Siva

[Rocksta71]

Do you ever admit you're wrong my brother? I mean you carry on these long huge debates that no one but the debatee would ever bother reading I cannot help but wonder if you have ever admitted defeat. In Taoism we believe it is good and righteous to admit to others and yourself when you have been found to be incorrect or unjust in your ways. In fact everyone could learn a little from Taoism, it is the way, the path, and the light.

That is all! :)

[kitsch]

from what i remember about you and your taoist views is that ur one big frustrating contradiction.

[Rocksta71]

What ever do you mean? My views are as solid in their foundation as the earth I stand on with my own two feet, if only the rest of the world saw in the same light I do.

[TheDarkHorse]

He's a troll. He's just doin his job.

[The Stig]

Yeah this is a quality thread reason I post in PNWI yep

[Det_Nosnip]

Siva's wrong less than most people who post on here, and most of the areas where he is wrong IMO are somewhat speculative/opinion based.

[Light Fantastic]

what if you're wrong about him being not wrong

[siva_chair]

Siva's wrong less than most people who post on here, and most of the areas where he is wrong IMO are somewhat speculative/opinion based.

Hey thanks.

[Reductio]

Siva's wrong less than most people who post on here, and most of the areas where he is wrong IMO are somewhat speculative/opinion based.

You can be wrong in opinion-based areas.

[Already_Taken]

He's a troll. He's just doin his job.

he even got a thread named after him. master troll

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Do you ever admit you're wrong my brother? I mean you carry on these long huge debates that no one but the debatee would ever bother reading I cannot help but wonder if you have ever admitted defeat. In Taoism we believe it is good and righteous to admit to others and yourself when you have been found to be incorrect or unjust in your ways. In fact everyone could learn a little from Taoism, it is the way, the path, and the light.

That is all! :)
you can admit defeat and acknowledge victory at the same time

[Iskandar]

He's not a troll, he just became a radical in between leaving for a while and coming back.

[JohnXDoe3]

the one who holds the guns.....is never wrong :(

[McP3000]

i like your guns then i like your opinions

[Iskandar]

I don't like your guns or opinions. >:-{

[McP3000]

boy ill shoot you

and then privatize your healthcare

[Iskandar]

Oh noez, I cannot afford this private healthcare! I will have to go to Cuba instead. It is a socialist paradise, you know.

[siva_chair]

He's not a troll, he just became a radical in between leaving for a while and coming back.

I was always pretty radical, but I just hid it most of the time.

Oh noez, I cannot afford this private healthcare! I will have to go to Cuba instead. It is a socialist paradise, you know.

Yeah I heard the government even issues you a hot wife. What a sweet deal.

[Iskandar]

I was always pretty radical, but I just hid it most of the time.Whereas I used to be pretty radical and then realized it was kind of dumb.:)
Yeah I heard the government even issues you a hot wife. What a sweet deal.But by the time I get there all the good ones will be taken so I'll be stuck with rationing, i.e. the ugmos. How do you say "goddamnit" in Spanish?

[siva_chair]

Whereas I used to be pretty radical and then realized it was kind of dumb.:)

Well yeah because you were of the socialist school it's no wonder you realized it was dumb. :p

But by the time I get there all the good ones will be taken so I'll be stuck with rationing, i.e. the ugmos. How do you say "goddamnit" in Spanish?

All the good one's probably already swam to Miami. Or are in Jabba's palace...I mean Castro's palace.

[Iskandar]

Well yeah because you were of the socialist school it's no wonder you realized it was dumb. :pI don't think one extreme is any better than the other.

[siva_chair]

I don't think one extreme is any better than the other.

And this is where you are mistaken. :)

[Jude]

I don't think anybody's ever admitted defeat on the internet

Certainly, people who are blatantly wrong and stupid are the last ones willing to, but even those with some intelligence don't admit they were wrong straight up.

[Futue te Ipsum]

his only major problem is that he cares too much semantics and too little about being right but tbh he's miles above the average poster here and is one of the few people i actually respect

[Give me Beer]

And this is where you are mistaken. :)

True, my extreme is better than yours. ^_^

[siva_chair]

Oh yeah well your extreme can gargle my balls.

[Super Batman]

I'd like this to be video-taped. Anything with gargeling is good with me.

[PerpetualBurn]

I miss weird new-age Siva.

Back when I had the motivation to have long drawn out and overly-agressive theological discussions with him.

[The Stig]

I like siva's posting just saying.

[Give me Beer]

Oh yeah well your extreme can gargle my balls.

Tsk, don't pretend you have any.

[Foehammer]

Siva never admits he's wrong what a douche

[mph4ever]

ahem.

a lot of what siva says is right in the context of how he thinks about it. not sure he thinks about things in the same context as most.

[Shell]

Do you ever admit you're wrong my brother?
Well really who's to say who's wrong or right here?

I mean you carry on these long huge debates that no one but the debatee would ever bother reading
Well it's probably not intended for everyone to read it, although they are certainly welcome to both opinions if they are interested in the topic at hand.

I cannot help but wonder if you have ever admitted defeat.
Now you're repeating yourself. Come up with a better argument or don't argue at all!

In Taoism we believe it is good and righteous to admit to others and yourself when you have been found to be incorrect or unjust in your ways.
Well isn't that special!

In fact everyone could learn a little from Taoism, it is the way, the path, and the light.
In an anarchic society, the private businesses would make paths for everyone to use, and light would be provided to everyone without having the damn government around to tax the hell out of the services.

[Iskandar]

It's so much easier to talk about what would be than what is.

[Light Fantastic]

Iskandar likes to settle for mediocre

who needs human progress

[Iskandar]

I feel bad for you if you really believe abolishing the state would constitute any sort of progress given how long it's taken to develop the current system, what an improvement it is over historical systems and the risks inherent in throwing it all away for some pipe dream.

[sleepless]

Its doubt and fearful sentiments ingrained and reproduced that will never allow cause for change in anything.

The so called system was once a pipe dream.

[Iskandar]

Why do I have to be against change because I don't believe in radically altering the nature of society? That's retarded. Change should occur naturally and be accepted as it comes instead of attempting to create some damned foolish utopia.

[sleepless]

The utopia should occur naturally if the necessary changes are made to ensure unalienable rights and necessities to every human being possible.

It is more than evident that this current system is in fact more corrupt, deep veined, and unstoppable than many other historical systems. The simple fact that the conception of this now malformed system was intended to negate and prevent what it has actually become should be terrifying and appalling to us all.

It should be altered, and radically may be the only way considering how little influence the people really have.

Who is the damned fool being fooled?

[Iskandar]

Utopias don't exist. That's the whole point of utopias. And we don't need to radically change everything to provide rights and necessities to people.

Also lol at democracy being more corrupt than authoritarian states.

Oh, and you're the fool if you believe that it is.

[sleepless]

It was supposed to be "many other historical systems."

Anyways, yeah, just kick back, I'm sure in the next 50 or so years things might shape up a bit. But we shouldn't do anything drastic. We should just let let all the wars, fraud, and various societal crimes go on, because it'll all just work out.

[Iskandar]

Are you trying to imply that I said that or something?

We should be proactive in improving the living conditions of other human beings and in improving our own political systems, but we can do this within the confines of the system. That's all.

[Light Fantastic]

I feel bad for you if you really believe abolishing the state would constitute any sort of progress given how long it's taken to develop the current systemyeah thats some great logic there

it took a long time so it must be the best

[Already_Taken]

fuk you chad, any time someone takes the time to make a decent argument all u do is skip over it.

you and siva should be making the argument anyways (which you completely fail at, at least siva tries), because you are the ones that have to convince everyone else in this world that they are wrong.

[Light Fantastic]

actually people are born with natural freedoms and rights

its you who must justify the state in removing them

also what other argument did iskandar make that i skipped because im not really seeing any other points in that post

[Der Übermensch]

Except for his misplaced faith in unregulated free-market capitalism, I rarely find myself at odds with him.

[guitrguy]

actually people are born with natural freedoms and rights

and who gives us these rights?

[sleepless]

It's not who gives them, its who immediately takes them away and consistently inhibits access to them.

Saying that a system that we have (which obviously isn't ****ING working) should just be kept because drastic change is no good is possibly the most sheepish ignorant thing you could say in relation to the topic at hand.

[Light Fantastic]

nobody gives them they just exist naturally

its other people who seek to remove them so the onus is on them to justify it

[Already_Taken]

its you who must justify the state in removing them


if you want the status quo to change, you must prove how it will make things better. step in to reality, guy.

[sleepless]

You can't prove how something is going to make things better until it actually changes.

There is no proof in supposition.

I take it we should just sit back and let things get progressively worse, because we can't prove any difference beforehand?

STFU, guy.

[Already_Taken]

im not your guy, buddy.

[Already_Taken]

lol i misread that as "carrot" the first time

[guitrguy]

It's not who gives them, its who immediately takes them away and consistently inhibits access to them.

yes it is. how can an entity take away rights no one gave them to you? Rights are not some biological characteristic.

[Light Fantastic]

so you deny if you were the only person in existence that wouldnt grant you complete freedom and rights over yourself and the world

[guitrguy]

if I was the only one it in existence it wouldn't matter.

[Mr. Ron]

nobody gives them they just exist naturally

its other people who seek to remove them so the onus is on them to justify it
rights aren't floating out in space somewhere, waiting for us to find them. Rights are invented and upheld by human beings.

[Light Fantastic]

if I was the only one it in existence it wouldn't matter.yeah its called a hypothetical are you really that stupid

[Light Fantastic]

rights aren't floating out in space somewhere, waiting for us to find them. Rights are invented and upheld by human beings.and you can invent your own rights as a human being

its for other human beings to take them away though

[Mr. Ron]

and you can invent your own rights as a human being

its for other human beings to take them away though
agreed, but rights do not exist naturally. They are concepts.

[guitrguy]

yeah its called a hypothetical are you really that stupid
I know it's a hypothetical. I can grant my self rights all-day long that does not make them natural.

[Iskandar]

yeah thats some great logic there

it took a long time so it must be the bestThat would almost make sense if I actually said it was the best but if you take the time to read the thread you'll notice something amazing which is that I never did.

[mph4ever]

do we have a right to survival?

do we have a right to improve ourselves or our environment?

[Light Fantastic]

agreed, but rights do not exist naturally. They are concepts.

I know it's a hypothetical. I can grant my self rights all-day long that does not make them natural.

the freedom to create infinite rights for oneself is natural

again the people who seek to remove this should state the justification

im not even trying to make the point that its impossible to justify, just where the onus should be

[Mr. Ron]

the freedom to create infinite rights for oneself is natural

again the people who seek to remove this should state the justification

im not even trying to make the point that its impossible to justify, just where the onus should be
"It is my right to kill anyone whom dishonors me or my family in public"

this created right is extreme, but an example of one that should be removed by others.

[Light Fantastic]

but i already know the justification for restricting that freedom

its taxation without true representation and other stately activities that are the problem

[Mr. Ron]

What "political philosophy" do you subscribe to, anyway? jw

[Light Fantastic]

fluctuating between various forms of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism i suppose

[Mr. Ron]

Hm, I've been playing around with minarchism but idk. I just don't like large government.

[The Stig]

I never realized chad and I were as similar as that.

[beso negro]

the mx libertarian club includes me, chad, paul, and siva

[Iskandar]

Ever notice libertarians always seem to be white males?

[Rocksta71]

The point of this thread has been lost. The point is thus: Siva is a queef.

[beso negro]

the best libertarians happen to be black actually

[Rocksta71]

Black people are all retarded.

[beso negro]

ur so cute

[PunkItUp]

poopty doo!

[Iskandar]

the best libertarians happen to be black actuallyThere are black libertarians? Let's see who comes to mind when I think of libertarians: Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Robert Nozick. All white men. Well, and Ayn Rand, but she's an "Objectivist."

[Mr. Ron]

ewwww Ayn Rand

[The Stig]

Larry Elder is considered libertarian, though like me, he has issues with isolationist foreign policy and is a member of the Republican party.

[Mr. Ron]

Isolationism is pretty much impossible now

[The Stig]

Well non interventionist I guess.

He agrees with general libertarian philosophy but not the Libertarian Party.

[Iskandar]

How on earth is military intervention compatible with libertarianism? Between the initiation of force against others and the big gummint needed to maintain a large standing army.

[sleepless]

yes it is. how can an entity take away rights no one gave them to you? Rights are not some biological characteristic.

They might as well be, from the moment of birth they should be present and eternal.

They're not given, they are inherent, and they should exist because their presence is just as natural as our own existence.

rights aren't floating out in space somewhere, waiting for us to find them. Rights are invented and upheld by human beings.

You're debating the tangibility of inalienable human rights? You then go on to describe them as almost material, being invented by humans?

The rights we speak need not be created because they exist. The only invention is the depravity with which they are violated by others.

I really hope you're not a U.S. citizen.
and you can invent your own rights as a human being

its for other human beings to take them away though

1234:smoke:

[Mr. Ron]

You're debating the tangibility of inalienable human rights? You then go on to describe them as almost material, being invented by humans?

The rights we speak need not be created because they exist. The only invention is the depravity with which they are violated by others.

I really hope you're not a U.S. citizen.



....what. I can invent something in my head, does that make it material? No. Rights are ideas. They are not material.


I'm just saying "rights" exist because humans thought them up. Unalienable rights are unalienable rights because humans decided for them to be unalienable rights. There is no grand, mystical right out there in space that makes it that you have the right to live. At all. Humans have decided to invent and uphold rights such as being able to live and pursue happiness.

To say there are rights without humans to think them up and enforce them is like saying there is an invisible force that dictates rights.

[The Stig]

How on earth is military intervention compatible with libertarianism? Between the initiation of force against others and the big gummint needed to maintain a large standing army.

Because to some, repression of liberty abroad requires a force to act for what is considered a greater good.

It's comparable to the justification for taking away a man's right to freedom for committing a crime (repressing another's freedom).

