Bitcoin Forum

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

+1.  On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control.  I estimate 20% would be sufficient.

Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha.

Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent.

Ha ha   :)

True but sad:  http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/police-arent-legally-obligated-to.html

I think it all goes back to the age old question:  Is liberty the mother or the daughter of order?

Hyperbole: for when you're out of legitimate ways to make your point.

Ahh...the age old question: "Why the hell am I paying taxes to fund these police parasites when they aren't even legally obliged to protect me"

This is far from an overblown statement. Fact: The only thing libertarianism works against is force against the individual's right to himself.

Hey man, it's for a good cause.  How else could we afford to bomb brown people? 

+1

I do appreciate the libertarian ideology for it's internal coherence. The main problem for me, however, is the concept of fairness. Our current economics (and very likely one in libertarianism too) is one form of structural classism. Poor people are by default in debt, paying interest for being that way. The rich on the other hand have a chance to earn interest on already having wealth. Thats just arbitrary construction that just happens to be. I see no moral problem with fixing it with an another one. Obviously thats just one example of systemic unfairness. Individuals may be able to overcome those, but in aggregate the result is obvious. In games like go and renju handicap or handicap rules are given to make the game even as first player has otherwise an advantage. Everybody agrees these rules are reasonable and fair. Life should be no exception.

Fairness and justice are values just as are property rights. Your definition of fairness may be different than mine but so may be my perception of property rights to yours. Thus, to achieve more just outcome I deem taxation – aka legitimized stealing and thus tampering your property rights – completely fine. Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth. To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time. To say there's no obligation is just immoral. To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.  

In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.

I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it. In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.

Our argument isn't that the car is broken. Our argument is that it runs on human blood, and maybe we should get another car.

Dramatic? Yes. But think about it. Taxation is, at its most basic level, the violent extortion of money. It's a mugging.

I'll concede that it's almost a human right, but it's still not.  However, the right to keep the fruits of one's own labors most certainly is a human right that is regularly violated by people who claim the authority to do so by reason that they are the government.


It seems to have worked pretty well in the US right up until the New Deal.


Obligation to do what, exactly?  Aid your fellow man?  Sure, I'm obligated as a Christian to help the needy, but that is my religious obligation.  It's not something that can be satisfied on my behalf by government taking from me to give to another.  Nor can I, as a Christian, force my mores upon others.  


<sigh>

If you aren't a communist at 20, then you have no heart.  If you are still a communist at 30, then you have no sense.


You obviously have a distorted understanding of what libertarian system would be.


There comes a point that it's no longer worth trying to fix, and it's just better to junk it and try again.  We passed that point around 1971.


Public & private is what we have been getting for as long as I have been alive, and as you pointed out above, that seems to lead to a broken system with endless stream of bad decisions.

+1

+1.  Can anyone say "paradigm shift"?

Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.

You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth.

They'll probably be more okay with that than starving to death, or stealing and being hunted down. As for your competitors, you just have to make sure that you are extracting close to the market rate. You don't have to worry too much -- your competitors will be like you and so the rate is good enough (after all, they need to make a profit), and if you do well enough in your market, you will face only a few serious competitors at worse.

Not everybody derives value from just money. People will easily bid over the lower ones.

Wait, which is it?

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?

That. You need to in effect become a private government, thus making society unlibertarian. Thus it is in the worker's best interests to have a libertarian society.

Um. So, Who won that one? ;)

Did somebody just have a brain fart?

You mean like your constant usage of "fantasy liberland" or whatever it is you like to say?

I think that might have been some cognative dissonance antimatter coming together with a *bang*.

Yea, no ground, just the world we live in and the current system we have.  That's nothing substantial.  Feel free to overlook it.

The current world we live in is ran by a state fed on poisonous debt and money.

Which is a result of the type of the market action described.  Someday you might understand that.  The current system didn't spring up out of the ground.  It's the end product of free markets and human nature.

"Which is a result of the type of the market action described.  Someday you might understand that.  The current system didn't spring up out of the ground.  It's the end product of free markets and human nature evolution."

I define human rights as right to meet basic physical and mental needs. Taxation may not be pretty way to ensure meeting those needs but I think its justifiable. I don't see how charities and market mechanisms would meet that goal. Setting wages to float (as I believe libertarian system would do) will lead to unreasonable workload to sustain oneself for the least productive. Otherwise there will be unemployment which is even bigger a problem. Basic income and minor tax-rate and the problem is solved.

New Deal essentially is what had to be done as charities weren't enough of a safety-net during the great depression. Of course the great depression is not a fair point of reference, but proves the point that at least at times welfare is needed.

My wording wasn't that successful there. I just mean that if the system fails to deliver basic rights to people, then there is moral obligation to change the rules to somehow meet those needs. I wasn't saying that individual should immediately give what he has in excess to somebody not so fortunate.

I take that commie-note as mere tool of rhetoric. Not everything short of libertarianism is totalitarianism even though that seems to be the point in these circles. All I'm saying is that tax money that is spent to make unfortunate people better functioning individuals will reap benefits to the whole society. I think thats very sensible.


Please clarify or give a source so I can verify this as I'm genuinely interested in the concept of libertarianism. For now I'll just state that as libertarianism is an ideology without reality so it is very easy to fall trap of unreasonable hopes, or any other misconception for that matter. Communism is prime example of how rosy ideology and harsh reality failed to match. Similarly communism was the ideology to free people from perceived oppression of entity and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if libertarianism ended in similar dystopic result. The rule of the state is just replaced by the rules of the economics that will emerge.

Here's a better metaphor: if your car is broken, you wouldn't argue everybody should start using bicycles only. I agree that sometimes reseting the game may be the only viable way to build functioning solution.

Bad decisions have been result of lack of accountability. Private side is optimized by profit incentive. That can lead to very different results than what is desirable.

Libertarians just CANNOT wrap their minds around this, which is what leads to a lot of the circular arguments.

Good god could everyone just read "A Theory of Justice" so we could better debate one another.  It is cheap, easy to find, and a basis for the majority of US liberal egalitarianism.  I have seen good counter arguments to Rawls's work by Libertarians ans Anarchist but nothing on that level here in this forum.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+theory+of+justice&hl=en&ei=FD4PTqDSJ_KGsAKsnJ35CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

How would a libertarian society address the causes of global warming?

:)

I agree, though it is worth pointing out that Nozick is often writing in direct response to Rawls and forms that basis/bedrock of much of the right-libertarian philosophy on this board. So there is indirectly a lot of criticism of Rawlsian social contract positions even if people may not be making them explicitly.

(I would add Iris Marion Young "Justice and the Politics of Difference" for a comprehensive discussion of non-distributive justice and Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom" for a re-examination of liberty/freedom.)

The magical market would cure global warming with happiness and pixie dust.

I haven't read Nozick yet. Thanks for the suggestions! I look forward to reading them.

Might I point to some free books you mentioned

http://books.google.com/books/about/Justice_and_the_politics_of_difference.html?id=Q6keKguPrsAC
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Development+as+Freedom&btnG=Search+Books

Am I wrong?  Answer his question if I didn't do it.

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.

Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.


Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.

I love the answer, it's hilarious.  So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.  hahhahahaha

And people thing we have a litigious society now... oh man... :D


Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too. LOLOLOL

I'm glad you liked the answer. I'll answer your questions since you're being civil for the moment.


Yes, you can but restitution has to be proportional. It's hard to see how my breathing can be contributing damage worth more than an infinitesimally small fraction of a penny. Feel free to waste your time suing for that.


If you can't prove damage to your property then why else would you be suing, hurt feelings?

Oh boy! An easy target!

First of all, unsubsidized roads = far less driving = no problem. It would solve itself in just that fashion as alternate transportation sources were used (probably trains).

Second, it would be proportional. Trace amounts of pollution wouldn't be worthwhile to go after. But then, number one means that such amounts would be lacking and thus there would be no problem.

Irrelevant.  More pixie dust.  While you masturbate to the free market's ability to solve all problems to perfection, I'll be busy filing a law suit again.... every human being on the planet.  The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

Subtract the expenses in mailing all the people claims for their pollution.

When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.

Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

Guns aren't free. I hope you have proper funding lined up. Guards don't work cheap either. Your investors aren't just going to want a tyrannical court either. They will want it to be sustainable.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

You neglect to mention many others will have similar amounts of guns. He won't have a monopoly.

