Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[Suddenly]

In another thread, shanek claimed:

It has been pointed out to you numerous times that libertarianism does NOT assume that people will behave in a rational fashion...and now, here you are, repeating the lie again

To which I pointed out the following exchange from a previous thread dealing with my hypothetical of a desert island where one person "owns" the property:

Shanek said: No, I wouldn't be a slave. As I showed, I would be compensated for my work. If I didn't think it was fair, I would simply refuse to do the work and Suddenly would be put back in a pickle. It's in Suddenly's best interests to work with me.


I remarked: You are making assumptions about how my motivations. In my hypothetical it is I who own the land. You are saying I will bargain in my best interests. Fact is you have no way of saying what my best interests are. We can even assume you are some sort of nature expert and you can turn the island into paradise. Makes no difference. I want no part of your help. It could be that I'm a loner and hate people, whatever. I just don't want your help. Period. It is not really a novel occurence where one sacrifices weath for bigoted ideals.

It is not unusual to reject help for silly personal bigoted reasons. My character in the hypo does likewise.

Shanek responded: But it's not the usual behavior of people. So you've just made your entire hypothetical completely invalid and revealed it for the bigoted rant you apparently intended it to be all along, instead of a simlified, realistic examination of how property values are used in society. You just made your hypothetical completely, 100% invalid.

It appears from this that shanek is disregarding the hypothetical because people are acting "unusual." Sticking to his story, shanek then cited an article:

This is a lie. I have refuted it every single time it has been brought up. YOU have ignored those refutations, yet seek every oppportunity to repeat the LIE whenever you can.

And it IS A LIE, since you've been pointed out several times why this is wrong.

For the curious, here's an excellent article explaining why (an article which has been referenced to jj several times, which he has never refuted):

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993

So I decided to avoid further hijack of Malachi's thread and bring this over here. In my next post I will discuss the above cited article.

To be continued...

[Ziggurat]

I decided to take a little peak at Shanek's link about libertarianism:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993

Here's the biggest howler so far:

"In a Libertarian America, government will be so small, there will be no need for an income tax. Thus you'll have the resources to acquire whatever you need to protect you from incompetence, double-dealing, or even violence."

I don't know who the "you" here is, but I do know that it doesn't include a lot of people.

But my favorite really is at the very bottom:

"If your retirement funds are vulnerable to market crashes, corporate scandals, wartime intrusions, or any other unexpected events, you need to make your investment portfolio bullet-proof. Harry Browne can help you do that. Just click here for information."

Actually, come to think of it, I do know who the "you" refered to earlier is. It's people with large portfolios.

In other words, this guy is hawking a cheap libertarian philosophy to get people freaked about social security, so that hopefully they run to this Harry guy with their retirement portfolios. Nice little setup he's got there. Unless Shanek IS Harry (which I'm not claiming), I'm not sure why he picked that investment porn masquerading as highschool-essay-quality store-bought philosophy as an exemplar of libertarian virtues. I think that says more about Shanek than it does about libertarianism.

[Suddenly]

(discussing this article (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993))

I'll pause first to say that this article is far from intended to be a heavy statement of principles, but since shanek refered to it for that purpose, away we go...

It begins:On Wednesday WorldNetDaily published a letter from a reader who said, "I can't be a Libertarian because their philosophy is based on people doing the right thing and minding their own business."

This is a common misconception. Actually, we Libertarians believe just the opposite.

That's why we don't want politicians running our lives. They rarely do the right thing, and they never mind their own business.


I guess the premise is here that once someone goes into politics that their brain goes haywire and they stop doing the right thing. Unless you understand that to a libertarian most all government is by definition "not the right thing." This exposes the statement for what it is, a simple tautology. People that do not do the right thing do not do the right thing.

Lets continue: We don't expect we'll ever have a perfect world. We don't assume all people to be nice, honest, efficient or benevolent -- nor do we expect any one person to be these things at all times.

But, if you put someone in a hypo that acts in a less than efficient manner, a libertarian will call your hypo "bigoted" (see the first post).

Moving on:That's why it's important to be able to control your own life -- so you at least have a chance to protect yourself against the meanness, dishonesty or inefficiency that some other people might want to inflict upon you. When politicians can use the force of government to control your life, you have little chance to protect yourself.

This misses the possibility that without government a powerful and wealthy person can put me into just as poor a situation as can a government. This was the point of the "island hypo" I refer to in this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27926&perpage=40&highlight=Spitz&pagenumber=1) That only government can oppress is an unsupported assumption.

Yet again: Conservatives and liberals expect perfection
Many conservatives and liberals suffer from a common malady. They recognize the tremendous harm government does in some areas, and yet they expect government to "do the right thing" if it's something they've asked for.

Conservatives know the government can't run a health-care system or make everyone wealthy. But some of them think that same government will somehow succeed in stamping out drugs and prostitution, in making the world safe for democracy, or in keeping your irresponsible neighbor in line.

And liberals know the government can't force people to be moral, but they think that same government can somehow provide efficient health care, educate our children effectively, and lift the poor out of poverty.

Libertarians, on the other hand, know that government consistently fails to deliver on any of its promises. And so government is the last place we look for help.

The whole premise of Browne's argument is flawed. He claims that since we know a particular tool does not work for purpose A, that it is irrational, a "malady" as he puts it, to believe that tool will work for purpose B. Consider a hammer. It does not work well for purpose A, "to pick food out of teeth," but that does not mean that it fails at purpose B "driving a nail into a board."

Also, his last paragraph is interesting, as it leads to a possible conclusion other than that intended. It is consistent with the idea that libertarians consider government last as they, unlike those darned liberals and conservatives, haven't figured out that in some cases it is the best solution.

Browne then goes onto several paragraphs of describing his libertarian utopia.

The final paragraph is instructive:
SPECIAL OFFER!

If your retirement funds are vulnerable to market crashes, corporate scandals, wartime intrusions, or any other unexpected events, you need to make your investment portfolio bullet-proof. Harry Browne can help you do that. Just click here for information


The suggested link leads to another "article" that suggests the reader use Harry as an investment advisor, and has another link that promises details and prices.

[Jon_in_london]

Libertarians are just anarchists who are too immature and/or stupid to realize it.

Look at my sig for proof.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Libertarians are just anarchists who are too immature and/or stupid to realize it.


And you're too stupid and immature to realize you havent got a clue what you're talking about.

[shanek]

Your selective quote-mining aside, I have said on numerous different occasions that there will be jerks; the only question is what should be done about them.

What big government does is actually give them an avenue for being jerks, and so we have to put up with many more jerks than we would otherwise. Case in point: I mentioned in a couple of other threads that our Commissioners a few months ago rejected a zoning plan that would allow a man to build a restaurant, even though it was approved unanimously by the planning board, because of ONE jerk who stood up during the Commissioners meeting and blathered on about how she didn't want her kids exposed to alcohol. Without big government, all she could do is b!tch and moan about it, but she wouldn't have the power to force her will on the restaurant owner without resorting to criminal activity.

You can't force people not to be jerks. All you can do is take away the big government tools that allow them to be jerks over each other, and hold them responsible when they try to force their jerkiness on others.

Furthermore, I have explained this to you both so many times that the only possible explanation for your claims about libertarianism in this thread is that you are either deliberately lying or are deluding yourselves. Either way, it is a sign of pure bigotry, and a refusal to consider the arguments of the other side. This behavior is not becoming of people who call themselves skeptics.

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:Your selective quote-mining aside, I have said on numerous different occasions that there will be jerks; the only question is what should be done about them.No. The question is: How does the Libertarian philosophy differ from Marxism in so far as their philosophy is based on a basic (wrong) assumption concerning human nature?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
shanek:No. The question is: How does the Libertarian philosophy differ from Marxism in so far as their philosophy is based on a basic (wrong) assumption concerning human nature?

I'm going to regret getting into this....

First, let me state I am not a Libertarian (too bad my thread from a few years ago titled "Why I am not a Libertarian" wasn't still around ;).)

But I think there has been some confusion thrown around here. I can't tell you what the actual "official LP line on the nature of human behaviour" is, since I don't follow the LP. But I can tell you that as a Jeffersonian Liberal, some here have been confusing a few things.

I believe everyone is correct when they say Marxism is wrong because it goes against human nature. But they are not correct when they specify which aspect of human nature. There is no single aspect of human nature, there are many. Marxism goes against human's nature to be selfish and maximize personal profits.

Shane was correct about something, that Libertarianism is one of (not the only, I won't go that far) ideologies that does take into account human nature - but not so much the selfishness of people. Another aspect of human nature is the desire of people to live free, to make their own choices. Libertarianism takes that into account.

But that does not mean you need to have people always act rational and be "good' to accomplish this. As much as everyone tries to paint it with the same brush, Libertarianism is not anarchy. They allow for a government to punish those that have done wrong. I have never seen anything by any Libertarian that states people committing crime will be left alone.

I will state, as a Jeffersonian Liberal, that you can take both aspects of human nature into account:

1) People want to live free, with as much choice in their own matters as possible - you do this by involving governement in as little as possible, with their only purpose to enforce criminal penalties, facilitate commerece and mediate contractual disagreements.

2) People are selfish and will maximize their own benefits - See above. The government is there to make sure anyone that breaks the law is punished.

From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
shanek:No. The question is: How does the Libertarian philosophy differ from Marxism in so far as their philosophy is based on a basic (wrong) assumption concerning human nature?

It's not based on any assumptions concerning human nature! Most people aren't going to be a problem, just like most people aren't a problem now. The question is, how do you deal with the ones that are a problem? Libertarianism says that if they initiate force or fraud against others, then they're criminals; otherwise, they should be left alone.

How is that based on any kind of assumption, wrong or otherwise, about human nature?

[Evolver]

Well, Libertarianism doesn't allow for the jerk Suddenly describes. It is not flawless. That said, Communism & Socialism don't allow for the jerks that will leave their people basically penniless, while the jerks grow rich, fat & powerful. And Capitalism doesn't allow for a ficticious (sp?) two-party system that deceives the people into keeping them in power, or the uncaring corporations that drive them.

In each case there is are flaws, and it's up to the people to keep them under control, however daunting a task that may seem to be.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Shane was correct about something, that Libertarianism is one of (not the only, I won't go that far) ideologies that does take into account human nature - but not so much the selfishness of people. Another aspect of human nature is the desire of people to live free, to make their own choices. Libertarianism takes that into account.

It also takes into account another aspect of human nature, which is that those who have power will generally abuse it and try to get more power. That's an important one that other philosophies, particularly Marxism and Socialism, miss.

(And maybe it isn't the only, but I really haven't seen any that are as consistent with human nature as Libertarinism.)

As far as "human's nature to be selfish and maximize personal profits," Libertarianism is perfectly consistent with this as well. That's why Libertarians advocate policies that encourage people to, say, not pollute by making it too expensive for them to do so. Making them want to behave peacefully is much better than trying to force them to behave peacefully. Again, I don't know of any other political philosphy which does this to the extent and with the consistency that Libertarianism does.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Diezel


From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

I'm not very clear on what would constitute a 'crime' in Libertarian land. It seems like the mantra is 'anything that involves initiation of force'.

Is that ALL that would constitute a crime? What about lack of help?

Suppose I live in the country, it's -35c outside and someone comes knocking at my door. His car has broken down and he'll freeze to death if I don't let him in.

I'm not initiating any force if I simply deny him access to the warmth of my house, but I would consider myself responsible for his death (and therefore culpable to some extent) if I did so. Would Libertarianism allow for this sort of culpability? How, if I'm not initiating force?


To me, this situation relies upon me not being a Jerk. If, through the principles of Libertarian justice, someone can explain to me how the above would be a crime, then I could see myself starting to consider it. So far as I can tell, however, it looks like 'charity' is the only answer it has.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Your selective quote-mining aside, I have said on numerous different occasions that there will be jerks; the only question is what should be done about them. If I am being selective, then supply the missing context. Your baseless allegations are worthless. The thread I quote from was clear, that my island character had a very strong position and was acting in a manner other than that would be considered economically efficient, in that he just didn't like the newcomer. You declared the hypothetical invalid on that point, rather than conceed that the newcomer, under libertarian principles, was required to basically kill himself.

What big government does is actually give them an avenue for being jerks, and so we have to put up with many more jerks than we would otherwise. Case in point: I mentioned in a couple of other threads that our Commissioners a few months ago rejected a zoning plan that would allow a man to build a restaurant, even though it was approved unanimously by the planning board, because of ONE jerk who stood up during the Commissioners meeting and blathered on about how she didn't want her kids exposed to alcohol. Without big government, all she could do is b!tch and moan about it, but she wouldn't have the power to force her will on the restaurant owner without resorting to criminal activity. Wait a minute. The one "jerk" had to get people to vote her way didn't she? Thus she didn't act alone and it isn't all her doing.
Plus, this makes that same invalid assumption that only government can put people into an oppressive situation.


Furthermore, I have explained this to you both so many times that the only possible explanation for your claims about libertarianism in this thread is that you are either deliberately lying or are deluding yourselves. Either way, it is a sign of pure bigotry, and a refusal to consider the arguments of the other side. This behavior is not becoming of people who call themselves skeptics.

I honestly feel the same way about you. The difference is I try to make some sort of effort to clarify what you are saying and maybe understand it, and you call me names, say I'm bigoted.

You have never explained anything of the sort to me. I understand what you are trying to say, and I make an effort to explain why I disagree. Unfortunately you are so emotionally invested in your worldview that you cannot see any of the points that I make, because if they differ with your beliefs you just reject them.

There is a difference between not considering something and considering something and finding it wanting. It appears you have no concept of the difference. You take it as an article of faith that anyone that considers your arguments in good faith must agree with them. That is an arrogant and unfounded assumption.

I suspect you will continue to simply try to brush off my comments as reflecting my personal bias. Every time you do that, remember that you might as well admit you are just trying to distract from your failure to respond in an intellegent and mature manner.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Valmorian


I'm not very clear on what would constitute a 'crime' in Libertarian land. It seems like the mantra is 'anything that involves initiation of force'.

Is that ALL that would constitute a crime? What about lack of help?

Suppose I live in the country, it's -35c outside and someone comes knocking at my door. His car has broken down and he'll freeze to death if I don't let him in.

I'm not initiating any force if I simply deny him access to the warmth of my house, but I would consider myself responsible for his death (and therefore culpable to some extent) if I did so. Would Libertarianism allow for this sort of culpability? How, if I'm not initiating force?


To me, this situation relies upon me not being a Jerk. If, through the principles of Libertarian justice, someone can explain to me how the above would be a crime, then I could see myself starting to consider it. So far as I can tell, however, it looks like 'charity' is the only answer it has.

Off the top of my head, it wouldn't be a crime. Is that perfect? No.

And I can honestly say, I don't think it should be a crime either.

[DanishDynamite]

Diezel:I'm going to regret getting into this....Chicken. :)
Shane was correct about something, that Libertarianism is one of (not the only, I won't go that far) ideologies that does take into account human nature - but not so much the selfishness of people. Another aspect of human nature is the desire of people to live free, to make their own choices. Libertarianism takes that into account.Naturally, I shall need very good arguments for these ridiculous assertions. :)
But that does not mean you need to have people always act rational and be "good' to accomplish this. See shanek's quotes in Suddenly's thread. (Also, see shaneks's quotes since he's been on this board. :))
As much as everyone tries to paint it with the same brush, Libertarianism is not anarchy. No. It is one step away.
They allow for a government to punish those that have done wrong. I have never seen anything by any Libertarian that states people committing crime will be left alone.I agree.
I will state, as a Jeffersonian Liberal, that you can take both aspects of human nature into account:

1) People want to live free, with as much choice in their own matters as possible - you do this by involving governement in as little as possible, with their only purpose to enforce criminal penalties, facilitate commerece and mediate contractual disagreements.

2) People are selfish and will maximize their own benefits - See above. The government is there to make sure anyone that breaks the law is punished.I have no idea what a Jeffersonian Liberal is, but the problem with the above is, just like Marxism, it sounds great, but in practice will not work.
From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good". Punishing people just isn't enough. "Pro-active" is the term missing from the Libertarian agenda.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Suppose I live in the country, it's -35c outside and someone comes knocking at my door. His car has broken down and he'll freeze to death if I don't let him in.

I'm not initiating any force if I simply deny him access to the warmth of my house, but I would consider myself responsible for his death (and therefore culpable to some extent) if I did so. Would Libertarianism allow for this sort of culpability? How, if I'm not initiating force?

No, you are under no legal obligation to help the person. In fact, for all you know, it could be a ruse for the person to gain entry into your house and then attack you and rob you.

And not helping someone isn't a crime now, as far as I'm aware. So how is this any kind of distinction with Libertarianism?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If I am being selective, then supply the missing context.

I have explained the concept several times, and that is all that should be required of me.

Plus, this makes that same invalid assumption that only government can put people into an oppressive situation.

This is just bogus, as I have already said. The only way anyone can be oppressed is through the initiation of force. When someone resorts to that, then that is a criminal act. This isn't difficult. Look beyond your personal biases and you'll see it.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel




From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

The weird thing is that most of my beliefs are consistent with libertarianism. However, when I try to get into and question the basis of these types of beliefs I'm a lying bigot, it would seem.

Go figure.

The problem lies in how they define "good." The central problem I have is that they seek to hide complex principles in simple language, and then accuse others of being against the simple principle when they disagree with part of the complex principle.

Such as "do not initiate force."

Not a whole lot of people disagree with the simple principle. The real problem is deciding exactly what force means and what initiate means. I disagree with the nuances of the libertarian position in this regard, so I am not a libertarian. Then I see something like: If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

This is what I'm talking about.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Chicken. :)

More like: Been there, done that. :D

Naturally, I shall need very good arguments for these ridiculous assertions. :)

Aren't we all here arguing about it? ;)

See shanek's quotes in Suddenly's thread. (Also, see shaneks's quotes since he's been on this board. :))

I am really defending Shane's quotes, or the LP. I am stating my opinion of what I see.

No. It is one step away.

About the same step as Communism, being they both advocate a government.

I agree.

Of course you do. :)

I have no idea what a Jeffersonian Liberal is, but the problem with the above is, just like Marxism, it sounds great, but in practice will not work.

A Jeffersonian Liberal advocates the orginal mandate of the US and advocates returning to the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers.