[sleepless]

....what. I can invent something in my head, does that make it material? No. Rights are ideas. They are not material.


I'm just saying "rights" exist because humans thought them up. Unalienable rights are unalienable rights because humans decided for them to be unalienable rights. There is no grand, mystical right out there in space that makes it that you have the right to live. At all. Humans have decided to invent and uphold rights such as being able to live and pursue happiness.

To say there are rights without humans to think them up and enforce them is like saying there is an invisible force that dictates rights.

No ****ing ****, you're arguing semantics now. I swear this is a favorite passtime of the regulars who try to argue bullpoop on this community.

There is no grand ****ing magical Xavier Renegade Angel to tell us this, but you're not a dumbass either, I guess anyways, so it should be common logic to you.

I'm speaking figuratively, trying to give the direct implication that these rights should be preserved so easily because they are so ****ING OBVIOUS.

But they're not. Chance are they're not because people like you are more entertained by bitching about context instead of shutting the **** up and doing something about it.

[The Stig]

I dunno since our entire legal system is built on semantics, I'd say semantics are pretty damn important.

[Mr. Ron]

No ****ing ****, you're arguing semantics now. I swear this is a favorite passtime of the regulars who try to argue bullpoop on this community.

There is no grand ****ing magical Xavier Renegade Angel to tell us this, but you're not a dumbass either, I guess anyways, so it should be common logic to you.

I'm speaking figuratively, trying to give the direct implication that these rights should be preserved so easily because they are so ****ING OBVIOUS.

But they're not. Chance are they're not because people like you are more entertained by bitching about context instead of shutting the **** up and doing something about it.
stop wetting your pants


You said:


"The rights we speak need not be created because they exist"


which was silly because all rights are created.



what have you done about it? Enlighten me.

[sleepless]

I dunno since our entire legal system is built on semantics, I'd say semantics are pretty damn important.

Yeah, what a wonderful system we have. Go hang out with Iskandar, you guys would get along.

stop wetting your pants


You said:


"The rights we speak need not be created because they exist"


which was silly because all rights are created.



what have you done about it? Enlighten me.

I have no need to validate myself to you, my civil efforts are not being contended. It shouldn't matter to you, unless you're wetting your pants.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, what a wonderful system we have. Go hang out with Iskandar, you guys would get along.

I have no need to validate myself to you, my civil efforts are not being contended. It shouldn't matter to you, unless you're wetting your pants.
I accept your defeat.

[sleepless]

lol Tell him what he's won Bob!

Dumbass.

[The Stig]

Yeah, what a wonderful system we have. Go hang out with Iskandar, you guys would get along.

I have no need to validate myself to you, my civil efforts are not being contended. It shouldn't matter to you, unless you're wetting your pants.

We do get along I think unless he dislikes me now for some reason.

If you don't need to validate yourself to me why are you letting your pants get into a wad?

[sleepless]

I'm honestly not uppity dudes.

I get a little excited in arguments and my superlatives are a bit excessive if I'm stoned.

It has to do with how I discuss things with friends, there are a lot of colorful words used, but no real harm intended.

I guess what I was really trying to illustrate was my frustration with you not understanding what I was trying to say Ron. Just frustrated because from what I can tell in other discussions you're usually spot on or pretty damned close.

Read As: I spend too much time wading through idiots in Drums & Percussion.

[Mr. Ron]

meh, just miscommunications really. Whatever.

[The Stig]

If you really want to get frustrated go to guitar.

[McP3000]

the mx libertarian club includes me, chad, paul, and siva
hey bb

[Mr. Ron]

what about a not-so-sure-i'm thinking about it minarchist? :[

[McP3000]

you're still right of 95% of the board lol

[Mr. Ron]

I'm right wing?

[McP3000]

no, but in relation to most of sputnik music a little

[Iskandar]

Because to some, repression of liberty abroad requires a force to act for what is considered a greater good.

It's comparable to the justification for taking away a man's right to freedom for committing a crime (repressing another's freedom).You don't necessarily need to use force to combat repression. Indian independence, the end of Apartheid and the fall of Communism were all achieved with very little bloodshed.

Violence is a last resort.
Yeah, what a wonderful system we have. Go hang out with Iskandar, you guys would get along.Discussing ways to improve it is a lot more productive than just complaining about it.

[The Stig]

You don't necessarily need to use force to combat repression. Indian independence, the end of Apartheid and the fall of Communism were all achieved with very little bloodshed.

Violence is a last resort.
Discussing ways to improve it is a lot more productive than just complaining about it.

I am not one to say force is a first option; I was just saying it isn't contradictory to libertarian views to intervene in foreign affairs.

[sleepless]

Before you didn't even want to discuss changing it because you were terrified.

I'm not saying force is requisite, I'm saying it is indeed in some cases necessary.

[Iskandar]

Before you didn't even want to discuss changing it because you were terrified.I'm assuming you've never actually read my posts which you're so eager to criticize if you believe that. Now stop trolling and start saying something useful.

I seem to spend more time here defending our form of government than actually discussing something worthwhile. I don't know when liberal democracy became such a controversial idea.
I am not one to say force is a first option; I was just saying it isn't contradictory to libertarian views to intervene in foreign affairs.I'm still iffy. If that's so, why do most libertarians appear to oppose the Iraq War? That conflict hasn't exactly brought freedom and prosperity to the region.

[sleepless]

I tried discussing change with you before, and all you did was bitch about how change was bad, and its taken so long to develop this system that we should let it be because its without kinks and it works fine.

Maybe you should quit defending so blindly and vehemently, and perhaps consider that your precious system is with flaw.

Troll my balls, bitch.

That conflict hasn't exactly brought freedom and prosperity to the region.

Are there any more questions you want to answer for yourself? This monologue is entertaining.

[Iskandar]

I tried discussing change with you before, and all you did was bitch about how change was bad, and its taken so long to develop this system that we should let it be because its without kinks and it works fine.

Maybe you should quit defending so blindly and vehemently, and perhaps consider that your precious system is with flaw.

Troll my balls, bitch.Okay, or you could make stuff up.

What I argued was that incremental, gradual change is preferable to radical change. You don't need to turn society upside down to achieve meaningful reforms.

You could start by actually reading my posts at which time you'd realize I hardly believe change is bad, in fact the opposite, and I hardly believe representative democracy is the perfect form of government. At the present time, it's the most practical form of government

Who's the bitch now?

[sleepless]

You're still the bitch. Are there any MORE questions you want to answer for yourself?

Preferable if it works, it obviously isn't doing so great.

Radical change is what brought this country about, and the true meaning of it has obviously been lost. Quit being a slightly confuzzled sea lion.

Sometimes things needs to be turned upside down, so all the bull**** can fall out of it.

[The Stig]

I'm still iffy. If that's so, why do most libertarians appear to oppose the Iraq War? That conflict hasn't exactly brought freedom and prosperity to the region.

I think the Iraq War was a good idea in theory, but it was bungled majorly by those in charge and became what it is today. But foreign policy issues like this are one of the things that separates full, unbridled libertarianism with neolibertarianism/pragmatic libertarianism (where I tend to identify myself with the latter).

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=650

Is a good read to get the basic philosophical gist of the idea.

[Iskandar]

I don't know what ideology I'm supposed to be able to discern from this incoherent ranting. I do find it funny that you seem to assume I'm an American.

You can shut up and start offering some constructive ideas about how to improve politics, or you can go away.

[sleepless]

I don't assume you're American, I ****ing hope you're not.

If you were, you'd be a pathetic example of the fenceriding douchebags I despise that convolute the needs of the masses with their incessant moaning and impedance upon change.

You can choke on a fat man's dick, I'm not going anywhere. You didn't want to engage in civil conversation before, but rather inject your infallible and unerring opinion and leave with a false sense of accomplishment.

Now you want to bitch at me for what I have to say? Go stuff yourself.

[The Stig]

I don't know what ideology I'm supposed to be able to discern from this incoherent ranting. I do find it funny that you seem to assume I'm an American.

You can shut up and start offering some constructive ideas about how to improve politics, or you can go away.

I was about to type a long response to this and then saw the 'assume I'm American' part and realized it wasn't directed at me, but I had already clicked the quote button.

[Iskandar]

I don't assume you're American, I ****ing hope you're not.

If you were, you'd be a pathetic example of the fenceriding douchebags I despise that convolute the needs of the masses with their incessant moaning and impedance upon change.

You can choke on a fat man's dick, I'm not going anywhere. You didn't want to engage in civil conversation before, but rather inject your infallible and unerring opinion and leave with a false sense of accomplishment.

Now you want to bitch at me for what I have to say? Go stuff yourself.Maybe you missed the part about constructive ideas. I suppose then that you have none, or maybe your reading comprehension just isn't so good.
I was about to type a long response to this and then saw the 'assume I'm American' part and realized it wasn't directed at me, but I had already clicked the quote button.Of course not. I don't agree with everything you do but I wouldn't say something like that to you. This little weasel, on the other hand...

[The Stig]

haha yeah

I was thinking of sticking up for him at times, but his last few responses...

[sleepless]

Oh, little weasel, that is definitely enticing me into engaging in constructive conversation with you.

I offered it to you before. Sorry you got a little butthurt at a smartass comparison I made about you wanting to fenceride and do nothing drastic.

I just find it ridiculous that you want to call me a troll and act as if I haven't extended meaningful conversation to you before.

[Iskandar]

Still waiting for some innovative ideas on how to improve the politic system.

Also lol at me being a fencesitter because I don't advocate armed insurrection or something retarded like that.

[sleepless]

Okay, or you could make stuff up.
You could start by actually reading my posts at which time you'd realize I

never suggested hostile takeover.

I simply have been trying to illustrate that taking an adamant GENERIC position towards all drastic change is completely ignorant.

Ideals like this are severely detrimental to the production of any innovative ideas.

Brb, gtg blow up State Capitol.

[Iskandar]

Okay, I grow weary of this. Paul, you still around?

Oh, and:

Still waiting for some innovative ideas on how to improve the political system.

[sleepless]

Where are yours jackass?

Oh, that's right! DO****INGNOTHING.

[Iskandar]

Okay, I'm reporting you.

[sleepless]

Okay, real admirable.

[Iskandar]

I try to do what's best for the forum.

[sleepless]

If that were the case you'd have called up your ISP and disconnected your internet.

[Iskandar]

In the interest of this thread not being a complete waste, I'd like to start a new angle of discussion based on the American political system and how it can be reformed. Probably the most urgent concern is the need for a viable third party, which would make elections much more competitive and broaden the range of democratic choices. Then I propose a heavier emphasis on public financing with more stringent limits on corporate, union and private donations. Doing so would be an important step in negating the influence of special interest groups.

This is just the type of the iceberg of course. For example, I'm also interested in how best to decentralize decision-making to increase representation and improve efficiency. Then there are issues such as the massive public debt, the lack of universal healthcare and the war in Iraq. Ending the war quickly rather than a prolonged withdrawal would remove a major financial drain on the nation's resources and free up billions and billions of public funds. For that matter, so would downsizing the armed forces in general, and ending the pointless War on Drugs.

What are your ideas, sleepless?

[sleepless]

Well to be honest, for the most part all you did was illustrate a bunch of grand ideas and wishful thinking.

Good ideas, but not very original. In fact, a lot of those sentiments are mutual with undoubtedly countless people across the world.

You can piss in one hand and **** in the other. :lol:

The war on drugs, the war in Iraq, desire and arguable possession of the most formidable military force in the world, blatant abuse of entitled authoritarian sovereignty, and the perpetually bi-partisan puppet show are all with purpose and interwoven.

You can argue for the next ten years about these ideas and the gradual and peaceful means in which they will take place.

Meanwhile, things will continue to get worse in a universal perspective, and there will become less you can do about it. I'm not imploring anyone to go out and start killing public officials, but when it becomes a matter of dictating human life without question by blatantly abusing the written foundation that we were born upon, something needs to be done soon because its been going on for years.

Read. Talk. Argue. Write. March. Protest. Boycott. Volunteer. Unite.

I realize these are not original ideas, but they are each something I actually do on a regular basis. The problem is that the ideas have been around for along time, but their practice has more than disappeared.

It would be nice if people would quit eating the dross that is fed to them and actually do something about the glaring atrocities that occur on a regular basis. Its funny Iskandar, the only thing I initially ever disagreed with you about was your apparently open opposition to "drastic change" which, misinterpretation or not, I believed to be a poor attitude considering a lot of what is at stake.

I worry too much about the cookie cutter individuals I encounter on a regular basis and see dotting the hills of all the neighborhoods with their framed diplomas and his and hers matching alumni vanity plates, these people so content with themselves and nothing but that when despair does hit them they are so tame they can't fend for themselves in a world of wolves.

[Iskandar]

I would like to change lots of stuff. Problem is that's not always possible or desirable. I consider myself a pragmatist. Start small and take it from there.

I still can't pin down your ideology. If I had to guess I'd say anarchist or something.

[sleepless]

I too would like to change lots of stuff. Believe me when I say I find relief in identifying with someone like you. Few and far between indeed.

I'm hardly an anarchist, although some of their ideals and calls to action may not be without merit, and I do have a poor history concerning respect for undue authority.

I myself unfortunately have been forced to reside in the belief that it is too late for something small.

Refer to me as a Constitutional Fundamentalist, if you must. :)

I'm a 21 year old U.S. male who has been more than upset by universal events for many years.

[Iskandar]

Well now, that ugly dispute was for nothing. I apologize for being a dick. I misjudged you.

[sleepless]

Ah, yes it was.

You have my apology for being a dick as well.

I guess I'm just kind of a dick.

More importantly, a lesson learned that nothing will ever change as long as we're too busy trying to kill each other.

Now ****, I gtg2behd.