No, in his fantasy world he will have already purchased all the guns with his unlimited supply of gold that fell from the sky.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

Wait, wouldn't the man with the biggest gun (governments today) be the centralized authority?

Good try though .

Only if most people are violent assholes, in which case, laws won't do us any good anyways. There also isn't any finality in disputes already. I can take it all the way up the courts and if I don't like the ruling then I can lobby the government to change the law. If we are in a disagreement over a piece of land and you win the court case, guess what, the government can just pass a law granting me whatever I want, some new ordinance that says I get to do whatever I want. The only final arbiter in any dispute is death.

Yes, that's exactly what a centralized authority is: the man with the biggest gun.  Congrats, captain obvious.

..and you love these monopolies.

There's a major difference though.  If you lose the court case at the centralized court, AND you fail to get the law changed, you're going to be locked away by the centralized authority and you aren't going to have a chance to kill me.  The government can do that now because the government will always have a bigger gun than anyone else.

In Liberland, there's no one to lock me up.  There's no central court, so I can go to whatever court will rule in my favor (or even my own court that I preside over).  There's no government to lobby for change.  I make you do whatever I want as long as I've got a bigger gun than you.

You see, it isn't going to be easy to get a bigger gun. You actually have to work in favor of what the people are willing to pay for.

I was unaware that a lack of government would result in people going apeshit because they can.

Also, good luck using that stockpile of guns on your own. It would be fun to see you attempt to man a single tank without a gunner or driver against ten tanks that have both.

Assuming you find people willing to use those guns (since otherwise it doesn't matter how many/how large your guns are since they will just be collecting dust), good luck keeping them paid and happy compared to what they could get from a legitimate organization.

You haven't thought things through very well, have you?

He thinks that people magically capture 90% of the market.

No, he thinks that people with the biggest guns can just take what they want. But to get the biggest guns they already have to have the money in the first place i.e. his argument is circular. I've already debunked his "go to whatever court I want to" argument before so I see no point in rehashing it but just to review, nobody is going to do business with you unless you agree to abide by a respectable court and no court is going to be respectable unless they have a solution for disputes between other courts viz. yet another court that both will defer to in disputes. He makes a bunch of arguments that are plausible albeit naive but don't stand up to scrutiny. The only person he's convincing is himself.

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....

That's where the quote in my sig comes in.  We have the impossible task of making a system that is powerful enough to control all those in it, even very powerful corporate entities and rich folk, but we must keep it from being hijacked by any one group or from turning tyrannical itself.

Abolition of private property followed by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat ought to do the trick.


There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence):

-What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless.
-Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously.
-If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc.

Having dealt with those specific rich and powerful, lets assume that this system has been in place for a long enough time that previously state backed enterprises are gone:

-How would they company hiring an army make its money initially, though? Imperialism is an expensive venture, highly risky, and the rate of return would only be high against a target that likely was very powerful in its own right (say, another large company with its own large security force, not to mention any volunteer militias and private defense agencies nearby).
-Assuming they succeeded, how would they keep up momentum? To return the initial investment for the invasion force, they would have to conquer very large amounts of land, which would piss off large amounts of people in a major way, not only the people occupied but also their relatives, people with knowledge of the invasion, etc. If they pissed off people in this way, ignoring large scale PDAs and militias for a second, they would be plagued by constant guerrilla activity, where a handful of guys with old guns would be on the same playing field as an army with high tech equipment (though Imperialist Co. would have to pay more for an army with high tech equipment, which would require more conquests to pay off the initial investment, which would leave them with even more enemies and with them right where they started), as Afghanistan and Iraq are demonstrating.
-Why would people continue to do business with them after they began the attacks? Once they were acting like criminals (or whatever you want to call them), the negative publicity would be a huge hit on their initial industry, regardless of what it is. The only industry that could conceivably make a profit from all of this would be a PDA, but they would (A) have plenty of competition out to wipe them out and (B) wouldn't have many honest customers after the attacks (would you hire a company for protection that ran the risk of suddenly turning around and seizing your property?).

A legitimate concern would be anarchist countries beside jealous countries with governments. A government, through taxation, monetary controls, etc would not want an alternative to them with a better deal right next door, so they would have a very good reason to throw everything at annexing the anarchists while they still held the advantage of manpower, etc. That would be an actual danger, though it would entirely depend on the circumstances and isn't any problem with the anarchist system itself, per se.

Also, what prevents a corporation from doing this now? I don't mean just anywhere; the US could never be conquered that way; but what about a small, relatively poor country? JP Morgan could probably hire a large enough army to take over, say, Honduras. The problem is that that sort of thing isn't profitable nor is it considered to be acceptable by most people. That would not change if the government was gone.

Finally you bring up some legitimate points.

Here's the deal, when I say rich and powerful, it doesn't necessarily mean the same group of people in power right now.  It means WHATEVER group of rich and powerful end up emerging.

Case in point is... every revolution in history, ever, for all time, ever ever.

For recent history that we all know, how did the US start out?  People (just like you!) cried about high taxes (just like you do!) and they overthrew the current system (just like you want to!) and established their own system that they thought would be better (just like you want to!)... and here we are 200 years later with a group of elite as our masters again. 

This scenario plays itself out over and over, no matter what revolution you look at.  China is another great example.  The poor revolted against their rich dictators... and end up creating a tyranny of their own.  The French peasants revolved against the elite of their country... and we all know how happy, pretty, and full of freedom that turned out.


No matter WHAT system you put in the place, A group, maybe not the current one, but SOME group will work themselves into a system of power and end up ruling over everyone else - be it directly like a dictator or indirectly like a modern, manipulative democracy.  Your system does NOTHING to prevent or even delay this accumulation of power, in fact, for limitless reasons explained in numerous arguments all over this board, it actually facilitates and speeds up the process.

It seems you aren't willing to acknowledge a point if there isn't any common ground in it.


The only revolutions in history that were expressly made for the purposes of stopping the "rich and powerful" would be the French and Russian revolutions (the German ones too, but they didn't succeed so we will never know how they would have changed things). The French revolution ended with no rich and powerful at all (barring maybe Napoleon himself, and he was only powerful because of the wars that France fought at the time), nor did the Russian one (there were arguably rich and powerful people, they just happened to be exclusively from the people in charge, though people in charge are almost always rich and powerful anyway).

At any rate, no revolution has ever aimed for the abolition of government (barring the Makhnoists and CNT-FAI, both of whom were stabbed in the back by the Communists).


There was a LOT of change in between the beginning (revolution against the current system) and now (group of elite as masters). For quite a while things were very good and there was no "rich and powerful" elite class. This period peaked in the 1840s and possibly 1850s, where even the banking system was entirely free. Then Lincoln began helping Northern industrialists with high tariffs at the cost of Southerners who had more to gain from free trade, ultimately leading to the civil war and the system we have now.
Had the system be more decentralized (and I doubt you will find anything more decentralized than anarchy), the civil war would have never occurred due to a lack of federal power, resulting in the large corporations never getting the subsidies that characterized the 1870s and 1880s.


Communist China under Mao was much, much worse than it is now. It is still very bad (corporatism isn't much better than communism), but it has at least improved. The French revolution's problems came mostly from its attempts at imperialism (under Napoleon) and the surrounding nations' attempts to destroy it.

Anyway, the problem both of them had can be traced to a centralized apparatus which was in control (in China it was the Communist party, in France it was Napoleon), which wouldn't exist in an anarchist society.



Anarchist Ukraine never had any of these problems. It was simply betrayed by the Communists who first used them as manpower to bleed the Whites and then stabbed them in the back while they were weakened. Likewise, the CNT-FAI ultimately failed because the idiotic Republicans used them as pawns against the Nationalists and then tried to stab them in the back before the Nationalists were defeated.

Anarchist revolutions have less of a problem with people within them becoming powerful and more of a problem with betrayal at the hands of rival groups.

So, you're saying the people that are already in control will still be in control? What's the difference again?

And thus the point stands.

... The Communists are going to stab us in the back? First, the Communists are about as far away from the "rich and powerful" as you can get, many of them falling into the "poor and pitiful" demographic, thus making your entire point moot. Second of all, that is a bit of a circumstantial problem which would not arise in every revolution. Third, an anarchist revolution is incapable of having someone grow powerful and set up a dictatorship for blatantly obvious reasons that it would appear you didn't pay any attention to.