Punishing people just isn't enough. "Pro-active" is the term missing from the Libertarian agenda.

And I agree 100% that it should be missing. We should not strive to be "pro-active", but strive to be prepared as best as we can be to be "reactive".

*Note - "pro-active" and "preventative" are not equal. I have no problem with attempts to prevent crime, as long as those preventive measures do not interfer with the personal liberties of those not committing crimes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
"Pro-active" is the term missing from the Libertarian agenda.

Libertarians aren't pro-active?

Let's see...in Bellflower, CA, crime was a major issue when a yound mayor took office. This mayor instigated a pro-active community watch program whereby residents of neighborhoods with commuinity watch programs which reduced crime were given a tax credit based on how much they managed to drop the crime rate by. He initiated a targeted crime reduction plan and made it easy for the citizens to create over 200 separate community watch programs, with the ability to meet and compare notes and target areas with higher crime. As a result, crime in Bellfower plummeted 36%.

The mayor? Libertarian Art Olivier.

Sounds pretty darn pro-active to me!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
This is what I'm talking about.

No one was able to refute that statement.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


The weird thing is that most of my beliefs are consistent with libertarianism. However, when I try to get into and question the basis of these types of beliefs I'm a lying bigot, it would seem.

Go figure.

The problem lies in how they define "good." The central problem I have is that they seek to hide complex principles in simple language, and then accuse others of being against the simple principle when they disagree with part of the complex principle.

Such as "do not initiate force."

Not a whole lot of people disagree with the simple principle. The real problem is deciding exactly what force means and what initiate means. I disagree with the nuances of the libertarian position in this regard, so I am not a libertarian. Then I see something like:

This is what I'm talking about.

As I stated, I am not a Libertarian, for some of the same reasons you just stated. I have problems with many of their applications of the Jeffersonian Principle (not sure if that should be capitalized, because I just made it up :D.)

I agree, the phrase "initiate force" can be vague. What a more proper phrase would be "acts in a way that jeopardizes an individual's rights."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


I have explained the concept several times, and that is all that should be required of me. You made an allegation that I was being deceptive by use of selective quotations. Please back it up.



This is just bogus, as I have already said. The only way anyone can be oppressed is through the initiation of force. When someone resorts to that, then that is a criminal act. This isn't difficult. Look beyond your personal biases and you'll see it. This depends largely on your definition of "force" and "initiation." These are questions you can't really answer. When I try to get into it, as in the "island" hypothetical, and make a point, you just declare the whole hypothetical invalid. That or scream about bias, or claim over and over that you have already "proved that."

I guess you ignored the rest of what I had to say. I expected no less.

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:It's not based on any assumptions concerning human nature! Of course it is! Try to enter the world of the realists, shanek.
Most people aren't going to be a problem, just like most people aren't a problem now. The question is, how do you deal with the ones that are a problem? Libertarianism says that if they initiate force or fraud against others, then they're criminals; otherwise, they should be left alone.Which is all fine and dandy but doesn't address the problem that any head of a corporation can act completely selfishly, giving not one sh*t about the long term future of the corporation.

The problem, shanek, is that full-blown Libertarianism is purely reactionary. Which just isn't good enough.
How is that based on any kind of assumption, wrong or otherwise, about human nature?It is based on the idea that the top of corporations will always act in a manner to best perpetuate said corporations. The idea that they are in it for their own personal gain, just isn't handled well by Libertopian philosophy.

[DanishDynamite]

Diezel:More like: Been there, done that. :DIndeed. "Once a chicken, always a ....":)
Aren't we all here arguing about it? ;)A non-answer. Somehow, I'm not surpised.
I am really defending Shane's quotes, or the LP. I am stating my opinion of what I see.Was there a "not" missing somewhere?
About the same step as Communism, being they both advocate a government.Disingenious, my bald foe. You know exactly what I meant.
A Jeffersonian Liberal advocates the orginal mandate of the US and advocates returning to the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers.And how does this differ from shanek's madness?
And I agree 100% that it should be missing. We should not strive to be "pro-active", but strive to be prepared as best as we can be to be "reactive".Which, apparently, is where we differ. You would rather have a class-action suit against someone, whereas I would rather prevent the harm done. (Regulations!)
*Note - "pro-active" and "preventative" are not equal.Explain.
I have no problem with attempts to prevent crime, as long as those preventive measures do not interfer with the personal liberties of those not committing crimes. Again, this seems to be where we differ.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you are under no legal obligation to help the person. In fact, for all you know, it could be a ruse for the person to gain entry into your house and then attack you and rob you.

And not helping someone isn't a crime now, as far as I'm aware. So how is this any kind of distinction with Libertarianism?


I guess you've answered the island question here. Basically, Libertarianism sees nothing wrong with the owner of the island denying any and all resources to anyone else.

Libertarianism is relying upon the good nature of people to help one another then, and trusting that people will make rational decisions to do so.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


As I stated, I am not a Libertarian, for some of the same reasons you just stated. I have problems with many of their applications of the Jeffersonian Principle (not sure if that should be capitalized, because I just made it up :D.)

I agree, the phrase "initiate force" can be vague. What a more proper phrase would be "acts in a way that jeopardizes an individual's rights."

But them we argue about what are rights, what does jeopardize mean. At some point they have to admit to substance. For them I'd suggest "We hold property rights supreme" be included, as "initiate force" or jeopardize rights" can be problematic when considering a "first acquisition" scenerio, a problem that was much discussed, but never really solved in that "island" thread.

Some of these issues are interesting, and I wish we had someone here to better present the libertatian point of view. I'm pretty sure I'm not a lying bigot, but who can tell these days.

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:Libertarians aren't pro-active?No. Not at all.
Let's see...in Bellflower, CA, crime was a major issue when a yound mayor took office. This mayor instigated a pro-active community watch program whereby residents of neighborhoods with commuinity watch programs which reduced crime were given a tax credit based on how much they managed to drop the crime rate by. He initiated a targeted crime reduction plan and made it easy for the citizens to create over 200 separate community watch programs, with the ability to meet and compare notes and target areas with higher crime. As a result, crime in Bellfower plummeted 36%.

The mayor? Libertarian Art Olivier.

Sounds pretty darn pro-active to me! Sounds like a load of hogwash to me. Any mayor, no matter what his political affiliation, could have insrtigated this (obvious) measure. The problem, shanek, is that Libertarian philosophy isn't geared for pro-active action. It is always about "punishing the wrong-doers". Which is simply a non-viable method of government.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Valmorian



I guess you've answered the island question here. Basically, Libertarianism sees nothing wrong with the owner of the island denying any and all resources to anyone else.

Libertarianism is relying upon the good nature of people to help one another then, and trusting that people will make rational decisions to do so.

The irony of that thread is that I intended it to to be a "first acquisition" scenerio, but it turned largely into a thread to get shanek to admit that if he recognized my ownership then I could make him swim if I wanted.

He kept arguing that he would be fine because he could help me do stuff on the island, despite my explicit point that I wanted no part of his presence, simply due to personal dislike, be it racial or whatever.

He never questioned my right to absolute control over the lland, which was the point I was curious about, that is how does "property" come to be under libertarian principle.

[DanishDynamite]

Suddenly:The irony of that thread is that I intended it to to be a "first acquisition" scenerio, but it turned largely into a thread to get shanek to admit that if he recognized my ownership then I could make him swim if I wanted.

He kept arguing that he would be fine because he could help me do stuff on the island, despite my explicit point that I wanted no part of his presence, simply due to personal dislike, be it racial or whatever.

He never questioned my right to absolute control over the lland, which was the point I was curious about, that is how does "property" come to be under libertarian principle. And he never will. The origin of ownership rights is a taboo subject in Libertarian circles.

As I said before, Libertarians assume that humans are rational. And hence, their simplistic philosophy is just as shakey as Marxism.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Which is all fine and dandy but doesn't address the problem that any head of a corporation can act completely selfishly, giving not one sh*t about the long term future of the corporation.


This problem is addressed by the libertarians. Smart shareholders would remove such an individual, and stupid shareholders are punished, as they should be, with long-term decline of their assets.

There are laws against breaching one's fiduciary duty of course; these don't work very well. They basically give everyone the false security of thinking that the trustee will behave ethically because they're legally required to.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Suddenly

He never questioned my right to absolute control over the lland, which was the point I was curious about, that is how does "property" come to be under libertarian principle.

I'd really like to know the answer to this as well.

Suppose you have a huge area of unclaimed land. Person A arrives there first. Is this how we determine ownership? Finders-keepers?

Now how much of that land can he claim ownership of? All of it? Part of it?

If 50 more people show up, are they just screwed because the first person decides to be a jerk and say "All Mine, go away!" even though he can't possibly USE all of it?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

A non-answer. Somehow, I'm not surpised.

With your smiley, I figured you were joking. Do you really need an argument to prove that humans, by nature, are selfish? I can cite 100's of references, from philosophers, to economists, to Game Theory. If you do indeed want references, I can provide them.

Was there a "not" missing somewhere?

Yes, there was. Good catch. ;)

Disingenious, my bald foe. You know exactly what I meant.

Actually, I don't. The LP does allow for a government, which too many people seem to forget when arguing against it.

And how does this differ from shanek's madness?

In application - the LP takes it to far and forgets the FFs never advocated laissez-faire capitalism. The did know there must be some regulation of commerce. I think the LP plays lip-service to some regulation, but in essence they seem to advocate no regulation of commerce at all. I disagree with that.

But I will state that I favor very, very limited regulation.

Which, apparently, is where we differ. You would rather have a class-action suit against someone, whereas I would rather prevent the harm done. (Regulations!)

See above.

And Shane has some good points when he points to independent trade groups certifying products - but we will never see this fully played out. But say we had no government regulations on safety; companies can do what they want. How do you know what a safe product is? Nobody would, but everybody would want to know. Now a industry group gets together and says "Look, we will do all the testing and tell you what is safe. We put our guarantee on it." Now, given the choice between a product that has been certified by the industry group and one that has not, which would you buy? Of course you are going to go with the certified product. Now, as a business owner, you are going to want customers. Since nobody would buy a product that wasn't certified by the industry group, you would not make money selling un-certified goods. So you make your products to pass their tests and get certified.

Again, this can never play out now, because we are way too used to the government taking care of this, so we feel like if it is in the market, it is safe. No turning back now.

Explain.

I thought I did with my explanation. "Pro-active" tends to restrict the rights of all, in order to hopefully stop a few from preventing a crime. "Prevention" tries to stop the problem, without restricting anyone.

Again, this seems to be where we differ.

I guess so. Say there was a problem with graffiti. This graffiti is being sprayed by teens at night, say around 12am. The pro-active approach is to make a curfew for all teens at 10pm. Sure, it may help curb the problem with graffiti, but it also violates the rights of the vast majority of teens that were not involved in the graffiti.

Prevention would start with swift and stern punishment for those caught. It could involve a grass-roots campaign for the residents of this area to take pride in their community - unspoken law can be a much bigger deterrent to some crimes than written law. Try to make the community ostracize anybody that would spray graffiti in their neighborhood.

There are plenty of other ways for prevention, that was just one example. But hopefully that was clear enough.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Valmorian

Libertarianism is relying upon the good nature of people to help one another then, and trusting that people will make rational decisions to do so.

I know this wasn't to me, but I will answer it anyway.

Libertarianism doesn't rely on people for their good nature and trust. Libertarianism doesn't care. Welfare is up to the individuals. If they want to help each other out, fine. If they don't, that is fine too. Libertarianism doesn't address these issues, they are for the individuals to work out.

I agree. Nobody should force me to be charitible, or even care, about other people. If I choose to care, that is my right. If I choose not to care, that is my right too.

I know this sounds cold, but the harsh reality is that in order to leave free, we must accept that sometimes means bad things will happen.

[DanishDynamite]

phildonnia:This problem is addressed by the libertarians. Smart shareholders would remove such an individual, and stupid shareholders are punished, as they should be, with long-term decline of their assets. Phildonnia! Welcome aboard!

In regard to your comment, my comment is not addressed by the Libertarians. Removing an indivudual some weeks (or months) after he has done great damage to untold numbers of the public, just is not an acceptable method of government. There must be "pro-active" measures which make his dreams of personal gain at the cost of people everywhere, an impossible dream, or close to it. Promising to close the gate after the the horse has bolted, is not the manner of society I wish to live in.
There are laws against breaching one's fiduciary duty of course; these don't work very well. They basically give everyone the false security of thinking that the trustee will behave ethically because they're legally required to. Exactly.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


But them we argue about what are rights, what does jeopardize mean. At some point they have to admit to substance. For them I'd suggest "We hold property rights supreme" be included, as "initiate force" or jeopardize rights" can be problematic when considering a "first acquisition" scenerio, a problem that was much discussed, but never really solved in that "island" thread.

Some of these issues are interesting, and I wish we had someone here to better present the libertatian point of view. I'm pretty sure I'm not a lying bigot, but who can tell these days.

I didn't read the scenario, but I will answer the question (hopefully understanding the scenario):

The landowner does not have to do anything. He can let you rot and die. You have no rights to his resources, you are on your own to do what you can to survive.

Yep, harsh.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Diezel

I guess so. Say there was a problem with graffiti. This graffiti is being sprayed by teens at night, say around 12am. The pro-active approach is to make a curfew for all teens at 10pm.



This is the ONLY type of proactive approach that could be taken, violating rights?

[CFLarsen]

Diezel,

If people are selfish, why do we (as in "Danes", "Swedes", "Norwegians", etc) have welfare states?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
It is always about "punishing the wrong-doers". Which is simply a non-viable method of government.

I disagree 100%. See my reply to you above for why. I think your portrayal of the LP is a strawman in this regard.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Diezel

Libertarianism doesn't rely on people for their good nature and trust. Libertarianism doesn't care.



As far as I'm concerned, this is the same thing, just said a different way. For me to consider Libertarianism a viable form of government, it cannot simply ignore marginalized people and say "Oh well, let them work it out themselves, or die in the gutter, too bad."



I agree. Nobody should force me to be charitible, or even care, about other people. If I choose to care, that is my right. If I choose not to care, that is my right too.



To *some* extent I agree, but I don't have a problem with taxation to help those who are needy. Or to provide services that would otherwise have to rely upon the private sector.


I know this sounds cold, but the harsh reality is that in order to leave free, we must accept that sometimes means bad things will happen.


Perhaps to be ultimately and totally free, yes, you would have to accept that. I'm willing to give up a little of my freedom to allow some modest mitigation of those bad things.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Suddenly:And he never will. The origin of ownership rights is a taboo subject in Libertarian circles.

That may be, but I will answer from the basis of my own thoughts.

These days, about the only real way an individual has rights to land is through a legal purchase.

But classically, ownership rights could be gotten by three means:

1) Purchase
2) Initial Claim (Discovery)
3) Use of Force

Since there isn't much land to discover anymore, #2 is out. And since #3 can only be done by governments, that is out too. And that is now being viewed as a crime by the international community. So, nowadays, you can only purchase land.

As I said before, Libertarians assume that humans are rational. And hence, their simplistic philosophy is just as shakey as Marxism.

Yes, you have said it, but you have yet to prove it. :)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


I didn't read the scenario, but I will answer the question (hopefully understanding the scenario):

The landowner does not have to do anything. He can let you rot and die. You have no rights to his resources, you are on your own to do what you can to survive.

Yep, harsh.

Which was my point. The scenerio as crafted actually raised some issues as to whether I really had a right to "own" the island. If I do, the conclusion you suggest is the proper one under libertarian principles, harsh or no.

Unfortunately, we went off on a huge tangent as shanek couldn't just say what you just said.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Valmorian



This is the ONLY type of proactive approach that could be taken, violating rights? [/B]

Mine was an example to illustrate the difference between "pro-active" and "preventive". Can you give me another approach that you consider "pro-active"?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Diezel,

If people are selfish, why do we (as in "Danes", "Swedes", "Norwegians", etc) have welfare states?

Because you have elected people into power that take personal profit from helping others. Some desire money, some desire that warm fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone out and feel they have taken the moral high road.

Either way, it is still selfish. And from what I hear, not everyone in those states are estatic about it. If we weren't selfish, nobody would have a problem with it.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


That may be, but I will answer from the basis of my own thoughts.

These days, about the only real way an individual has rights to land is through a legal purchase.

But classically, ownership rights could be gotten by three means:

1) Purchase
2) Initial Claim (Discovery)
3) Use of Force

Since there isn't much land to discover anymore, #2 is out. And since #3 can only be done by governments, that is out too. And that is now being viewed as a crime by the international community. So, nowadays, you can only purchase land.



What we are talking about is an initial acqusition, more of a philosophical "state of nature" type question.
At one point in time there is just people and stuff.
Then, there are people who "own" stuff.

The question is what gives them the right to "own" things, and considering that the essence of "ownership" is the exclusive right of use, how can this be squared with a non-initiation of force principle?

Since to "own" is to have the right to exclude, it seems to me that at some point you are up and declaring that the other person no longer has a right to something. I really have no problem with that, but it does seem contrary to the principle that "thou shall not initiate force" that libertarians like so much.

Then, we ask if it is logical to use a principle to justify property rights when that same principle is violated by the very genesis of all ownership?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Valmorian

As far as I'm concerned, this is the same thing, just said a different way. For me to consider Libertarianism a viable form of government, it cannot simply ignore marginalized people and say "Oh well, let them work it out themselves, or die in the gutter, too bad."

Well, that is not quite a strawman, but close. ;)

Libertarianism says "We will set up a government that creates a society that will give everyone an equal opportunity to do as much or as little as they want." It is up to the individual to make the decisions they need to make in order get where they want to be.

When I say that Libertarianism doesn't address the issue, I am saying that it leaves it up to the members of the society to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. Now, you take that as saying you are relying on them to do the right thing. No, it doesn't matter what they choose to do. Some will do the right thing, some will do the wrong thing. But it doesn't matter to the LP.

To *some* extent I agree, but I don't have a problem with taxation to help those who are needy. Or to provide services that would otherwise have to rely upon the private sector.

Private, local charities are the best equipped to "help those who are needy", because they live in their communities, they know the people and they can do the most help. I would much rather give my money to a private charity than to the government to decide who gets it.

Perhaps to be ultimately and totally free, yes, you would have to accept that. I'm willing to give up a little of my freedom to allow some modest mitigation of those bad things.

