Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[Ender]

Oh hey look at that, the gy has now veered it off into new territory instead of addressing the issue of Katrina.

Still waiting to hear how Katrina is not a complete refutation of your worldview kid.

[Darth Wong]

exactlyandthus there can be no children in a libertarian society

because children don't produce anything.

There are enough gaping flaws with market fundamentalism that you don't have to resort to idiotic strawmen like this. As MartianHoplite noted, fanatical Libertarians hold that the market is the only valid way of getting things you want (and need). But it makes no claim about what you should want, only what you cannot do (inititate force). The market fundamentalist notion of private charities providing bountiful public goods to the underprivilidged is clearly a ridiculous fantasy. But people wanting children, and wanting their children to do well, is a perfectly reasonable and compatible goal. Indeed I've already pointed out that this is perfectly justified even if you're completely selfish - as long as that selfishness is at the genetic level (which is what evolution has been reinforcing for oh, a billion years) rather than the individual one.

That doesn't mean children are valued in a libertarian society. It only means that they are valued by their own parents. Orphans are fucked.

[PeZook]

You obviously didn't even skim the link I posted.

Here's an extract for your benefit.

Even in the convenient shape of coins, gold is often cumbersome and awkward to carry and use directly in exchange. For larger transactions, it is awkward and expensive to transport several hundred pounds of gold. But the free market, ever ready to satisfy social needs, comes to the rescue. Gold, in the first place, must be stored somewhere, and just as specialization is most efficient in other lines of business, so it will be most efficient in the warehousing business. Certain firms, then, will be successful on the market in providing warehousing services. Some will be gold warehouses, and will store gold for its myriad owners. As in the case of all warehouses, the owner's right to the stored goods is established by a warehouse receipt which he receives in exchange for storing the goods. The receipt entitles the owner to claim his goods at any time he desires. this warehouse will earn profit no differently from any other?i.e., by charging a price for its storage services.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you even understand what I wrote?

The myriad problems with the gold standard go beyond just mere inconvenience. Do you know why constant deflation is bad for the economy?

How about the fact that gold's value is completely arbitrary, just like the current virtual currencies? And why didn't you adress concerns about the fact gold is a shitty exchange medium precisely because it requires wasteful infrastructure to handle?

Saying "Oh there would be special gold warehouses to keep track of it" solves nothing, idiot. We had those, they were called "bank vaults", and they worked great untill it became obvious what a stupid idea the gold standard is in a modern, growing economy.

You do know what I was talking about when I mentioned the Spanish cascade collapse, right? They had the ultimate gold standard, and were still fucked over by runaway inflation. Clearly, a gold standard can fail just as easily as any other.

Of course, in a modern economy, which requires an ungodly money supply, the natural scarcity of gold comes into play and actually enforces deflation, which hurts. A lot.

As for the issue of the value of gold rising to where quantities would be impractically small for daily transactions, we can now, by electronic means, trade very precise claims on stored gold, even down to the milligram.

At this level, what's the bloody point? Nobody's going to claim such miniscule amounts of gold anyway, even if you could actually measure it adequately, and it ties down a resource with industrial use. When it comes down to such a ridiculous situation, a fluid, virtual currency is a much better solution.

There are certainly not any fewer problems with a fiat currency back by nothing more substantial than the full faith and credit of some government. These sort of currencies have melted down completely on a number of occasions. Even a supposedly stable one, like the US dollar, has lost 95% of its purchasing power since 1913, when the Federal Reserve was established with the specific mandate to preserve the value of the currency.

1) Gold currency is not magically protected from melting down! Gold has completely arbitrary value, outside of specialized industrial uses.

2) Creating a deflationary pressure is a huge fucking problem. Maintaining a huge infrastructure of banks vaults, gold mines and gold processing plants for no other reason than to maintain an exchange medium is a huge fucking problem. Security is a huge fucking problem.

All of which are reduced or non-existent with a virtual currency.

It doesn't. It simply posits that we replace coercive government with voluntary government.

Define "voluntary government". And then describe how you will apply the concept on a large scale.

Why should I want it to pay me anything but cash?

Because, moron, companies can often negotiate better rates from other companies, and can utilize economies of scale, which means you get the benefits cheaper. It makes quite a lot of economic sense to demand such benefits from your employer, especially if you can't afford them yourself, no matter what they pay you.

Almost all people value an equivalent amount of exchangeable money more than a specific benefit that an employer provides.

No, they don't. I am actually educated in this field, and research overwhelmingly points to employees preferring benefits over cash, especially if it takes an additional load off their backs.

There are only a few professions in which research showed people prefer cash over benefits such as medical insurance. If I recall correctly, these are travelling sales representatives and higher management.

