up socialism, socialism evolves into communism.

Anyways, my problem with [traditional] Marxism is that it is not libertarian. Related to this, it stops at capitalism but doesn't continue on to hierarchy itself.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


momentimori
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: momentimori

qbg wrote:
momentimori wrote:
I thought under Marx's definition of communism there is no such thing as scarce resources.
Are you talking about a gift economy or similar? I think the issue is how the resources are treated rather than if a scarcity exists.

 

What i meant here is we get a surplus so large the price falls to zero. For example, there is no, economic, price for breathing air. I can consume as much as i like and you'll never suffer a shortage

 

Quote:
qbg wrote:
My reading of it is that once our surplus get so large that it becomes impossible for the bourgois to maintain a monopoly on the means of production and resources. This would make the class, capitalist and nation state systems collapse making way for Marx's ideal communism.
The extraction of surplus value expoits the workers, the workers gain class consciousness, the class struggle heats up, the workers' revolution happens, the workers set up socialism, socialism evolves into communism. Anyways, my problem with [traditional] Marxism is that it is not libertarian. Related to this, it stops at capitalism but doesn't continue on to hierarchy itself.

Socialism is not an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism in Marx's work but a later addition.

The concept of surplus value is a relic of the Labour Theory of Value that Marxists cling to to make their pseudopolitical economy work. There is NO objective measure of the value of anything; this makes attempts to calculate surplus value impossible.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Anyways, my

qbg wrote:
Anyways, my problem with [traditional] Marxism is that it is not libertarian. Related to this, it stops at capitalism but doesn't continue on to hierarchy itself.

I have the same problem. I am a Marxist, but not a traditional one. I am heavily influenced by JS Mill, and I think that both are quite easily married. I have actually recently rejected the notion of communism being the next stage of human developement on the dialectic of history. I accept much of Marx' criticism of capitalism and do not see capitalism as a sustainable system - but the next stage is certainly not communism, it may be a later stage, but postulating it in this epoch, would be like the ancient Greeks postulating bourgeois, market capitalism.

I propose that the next stage is co-operativist, co-operatives working within a controlled market economy. It gets rid of exploitation/alienated labour (a concept I think Marx never changes his mind on but simply calls by another name in later works), and can focus on some kind of economic equalities and decent standards of living while not creating the absolute economic equalities that communism would ideally want, absolute economic equality is not desirable. Rawls shows us that there should not be economic equality where it is beneficial to everyone that some people are paid more, doctors for example should get more so there is an incentive for them to do work which helps others.

 Anyway, I'm tired. It's nearly 2am... Need sleep.


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Some of you are going to

Some of you are going to think I am one bad guy.  Well, that is ok.  Unlike most of the public atlarge, I don't sit and bitch.  I do something about it.  Personally, I don't have a distrust of government, I have a healthy HATE of government.  That also includes the corporate and Religious, hell, even social interests.  Instead of sitting and bitching, I have gone out and caused much pain for both elected and appointed government officials.  I have also made much grief for big corporate bastards as well.  I make life so hellish for the bastards personally, they either run and hide under a rock or they kill themselves.  REALLY!  I have even caused cops to get out of law enforcement for bullshit tickets.  You see, I make a project out of bastards who infringe upon my rights and try to limit my freedom.  Now, I do not do anything illegal, that would only give the creeps a weapon against me.  I mean, I will find anything both personal, financial, medical, legal, I don't care, and start to wear them down personally or go at their family members and let them know it is because of that family member who is the one I am aiming at.  Basically, I make a project out of the bastards and wear them down to the point they need therapy.  It is my hobby....LOL....Cool

I believe I can function best on myown and I do not want big government or big corporate, or religion running my life.  When any of those entities try to fuck with me, I turn into a creature that has the quils of a porccupine, the odor of a skunk, and the teeth of a shark, and I take no prisoners.  Hell, lawyers have nothing on me because I am meaner and I am not bound by the rules of the bar association. 


sonny1
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Mississippi

Mississippi has passed into law that you can shoot someone on your land with just one verbal warning. And guess what, there are no mass murders no one person has been killed as of yet. People are generally NOT gonna shoot someone else with out good reason.