[Light Fantastic]

How on earth is military intervention compatible with libertarianism? Between the initiation of force against others and the big gummint needed to maintain a large standing army.
well quite easily since libertarian philosophy is based upon the idea that protecting individual freedoms is paramount

of course not all libertarians would agree with that viewpoint but therein lies the beauty of libertarianism since they dont have to play a part in it if they dont want to

[The Stig]

In the interest of this thread not being a complete waste, I'd like to start a new angle of discussion based on the American political system and how it can be reformed. Probably the most urgent concern is the need for a viable third party, which would make elections much more competitive and broaden the range of democratic choices. Then I propose a heavier emphasis on public financing with more stringent limits on corporate, union and private donations. Doing so would be an important step in negating the influence of special interest groups.

This is just the type of the iceberg of course. For example, I'm also interested in how best to decentralize decision-making to increase representation and improve efficiency. Then there are issues such as the massive public debt, the lack of universal healthcare and the war in Iraq. Ending the war quickly rather than a prolonged withdrawal would remove a major financial drain on the nation's resources and free up billions and billions of public funds. For that matter, so would downsizing the armed forces in general, and ending the pointless War on Drugs.

What are your ideas, sleepless?

I don't believe in using public funds to support a candidate. I fact, I see no real reason to restrict what private entities can and cannot donate money to campaigns. I'd support eliminating the ability of corporations to donate money as well as eliminating the cap on personal donations. However, I'd also try to ensure that money from non citizens, as a certain candidate is alleged to have done this past election, is not allowed to be used in elections in order to preserve the elections as an American interest.

Public debt -- Cut spending massively. Obama's Economic stimulus package scares me because our government can't afford to pay for it right now; the debt will only get worse. Government should concentrate on paying back the debt instead of expanding programs like universal health, the War on Drugs, and the botched Iraq War.

I think the US should adopt the Fair Tax, and repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Give state governments the proper representation they deserve in Washington and repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. It would help get rid of some special interest abuse in Washington.

Then again, I'm not the first person to say this, so it's probably not good enough for sleepless in seattle over here.

well quite easily since libertarian philosophy is based upon the idea that protecting individual freedoms is paramount

of course not all libertarians would agree with that viewpoint but therein lies the beauty of libertarianism since they dont have to play a part in it if they dont want to

ty chad

[Mr. Ron]

I think the Iraq War was a good idea in theory, but it was bungled majorly by those in charge and became what it is today. But foreign policy issues like this are one of the things that separates full, unbridled libertarianism with neolibertarianism/pragmatic libertarianism (where I tend to identify myself with the latter).

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=650

Is a good read to get the basic philosophical gist of the idea.
Hows that?

[Der Übermensch]

Hows that?

Something to do with the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator with no respect for the lives of the majority of his populace I imagine?
Shaky ground if you look at all the other rulers out there like this, but not completely off the mark either...

[Mr. Ron]

thats not really a justification for it in my mind. its quite obvious that all Iraq was is a foothold in the middle eats to exert influence, and the fact that we didn't go after all the other psychos in the world because they're "bad men" prove that


no established link with 9/11

no WMD's

no nothing

[Jude]

Something to do with the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator with no respect for the lives of the majority of his populace I imagine?
Shaky ground if you look at all the other rulers out there like this, but not completely off the mark either...

you'd have to be retard to not foresee what actually happened not to mention that all the people that would inevitably die in the conflict are just as dead as if Saddam had killed them

[Light Fantastic]

less people dying now is better than more dying in the future

[Der Übermensch]

you'd have to be retard to not foresee what actually happened not to mention that all the people that would inevitably die in the conflict are just as dead as if Saddam had killed them

Huh? There are many many ways that Iraq could have been done. We just chose one of the worst :thumb:

[Det_Nosnip]

You can be wrong in opinion-based areas.

Only if your opinions are insufficiently supported or completely illogical.

Hey thanks.

NP. Don't think this means that I'm buying your/Paul's explanation of the Great Depression for one minute, though. :p

[Det_Nosnip]

you'd have to be retard to not foresee what actually happened not to mention that all the people that would inevitably die in the conflict are just as dead as if Saddam had killed them

Yeah, but Saddam wasn't killing as many people as were killed in the war. His methods were usually more brutal, but then...that doesn't make them any more or less dead than if a marine accidentally shot them or something.

[Iskandar]

Paul, it sounds like we have the same basic ideas (cracking down on special interests, eliminating fiscal irresponsibility) but we believe in very different approaches to implement them.

The debt should be paid off within the next ten years. Unfortunately, this will mean cutting spending and raising taxes. It's not fair that the current generation of Americans should have to pay for the mistakes of previous administrations. However, the debt isn't nearly as important as ending the Iraq War and implementing universal healthcare (which I already know you oppose, so you don't need to respond to that).

The debt is sort of a backburner concern, but it can't and shouldn't be ignored forever.

[Light Fantastic]

Yeah, but Saddam wasn't killing as many people as were killed in the war. His methods were usually more brutal, but then...that doesn't make them any more or less dead than if a marine accidentally shot them or something.and then after sadam it would have been a rosy liberal democracy with no oppression

and after the guy who was after saddam

and after that

[Iskandar]

Just like it is now!

[Jude]

Huh? There are many many ways that Iraq could have been done.

They all would have turned out like this

Yeah, but Saddam wasn't killing as many people as were killed in the war. His methods were usually more brutal, but then...that doesn't make them any more or less dead than if a marine accidentally shot them or something.
Are you trying to counter what I said or not? Because you basically paraphrased it here

[Light Fantastic]

Just like it is now!but its not a rosy liberal democracy what are you talking about

[Iskandar]

but its not a rosy liberal democracy what are you talking abouthttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[Der Übermensch]

They all would have turned out like this
Now who is being retarded...?

[Light Fantastic]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strawman

!

[Iskandar]

Now who is being retarded...?Probably the only way it could have really worked would have been to partition the country into Sunni and Shi'i areas, in which case the Shi'i part would have become a satellite of Iran, so...

The religious groups in Iraq don't want to live together. The Sunnis are mad they don't run the show anymore, the Shi'i are angry at the past dominance of the Sunnis, and the Kurds just want to be left alone. The country in its present state is ungovernable.

[Jude]

Now who is being retarded...?

Do you really think there's any way this war could (realistically) have turned out other than a disaster?

[Rocksta71]

The war on terror is a simple war that cud simply be solved. If the soldiers follow the Taoist method, the war will be won with truth, power, honesty, bravery, and justise.

[Mr. Ron]

Shut Up

[Rocksta71]

Do not speak unkind words to me. I am a Taoist, I have been through a lot.

[McP3000]

a lot of bullshit

[The Stig]

Do you really think there's any way this war could (realistically) have turned out other than a disaster?

People tend to ignore Post-WWII Germany and Japan as success stories of places where we deposed oppressive regimes, righted economies in turmoil, and replaced them with a successful, peaceful government. Initial violence had different catalysts in that they were the aggressors, but had similar post-occupation procedures been followed, Things in Iraq today may have been different from what they are now.

The war on terror is a simple war that cud simply be solved. If the soldiers follow the Taoist method, the war will be won with truth, power, honesty, bravery, and justise.

You are kind of retarded.

Do not speak unkind words to me. I am a Taoist, I have been through a lot.

Or just a troll I guess.

[Det_Nosnip]

The war on terror is a simple war that cud simply be solved. If the soldiers follow the Taoist method, the war will be won with truth, power, honesty, bravery, and justise.

lol.

[Der Übermensch]

Do you really think there's any way this war could (realistically) have turned out other than a disaster?

If we weren't so stupidly committed to keeping Iraq fundamentally as one nation, yes. Dropper already explicated it, so why should I bother.

[Iskandar]

There were other problems too. I recommend the essay "Baghdad Year Zero" by Naomi Klein for further information. Her central thesis is that in their haste to "de-Baathify" the country, by firing hundreds of thousands of public-sector employees and liquidating the state's assets, the Coalition Provisional Authority contributed in a major way to the insurgency. Faced with no prospects, the people of Iraq turned to militancy.

[siva_chair]

I miss weird new-age Siva.

Back when I had the motivation to have long drawn out and overly-agressive theological discussions with him.

What would you like to discuss?

Tsk, don't pretend you have any.

I don't need to pretend.

I feel bad for you if you really believe abolishing the state would constitute any sort of progress given how long it's taken to develop the current system, what an improvement it is over historical systems and the risks inherent in throwing it all away for some pipe dream.

You are forgetting the fact that the current system sucks.

fuk you chad, any time someone takes the time to make a decent argument all u do is skip over it.

you and siva should be making the argument anyways (which you completely fail at, at least siva tries), because you are the ones that have to convince everyone else in this world that they are wrong.

Are you done crying yet?

Seriously if I ever met Chad irl I would give him a dollar just because he is really good at making you cry.

and who gives us these rights?

They are derived from our very nature.

yes it is. how can an entity take away rights no one gave them to you? Rights are not some biological characteristic.

No, they are rational characteristics.

Although some would say that reason is a anthropomorphic biological characteristic.

agreed, but rights do not exist naturally. They are concepts.

No, rights exist naturally.

"It is my right to kill anyone whom dishonors me or my family in public"

this created right is extreme, but an example of one that should be removed by others.

That isn't a right as it agresses against the right of another against their consent, i.e. their right to self-ownership.

Ever notice libertarians always seem to be white males?

And?

Also, there are several examples to the contrary. Malcolm X had many libertarian characteristics toward the end of his life.

Laozi (hey look there's your Tao influence for you) was very libertarian. His ideas on government are similar to Hayek's theory of spontaneous order.

Why are people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes.
Therefore the people are starving.
Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much.
Therefore they are rebellious.
The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be.
The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers.

less people dying now is better than more dying in the future

Yeah, it's like time preference. :D

NP. Don't think this means that I'm buying your/Paul's explanation of the Great Depression for one minute, though. :p

I would never jump to such a conclusion.

You should read Rothbard's America's Great Depression for a more comprehensive view of what I was talking about with that.

Here it is for free online if you are interested:

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

[Iskandar]

You are forgetting the fact that the current system sucks.
The American system is not the greatest, no, and a lot of things about it suck. It's better than most other political systems though.
And?Just something I've noticed.

My personal theory is that groups in society which are traditionally been marginalized, such as women, blacks, native Americans, etc. would tend not to be libertarian-leaning because they have more to gain from the welfare state. More privileged groups like whites, males and the rich have much less to gain and more to lose so it's logical for them to oppose it.

I like the Tao Te Ching and I notice the similarities with anarchist philosophy in it. It was written in the time of Imperial China, which was a big government if there ever was one, so it makes sense.

[siva_chair]

The American system is not the greatest, no, and a lot of things about it suck. It's better than most other political systems though.

I was talking about democracy in all forms, not just the American system.

Just something I've noticed.

My personal theory is that groups in society which are traditionally been marginalized, such as women, blacks, native Americans, etc. would tend not to be libertarian-leaning because they have more to gain from the welfare state. More privileged groups like whites, males and the rich have much less to gain and more to lose so it's logical for them to oppose it.

Actually, there is a very strong libertarian movement in the Native American community.

And it is interesting to note on the subject of women and Libertarianism:

The first woman in U.S. history to receive an Electoral College vote was 1972 Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential candidate Tonie Nathan. Also, the first U.S. political party to affirm a woman's right to both her own body and money was the Libertarian Party.

I remember reading a study that said that the LP had as many women registered as the Democratic party did. I don't exactly recall where it was, though. :upset:


I like the Tao Te Ching and I notice the similarities with anarchist philosophy in it. It was written in the time of Imperial China, which was a big government if there ever was one, so it makes sense.

I like it as well. Very valuable insights in it.

I'd say that it still holds true today in respects to government.

[Iskandar]

I was talking about democracy in all forms, not just the American system.The same holds true for democracy in general. I can't stress this enough that I don't think democracy is inherently all that great, just the best alternative to the better systems which are at the present time unworkable.
Actually, there is a very strong libertarian movement in the Native American community.There is? :confused:

Though Native Americans are so marginalized politically it makes sense I'd have never heard about it. Also it would make sense they would not be the biggest fans of government given how horribly they've been and still are treated by it, but at the same time I'd expect them to support welfare policies because of how poor many are.

Aren't you part native?
And it is interesting to note on the subject of women and Libertarianism (...)That is interesting though I doubt they have as many registered voters based on how woman actually vote.

[siva_chair]

The same holds true for democracy in general. I can't stress this enough that I don't think democracy is inherently all that great, just the best alternative to the better systems which are at the present time unworkable.

I understand that.

I obviously do not think it is unworkable, as I believe any "necessary" function of the government can be handled both more ethically and more efficiently by private organizations in a free market society.

There is? :confused:

Yup.

Though Native Americans are so marginalized politically it makes sense I'd have never heard about it. Also it would make sense they would not be the biggest fans of government given how horribly they've been and still are treated by it, but at the same time I'd expect them to support welfare policies because of how poor many are.

Well I think they, more than most, recognize the government's very role in making them impovershed.

That isn't to say that all Natives are libertarian, of course, but I do know there is a very strong libertarian movement amongst them.

Aren't you part native?

Yessir.

That is interesting though I doubt they have as many registered voters based on how woman actually vote.

Dunno. Like I said it was a while ago I read that, and I can't recall what study it was from. Doesn't matter anyway.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

the thing i cant take seriously is that i cant believe in sivas at all, nor chairs, you see

[siva_chair]

So you can't take your own beliefs (or lack thereof) seriously?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

what are you talking about i believe in something much more than you could describe in words

[mph4ever]

I obviously do not think it is unworkable, as I believe any "necessary" function of the government can be handled both more ethically and more efficiently by private organizations in a free market society.


what do you consider "necessary" function of the government?

[mph4ever]

I obviously do not think it is unworkable, as I believe any "necessary" function of the government can be handled both more ethically and more efficiently by private organizations in a free market society.


what do you consider "necessary" function of the government?