If it weren't for laws mandating that employers provide benefits to full-time employees, why should companies want to spend more to provide benefits when they can just pay their employees directly in the common medium of exchange?

They don't spend more, that's the trick. Companies can spend less, and motivate employees better by providing some benefits because of their inherently better negotiating position. Also, many employees like to have the hassle taken care of for them.

And it's a great way to tie an employee to you if the government doesn't provide an alternative health plan. And if the government doesn't provide any police, either, then boy, that's an even better hook!

Why should employees not prefer to simply get money, which can be exchanged for anything, and make their own bargains for other products and services?

There's an economic reason, but that's besides the point. Research shows that they do want benefits over cash.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I should point out that my parents dissolved their marriage contract when I was three. my first stepfather was an absolute asshole, and in libertopia, could have simply denyied me the right to eat, since I was a parasite.

[MartianHoplite]

Ok I'm going to start off with a question. I'm a little unclear about the point I'm being asked to make about Katrina?

The overarching principle of libertarianism is you pay for what you use. When confronted with the dilemma of someone who deserves something but can't pay, MartianHoplite keeps ignoring the question or says the person doesn't deserve it because he isn't surviving in his proposed system.

We reject the term "deserve". Let's take a look at the original condition of man struggling in the wild. The concept of "deserve" under such circumstances, is meaningless. You can "deserve" food all you want, you're not going to get it unless you go out and hunt or forage for it. You can "deserve" shelter all you want, you still have to go out and find it. If it's a nice cave, you're probably going to have to fight a bear for it. You can "deserve" clothing all you want, you still have to make it or you'll go naked. Man has needs and wants, but these can only be satisfied through productive enterprise.

The same is still true today. Everything that people profess a positive "right" to is the result of someone's hard work. The farmer toils to grow food. The doctor works long hours to provide health care for people. The teacher works at providing education. Productive activities today are more diverse and more specialized than those of our hunter-getherer ancestors, but the fundamental necessity of production is the same. One person produces something, and trades their specific product or service for others to satisfy their most important needs or wants.

To assert a positive right to certain products and services., to assert, therefore the right to take these things by force, is to make the people who provide them your slave. To simply take money with which to buy them changes this not at all, it only represents a lesser form of slavery over larger number of people.

Now, I don't deny that there are circumstances, that can either be attributed to the fault of an individual or are wholly independent of it, where someone is temporarily unable to provide for themselves. Job, loss, illness, injury a whole host of other factors can render someone unable to produce

It doesn't seem right to me or hardly anyone else, that someone should be permitted to die on account of such temporary loss of income. If I were ever in such a situation, I would certainly hope that someone would extend me a helping hand. For this reason, I participate in the United Way program at work, and a small payroll deduction is taken from my check every two weeks and goes to charity. It seems to me, looking at all the millions upon millions of dollars that various charities raise each year, from individuals and businesses, that I am not the only one who subscribes to this view. I choose to help people facing such circumstances, as do many, if not most, others.

However, we should never regard this as anything other than what it is; the kindness and charity of individuals. It is not an obligation that should be enforced through the coercive power of the state.

We should always expect people to eventually provide for themselves and view charity as a temporary measure until such time as a person can do so once more.

If there are even more dire circumstances that prevent people from ever being able to support themselves in a tolerable state, then I would say we should work to change that. There is no reason why any person should ever be unable to provide for themselves or their family through productive work, though sadly, this is the case for many people now.

To help address this more fundamental issue, I contribute a much larger share of my income than I donate to charity into an investment account.

Wages are proportional to the productivity of labor. If a company can get more marginal output from an employee then they have to pay the employee in wages, then they have an incentive to hire more employees, bidding up the price of labor in the market. Supply and demand will tend to bring the price of labor and its productivity in line. (I'm not saying this happens perfectly in the present system, but that is the market pressure.)

The productivity of labor is dependent on capital investment. Capital can only come from the savings and investments of individuals or businesses. People have to forgo present consumption and invest their produce in higher order capital goods to increase productivity. This is how the money I invest in stocks and bonds is used. My investments, and those of others, create jobs and make workers more productive, giving more people more opportunities to earn their own keep. This to, my mind, is more helpful than simply giving money to people to support themselves temporarily, though both might be necessary to some degree.

This is not by any means a complete answer, and leaves other angles uncovered, but I hope it gives you a somewhat better idea of where I'm coming from than the blatant untruths you apparently believe about libertarians right now.

1) Gold currency is not magically protected from melting down! Gold has completely arbitrary value, outside of specialized industrial uses.

Fiat currency isn't magically protect either. Also, gold has exchange value beyond its mere use value. The price of gold is based on the supply and demand for a medium of exchange and a store of value that (even today
) it functions as. This is no more arbitrary than the market price for anything else. That is to say, it is arbitrary, but only in the way, and only to the extent, that all prices are largely arbitrary, and reflect the priorities that people have and act on in the market, not any kind of "intrinsic" value.