What about people/corporations who have large amounts of land already, and leverage that to acquire more over time by buying out the smaller players rather than by invasion? Couldn't a situation develop analagous to feudal Europe, where everyone not born into a select aristocratic class has virtually no chance of ever owning land? Libertarians seem to hate forcible redistribution of legitimately owned property which presumably rules out a peasant revolt, but on the other hand the feudal lord is more or less able to tax his subjects to his heart's content which also seems to be a libertarian no-no.

Tax implies that there's no choice in the matter. Without coercive force, and with open 'borders', there'd be no way to keep 'serfs' tied to the land, so the market would correct any excessive charges pretty quick.

Why assume open borders? If the surrounding properties are privately held then their respective owners are well within their rights to repel trespassers with physical barriers or force.

But the one they're in can't keep them there. Do you really think these greedy businessmen would turn away people who want to give them money?

They might and they might not, but it's quite possible that the few land owners would choose to harmonize their policies on any number of policy decisions as a cartel would. You might find that none of the surrounding fiefdoms that will allow you entry offer any better of a deal. Competitive practices are of course possible too but there are no guarantees that the 'old boys club' would choose to undercut each other if they can profit more by fixing prices.

Somebody will. They may be far away, but by undercutting even by a little, they could make a lot of money.

But how does that help you if nobody in between will allow you passage?

Blocking off travel blocks off trade. Nobody's going to block off trade. That would be tantamount to committing suicide.

You seem to be arguing now that my hypothetical is unlikely, but you don't go so far as to say it's impossible. In any case I think it demonstrates that freedom of movement/self-determination can be severely limited if property rights are absolute.

Can be, in theory. Would not be, in practice. For purely self-interested reasons.

Predicting human behavior with certainty can be notoriously difficult.

It's been a fun debate but I'll move on for now. I do like some aspects of libertarianism from what I understand of it so far, notably an interest in commodity money, but as I say I have some strong reservations about the idea.

Let me grab my Libertarian Tank and we'll see who wants to take it away from me.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.

Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

1. I fail to see how bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth, given that the existing distribution of bitcoins is overwhelmingly slanted towards early adopters (mined large amounts of bitcoin early on when the difficulty was low) and those with large quantities of existing currencies. (to purchase large arrays of mining equipment).

2. That assumes all weapons are of equal quality.  Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle is far outclassed by Tom's armoured vehicle with an M2, which he could get because he had more money.

money works with gravity the same way mass does.  it attracts.

+1

Atlas I'm puzzled by your post as well. 

How does Bitcoin do any wealth distribution?  Those that have wealth now would simply have it denominated in Bitcoin.  Or is there some middle step I missed?

On the 'big gun' theory, it's not so much that the wealth will be evenly distributed, or even the guns. It the fact that without the legitimacy granted by the pretense of 'consent of the governed'. In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

that situation appears unlikely given the history of societies since the neolithic era.

How well do you suppose the Mafia moving into an area would be received by the general populace? Hailed as liberators, or resisted?

I'll just leave this here for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

No man has the incentive to sit on a massive amount of wealth --while letting it drain itself-- without creating more for others.

The only time wealth is stagnant is when its in the hands of central banks and government, to where its use is reduced to irrational greed, violence and bureaucracy.

1, and the most glaring error here: Who is not going to notice the invasion of a conquering force, with or without a flag?

2, AnCap presupposes a higher level of personal responsibility than the current 'The Police will take care of it' mentality. When there is no official police force, and most people are armed, they tend to take care of their own problems.

So, nice try, and you do have a fine point, in today's society of sheeple, but it doesn't hold up in AnCapistan.

Making a claim that bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth is a little bit too extreme.  However, I would say that since bitcoin facilitates transactions in a peer-to-peer fashion and allows anonymity and no central authority getting a slice of revenue throughs fees/taxes/inflation, therefore use of bitcoin can promote more equal distributions of wealth than what we currently have with VISA, PayPal, the Federal Reserve, taxation, etc.


Here's the deal. It is much more difficult to coerce an armed man.  If some criminal sends a letter each year asking for X% of your income on condition of kidnapping, then that criminal most likely won't walk out alive after attempting to break into your home.  Unfortunately, of course the current democratic government has an aura of legitimacy which enables power hungry psychopaths to use deadly force against innocent non-violent people.  But yeah, provided that every man has a gun ready at all tames and provided that it's considered legitimate to use deadly force to protect yourself from all robbers, then Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle functions effectively enough to nullify the ability of Tom's armored vehicle to make you a slave.  It is very difficult to tax dead people's income.  Cadavers aren't very productive.

Making a claim that bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth is a little bit too extreme.

It's not. It potentially takes away the government's and bank's ability to monopolize and limit wealth distribution and creation. It's not about how much money is in everyone's pocket. It's about man's ability to grasp it and build it to further heights while its produced innovation benefits everyone's ability to sustain.

Wealth is potentially unlimited unless it is reduced --again-- to irrational greed, violence and bureaucracy.  

depends on what exactly they do as they move in.

if they start making a problem of themselves on a wide scale, yes, they're going to be resisted, most likely by a newly formed organization of residents of the area (this is how many gangs got started, as a response to combat crime (organized or not) in an area, but once they finished that task, they didn't go away.), in a relatively fair fight (something you don't want as a general rule) which is why a smart mafia leader is not going to do that.

if they just move in and stay generally out of things initially and gradually insert themselves in things over time, you're not going to get nearly as much protest.  nevermind you've done this a hundred times before in other areas, people assume they're special and it will be different here.  then 10 years down the road they're running the whole joint and removing them would be messy and dangerous, and besides, people are now used to it, so you don't rock the boat.

boiling a frog slowly doesn't work with real frogs, but the concept works perfectly with human physiology.

this isn't "today's society".  this dates back thousands of years to the first societies, which then grew into the first empires.

I think you meant 'Psychology', But yes, slowly turning up the heat might work. Maybe. Of course, keep in mind that in order for it to work, you can't go in to any one place with too much of a show of force, so you'll probably end up evenly matched in any individual encounter, and the people are armed, remember. Also remember, that you can't extort dead people, so it's not in your interest to kill anyone (even as an 'example', because that's not exactly a slow boil tactic).

So, what would most likely happen is that you'll lose a few enforcers, Maybe a few shopkeepers will lose their lives or businesses, the community will notice, and, out you go.

yes, i did.  my spell chequer is working great.

or more realistically, the community notices and everyone individually thinks "that could be me next.  i don't want trouble" and resistance fails to happen or alternatively, a resisting organization forms, boots them out, then becomes a new mafia, and starts expansion, possibly under the premise of getting rid of the existing mafia, and the whole thing starts again from the beginning.

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

As soon as the 'new mafia' started muscling businesses or people, out they would go, too. So, as long as they are peacefully protecting each other's property without resorting to coercive methods to obtain funding, Where's the harm in a 'Merchant's association'?

presumably your list of free societies doesn't include european societies prior to the roman republic/empire expanding to them or eurasian societies prior to the macedonian empire moving in.

i do not see evidence of the type of general human psychology you assume.

Remind me what happened to Rome again... and who took 'em down?

people from what is now germany captured rome, after the romans were in power for about 800 years.

and the eastern roman empire (aka the byzantine empire) kept on going for almost another 1000 years until they were taken out by the ottoman empire, which itself only stopped existing last century.

1) Maybe they notice it, but don't see it as their problem.

2) So the fact that there is a police today makes people sheep, but the fact that there will be a rent-a-cop force in AnCapistan is going to make people into Mr Badass McKickass.  Makes sense. Perhaps people just act this way, regardless, armed or not? You are aware that in an armed society, your opponents tend to be armed as well. I don't know about you, but my rational self interest tells me that getting into firefights isn't in my immediate self interest. I'd rather have the police deal with it. Armed or not.
In an unarmed society where I can be reasonably certain that someone isn't armed, I can gather a few friends and overpower an assailant.

Which society is this, that the criminals follow the laws?

As far as getting into a firefight not being in my immediate self-interest, some people can look a little bit ahead, and think, "I could be next" (Or maybe a little bit back, and remember "They came for the Catholics...")

I'd say that in most of Europe your risk of being shot for stopping a criminal is rather small. Stabbed yes, but not shot.

Or they'll just think that they'd rather be home with their kids than engage in a firefight over a hypothetical situation.