I don't belive in god, but I'm not a part of the "athiest" activism. I just don't belive. and I let others alone with beliefs. as long as you don't threaten my life, you won't get a .380 slug in the chest. I think that's how most...(even the unwashed masses) think.


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Would luv

dassercha wrote:
Would luv some feedback from folks on this. Libertarianism seems like an ideal system--in a perfect world. However, given that most people--I would argue at least a majority--out there are not, nor are they anything close, the "great unwashed" need rules & regulations to keep them, the idiots, in check. From what I understand, this system says people should be able to self-govern. Period. End of Story. Well, again, in a perfect world. Thoughts?

 

libretarianism isnt anarchy, its just giving people property rights.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

libretarianism isnt anarchy, its just giving people property rights.

1. Libertarianism IS anarchism.

2. Libertarianism is not giving people property rights. It is repsecting the property rights that they naturally have. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Who enforces them?

Who enforces them?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I enforce my own property

I enforce my own property rights.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
How?

How?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
This is what I use right

This is what I use right now. Expect a Mossberg 590 and a 10/22 to be added soon. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I, or my tribe, is better

I, or my tribe, is better equipped and we come knocking at your door. The private police franchise finds it more profitable to look the other way. Then what?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
That problem is much more

That problem is much more pronounced under statism, especially when you and your tribe are the ones calling yourselves the state and you own the only defense agency that's legally allowed to operate, and if you don't call yourselves the state then I have the problem of TWO groups that will do that to me. In the market, by contrast, there'd be more than one defense agency serving any given area, there would be contractual penalties for failure to protect (which the state doesn't offer, thus making a private agency much harder to bribe, to say nothing of the effect this scandal would have when people CAN choose a different organization, only at the highest premiums could a private agency be bribed to find it profitable to look the other way).

I'm worse off under a state no matter what the conditions of this scenario are, but it really doesn't matter because this scenario is infrequent to the point of irrelevance. 

If you continue making arguments of the general nature "Everything goes wrong and there's nothing you can do about it", then please do allow me to do the same for you, lest it become obvious that you are a hypocrite.

Suppose your state siezes absolute control of everything despite any restrictions that should have been in it's founding documents, but nobody in power seems to notice or give a fuck, or they're behind it. The people are so thoroughly indoctorinated, stupid, and lazy as they've been made by public schools that they are in support of it, or they don't know, or don't care, or are too passive to do anything about it, because to take the time to think they'd have to miss the big football game, the only free time they have left anymore. You can't own guns to defend yourself against the corrupt police force, and they're indistinguishable from the military anyways, especially after the recent deal leasing surplus or retired harriers (or at least the ones that don't get dumped into the ocean) to the local police force. Your savings account has been made worthless by inflation and you're taxed out of 80% of your income after income, sales, transfer, estate, property, licence, inflation, and other taxes, to speak nothing of the price increases from all the hidden taxes that get built into the sale price. You're in a mountain of debt from the home loan you took out while housing prices were kept up by import tarrifs on the building materials and an artificially low interest rate and an artificially restricted supply that is by law unnecessarily expensive. You can't get out because of your low wages, which you can't get raised because your union, if you have one, has been made irrelevant unless they can work through the state which is owned by the biggest businesses anyways, who you have to work for, ultimately leaving you just barely in the black at the end of the month. Your every move is tracked, scrutinized, regulated, random attacks are made by the government against the people to keep the rams in patriotic, angry, unthinking fervor, while the ewes are kept in terrified submission. Your door is busted down at 2 AM and police rush in with machineguns, yank you out of bed, and demand to know what the white powder in the bag is that you've never seen but they claim they found in your house, and drag you away to be held in a cell without bail while they try you in a secret trial without you being allowed to make a case, without a jury, where they imprison you for possesion of cocaine, with intent to sell, they presume the money you earn is going to support terrorists and covict you of treason, and you're to be killed in the morning at sunrise by firing squad. Your family, if you aren't divorced, will have to take on all your debts in addition to their own.