2) Creating a deflationary pressure is a huge fucking problem. Maintaining a huge infrastructure of banks vaults, gold mines and gold processing plants for no other reason than to maintain an exchange medium is a huge fucking problem. Security is a huge fucking problem.

All of which are reduced or non-existent with a virtual currency.

Which has its own problems, like controlling the supply and preventing inflation.

Besides, it's not clear to me that deflation is entirely a bad thing. Price deflation is a natural tendency as more capital accumulates and labor becomes more productive. Wages go up, prices go down. Look at the massive deflation that has occurred in the price of electronic and computer technology over the last few decades. Would you seriously contend that this is a bad thing? Similar, though by no means as pronounced, downward trends in prices are natural for other types of products as well and are often hard to seperate from effect caused by the value of the money itself.

Because, moron, companies can often negotiate better rates from other companies, and can utilize economies of scale, which means you get the benefits cheaper.

True, when comparing identical products or services. However, the rise of comprehensive health insurance provided by employers can take a lot of the blame for the spiraling health care costs in the US over the last few decades. If my employer provided me with a car insurance policy that filled up my gas tank, I would probably buy a larger vehicle, drive it more, and use higher-grade gas than I do now because I would have no incentive to economize. If everybody did this, the increased demand would drive up gas prices through the roof. This doesn't even factor in all the costs deriving from the hassle and red tape associated with insurance companies.

Before people got health care benefits from their employer, they generally paid cash for routine health care and had inexpensive insurance for catastrophic contingencies. Today there is a resurgence of cash-only medical practices serving those who have no insurance or want fast, friendly medical care at an affordable price. Because they have to be able to convince customers to pay for their services, and because they compete with each for their customers, many of these practices charge as little as $45 for a routine visit. This is only a little higher than the copay for many insurance policies.

link
link

It also starts creating problems. Slave labor in the form of criminals producing viable goods is one thing, but how much of the money goes to the businessman who runs the labor camp—he’s got operating expenses, after all. How much goes to the victim?

Supply and demand. Prisons should be largely unnecessary in a restitution-based justice system. Those few that exist might exist, not so much to restrain criminals, as to protect them from the wrath of their victims while they worked to repay their their debts. Say I've committed a series of heinous crimes, leaving enraged victims and their survivors gunning for me. My conduct and my debts have gotten me blacklisted by the security industry and left me without the possibility of contracting for protection. I might still see some benefit in reintegrating myself back into society and trying to reform myself, so I check into a free-market prison of my choosing to work off my debts inside the safety of its walls. If prison were therefore a voluntary choice, and prisons had to compete with each other for prisoners, then they would each try and provide the most comfortable accommodations and lowest prices. They would also have an incentive to maximize the productivity of prisoners, and would likely invest in education and training to allow the prisoners to learn more valuable job skills. The prisoners, for their part, would have an incentive to take advantage of these opportunities and increase their earning power as much as possible, that they might pay of their debts sooner and be free to return to peaceful society.

there are no police to follow up on the crimes of the unknown, such as old lonely men and women or orphans and such

In general, crimes against these sorts of people would still be dealt with. In a libertarian legal system, proof of criminal victimization constitutes a just claim to restitution. This claim could still be sold at a slight discount by a poor crime victim to a third party claims agency that would investigate and take the case to court to receive the restitution.

For murder, some have proposed that a security agency discovering such a case and solving it could claim the restitution from the perpetrator, providing an incentive to deal such offenses.

And buddy, if you believe Christian Michael’s assertion “I would suggest also that many charitable institutions will buy a premium on the life of small children and destitute individuals, on the ground that it is their charitable purpose to do so, and that, for a small premium, they stand to collect a sizeable capital, if, against all odds, one of their insured party is indeed murdered,” then the idea of Murder Investment is not only a logical recourse, but the only one. And, furthermore, I can’t see how those people would be—in any way—obligated to my security. They are directly obligated to act against my security so they can benefit

Not so, they have no incentive to murder you, or contract for your murder, because if the insurance company if giving them bags of money every time one of the people the "charity" buys insurance for gets murdered, they're going to have an incentive to investigate the circumstances, and if they trace it back the the "charity", then the "charity" becomes liable for paying the restitution, rather than receiving the payout.

[MartianHoplite]

That all being said, I'm hereby officially conceding this debate for the time being.

When I'm satisfied that I can respond to certain question better than I'm currently able, I may come back and continue it.

If you want to get in the last word, this is your chance. Come on, I know are there are a ton of nasty names you've been dying to call me.