Hypothetical? Let's assume a smart invader that takes down one place at a time, and doesn't drive a damn tank down the middle of the road. At what time does the situation switch from hypothetical to real? When the store next door gets taken out? Five doors up? When they kick your door in?

They came for the Catholics, indeed....

It becomes real when there's an IMMEDIATE threat. That's how most humans work. So most people are probably going to sit still until someone knocks on their door, or maybe at their neighbours. You can wish that away all you want, but that doesn't change much.

OK, let's assume that the shopkeepers are complete ostriches.

What about their defense agencies? You know, the people they pay to protect them from this? They'll probably want to take action to keep from losing any more clients.

You mean the Police and the Army?  Doesn't that defeat the whole object of a libertarian society?

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

So if I have Bob's little army and you have Bubba's little army, can we have a little war?  The winner gets to tax everyone in town.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt,be very upset with us.

"defense agencies, not assault agencies" ???

Really?  So when one of them starts taking money to kill people, is there a "boss" army that can bring them back into line?  If not, I am paying Bob to kill you, you are dead and I want all your stuff. 

Yeah... Not how it works.


They're not paid to kill other people, they're paid to protect your stuff. They also have all those other customers to think about, so, most likely if you asked them to attack me (or I you), they'd probably just drop the contract.

Sorry but I can't believe you are happy with the notion that I can have you killed and its only a commercial decision as to whether or not Bob's Army does it.  The whole concept of armies that compete for business is far fetched enough but to say that your right to life is down to whether or not its profitable to kill you takes this beyond parody.

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

You said they wouldn't for commercial reasons.  There is no superior force to the little army I have hired to kill you.

The reason this matters is that in real life, people do pay for killing.  From the day you have rival armies set up, you will have people willing to pay for kills.  I don't see how you propose to control this.

No superior force? 3 armies, fighting in defense (which means they could probably call in others via mutual assistance contracts) wouldn't overpower your what, 5 guys you were able to bribe? and what about the other customers of your army? They're not defenseless, either. You'd be stopped, and brought to arbitration. If you succeeded in killing me, you'd likely be handed to my survivors to be dealt with as they please. I should point out at this juncture that my Fiance is strongly in favor of public execution. Messy, violent, public execution.

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

Bob has the biggest army and I am richer than you.  I don't care if I am popular as I have a big army defending me.  You are dead.  Your poor widow is even less likely to be able to afford a big army than you, especially now that I own all your stuff.

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

So first it was personal responsibility, now it's the shopkeepers that should take action to protect the populace.
And what about the defence agencies? I doubt they go for an all out war with anyone, and I doubt they will be equipped for it. It doesn't make economical sense. They'd probably just strike a deal, and sacrifice a part of their clients.

Read some other threads.  I've been over this scenario with him and a few others MANY times.  They just can't wrap their minds around it.

Sounds like a bad place to live, IMO.  I need a private army to protect me from the endless number of other private armies.  What insane amount of money am I going to have to pay this army to be willing to die to protect me?  Do they stand around my house 24/7?  That's going to get expensive.  If they don't, they better be stationed nearby in case Hawker's private army comes to kill me in the middle of the night.  Do they have that kind of response time?  

Hell, what's saying they even DO protect me when the rubber meets the road?  They've got all the guns AND they've already got my money AND there's no more powerful central authority to force them to follow their contract.  They're likely to tell me to pound sand and fend for myself.


Here's another scenario:

What's stopping these "defense" agencies from realizing that if they band together, THEY have the monoply on force and THEY can rule the world?  There's really no scarier thought than that of a privately own army with zero accountability and no larger force to stop it.


Oh wait... private force, no accoutability, no loyalty to anyone but themselves... I've seen this movie before, I know how it ends: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-10-07-blackwater-investigation_N.htm

There is a glaring example of such a "balanced" (stable is not the right word) state of anarchy that you statists continue to overlook.  There is no such government over the international negotiations of nations, as all nation-states interact in a condition similar to anarchy.  Of course, sometimes they do go to war, and sometimes the biggest dog dominates the others.  Again, I'm not an anarchist, but not because of the reason presented here.  Such security conglomerates can work, because they have in the past.  Call them what you will, but tribes, clans and city states all existed for this exact reason; but they all yielded to such organizations more powerful than themselves.  Humanity seems to have a natural tendency towards self-organization into such social structures.

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.



A form of government and leadership.



Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.  Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.  The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.

Which is why I'm not an anarchist.  I consider it an unstable society.  And any unstable society will, more often than not, lead to oppression and tyranny.  The framers of the Constitution built a republic with balance of powers because, as risky as that was, it was the best option available to them.  We may have better options in the age of the Internet, but I'm not any more convinced of that then you seem to be.
Sure it is, it's just a matter of scale.  The same incentives to avoid conflict, but not at any cost, exist just the same.
No, they don't.  The UN has no power not granted to them by the voluntary actions of the member governments.  At best, the UN is an established system of mediation.  At worst, the UN is a puppet organization that gives legitimacy to the collective aggressions of the largest member states.


I'd love to live in the world that you think that you live in.  Even the most progressive democracies of the modern world do not require the consent of the governed to engage in war.  The United States has not declared war in the constitutionally described manner since WWII, and even that would not have required the public support from even a simple majority of voters.

Joe isn't the commander of Bob's Army.  Bob is.  Once Joe makes that phone call, Bob is the one that has to weight the options toward resolution.  Bob faces, not just the prospect of defeat (and his own death) if he should choose to ignore mediation as a solution; but also (more likely) the expense of combat exceeding the perceived losses of his client, the desertion of his manpower, and the depletion of his resources.  Depending on the injustice that Joe has suffered, it can quickly become in the best interests of Bob to compensate Joe himself, and either seek restitution from the offender (or offender's own private security force) using the evidence available to him, or drop Bob as a covered client should the evidence favor that Bob is a fraud.  No one here can really say whether actual combat would be more or less rare in a anarchist society with any certainty.  The answer would be highly dependent upon unforeseeable factors and matters of culture.  That said, I find it unlikely that combat in the streets would be any more likely than such combat between rival mafia families or street gangs are in some areas today.  There is no formal mediation process between such criminal organizations, and by definition, these organizations are filled with violent criminals; yet, these kind of conflicts between such organizations are relatively rare for all the same reasons as it would be rare between private security forces that are (presumedly) comprised mostly of legitimate forces representing a broader and less violent cross section of society.  I can't even imagine how this could lead to a 'Mad Max' scenario of a constant state of low level warfare, as you seem to imagine.  But I won't argue that such a condition is possible.

Again, I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist.  Like so many statists, you seem to confuse the ideologies.

How did you become rich, though? No government grants, no government protections: you would have to either be a great worker of some kind (say, an actor or a neurosurgeon) or a businessman. How much business do you think you will get after you do hire a "big army" to oppress people? You won't be able to fund that big army the instant you blow all of your reputation on a petty attack.

Meanwhile, you would have to look far and wide to find a "big army" of thugs to oppress people, too. Who would hire them afterwards? How would they supply themselves (unless the rich person personally supplies them, in which case the above problem applies to the big army, too)? Attacking someone on the rich man's behalf would alienate any future customers.

Genghis Khan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

uh... No.

Monopolies are never good. Especially monopolies on Violence. Even Moonshadow will agree that the people need to be able to defend against the aggressions of the state, should their 'long train of abuses' become too much.


They STILL don't have a monopoly on force. The populace is armed. Any conquering force, within or without, would lose a lot of people. Most people would consider that not worth it. Especially when they can have almost as much profit, with much less chance of losing their lives.

This is not entirely true. Key phrase: utility company infrastructure development.

Then are you here for the gang bang or just to troll, because the argument is obviously against the anarchists.




And that matter of scale makes all the difference.  Kind of like how a lemonade stand and running GE is not the same experience, and what the lemonade stand guy can get away with doesn't necessarily work for the GE CEO.




And a government has no power not granted to it by its people, whether it be through concent or apathay.




I said nothing about declaring war in a constitutional manner.  I said the support of the public was required.  Again, whether this is accomplished through concent or apathy and how much propoganda is needed is irrelevant.  When public outrage becomes too loud (see: Vietnam), the show cannot go on.

Joe Idiot and Jane Idiot don't have this issue.  They need only be convinced themselves.