Given the choice, I would not. But don't worry, I won't be given that choice anytime soon. ;)

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Which was my point. The scenerio as crafted actually raised some issues as to whether I really had a right to "own" the island. If I do, the conclusion you suggest is the proper one under libertarian principles, harsh or no.

Unfortunately, we went off on a huge tangent as shanek couldn't just say what you just said.

I see. See my post above as to how you have ownership.

And many people won't be as ready to admit that sometimes freedom can be cold as I am. :D

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


What we are talking about is an initial acqusition, more of a philosophical "state of nature" type question.
At one point in time there is just people and stuff.
Then, there are people who "own" stuff.

The question is what gives them the right to "own" things, and considering that the essence of "ownership" is the exclusive right of use, how can this be squared with a non-initiation of force principle?

Since to "own" is to have the right to exclude, it seems to me that at some point you are up and declaring that the other person no longer has a right to something. I really have no problem with that, but it does seem contrary to the principle that "thou shall not initiate force" that libertarians like so much.

Then, we ask if it is logical to use a principle to justify property rights when that same principle is violated by the very genesis of all ownership?

Well, I don't think your hypothetical is valid then, for simple reason - you can't put Libertarianism to this type of test. It is a philosophy that was formed after most land was acquired and owned. So to put it through this test just won't work. It is putting the apple before the cart.

But I see why you want to do this and I will play it out for you. Notice my answer for how land was owned "classically"? Classically, use of force was a very common way to determine ownership.

Say you "claim" 2 acres of land. Now say someone wants that land. As a single person, you are only able to defend 1 acre of that land. So now you have lost an acre, but maintain 1 acre.

Scale this up into countries, not individuals. They claimed land in the name of countries, by the use of force - then sold that land to individuals, who now have claim of ownership.

And it must be noted that the "initiation of force" is directly identified at the individual - it says nothing of a Libertarian Nation initiating force in order to claim land from another nation. But inside that Libertarian Nation, you cannot initiate force in order to claim land.

So, you see, the hypothetical doesn't really work, because the initial acquisition of land is not at question. And you are trying to compare small scale human interactions with large scale governmental philosophies. This doesn’t work. Not everything that works on a small scale can work on a large scale and vice versus.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Diezel

So, you see, the hypothetical doesn't really work, because the initial acquisition of land is not at question.

If the ownership of said land was gained through the use of force, how could Libertarianism consider that land to be owned by the individual who gained it that way?

The more I read about Libertarianism, the more ludicrous it sounds.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Diezel


Mine was an example to illustrate the difference between "pro-active" and "preventive". Can you give me another approach that you consider "pro-active"?

Institute police patrols of the area.

Installation of obvious security cameras of particularly troublesome areas.

Investigate root causes of the graffiti, it might be because of bored kids, gangs, who knows? But investigation could lead to implementation of policies to help curb the behaviour that leads to the proliferation of graffiti.

There are other ways as well I'm sure..

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Valmorian


If the ownership of said land was gained through the use of force, how could Libertarianism consider that land to be owned by the individual who gained it that way?

The more I read about Libertarianism, the more ludicrous it sounds.

Again, the hypothetical is not valid, because Libertarianism is a philosophy that was developed after initation of force to gain land was already obsolete. You are trying to apply a concept to a situation Libertarianism was never meant to deal with.

Can we agree this scenario is never going to play out in today's world? Can we agree that it is just as ludicrous to try to apply an ideology to a situation that would have never happened at the time the ideology was developed, let alone any time after that?

It just doesn't work.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Valmorian

Institute police patrols of the area.

Preventative, not proactive.

Installation of obvious security cameras of particularly troublesome areas.

Violates the rights of law abiding citizens their freedom of privacy. Even in a public place, a person has a right to be free of constant scrutiny of the government.

But...

A business has a right to protect its property, so if they put up cameras for that purpose, I support it.

Investigate root causes of the graffiti, it might be because of bored kids, gangs, who knows? But investigation could lead to implementation of policies to help curb the behaviour that leads to the proliferation of graffiti.

Your first part is preventative, your second part may be proactive, depending on what those policies are.

There are other ways as well I'm sure..

Sure. Some are proactive, some are preventative. I have no problem with preventative.

[specious_reasons]

by Valmorian
Perhaps to be ultimately and totally free, yes, you would have to accept that. I'm willing to give up a little of my freedom to allow some modest mitigation of those bad things.

by Diezel
Given the choice, I would not. But don't worry, I won't be given that choice anytime soon

If I am not representing the LP incorrectly, even the Libertarians allow giving up some freedom for enforcement. The LP does, for example, allow for the government's use of force to punish a criminal's intiation of force.

What it boils down to is a matter of degree.

Please, let me know if I am mischaracterizing the LP here.

On a related topic,
I don't know if I had recalled this before, but Harry Browne was on "Politically Incorrect" - I think it was during the '96 election. He posed a question, "Think of your favorite government program. Would you give it up to have no income tax?"

I thought about it, and thought of things like national defense, then decided that my answer was "no."

[TillEulenspiegel]

Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

yes

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


Again, the hypothetical is not valid, because Libertarianism is a philosophy that was developed after initation of force to gain land was already obsolete. You are trying to apply a concept to a situation Libertarianism was never meant to deal with.
First, I am not discussing libertarian principles as being very practical and useful. I'm not, as they very well may be. What I dispute is the idea that "non-initiation of force" as a universal principle is consistant with ownership of property, real or personal. Just getting that out there.

Truth is not a time sensitive thing. Neither is land ownership. "Do not initiate force" is either a universal virtue or it isn't. Universal principles do not become obsolete, rather they would be disproven as "not universal." Anyway, saying first acquisition situations will never arise again is a huge assumption, and it still does not change that "do not initiate force" and initial acquisition are not compatible.

Now, there are many reasons to justify the initial ownership of land, but "do not initiate force" is not going to be one of them.



Can we agree this scenario is never going to play out in today's world? Can we agree that it is just as ludicrous to try to apply an ideology to a situation that would have never happened at the time the ideology was developed, let alone any time after that? This sort of thing happens any time there is unowned land. It happened throughout human history. It will happen when people are shipwrecked together on a otherwise uninhabited island. It will happen again if space travel becomes a reality. Furthermore, this is a discussion of theory, not pragmatism.

It also is presently relevent. If all ownership derives from initiation of force, than to be true to a "non-initiation" of force principle you would have to abolish ownership of property, as all property is then umm .... theft, or at least reciept of stolen property.

Now, as pragmatists we aren't going to do that, but if one has a slavish dependance on the non-initiation of force as a universal principle, then I can't see a whole lot of choice.

It just doesn't work.

That the analysis is harmful to libertarian principles doesn't invalidate it. That was the point of the whole deal. Actually, what I'm saying isn't even an indictment of libertarianism, just that the central principle of the Libertarian Party is inconsistent with most of their positions w/r/t property.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly
That the analysis is harmful to libertarian principles doesn't invalidate it. That was the point of the whole deal. Actually, what I'm saying isn't even an indictment of libertarianism, just that the central principle of the Libertarian Party is inconsistent with most of their positions w/r/t property.

But what I am saying is that it does not relate to libertarian principles, so it couldn't logically be harmful to their principles.

Also, you didn't address my point about non-initiation of force applying to only those inside an established Libertarian Nation.

But the most important point, going back to my first point, is that in your scenario, libertarianism would not apply - it is an ideology based on an established nation.

[Diezel]

I thought I would post a little more about my last point.

Your point that "truth is not time sensitive" is a straw man. What we are discussing is governmental politics. This is not a static subject, but a dynamic one. So what worked at one time, in one set of circumstances, will not neccesarily work at another time with another set of circumstances.

This is why I say your scenario is not valid, because you can't possibly try to apply libertarianism to a situtation it was never intended to deal with.

Say their are four people, two male and two female. They work things out and share everything. Now they have kids and they are all still in harmony. The kids have kids, they need privacy, so they start sectioning off their little pieces of island, so they can be private when they feel like it (it is human nature to want privacy at times.) Now they have just started a rudimentary "ownership" over different pieces of land. As this develops and the population grows, so too will the desire of the people to have their own little piece of land.

Once the population gets large enough, you need a way to deal with the people's desire to own their own little piece of land. At this point, libertarianism may start to apply, but not before.

To repeat myself, this is a dynamic subject and I don't think you can prove anything by trying to see what something that was meant to work further down the evolution does when thrown to the beginning of the evolution, where it was never intended to be.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
This depends largely on your definition of "force" and "initiation."

Force: anything that stops someone from acting freely. Initiation: that act absent of which would have meant that there was no force at all.

These are questions you can't really answer.

I can answer them, and I have. And I'm really sick and tired of you and a small handful of others in this forum making me spend most of my time here repeating myself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Of course it is!

How?

The problem, shanek, is that full-blown Libertarianism is purely reactionary.

No, it isn't, and I've given several examples of this in the forum. I gave one example in this very thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Libertarianism is relying upon the good nature of people to help one another then, and trusting that people will make rational decisions to do so.

And most people will do so. Even those arguing the other side here have admitted that. Their claim is that Libertarianism requires everyone to do so, and that just isn't the case.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sounds like a load of hogwash to me. Any mayor, no matter what his political affiliation, could have insrtigated this (obvious) measure.

Then why haven't they? Why does it take a Libertarian?

The problem, shanek, is that Libertarian philosophy isn't geared for pro-active action. It is always about "punishing the wrong-doers". Which is simply a non-viable method of government.

I've just given an example whick completely falsifies this, and yet here you come again making the same claim. Bogus.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Suppose you have a huge area of unclaimed land. Person A arrives there first. Is this how we determine ownership? Finders-keepers?

Now how much of that land can he claim ownership of? All of it? Part of it?

If 50 more people show up, are they just screwed because the first person decides to be a jerk and say "All Mine, go away!" even though he can't possibly USE all of it?

One of the threads I referenced you covers this exact question. Please go read it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
In application - the LP takes it to far and forgets the FFs never advocated laissez-faire capitalism. The did know there must be some regulation of commerce. I think the LP plays lip-service to some regulation, but in essence they seem to advocate no regulation of commerce at all. I disagree with that.

Be careful not to lump the FFs all into one group. Remember that there was the primary division between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians. The Federalists were the ones who wanted a strong central government with tight control over commerce; the Jeffersonians wanted none at all. About the only thing stopping the Jeffersonians from advocating laissez-faire was that the concept really didn't exist at the time.

I thought I did with my explanation. "Pro-active" tends to restrict the rights of all, in order to hopefully stop a few from preventing a crime. "Prevention" tries to stop the problem, without restricting anyone.

By that definition, I guess my example above would be preventative rather than pro-active.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Perhaps to be ultimately and totally free, yes, you would have to accept that. I'm willing to give up a little of my freedom to allow some modest mitigation of those bad things.

It is your perfect right to make that decision. But justification is there for forcing that decision on others?

[Diezel]

I've tried to come up with a simple analogy to show my point how you cannot apply libertarianism to the island scenario and I've failed, but I did come up with thisL ;)

Say we were arguing about golf swings. I say a high club head speed with lots of rotational action is the best swing and you say that is false, a slower club head speed with a steady upper body and more wrist action is the best golf swing.

To prove your point, you tell me to go back to the beginning of the game and ask me if I would use my swing. I have to admit I wouldn't, because with wooden shafts and feather balls, I would break the equipment. I would have to use your swing.

Would that prove that I was wrong? Would that prove anything? No, of course not. With the given situation as it is today, I am right. But this situation only evolved recently, so of course I couldn't apply it to a situation that happened before my theory evolved.

Taken even a step further, if I find myself on a desert island today with nothing to make golf clubs out of but rocks and wooden shafts, my swing would still be wrong. But that doesn't prove anything about my golf swing being wrong in the situation I am applying it to.

Yea, I know, not the clearest, but I hope you see my point. You can't try apply theories to situations they were never meant to be applied to.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Which was my point. The scenerio as crafted actually raised some issues as to whether I really had a right to "own" the island. If I do, the conclusion you suggest is the proper one under libertarian principles, harsh or no.

Unfortunately, we went off on a huge tangent as shanek couldn't just say what you just said.

The tangent was based on where the ownership of the island came from in the first place, something you refused to address.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If people are selfish, why do we (as in "Danes", "Swedes", "Norwegians", etc) have welfare states?

If people aren't selfish, why would you need welfare states?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Institute police patrols of the area.

Nothing anti-Libertarian about that idea, so long as the police do not violate the rights of others in doing so.

Installation of obvious security cameras of particularly troublesome areas.

Same here, with the same caveat.

Investigate root causes of the graffiti, it might be because of bored kids, gangs, who knows? But investigation could lead to implementation of policies to help curb the behaviour that leads to the proliferation of graffiti.

Again, this is an approach a Libertarian would gladly take. Unfortunately, Diezel's example of a curfew is more typical of big government solutions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
If I am not representing the LP incorrectly, even the Libertarians allow giving up some freedom for enforcement. The LP does, for example, allow for the government's use of force to punish a criminal's intiation of force.

What it boils down to is a matter of degree.

Please, let me know if I am mischaracterizing the LP here.

Just to clarify this point here. There are three ways that freedom can be inhibited: waiver, forfeit, and oppression.

Waiver is the voluntary suspension of one's rights. If someone wants to defend himself, or confess to the police, he voluntarily waives his right to an attorney. A person who signs a contract voluntarily waives his right to decide later not to abide by its terms (without buying out the contract or paying a court's penalty).

Forfeit is the suspension of one's rights which result from forceful acts against another. When someone commits a forceful act, he gives up some but not all of his rights. He still has the right, for example, to not be tortured. But in a civil matter he has forfeited the right not to have an appropriate amount of money siezed, or in criminal matters his right not to be put in jail. But all of this must be done through due process with respect for his rights at every step of the way.

Oppression is what results from the initiation of force, whether it's done by a government or by a criminal. Oppression is the only way of losing rights that is unjustifiable.

I've posted that before, in other threads. I hope this clears it up for people who haven't seen it yet.

I thought about it, and thought of things like national defense, then decided that my answer was "no."

Harry Browne wouldn't have gotten rid of national defense.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel
I thought I would post a little more about my last point.

Your point that "truth is not time sensitive" is a straw man. What we are discussing is governmental politics. This is not a static subject, but a dynamic one. So what worked at one time, in one set of circumstances, will not neccesarily work at another time with another set of circumstances.

Which is exactly my point. Did you miss the part where I said I'm not talking about what works? My point is, and has been that the "non-initiation of force" doctrine as a universal principle is hostile to property. That is it.

This is why I say your scenario is not valid, because you can't possibly try to apply libertarianism to a situtation it was never intended to deal with. A universal principle can be applied to anything or it isn't universal

Say their are four people, two male and two female. They work things out and share everything. Now they have kids and they are all still in harmony. The kids have kids, they need privacy, so they start sectioning off their little pieces of island, so they can be private when they feel like it (it is human nature to want privacy at times.) Now they have just started a rudimentary "ownership" over different pieces of land. As this develops and the population grows, so too will the desire of the people to have their own little piece of land.

Once the population gets large enough, you need a way to deal with the people's desire to own their own little piece of land. At this point, libertarianism may start to apply, but not before. OK, just say "Non-initiation of force is a nice principle under certain circumstances, but not universal." Then I'll nod my head in agreement.

To repeat myself, this is a dynamic subject and I don't think you can prove anything by trying to see what something that was meant to work further down the evolution does when thrown to the beginning of the evolution, where it was never intended to be.

Does 2+2=4 become obsolete? No? Does "do not initiate force" break down under certain circumstances? Yes? Then it isn't a universal principle.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Force: anything that stops someone from acting freely. Initiation: that act absent of which would have meant that there was no force at all.



I can answer them, and I have. And I'm really sick and tired of you and a small handful of others in this forum making me spend most of my time here repeating myself.

You said before that a DUI is an initiation of force. Explain how that follows from the above. Explain how a DUI keeps someone else from acting freely.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel
I've tried to come up with a simple analogy to show my point how you cannot apply libertarianism to the island scenario and I've failed, but I did come up with thisL ;)

Say we were arguing about golf swings. I say a high club head speed with lots of rotational action is the best swing and you say that is false, a slower club head speed with a steady upper body and more wrist action is the best golf swing.

To prove your point, you tell me to go back to the beginning of the game and ask me if I would use my swing. I have to admit I wouldn't, because with wooden shafts and feather balls, I would break the equipment. I would have to use your swing.

Would that prove that I was wrong? Would that prove anything? No, of course not. With the given situation as it is today, I am right. But this situation only evolved recently, so of course I couldn't apply it to a situation that happened before my theory evolved.

Taken even a step further, if I find myself on a desert island today with nothing to make golf clubs out of but rocks and wooden shafts, my swing would still be wrong. But that doesn't prove anything about my golf swing being wrong in the situation I am applying it to.

Yea, I know, not the clearest, but I hope you see my point. You can't try apply theories to situations they were never meant to be applied to.

This just proves the principle is not universal. When it is pointed out that "initiation of force is never justified" that suggests there are never reasons when it should be. I'd argue that in initial acqusition scenerios it is justified for pragmatic reasons, that private ownership increases creation of wealth.

The golf example is a question of practical utility. There are situations where libertarian principles work just dandy and situations where they make a mess. That is pretty much it. I'm rebutting the proposition that "never initiate force" is a moral imperative, or universal moral principle.

Again, I'm not arguing against libertarianism as a practical philosophy, rather the Libertarian principle w/r/t initiation of force.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Does 2+2=4 become obsolete? No? Does "do not initiate force" break down under certain circumstances? Yes? Then it isn't a universal principle.

Ok, I may have missed something here, but I never said "do not initiate force" was a universal principle. So you have no argument with me here.

But if Shane is arguing that, he could qualify it to say "Do not initiate force inside a Libertarian Nation" and you scenario would not disprove this, because there is no Libertarian Nation in your scenario. :)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Diezel
And Shane has some good points when he points to independent trade groups certifying products - but we will never see this fully played out. But say we had no government regulations on safety; companies can do what they want. How do you know what a safe product is? Nobody would, but everybody would want to know. Now a industry group gets together and says "Look, we will do all the testing and tell you what is safe. We put our guarantee on it." Now, given the choice between a product that has been certified by the industry group and one that has not, which would you buy? Of course you are going to go with the certified product. Now, as a business owner, you are going to want customers. Since nobody would buy a product that wasn't certified by the industry group, you would not make money selling un-certified goods. So you make your products to pass their tests and get certified.