[Terralthra]

Nope, no names. You conceded, that's good enough.

[brianeyci]

Start using attributing quote tags properly and attribute them to the right speaker. If you are oh so smart you should be able to figure them out by now. And don't play dumb. You attempted to refute the Katrina example with Fran so you know exactly what they are asking for: a rebuttal to the point that core of libertarianism isn't represented by Katrina.

We reject the term "deserve"

Wrong. You claim they deserve what they want if they can survive under your proposed system. Simply saying you don't use the exact word "deserve" is just semantic whoring. If they survive under your proposed system, they get what they want and therefore deserve it. Whether or not you admit it, that's implicit in your claim.

Now, I don't deny that there are circumstances, that can either be attributed to the fault of an individual or are wholly independent of it, where someone is temporarily unable to provide for themselves.

What you don't seem to realize with your extremely limited experience is that such "circumstances" are widespread and intrinsic to human rights. You want to take away police from some people. Why is that? Do you realize that competent police guarantee safety, which is a basic human right? Or do you reject human rights?

It is not an obligation that should be enforced through the coercive power of the state.

Why not? Because you say so? This has been your whole argument so far, because you say so by fiat. Meanwhile it is in the complete interests of society to protect the weaker members unable to provide for themselves, because guess what, worth does not automatically translate into wealth. Case in point, an actor makes millions while a university professor is paid less and would be paid even less under your system with no state funded schools.

It seems to me, looking at all the millions upon millions of dollars that various charities raise each year, from individuals and businesses, that I am not the only one who subscribes to this view

In other words, you think that charity can replace the services and benefits right now offered through the government (or provide an acceptable level) if our society was libertarian. That is bullcrap, because the donation to charities is barely enough to keep up with requirements. Hell, there's constantly blood drives but they don't get enough donors, food banks are getting used more and more and always running dry on food, and the amount of money that could come from voluntary deductions from paycheques would not pay for the current level of services governments provide.

I also see a critical flaw in your argument. You say that governments blackmail citizens into paying taxes. That is a view shared only by libertarians. Many people happily pay taxes for increased services, and don't see it as coercion. If a person willingly does it, then it's not coercion. When people don't want to raise taxes they generally don't want to because the government is wasting existing money, not because they deny the need for taxes all together. Don't project your own inadequacies on the public as large.

This is not by any means a complete answer, and leaves other angles uncovered, but I hope it gives you a somewhat better idea of where I'm coming from than the blatant untruths you apparently believe about libertarians right now.

What a verbose and weasel way of calling someone a baldfaced liar. Why don't you just call a spade a spade and point to exactly what was a lie? You can't, and keep saying people are "twisting" your meaning, when in reality your claims imply certain consequences which you simply deny will happen.

Come on, I know are there are a ton of nasty names you've been dying to call me.

So you think you can act holier than thou and trick people who only read the last page of debates into thinking you won but left because people were too mean? That doesn't work except on the dumbest of people. It is here for everybody to see, and people have been calling you names from the start. How about this for a name: libertarian. You're a libertarian, which from this thread I equate to callous asshole. You're an insincere prick. I would much rather a libertarian come out and say I want to fuck over the poor people and protect my own interests than this string of wanting your cake and eating it too that you shit out.

[K. A. Pital]

Let's take a look at the original condition of man struggling in the wild.

You're deliberately removing the socium, aren't you? Moron. But actually this proves what you are - an extreme social darwinist. You suggest that man should treat another man just as natural forces will treat that man, wild animals or other vicious competitors for resources.

The same is still true today

It wasn't true back in the day, since the socium always existed, and it ain't true now. Moron.

To assert a positive right to certain products and services., to assert, therefore the right to take these things by force, is to make the people who provide them your slave.

In what way is a corporation fundamentally different as an employer as the government? Why are private doctors "free", but state doctors "slaves", moron?

I don't deny that there are circumstances, that can either be attributed to the fault of an individual or are wholly independent of it, where someone is temporarily unable to provide for themselves

"Temporarily", you social darwinist bitch? Just shove your bullshit down your ass. Working age for people is optimal only until they are 60 something. You are suggesting that people of age should work out until they die (I won't be commenting on how this will impact life longetivity for humans, since it's obvious), and those who become totally unable due to medical aging conditions are fucked in your system permanently. What a brutal fucker you are... I'm at a loss of words.

It doesn't seem right to me or hardly anyone else, that someone should be permitted to die on account of such temporary loss of income.

Well, the shareholder is remote enough from a aging beggar, so he might just not share your sentimental feelings, especially if he was forged in your social darwinist paradise where a man should treat a fellow man like a wolf or a tiger.

We should always expect people to eventually provide for themselves and view charity as a temporary measure until such time as a person can do so once more.