Isn't this argument annoying? But so effective! It lets me completely evade whatever is likely or unlikely and pull the conditions out of my ass without regard to other effects of the same causes that brought this system to be in the first place. Using this wonderful tool I can base my conclusions on contradictory premises but they're too deeply hidden to be obvious and if you bother to find them I can just deny it anyways and accuse you of avoiding the question. You can't just ask for other conditions or take some way out that I failed to block in my scenario because I can just change the scenario to prevent that route from being available.

But yet, if you have any right to demand a response from me to your stupid situation, you must come up with an adequate response of what you would do in the situation which is not terribly absurd or unthinkable since we're already about 80% there anyways.

And now for the final question you expected me to answer which I highly doubt you adequately are able to without severely compromising your position: Then what?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Who would penalize the

Who would penalize the private contractors? What prevents the contractors from forming self-serving alliances and screwing us over? How does this not spiral into organized crime within ten minutes of its implementation?
I'm not a cheerleader for the state, but I've never heard a sober anarchist or libertarian scenario.
PS: The picture of the gun = classic.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Who would

magilum wrote:
Who would penalize the private contractors? What prevents the contractors from forming self-serving alliances and screwing us over? How does this not spiral into organized crime within ten minutes of its implementation?
I'm not a cheerleader for the state, but I've never heard a sober anarchist or libertarian scenario.
PS: The picture of the gun = classic.

Who would penalize them depends how compliant the defense agency is. If asking them doesn't work, point to the contract, if that doesn't work, threaten to sue, if that doesn't work, sue, if they refuse arbitration, get another defense agency, take what they owe you, and if they want it back they can go through arbitration or waste money on tit-for-tat theft and theft. They'll probably choose to go to court, where you'll win because they violated the contract. If they do that and they still don't abide by the court, the assumption is that the agency is rouge, and it's agents are corrupt and have refused restitution enough that it is unlikely they'll be held responsible themselves in the future, and so it would basically be okay to kill them. The court would openly declare that it would accept responsibility for any acts taken against the defense agency, since the court is convinced that no other court pretending to any standard of justice would deny the justice of it. Chances are the defense agency would dissolve overnight as all the employees sought to dissociate so as not to get killed, leaving a mostly empty headquarters probably full of stuff for you to take until you get enough stuff of as much value as they owed you, at which point the court would probably rescind it's acceptance of responsibility. It might sound complicated, but it's the application of very simple principles that are more-or-less forgotten in modern statist law.

Self-interest prevents the defense agencies from forming alliances that would screw everyone else over. The self-interest of the defense agencies would have them unite to cartelize and overprice and underserve, but the self-interest of each individual defense agency at that point becomes to undercut the cartel price by just a little bit to attract all the customers. Cartels always fail in free markets for this reason. Then un-cartelized defense agencies would also be undercutting even if that didn't happen, they'd be creating a ripe market for others to come in, not only from outside, but for other defense agencies to spout up in the area. They couldn't easily ally because it's too easy of an industry to get into (if you own a gun and know how to use it, you're in), it's too easy to provide for yourself in most circumstances, the market is too slippery for them to get a hold on when it has no chains.

It doesn't spiral into organized crime within 10 minutes of implementation because it was organized crime just 11 minutes before. Anarchy is just whatever you have when there isn't a cop within eyeshot, earshot, or gunshot. The government is just people. Any corrupt action you can envision a private organization doing, public organizations are guilty of tenfold. People in government are not less corruptible than other people, they are MORE corruptible. A defense-agency cartel planning things so as to fuck us all over is what we have right now, and there's almost no hope of recourse against it due to "sovereign immunity", cops that kill kids for no reason are given a desk job for a few weeks while a "thorough investigaton" is done, not tried for murder, while the most you can do about a corrupt sherriff is to vote him out at the next election, and even then, it isn't who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. Any charge you can level at an anarchist society of corruption, rampant violence unchecked, might makes right, are charges that are much more easily directed toward the state itself. The government is corrupt, the government is an organization of rampant unchecked violence (especially once they call it a war), the government functions on the principle that might makes right.