I do have one concern about this situation... though I consider it reasonable... what to do when a company decides it does better with Snardo's "Yep!" Certification for product safety as with a legitimate service? The customer won't know the difference, it's got a nice shiny sticker on it with an official-looking checkmark. And there doesn't even need to be any fraud involved... it really was checked... anyone that wants to can go down to their building in Alberquerque and have a look at their product safety methods--great outing for the family.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


This just proves the principle is not universal. When it is pointed out that "initiation of force is never justified" that suggests there are never reasons when it should be. I'd argue that in initial acqusition scenerios it is justified for pragmatic reasons, that private ownership increases creation of wealth.

The golf example is a question of practical utility. There are situations where libertarian principles work just dandy and situations where they make a mess. That is pretty much it. I'm rebutting the proposition that "never initiate force" is a moral imperative, or universal moral principle.

Again, I'm not arguing against libertarianism as a practical philosophy, rather the Libertarian principle w/r/t initiation of force.

Gotcha. I've never heard non-intiation of force was a universal principle. I have just heard it as one of the bases of law in a Libertarian Nation. If someone is arguing that it is universal, then I don't agree with that person.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


The tangent was based on where the ownership of the island came from in the first place, something you refused to address.
Funny that you don't illustrate with my refusal. I've backed up my claims with excerpts from the thread. You have not. You have no evidence to back up your claim.

In fact, here was the initial hypothetical:

by Suddenly

How did that become "your" land absent some initiation of force? Ownership of land is claiming right of use exclusive and hostile to the claims of use of another. How is making "land" into "your land" not force?

To simplify, if you and I somehow wind up on a desert island, and I regain conciousness before you do from the ordeal that put us there, and I start to "use" all the land on the island for legitimate survival purposes, do you have a moral duty to go for a rather long swim? I guess you were using the very small part of land on which you lay unconcious, and have a right to that litle piece of land. Otherwise, you are on "my" land, and I don't want to share with you because when you disagree with people you call them "Filthy Liars." Plus, while the land could possibly support us both the standard of living for me would be lower, and since it is "my" land I can do what I want.

What then? I used no force in making that land "mine" according to you did I?

Your initial response:

You'd be pretty stupid if you didn't realize that I couldn't make a contribution to the survival of us both and offer me concessions in exchange for my help. And if I end up being able to manage things better than you, those concessions would would increase and increase until I was more powerful than you.


You didn't answer the question. Plus, the hypothetical itself says were I propose the ownership came from.

If you are going to continue to lie, try to be a bit more clever.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by gnome


I do have one concern about this situation... though I consider it reasonable... what to do when a company decides it does better with Snardo's "Yep!" Certification for product safety as with a legitimate service? The customer won't know the difference, it's got a nice shiny sticker on it with an official-looking checkmark. And there doesn't even need to be any fraud involved... it really was checked... anyone that wants to can go down to their building in Alberquerque and have a look at their product safety methods--great outing for the family.

This is where personal responsibility comes in. A consumer MUST know what the criteria of the certification processes is. A consumer MUST be comfortable and trust the certification process and the industry group that is doing it.

So, in my perfect little world I created above, no consumer would buy something with Snardo's "Yep!" Certification, unless they understood what that meant and trusted the Snardo industry group.

It would take much more educated consumers than we have now, but grown up in that environment, it would become just as natural as trusting the FDA stamp on your food. If you saw no FDA stamp on some food, but saw a CDDA (Cool Dudes Department of Agriculture), would you buy it?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


Gotcha. I've never heard non-intiation of force was a universal principle. I have just heard it as one of the bases of law in a Libertarian Nation. If someone is arguing that it is universal, then I don't agree with that person.

If they say it isn't universal, then this suggests the question "how does one decide when it does apply?"

I've been thinking lately that unless a person is a complete idealogue, then that person is on some level a pragmatist. If you ever reject a principle because "it doesn't work well," doesn't that mean that practical utility trumps that principle?

Just something that popped into my head. I need to find a hobby, like drinking or something.

[Diezel]

Actually Gnome, I take back what I said. I don't think it would take that much more educated consumer, they would just have to put their trust in a different entity. Some people may argue that these groups are unbiased and will try to benefit themselves also, but that will probably not be the case.

Clear cut case in point, one of the most trusted names in this field is Consumer Reports. They are so trusted, precisly [i]because[i] they are unbiased. They accept no advertising and purchase everything they review themselves. If Consumer Reports says something is good, you have a damn good chance of knowing it is good. If they say it is bad, I wouldn't buy it. There trust and reputation is based on being fair and unbiased and they would fail if they ever comprimised that trust.

Industry groups rely on that same type of trust.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


If they say it isn't universal, then this suggests the question "how does one decide when it does apply?"

I've been thinking lately that unless a person is a complete idealogue, then that person is on some level a pragmatist. If you ever reject a principle because "it doesn't work well," doesn't that mean that practical utility trumps that principle?

Just something that popped into my head. I need to find a hobby, like drinking or something.

It's a good question and one I don't have an answer to. But it seems you are trying to find some universal tool and we all know that doesn't exist. You need to find the tool that works for the job you are doing. The jobs change, the tools must change.

Political ideologies are just tools. To say that one will fit all jobs is patently false. Remember, we are talking about the formation of a populace into a functional society. Obviously when you have a populace of two, the best tool for the job isn't the same you would use on a populace of 200 million.

But for some reason, too many believe that politics is an absolute and only one tool is the best. Obviously that is not true. As Claus pointed out, the Scandanavian countries do quite well with their welfare states. That's fine, I'm glad it works there. There is a lot of good that comes from that. But to say that since it works there, it should work everywhere is false. You have differences of culture, geology, history, values, etc....

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You said before that a DUI is an initiation of force. Explain how that follows from the above. Explain how a DUI keeps someone else from acting freely.

By placing them in a situation that is far more dangerous than what they have agreed to or are aware of. We all accept a certain amount of danger when we get into our cars, but anyone who is not in control of the vehicle poses a direct threat to everyone around them.

If they want to get drunk and drive on their own private road, that's fine. But they don't get to endanger others.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
But if Shane is arguing that, he could qualify it to say "Do not initiate force inside a Libertarian Nation" and you scenario would not disprove this, because there is no Libertarian Nation in your scenario. :)

Yes, a Libertarian nation operates under the noninitiation of force principle. This necessitates there having been the formation of a nation, otherwise there wouldn't be a nation that could be Libertarian to begin with.

I said in the island example that libertarianism was kind of moot at first, while everyone was just struggling for survival. Suddenly knows this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by gnome
I do have one concern about this situation... though I consider it reasonable... what to do when a company decides it does better with Snardo's "Yep!" Certification for product safety as with a legitimate service? The customer won't know the difference, it's got a nice shiny sticker on it with an official-looking checkmark.

Well, what would you do with such a company today? You're never going to get past caveat emptor.

But it is still the case that the company would be held liable for any harm their product caused; and, by extension, the certification body could be held liable too if they represent the product as safe. A certification body with lax standards would not last long.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If they say it isn't universal, then this suggests the question "how does one decide when it does apply?"

Simple: It applies when governments are formed, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Clear cut case in point, one of the most trusted names in this field is Consumer Reports. They are so trusted, precisly [i]because[i] they are unbiased. They accept no advertising and purchase everything they review themselves. If Consumer Reports says something is good, you have a damn good chance of knowing it is good. If they say it is bad, I wouldn't buy it. There trust and reputation is based on being fair and unbiased and they would fail if they ever comprimised that trust.

The "Good Housekeeping" Seal is another example.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


It's a good question and one I don't have an answer to. But it seems you are trying to find some universal tool and we all know that doesn't exist. You need to find the tool that works for the job you are doing. The jobs change, the tools must change.

Political ideologies are just tools. To say that one will fit all jobs is patently false. Remember, we are talking about the formation of a populace into a functional society. Obviously when you have a populace of two, the best tool for the job isn't the same you would use on a populace of 200 million.

But for some reason, too many believe that politics is an absolute and only one tool is the best. Obviously that is not true. As Claus pointed out, the Scandanavian countries do quite well with their welfare states. That's fine, I'm glad it works there. There is a lot of good that comes from that. But to say that since it works there, it should work everywhere is false. You have differences of culture, geology, history, values, etc....

Yep. We've been saying the same thing, except you've been saying it in english. Thus the confusion.

I'm for the complete absence of universal rules... except where they are needed. ;)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


By placing them in a situation that is far more dangerous than what they have agreed to or are aware of. We all accept a certain amount of danger when we get into our cars, but anyone who is not in control of the vehicle poses a direct threat to everyone around them.

If they want to get drunk and drive on their own private road, that's fine. But they don't get to endanger others.

Sorry. I don't see how "increased threat of harm" equates into keeping someone from acting freely. They have the same freedom of action either way.

Is everything that people do that raises the risk of danger to another person an initiation of force, and if not how can you tell the difference?

Don't drowsy drivers increase the risk? Those that talk on cell phones while driving? What about people with poor choice of footwear? Should there be laws about this as well?

[Diezel]

I guess I should try to tie many of the things I said together and answer the question you are probably getting ready to ask "Why do you think libertarian ideals are the best tool for the job in the US?" (although I wouldn't characterize me ideals as libertarian)

Population is the major factor. Remember what I said about people being selfish and charity is a form of personal profit? Claus asks why it works in the instances it does?

The "warm and fuzzy feeling" people get when helping others is greatly diminished when they don't get the pleasure of seeing it appreciated. Why do you think they send you a picture of some kid when you donate to one of those "adopt-a-foreign-child" charitys? Because they know that people want to make themselves feel good when they donate and they feel much better when they actually see where their money is going.

This is why most people will tell you they would rather donate to a local charity than a national one. This is why it is so easy to get $250 for a software upgrade in about four posts, then it would be to try to get $250 in a general skepticism fund. The people knew where there money was going, they will see the benefits.

Now, in a small country of say 5 million people, situated in a small geographic area, the sense of familiarity is still not gone. A person in Denmark can still feel good about their charity, because they can still see the good it is doing. They still feel a common bond with everyone in their country, they still all feel as neighbors. So helping out the neighbors still feels good.

In Japan, anyone that is Japanese is treated like they are family. In the US, most people believe in the quote "Good fences make good neighbors." We are so large and diverse, in both culture and geography, we no longer feel like "family". What does a person in NYC care about a person in the hills of West Virginia? Or a person in Alaska care about a person in MI? Other than both happening to live in the same country, they have nothing in common. By no means do they feel like neighbors. And they will definitly not see the benefit their money is doing for those people. Naturally, they are not going to get any personal profit from their charity, so they are not going to be too happy about it.

Because I believe people are inherently selfish, I feel the best way to deal with that is not force them against their nature. Let them be selfish. This doesn't mean that nobody will ever give to charity, it will mean they will give it where they will maximize thier own personal profit, into their own community.

In Denmark, the whole country may feel like a community, so running a welfare state may seem appealing to them. But other than a few polarizing instances in US, people in the US do not feel all of our countrymen are "neighbors".

And there is another downside to government welfare in a large populace. When welfare is giving from a familiar source, say neighbors or a community group, the people that receive this help see the people that are helping them. They "feel the love" this help is given with. They understand that it was given to them to help them out. And they feel appreciation for it.

When help is given from a nameless, faceless entity such as government, there is less appreciation. And there is less incentive to give back to those that helped you. If your neighbor comes over to give you a hand, you appreciate what he has done for you and you feel that as soon as you can, you will help him out or pay him back as soon as possible. But do most people in the US that receive help appreciate where it is coming from? Does it give them the incentive to give back as soon as they can? My answer is no, they don't. And it is mostly not their fault, because it is hard to see that the help they are getting is actually coming from everyone. Some people in this country think the government just prints up money and passes it out; they seriously can't understand the government gets its money from the people, so the money they get is coming from the people.

In a small population, it is still possible to see the faces behind the government, so they may not suffer from this effect. I am often asked "Why isn't there a splurge of 'Welfare Babies" in Sweden?", this is one answer. In a small population, it may still be possible to feel the social obligation you have to use the help to better yourself, because that is why your neighbors gave it to you. In the US, that just doesn't exist anymore. And you may ask "What social obligation?" The one that exists when you give money like this. If you gave money to your friend to pay his rent and he drank it all, would you be happy? If a friend gave you money to go to school, so you could get a decent job, wouldn't you feel obligated to your friend to go to school and get a good job? Would it be proper and ethical to drop or flunk out of school and waste that money?

And isn't that the concept of welfare? To help those that can't help themselves? For the ones that can never help themselves, then it is a grant. But for those that can help themselves, it is a grant with the social agreement that they will use that money to put themselves into a position to help themselves. When they don't do that, they fail that social argreement. In a small population, people may be able to still feel that social obligation, but in a large populace, it becomes impossible. It is such and impersonal process, there is no connection between the help and the people giving the help.

That's why I feel the best way to approach charity in the US is from a local, community level. This is where it is best applied, best used, best appreciated and sees the best returns. When people with faces are able to give to people with faces, everyone wins.

That is how I decided which tool to use in this situation.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Simple: It applies when governments are formed, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

So if there is no government as you describe, the non-initiation of force principle does not apply and a libertarian is justified in initiating force? Is that your position?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Your selective quote-mining aside, I have said on numerous different occasions that there will be jerks; the only question is what should be done about them.

What big government does is actually give them an avenue for being jerks, and so we have to put up with many more jerks than we would otherwise. Case in point: I mentioned in a couple of other threads that our Commissioners a few months ago rejected a zoning plan that would allow a man to build a restaurant, even though it was approved unanimously by the planning board, because of ONE jerk who stood up during the Commissioners meeting and blathered on about how she didn't want her kids exposed to alcohol. Without big government, all she could do is b!tch and moan about it, but she wouldn't have the power to force her will on the restaurant owner without resorting to criminal activity.

You can't force people not to be jerks. All you can do is take away the big government tools that allow them to be jerks over each other, and hold them responsible when they try to force their jerkiness on others.

Furthermore, I have explained this to you both so many times that the only possible explanation for your claims about libertarianism in this thread is that you are either deliberately lying or are deluding yourselves. Either way, it is a sign of pure bigotry, and a refusal to consider the arguments of the other side. This behavior is not becoming of people who call themselves skeptics.

We live near the beach, so in summer there is a big problem with drunken youths. Some idiot wanted to open up a bottle shop on the corner of the street. We all opposed it, got turned down. My anecdote will beat your anecdote any day.

BTW, one person objecting will not mean that a proposal will be turned down. It is still assessed on it's merits, and how it fits in with regulations. For example, you cannot put a business in a residential area. This means you won't wake up one day to find a panel beating shop has been set up next door to you.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

(snip)

Harry Browne wouldn't have gotten rid of national defense.

Shane, thanks for the response. I'm always better off being better informed, even if we don't agree.

Harry Browne most certainly would not have gotten rid of national defense. However, that was how the question was asked. Methinks he was looking for someone who was thinking to themselves, "I'd get rid of public education for the benefit of not having to pay income tax." ...or something to that effect.

But, the first thing I thought of were the things that we want government to provide, things like national defense and law enforcement. I'd gladly not pay income tax and get those services, but I wouldn't want to be rid of them for the benefit of keeping that extra income.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
So if there is no government as you describe, the non-initiation of force principle does not apply and a libertarian is justified in initiating force? Is that your position?

No, I'm saying that government policies are moot when there is no government.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I decided to take a little peak at Shanek's link about libertarianism:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993


I like the following quote:


In a Libertarian America, government will be so small, there will be no need for an income tax. Thus you'll have the resources to acquire whatever you need to protect you from incompetence, double-dealing, or even violence. And if the assistance you hire doesn't work, you can turn to someone who does a better job -- unlike when politicians take your money, leave you helpless and force you to rely on them to do the right thing.


Does this mean I'm free to murder with impunity, as long as I do it better than anyone else? Or can afford better protection?

[Cain]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Does this mean I'm free to murder with impunity, as long as I do it better than anyone else? Or can afford better protection?

Yes and no.

The problem with Libertarians is that they're not willing to go full circle and privatize government. Imagine a society where private defense agencies vie for your hard-earned dollars in a free-market; as opposed to the current bumbling and inefficient government monopoly on force.

Yes, in theory you could murder a person who is incapable of enforcing their rights to non-interference... but private protection firms acting on market principles would not allow that to happen. They would have made the ne'er-do-wells slaves long before you had the opportunity.

If you are displeased with firm A's services, then you can go right down the block to B. Or you can tell both of them to screw off, purchase a stockpile of weapons and save a load of money.

How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. The free-market will do it.

[heath]

If, as diezel says, libertarianism relies on the current state of ownership what happens with inheritance?

If somebody "owns" a large estate now and dies intestate who get it?

My understanding of libertarianism is that it'd be a land grab and the first squatter in gets it all. Anything else would need to be "enforced by men with guns" from the gubment right? Or would the goal posts be arbitrarily moved again to say that laws and government intervention in this regard is ok. But not anywhere else (unless we find more cases where it rationally needs to then we'll shift the posts again).

[Diezel]

Originally posted by heath
If, as diezel says, libertarianism relies on the current state of ownership what happens with inheritance?

If somebody "owns" a large estate now and dies intestate who get it?

My understanding of libertarianism is that it'd be a land grab and the first squatter in gets it all. Anything else would need to be "enforced by men with guns" from the gubment right? Or would the goal posts be arbitrarily moved again to say that laws and government intervention in this regard is ok. But not anywhere else (unless we find more cases where it rationally needs to then we'll shift the posts again).

I'm not quite sure where you got that idea. Unless I am grossly mistaken, the LP has no problem with inheritance as it is practiced today (minus estate taxes, etc....)

I've never heard they feel it should be a land grab. Maybe me omitting inheritance from my list of ways to obtain land was your reason for stating this. If that is so, I apologize, it was just an over-sight on my part.

[heath]

Originally posted by Diezel


I'm not quite sure where you got that idea. Unless I am grossly mistaken, the LP has no problem with inheritance as it is practiced today (minus estate taxes, etc....)