Sadistic fucker... orphans and elderly are expendable. Well, nothing uncommon - in the days of libertarian paradise, having an average life expectancy below forty was okay for some workers. I can't call you douche enough, though it's clear that you are totally indifferent to human suffering.

If a company can get more marginal output from an employee then they have to pay the employee in wages, then they have an incentive to hire more employees

What if it can't? For example, an employee lives in unfavrable climatic conditions. The corporation desides that Bumfuck, Northpole is not a good place to pay wages. Ever. Would it be paying for the person to re-dislocate himself to a new place? Fuck no.

What if the supply of capital to the workers is lowered to such a point where many people become patently unemployed? Your magic "curves" just led to death and suffering.

Fiat currency isn't magically protect either. Also, gold has exchange value beyond its mere use value.

So? You were supposed to prove the superiority of gold to usual currency, which you utterly failed to do. You ignored the principles of optimization in monetary and good redistribution which dictates that the least amount of energy spent and least amounts of mass moved is best. Idiot.

However, the rise of comprehensive health insurance provided by employers can take a lot of the blame for the spiraling health care costs in the US over the last few decades

Gee, why countries with a national healthcare system don't suffer spiralling costs, I wonder

In general, crimes against these sorts of people would still be dealt with. ... For murder, some have proposed that a security agency discovering such a case and solving it could claim the restitution from the perpetrator, providing an incentive to deal such offenses.

Idiot. If I'm killed and all my posessions taken, who am I filing a petition to? If I have relatives who CAN hire a private detective, they may - but if I'm alone? If I'm an elderly person? A youngster in a foreign town? Your agency idea is ridiculous - cold murder cases require very extensive territorial, financial and administrative power to investigate. Could your cold murder agency instal CCTVs even for a city? Their maintenance woudl cost more than financial effect! The police measures their efficiency not by PROFIT, idiot, but by lowering crime levels, murder rates, successful case closure rates! The medicine likewise measures efficiency by general life expectancy, child mortality, medical mortality, not PROFIT.

...because if the insurance company if giving them bags of money every time one of the people the "charity" buys insurance for gets murdered, they're going to have an incentive to investigate the circumstances, and if they trace it back the the "charity"

And _IF_ they trace it back to "charity"... Crime in your libertopia is just another type of business. Risks? There. Profits? There. Costs? There. It's not technically a problem, and the only thing you offer for punishment is "restitution". RESTITUTION! I guess that's good enough for some sadistic rich fucker - he may play Jack The Ripper with street girls, after all, anything he'll ever get is RESTITUTION. Well, alternatively, there is mob killing. But a rich person is sufficiently protected from that by mercenaries... Well, well... what if he decides to play racket with a militia locally powerful enough? Which entity can act on behalf of the people to kill him and stop this?

[brianeyci]

Nope, no names. You conceded, that's good enough.

Who the fuck are you, one of his dumb as nails libertarian friends?

His entire argument was laced with holier than thou I don't have enough time for you assholes and you should be happy I'm even taking time to do this bullcrap. His style is far more insulting than name calling. He acts as if other people aren't as busy or more busy than him, and that by merely posting people should be happy he does it. I fully expect people to flame him, especially after he mentioned four times he didn't have enough time (like Stats said once is enough, more is just an implication that your time is worth more than others.) Here's an idea: if you don't got enough time don't post, if you got enough time post, don't whine about not having enough time for a fucking message board.

[Patrick Degan]

Nope, no names. You conceded, that's good enough.

A hint, kid —it's never a good idea to stick your hand in the middle of a dogfight.

[Edi]

I thought the stupid fuck couldn't sink any deeper into the depths of stupidity, but his libertopia prison bullshit takes the cake. The asshole actually assumes that all criminals, even the sociopathic fuckers, are actually rational people who are interested in any kind of restitution schemes and the bullshit he spouts.

He really needs a serious encounter with reality. If it happens in that context, good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Terralthra]

Nope, no names. You conceded, that's good enough.

Who the fuck are you, one of his dumb as nails libertarian friends?

Um, no? The only conceivable way you could think that would be if you'd failed to read the thread, because I've posted disagreeing with him/her less than 3 pages ago.

[brianeyci]

Nope, no names. You conceded, that's good enough.

Who the fuck are you, one of his dumb as nails libertarian friends?

Um, no? The only conceivable way you could think that would be if you'd failed to read the thread, because I've posted disagreeing with him/her less than 3 pages ago.

Failed to read a minor point in a ten page thread full of bullshit, ohhhhhhhhh damn what a crime.

Take a hike with your passive aggressive snipe at the board's policies you ass. This place is open season on stupid people and if you don't like name calling go emoticon somewhere else.