I don't confuse them.  I merely understand that libertarianism IS anarchy, which is why it cannot exist for any period of time.


You've also shot your own system in the foot with your argument about the relationship between Joe and Bob.  Joe hired Bob to defend his interests; he didn't hire Bob as legal council or to question his decisions and debate what is or isn't worth fighting for.  Bob will do as he is told because that's what he's being paid to do, and he wants to get paid.

There is a formal mediation process between criminal organizations, it's called the police.  Conflicts are rare because open conflict draws unwanted attention from the central authority.  That isn't an issue in Liberland, as the Liberkids and their private armies can do whatever they please without fear of a central authority cracking down on them.

Please review the subject of this thread.


The matters of scale do make a difference, but both still respond to the same incentives.

I'll concede that point.  Still, the membership of the UN don't grant the UN any kind of monopoly on force, nor any other ongoing power.  Governments are possessive of their regional monopolies.

We must have different understandings of the term "support" in this context.  In my world, neither apathy nor ignorance would qualify.


As I just said, you confuse the ideologies.  Libertarianism is not advocacy for the dissolution of the nation-state.  Nor is it an absence of social cohesion, otherwise considered to be 'chaos'.
It's not 'my' system.  I presented a defense of the anarchist concept of private security forces sans state.  Libertarians don't advocate for the dissolution of the state, but for it's limittaion to it's core purposes.  One of those core purposes is the defense of nationals from enemies foriegn and domestic, another is the enFORCEment of law.

Bob only wants to get paid if he can stand to profit.  If Bob is the commander of a private security force for a rational reason, then he is going to weigh the risks before (or even after) taking the job.  The argument changes little regardless of how much Joe has, for itf the costs of the war exceed the resources of Joe, it doesn't make any difference.


Again, I wish I lived in the world you think that you live in.  Criminal organizations exist in certain locales because the police forces are either ineffective or corrupt.  In either case, such organizations persist where they do because they have a functional safe zone within which they can operate with near zero risk from local police interference.  Such organizations do not, and never have, operated in other locales because the police forces in those areas have neither problem.  Mafias, in particular, are a phenom begotten by government prohibitions, and are thus strongest in locales wherein the gulf between the degree of prohibitions and the enforcability of those prohibitions are greatest.

Genghis Khan was up against nation states which surrendered. Plus, these days it is a bit harder to find the initial finance to make an absurdly large army and supply it.

Also, this is a circular argument.

A single set of wires is probably beneficial, but having only one company in control of those wires definitely is not. A consortium is probably best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


It seems that myrkul's idea of a society without a government, an army or police is not libertarian at all so the thread is hijacked :(

Anyway having read the wikipedia, libertarianism seems fine.  I doubt people will vote for it but the idea seems OK.

Don't confuse the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism which, if one is logically consistent, implies anarchism.

that depends on which wing of the L party you refer to.  there is a wing of myrkuls in the party.

IMO, a libertarian government could work (i don't think it would be an optimal form of government, but it would function), if and only if they eliminate corporations or place very strong limits on what they are legally allowed to do.  a person has rights, an imaginary person formed of a group of people does not.

without that provision, it is my opinion a libertarian government is doomed to failure.

The Libertarian party is full of pansies. They do not represent libertarianism.

Anarchy is simply libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

"They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

A government gets its funding via coercion and violence, or it wouldn't be a government.

Ergo: Divest the government of it's Monopoly on force, and allow competing agencies to provide the services of protection.

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion

Mind, I would be perfectly fine with a very, very small state with the sole purpose of protection in mind (The night watchman state). It would be inconsistent, but I doubt I would complain unless it started growing.

I don't disagree with the statement, "anarchism is libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion" on general terms, it's the specifics that concern me.  All things being equal, I'd say that this is correct.  However, people are not always logical, and cultures don't always react to threats in a rational manner.  The differences between a libertarian state and an anarchist society may, in fact, be very small in practice; but I don't consider those differences to be trivial.  Prior to 1908, the lifestyle of the average American was very libertarian in practice, if not in fact.  For example, the average American would have nearly zero contact with official federal agencies over the course of his entire lifetime, and contact with state officials only on an occasional/annual basis.  There was no such thing as regulation of finance except at the highest levels, no personal income tax, no departments of energy, agriculture, education or even defense.  There was no Federal Reserve, and no fractional reserve banking.  All US money was specie or banknotes issued as wearhouse receipts of specie.  All loans were secured with an equal amount of long term savings, not on demand accounts with the backing of the FDIC.  All this was better than it is today in many ways, but worse in different ways.  Semantics aside, the average American born after the civil war could have lived clear till 1913 at least without any contact with any federal agency without even trying to do so.

All of that said, that same average American would have had exactly zero contact with any government in an anarchist society, but would it have looked the same if the federal government did not exist at all?  I can't say that it would have.  Certainly, slavery would have collapsed for economic reasons without the destructive need for a civil war to forciblely ended it, eventually.  But at what cost, then?  Two more generations of declining slavery versus civil war?  The end results might have been about the same if Lincoln had permitted the South to seceed, and slavery then die an economic death without bloodshed, but is that perferable if the cost was two more generations of humans owning humans?  And what, in a truly anarchist society, would prevent the return of that irrational culture, if not the collective threat of force from society at large?  I can't quite accept the argument that private security forces would rise to protect all facets of society.  I can imagine that such a force would rise that caters to black Americans, but what about Islamic Sharia law?  Sure, there would be forces that would protect the interests of daughters of white men, but about the daughters of those who proscribe to sharia themselves?  Do they not have the right to reject their upbringing?  Not according to sharia, but what incentive would a protection company have to intervene on behalf of them?  And if they did have such an incentive, wouldn't AyeYo's argument that such a society is, itself, coercive?  From my understanding of both, sharia is fundamentally incompatible with libertariansim.

This will be the first (and probably only one) of your posts that I agree with.  Anarchy most definitely is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion, for exactly the reason you gave.  As has been discussed an endless amount of times already, libertarianism is inherently hyprocritical because coercion and force MUST exist in any society, including a libertarian one.  This leads libertarians to redefine words and apply them in an arbitrary manner in an attempt to avoid inconsistency and contradiction.  It doesn't work.

That's like saying that cancer MUST exist in any body, even a relatively healthy one.

In libertarian society, you are forced to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission. Give me a single reason why I should care if you don't like this.

Personally, I find Atlas's mindless rhetoric oppressive.  Does a Libertarian society mean I have to hear the whining of seventeen year-olds like this a lot more or a lot less?...somehow I think it's more.  Sign me up for the alternative.  ;D

As discussed already, because you advocate no force or coercion, yet you force and coerce.

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

No, after the coercion and force stops, Libertarians and Anarchists will shut up.

No, I don't. You define force as making people do things they don't want to do and since I want to force people not to murder, rape or rob me, I'm definitely in support of force. Try again.

I define it as... well... the rest of the non-insane world defines it.  If you're making someone do something they don't want to do, you're FORCING them into it.  Get it?

And stop that hyperbole or I'm going to send you back to the little kids' table.

I have my doubts.  Atlas has never shown any sign of running out of rhetoric.  ;D  I strongly suspect there will always be another "slave" to be freed or another "looter" or "murderer" to be brought to "justice" by a seventeen-year old who really has never experienced significant slavery oppression or murder.

Edit: I stand corrected.  Atlas has now changed his profile to show that he is now the age of Methuselah

Yes, I get it. I also said I support forcing people not to do certain things, like murder, rape and theft. Do you get that? It's kind of hard to claim I'm against force and call me a hypocrite when I just said that I support certain kinds of force. Now tell me why I should care.

One more time with the hyperbole and I'm going to make you sit in the corner.

I'll repeat myself, since you're obivously blind to second paragraphs:



"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner."
-Noam Chomsky

Yes, those are consequences of keeping your hands to yourself. If you can't just grab what you want, you have to pay for it and you might be forced to pay what the seller asks or do without. Again, I don't really care. Why should I? Because you feel self-entitled? Not good enough. Sorry.

Alright, ten minutes in the corner for you.  When you're done, you can come back, apologize for your continued use of hyperbole, and then I'll give you a second chance to engage the adults in conversation.


"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

So in other words, you've got nothing. That's fine with me. Let me know if you come up with something.

Second paragraph blindness strikes again.