I've never heard they feel it should be a land grab. Maybe me omitting inheritance from my list of ways to obtain land was your reason for stating this. If that is so, I apologize, it was just an over-sight on my part.

Re-read my question. Somebody without a will, intestate.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by heath


Re-read my question. Somebody without a will, intestate.

I didn't pick up on that, sorry. It is not a common word used here.

Are you also stating this same person has no living relatives at all? (because if that person did, will or not, it would still be passed down after it was determined by the court how it should be divided between each relative)

If the person had no living relatives, the government would take the land and sell it at auction. This would be well within their mandate to protect land ownership.

(this is not the official LP line, but what I believe should happen)

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Does this mean I'm free to murder with impunity, as long as I do it better than anyone else? Or can afford better protection?

You know that isn't the case with libertarianism, and you know perfectly well that isn't what Browne was talking about.

You've been shown before that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone; all they can do is mop up afterwards. You're not "free to murder," as you can be arrested and put in jail for it. But from the victim's point of view, it's much better for them to be able to have the means of defending themselves from that murderer.

And yet, you still stubbornly refuse to understand.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
The problem with Libertarians is that they're not willing to go full circle and privatize government. Imagine a society where private defense agencies vie for your hard-earned dollars in a free-market; as opposed to the current bumbling and inefficient government monopoly on force.

This actually happens in reality in many areas today, such as malls and apartment complexes. They hire their own police force. And yes, they are actual police, not just security guards; they have the full power to make arrests etc. And they do indeed have the choice of who is going to run their police force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by heath
My understanding of libertarianism is that it'd be a land grab and the first squatter in gets it all.

Then you don't understand libertarianism.

The rest of your post is just incoherent rambling. You've juxtaposed the "men with guns" argument into an area where it is never used by Libertarians. The whole point of the "men with guns" argument is that, since government is force at the point of a gun, it should be used only when the force of a gun is justified. And the force of a gun is justified to protect one's property rights from the initiation of force or fraud by others, as would be the case if others tried to come in and grab the land from its rightful inheritors.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No, I'm saying that government policies are moot when there is no government.

Are all moral principles moot without government, or are you saying "do not initiate force" not a moral principle and merely a policy whose existence is contingent on government?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Then you don't understand libertarianism.

The rest of your post is just incoherent rambling. You've juxtaposed the "men with guns" argument into an area where it is never used by Libertarians. The whole point of the "men with guns" argument is that, since government is force at the point of a gun, it should be used only when the force of a gun is justified. And the force of a gun is justified to protect one's property rights from the initiation of force or fraud by others, as would be the case if others tried to come in and grab the land from its rightful inheritors.

Who decides who the "rightful inheritors" are when there is no will? That is the question asked, and your answer does not address it.

Is it a legitimate function of a libertarian government to determine succession when a person dies with no will?

If so, what if the person has no living relatives and no will. What happens to the property then?

[heath]

In your example isn't the govt auctioning off the estate accepting that the govt fundamentally owns the property? Who gets the proceeds? I get the impression libertarians don't believe the govt should. Then who? Charity? Which? Who decides?

I was meaning the even less clear cut case of living relatives but no will. Who gets to decide where assets go? Who gets the land, the car, the business and the old toe nail collection? As the owner can't decide (dead) and hasn't given anyone else the "right" to decide (no will) I think libertarians must say landgrab. Anything else doesn't fit with what I understand their principals to be.

I think we need to get the stance of somebody that is a libertarian or we'll be arguing things they don't say or don't believe.

[Ed.- Sorry heath, I hit edit instead of quote, so I accidentally edited your post when I thought I was quoting it. It is back to its original form ~ Diezel]

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Are all moral principles moot without government,

Libertarian is a political philosophy. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about one's individual moral philosophy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Who decides who the "rightful inheritors" are when there is no will?

The descendents of the deceased, duh. And yes, you will need a court to sort all of this out. So?

If so, what if the person has no living relatives and no will. What happens to the property then?

Same thing that happens now, really.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by heath

In your example isn't the govt auctioning off the estate accepting that the govt fundamentally owns the property? Who gets the proceeds? I get the impression libertarians don't believe the govt should. Then who? Charity? Which? Who decides?

I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamentally”. I take that to mean that the government really owns your land, only giving you rights to own it while you are alive, or have relatives to pass it to. That is not the case.

But, yes, at the point you die and have nobody to pass it to on to, the government then “owns” the property. When they sell it, they keep the money. I have no problem with this, as it offsets the costs of what the answer I will give to you for your next question.

I was meaning the even less clear cut case of living relatives but no will. Who gets to decide where assets go? Who gets the land, the car, the business and the old toe nail collection? As the owner can't decide (dead) and hasn't given anyone else the "right" to decide (no will) I think libertarians must say landgrab. Anything else doesn't fit with what I understand their principals to be.

You missed the main point of the mandate for government, which is to mediate any contract disputes. So it is perfectly within keeping with LP principles to let the government mediate an estate that has no will.

I think we need to get the stance of somebody that is a libertarian or we'll be arguing things they don't say or don't believe.

True. But I can point out major misconceptions you seem to have, such as above.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamentally”. I take that to mean that the government really owns your land, only giving you rights to own it while you are alive, or have relatives to pass it to. That is not the case.

If that's not the case, then how come the government can sieze my land if I refuse to pay their extortion money?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


If that's not the case, then how come the government can sieze my land if I refuse to pay their extortion money?

Are we now talking about the current government, or a libertarian/my non-libertarian-but-close-to-it-idealized-government?

But either question is easy. They can take it for the same reason I could take it from you, if you failed to pay a debt to me (although, honestly, in todays government, it is much harder for me to get your property, even if you do owe me). You have failed to pay a legal debt and the government mandate to mediate contracts allows them to settle unpaid debts. You have a contract to pay taxes, you failed your part of the contract, therefore the government is allowed to collect the legal debt you owe them, so they take your property.

And I'm not going to argue if those taxes are legal or not, I'm just answering your question. It has nothing to do with them fundamentally owning your land.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamentally”. I take that to mean that the government really owns your land, only giving you rights to own it while you are alive, or have relatives to pass it to. That is not the case.


Actually, a close examination of our property laws seems to indicate otherwise, as I suggested in the initial post of this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27283)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Are we now talking about the current government, or a libertarian/my non-libertarian-but-close-to-it-idealized-government?

The current government...unless your close-to-libertarian government would require me to pay protection money, too, in which case I guess I'm talking about both.

But either question is easy. They can take it for the same reason I could take it from you, if you failed to pay a debt to me (although, honestly, in todays government, it is much harder for me to get your property, even if you do owe me). You have failed to pay a legal debt and the government mandate to mediate contracts allows them to settle unpaid debts.

And how am I indebted to the government simply because I own a piece of property?

You have a contract to pay taxes,

Really? I'm sure you can show me the paper with my signature, right?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Actually, a close examination of our property laws seems to indicate otherwise, as I suggested in the initial post of this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27283)

I understand your reasoning, but I have to disagree. I don't see them as having fundamental ownership, but just see them as mediators of contracts that happen to obtain property when nobody else wants/has claim to it.

Think of it in this terms:

Your company has a set of season tickets to the hockey game. The secretary is in charge of distributing these tickets to each game. She goes to the President and he doesn't want them, either does the VP, or any of the workers.

Sure, there may be others that may want those tickets, but let's say the rule is only 5 people can ever get them and if they don't want them, she keeps them. Now they have legal claim. By mandate, it is stated that if nobody else (who have a claim in the matter) wants them, she can keep them.

Would you say she has fundamental ownership of those tickets? I sure wouldn't.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek

The current government...unless your close-to-libertarian government would require me to pay protection money, too, in which case I guess I'm talking about both.

And this is where I stray far from the LP, because of views like this.

And how am I indebted to the government simply because I own a piece of property?

Because your piece of property is contained within an artificial boundary that a group of property owners created in order to group together and create a society. It is a social contract you agreed to.

Really? I'm sure you can show me the paper with my signature, right?

Sure, just look at the title to your property.

But the main contract I am talking about is the social contract you have made by agreeing to live within a certain society. You have accepted to live by their rules. If you do not like those rules, you are free to leave that society.

And if you think social contracts aren't real, go sneeze right in someone's face. He may break his social contract that says he won't use violence against you. :D

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


I understand your reasoning, but I have to disagree. I don't see them as having fundamental ownership, but just see them as mediators of contracts that happen to obtain property when nobody else wants/has claim to it.

Think of it in this terms:

Your company has a set of season tickets to the hockey game. The secretary is in charge of distributing these tickets to each game. She goes to the President and he doesn't want them, either does the VP, or any of the workers.

Sure, there may be others that may want those tickets, but let's say the rule is only 5 people can ever get them and if they don't want them, she keeps them. Now they have legal claim. By mandate, it is stated that if nobody else (who have a claim in the matter) wants them, she can keep them.

Would you say she has fundamental ownership of those tickets? I sure wouldn't.

There is no concept in our property law called "fundamental ownership." Many people can have an ownership interest in a piece of property, while only one (or class of joint owners) can enjoy the use of the land (possession, etc.) at the present. If we consider all rights in the hypo you propose as property rights, the secretary does own an interest in the property. That interest is contingent upon the other people not taking possession, but it is what the law would consider a property interest (employment issues notwithstanding).

The time-sensitive value of the tickets (usually worthless after the game) makes the problem unusual, but there is an identifyable interest belonging to the secretary.

There is no problem with more than one person having an ownership interest in a thing. All I suggest is that the government retains a very small future interest that only matures into full possession once the "fee simple" fails, that is a person dies with no will or legal heir. This doesn't make them the "fundamental owner" as the interest may never mature and does not provide them with any rights in the present.

Also, there are small differences between real and personal property in some situations, and I am using a few legal terms less than precisely, but I'm trying to keep it simple.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Diezel


Again, the hypothetical is not valid, because Libertarianism is a philosophy that was developed after initation of force to gain land was already obsolete.




Nonsense. You might as well have said slavery is ok because the ownership of the slaves was claimed BEFORE laws that forbid it were enacted.



You are trying to apply a concept to a situation Libertarianism was never meant to deal with.



Libertarianism seems to place a high value on property rights without deciding what constitutes a valid claim on property.

Again, it seems all quite laughable to me.



Can we agree this scenario is never going to play out in today's world? Can we agree that it is just as ludicrous to try to apply an ideology to a situation that would have never happened at the time the ideology was developed, let alone any time after that?



Which scenario exactly, "first come first serve?".

Presuming we eventually do get to the point where space is colonized, wouldn't it apply then? Hm?

If the ideology fails to take into account the origin of legitimate ownership, then claims to assign rights based upon that ownership, I'd have to say it's working of an arbitrary premise.

Do you not see it laughable that a system which invalidates land ownership through initiation of force simply ignores that this is exactly how much of the land on this planet was gained?



It just doesn't work.

I'll agree with you here, though not in the way you intended it. ;)

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


It is your perfect right to make that decision. But justification is there for forcing that decision on others?

Some would say the betterment of society. *shrug* If the majority of people in the area want to have a social contract that dictates a percentage of your income goes to help the needy, then I have no problem with that.

If they don't, well, they can always vote in a government that doesn't want it, like, say, a Libertarian one.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


There is no concept in our property law called "fundamental ownership." Many people can have an ownership interest in a piece of property, while only one (or class of joint owners) can enjoy the use of the land (possession, etc.) at the present. If we consider all rights in the hypo you propose as property rights, the secretary does own an interest in the property. That interest is contingent upon the other people not taking possession, but it is what the law would consider a property interest (employment issues notwithstanding).

The time-sensitive value of the tickets (usually worthless after the game) makes the problem unusual, but there is an identifyable interest belonging to the secretary.

There is no problem with more than one person having an ownership interest in a thing. All I suggest is that the government retains a very small future interest that only matures into full possession once the "fee simple" fails, that is a person dies with no will or legal heir. This doesn't make them the "fundamental owner" as the interest may never mature and does not provide them with any rights in the present.

Also, there are small differences between real and personal property in some situations, and I am using a few legal terms less than precisely, but I'm trying to keep it simple.

I agree with everything you said. I was the one that was saying there was no "fundamental ownership".

Yes, I agree, that in the situation we have set up, the government does have an interest in the property. But that is a far cry from the government owning all the property and our "ownership" of property is just a temporary grant from the state - which is what I take "fundamental ownership" to mean.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Valmorian

Nonsense. You might as well have said slavery is ok because the ownership of the slaves was claimed BEFORE laws that forbid it were enacted.

False analogy. Your are trying to equate a moral truth with a political ideology. Apples to oranges.

Libertarianism seems to place a high value on property rights without deciding what constitutes a valid claim on property.

No, I’m pretty sure they have defined what a legal property claim is. I don’t know what that is, but I’m sure they define it as “legal claim”. And I’m sure they define what a “legal claim” is. And my guess will be that their definition of a legal claim will not include a situation as discussed.

Again, it seems all quite laughable to me.

I’m not sure why you find it laughable. The thought of someone thinking there is some type of universal truth when it comes to politics is laughable to me. Actually, the intermingling of politics and morals, as if they should somehow be one, is laughable also.


Which scenario exactly, "first come first serve?".

Presuming we eventually do get to the point where space is colonized, wouldn't it apply then? Hm?

If the ideology fails to take into account the origin of legitimate ownership, then claims to assign rights based upon that ownership, I'd have to say it's working of an arbitrary premise.

Do you not see it laughable that a system which invalidates land ownership through initiation of force simply ignores that this is exactly how much of the land on this planet was gained?

Not at all. Do you find the game of soccer laughable, when it has a strict rule against using your hands, even though the game evolved from a game where using your hands was an integral part of the game?

I think I have gone in great length about the dynamic nature of government and how it evolves, yet you still want to misapply a latter theory to an earlier premise. I really don’t know how much more I can do to explain why that doesn’t work.

[Diezel]

Here, I finally did a quick Google search for the information that everyone wants. This is from the Canadian LP party, but it was the first that popped up:


Unclaimed Territory We oppose the recognition of fiat claims, advanced by nations or international boundaries, to currently unclaimed territory such as the ocean floor of extraterrestrial bodies. We support the development of objective standards for recognizing a claim of sovereignty over such territory.

Let me look farther, because I haven't found what those "objective standards" are.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Because your piece of property is contained within an artificial boundary that a group of property owners created in order to group together and create a society. It is a social contract you agreed to.

I've just got a real problem with this whole "social contract" thing. It smacks to me of mob rule.

Sure, just look at the title to your property.

I did, and I don't see an amount for a debt anywhere.

You have accepted to live by their rules. If you do not like those rules, you are free to leave that society.

And if you live in an area controlled by the mafia, you have accepted to live by their rules. If you do not like those rules, you are free to leave that area.

Do you really not see the problem with that?

And if you think social contracts aren't real, go sneeze right in someone's face. He may break his social contract that says he won't use violence against you. :D

The courts would almost certainly rule in my favor if I decided to sue him for assault.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If we consider all rights in the hypo you propose as property rights, the secretary does own an interest in the property. That interest is contingent upon the other people not taking possession, but it is what the law would consider a property interest (employment issues notwithstanding).

But as I understand his hypothetical, she cannot choose to sell the tickets to whomever she pleases. Therefore, she cannot really be said to own them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Nonsense. You might as well have said slavery is ok because the ownership of the slaves was claimed BEFORE laws that forbid it were enacted.

It's not quite the same. Slavery, at least as it was practiced in the US and Britain before it, was a government institution. The government set up the rules of slavery and regulated it very tightly. For evidence, just look at all of the legal problems Washington and Jefferson had in trying to free their slaves. If slaves really were property as Libertarians use the word (not that Libertarians accept that people can ever be considered property), then there should have been no barrier towards freeing them.

Which scenario exactly, "first come first serve?".

Are you familiar with the concept of "homesteading"?

Do you not see it laughable that a system which invalidates land ownership through initiation of force simply ignores that this is exactly how much of the land on this planet was gained?

But that argument makes exactly as much sense as slavery reparations. Show me someone alive today who took land from someone else by force and then we can make them give it back.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek
I've just got a real problem with this whole "social contract" thing. It smacks to me of mob rule.

It's not mob rule, but I can see where you might mistake that. We all live under a mirade of social contracts - I won't sneeze in your face, you won't hit me, I live in the society, I agree to abide by the rules.

If you honestly feel you have't agreed to a social contract, then you must also deny the government has any right to arrest you for criminal behaviour. Are you saying that also?

I did, and I don't see an amount for a debt anywhere.

No, maybe not a direct number. But I'm sure (and I'm not a real estate lawyer), there is language in there that states that by purchasing your land, you are agreeing to live up to the terms of the community you are living in, be that city, county, state and national.

The courts would almost certainly rule in my favor if I decided to sue him for assault.

Of course they would, but that wasn't the point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
It's not mob rule, but I can see where you might mistake that. We all live under a mirade of social contracts - I won't sneeze in your face, you won't hit me, I live in the society, I agree to abide by the rules.

Who makes the rules? Who enforces them?

If you honestly feel you have't agreed to a social contract, then you must also deny the government has any right to arrest you for criminal behaviour. Are you saying that also?

I submit there's a difference between a social contract and the rule of law. According to the rule of law, you are guilty of assault if you hit me even if I did sneeze in your face beforehand. So you must be referring to something other than the rule of law, therefore your conclusion that this would deny the ability of the government to arrest criminals is specious.

No, maybe not a direct number. But I'm sure (and I'm not a real estate lawyer), there is language in there that states that by purchasing your land, you are agreeing to live up to the terms of the community you are living in, be that city, county, state and national.

I agree to submit to the rule of law, true. But that doesn't justify tyranny. Remember, the contract goes the other way, too. The Constitution is supposed to restrict the government and stop them from doing things like siezing my land just because I won't submit to their protection racket. I'm supposed to be protected from unreasonable searches and siezures.

Of course they would, but that wasn't the point.

But it does illustrate that this "social contract" you speak of is different than the rule of law.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


But as I understand his hypothetical, she cannot choose to sell the tickets to whomever she pleases. Therefore, she cannot really be said to own them.

I am talking about her having an ownership interest as defined by our property laws. That she has a future interest contingent upon the other people not using the tickets is clear. If they do not want them, they belong to her to do with as she pleases. In fact, there is nothing in the hypo that prevents her from selling or transferring this interest, employment issues notwithstanding.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek
But it does illustrate that this "social contract" you speak of is different than the rule of law.