[siva_chair]

what are you talking about i believe in something much more than you could describe in words

I'm talking about when you said:

the thing i cant take seriously is that i cant believe in sivas at all, nor chairs, you see

[siva_chair]

what do you consider "necessary" function of the government?

I don't think the government itself is necessary, but it does have a monopoly on particular services that I believe are necessary for civilization and a productive society.

Roads
Defense
Police
Courts
Water/Sewer/etc.

All of these can be provided for in absence of the state.

[mph4ever]

I don't think the government itself is necessary, but it does have a monopoly on particular services that I believe are necessary for civilization and a productive society.

Roads
Defense
Police
Courts
Water/Sewer/etc.

All of these can be provided for in absence of the state.

courts? how would that work?

[siva_chair]

courts? how would that work?

Polycentric Law.

A private system of competing judicial services.

[mph4ever]

Polycentric Law.

i didn't think polycentric was representative of the private sector

A private system of competing judicial services.
oh, so you could pay to have your case heard in court

[siva_chair]

i didn't think polycentric was representative of the private sector

Of course it is.

oh, so you could pay to have your case heard in court

Yeah.

Guess what, you already do this in today's world.

[mph4ever]

Of course it is.

well, i suppose it is in terms of ancient times and it being hijacked as an example of how law might work in a free market non government system. but it is not in reality today, or is it?

Yeah.

Guess what, you already do this in today's world.
but surely in this system i could pay more to have it heard in a better court

[mph4ever]

Polycentric Law.


btw, who defines the law?

[siva_chair]

well, i suppose it is in terms of ancient times and it being hijacked as an example of how law might work in a free market non government system. but it is not in reality today, or is it?

Well, private arbitration certainly exists today so I don't know what you are talking about.

but surely in this system i could pay more to have it heard in a better court

Yeah and you could bribe a judge in today's monopolistic court system, too.

Courts would be preferred on their objectivity, fairness, and efficiency. Those that would show unjust bias would soon find their business disappearing pretty quickly to more efficient and fair judicial services.

[Sk0rpi0n]

What a dumb thread. If I was wearing shoes I'd throw them at this thread.

[siva_chair]

btw, who defines the law?

The legal code would insist on the principle of no initiation of aggression against person or property.

This is defined by the natural rights of man.

Keep in mind that a vast body of our law today came about in a similar way.

[mph4ever]

What a dumb thread. If I was wearing shoes I'd throw them at this thread.

if you were a muslim then that would be a massive insult, apparently

[siva_chair]

if you were a muslim then that would be a massive insult, apparently

Wow, nothing gets past you....

:p

[mph4ever]

Wow, nothing gets past you....

:p

keep ths pointless post count up i have been told

Well, private arbitration certainly exists today so I don't know what you are talking about.

sure, usually when the objective is to resolve a difference of opinion with a legally binding outcome. are there other instances?

Yeah and you could bribe a judge in today's monopolistic court system, too.

not really the same thing. a direct payment to a judge shouldn't be allowed. they need to know they will get paid the same no matter what the case before their court. where the private sector makes money in this case is in the number of judges and courts they have on their books

Courts would be preferred on their objectivity, fairness, and efficiency. Those that would show unjust bias would soon find their business disappearing pretty quickly to more efficient and fair judicial services.
[/quote]
so you support regulation? and how do the people who use the court agree to which one? would lawyers/barristers etc be regulated?

The legal code would insist on the principle of no initiation of aggression against person or property.

ok, i'm all for that. a true faith in the inherent good in all people. its a risky assumption but one i try to live by

This is defined by the natural rights of man.

natural rights of man, interesting. what do you consider these to be?

Keep in mind that a vast body of our law today came about in a similar way.
i thought the vast body of law in any country came about because of religion based morals

[siva_chair]

sure, usually when the objective is to resolve a difference of opinion with a legally binding outcome.

Well that is usually the whole point to most legal systems.

are there other instances?

Within current the legal system?

not really the same thing. a direct payment to a judge shouldn't be allowed. they need to know they will get paid the same no matter what the case before their court. where the private sector makes money in this case is in the number of judges and courts they have on their books

Judicial firms. It is unlikely a judge will be some lone wolf, self-employed, arbitrator, although it is possible. The judge can set the price of his services to whatever he wishes, though he probably needs to set them competitively with other firms if he wishes to remain in business.

so you support regulation? and how do the people who use the court agree to which one? would lawyers/barristers etc be regulated?

What do you mean regulation? Each court would be free to decide how it wishes to organize. That is the point. Obviously, the more efficient court organizations will survive and the inefficient ones will not.

As for people deciding which court to use, they would obviously use the court of the victim or plaintiff. If the defendant doesn't agree or approve of the ruling of the court, he is certainly free to appeal to a different court. If the ruling of the second court disagreed with the first, the two courts could settle on a third party arbitrator (a court's appeals court, if you will). It makes sense that the ruling of any two courts would stand in that particular scenario.

ok, i'm all for that. a true faith in the inherent good in all people. its a risky assumption but one i try to live by

Well, that is the foundation of natural rights, methinks.

natural rights of man, interesting. what do you consider these to be?

Every person has the right to self-ownership and no man has the right to initiate aggression against another's person or property (as property is simply an extension of a man's person).

This subject can obviously be discussed in great depth and detail, so I have a feeling a can of worms is about to be opened.

i thought the vast body of law in any country came about because of religion based morals

That certainly influenced it, but the body of law I am speaking of is Anglo-Common Law.

[mph4ever]

Well that is usually the whole point to most legal systems.

ok, so i need to differentiate between legal system and penal law. how does it work in an instance where someone violates a law but there is no victim?

Within current the legal system?

yeah. not relating to more archaic instances of this working. are there more contemporary examples?

Judicial firms. It is unlikely a judge will be some lone wolf, self-employed, arbitrator, although it is possible. The judge can set the price of his services to whatever he wishes, though he probably needs to set them competitively with other firms if he wishes to remain in business.

ok. so you would have companies who specialise in making judgements. and the ones who make the best judgements will stay in business and those who don't will fail. what happens when someone chooses to form a firm that is privately funded, specialises in a particular area, loses money but stays in buiness because it suits its owners or their friends. surely this would set us back 100s of years to more feudal and tribal times

What do you mean regulation? Each court would be free to decide how it wishes to organize. That is the point. Obviously, the more efficient court organizations will survive and the inefficient ones will not.

well you mentioned that some would shown biased etc and surely to eradicate this then you would need an independent regulator. sort of like a privately funded judicial service ombudsman

As for people deciding which court to use, they would obviously use the court of the victim or plaintiff. If the defendant doesn't agree or approve of the ruling of the court, he is certainly free to appeal to a different court. If the ruling of the second court disagreed with the first, the two courts could settle on a third party arbitrator (a court's appeals court, if you will). It makes sense that the ruling of any two courts would stand in that particular scenario.

so if you are unhappy with initial judgement then you can appeal. who pays for the appeal if you are successful?

Well, that is the foundation of natural rights, methinks.

some common ground, wow

Every person has the right to self-ownership and no man has the right to initiate aggression against another's person or property (as property is simply an extension of a man's person).

This subject can obviously be discussed in great depth and detail, so I have a feeling a can of worms is about to be opened.

nah, i'm buying it. trouble is that the mechanisms and structures in place to enforce this will never be built. i think i have said before, for humanity to get it right then we need an extinction level event and have enough of us proper thinking people orbitting the planet for 20 years whilst the dust settles and then come down and start from scratch. otherwise it will never happen.

That certainly influenced it, but the body of law I am speaking of is Anglo-Common Law.
why do i sometimes feel like i am talking to a forum bot from cato or the like?

[siva_chair]

ok, so i need to differentiate between legal system and penal law. how does it work in an instance where someone violates a law but there is no victim?

Like what?

If there is no victim, how exactly is there a crime?

yeah. not relating to more archaic instances of this working. are there more contemporary examples?

You mean besides private arbitration?

Not really, as the court system is currently a monopoly held by the state (in terms of criminal law and whatnot). I don't see what this has to do with anything, though.

ok. so you would have companies who specialise in making judgements. and the ones who make the best judgements will stay in business and those who don't will fail.

A judge is usually sought as an objective and impartial third party, yes.

what happens when someone chooses to form a firm that is privately funded, specialises in a particular area, loses money but stays in buiness because it suits its owners or their friends. surely this would set us back 100s of years to more feudal and tribal times

If a company loses money, it cannot stay in business.

Also, it is very unlikely that a firm could rely on a handful of wealthy individuals and expect to survive. It becomes way too cost prohibitive to do that. For example: Macy's doesn't stay in business because it caters to a handful of very wealthy clients, they stay in business because they cater to a large number of individual consumers.

well you mentioned that some would shown biased etc and surely to eradicate this then you would need an independent regulator. sort of like a privately funded judicial service ombudsman

The discipline of the free market is enough of a regulator. Sure, someone might engage in unethical or biased behavior, but they will not be able to perpetrate it for long, as it would become far to inefficient expense-wise.

so if you are unhappy with initial judgement then you can appeal. who pays for the appeal if you are successful?

You mean like if I took you to court and you appealed the verdict and won in the subsequent court case(s)? In that case, I would probably have to pay for it. If I were to have won, you would.

some common ground, wow

It happens.

nah, i'm buying it. trouble is that the mechanisms and structures in place to enforce this will never be built. i think i have said before, for humanity to get it right then we need an extinction level event and have enough of us proper thinking people orbitting the planet for 20 years whilst the dust settles and then come down and start from scratch. otherwise it will never happen.

I believe it is possible. I'm more optimistic than you are, I guess.

why do i sometimes feel like i am talking to a forum bot from cato or the like?

Don't know.

I have my own issues with Cato, though.

[mph4ever]

Like what?
If there is no victim, how exactly is there a crime?

public order offences. rioting. social issues where the victim does not want to be a witness and leaves it to "who" to prosecute for the betterment of society

You mean besides private arbitration?

Not really, as the court system is currently a monopoly held by the state (in terms of criminal law and whatnot). I don't see what this has to do with anything, though.

it has to do with the practicality of changing the entire system to accomodate these ideas. see, a lot of the issues are real world issues and maybe you could try and use your obvious impressive intellect to suggest improvements, small steps, rather than an end game that really will never see the light of day

A judge is usually sought as an objective and impartial third party, yes.

but surely they are going to make decisions that will ensure their firm is seen
as the best. and if their best interests are those of the firm then surely they cannot be in the best interests of the adversaries. they are only human afterall. who would regulate potential monopolies? or has everything the requirement of enforced polycentricity?

If a company loses money, it cannot stay in business.

sure it can, most especially if it is privately held. it can be propped up for ever, if it is in someones interests to do so.

Also, it is very unlikely that a firm could rely on a handful of wealthy individuals and expect to survive. It becomes way too cost prohibitive to do that. For example: Macy's doesn't stay in business because it caters to a handful of very wealthy clients, they stay in business because they cater to a large number of individual consumers.

k-street lobby firms stay in business all the time

The discipline of the free market is enough of a regulator. Sure, someone might engage in unethical or biased behavior, but they will not be able to perpetrate it for long, as it would become far to inefficient expense-wise.

like all the other free market companies then they would all go out of business except in this instance there would be no bail out and the world would become an anarchy. hey, now i know what you are at :p

You mean like if I took you to court and you appealed the verdict and won in the subsequent court case(s)? In that case, I would probably have to pay for it. If I were to have won, you would.

but you were happy with the first verdict, why should you have to pay? and what if you appealed again? the one who gets two out of three wins and the other pays. thank you chuck norris

It happens.

strangely uncomfortable though

I believe it is possible. I'm more optimistic than you are, I guess.

the optimism of youth, hang on to it kid, won't be long until you realise that resistance is futile and we are borg

Don't know.

I have my own issues with Cato, though.
rather them than me

[siva_chair]

public order offences.

Like?

rioting.

There are victims in rioting. They are the people who's property was damaged by the rioters.

social issues where the victim does not want to be a witness and leaves it to "who" to prosecute for the betterment of society

You are going to have to be a little more specific because I have no idea what you mean by that.

it has to do with the practicality of changing the entire system to accomodate these ideas. see, a lot of the issues are real world issues and maybe you could try and use your obvious impressive intellect to suggest improvements, small steps, rather than an end game that really will never see the light of day

Here's an improvement: allow private court systems to compete.

The small steps would be: significantly scaling down government and it's spending continually until it ceases to exist.

but surely they are going to make decisions that will ensure their firm is seen as the best.

Yeah that is called being fair, impartial, and efficient. That service offered with competitive prices would ensure what is needed.

and if their best interests are those of the firm then surely they cannot be in the best interests of the adversaries. they are only human afterall.

Why would they need to have the best interest of their competition in mind?

who would regulate potential monopolies? or has everything the requirement of enforced polycentricity?

Monopolies, if sensibly defined, don't exist on a free market. Monopolies are products of government favoritism and protectionism.

sure it can, most especially if it is privately held. it can be propped up for ever, if it is in someones interests to do so.

That would require someone with essentially infinite resources. The smaller the clientele base of a firm, the greater the operating cost per client is going to be to cover the cost of labor and production successfully.

Sorry, but even the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets can only afford to bleed money for so long.

k-street lobby firms stay in business all the time

And the most successful ones are subsidized by many individuals, not just a few.

Besides, even the ones that are, only are an issue because they influence legislation that basically effects everyone through the monopoly the government has on the courts. This is another example of how the power of wealth is amplified by the state. Get rid of the state, and wealth loses lots of it's power over whole segments of the population.

like all the other free market companies then they would all go out of business except in this instance there would be no bail out and the world would become an anarchy. hey, now i know what you are at :p

What? What is this "all free market companies go out of business" crap?

but you were happy with the first verdict, why should you have to pay?

Because another court, and then a subsequent arbitrating court overruled the original court, obviously.

In this sort of system, all criminals are debtors.

and what if you appealed again? the one who gets two out of three wins and the other pays. thank you chuck norris

I think that is reasonable. Obviously the two disputing courts (in this example: mine and yours) would have to mutually agree upon an arbitrating court between the two of them.