So, you suggest that to prevent someone from looking at two consenting people having sex, you would beat them, take their money, and put them in a cage?

I read it but I don't see anything new. Yes, you are forced to keep your hands to yourself. Yes, that has certain consequences such as being forced to live (or commit suicide) in a world where pornography has affected it. Why should I care? I've already said that I have nothing against forcing you to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission and all the consequences that entails. Why should I have a problem with that? Give me a reason to care.

That is false on it's face.  Of course he can choose to live in a culture that has not been "vulgarized" by porn.  He just has to choose to live in a sub-section of society that is less than ideally libertarian.  The ideal is unobtainable anyway.  Take a look at the differences between public life in the North Eastern US and the 'bible belt' southern states.  Adult businesses are hard to miss rolling down the freeway in some locales, but in the bible belt they are off the beaten path and harder to stumble upon unless that is what you are looking for.  This is a product of zoning codes and religious influence, not libertarian concepts, but those adult businesses aren't actually illegal in the 'bible belt' states.  Likewise, a libertarian society may, and arguablely would, develop exclusionary zones wherein like minded people self-segregate to limit their exposure to such social corruptions.  This kind of thing has been going on in the US since the very beginning.  It certainly has it's downsides, but it's not rational to still argue that such a self-governing sub-culture can't exist within a much more libertarian, and libertine, society.  The Amish have been doing it for 200 years.

Again, as typical, you attack the singular example rather than the PRINCIPLE behind it.

Here we go, thrice quote:



This has NOTHING to do with the hyperbole presented here.

You want to force others to give up their money and we want to force you not to. So your plan is to just keep chanting "hyperbole" over and over again and maybe it'll make us think that stealing is moral and forcing you not to steal is immoral? Brilliant plan. Why don't you answer my last post by the way, instead of ignoring it.

More hyperbole.  Keep ignoring the issues and you'll keep proving your inability to actually address them.

I attack the singular example that you present as your support, not your principle, because there is nothing there to debate.  You believe that you are right, based upon your definition of the terms used, and believe that your's is the common usage of the term.  We believe otherwise.  I'd rather not be sucked into another circle jerk.  The irony is that, to some degree, I actually agree with your argument.  But you use an uncommon use of the term 'coercion' to attack the ideals of libs and anarchists based upon your overly broad use of terms.  Based on those overly broad use of terms, you badger us with your insistance that we admit that our system is no better than the alternatives.  Your argument is fundamentally based upon semantics.  You do realize that those definitions are usually numbered in order of their common usage, right?  If #2 sounds like our's but #3 sounds like your's, which do you think is the more common understanding of the term?  Does it really need to be said?

Keep chanting.

"direct coercion of large market players" Are you saying that the people with more money would be able to use violence to get what they want?

"ripple effects due to the actions of other market participants" Are you really comparing the fact that the price goes up as supply reduces to coercion here?

This is a, pardon the pun. A common misconception.  MW's "Sense order" is chronological (which is where this definition appears to be from) and OED IIRC is hierarchical based on etymology.  Even someone with a modest understanding of math and linguistics would see that attempting to derive 'common usage' would be difficult and arguable.   Incidentally if you are arguing that someone is using a word in two different senses then what you want to accuse them of is - equivocation.

I now return you to whatever very, very important thing you all were doing.

Noted.

Does any of this matter if you can't get people to vote for a smaller state?

Well said. In fact, that's probably the best point you've made the whole thread.

Of course, I don't expect people to vote for a smaller state. I expect people to vote for a larger one. and when that collapses under it's own weight, I expect to be there, offering services to replace it.

People with more money have more control of the market, no violence needed.  People with less money are at the mercy of the market, like floating at a pool toy at sea.



Oh to be so simplistic...


What I'm saying, as in the pornography example, is that while you think freedom of personal choice means total freedom, the rest of the universe that doesn't have their heads up their asses do not.  This is because I am also affected by OTHER PEOPLES' persons choices that I have absolutely no control over or say in, as in the pornography example. 

In Liberkidland, while I can personally choose not to do drugs, I cannot choose to not live in a society that is tainted by rampant drug use. 

While I can choose to carry car insurance on my own car, I cannot choose to not be subjected to roads full of uninsured drivers. 

While I can choose to eat healthy, I cannot choose to not be stuck wondering whether the labels on food (if there are any) are false or not because there is no regulatory agency controlling them. 

While I can choose not to harm the environment myself, I cannot choose to not live in a world whose environment is being destroyed by unregulated businesses. 

While I can choose to not take people to a heavily biased, privately own kangaroo court, I cannot choose to not be at the mercy of others taking me to these courts for frivilous reasons because that is the only legal system in existence.

While I can choose to work hard, I cannot choose to not live in a society of exploited workers and I will be worse off for it.

Here's what their predictable answer will be:

"But if you don't like it, then you can change it!" Or, "You can move to an area where it is like you want it to be!" Or, "I'd rather have all those freedoms than live under the boot of my oppressor!" Or, "But you can set up a petition to get some laws and then legally show how what I am doing is unlawful!"

Too bad. 


Walk. 


Grow your own food. 


Live in a plastic bubble. 


Refuse to appear.


Aww, you poor thing.

You have a real problem with entitlement. You think everybody owes you something but they don't. There are reasons why everything you've said can and would be avoided but even if they aren't avoided, that's just too bad. You'll just have to keep your hands off of other people and their stuff even if it's an inconvenience.

How are your responses making your proposed world appealing, again? I thought the point of debate was to try and win your case by showing it's better.

My case is won by showing that we should keep our hands off other people and their property unless we have their permission and following that to its logical conclusion.


Maybe some people think the world would be better off with a little injustice but I value justice highly. For me, even if the heavens fall, justice is more important.

Your simple one liners are not solutions to very large, complex and finely nuanced problems. I am open to addressing each of these issues on a case by case basis, given time. The world is a very complex place, and human society is a very large system. The confluence of these two systems creates complexities which are beyond your simple answers.

Complex systems are often governed by a few simple rules. Like I said, there are solutions to the problems mentioned and reasons why those solutions would be implemented. I did however say that even if no solution was offered, it doesn't matter. Let justice be done though the heavens fall. So, whether or not those solutions are available is completely irrelevant. If you think you should be able to put your hands on other people or their property without their permission because you feel entitled to a comfortable life, I feel bad for you.

Do not confuse my statements with welfare programs.

I didn't.

???

Modern society already has rampant drug use. The most abused is one of the worst: alcohol.
 


I think you might be surprised at how many drivers in many areas, where car insurance is required, don't have it.



How healthy do you eat? Do you consider the regulated labels on foods today to be accurate? At least here in the U.S., the regulations actually grant corporations the permission to have labels that outright lie (one example: honey.)



Like Enron, or those Japanese power plants? What does it matter if the business that's destroying the environment is regulated or not, if it's still doing it? (Frankly, I think the behind-the-scenes story of the recent Japan situation is a case study for this.)



Wow. Again, you must not live in the U.S. Or you must just have never actually seen the legal system at work.


Hmmm. This society you don't wish to see come about? It seems to me that we're already living in it....

The current system is not in any way a part of this discussion.  I am not defending the current system, I am attacking the libertarian system.  Get it right.  Your entire post is one big strawman/diversion.

Thank you for proving my point. These responses are exactly what I was expecting.

Libertarianism: a society free from force and coercion... unless you aren't a libertarian, in which case you can get fucked because its our way or the highway.


We have now successfully come full circle.  What you said to me is what I've been saying to you guys all along: if you don't like this society, GTFO out.

You poor thing. It would be so awful to have to keep your hands off of other people and their property. I'm really just torn up about it.

Here's your argument: You're forcing someone to have sex with you but they're forcing you not to have sex with them, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. Your logic is utterly ridiculous. Before you whine about hyperbole, explain the difference in what I'm saying and your actual argument.

Would a libertarian society have free borders with unlimited immigration? 

Is it really that difficult for you to drop the hyperbole?

Stop whining. Either answer my question or just say you can't.

Yes, and emigration, as well. Free flow, in and out.

Stop with the hyperbole and read what I'm actually writing.  Let's try this again with a slight variation.



-Robert Locke

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well we all know you're the king of incorrect definitions.  Here's what it actually means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

And that's exactly what he's going.  He's using gross exaggerations (which really amount to strawmen) of murder and rape to elicit emotional, knee-jerk responses in a fallacious attempt to win an argument, when I have no where mentioned murder and rape.  It's not about forcing people to not murder and rape.  It's about forcing people to live in a world they do not want to live in, be pawns of a market they have little-to-no say in, and to sell themselves to a system they do not agree with.