[Terralthra]

All I said about name-calling was that it wasn't required in this case. If I didn't support insulting the stupid for being stupid, I wouldn't be here.

[brianeyci]

All I said about name-calling was that it wasn't required in this case. If I didn't support insulting the stupid for being stupid, I wouldn't be here.

Why not? He's about as dumb as it gets. Not only that but he's cruel and apparently rejects the idea that people intrinsically deserve human rights. His "concession" was nothing more than a "I don't have enough time to listen to you guys" concession and he never changed or budged his position at all. It was entirely insincere.

He can't get worse than dumb and cruel. The only way it could be worse is if he enjoyed sticking it to orphans and old people, but he seems to think it's a necessary part of existence which is almost as bad. I wonder how he'll feel when he's old as shit and eating off the working class. Probably still sucking tit from other people while crowing about how he owes nothing back because "you don't owe anything if someone gives you charity" what a joke.

[Ender]

Ok I'm going to start off with a question. I'm a little unclear about the point I'm being asked to make about Katrina?

Yes, I can see how me repeatedly stating the same question can be unclear.

You cited Fran, an example where there was little to no breakdown in governmental services and thus no appreciable anarchy as a counter to the example of Katrina, despite the fact that Fran represented a communal distribution of goods, services, and labor rather then free market competitiveness. After Katrina, there was a clear breakdown in the state, resulting in anarchy. People looted for supplies, and then began to migrate around and trade them for what they needed from each other - shelter, food, water, medicine, protection etc. A person had something the other wanted, so they traded for it. If the deal was deemed not good enough, they went to another provider. There was no concept of what you deserved, you either had what you needed, traded for it, or did without it, or made it. The chaos of the disaster and mismanagement resulted in the state being nonexistant so far as the survivors were concerned. This is exactly what your model of society calls for. Except that is not what happened. People did not act lawfully do to social pressure, as you assert they would, but engaged in wanton violence to acquire whatever they could. The end result of this was a nightmare for those who experienced it, not a libertarian utopia. Either demonstrate how the aftermath of Katrina does not reflect a libertarian society, or defend how this situation is what you wish to replace the state.

It doesn't seem right to me or hardly anyone else, that someone should be permitted to die on account of such temporary loss of income.

Nope, only if they are a tax collector!

[Terralthra]

All I said about name-calling was that it wasn't required in this case. If I didn't support insulting the stupid for being stupid, I wouldn't be here.

Why not? He's about as dumb as it gets. Not only that but he's cruel and apparently rejects the idea that people intrinsically deserve human rights. His "concession" was nothing more than a "I don't have enough time to listen to you guys" concession and he never changed or budged his position at all. It was entirely insincere.

He can't get worse than dumb and cruel. The only way it could be worse is if he enjoyed sticking it to orphans and old people, but he seems to think it's a necessary part of existence which is almost as bad. I wonder how he'll feel when he's old as shit and eating off the working class. Probably still sucking tit from other people while crowing about how he owes nothing back because "you don't owe anything if someone gives you charity" what a joke.

I don't think any names are required because it's like a 3-year old took something out of Safeway without paying for it. While the toddler technically stole something, it's not out of a true desire to take without paying, s/he is just so inexperienced and immature that s/he has no concept of right, wrong, or how the world really works. You wouldn't tell the 3-year old they're an idiot, you'd explain to them what they've done wrong, and maybe give them a time-out.

MartianHoplite may type like s/he is teenage to early twenties, but it's obvious that mentally and ethically, they're a 3-year old. Until and unless s/he matures, goes into the real world, and has to deal with the consequences of his/her viewpoints and their results, all we can do is thwack him/her on the head and tell him, "Bad MartianHoplite!" Maybe take away his allowance.

[Covenant]

Supply and demand. Prisons should be largely unnecessary in a restitution-based justice system. Those few that exist might exist, not so much to restrain criminals, as to protect them from the wrath of their victims while they worked to repay their their debts.

Wrath of the victim? But... but I thought a monetary restitutution would be enough to allow me to go off on my merry way after committing a crime against someone? Are you stating that nonrational, emotional over-reactions might still persist in Libertopia, and like Hot Fuzz's swear box, just constitute another form of ineffective deterrant, as all deterrants have throughout the history of time?

That's a rhetorical question. I just find the juxtaposition of "wrath of the victim" and "prisons being for the criminal's protection" alongside the idea of a peaceful society of gun-toting self-interested paranoids funny.