If, however, we both subscribe to the same judicial firm, there is no need for any other court to even be involved, as we would each accept the ruling of the court services we both subscribe to.

strangely uncomfortable though

I'm sorry you are insecure.

the optimism of youth, hang on to it kid, won't be long until you realise that resistance is futile and we are borg

I was much more pessimistic when I was a kid, though.

[mph4ever]

Like?

drunk and disorderly

There are victims in rioting. They are the people who's property was damaged by the rioters.

nah. a riot can be as little as three people standing on a street corner if you are in switzerland and lets take it there does not have to be a victim.

You are going to have to be a little more specific because I have no idea what you mean by that.

so someone gets beat up. starts as a one on one but turns into a three on one. they don't want to be a witness. fear of retribution. it happens in a public place. its a public order offence. who brings the charge in the absence of the victim being willing to.

Here's an improvement: allow private court systems to compete.

The small steps would be: significantly scaling down government and it's spending continually until it ceases to exist.

to compete with government court first and see how things fair out?

but no matter how you approach it with a free market system there are always going to be people who can't afford the basic service due to lack of money, or other priorities like food or drugs or whatever. how do you accomodate these?

Yeah that is called being fair, impartial, and efficient. That service offered with competitive prices would ensure what is needed.

and your expereince of human nature doesn't lead you believe that they are corruptable? free market has scandals all the time. how can you ensure that this is not the case without some sort of regulation

Why would they need to have the best interest of their competition in mind?

when i say adversaries i mean the opposing parties caught up in a legal case, not other firms

Monopolies, if sensibly defined, don't exist on a free market. Monopolies are products of government favoritism and protectionism.

thats why microsoft owns the desktop right? monopolies are the product of having the best product and exploiting it in a free market.

That would require someone with essentially infinite resources. The smaller the clientele base of a firm, the greater the operating cost per client is going to be to cover the cost of labor and production successfully.

Sorry, but even the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets can only afford to bleed money for so long.

not if the results of the work were so significant as to afford them the money to bleed.

And the most successful ones are subsidized by many individuals, not just a few.

Besides, even the ones that are, only are an issue because they influence legislation that basically effects everyone through the monopoly the government has on the courts. This is another example of how the power of wealth is amplified by the state. Get rid of the state, and wealth loses lots of it's power over whole segments of the population.

small steps?

What? What is this "all free market companies go out of business" crap?

ok, free market companies would go out of business all the time. the automotive industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry, the energy industry, the airline industry. some of them from bad business management, some from economic problems outide their sphere of influence, some from industrial espionage. how would you regulate this and would you make any provision to aid a failing company or industry. take airlines and the fuel crisis. should they fail because no one regulates oil? and how would an airline survive? just asking

Because another court, and then a subsequent arbitrating court overruled the original court, obviously.

In this sort of system, all criminals are debtors.

it would be more efficient to go straight to arbitration especially if the criminals are paying. who pays if the crimnals are broke? free markets can't survive on people doing an extra six months behind bars because they fail to pay their court fees

I think that is reasonable. Obviously the two disputing courts (in this example: mine and yours) would have to mutually agree upon an arbitrating court between the two of them.

If, however, we both subscribe to the same judicial firm, there is no need for any other court to even be involved, as we would each accept the ruling of the court services we both subscribe to.

surely this raises conflict of interest issues in the legal world. private lawyers, private courts, private judges. it would all have to be rigorous non disclosure outside and totally open book inside the court.

I'm sorry you are insecure.

being strangely uncomfortable does not equal insecure

I was much more pessimistic when I was a kid, though.
strange. most people would be the inverse. whats meds are you on?

[siva_chair]

drunk and disorderly

Where?

Keep in mind that in an an-cap society, everything is essentially privately owned. If you are drunk and disorderly on the property of someone who does not wish to allow that kind of behavior, they have every right to kick you off their property, or sue you for damages incurred.

nah. a riot can be as little as three people standing on a street corner if you are in switzerland and lets take it there does not have to be a victim.

Three people standing on the street corner doing nothing isn't a riot, though.

so someone gets beat up. starts as a one on one but turns into a three on one. they don't want to be a witness. fear of retribution. it happens in a public place. its a public order offence. who brings the charge in the absence of the victim being willing to.

What public place? Like I said in an an-cap society, there is essentially no "public places" for this issue to arise.

to compete with government court first and see how things fair out?

Sure, I guess. The thing is, this would also have to hold true for police as well, and I would say those not using the government courts would have to be able to opt out of funding them.

but no matter how you approach it with a free market system there are always going to be people who can't afford the basic service due to lack of money, or other priorities like food or drugs or whatever. how do you accomodate these?

Well, much in the same way that there are already free legal services available.

And/or, something similar to what the Icelanders did with their stateless, polycentric legal order when it came to people who could not afford to pay: They could sell their right to justice to someone (in this society someone such as a chieftain or another respected peer) who could collect or make right upon the victim. In this respect, the right to transfer restitution acted as an equalizer for the poor.

and your expereince of human nature doesn't lead you believe that they are corruptable? free market has scandals all the time. how can you ensure that this is not the case without some sort of regulation

Because the free market already provides watchdogs against fraud, and they are usually much more efficient at it than government regulation. To take a recent example that has been in the news: The Madoff fiasco. "Due-diligence firms" raised lots of red flags about his operation long before it became front page news. Non-government organizations that protect consumer interests exist, such as these due-dilligence firms (which were created because in absence of government regulation, consumers demanded some sort of policing of hedge funds in order to protect investors who lack the knowledge or resources to properly investigate the funds in which they plan to entrust their money). The free market even caught this instance before the SEC did (and that is their job!).

when i say adversaries i mean the opposing parties caught up in a legal case, not other firms

Well, like I said, it would become extraordinarily cost inefficient for a judicial firm to engage in that type of behavior, as their function is to provide an unbiased service. If they provided a biased service, they would soon find themselves loosing business. Ask yourself: would you voluntarily employ the services of a court that you knew to be biased? Afterall, if they are willing to rule in a biased manner towards your "adversary," what is to stop them from ruling in such a manner towards you?

thats why microsoft owns the desktop right? monopolies are the product of having the best product and exploiting it in a free market.

Microsoft enjoys tons of government granted monopoly privileges. They are called patents and copyrights, which are nothing but government granted privileges.

not if the results of the work were so significant as to afford them the money to bleed.

Like?

small steps?

Or we could expose it for what it is: a a disease masquerading as its own cure.

ok, free market companies would go out of business all the time.

Yeah, and?

Their assets would be freed up and bought by someone who can do a more efficient and effective job.

the automotive industry

Only unionized companies are currently failing, and that is because 1) Unions are labor cartels that are heavily protected by the state, and 2) they drive the cost of labor way up and cripple companies that are forced (yes, forced) to hire them.

the banking industry, the insurance industry,

Ignoring the reasons these industries are facing the crisis' they are: the government creating moral hazards and incentives for risky and irresponsible lending practices.

the energy industry

What? Energy companies tend to do quite well, and the ones that fail are quickly liquidated and bought up by other capital holders.

the airline industry.

Heavily subsidized, regulated, and not at all a free market industry for the most part.

The parts that are less regulated and relatively free from such government intervention (avionics, in-flight entertainment, etc.) are doing ok (though indirectly suffering due to said inteventionism).

some of them from bad business management, some from economic problems outide their sphere of influence, some from industrial espionage. how would you regulate this and would you make any provision to aid a failing company or industry. take airlines and the fuel crisis. should they fail because no one regulates oil? and how would an airline survive? just asking

No, failing companies should not be aided or subsidized. If I make poor economic choices, I reap what I sow. Why should we reward poor business choices?

Once again, malinvestment on the scale that is coming to light recently is due to governments distorting the markets and creating moral hazards. It isn't because of the "failure of deregulation" or any such nonesense. Government is the source of the disease and then claims more of it is needed as a cure. What a pantload.

it would be more efficient to go straight to arbitration especially if the criminals are paying.

No, because the second court may very well agree with the first. It would not look good if a court simply ruled in favor of whoever was paying them.

The first court itself is arbitration. The 3rd court (in this example) is simply a third party arbitrator between arbitrators.

[/QUOTE] who pays if the crimnals are broke? free markets can't survive on people doing an extra six months behind bars because they fail to pay their court fees [/QUOTE]

Criminals could work off their fees and fines to their debt holders. This isn't a new concept by any means.

surely this raises conflict of interest issues in the legal world. private lawyers, private courts, private judges. it would all have to be rigorous non disclosure outside and totally open book inside the court.

Why would it be a conflict of interest if we both subscribe to the same court system? If anything, it means we contractually agree to the court's arbitration.

Obviously lawyers wouldn't be able to represent the plaintiff and the defendant at once, nor would he (or the clients) have any incentive for doing so, really.

I do think, however, that lawyers would have a smaller role in such a society, but I may be wrong.

being strangely uncomfortable does not equal insecure

True, but you shouldn't feel uncomfortable about being secure in your convictions.

It certainly doesn't bother me when we agree on something.

strange. most people would be the inverse. whats meds are you on?

None. I just look at history and feel that liberty will inevitably win. It may take a very long time, and it might not seem like it is going in that direction at times, but it is inevitably heading in that direction whether the state likes it or not.

And strangely enough, the internet gives me some more hope of that, as ideas can spread at a much faster pace than before, and once caught, the idea of true liberty is pretty hard to shake.

[mph4ever]

Where?

on a public street but an-cap doesn't allow this so the point is dead

Keep in mind that in an an-cap society, everything is essentially privately owned. If you are drunk and disorderly on the property of someone who does not wish to allow that kind of behavior, they have every right to kick you off their property, or sue you for damages incurred.

thread killa

Three people standing on the street corner doing nothing isn't a riot, though.

thats the charge. is that way in a lot of countries too. riots don't have to damage property or hurt people and don't ned mroe than three people

What public place? Like I said in an an-cap society, there is essentially no "public places" for this issue to arise.

so if the offense happens on a street then the company who owns the street prosecutes you

Sure, I guess. The thing is, this would also have to hold true for police as well, and I would say those not using the government courts would have to be able to opt out of funding them.

maybe they should go semi state and then pprivate rather than competing with newly established private

Well, much in the same way that there are already free legal services available.

And/or, something similar to what the Icelanders did with their stateless, polycentric legal order when it came to people who could not afford to pay: They could sell their right to justice to someone (in this society someone such as a chieftain or another respected peer) who could collect or make right upon the victim. In this respect, the right to transfer restitution acted as an equalizer for the poor.

thats not really going to happen at this stage. who would pay for the free legal aid? isn't that suggestive of a form of tax most especially if no one gives it as a charitable donation?

Because the free market already provides watchdogs against fraud, and they are usually much more efficient at it than government regulation. To take a recent example that has been in the news: The Madoff fiasco. "Due-diligence firms" raised lots of red flags about his operation long before it became front page news. Non-government organizations that protect consumer interests exist, such as these due-dilligence firms (which were created because in absence of government regulation, consumers demanded some sort of policing of hedge funds in order to protect investors who lack the knowledge or resources to properly investigate the funds in which they plan to entrust their money). The free market even caught this instance before the SEC did (and that is their job!).

so you would hand over regulation of investment firms to private organisations. is the sec being independent not good enough

Well, like I said, it would become extraordinarily cost inefficient for a judicial firm to engage in that type of behavior, as their function is to provide an unbiased service. If they provided a biased service, they would soon find themselves loosing business. Ask yourself: would you voluntarily employ the services of a court that you knew to be biased? Afterall, if they are willing to rule in a biased manner towards your "adversary," what is to stop them from ruling in such a manner towards you?

the foundation for that is total honesty and transparency. and its not government that makes me mistrust people, it is people. it is their failure and i can't think what can be done about that. any ideas?

Microsoft enjoys tons of government granted monopoly privileges. They are called patents and copyrights, which are nothing but government granted privileges.

nah, not really. they enjoy dominant market share for technology that its not nearly as good as its opposition and they protect it through monopolisitc practices. by the time any copped on to what they were doing it was too late. too big, too everywhere. if anything it is a failing of government and patent protection that has allowed them to succeed. it is the free market that turned them into a monster

Like?

import levies

Or we could expose it for what it is: a a disease masquerading as its own cure.

sounds like an arnie or stallone script

Yeah, and?

Their assets would be freed up and bought by someone who can do a more efficient and effective job.

their assests are useless, that why they went out of business

Only unionized companies are currently failing, and that is because 1) Unions are labor cartels that are heavily protected by the state, and 2) they drive the cost of labor way up and cripple companies that are forced (yes, forced) to hire them.

banks are unionised? circuit city is unionised?

Ignoring the reasons these industries are facing the crisis' they are: the government creating moral hazards and incentives for risky and irresponsible lending practices.

the banks got out of control, not the governments

What? Energy companies tend to do quite well, and the ones that fail are quickly liquidated and bought up by other capital holders.

i should have said fuel - my bad

Heavily subsidized, regulated, and not at all a free market industry for the most part.

in america maybe, but not in europe so much and they are still failing

The parts that are less regulated and relatively free from such government intervention (avionics, in-flight entertainment, etc.) are doing ok (though indirectly suffering due to said inteventionism).

nice plug for avionics

No, failing companies should not be aided or subsidized. If I make poor economic choices, I reap what I sow. Why should we reward poor business choices?

so a national industry is 12 months from being able to compete and you think they should be cut loose and allowed to sink. surely they should be helped, albeit in a manner they have to repay, for the greater national good

Once again, malinvestment on the scale that is coming to light recently is due to governments distorting the markets and creating moral hazards. It isn't because of the "failure of deregulation" or any such nonesense. Government is the source of the disease and then claims more of it is needed as a cure. What a pantload.

are you in favour of all industry failing and going abroad. is the your idea of the free market a global one or can it be country specific

No, because the second court may very well agree with the first. It would not look good if a court simply ruled in favor of whoever was paying them.