He is using hyperbole (exaggeration for effect) But then you counter with accusations of hypocrisy.

Address his hyperbole, then his hypocrisy.

The parts you bolded outline the hypocrisy (or at least self-delusion) of Libertarianism in that it preaches prevention of coercion, but its existence requires coercion. (Note: I agree, that's why I'm an Anarchist)

Address his hyperbole: "You're forcing someone to have sex with you but they're forcing you not to have sex with them, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. Your logic is utterly ridiculous."

I'm not going to address his incorrect summary of an argument I never made.  I'm STILL (going on like 10+ posts now) waiting for him to cut the childish shit and address MY points.  The bit about the hypocrisy IS my point, and he has yet to address it.

While I've got you, Let me offer a four-way choice:
1: All-encompassing government, one state monopoly on all services and goods (Soviet Russia, or similar command economy)
2: Government in most pies, regulating the market, and controlling the currency
3: Libertopia: Government monopoly only on protection.
4: Anarchy: Market provides all services, including protection

Which would you prefer, and why?

Edit: I'll include pure communism, where no property is recognized, under "Anarchy", since it's the market, just based on a gift economy. (also, this can exist within a greater Market Anarchy without conflict, so long as the communists respect the fact that the others do not share their beliefs.)

Start a new thread.  Don't sidetrack this one because I'm going to keep hammering my points home until he stops avoiding them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Your beliefs entail absurd conclusions. So much the worse for your beliefs. Instead of addressing the issue, you brush it aside.

Fair enough.

You can keep telling me that I'm wrong, but that's getting anywhere.  You need to EXPLAIN WHY I'm wrong, if that's the route you're going to go.

Like I said, according to your logic, forcing someone to have sex with you and forcing someone not to have sex with you both involve force, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. That leaves out a huge part of the equation, namely, rape is wrong and defending yourself from rape isn't. You can't keep chanting "everything involves force" as if that's supposed to be an argument for anything.

It's not an argument for anything other than the fact that your system is hypocritical.

Once you drop the totally irrelevant rape example and actually address the point I'm making, it'll all start making sense to you.

Let me re re re re re state myself:



I'm FORCED into these things.  You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.


Pro-tip:
Rape DOES NOT have a goddamn thing to do with the point I'm making, so DO NOT have the words rape, murder, or steal ANYWHERE in your reply, lest you make a futher fool of yourself.

News flash: You're always subject to market forces. Protecting you from them requires forcing others to give up their money.

According to your logic, it's also hypocritical to say rape is wrong but defending yourself from rape isn't.


I'm also forcing you not to have sex with me, how is that not defense?

Thanks for telling me my point, captain obvious.  Let's see if you're savy enough to understand what that makes the bottom line.  Take a guess.  Hint hint, answer below...














It means that THERE'S FORCE AND COERCION INVOLVED NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM YOU CHOOSE.

That's not an issue for me, because I'm the one saying force is necessary and part of ALL systems.  It IS an issue for someone that's claiming to have a system based on only defensive force.





Um, no.  Just... no.  Not at all, not even close.

rerererererererereread this:

I'm FORCED into these things.  You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.

This is easy because I don't even have to post anything new, I just keep quoting myself until you actually read the written words....

Pro-tip:
Rape DOES NOT have a goddamn thing to do with the point I'm making, so DO NOT have the words rape, murder, or steal ANYWHERE in your reply, lest you make a futher fool of yourself.

Sure it is. I'm defending my property from you. Since you can't just take my property then you have to make me an offer to get what you want. That's called the free market.


I read it but I'm not here to let you off easy. I'm going to hold your feet to the fire until you admit you're wrong. Ignore it if you want but just know that you are avoiding the issue instead of addressing it.

Ah, I think I see the disconnect now.

A market force is not the same as coercion.  Coercion against Tom implies that there was a willfull intent on some person's or group's part to affect Tom, be it directed towards Tom himself or some third party that might hold authority over Tom or is dependent upon Tom.  A market force is a collective thing, without a will to cause you harm or gain.  Thus a market force is comparable to a force of nature, in that it's not anyone's fault that Tom just got screwed, except maybe for Tom's own poor investment choices.

What Libs & Anarchists oppose isn't the broad, aggragate forces of society, but the individual & collective initial acts of coersion.

News Flash #2: Market forces are not coercive.

But you're forcing me not to take whatever I want by force! Wahhhh!!! Also, hyperbole.

Suppose Action X is wrong/immoral.
Suppose it is okay to use force to prevent activities which are deemed to be wrong/immoral.
Suppose Action X uses force.
If one subscribes to a moral system that claims that any use of force is wrong,
   Then both engaging in Action X and/or using force to prevent Action X is immoral.
Else if one subscribes to a moral system that only permits use of force against activities which are deemed to be wrong/immoral,
   Then engaging in Action X is immoral, but using force to prevent Action X is morally permissive.

Since libertarianism is a moral system that only permits the use of force against activities which are deemed to be wrong/immoral by said philosophy, therefore according to libertarianism, it is permissible to use force against a rapist.  However, according to a philosophy such as extreme passivism that claims all uses of force to be immoral, then it would not be permissible to use force against a rapist.  Q.E.D.

Libertarianism != Passivism.

Alright, this is an interesting revelation brought about by the arbitrary defintions of libertarians.  After I'm done with cash kid, I'll invite you to follow me down the rabbit hole for a second here, one step at a time so everyone can follow sans hyperbole and strawmen.

The faster you can get him to stop throwing out strawmen, the faster we can move on.


In the mean time, please review the defintion of coercion, it will be relevant in later debate.  #3 is especially important.





Again:



Which of those situations involves you defending your property from me?

I'm protecting my money by not being forced to pay insurance premiums if the owner of the road doesn't require them before he or she allows me to drive on said road.


I'm protecting my money by not being forced to print labels unless I choose to so I can advertise that I comply with certain standards.


I'm protecting my property because as long as my pollution doesn't contaminate your property, I can do whatever I want with my property.  


I'm protecting my money by not paying for court services unless I plan on using them.


I'm protecting my body by dictating the wages and conditions I'm willing to work for, even if they don't meet your expectations.


All of the above.

Hyperbole and strawmen are not violations.  I don't intend to do anything about it until they start recommending anatomicly impossible acts involving your gentialia and your bodily orifaces.  I never did anything about your strawmen, did I?


And that is a wonderful definition.  Notice, if you are capable, that for that definition to be effective, some authority in the state apparatus must act towards an end goal.  It's not necessary for the actions of distant authorities to know the individuals they are coercing, nor even the details of the coercion in reality, but only that there is an intent to achieve a goal and an action taken towards that goal.  Enacting a tax is one such example of a collective act that forces those subject to that tax to themselves react in a manner that they would not have voluntarily.  I realise that there is a paradox in all of this, as a lib is not an anarchist, but subtlety is a product of compromise; and the ability to discount the negative effects of such subtle inconsistancies is a sign of wisdom.  I wish to see progress within my own lifetime.  Yet I don't advocate sudden social change, even that which would significantly favor my own ideologies.  I recognize the paradox, I just reject the concept that this paradox negates the validity of the system as a whole.

But what of my rights to protect my property?


Requiring everyone to carry car insurance is me protecting me from being SOL and forced to pay out of pocket when I get hit and injured and/or have my car damaged by an irresponsible, uninsured motorist.  That's me protecting my money.

Requiring labels on food is protecting me from having to visit every single manufacturing and storage plant to ensure composition and quality of every single item of food I eat.  That costs lots of money and time.  That's me protecting my money and time.

Setting pollution regulations me protecting my property (my own body) from harm due to your poor decisions, as well as all the ensuing medical costs (protecting my money).

Setting up a central court ensures me that my property rights will not be trampled by biased private courts and that there will be one entity that has a final say, rather than me being dragged around to an endless number of private courts while you search for a ruling in your favor.  That's saying me time and money and protecting my rights.

Setting minimum wage laws and workplace safety standards allows me to not live in a society with streets full of beggars and the inevitable increase in voilence that always follows desparate people.  That's me protecting my right to life and my safety.  It allows me to not have to pay higher insurance rates for the increased number of injuries at workplaces.  It allows me to not pay higher product and service prices due to the increased number of days of abcense caused by the increased injuries/deaths in workplaces.  That's me protecting my money.