Say I've committed a series of heinous crimes, leaving enraged victims and their survivors gunning for me. My conduct and my debts have gotten me blacklisted by the security industry and left me without the possibility of contracting for protection. I might still see some benefit in reintegrating myself back into society and trying to reform myself, so I check into a free-market prison of my choosing to work off my debts inside the safety of its walls. If prison were therefore a voluntary choice, and prisons had to compete with each other for prisoners, then they would each try and provide the most comfortable accommodations and lowest prices. They would also have an incentive to maximize the productivity of prisoners, and would likely invest in education and training to allow the prisoners to learn more valuable job skills. The prisoners, for their part, would have an incentive to take advantage of these opportunities and increase their earning power as much as possible, that they might pay of their debts sooner and be free to return to peaceful society.

That has to be the least intelligent thing you've said, which is why I'm not even being nice about it. Are you honestly that dense? You could just say that it'd be a flawed system, like all flawed systems, and admit you don't know the answer--there's no reason for you to pretend that all of this is completely sure-fact, since that's just making you weaken the Libertarian position by making it look foolish.

Not all prisons can be voluntary. If I can voluntarily check myself into a prison, I need to be able to set some variety of self-imposed limitation on how long I will be forced to stay there. If I am not forced to stay there after checking in, and I can check out anytime I want, then it isn't a prison at all and I could merely check myself in until the Deranged Mob outside looked the other way and I flee. We remember when murderers get sentenced... do we really know what they're up to nowadays? We assume they're in jail, but if the only reason they're in there is because they're afraid of being shot by some illegal-minded vigilante, then now would be a good time to check out, since we're not keeping tabs on 'em. For such long-stay crimes, the obligation of the victim increases dramatically to monitor the criminal to enforce restitution--or for some parent company. It quickly seems like he depends so heavily on the Security Company to monitor these things that he'll go broke.

That or the No Crime In Our City insurance company that several people sign onto (one community signing a single policy as a family would) might help, since blah blah market pressure. However, that's basically a goddamn government right there.

Plus, you are already discussing wrath against criminals. How long before these same emotions cause other breakdowns in the system? If we cannot expect the members of Libertopia to hold true to the very most basic idea, the idea of not initiating force against another member of the community, then how the hell can we assume the rest will work out? That the charity systems will not collapse? That people will not simply push 'slack' instead of 'work'? We know that a system is best when people work, are altruistic, and are not envious and greedy. We know that.

Everyone knows that. But people so rarely follow that advice. People remain flawed, regardless of the government. Unless your Libertopia can impose those values onto the people, which you have admitted it may not be able to do, the system will not stand. It won't take long for those values to crumble and for people up top to slide back into believing that the poor (and the unprotected, unfed, unhoused...) are that way because they're inferior. Lovely system.

In general, crimes against these sorts of people would still be dealt with. In a libertarian legal system, proof of criminal victimization constitutes a just claim to restitution. This claim could still be sold at a slight discount by a poor crime victim to a third party claims agency that would investigate and take the case to court to receive the restitution.

For murder, some have proposed that a security agency discovering such a case and solving it could claim the restitution from the perpetrator, providing an incentive to deal such offenses.

Yes, providing an incentive to find someone, not find the right guy. Bounty-based systems are not highly accurate or highly-just.

Plus, if you're a little old lady, and you get murdered, there's nobody to claim a victimization. If nobody knew she was dead, and nobody really cared too much, who has a claim? Hasn't her life just been a drain on resources (possibly one of these public funds--she may have taken out a life insurance policy that had a company paying out to feed her), and her death allows her landlord to sell the room to a better paying customer. Sounds like a positive to me! Except for that little ethics issue, yeah.

So you have a problem when nobody knows the victim, and the victim is unable to speak for themselves.

I'm also amused by the idea of security companies not sharing information with each other. If SecCorp is unable to get into a community patrolled by IronGuard Security, then how are they to investigate the murder? IronGuard may even know that it would be in their best interest not to let in SecCorp--if they just stonewall for a few weeks, SecCorp will call the claim no longer financially reasonable and default, saying they've expended their required amount of assets on the problem and not found a lead. IronGuard then gains credibility for being a good, high-security company (same way that Journalists gleefully go to prison to protect a source) and continue to make money off the rich dilletante strangler living in their city. Certainly not a preferable solution, but the market doesn't enforce scruples. If I know that my company can even protect murderers from being prosecuted, I know that's the firm I want--especially so that if someone else with it harasses me, I know they'll get that guy to keep me paying for them.

Unless the guy bribes them, or something. Shit.

Not so, they have no incentive to murder you, or contract for your murder, because if the insurance company if giving them bags of money every time one of the people the "charity" buys insurance for gets murdered, they're going to have an incentive to investigate the circumstances, and if they trace it back the the "charity", then the "charity" becomes liable for paying the restitution, rather than receiving the payout.