The first court itself is arbitration. The 3rd court (in this example) is simply a third party arbitrator between arbitrators.

who pays if the crimnals are broke? free markets can't survive on people doing an extra six months behind bars because they fail to pay their court fees [/QUOTE]

Criminals could work off their fees and fines to their debt holders. This isn't a new concept by any means.
[/quote]
so you take out a mortgage on your debt to society, nice. its not new because its called slavery of sorts. its how they got people to go to the new world and australia and other such places

Why would it be a conflict of interest if we both subscribe to the same court system? If anything, it means we contractually agree to the court's arbitration.

Obviously lawyers wouldn't be able to represent the plaintiff and the defendant at once, nor would he (or the clients) have any incentive for doing so, really.

I do think, however, that lawyers would have a smaller role in such a society, but I may be wrong.

perhaps the judge judy model would work, getthe advertisers to pay for everything

True, but you shouldn't feel uncomfortable about being secure in your convictions.

It certainly doesn't bother me when we agree on something.

it shouldn't bother you so much when we disagree either

None. I just look at history and feel that liberty will inevitably win. It may take a very long time, and it might not seem like it is going in that direction at times, but it is inevitably heading in that direction whether the state likes it or not.

And strangely enough, the internet gives me some more hope of that, as ideas can spread at a much faster pace than before, and once caught, the idea of true liberty is pretty hard to shake.
i'd like to think that a lot of the kids growing up today realise the level of corruption that is all around them all the time. if they do then they may very well live a satisfying life. at the same time real liberty will only come through revolution, and not a silent one that creeps up either. it will have to be violent. its really only a very fractional percentage of the population in the ruling and religious classes that need to ousted. but it can't happen until the vast majority are united. whatever happens, it needs to be swift and unilateral. the internet may facilitate this but they are trying to seriously regulate it.

[Rocksta71]

I can't believe you morons are doing this in MY thread, shut up!

[mph4ever]

I can't believe you morons are doing this in MY thread, shut up!

the thread is called siva so it should look like a siva thread, now gtfo

we've got 10 more posts before we change page hehehehehehe

[siva_chair]

on a public street but an-cap doesn't allow this so the point is dead

thread killa

#1 stunna

thats the charge. is that way in a lot of countries too. riots don't have to damage property or hurt people and don't ned mroe than three people

Well how exactly is that charge even relevant to a libertarian society, though?

If the owner of a property didn't want those three particular individuals on their property, they have every right to make them leave.

so if the offense happens on a street then the company who owns the street prosecutes you

Yes.

Or the person that got beat up, as the attackers initiated aggression against their person.

maybe they should go semi state and then pprivate rather than competing with newly established private

Ok except the government isn't likely to just give up it's monopoly hold on these services. It derives too much power from them.

thats not really going to happen at this stage. who would pay for the free legal aid?

Well being free, no one. I see no reason Pro Bono wouldn't still exist.

isn't that suggestive of a form of tax most especially if no one gives it as a charitable donation?

What? Lawyers operate pro bono all the time and they aren't funded by tax. And what makes you think that there wouldn't be charitable donations of that sort, anyhow?

so you would hand over regulation of investment firms to private organisations.

Sure. They already do a significant portion of this anyway with very little problems. Like I said, they did a far better job in the Madoff case than the government did....

is the sec being independent not good enough

Well considering that it is funded by taxation, which is coercive....

the foundation for that is total honesty and transparency. and its not government that makes me mistrust people, it is people. it is their failure and i can't think what can be done about that. any ideas?

No one said no one will be dishonest. Government doesn't get rid of that, so I don't see what the issue is. The government is run by people too, you know, and they are just as dishonest (some probably moreso, tbh) than anyone else, so levying that against a stateless society seems rather silly to me as I never said it would eliminate dishonesty or anything like that. I do think, however, that the market does provide checks against unilateral aggression and dishonesty that government does not (and in fact in many cases exacerbates it).


nah, not really. they enjoy dominant market share for technology that its not nearly as good as its opposition and they protect it through monopolisitc practices.

Which they got said protection through copyrights and patents.

by the time any copped on to what they were doing it was too late. too big, too everywhere. if anything it is a failing of government and patent protection that has allowed them to succeed. it is the free market that turned them into a monster

Hardly, as it is the government protection via copyrights and patents that allowed them to become the monster they did.

import levies

Umm in absence of a state how is a person to enforce said levies? If an import company has too high of levies, the exporter will simply find someone willing to do it for less.

sounds like an arnie or stallone script

No most of them have one or two word titles and I'm not too sure they would put the word "masquerading" in said titles as I don't know if either of them can even say that word....

their assests are useless, that why they went out of business

No, the assets are not useless at all. They went out of business because they could not efficiently and productively provide a service or good on a competitive market.

banks are unionised? circuit city is unionised?

I was referring to auto makers. Only unionized auto companies are failing atm. Toyota, Honda, etc are all doing just fine.

the banks got out of control, not the governments

The banks got out of control because the government distorted the market, created incentives for irresponsible lending, and guaranteed them protection from default (via various regulations and organizations). Sure, banks were greedy, banks were irresponsible, but only because the government gave them vast incentives to be. Those incentives would simply not be there on a free market, as the fear of failure would have kept this sort of greed in check.

i should have said fuel - my bad

The same holds true for fuel companies. Shell, Chevron, etc are far from going bankrupt (although OPEC is a cartel and certainly does their share of distorting the market).

in america maybe, but not in europe so much and they are still failing

I'm pretty sure there is still a substantial amount of regulation and subsidization of the airline industry in Europe.

nice plug for avionics

Well it is pretty easy for me to assess that aspect as I deal with it everyday, so....:chug:

so a national industry is 12 months from being able to compete and you think they should be cut loose and allowed to sink. surely they should be helped, albeit in a manner they have to repay, for the greater national good

Are you referring to so-called "infant industries" or what?

If they cannot get enough startup capital, they are either poor investors/businessmen that probably have no business running a company, or the industry isn't all that in demand.

are you in favour of all industry failing and going abroad. is the your idea of the free market a global one or can it be country specific

Either way. Industries leave because there are incentives to do so. It isn't surprising when companies leave to more tax friendly nations.

so you take out a mortgage on your debt to society, nice. its not new because its called slavery of sorts. its how they got people to go to the new world and australia and other such places

Well, indentured servitude would be more accurate, as you are repaying a debt.

Either way, this is really no different than locking people up behind bars for crimes, except that a victim is re-compensated as opposed to just put behind bars.

Obviously there would still be a place for violent criminals like private prisons, but most crimes can and should be based on restitution.

perhaps the judge judy model would work, getthe advertisers to pay for everything

I'm sure such a thing would still exist.

it shouldn't bother you so much when we disagree either

It actually doesn't. Does it look like I'm really bothered when people disagree with me on here? I mean, c'mon.....

i'd like to think that a lot of the kids growing up today realise the level of corruption that is all around them all the time. if they do then they may very well live a satisfying life. at the same time real liberty will only come through revolution, and not a silent one that creeps up either. it will have to be violent. its really only a very fractional percentage of the population in the ruling and religious classes that need to ousted. but it can't happen until the vast majority are united. whatever happens, it needs to be swift and unilateral. the internet may facilitate this but they are trying to seriously regulate it.

I don't think it need necessarily be violent, tbh. There are several libertarian strategies that could work, methinks.

Though it is completely within the realm of possibility that such a revolution would be violent, no denying that.

I can't believe you morons are doing this in MY thread, shut up!

I don't see your name on it.....:p

[Iskandar]

I don't think the government itself is necessary, but it does have a monopoly on particular services that I believe are necessary for civilization and a productive society.

Roads
Defense
Police
Courts
Water/Sewer/etc.

All of these can be provided for in absence of the state.They could, perhaps, but it's better for them to be provided by the state. In particular the courts and law enforcement. I don't think a polycentric law system would be workable. It would be too unstable. Law needs to be enforced by a neutral arbiter, and since we don't have that the closest thing is the state.

[siva_chair]

They could, perhaps, but it's better for them to be provided by the state. In particular the courts and law enforcement. I don't think a polycentric law system would be workable. It would be too unstable. Law needs to be enforced by a neutral arbiter, and since we don't have that the closest thing is the state.

Why is it better for these things to be under monopolistic control of the state?

Monopolies are horribly inefficient and suffer from the same problems of economic calculation that socialism does. It has no way of calculating whether or not it is providing an efficient or cost effective, quality service in any of these areas.

I fail to see how the state is the closest thing to a neutral arbiter we have, tbh.

[Iskandar]

It's certainly more neutral than a private company.

Also I don't really see how the calculation problem applies to courts since they're an essential service, not a consumer good.

Besides which I don't think courts are all that inefficient. The wait times are long, but nobody cares about that, and they virtually always provide fair trials.

[Mr. Ron]

siva, how do you feel about night watchmen states?

[Iskandar]

Ron, have you read Anarchy, State and Utopia?

[Mr. Ron]

Nope. I'm not an anarchist, if thats what you mean.

[Iskandar]

Nope. I'm not an anarchist, if thats what you mean.No, it's a minarchist book by Robert Nozick. Probably the most famous one.

In the book Nozick argues that anarchy is undesirable because it can't protect property rights and stuff, but a minimal state would be ideal for maximizing freedom and efficiency. Hence the "night watchman" state which only intervenes when absolutely necessary, like for defence or law enforcement.

I don't necessarily agree with him but it's an interesting read.

[siva_chair]

It's certainly more neutral than a private company.

Howso? If the service being provided is valued for it's neutrality (as courts and the like are), there is no reason to believe that market forces will not strides for that demand.

Also I don't really see how the calculation problem applies to courts since they're an essential service, not a consumer good.

Because there is no way for the monopoly to calculate if it is satisfying it's consumers (as they are essentially consuming a service) demands or whether it is doing it in a cost efficient manner.

Besides which I don't think courts are all that inefficient. The wait times are long, but nobody cares about that, and they virtually always provide fair trials.

Well I disagree. We both know that judges aren't selected according to their wisdom, probity, or efficiency in serving their "consumer." They are political hacks chosen by the political process. Also, if a court in some town or city should become corrupt, oppressive, inefficient, etc, the citizen has very little actual recourse. The aggrieved citizen of Bum**** Egypt, Montana must be governed by the local court or not at all. There is no reason to assume a "natural monopoly" of judicial wisdom.

Also, high wait times translate to higher costs.

siva, how do you feel about night watchmen states?

I of course think it shouldn't be, either, as the functions of a nightwatchmen state still require taxation.

Although it is much more preferable to any other state, I suppose.

Nope. I'm not an anarchist, if thats what you mean.

It's not pro-anarchist, it's pro-minarchism.

No, it's a minarchist book by Robert Nozick. Probably the most famous one.

In the book Nozick argues that anarchy is undesirable because it can't protect property rights and stuff, but a minimal state would be ideal for maximizing freedom and efficiency. Hence the "night watchman" state which only intervenes when absolutely necessary, like for defence or law enforcement.

I don't necessarily agree with him but it's an interesting read.

Agreed. It is a good read, but I also don't completely agree with it.

[Mr. Ron]

ah, well I've been playing around with minarchism for a few weeks now. Not sure what to think of it.

[siva_chair]

ah, well I've been playing around with minarchism for a few weeks now. Not sure what to think of it.

You should read Anarchy, State and Utopia then.

[Iskandar]

Howso? If the service being provided is valued for it's neutrality (as courts and the like are), there is no reason to believe that market forces will not strides for that demand.You have unlimited faith in private business. I don't. I don't see how any privately owned court could be neutral when it's beholden to its shareholders.
ah, well I've been playing around with minarchism for a few weeks now. Not sure what to think of it.I think it makes a lot more sense than anarchism though I don't really agree with it. It's easy to say "look how much freedom you'd have" while ignoring the negatives.

[Mr. Ron]

You have unlimited faith in private business. I don't. I don't see how any privately owned court could be neutral when it's beholden to its shareholders.
I think it makes a lot more sense than anarchism though I don't really agree with it. It's easy to say "look how much freedom you'd have" while ignoring the negatives.
I like the idea of stripping down the government to the bare essentials, which are limited taxation, a small defense force, police and whatnot. Plus, you can broaden what falls under government if you want to, but in the end the government is supposed to be limited by its own laws.

I know siva will disagree, but I just do not think anarchism will work because humans will always strive for some form of governance. (I don't want to get into a debate about this, just my opinion :p). So I see minarchism as a way of limiting government where it should be limited to, while preserving the society's rights, privledges and freedoms.

[siva_chair]

You have unlimited faith in private business. I don't. I don't see how any privately owned court could be neutral when it's beholden to its shareholders.

And on the same token you think a public court can be neutral when it is beholden to the whims of it's constituents?

And I would say I have faith in free markets, not all private business. To be sure, there will undoubtedly be shitty private businesses that emerge, but luckily they probably will not last very long.

I think it makes a lot more sense than anarchism though I don't really agree with it. It's easy to say "look how much freedom you'd have" while ignoring the negatives.

But the question is what negatives? I see no negatives to liberty.

[The Stig]

I like the idea of stripping down the government to the bare essentials, which are limited taxation, a small defense force, police and whatnot. Plus, you can broaden what falls under government if you want to, but in the end the government is supposed to be limited by its own laws.

I know siva will disagree, but I just do not think anarchism will work because humans will always strive for some form of governance. (I don't want to get into a debate about this, just my opinion :p). So I see minarchism as a way of limiting government where it should be limited to, while preserving the society's rights, privledges and freedoms.

Ron what happened? Why are yu becoming me?

[Iskandar]

I like the idea of stripping down the government to the bare essentials, which are limited taxation, a small defense force, police and whatnot. Plus, you can broaden what falls under government if you want to, but in the end the government is supposed to be limited by its own laws.