I think you are missing the point - you submitting to the rule of law is you fulfilling your social contract! You agree that if you commit a crime, the government is justifed in action against you. That is the social contract I am talking about!

Yes, the contract goes both ways, I never said it didn't. But, like it or not, you agreed that you will live in this society, so you will play by the current rules. You also agreed that if you didn't like the rules, you have the right to change them, legally.

Where's my signed contract that says I agreed not to break the law? Why didn't you ask that?

By you leaving in society, you have agreed to [insert legal term meaning agreed to without express consent, or something like that] live by the rules of that society as they are set. Some of the rules have to do with not committing crime. Some of those rules have to do with paying taxes. You can't seperate one from the other and say you never agreed to it.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I am talking about her having an ownership interest as defined by our property laws. That she has a future interest contingent upon the other people not using the tickets is clear. If they do not want them, they belong to her to do with as she pleases. In fact, there is nothing in the hypo that prevents her from selling or transferring this interest, employment issues notwithstanding.

Correct. When they became hers, they were hers to do with as she pleases.

She cannot sell them before she has exhausted all avenues to give them to a person with legal claim. But once they become hers, she can do as she pleases.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I am talking about her having an ownership interest as defined by our property laws. That she has a future interest contingent upon the other people not using the tickets is clear. If they do not want them, they belong to her to do with as she pleases. In fact, there is nothing in the hypo that prevents her from selling or transferring this interest, employment issues notwithstanding.

That wasn't how I read it; he did say "only 5 people can ever get them." But if what you say is true, then yes, I would consider it a form of ownership, albeit a conditional one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
I think you are missing the point - you submitting to the rule of law is you fulfilling your social contract! You agree that if you commit a crime, the government is justifed in action against you. That is the social contract I am talking about!

No, because your sneezing example shows a contract that is contrary to the rule of law. In your social contract, I am in the wrong for sneezing in his face, and he is justified for hitting me. According to the rule of law, he is not justified for hitting me and is guilty of assault.

Yes, the contract goes both ways, I never said it didn't. But, like it or not, you agreed that you will live in this society, so you will play by the current rules. You also agreed that if you didn't like the rules, you have the right to change them, legally.

And that is what I'm trying to do. I'm also trying to get the government to live up to its side of the bargain. Besides, if the government has breached their side of the contract, am I really obligated to keep mine?

[shanek]

One more question for Diezel: How has a non-property owner signed the "social contract"?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek
One more question for Diezel: How has a non-property owner signed the "social contract"?

Why is a signature so important to you? Do you understand that not all contracts require a signature? That is legal fact. There are many times you enter into contracts just be physically being in a certain place. By you entering that place, you have agreed to enter into a contract. If you do not wish to enter into that contract, you do not enter. It is that simple and it is legally binding in court. The lawyers could tell you the exact term for this.

To put it more simply, if I enter into Canada, I have agreed to abide by their rules. I can't try to claim I didn't sign anything to agree with their rules, just my entering their country was the binder on the contract.

So, just by being a US citizen, you have agreed to this contract. Sure, you were born here so it wasn't your choice. But it is your choice to leave. Or, a much better choice, to stay and try to change things. But you can't claim you never entered into, or are aware of, the contract.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Diezel


That may be, but I will answer from the basis of my own thoughts.

These days, about the only real way an individual has rights to land is through a legal purchase.

But classically, ownership rights could be gotten by three means:

1) Purchase
2) Initial Claim (Discovery)
3) Use of Force

Since there isn't much land to discover anymore, #2 is out. And since #3 can only be done by governments, that is out too. And that is now being viewed as a crime by the international community. So, nowadays, you can only purchase land.



It may help to consider different theories of the origin of property in the context of other "non-real" property, in which case #2 is still very much alive.

Mainly, there is the so-called "intellectual property", which is the subject of much controversy today.

There's also stuff like EMF bands (which in the US are owned by the government and leased to private enterprises)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diezel


Why is a signature so important to you? Do you understand that not all contracts require a signature? That is legal fact. There are many times you enter into contracts just be physically being in a certain place. By you entering that place, you have agreed to enter into a contract. If you do not wish to enter into that contract, you do not enter. It is that simple and it is legally binding in court. The lawyers could tell you the exact term for this.

To put it more simply, if I enter into Canada, I have agreed to abide by their rules. I can't try to claim I didn't sign anything to agree with their rules, just my entering their country was the binder on the contract.

So, just by being a US citizen, you have agreed to this contract. Sure, you were born here so it wasn't your choice. But it is your choice to leave. Or, a much better choice, to stay and try to change things. But you can't claim you never entered into, or are aware of, the contract.

Any act indicating a desire to accept an offer operates to create a contract, unless the person making the offer can specify that a certain act, be it opening a box or jumping on one foot, will indicate acceptance. Of course, it must be shown that the act was not done for another purpose, as intent is important. I can't say "if you accept, breathe." It would be hard to claim that the intent behind your next breath is intent to enter into a contract, rather than the attempt not to suffocate. A writing is only required by something called "The Statute of Frauds," and only in specific situations.

Many times a contract is entered into by the opening of a box, or even making a hole-in-one on a particular golf hole or bowling a strike when the headpin is red.

Plus, there is the idea that where a person knowingly accepts the benefits of another's performance where he knows the another to believe a contract exists, he cannot use the lack of assent to the contract as a defense. Explicit assent is not always necessary.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by phildonnia


It may help to consider different theories of the origin of property in the context of other "non-real" property, in which case #2 is still very much alive.

Mainly, there is the so-called "intellectual property", which is the subject of much controversy today.

There's also stuff like EMF bands (which in the US are owned by the government and leased to private enterprises)

Very true. I should have clarified my statement to mean only real, physical, geographical property.

#2 is very much alive in other property claims, or there wouldn't be treasue hunters. IIRC, unless there is some outstanding circumstance, lost property can be claimed by the first person to find it. So treasure hunters usually have a legal claim to the things they find.

There was an interesting case a while back. A contractor hired to do some demolition on an old house found a couple hundred thousands dollars tucked away in a false wall. The house was owned by a guy that had just bought it from another guy.

The contractor, the current owner of the house and the former owner of the house all tried to claim ownership of the money. They found evidence the false wall was built well before any of them had been near the house, but the original owner (who they were pretty sure the money belonged to) was well dead and out of the picture..

The contractors claim was he was the first to find the money, so it should be his. The former owner claimed that when he sold the house, the contract didn’t include property left in the house. So since the contract didn’t include the money, the money should be his. The current owner, naturally, argued it should be his, since he owns the house.

Who do you think got the money? Actually, it was settled in arbitration I believe, but all the experts I read seemed to think the law was behind the contractor! I guess a component of ownership is that you have to be aware you owned it. Since neither the former owner, nor the current owner, knew the money was there, they can’t claim ownership. So the ownership would fall to discovery.

I will try to find a link to that case, because it was quite interesting. And I may have messed up some details. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Why is a signature so important to you?

Okay, then, how have they consented to the contract?

There are many times you enter into contracts just be physically being in a certain place. By you entering that place, you have agreed to enter into a contract. If you do not wish to enter into that contract, you do not enter.

How has someone born into a country consented since they haven't entered?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

You know that isn't the case with libertarianism, and you know perfectly well that isn't what Browne was talking about.

If police protection is totally privatized, what happens to individuals that can't afford it? How are their rights protected?

You've been shown before that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone; all they can do is mop up afterwards. You're not "free to murder," as you can be arrested and put in jail for it. But from the victim's point of view, it's much better for them to be able to have the means of defending themselves from that murderer.


I'm free to murder as long as I choose victims that have paid for inferior protection! Why would my protection company allow someone else to arrest and put me in jail?

If you are suggesting the judicial and punitive systems would be gummint regulated? How do you plan on paying for that without federal, state and property taxes?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


Okay, then, how have they consented to the contract?

By being a citizen.

How has someone born into a country consented since they haven't entered?

By staying there. You can always give up your citizenship and go someplace else.

I don't know what else I can do to make you see there is a simple, legal contract, that is given with consent. I posted examples of such contracts, and Suddenly gave great examples. To deny these contracts exist is to deny perfectly acceptable evidence.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Cain

Yes, in theory you could murder a person who is incapable of enforcing their rights to non-interference... but private protection firms acting on market principles would not allow that to happen. They would have made the ne'er-do-wells slaves long before you had the opportunity.

Ahh, I see. I would have to pay off the firm before I could murder their property.

If you are displeased with firm A's services, then you can go right down the block to B. Or you can tell both of them to screw off, purchase a stockpile of weapons and save a load of money.


Yeah, but then A+B would probably just team up, kill me and divvy up my guns. Libertarianism really is the "Pro-Warlord" platform!

[Diezel]

I may have missed something, but where in the LP do they advocate private police? I just re-read their executive summary and they seem to be very for a swift and bold police force to arrest those that have committed crimes.

And national defense is one of the primary mandates they feel government should have. So who is advocating a privatized police force and/or military?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Diezel
I may have missed something, but where in the LP do they advocate private police? I just re-read their executive summary and they seem to be very for a swift and bold police force to arrest those that have committed crimes.

How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

And national defense is one of the primary mandates they feel government should have. So who is advocating a privatized police force and/or military?
How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

Harry Browne said the following in the linked article:


In a Libertarian America, government will be so small, there will be no need for an income tax. Thus you'll have the resources to acquire whatever you need to protect you from incompetence, double-dealing, or even violence. And if the assistance you hire doesn't work, you can turn to someone who does a better job -- unlike when politicians take your money, leave you helpless and force you to rely on them to do the right thing.


Is there any way to read that other than advocating private police protection?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If police protection is totally privatized,

Strawman and you know it.

I'm free to murder as long as I choose victims that have paid for inferior protection!

What are you blathering about? You are NOT free to murder ANYONE under Libertarianism! You know this, too, but you're just so desperate to discredit it you have to continually make up LOES—YES, LIES—about what it says.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
By being a citizen.

But they're a citizen at birth. So they can't be said to have taken any action to agree to anything.

By staying there.

But a 1-year-old can't exactly move away. At what point does this contract come into effect? If it comes into effect before they can leave the country, then how is it not forced on them under duress?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
I may have missed something, but where in the LP do they advocate private police?

They don't. EvilYeti's pulled this crap before, and I called him on it. Now he's trying it again.

I just re-read their executive summary and they seem to be very for a swift and bold police force to arrest those that have committed crimes.

Quite so. From http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.html:

The Libertarian Party's anti-crime plan would do what the Democrats and Republicans have not done:

Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.
Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.
Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.
Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.
Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.
This Libertarian program would help make America's streets safe again.

Note the highlighted (by me) portion.

And national defense is one of the primary mandates they feel government should have.

Right again. From http://www.lp.org/issues/national-defense.html:

Certainly America's defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States.

Again, EvilYeti knows this. It's been pointed out to him before.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

User fees and excises.

Is there any way to read that other than advocating private police protection?

Yes: It means that you would have the freedom to hire people to defend you. The police, as I've proven to you, have no obligation to defend you. They only have to mop up afterwards. They're a retributive force, not a defensive force.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

By taking in money other ways and cutting out everything but the police force and national defense.

Is there any way to read that other than advocating private police protection?

It seems it can be read that way, but I think I understand what he is saying.

I can't vouch for what Harry Browne thinks, but when I hear this, I think he is talking about having the extra money to spend on home security, etc.... With the extra money, the choice is yours on how and where to spend it. When paying such high taxes, you don't have the extra money to spend on home protection. But this doesn't mean you get rid of the police force entirely. People do this now anyway!

But I concede that Harry Browne is very close to saying what you think he is saying. It could be a bad choice of words, or he could mean it - I don't know. If he does mean, then that is just another reason I would never call myself a Libertarian - they seem to even go against their own principles.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek

But they're a citizen at birth. So they can't be said to have taken any action to agree to anything.

Ok, we can go with that. And the government doesn't ask anything from them in return. Actually, until you turn 18, they ask very little, if anything from you. It is not until you are 18 that the government really starts to ask you to fulfill your contract. At that time, you are free to leave. When you stay, you are consenting.

But that doesn't matter, because you are consenting even before that, by using their goods and services. The second you begin to use those, then you are consenting to the contract. The second you receive mail or drive down a road, you have accepted their goods and services. So they have taken an action to agree.

But a 1-year-old can't exactly move away. At what point does this contract come into effect? If it comes into effect before they can leave the country, then how is it not forced on them under duress?

Funny, you are worried about a 1-year old giving consent, yet you were the one asking for a signed piece of paper. Ok, we will give a pen to every newborn, if they sign the paper, they can stay and be a citizen. ;)

You forget, the second they are born, they start to use and enjoy the benefits of the society they are born into. And, like I said, except for a few minor things, that society doesn't ask much from that person until they turn 18. At that point, they can leave if they no longer feel they agree with the contract.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
By taking in money other ways and cutting out everything but the police force and national defense.

I should point out here that Constitutionally national defense is a Federal obligation while law enforcement is left to the states, and, by extension, to municipalities. So the Feds would have to raise the money for defense but not police; states and municipalities would raise money for the police but not national defense.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

User fees and excises.

Ah I see, Law Enforcement only for those that can afford it. So anyone is free to rape and murder the penniless with impunity, thanks for coming clean and admitting that.

Yes: It means that you would have the freedom to hire people to defend you. The police, as I've proven to you, have no obligation to defend you. They only have to mop up afterwards. They're a retributive force, not a defensive force.

Anyone is free to hire people to defend them NOW!!! Why do you think that is a special privelege only provided for Libertarian societies?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


I should point out here that Constitutionally national defense is a Federal obligation while law enforcement is left to the states, and, by extension, to municipalities. So the Feds would have to raise the money for defense but not police; states and municipalities would raise money for the police but not national defense.

Agreed. We have been kinda lumping it all together in this thread, so I am at fault for doing the same.

[EvilYeti]

The Libertarian Party's anti-crime plan would do what the Democrats and Republicans have not done:

* Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
* Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.
* Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.
* Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.
* Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.
* Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.

This Libertarian program would help make America's streets safe again.


*Criminals in our society pay restitution ALL THE TIME. We have an entire civil litigation system to cover this.

*Criminals are already held responsible for their actions in our society, REGARDLESS of whether their victims are able to pay usage fees or not. Contrast with the Libertarian ideal of police protection only for those that can afford it.

*Double resources with no additional spending? Are you sure this isn't a Republican claim? :) There is no free lunch, resources cost money, Libertarian politics or not.

*"Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets". Wow, what a brilliant idea! Those stupid politicians have been trying to INCREASE the criminals on the street! Thank god the LP is here to figure out such things for us! :rolleyes: In LP land there would be MANY more criminals at large, since there would be no way to pay for jails with out income and property taxes. Not to mention that criminals that prey on the poor would never be prosecuted.

*There is zero evidence that private ownership of guns deterrs more crime then it enables.

*"Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education."
And Libertarians are the only party working towards these goals? Seems I've seen these claims from before from Democrats and Republicans alike!

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Ah I see, Law Enforcement only for those that can afford it. So anyone is free to rape and murder the penniless with impunity, thanks for coming clean and admitting that.

Why do you lie? You know this isn't the case! Everyone would have equal protection under the law. The method of raising money to pay for it doesn't change that. You're jsut a sad, desperate little troll.

Anyone is free to hire people to defend them NOW!!!

Provided they comply with the thousands upon thousands of gun laws and other regulations that are getting in the way of this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
*Criminals in our society pay restitution ALL THE TIME.

No, they don't. Very few victims ever see a dime.

*Criminals are already held responsible for their actions in our society,

No, they aren't. There are so many ways criminals weasel out of it it's pathetic. Check the Enron guys, for example.

Contrast with the Libertarian ideal of police protection only for those that can afford it.

That's not a Libertarian ideal; that's another lie by you.

*Double resources with no additional spending? Are you sure this isn't a Republican claim?

No, the Republicans don't want to get rid of the War on Drugs.

There is no free lunch, resources cost money, Libertarian politics or not.

If you'd bother to actually read the whole thing, you would see that this is the case because Libertarians would end the War on Drugs, which right now is consuming half of the law enforcement resources in this country.

But you don't want to read. You don't want to know. You want only to troll and insult and belittle.

*"Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets". Wow, what a brilliant idea! Those stupid politicians have been trying to INCREASE the criminals on the street!

Yes, they have, by stuffing the prisons full of non-violent people who have committed victimless crimes. As a result, murderers, rapists, and child molesters have had to be set free because there's not enough space.

there would be no way to pay for jails with out income and property taxes.

Prove this.

Not to mention that criminals that prey on the poor would never be prosecuted.

No, this is you lying again.

*There is zero evidence that private ownership of guns deterrs more crime then it enables.

Wrong. There are reams of evidence, and it has been presented on this board before. Again, you know this, because you were there, so this is another lie.

*"Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education."
And Libertarians are the only party working towards these goals?

Yes. The big government parties are only stifling this.

Seems I've seen these claims from before from Democrats and Republicans alike!

The claim is made, but the reality doesn't back them up.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Why do you lie? You know this isn't the case! Everyone would have equal protection under the law. The method of raising money to pay for it doesn't change that. You're jsut a sad, desperate little troll.


You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."? If they are entitled to equal protection under the law who is going to pay for it?

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."? If they are entitled to equal protection under the law who is going to pay for it?

Yeti, you've obviously won the argument, after all, Shanek's turned to the end-all insult he uses when he's completely stonkered and out of ammo, he's called you a liar, in a situation where you are obviously (from the quote of his own words) no such thing.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."? If they are entitled to equal protection under the law who is going to pay for it?

I know this wasn't meant for me, but maybe I can clarify this a little better. When he says it will be paid for by "usage fees and excises", that doesn't mean those usuage fees are directly related to the police force.

As in income tax, the government collects money and disperses it to different programs. Your usage fee for, say, gasoline, would be paying for the police force.

So, no, you wouldn't have people not getting protection because they couldn't pay the usage fees. Everyone is protected. It is just a shift from where the government makes collects their money today (income tax & property tax, etc....) to a different way to collect money (usage fees and excises, etc....) But this doesn't in anyway mean there would be unequal protection from the police forces.

[Cain]

Originally posted by shanek


This actually happens in reality in many areas today, such as malls and apartment complexes. They hire their own police force. And yes, they are actual police, not just security guards; they have the full power to make arrests etc. And they do indeed have the choice of who is going to run their police force.