I'm not aware of any accusation made against anarchy that the government is not guilty of itself.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
In that scenario I still see

In that scenario I still see a great dependence on, if not government, governmentesque regulation. Who runs the courts we're supposed to sue the contractors in? Does every single person have to be on the ball as far as all of their local contractors? I've dealt with local government, and it's much more time-consuming and costly than one would expect. If there's a regulatory body that makes sure the contractors are doing things by the book, how does it make money? You're saying that we would be self-empowered to deal with corrupt law enforcement... it's so difficult to imagine that going well.

By its own founders' wishes, the US government should have been burned down to the soil and recreated a dozen times since its establishment. A few people will coalesce into invincible leviathans of corrupt power, and the majority will seek a comfortable equillibrium at the cost of some of their freedom. That's the way most things have been so far. Most people just don't want to be looking out their window with a Glock at the ready, or to have to negotiate with private contractors over getting the lights on and the sinkhole fixed. If people were that vigilant now, things wouldn't be as bad as they are (which is to say, not as bad as they once were).


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: In that

magilum wrote:
In that scenario I still see a great dependence on, if not government, governmentesque regulation.

No, it's compliant with the highest laws, the laws of nature, the laws of human action, and the laws of economics.

Quote:
Who runs the courts we're supposed to sue the contractors in?

Whoever you choose.

Quote:
Does every single person have to be on the ball as far as all of their local contractors?

Not every single one. I personally find it doubtful that most people would even have need of a defense agency (that is the correct term, "defense agency", because "local contractor" and such could refer to any business endeavor), as it is much cheaper to buy a gun and a few boxes of ammo once than keep paying for others to do what is rather unproductive and not effective as a deterrent. But if I'm wrong in that, people would stay on the ball as much as they need to. If one insurance company is refusing to pay the health insurance they said they would, people will get word of that around. If one defense agency isn't protecting, that would get around. It's not like if people said "Nike hires indians to make shoes, boycott Nike", this directly affects them.

Quote:
I've dealt with local government, and it's much more time-consuming and costly than one would expect. If there's a regulatory body that makes sure the contractors are doing things by the book, how does it make money? You're saying that we would be self-empowered to deal with corrupt law enforcement... it's so difficult to imagine that going well.

Not law enforcement. Police these days have two jobs, law enforcement, and protection. They mostly do the former, and only do the latter in the rarest occurances. Law enforcement is slavery, protection is not.

The current system of law enforcement is not subject to the laws of supply and demand. The defense agencies I'd prefer to see would be subject to supply and demand and all the laws of economics that tend to bring lower prices and better service.

Quote:
By its own founders' wishes, the US government should have been burned down to the soil and recreated a dozen times since its establishment.

As I gave in the apocalypse scenario of statism, nobody cares. That's the scariest part of that scenario I gave, that most of the stuff in it came right out of real life. 

Quote:
A few people will coalesce into invincible leviathans of corrupt power, and the majority will seek a comfortable equillibrium at the cost of some of their freedom.

No, this is unnatural. The way it happened in America was through the conflation of patriotism and nationalism. Without a nation, this conflation is impossible. Governments differ from other sources of power because they are not merely guns. They are lies, backed by guns, backed by lies. Without lies, such leviathans don't form. Non-governmental leviathans form because they can springboard off the government's lies. If it was a mere question of firepower, there would be no leviathans.

Quote:
That's the way most things have been so far. Most people just don't want to be looking out their window with a Glock at the ready,

You don't have to do that now, you wouldn't have to under anarchy.

Quote:
or to have to negotiate with private contractors over getting the lights on and the sinkhole fixed.

Because it's much easier to negotiate with public bureaucrats and get them to negotiate with private contrators, pay those contractors with money they stole from you, then not tell you how much they paid the contractor (by sheer coincidence, a good friend of the bureaucrats) to get it fixed. Much easier. It's not an unnecessary layer, it's not a wasteful expense, and you really don't care how much it costs anyways.

Quote:
If people were that vigilant now, things wouldn't be as bad as they are (which is to say, not as bad as they once were).

 They would be vigilant if they were not lied to in the way they are.


person132
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Quote: Who

Zhwazi wrote:

Quote:
Who runs the courts we're supposed to sue the contractors in?

Whoever you choose.

I'm sorry to interject, but how will said courts enforce their deciscions? 