I know siva will disagree, but I just do not think anarchism will work because humans will always strive for some form of governance. (I don't want to get into a debate about this, just my opinion :p). So I see minarchism as a way of limiting government where it should be limited to, while preserving the society's rights, privledges and freedoms.It sounds great, yes, but it wouldn't be long before people started demanding more government for various reasons. Besides limited government is all about delimiting what governments can't do, not proscribing them from what they can do.
But the question is what negatives? I see no negatives to liberty.Orly? What about the liberty to exploit people? Or discriminate based on race? Or enslave people? These have all been considered liberties at one time or another. Liberty is a double-edged sword.

[siva_chair]

I like the idea of stripping down the government to the bare essentials, which are limited taxation, a small defense force, police and whatnot. Plus, you can broaden what falls under government if you want to, but in the end the government is supposed to be limited by its own laws.

I know siva will disagree, but I just do not think anarchism will work because humans will always strive for some form of governance. (I don't want to get into a debate about this, just my opinion :p). So I see minarchism as a way of limiting government where it should be limited to, while preserving the society's rights, privledges and freedoms.

Fair enough, but to be clear, I would say governance (which is actually distinct from the state apparatus itself) doesn't have to be in the form of the coercive state. I have never argued against voluntary governance (in fact I support it very much), but have always argued against a coercive state apparatus. People are certainly free to voluntarily organize in some group and voluntarily govern themselves.

[Iskandar]

Even a voluntary government is coercive, though.

[The Stig]

Orly? What about the liberty to exploit people? Or discriminate based on race? Or enslave people? These have all been considered liberties at one time or another. Liberty is a double-edged sword.

Which I why I believe in a strictly limited role of the government as an umpire to ensure free trade rules are followed and private citizens are not forced to do things against their will through violence or coercion.

[Iskandar]

Which I why I believe in a strictly limited role of the government as an umpire to ensure free trade rules are followed and private citizens are not forced to do things against their will through violence or coercion.Yes, I believe strongly in that also. Though I would support state intervention if the market wasn't working the way it was supposed to which isn't uncommon.

[siva_chair]

Orly? What about the liberty to exploit people?

Exploiting people is fraud, and fraud is a form of theft (therefore aggression) against another person. People do not have the liberty to initiate aggression against another's person or property.

Or discriminate based on race?

On their own property, sure.

Or enslave people?

Another aggression against a person's self-ownership.

These have all been considered liberties at one time or another. Liberty is a double-edged sword.

No, the only universal ethic of liberty that can be derived from reason is the non-aggression axiom/right to self-ownership.

The fact that something was allowed or perpetrated by the state at one point in time doesn't make it a liberty. If the state allowed murder, it would still be wrong.

[siva_chair]

Even a voluntary government is coercive, though.

No it isn't.

Howso?


Yes, I believe strongly in that also. Though I would support state intervention if the market wasn't working the way it was supposed to which isn't uncommon.

When has a truely free market not "worked the way it was supposed to" exactly?

[Iskandar]

No it isn't.

Howso?If you've governing someone you're by definition being coercive even if they chose to be governed.
When has a truely free market not "worked the way it was supposed to" exactly?Never because there has never been a truly free market.

[siva_chair]

If you've governing someone you're by definition being coercive even if they chose to be governed.

No, if it is voluntary it is by definition not coercive.

If there is the threat or use of violence (coercion), it isn't voluntary (free will).

I'm not coerced when I voluntarily choose to go and buy a pack of gum. No one is forcing me via threat of violence to do so.

Never because there has never been a truly free market.

So how exactly can you make the case that "markets don't work the way they are supposed to" if there has never been one?

[Iskandar]

No, if it is voluntary it is by definition not coercive.

If there is the threat or use of violence (coercion), it isn't voluntary (free will).If you decide to enter into a social contract with people and be governed, you're being coerced whenever that government does something. Unless that government is completely negligent and does nothing.

Not that the state is the only thing that can be coercive.
So how exactly can you make the case that "markets don't work the way they are supposed to" if there has never been one?There have been essentially free markets. I think it's pretty silly to say there's never been a free market just because it doesn't perfectly match the description in your introductory economics textbook. There is no pure economic system, or pure political system. Everything is mixed.

This is why I don't like fringe politics, because they're so ideologically rigid.

[siva_chair]

If you decide to enter into a social contract with people and be governed, you're being coerced whenever that government does something. Unless that government is completely negligent and does nothing.

If you are free to leave the voluntary association at any time, there is no element of coercion. If you are forced to stay, that would be coercion, obviously, and inconsistent with Libertarian principles.

Not that the state is the only thing that can be coercive.

Nor did anyone say that it was. That is why there is a legal order in this proposed society, obviously.


There have been essentially free markets. I think it's pretty silly to say there's never been a free market just because it doesn't perfectly match the description in your introductory economics textbook. There is no pure economic system, or pure political system. Everything is mixed.

Ok give me a specific example of an "essentially" free market that failed on the account of it being free, then.

This is why I don't like fringe politics, because they're so ideologically rigid.

Well I don't like mediocre status-quo politics because they are unethical, oppressive, and retarded. :thumb:

[Iskandar]

If you are free to leave the voluntary association at any time, there is no element of coercion. If you are forced to stay, that would be coercion, obviously, and inconsistent with Libertarian principles.You can leave America if you want to. Most people wouldn't though because that's where they live. Push/pull factors and all that.
Nor did anyone say that it was. That is why there is a legal order in this proposed society, obviously.There's legal order in this one too.
Ok give me a specific example of an "essentially" free market that failed on the account of it being free, then.When they failed to provide minimum wages, child labour laws, right to strike, equal-opportunity employment, universal healthcare and social security. Or the Great Depression though I shouldn't have said that because you're going to blame the causes of it, like everything, on the state.
Well I don't like mediocre status-quo politics because they are unethical, oppressive, and retarded. :thumb:Thing is most people don't think that, and even if they did they still wouldn't go for fringe politics that are doomed to obscurity.

[siva_chair]

You can leave America if you want to. Most people wouldn't though because that's where they live. Push/pull factors and all that.

Yeah except I'd be taxed for renouncing my citizenship and all that fun stuff. I don't really have the freedom to voluntarily leave the confines of the US government. Social contract isn't a real contract.

There's legal order in this one too.

Yeah and it's a monopoly that expropriates funds via coercion. Gee golly isn't that swell.

When they failed to provide minimum wages,

Minimum wage laws are ridiculous and unnecessary. Not to mention they tend to hurt the poor far more than anyone else.

Interestingly, real wages continued to rise after the Civil War (despite steady deflation, of all things), so....

child labour laws,

Which are pretty silly, tbh. If a child is able and willing to work, I see no reason why the government should bar them from working.

It's funny, we can't discriminate on something like race or sex, but age is fair game.

right to strike,

Which is really a more verbose way of saying right to coerce your employer.

Nothing stops workers from striking on the free market, but on the same token, nothing stops the employer from firing everyone who does strike, either.

equal-opportunity employment,

Egalitarian nonsense. An employer has every right to choose who he hires based on whatever reasons (superficial or otherwise) he wants.

universal healthcare and social security.

More socialist egalitarian nonsense. I've yet to see how these things are natural rights.

Sorry, but if the free market did not provide these things, perhaps it's because egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, not out of some ethical failure of the markets.

Or the Great Depression though I shouldn't have said that because you're going to blame the causes of it, like everything, on the state.

When the shoe fits....

Thing is most people don't think that, and even if they did they still wouldn't go for fringe politics that are doomed to obscurity.

Who cares if most people don't think that? Most people can be wrong and ignorant.

[Iskandar]

I don't give a damn if they're natural rights when they lead to a higher standard of living.

[siva_chair]

I don't give a damn if they're natural rights when they lead to a higher standard of living.

But they don't, that is the point.

In fact, I would challenge you to prove that those things cause a higher standard of living.

[Rocksta71]

But with a higher standard of living, you wouldn't have to prove why there should be one.

[Iskandar]

But they don't, that is the point.

In fact, I would challenge you to prove that those things cause a higher standard of living.I already did this, pointing out the correlations between transparent democracies with high egalitarianism, and higher standards of living. Whereas undemocratic regimes tend to be more corrupt, more unequal and generally less wealthy (with some exceptions).

If we look at the Human Development Index, we see the best places on Earth to live are western and northern Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan and South Korea. All liberal democracies and welfare states. The worst places to live are in Africa and some parts of Asia, which suffer from poverty, lack of development, corruption, etc.

If anarcho-capitalism were really as great as you claim it is, I should think more people would adhere to it, and it'd be put into practice somewhere. Even social anarchism has shown itself to be more workable. As I see it, the only realistic options are democracy or autocracy, and it's blindingly obvious which is better.

[siva_chair]

I already did this, pointing out the correlations between transparent democracies with high egalitarianism, and higher standards of living. Whereas undemocratic regimes tend to be more corrupt, more unequal and generally less wealthy (with some exceptions).

Sorry, but correlation does not imply causation, so you haven't really proven anything.

If we look at the Human Development Index, we see the best places on Earth to live are western and northern Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan and South Korea. All liberal democracies and welfare states. The worst places to live are in Africa and some parts of Asia, which suffer from poverty, lack of development, corruption, etc.

Which says nothing about egalitarianism or welfare, but much more about capital investment in infrastructure and relative economic freedom.

If anarcho-capitalism were really as great as you claim it is, I should think more people would adhere to it, and it'd be put into practice somewhere.

Most people are pretty ignorant on the issue. Also, there are huge incentives for certain interest groups to maintain the status quo. These are big reasons why it hasn't been tried (not to mention the state will not allow it, as it is a threat to it's existence and power).

Then there is the fact that the state has always used the intellectual class to try and justify it's existence.

Even social anarchism has shown itself to be more workable.

And what do you mean when you say "social anarchism" exactly?

As I see it, the only realistic options are democracy or autocracy, and it's blindingly obvious which is better.

**** sandwich v. Bag of douche.

[Iskandar]

Which says nothing about egalitarianism or welfare, but much more about capital investment in infrastructure and relative economic freedom.Then why aren't Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan top of the heap? Clearly there is more to quality of life than capital investment.
And what do you mean when you say "social anarchism" exactly?
Anti-capitalist. Think Paris Commune and civil war era Spain.
**** sandwich v. Bag of douche.Still waiting for that anarcho-capitalist alternative.

[Rocksta71]

Capitalism is for yo momma.

Taoism is the best economic system.

[siva_chair]

Then why aren't Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan top of the heap? Clearly there is more to quality of life than capital investment.

Umm they are doing relatively well as they are both in the top 30 (I didn't see Taiwan officially listed, but wikipedia ranks it at 23 as of 2005 data).

To compare relatively new entries into the world of capital savings and investment to countries that have had over a century (some even more) head start is hardly fair.

Anti-capitalist. Think Paris Commune and civil war era Spain.

Yeah and they tore themselves apart in the name of egalitarianism.

Still waiting for that anarcho-capitalist alternative.

Yeah me too.

[Iskandar]

Umm they are doing relatively well as they are both in the top 30 (I didn't see Taiwan officially listed, but wikipedia ranks it at 23 as of 2005 data).

To compare relatively new entries into the world of capital savings and investment to countries that have had over a century (some even more) head start is hardly fair.If their model is superior, why can't they catch up to those bloated welfare states, with their stagnant economies and all.
Yeah me too.You'll be waiting an awfully long time.

[siva_chair]

If their model is superior, why can't they catch up to those bloated welfare states, with their stagnant economies and all.

They will eventually.

But to pretend that it will happen overnight when those other nations have a huge head start on them is silly (as is levying that as a criticism against them, or raising it as an indication of the superiority of the welfare states.)


You'll be waiting an awfully long time.

Maybe, maybe not. We will see.

[BridgeToSolace]

Do you ever admit you're wrong my brother?

no

/thread

but neither does anyone else on these forums. We backtrack and backtrack until one person gets tired and says enough. Then the other person taunts them and claims victory and the discussion is over.

Oh, and dick jokes.

/PNWI

[mph4ever]

no

/thread

but neither does anyone else on these forums. We backtrack and backtrack until one person gets tired and says enough. Then the other person taunts them and claims victory and the discussion is over.

Oh, and dick jokes.

/PNWI

dude, i thought you was a nigga, and you said you weren't and i said i was wrong, dat cool?

[Rocksta71]

Scrubs is a selfish show, for true fools.

According To Jim is a taoist's show of choice. White power.

[JohnXDoe3]

hey Siva has his own thread

run for your lives its Forum Welfare!! :(

[McP3000]

there would be no welfare in a siva thread

it would be anarchistic posting sold at unregulated market prices

[The Stig]

no mods

[mph4ever]

none, apparently

[Iskandar]

Maybe, maybe not. We will see.Okay, call me in fifty years and let me know how the revolution went.

[Mr. Ron]

No, rights exist naturally.




To say this is to say that rights exist without humans in you take the literal definition of "natural" or that which exists in nature. Which is false. "Rights" are abstractions of the human mind. If there were no humans alive, rights just wouldn't exist. We invent rights in order to have a somewhat stable system of ideas to apply our societies to.

[BlisteryNixon]

In fact everyone could learn a little from Taoism, it is the way, the path, and the light.

That is all! :)

I see you stole a line from Jesus there and changed up the words. Good job my brother.

[siva_chair]

Okay, call me in fifty years and let me know how the revolution went.

Will do.

To say this is to say that rights exist without humans in you take the literal definition of "natural" or that which exists in nature. Which is false. "Rights" are abstractions of the human mind. If there were no humans alive, rights just wouldn't exist. We invent rights in order to have a somewhat stable system of ideas to apply our societies to.

No "natural rights" means rights that are derived from man's very nature of reason. The difference between man and animals, then, is that animals are compelled to proceed in accordance with the ends dictated by their natures, whereas man ("the rational animal") possesses reason to discover such ends and the free will to choose. Everything has a nature.