I have no doubt. But don't you agree private defense agencies should be allowed into all aspects of our lives (if we so choose, of course)? Not long ago auto manufacturers hired the Pinkertons to violently subdue workers!

EvilYeti writes:

Yeah, but then [private defense agencies] A+B would probably just team up, kill me and divvy up my guns. Libertarianism really is the "Pro-Warlord" platform!

They could team up and kill you! But we have to remind ourselves, as Shanek reminded Suddenly, what's in the rational self-interest of these capitalists. First, they might want to out-compete one another. Second, you could be a lot more valuable to them alive rather than dead. Third, if more guns really do cause less crime, as Libertarians insist, then it's in the rational self-interest of defense agencies to make sure every person is allowed to keep a firearm. That will end up reducing costs in the long term.

Government inevitably fails to recognize these "obvious" facts because it has an effective monopoly on force. So it grabs your guns and doesn't even protect you.

Three cheers for the free-market!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

No, they don't. Very few victims ever see a dime.

Because most criminals are poor. Libertarianism won't change that.

No, they aren't. There are so many ways criminals weasel out of it it's pathetic. Check the Enron guys, for example.

Haha, yeah, under LP polices the Enron gang wouldn't even be criminals! They would be enterprising capitalists!

That's not a Libertarian ideal; that's another lie by you.

Under a Libertarian government, whom would pay for police protection of the very poor?

No, the Republicans don't want to get rid of the War on Drugs.

I'm all in favor of ending the drug war so I ain't gonna argue with you there. I will say that if you think decriminalizing drugs

If you'd bother to actually read the whole thing, you would see that this is the case because Libertarians would end the War on Drugs, which right now is consuming half of the law enforcement resources in this country.

Great, I'm all in favor of that. But I'm also in favor of taxing and regulating the sale of drugs, so unfortunately I can't support

But you don't want to read. You don't want to know. You want only to troll and insult and belittle.

Thats the Libertarians fault for being such an easy target. If they took a rational position I would leave them alone.

Yes, they have, by stuffing the prisons full of non-violent people who have committed victimless crimes. As a result, murderers, rapists, and child molesters have had to be set free because there's not enough space.

Again, not disagreeing with you there. I think jails shouls be reserved for violent and career offenders only.

Prove this.

Jails are expensive to operate and are currently funded through income and property tax at the state level. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide


No, this is you lying again.

You have to demonstrate who would pay for the protection of those that cannot afford it in a Libertarian society.

Wrong. There are reams of evidence, and it has been presented on this board before. Again, you know this, because you were there, so this is another lie.

All you have to do win that debate is provide evidence of two things.

1) That American has signifigantly less crime than other industrialized nations with stricter gun control.

2) That criminals are shot, wounded and killed more often than innocent victims domestically OR that more crimes are prevented than comitted with guns.

Until then, in the abscence of evidence I reserve the right to be skeptical.

Yes. The big government parties are only stifling this.
The claim is made, but the reality doesn't back them up.

Why don't you wait until the LP has a non-zero amount of political influence before you go claiming they do more than real parties?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

Yes, and the money from that would go to the budget for the police to be used exactly as it is now.

We don't favor people who pay more Income Tax, do we? We don't favor property owners at the expense of non-property owners because they pay the property tax, do we? No, clearly not. It's the same thing here, and anyone can see it. It's just another one of your pathetic attempts at discrediting something you're biased against instead of understanding it.

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."?

The same thing that happens to people now who don't make enough to pay income tax or own property to pay property tax.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
I have no doubt. But don't you agree private defense agencies should be allowed into all aspects of our lives (if we so choose, of course)? Not long ago auto manufacturers hired the Pinkertons to violently subdue workers!

Of course there is a difference between a defense agency and a hired thug. The difference is whether or not they actually defend you, or if they just attack people you don't like.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Because most criminals are poor.

No, it's because the avenue is being closed to them. They aren't even allowed to try.

Haha, yeah, under LP polices the Enron gang wouldn't even be criminals! They would be enterprising capitalists!

No, they would be criminals. They initiated fraud against their stockholders. They should be thrown in jail and have their assets siezed until enough money is gained to pay back every cent they swindled. I've said this to you before, so this is, survey says...ANOTHER LIE!!!

Under a Libertarian government, whom would pay for police protection of the very poor?

It's not an issue. You pay for police protection; the police protect everyone equally, regardless of income.

Of course, right now, we're seeing a very unequal protection as police are less inclined to go into poor areas, which is arguably where they're needed most.

Thats the Libertarians fault for being such an easy target. If they took a rational position I would leave them alone.

The only irrationalities you can point out are ones that you've just made up.

Jails are expensive to operate and are currently funded through income and property tax at the state level.

Show this. Show the amount of taxes in the state budges that is NOT gathered through income and property taxes and show that it is less than the amount spent on prisons.

1) That American has signifigantly less crime than other industrialized nations with stricter gun control.

As I've pointed out to you before, cross-cultural comparisons are invalid because there are so many other variables than simple gun ownership.

2) That criminals are shot, wounded and killed more often than innocent victims domestically OR that more crimes are prevented than comitted with guns.

Already done. Check the other threads.

Why don't you wait until the LP has a non-zero amount of political influence

That would be, uh, now. In fact, my home state just added another elected Libertarian to office this year. Libertarians ARE getting elected, and they ARE making a difference. I've given you references to them doing just that. It might not be much right now, but it is non-zero.

[billydkid]

Libertarianism knows and assumes that people fallible, greedy, stupid and every other bad thing you can think of to varying degrees. This is precisely why the libertarians are so strongly against authoratarian types of governments of any kind (left, right, center, whatever). Because people are flawed they should not be in a position to govern the lives of other people!!!! The libertarian philosphy, in a nut shell, is simply this - live and let live. I have no idea why this is so hard for people to get their brains around.

The logic goes like this - if people are not competent to govern there own lives, how on earth can they be capable of governing lives of others? You should be free to conduct your life as you think best so long as you are not interfering with anyone elses right to do the same. Your life, your body, your mind, your thoughts - all of these are your's alone and nobody has any business telling you what you can do with any of them.

Libertarians believe in personal sovereignty and that the role of the state is to maintain that right for each and everyone of us. It follows that criminal law should be based solely on that principle. Certainly, in my opinion, murder is wrong, but it is illegal because it represents someone interfering with the personal sovereignty of another and their right to their life. It also follows that the concept of a "victimless crime" is nonsense. There can not be a crime in any genuine sense without a victim.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Diezel

I know this wasn't meant for me, but maybe I can clarify this a little better. When he says it will be paid for by "usage fees and excises", that doesn't mean those usuage fees are directly related to the police force.

Shanek has little to offer in the way of answers, so feel free to provide any information you have. It's always appreciated.
I think I understand what you are saying, but that is a radically different definition of "usage fees" than what I have encountered. When I've heard the term it was always used in the context of a payment to aquire access to a particular resource, a campground for example. You pay a "usage fee" to use the area and it's facilities. If the police required a "usage fee", to me that says you would have to pay in order to recieve their protection or other law enforcement related services.

As in income tax, the government collects money and disperses it to different programs. Your usage fee for, say, gasoline, would be paying for the police force.

That would be an excise tax. You wouldn't pay a usage fee for gasoline as it's a product, not a service.

So, no, you wouldn't have people not getting protection because they couldn't pay the usage fees. Everyone is protected.

If you have to pay for law enforcement, as Harry Brown has suggested and is implied by shanek's "usage fees", then only those who could afford justice would recieve it.
It is just a shift from where the government makes collects their money today (income tax & property tax, etc....) to a different way to collect money (usage fees and excises, etc....) But this doesn't in anyway mean there would be unequal protection from the police forces.

If that's the case, then all you are doing is swapping a sales tax for income tax! What does it matter if I have 40% more income if everything costs twice as much!

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:If that's the case, then all you are doing is swapping a sales tax for income tax! What does it matter if I have 40% more income if everything costs twice as much! Exactly! How is an income tax any more "extorted at gun point" than a usage fee for using the public road where my house is located? And please don't tell me that I could just have bought a house on a private road. The entire United States isn't connected by private roads, but public ones. So I have no choice.

And why should my usage fee increase, just because a neighbouring county needs a larger police force? Why should I be forced to pay for the well-being of other people?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

No, they would be criminals. They initiated fraud against their stockholders. They should be thrown in jail and have their assets siezed until enough money is gained to pay back every cent they swindled. I've said this to you before, so this is, survey says...ANOTHER LIE!!!

You mean fraud like this?

Former Enron Executive Pleads Guilty To Insider Trading (http://www.click2houston.com/news/2598142/detail.html)

I'm glad to see you've finally come around and broke ranks with the LP party and no longer endorse corporate fraud. There may be hope for you yet.

Why don't you post an addendum to the insider trading threads describing your new position? I'm sure we would all find it very informative.

Show this. Show the amount of taxes in the state budges that is NOT gathered through income and property taxes and show that it is less than the amount spent on prisons.

No. YOU show how the LP plans to pay for jails and police without income or property taxes. You are trying to get my vote, remember?
"Usage fees and excise taxes" is not a good enough answer. I want a breakdown of what is going to be taxed and how much. Enough with the hand waving.

As I've pointed out to you before, cross-cultural comparisons are invalid because there are so many other variables than simple gun ownership.

No, you've pointed out that any information that contradicts your belief system is invalid.

Already done. Check the other threads.

Not interested. Show me the records of the millions of wounded and killed criminals by armed civillians, then I'll believe you. I have no use for your endless anecdotes.

That would be, uh, now. In fact, my home state just added another elected Libertarian to office this year. Libertarians ARE getting elected, and they ARE making a difference. I've given you references to them doing just that. It might not be much right now, but it is non-zero.

Ooops, my bad. .01% is a non-zero number. Let me fix that:

Why don't you wait until the LP has a >.01% amount of political influence before you go claiming they do more than real parties?

[Cain]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And why should my usage fee increase, just because a neighbouring county needs a larger police force? Why should I be forced to pay for the well-being of other people?

I realize you're making a point here and that you're not really a Libertarian, but the situation is interesting. Even when the government and the market function essentially the same way, we criticize the government as unfair, where as the market is automatically viewed as "rational," "objective," or "natural."

Why should I be forced to pay a higher price for a movie at night rather than in the afternoon? Or if you find yourself on an airplane, ask the person next to you how much she paid for her ticket. Chances are 99 out of 100 that you paid different rates, and sometimes the disparities are grossly uneven.

Well, that's because in a market system firms *try* to practice price discrimination. They want to get as much money from each customer as possible. I understand that if you go to Dell's site, the company will charge different rates for a computer depending on whether or not you identify yourself as a regular user or small business owner. (A recent paper by an economics professor from Texas claims price discrimination will become more prevalent as people do more of their shopping on the Internet).

The irony here is that private businesses more than anybody want to soak the rich, and sometimes develop elaborate models to squeeze that last cent out of prospective customers. Oh, but when government implements a graduated income tax, then Libertarians, Republicans and other anti-tax activits are up in arms. "It's unfair," they cry.

They may not be fond of price discrimination, especially in the case of wealthy Republicans, but their ideology insists that a firm should be able to charge whatever it wants, fairness be damned. Silliness.

If Shanek and other Libertarians finally find their nutsacks and decide to take first premises to their logical conclusion, an anarcho-capitalist society is the inevitable result. Yeah, firms will charge user fees that end up (basically) subsidizing others (just as major law firms do pro-bono work that isn't cheap). But in an unregulated market system -- which *is* tyrannical, unjustifiable and all of that -- their Libertarian "paradise" can be realized.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

If that's the case, then all you are doing is swapping a sales tax for income tax! What does it matter if I have 40% more income if everything costs twice as much!

I'm not sure if that would be the case. And I'm not sure if I am going to portray this the right way, so forgive me if I'm wrong. But I'm not sure if the LP uses the same terminology when they speak of "usage fees". Actually, I like the term "usage tax", but the LP never likes the word tax.

Here's how I see it: The gasoline tax is one of the best taxes out there, because I pay a direct amount according to my use. I drive much more than the normal person, so I buy more gasoline than the normal person. I also use the roads more than the normal person, so it makes sense I pay more taxes than the normal person.

A person without a car is going to pay exactly $0 in gas tax, which is fine, because they aren't using the roads.

Now, I can see this can quickly be jumped on and say "Well, wouldn't that work for the police then? Wouldn't the people using the service be the ones having to pay for the service?" No. Because there are other types of "usage taxes" that can cover those types of situations, where everyone needs equal coverage. I like the idea of sales tax - the more I purchase, the more tax I pay. Since sales tax on most goods wouldn't have a direct project it would be earmarked to pay for, that money could be used to pay for the police force.

As for everything costing twice as much, I don't think that would happen. You have to remember, the amount of money the government would need to take in would be dramatically less than they need now. It seems that most people arguing against this think they would need the same amount of money, they wouldn't - because most government programs you see now would be gone!

What are the figures? I have no idea. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that the government spends 50% of its intake on national defense, police forces, fire departments, transportation, etc.., and the other half on welfare programs, etc.... (I'm lumping local, state and fedral governments together here for the sake of clarity.)

Now say they aren't going to involve themselves in any of the second half stuff. So now they only need 50% of their intake, to render the same level of service in those areas they did before.

If you were paying 38% in taxes, you could now only pay 19%. And if you rearrange the way those taxes were collected, some would pay more than that, some would pay less than that, all depending on their spending habits and the services they use.

So, no, things wouldn't cost twice as much.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Shanek has little to offer in the way of answers,

I have already given you the same answer Diezel did, like I did in other threads, so quit your lying and quit your whining.

That would be an excise tax.

Hel-lo??? I SAID "User fees and excises," you liar!

If you have to pay for law enforcement, as Harry Brown has suggested

Harry Browne did NOT suggest that. He suggested that people could pay for their own personal defense, which is not the same as nor is mutually exclusive to a police force. I've pointed this out to you twice in this thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
EvilYeti:Exactly! How is an income tax any more "extorted at gun point" than a usage fee for using the public road where my house is located?

In that case, it is only because the government has given itself a monopoly on the roads.

The entire United States isn't connected by private roads, but public ones.

Only because of government decree.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Diezel
Because you have elected people into power that take personal profit from helping others. Some desire money, some desire that warm fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone out and feel they have taken the moral high road.

Either way, it is still selfish. And from what I hear, not everyone in those states are estatic about it. If we weren't selfish, nobody would have a problem with it.I might as well argue that all human behaviour is altruistic and not selfish at all. After all, a person could be serving his own best interests to make him more able to care for others. If all people ignored their own interests, that would be bad for everybody, so taking care of yourself is an altruistic thing. You could even do it in order to not be a burden to others.

People who have a problem with welfare states, often argue that they aren't against it because it hurts themselves, but argue that it hurts everybody else. Just look at some of Shanek's argumentation.

If I give to charity, do I do it because I want to help someone, or do I do it to get a warm fuzzy feeling because of helping soemone? The truth is, it makes no difference. Both are completely interchangeable.

Yes, people are selfish. But they aren't only selfish, they can be altruistic as well. If you base your political ideas either on the fact that people are selfish or people are altruistic, you are basing it on a fallacy. All people are both, in varying degrees.Now say they aren't going to involve themselves in any of the second half stuff. So now they only need 50% of their intake, to render the same level of service in those areas they did before.You are simplifying the issue to a level that hasn't got anything to do with reality. In reality, the transition is going to cost money. People who depend on welfare will need to be given something else in return or else they will suddenly lose all income and not get anything for a period of time. Such a drop in income will likely increase crime (more people stealing out of what they consider necessisity) and that might eat up all the money you thought you saved by giving them nothing.

So you are going to need a program to give these people jobs or benefits from free market insurance companies. That program might be a free market enterprise itself, however it will probably want to be paid by the government in some way.

Whatever you do, there is no way you can save all the money you were spending on welfare in the first place.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I might as well argue that all human behaviour is altruistic and not selfish at all. After all, a person could be serving his own best interests to make him more able to care for others. If all people ignored their own interests, that would be bad for everybody, so taking care of yourself is an altruistic thing. You could even do it in order to not be a burden to others.

People who have a problem with welfare states, often argue that they aren't against it because it hurts themselves, but argue that it hurts everybody else. Just look at some of Shanek's argumentation.

If I give to charity, do I do it because I want to help someone, or do I do it to get a warm fuzzy feeling because of helping soemone? The truth is, it makes no difference. Both are completely interchangeable.

Well, we could really argue if there is such a thing as altruism, but it would be a moot point (I do believe it exists, but I don't believe it exists in welfare or charity and is very rare.)

It is a moot point, because my basis of identifying people as selfish and using that for an ideology is that welfare and charity is best administered and most effiecient when based from that viewpoint. Refer to my posts on populations.

If the question is "What is the best way to deal with welfare?", then I believe that best approach to take is to say "Well, people are selfish, so [follow my points about the subject]." If you answered "Well, people are altruistic, so [insert welfare programs that have you giving money to people you don't care about.]" When dealing with large populations that feel little or no connection to each other, the second approach seems to fall apart, while the first one seems to be effective.

Yes, they may be one in the same for small populations, but if the second (altruistic) approach is equal to the first, large populations such as the US would have no problem with a welfare state. But it is obvious this isn't true.

Yes, people are selfish. But they aren't only selfish, they can be altruistic as well. If you base your political ideas either on the fact that people are selfish or people are altruistic, you are basing it on a fallacy. All people are both, in varying degrees.You are simplifying the issue to a level that hasn't got anything to do with reality.

I don't believe this to be true. We are talking about how to approach a problem. I'm an engineer and have to solve problems. Each problem can be approach in a variety of ways. Sometimes it doesn't matter which way you approach it (such as my example of small populations), but many times taking the wrong approach would leave you with less than satisfactory performance (such as approaching a large population as if they were altruistic.)

I couldn't tell you how many times I was trying to solve something, beating my head against the wall, putting band-aid after band-aid on it just trying to make it work, when it occured to me to look at the problem from a differet angle and everything worked out great.

Again, we are talking about how to approach a problem and get results. It really doesn't matter if people are all selfish or all altruistic, it only matters what the results are after you take action based on the approach.

I believe if you take the approach that people are selfish when it comes to charity and welfare in large populations, you will get better performance out of your charities and welfare programs.