 

If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
It depends on the specific

It depends on the specific circumstances, obviously. If the guilty is not compliant at all, the court would use guns, or would give some other agents the authority to do so, with the court itself accepting responsibility. This may be preferred for some people, but you may have to pay to have the court take responsibility for you.

Of course anybody could do that, you could do it yourself without a court if you wanted, but your hired guns would expect such absurdly higher pay to act (legally speaking) of their own accord rather than under your authority (thus making them immune to litigation by your supposed aggressor and shifting all blame onto you), that using such a group criminally would be extremely expensive or risky, whereas using them legally much less expensive.

I suspect some decade or so after people realized how reliable the system is, one could almost walk into the headquarters, give your name and proof of identification, take whatever of theirs you believe you are owed with little objection from them, and wait to see if they sue you for "their" property back. If they do, you could just go in and prove the debt, settle the details with them, and go back home. If they don't, then it's essentially your property. It might even after some generations become possible to go to the bank (possibly with evidence of the debt) and demand money out of their account, leave your name and address or something with the bank, have it directed into your account, and then wait to see if you're sued. This would be a much more peaceful, efficient system than costly litigation, lawyers, setting up appointments, et cetera. I wouldn't expect to see it very rapidly instituted but I think it would eventually lead to this.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
1. Who determines what is

1. Who determines what is legal?
2. We currently have many laws that serve private interests because they were drafted with them in mind. Sonny Bono's effort to extend copyright protection just in time to save Mickey Mouse from the public domain comes to mind. Another example is the DMCA. Under this act, record companies may sue individuals for supposed copyright infringement. In many cases, the projected legal expenses for the defense would surpass the settlement, so very few such cases have seen the courtroom. Under "market forces," and without government subsidies, the companies responsible should be feeling the wrath of the people/consumer. Instead, their profits have increased annually. The "big five" record companies are also infamous for being caught price fixing; an example of inter-corporate cooperation that's detrimental to the consumer. Why would this not be the case under a purely market-driven society?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Your question is analagous

Your question is analagous to "who determines whether copper is conductive or an insulator?" Nobody can make elemental copper unconductive. But everybody can determine whether or not copper is conductive by testing it for themselves or basing their determinations on the trials of others.

The only question of law under anarchy is "Who has the right to make which decisions?" The rules for determining this are fairly easy to discover, and are in most cases simply intuited. What my hands create is mine. What is mine that I give to others is theirs. What belongs to others that they give to me, becomes mine. This is very simple and easy to understand.

From that point on, it becomes a question of conflict resolution, determining who is the rightful owner of what. When two people both claim the same object, a conflict exists. Determining who must give up control and under what terms is between the two conflicting parties, and none other. If I take control of something which I had no right to, all that is needed to come back under the consistency of the law is that I give it back, compensate the rightful owner for the time-use lost, and justice has been restored.

If A kills B, then A has taken control of the life of B (and then destroyed it). A thus owes whatever price B put on his own life (determined by a life insurance policy or a written record) to whoever B has willed the money to go to. 

 So to answer your questions:

1. No limited group of people determine what is legal.

2. The question is precluded by the answer to 1. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
My analogy for that social

My analogy for that social model is the Monty Python sketch "How To Do  It."


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't see the connection.

I don't see the connection. Care to elaborate?

Also I'd like to ask: Are you starting from the conclusion that anarchy won't work and looking for reasons why, or are you actually open-minded and thinking about what I'm telling you? 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I would love there to be

I would love there to be improvement in society. I just think revolutions and theoretical social models would require a fundamental change in the way every person thinks and behaves. I don't know how anarchy is meant to work, which is why I'm asking what I think are the obvious questions. I don't want a society where only the "prime movers" survive, and the infirm are left to waste away while soliciting "voluntary good will" from the more fortunate. I've walked briskly past the most pathetic ghosts of people on the streets of Los Angeles, and I've known people who have relied, with good cause, on government "hand outs." The current corporate climate doesn't inspire me to hand more control over to private interests. That may not be the explicit goal here, but neither was it in the forming of this republic.
The Monty Python sketch... is about skipping over details.