[mph4ever]

#1 stunna

only 49 more points to go

Well how exactly is that charge even relevant to a libertarian society, though?
If the owner of a property didn't want those three particular individuals on their property, they have every right to make them leave.

so in this world you would have public places? everything is owned?

Yes.
Or the person that got beat up, as the attackers initiated aggression against their person.

isn't that a litte inefficient. shouldn't there be one street owner. we could call it big street

Ok except the government isn't likely to just give up it's monopoly hold on these services. It derives too much power from them.

but then there needs to be some test versions. take certain things out of the system and make them private. they could start with things like family law, divorce, small claims etc and build from the ground up but it will take a long time and a real effort to ever begin to expect people to accept district, circuit, high and supreme courts being run by private organisations for profit.

and lets imagine that it is successful that the reward would be close on a crime free society. do you just dimantle the private judiciary when they have no more work? who we going to call then, the jedi, ghost busters, judge judy?

Well being free, no one. I see no reason Pro Bono wouldn't still exist.

it can't exist in a free market. it would never get priority over fee paying cases plus it smells of taxation of the private sector if they are expected to make provision for it

What? Lawyers operate pro bono all the time and they aren't funded by tax. And what makes you think that there wouldn't be charitable donations of that sort, anyhow?

charitable donations to fund private companies to carry out pro bono in a free market system. what dope is going to do that work?

Sure. They already do a significant portion of this anyway with very little problems. Like I said, they did a far better job in the Madoff case than the government did....

yeah, i can see where there is money involved then private firms would be trustworthy enough to look after the general publics small investors. if we had them we might not be in the economic siutation globally now

Well considering that it is funded by taxation, which is coercive....

its failure is not down to how it is funded, more how it is organised and operates. it is a monopoly and i fail to see how it might be better if it was private. and if there were competing versions is a real head wreck. perhaps it would be done on contract, you get to be the sec for five years at a time, then its up for tender again

No one said no one will be dishonest. Government doesn't get rid of that, so I don't see what the issue is. The government is run by people too, you know, and they are just as dishonest (some probably moreso, tbh) than anyone else, so levying that against a stateless society seems rather silly to me as I never said it would eliminate dishonesty or anything like that. I do think, however, that the market does provide checks against unilateral aggression and dishonesty that government does not (and in fact in many cases exacerbates it).

but surely the goal of the free market is that the best will survive. the best private police force and best judicial system will take over for as long as they are best. the ultimate goal would have to be that no one would be able to be dishonest since they would be policed and judged by the best. is that not the goal?

Which they got said protection through copyrights and patents.

nah, they got it through channel partnerships and exclusive deals. any challenge to them was through anti competitive practice cases, very few were copyright or patent

Hardly, as it is the government protection via copyrights and patents that allowed them to become the monster they did.

see above

Umm in absence of a state how is a person to enforce said levies? If an import company has too high of levies, the exporter will simply find someone willing to do it for less.

there have to be levies if all the countries don't particpate in the free market system. thats why i asked if it was local or global. otherwise the freemarket country would die a death due to other countries government backed intervention

No most of them have one or two word titles and I'm not too sure they would put the word "masquerading" in said titles as I don't know if either of them can even say that word....

yeah, when your more remembered line is "adrian" or "**** off, asshole" then big words could be a problem

No, the assets are not useless at all. They went out of business because they could not efficiently and productively provide a service or good on a competitive market.

who would buy any of the troubled companies assets right now?

I was referring to auto makers. Only unionized auto companies are failing atm. Toyota, Honda, etc are all doing just fine.

well you can't take them in isolation. you have to consider all of them.

The banks got out of control because the government distorted the market, created incentives for irresponsible lending, and guaranteed them protection from default (via various regulations and organizations). Sure, banks were greedy, banks were irresponsible, but only because the government gave them vast incentives to be. Those incentives would simply not be there on a free market, as the fear of failure would have kept this sort of greed in check.

see, i thought it was the fact that thery were so free, so deregulated, that they got overly aggressive and out of control.

The same holds true for fuel companies. Shell, Chevron, etc are far from going bankrupt (although OPEC is a cartel and certainly does their share of distorting the market).

they were on their knees globally until the war. companies are back in power a little but only thanks to private contracts delivered by the new iraqi government otherwise opec among others would have controlled it all. russia is doing the same for european gas companies too

I'm pretty sure there is still a substantial amount of regulation and subsidization of the airline industry in Europe.

nah, they are failing all the time. there are some very strong ones but worldwide they reckon that another 50 are going to go bust this year with no government intervention just free market forces. the eu has been massively pro deregulation lately. thats also what happened with the banks there

Are you referring to so-called "infant industries" or what?

If they cannot get enough startup capital, they are either poor investors/businessmen that probably have no business running a company, or the industry isn't all that in demand.

no. ones that have been operating for years but have hit a bad patch. however forecasts say that the market will return in 12 months. do you intervene?

Either way. Industries leave because there are incentives to do so. It isn't surprising when companies leave to more tax friendly nations.

it would have to be global from the start surely. a single country with a perfect free market is going to fail when confronted by other companies with government backing. plus it would have to be all indigenous activity since no one is going to leave the comfort of a government backed system and risk the free market

Well, indentured servitude would be more accurate, as you are repaying a debt.

Either way, this is really no different than locking people up behind bars for crimes, except that a victim is re-compensated as opposed to just put behind bars.

Obviously there would still be a place for violent criminals like private prisons, but most crimes can and should be based on restitution.

you make it sound so easy

I'm sure such a thing would still exist.

hope not

It actually doesn't. Does it look like I'm really bothered when people disagree with me on here? I mean, c'mon.....

k

I don't think it need necessarily be violent, tbh. There are several libertarian strategies that could work, methinks.

Though it is completely within the realm of possibility that such a revolution would be violent, no denying that.

direct action, cut the head off, go through a little pain and start from scratch
just like germany after wwii

[Mr. Ron]

No "natural rights" means rights that are derived from man's very nature of reason. The difference between man and animals, then, is that animals are compelled to proceed in accordance with the ends dictated by their natures, whereas man ("the rational animal") possesses reason to discover such ends and the free will to choose. Everything has a nature.
Of course everything has a nature, however even if man uses his "natural reasoning", rights are still things made up by humans.

[Jude]

mph that was the most tl;dr post in history js

[mph4ever]

mph that was the most tl;dr post in history js

i thought the one before that was better

[siva_chair]

so in this world you would have public places? everything is owned?

Yes. Everything is privately owned (be it by an individual, a company, a cooperative, etc.)

isn't that a litte inefficient. shouldn't there be one street owner. we could call it big street

Why is it inefficient? You are proposing a monopoly, which is certainly inefficient.

but then there needs to be some test versions. take certain things out of the system and make them private. they could start with things like family law, divorce, small claims etc and build from the ground up but it will take a long time and a real effort to ever begin to expect people to accept district, circuit, high and supreme courts being run by private organisations for profit.

If you notice I already pointed out that I am in support of taking things out of the system and making them private.

and lets imagine that it is successful that the reward would be close on a crime free society. do you just dimantle the private judiciary when they have no more work? who we going to call then, the jedi, ghost busters, judge judy?

There is not going to be a crime free society. Crimes of passion will exist as long as human beings base actions on emotional responses, for instance.

And even if there were to become some utopian "crime free society" eventually, I don't see what the problem is.

it can't exist in a free market. it would never get priority over fee paying cases plus it smells of taxation of the private sector if they are expected to make provision for it

No, pro bono work isn't funded by taxation, and I see no reason why it couldn't exist on a free market.

Remember, essentially all criminals would be debtors, so there is potential profit in cases.

charitable donations to fund private companies to carry out pro bono in a free market system. what dope is going to do that work?

Why do you think law firms do pro bono work now, and why would this go away in a free market system?

yeah, i can see where there is money involved then private firms would be trustworthy enough to look after the general publics small investors. if we had them we might not be in the economic siutation globally now

We do already have them, but the market for them would certainly increase in absence of the "regulation" by the government.

its failure is not down to how it is funded, more how it is organised and operates. it is a monopoly and i fail to see how it might be better if it was private. and if there were competing versions is a real head wreck. perhaps it would be done on contract, you get to be the sec for five years at a time, then its up for tender again

My point was that it was funded unethically.

But to your point: why do you think there needs to be only one "SEC" organization? Many due-diligence firms, dude.

but surely the goal of the free market is that the best will survive. the best private police force and best judicial system will take over for as long as they are best. the ultimate goal would have to be that no one would be able to be dishonest since they would be policed and judged by the best. is that not the goal?

Sure, the market strives for efficiency. "The best" may be that way for a while, but once they gain a monopoly on the industry or service, they are subject to the same calculation problems socialized economies are, and thus efficiency and quality will go down, and another competing firm will start chipping away their market share.

nah, they got it through channel partnerships and exclusive deals. any challenge to them was through anti competitive practice cases, very few were copyright or patent

You are still ignoring the role copyrights and patents played, though. Their exclusive deals were only possible because no one else was allowed to compete technologically with them because of said copyrights and patents.

If someone were allowed to compete technologically with them, they wouldn't have gotten the market share they did, and they wouldn't have been able to have such a stranglehold on the market.

there have to be levies if all the countries don't particpate in the free market system. thats why i asked if it was local or global. otherwise the freemarket country would die a death due to other countries government backed intervention

Import companies would compete with one another, which would drive down said levies for imports (which equates for cheaper prices for the consumer).

If a country charges too high of fees for particular goods to an importing nation, it is they who are going to suffer, as they will not make profits. This happened frequently with nations that charged high export tariffs. They could not compete on the global market and their economies tended to suffer as a result.

who would buy any of the troubled companies assets right now?

The same reason companies buy liquidated assets all the time.

If GM were to go under, Toyota or someone like that could certainly use GM's plants and whatnot to expand their production line and hold a higher market share. It is not the assets themselves, per se, that cause the company to go bankrupt, it is management and *** backward trade and labor practices that tend to do that.

well you can't take them in isolation. you have to consider all of them.

I am, and the non-unionized companies in the American market are doing fine. The only ones that are in a crisis are union shops.

see, i thought it was the fact that thery were so free, so deregulated, that they got overly aggressive and out of control.

You and lots of other people. I don't blame you, because that is what the talking head propaganda is shouting right now. But if you look at why these banks got out of control, it comes back to the fact that the government guaranteed them against failure (particularly through Freddie and Fannie), the Fed kept interest rates artificially low after the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11 (which inflated the housing bubble), and so on and so forth.

they were on their knees globally until the war. companies are back in power a little but only thanks to private contracts delivered by the new iraqi government otherwise opec among others would have controlled it all. russia is doing the same for european gas companies too

That also stems from the numerous restrictions US companies have on drilling for oil here.

OPEC is a cartel, and it certainly shows.

nah, they are failing all the time. there are some very strong ones but worldwide they reckon that another 50 are going to go bust this year with no government intervention just free market forces. the eu has been massively pro deregulation lately. thats also what happened with the banks there

If they are failing, it is because they are inefficient and don't know how to run their business properly.

This idea that "everybody gets to succeed" is rather silly. If an industry has a demand, efficient companies will succeed.

no. ones that have been operating for years but have hit a bad patch. however forecasts say that the market will return in 12 months. do you intervene?

No. If a company cannot keep from going under on it's own, it has no business being propped up.

it would have to be global from the start surely. a single country with a perfect free market is going to fail when confronted by other companies with government backing. plus it would have to be all indigenous activity since no one is going to leave the comfort of a government backed system and risk the free market

This is false. A country with a perfect free market could, and would be able to compete on a global level.

you make it sound so easy

Well, it isn't that hard.

hope not

No one would force you to watch it. :p

direct action, cut the head off, go through a little pain and start from scratch just like germany after wwii

I don't pretend to know exactly how it is going to happen.

[Iskandar]

Let me pose you a question: How do you plan to deal with environmental protection? Corporations don't have the greatest record when it comes to pollution, and by the time the damage is done it may be too late for them to be penalized by the consumers. That would seem to suggest that pollution is an externality, i.e. it can't be dealt with by the market.

[siva_chair]

Of course everything has a nature, however even if man uses his "natural reasoning", rights are still things made up by humans.

Yeah I guess in the same sense that water is something made up by hydrogen and oxygen.

These nature of these rights exist because they are a product of the virtue of our reasoning in the same sense that the nature of water is derived from the composition of two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen.

[siva_chair]

Let me pose you a question: How do you plan to deal with environmental protection? Corporations don't have the greatest record when it comes to pollution, and by the time the damage is done it may be too late for them to be penalized by the consumers. That would seem to suggest that pollution is an externality, i.e. it can't be dealt with by the market.

Good question. In fact, I was just reading something dealing with this very issue the other day. Here is the article: http://www.mises.org/story/1760

Keep in mind, the state certainly doesn't have a great record when it comes to pollution. It both directly and indirectly contributes to pollution by creating incentives for various industries to use means that contribute to pollution. I'd say that a large factor that contributes to pollution (primarily in respects to air and waterways) is the lack of private property in these areas.

I'll post more detail on this later, but right now I'm going to bed. :thumb:

[siva_chair]

Just because he believed in the labour theory of value doesn't mean he's a Marxist. It was a commonly held belief in his time before the marginal revolution.

You've got to stop seeing state socialism around every corner.

Notice I didn't call him a Marxist, I said he was a proto-Marxist. In fact, Marx drew lots of his ideas from Smith's view of labor theory of value.

[Iskandar]

Notice I didn't call him a Marxist, I said he was a proto-Marxist. In fact, Marx drew lots of his ideas from Smith's view of labor theory of value.It wasn't only his idea. In fact probably Ricardo's more than anyone else's.

Marx intended his philosophy to be the antithesis of classical economics and liberalism, and so he drew on their ideas in order to critique them. Now that we know that many of their assumptions were flawed, we can discredit much of what Marx said.

Regardless, classical liberalism is about as far as you can get from Marxism because it's all about private property while Marxism argues property itself isn't legitimate. Even your body is considered property in this analysis.