In reality, the transition is going to cost money. People who depend on welfare will need to be given something else in return or else they will suddenly lose all income and not get anything for a period of time. Such a drop in income will likely increase crime (more people stealing out of what they consider necessisity) and that might eat up all the money you thought you saved by giving them nothing.

Believe me, I don't think something like this would come overnight. Actually, I don't think something like this would ever come about at all. But it is an ideal and small changes can be made based on this ideal, making progress.

So you are going to need a program to give these people jobs or benefits from free market insurance companies. That program might be a free market enterprise itself, however it will probably want to be paid by the government in some way.

Whatever you do, there is no way you can save all the money you were spending on welfare in the first place.

I wouldn't say there is no way, but I will agree it would be difficult and take generations to acheive. Anyone that offers you a quick fix, even in their lifetime, is not thinking clearly.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You mean fraud like this?

Former Enron Executive Pleads Guilty To Insider Trading

I'm glad to see you've finally come around and broke ranks with the LP party and no longer endorse corporate fraud. There may be hope for you yet.

Why don't you post an addendum to the insider trading threads describing your new position? I'm sure we would all find it very informative.

If EvilYeti weren't a complete liar, he'd tell you that not only did I state that the Enron-style trading was fraud, unlike the kind of insider trading I was talking about, I hammered that point in the thread so many times that no reasonable person could ever have been confused by this. EvilYeti is a lying troll; that's just all there is to it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

If EvilYeti weren't a complete liar, he'd tell you that not only did I state that the Enron-style trading was fraud, unlike the kind of insider trading I was talking about, I hammered that point in the thread so many times that no reasonable person could ever have been confused by this. EvilYeti is a lying troll; that's just all there is to it.

If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and *******, he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

Vote Shane Killian, the pro-fraud candidate! (campaign funding provided by NAMBLA).

Note:
The statements regarding sex offender status and NAMBLA funding are both false. They are presented to illustrate to shanek that it's not nice to falsely label others.

edited by hal pending clarification

[RPG Advocate]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and registered sex offender, he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

Vote Shane Killian, the pro-fraud candidate! (campaign funding provided by NAMBLA).

The sex offender allegation is outrageous (and also false, according to the North Carolina Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry (http://sbi.jus.state.nc.us/DOJHAHT/SOR/Default.htm) ). That's a very serious allegation that could harm shanek's real-life repuation. As such, your post has been reported to the moderators.

Would also love evidence for the "parental failure" and "funded by NAMBLA" allegations.

[gnome]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and registered sex offender, he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

Vote Shane Killian, the pro-fraud candidate! (campaign funding provided by NAMBLA).

Ok, that was really below the belt and uncalled for. WTF?

Why are you bringing his personal life into it? It's nobody's business. I disagree with Shanek all the time but this the most blatantly ad hominem post I've seen in a long time, not to mention beyond the bounds of simple decency on a message board.

I was going to post some more responses but now I feel dirty joining in the debate anywhere near you.

Another thread, perhaps.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and registered sex offender,

This is a libelous comment. Please retract it or I may consider action.

he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

No, it isn't, and I explained why in the thread.

[Pyrrho]

EvilYeti, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel, but your allegations about Shanek present a danger to his welfare. I strongly suggest that you retract your statements.

In the past I might have moved the offending portions of this thread offline, but I think this needs to be seen in context by the administrators.

[Mr Manifesto]

Now, children, play nice. Someone's going to get hurt.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't, and I explained why in the thread.

Actually, you did explicitly make a difference between the two in that thread. In fact, you posted:

Again, that's not the kind of thing we're talking about. Funny book-making, Enron-style fraud and corruption, all of that is clearly fraud and should be restricted.

Or maybe I'm just being a bigoted liar and I'm changing sides at will. Who knows?

[shanek]

And besides, who even cares if I get my campaign funding from the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?

[Tez]

Originally posted by Diezel

I1) People want to live free, with as much choice in their own matters as possible - you do this by involving governement in as little as possible, with their only purpose to enforce criminal penalties, facilitate commerece and mediate contractual disagreements.

2) People are selfish and will maximize their own benefits - See above. The government is there to make sure anyone that breaks the law is punished.

From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

Presumably the governement also has a function in writing new legislation, since (also presumably) the current laws are not all perfect. I personally am worried about the "human nature" of the (hypothetically very small) number of people involved in that malleable process. The primary advantage of big governement is its inefficiency.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tez
Presumably the governement also has a function in writing new legislation, since (also presumably) the current laws are not all perfect. I personally am worried about the "human nature" of the (hypothetically very small) number of people involved in that malleable process.

Which is why that government should be limited by a Constitution, which should be very difficult to change.

[Tez]

Originally posted by shanek


Which is why that government should be limited by a Constitution, which should be very difficult to change.

I'm not concerned about the members of government who respect the constitution, or any other set of mores. I'm concerned about those who do not.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tez
I'm not concerned about the members of government who respect the constitution, or any other set of mores. I'm concerned about those who do not.

Which brings up the issue of enforcement of said Constitution, something that really isn't being done today.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

This is a libelous comment. Please retract it or I may consider action.



So are your dozens of unwarrented claims that I'm a liar.

I'll make you a deal, I'll retract my comments if you go through this thread and remove EVERY SINGLE adhom calling me, or anyone else, a liar.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
EvilYeti, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel, but your allegations about Shanek present a danger to his welfare. I strongly suggest that you retract your statements.

You are correct, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel. Hence the ability for folks like shanek to habitually libel his critics by calling them liars. It only seems fair that in absense of any moderation, others may libel him in return.
Or is there a rule that says only certain posters are allowed to libel, or only certain types of libel are allowed?
Could you clarify please?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
So are your dozens of unwarrented claims that I'm a liar.

Truth is a complete defense to libel. I have shown your lies to be lies. Suddenly even confirmed my side. And those lies were attacks against me which I had to defend myself against.

You say it's libel? Fine; then sue me. I'll countersue, showing your UNFOUNDED claims that I'm a child molestor. We'll see who a jury sides with.

If you want a fight, then go for it.

[Jet Grind]

Diezel,

While I often identify myself with the libertarians, I would like to contest some of the points you made about human nature.

Originally posted by Diezel
I1) People want to live free, with as much choice in their own matters as possible - you do this by involving governement in as little as possible, with their only purpose to enforce criminal penalties, facilitate commerece and mediate contractual disagreements.

True, people do want to live free. However, everyone has their own biased interpretation of freedom. Libertarians say that freedom means freedom from the "intiation of force" and socialists (of the left-libertarian or anarchist stripe) believe that freedom means freedom from authority or hierarchy. Not everyone can have all the freedom they want. The purpous of government is to maximize freedom but also to ensure safety from actions that Thomas Jefferson would say were "injurious to others". However, to do so, it must perform more tasks than you designate (thought I agree that the goal is to minimize it).

Originally posted by Diezel
2) People are selfish and will maximize their own benefits - See above. The government is there to make sure anyone that breaks the law is punished.

Do parents of children steal food off their plates when they're hungry? They would if they were naturally selfish. If this were entirely true, then projects like Linux and Wikipedia (and the OED) would never have even gotten off the ground. I agree that the fundamental nature of human's is egoistic, but it can't be genrealized so easily.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Truth is a complete defense to libel. I have shown your lies to be lies. Suddenly even confirmed my side. And those lies were attacks against me which I had to defend myself against.


Don't get plural on me Shane. I can point out the one instance where you did make a distinction between insider trading and other forms of fraud. However, that is not the only time you have made such an accusation that another poster has lied. Plus, screaming "liar" is not a defense. Supplying evidence of a lie is a defense.

There just actually is a wolf there this time, so to speak. To avoid these kinds of p*ss*ng matches I suggest supplying documentation (similar to that I provided on your behalf) to back up any claims regarding another poster being mistaken, or if you must be uncivil, that another poster has lied.

To be precise, Yeti called you a "registered sex offender," which does not necessarily mean child molester. Slight difference, but if you are going to push this I would suggest you be precise about it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Truth is a complete defense to libel. I have shown your lies to be lies.


You have done nothing of the sort. For example, you yourself said police protection would be paid for in part by "usage fees". A usage fee is a FEE someone pays to USE a service.

It's not a lie for me to say that if one has to pay for police protection then those that cannot afford to will not recieve any. That's called "logic".

If you have a different understanding of "usage fees", then please explain it. The definition I am using is the common one. There is absolutely no need to call anyone a liar.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
To be precise, Yeti called you a "registered sex offender," which does not necessarily mean child molester.

He said my campaign was funded by NAMBLA. The allegation was clear.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You have done nothing of the sort. For example, you yourself said police protection would be paid for in part by "usage fees".

AND excises. Later on, Diezel showed to you how, say, gas taxes could be used to pay for police, and you replied, "That would be an excise tax." Clearly stating that it wouldn't be included in the funding for my hypothetical police force, since the whole point of your rebuttal was defending your absurd claim that I don't want police protection for the poor. That was a LIE, since from the start I mentioned excises along with user fees.

It's not a lie for me to say that if one has to pay for police protection then those that cannot afford to will not recieve any. That's called "logic".

But that doesn't change the fact that I never said that everyone should have to pay directly for police protection. That's called "lying."

Also, as I pointed out, there are people today who pay little or nothing towards police protection. So your "logic" is invalid anyway, since the police force does NOT have exclude its protections to those who pay for it directly.

[shanek]

All right; I'm going to make it easy for EvilYeti. If it is true that I'm a sex offender, and associated with NABLA, surely that is something the electorate should want to know, right? People don't want a County Commissioner like that, right?

Okay, EY: Here's the contact information for all of the papers local to my area. Feel free to contact them and submit your information to them. Also feel free to post their reply here if they do anything other than laugh in your face.

News@Norman
PO Box 434
407 N. Pilot Knob Rd.
Denver, NC 28037
704-489-NEWS
newsatnorman@charter.net

Lincoln Times-News
P.O. Box 40
119 W. Water Street
Lincolnton, NC 28092
704-735-3031
editor@ltnews.com

The Gaston Gazette
1893 Remount Road
Gastonia, NC 28054
704-869-1700
gastongazette@link.freedom.com

The Charlotte Observer
600 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte NC 28202
704-358-5000
localnews@charlotteobserver.com

And hey, while we're at it, we can't have me around my kids, now, can we? Not if I'm associated with an organization dedicated to sexual abuse, right? So feel free to notify my local Department of Social Services:

Lincoln County Department of Social Services
PO Box 130
Lincolnton, NC 28093
704-736-8678

That phone number is their child abuse and neglect line.

I'm sure they'll be coming by to arrest me any day now...

[gnome]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

You are correct, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel. Hence the ability for folks like shanek to habitually libel his critics by calling them liars. It only seems fair that in absense of any moderation, others may libel him in return.
Or is there a rule that says only certain posters are allowed to libel, or only certain types of libel are allowed?
Could you clarify please?

Do you not see that calling someone a liar in an argument is, at worst, rude... and referring to someone as a sex offender is a statement that can do actual harm?

I can't believe you consider this equivalent.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

AND excises. Later on, Diezel showed to you how, say, gas taxes could be used to pay for police, and you replied, "That would be an excise tax." Clearly stating that it wouldn't be included in the funding for my hypothetical police force, since the whole point of your rebuttal was defending your absurd claim that I don't want police protection for the poor. That was a LIE, since from the start I mentioned excises along with user fees.

If you only meant excise taxes, then you should have left it as that. It was your decision to include "usage fees", which delegates some form of service only to those that can afford it.

But that doesn't change the fact that I never said that everyone should have to pay directly for police protection. That's called "lying."

You said "usage fees", not me. That means people whould have to pay FEES to USE the service of the Police. There is absolutely no other way to interpret that other then as having to pay directly for police protection.
Feel free to retract or clarify your statement, there is no need to call me a liar.

Also, as I pointed out, there are people today who pay little or nothing towards police protection. So your "logic" is invalid anyway, since the police force does NOT have exclude its protections to those who pay for it directly.

That is because there are no "usage fees" for police protection in our society! If there were, like you are avocating, then some law enforcement services would only be available to those that pay for them.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by gnome

Do you not see that calling someone a liar in an argument is, at worst, rude... and referring to someone as a sex offender is a statement that can do actual harm?

I can't believe you consider this equivalent.

Thats your opinion, I feel otherwise. I am just as offended at being called a liar as I would be being called a sex offender (and I've been called that here as well).

Anyways, I've very clearly edited my post demonstrating that the claims are ficticious and were leveled to prove a point.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek
All right; I'm going to make it easy for EvilYeti. If it is true that I'm a sex offender, and associated with NABLA, surely that is something the electorate should want to know, right? People don't want a County Commissioner like that, right?


Apparently not, considering you only got 3% of the vote last time you ran.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You said "usage fees", not me.

That wasn't the lie. The lie was twofold: 1) the omission of excises as another method of payment; and 2) the denial that usage fees do not necessitate the service being exclusive to those who pay the fees.

That means people whould have to pay FEES to USE the service of the Police. There is absolutely no other way to interpret that other then as having to pay directly for police protection.

That is absolutely untrue. Let's say you go to your county office and get a building permit. You pay $X in exchange for the permit. Do you really think that the $X you gave them is the exact amount of the expenses of giving you the permit and no more?

That is because there are no "usage fees" for police protection in our society!

That isn't the same thing as saying that none of the money from user fees go to the police. It all, from every source—property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, user fees, whatever—all goes into a big pot from which all of this funding comes. Permit offices, for example, generally run a surplus and that surplus is used to fund other items in the budget.

And then, of course, there are the excises you keep ignoring and pretending I never said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Thats your opinion, I feel otherwise. I am just as offended at being called a liar as I would be being called a sex offender (and I've been called that here as well).

Not by me, so all of this is your malfunction, not mine. And the only "point" that you made with all of this is how insecure and immature you are, and how nobody at all should ever take you seriously. One need only look at your sig to see your motivations.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Not by me, so all of this is your malfunction, not mine. And the only "point" that you made with all of this is how insecure and immature you are, and how nobody at all should ever take you seriously.

This is coming from the 30+ year old man whose entire rhetorical toolbox consists of calling anyone who disagrees with him a liar?

I stopped with the "liar, liar pants on fire" thing in Kindergarten. Why don't you do the same?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
This is coming from the 30+ year old man whose entire rhetorical toolbox consists of calling anyone who disagrees with him a liar?

No, I call people who LIE a liar. All you have to do is stop with your lying. But it appears to be compulsive with you...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

That wasn't the lie. The lie was twofold: 1) the omission of excises as another method of payment; and 2) the denial that usage fees do not necessitate the service being exclusive to those who pay the fees.

If you had just said "excise taxes" the debate would have ended there. I did not ommit anything, you gave "usage fees" as part of your answer so I chose to comment on them. If the "usage fees" are optional, as you seem to be claiming now, then there is a different word for that, "donations".
In the real world, if a service has usage fee's associated with it, only those that pay the fee's are entitled to the service.

That is absolutely untrue. Let's say you go to your county office and get a building permit. You pay $X in exchange for the permit. Do you really think that the $X you gave them is the exact amount of the expenses of giving you the permit and no more?

And if you don't or can't pay the fee you don't get the permit. What's your point?

And then, of course, there are the excises you keep ignoring and pretending I never said.

I'm not talking about excises, I'm talking about "usage fees". If you only meant excise taxes, you should have left it at that. Considering you put "usage fees" first you obviously think that's where a large part of the funding will come from.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

You are correct, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel. Hence the ability for folks like shanek to habitually libel his critics by calling them liars. It only seems fair that in absense of any moderation, others may libel him in return.
Or is there a rule that says only certain posters are allowed to libel, or only certain types of libel are allowed?
Could you clarify please?
Calling someone a liar does not rise to the level of actionable libel. Because name-calling is so prevalent on message boards, calling somone a liar or some other name does not adversely affect one's name and reputation. Claiming that someone is a registered sex offender is actionable libel, because it could damage one's name and reputation. Unless, of course, one has evidence to support that allegation.

The rules here do not specifically prohibit libel. However, libelous statements may be subject to administrator action under Rule 8 and/or Rule 10.

All parties should note that the rules also state that "The JREF is not responsible for the content, opinions, beliefs, or other matters contained in posts on this forum. The opinions expressed are strictly those of the individuals involved, and the JREF assumes no liability for such opinions." If people post material that results in legal action, they can't expect to drag the JREF with them as parties to any legal action.

You've mentioned "absence of moderation"; moderator authority is limited under Rules 5 and 6. So, while I might suggest that a poster revise their statements if they apparently violate Forum rules, it is not within my authority to remove or edit posts, although I have the capability to do so. Moderation is therefore limited to variations of "Hey! Don't do that!" and, of course, applying asterisks to certain cuss words that appear on a limited list.

All that said, I remind everyone that I'm only a moderator, and my opinions do not carry administrative authority. Administrative questions should be addressed to the administrators.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If you had just said "excise taxes" the debate would have ended there. I did not ommit anything, you gave "usage fees" as part of your answer so I chose to comment on them.

But by saying that poor people would be left without police service, you were CLEARLY ignoring the excises I mentioned which would indeed provide police funding regardless of how much any particular person paid in. That was the lie.

If the "usage fees" are optional, as you seem to be claiming now,

I'm not saying they're optional; I'm just saying they wouldn't be the sole source of funding.

And if you don't or can't pay the fee you don't get the permit. What's your point?

The point is, a good part of the money you pay for that permit goes to pay for other services.

You're just pathetically trying to weasel around your claims...The mature thing to do is just retract it and say you were wrong, which everyone here can see that you were anyway.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Jet Grind
Diezel,

....... and socialists (of the left-libertarian or anarchist stripe) believe that freedom means freedom from authority or hierarchy...

But that is precisely where you are mistaken. Both the left (socialists) and the right are statist and utilitarian. They just have differing agendas. Socialists and rightists are both authoritarian.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by billydkid


But that is precisely where you are mistaken. Both the left (socialists) and the right are statist and utilitarian. They just have differing agendas. Socialists and rightists are both authoritarian.
Anarchists (who are generally socialists) aren't statists.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bangdazap

Anarchists (who are generally socialists) aren't statists.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how an anarchist can be socialist and vice-versa. Can you explain?

[billydkid]

http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/f/gfs543/BigBusiness.htm