The fuck does that mean? Don't be an ass. C'mon, yeah, they'll investigate. I'm sure they will. They'll investigate the same way car companies investigate accusations that their vehicles are dangerous and losing customers, or tobacco companies investigate the idea that their products kill their customers, or gun companies investigate that their weapons can be easily modified into fully automatic weapons not so useful for hunting, or...

Come on.

The worst that could happen is that the Insurance Company decides to 'investigate' the circumstances of the murder and decides it was a Suicide, or a Contract Suicide, or purely an accident--like they took the wrong medication... even if it really was murder. And the Insurance Company wants to prove that it was murder, even if it wasn't, since they want to be paid.

You end up with a bunch of private corporations fighting over money, when they really could be owned by the same parent company (funny trick that would be) or completely failing to do their job of investigating the murder and stopping the ciminal.

Furthermore, you're also assuming again that a private firm will be better at finding out murder than the police are. What basis do you have for that assertion? Do you really understand the kind of manpower requirements we're talking about?

By the time I pay for all these charities, contractors, and other assorted bills, I'm going to end up being broker than all fuck and having far more Authority governing my actions than I ever did under a Republic.

[Ender]

That all being said, I'm hereby officially conceding this debate for the time being.

When I'm satisfied that I can respond to certain question better than I'm currently able, I may come back and continue it.

I chose to restate the question for about the tenth time now, but since you cannot actually answer it without admitting you were wrong, I don't expect you will return.

If you want to get in the last word, this is your chance. Come on, I know are there are a ton of nasty names you've been dying to call me.

No need. I can throw out all the nasty words I know - and as a sailor for 6 years I know plenty - but in the end you will just tune them out. And I’m cool with that. Because when the real world ends up crushing your dreams, ideals, and you, it will be far more painful in the long run. And that much sweeter to those of us who are smart and worldly enough to succeed. That's the true irony here - in the end the limited social darwinism our society has, much less the extreme version of it you advocate, is going to leave you as prey to people like me.

We can scream and holler on the internet all we want, cite link after link, fallacy after fallacy, and produce megabytes of text. But in the end it doesn't matter, because the real world is still moving forward. And the game played there doesn't care one wit for what goes on here. One of us is really going to win. One of us is really going to lose. And here's something the winner's all have in common - they are intelligent, alert, adaptable, and aggressive. And your response here makes it clear you are missing most of those traits. Your pigheaded refusal to observe facts and adapt means that you will miss out on opportunity after opportunity. Your inherent cruelty reflects both a restricted ability to deal with others and an inability to intelligently apply natural aggression to fruitful activities instead of just fuming about wanting to kill tax collectors. You don’t have what it takes, and what you do have is misapplied. And you are too shortsighted to realize that and correct it so that you can succeed.

Which is fine. The state will be there to take care of you. No matter how much you decry it.

[brianeyci]

I don't think any names are required because it's like a 3-year old took something out of Safeway without paying for it.

Problem: he's not three and it's time for some harsh "love" if you want to call it that.

You would treat stupid adults like babies. Babies are expected not to know any better but by the time you're an adult you're supposed to know better. This board is 14+ so your baby analogy fails.

[Terralthra]

Can we still take away his alliance?

[Terralthra]

Grah. Thinko. Allowance, not alliance.

[Vendetta]

exactlyandthus there can be no children in a libertarian society


because children don't produce anything.

It's not that there "can be" no children, but that having children is a fundamentally bad investment if they also grow up libertarian, because they have no incentive to support their parents when their parents become to old to support themselves.

[eyl]

I'm also amused by the idea of security companies not sharing information with each other. If SecCorp is unable to get into a community patrolled by IronGuard Security, then how are they to investigate the murder? IronGuard may even know that it would be in their best interest not to let in SecCorp--if they just stonewall for a few weeks, SecCorp will call the claim no longer financially reasonable and default, saying they've expended their required amount of assets on the problem and not found a lead. IronGuard then gains credibility for being a good, high-security company (same way that Journalists gleefully go to prison to protect a source) and continue to make money off the rich dilletante strangler living in their city. Certainly not a preferable solution, but the market doesn't enforce scruples. If I know that my company can even protect murderers from being prosecuted, I know that's the firm I want--especially so that if someone else with it harasses me, I know they'll get that guy to keep me paying for them.

For that matter, if SecCorp has a suspect (or a suspect location), how would they even get a search warrant in order to investigate? After all, when you come down to it, a search warrant is authorization to infringe on someone's property on the basis of suspicion of wrongdoing (supported suspicion, but still not conclusive proof, since A) whether it's conclusive or not is only determined at trial, and B) if you have conclusive proof you don't need the warrant) - something this society should view as heresy. Yet without it, SecCorp would inevitably be forced to violate the law in the course of their investigation - unless they have some sort of immunity. The downsiedes of such immunity should be obvious.