All possible scenarios work both ways.  Keep in mind, I'm even arguing this ON YOUR TERMS by assuming that the only thing in the world that matters is private property.  If I actually argued this on a normal person's terms or terms society would find reasonable, you wouldn't have a prayer, because private property is NOT the only thing that matters to about 99% of the world's population.


What it boils to is, once again, something I've posted already:

You're his liberbuddy.  I didn't say ban him, I said make him respond to my points - as his liberbuddy, not as a mod.

Excellent.  Quoted for use later, if we're ever able to move on.

Pro-tip: Start coming up with a reason, if you even can (hint: there won't be a valid one that lets you stay consistent, but that never stopped you before), why that exact same idea doesn't apply to large players in a free market also.

I don't have 'liberbuddies'.  I don't know him any better than I know you.  And I'm sure that you know that I wouldn't "make him respond" even if I could realisticly have such a power as a mod.  You can choose to ignore him, free speech goes both ways.

You have to show a clear and present danger. You don't have to wait until the bullet is ripping through your flesh to defend yourself from a mugger but you can't kill him in his sleep because you think he might mug you someday. You have the right to seek restitution if someone wrecks into you. You have no right to require them to have insurance in case it happens though.


That's not protecting your money or time because your money and time aren't being stolen. Just because you feel entitled to get things at a certain price and convenience doesn't equate to self-defense when your inflated sense of entitlement isn't met. You're torturing the English language.


Like I said, I don't have the right to pollute your property or cause you physical harm. However, if I'm not doing that then you have no right to regulate what I do.


Again, you don't have the right to prices or certain levels of convenience. You don't get to trample all over my rights and steal my money just because you'll be inconvenienced.


Yet again, you have to show a direct threat, you can't just say X will increase the chances of something bad happening to me. If that were the case we'd have to lock up all teenage males since they are more likely to commit violent crimes than any other demographic.

You need to acknowledge the distinction between taking money out of someone's pocket vs. charging them higher prices. One should be a crime, the other should not.

Once again, again, again, your response boils down to: "we're going to do things my way, I'm going to tell you what you do and do not need, and if you don't like it, tough shit, I'm forcing you into it anyway."  You don't want to get rid of tyranny, you just want a form of it that favors you.

Head explosion: by subjecting me to these market forces that I do not want to be subjected to and currently are not subjected to, you ARE taking money out of my pocket.


Again again again again again again again...

You are already subject to those same market forces.

It sure does. I think that murder, rape and theft are wrong and if you disagree, tough shit. I am a tyrannical bastard when it comes to you keep your hands to yourself unless you have permission otherwise.


No, I'm not. I'm forcing you to pay for things or do without, rather than steal them. It's that inflated sense of entitlement that is clouding your mind. All you can think is "me me me, mine mine mine."

Anyways, you've made your point. You feel entitled to a certain lifestyle and therefore think you are justified in advocating theft of money in the form of taxes by threat of violence or imprisonment and a bunch of other violently coercive practices. I vehemently disagree and if I had the ability to defend myself, I would. Until then, I'm biding my time.

What are you going on about? Honestly. It must really suck to have to argue from your point of view.

I said earlier that the world and human society are of great complexity, and the confluence of the two doesn't make it less so. Why the fuck do you think everything is the same as rape and murder?

I challenge you to make a clear point going forward.

That's all you're doing.

EDIT: You haven't said one god damned thing that would indicate that your views are nothing more than about preserving your own possessions.

Actually, all crimes are crimes of property rights. You own yourself. Rape and murder are violations of that property.


It's not just about my property. It's about the property of others as well. I don't want to live in a world where theft is seen as legitimate. There are some things more important than living a comfortable life or living at all, such as justice and morality. Everyone dies but few people live a life worth living.

Why is preserving ones own possessions bad?

Is there no moral or other difference between preserving ones own possessions without initiating force/fraud, and preserving ones own possessions by initiating force/fraud, that is relevant to this thread? (I'm actually curious, because if no such difference is relevant, then I'll just bow out.)

There is nothing wrong with preserving one's own possessions. It's just that there are other issues at play due to the complexity of the world and its closed system. They should be addressed with equal, if not more weight. I can assure you, that nobody here wants to break into your house and take your possessions.

That's why it would be a really good idea if everyone could get past that and move on to bigger issues, like large entities using their possessions and wealth to cause bad thing to happen within that closed system, both near term and long term.

Taxes?

And death.

More like or.

Last time I checked, the phrase was death and taxes.

You make it difficult to take you seriously when all you offer is jokes.

You claim nobody wants to rob me yet if I fail to pay taxes I'll be kidnapped or murdered if I resist and my property will be taken and sold to pay for those taxes that I refused to pay.

I contend that you're going to have to pay some taxes. They are as inevitable as death, you know.

First of all, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating huge taxes. And I don't really want to get so granular as to argue the amount of taxes you should pay, except perhaps that for most people, the amount is usually (but not always) greater than zero.

You argue that you want to live in a society in which no taxes are paid.

I also will admit some of my recent posts have been abrasive, but I think it was necessary. You may find the following advice abrasive as well, so take it as you will. Here goes: I honestly think you should suck it up, take your head out of the libertarian books for a period of time, and read some other stuff that is not directly about government, but tangent to it. I have some recommendations, if you're interested. But let me be clear, they are a little random.

This.

You're extremely presumptuous. You don't know what books I've read.

Anyways, we've established that you do think I should be robbed, even if only a little bit.

Think of the children!  (pay no mind to my little cut)

Yep, I'm pretentious. But as for me not knowing what you've read, I can tell there is certainly room for improvement. Suit yourself. I'm dead serious. There are valid viewpoints that you are obviously not acquainted with. And yes, I fully admit that I have adopted the role of asshole recently. I really do think you could benefit from some alternative reading.


Better to rob a little from you so that the rest of us can make certain that some of you don't fuck it up for the rest of us.

Yep, an error. It makes little difference.

Why not? Why is your ideology so reactive?
Why can't people put some money in a deposit before they go on the road so that I know that if they hit me, there will be money there for me to get that "restitution".

They can, but you have no right to force them to.

So effectively it's impossible to be proactive in your world. Wait for a damage to occur, sue someone. Wait until next damage, sue again.
And how is that more effective than a mandatory insurance for all drivers? Isn't AnCap/Liberts supposed to be more effective than the big bad ineffective gov't?

That's their solution. And that's how they think the environment should be managed as well. It's really rather sad and pathetic. I think many of them are actually smart people, but blinded by their pet ideology, adamant about it no matter what.

No I'm not.  In fact, every example I used was in relation to the removal of some regulation causing me to be subject to market forces and negatives that I am not currently subject to.

It's just never going to happen.  He's hopeless.


Moonshadow, since I've given up on rape and murder boy, please address the point I mentioned earlier in post #221 in regards your to explanation of coercion, re: why that definition shouldn't also be applied to large, influential market players in a free market.

I already addressed post #221.  But with regard to large market players, it should where appropriate.  You seem to forget that the vast majoroty of 'market makers' in our modern version of corporatism are sanctioned and protected by the government regulators, not limited by them.  It's the little guy that gets hit with charges of insider trading, not the corporate backed investor.  Much of what you object to, although not impossible within a libertarian or anarchist marketplace, would be transient events in a truely free market.  Admittedly, I'm not sure that a truely free market is any more possible than a true communist economy, wo for myself it's more a matter of degree.

Similar to the example from medicine I gave earlier.  As I noted elsewhere I have a hard time to see their world without an almost per product bodycount for any reasonably smart company that doesn't involve some sort of regulation.   Especially since my examples came from a time before medical regulation.  What the free market failed to do regulation did - in that case anyway.

Some of the arguments seem to go to the whole "wisdom of crowds" nonsense (Were I to indulge myself in a single act of coercion it would be to make James Surowiecki take a $#*Uing stats course).    Medicine erects a difficulty in understanding the issues (from where I sit: Anti-vaccinationism, health supplements are all examples of the unregulated market at work) .  It's infeasible for everyone to have even the modest amount of medical knowledge I have access to and the math background to interpret it.  So what then?  People hire me?  How does anyone know to hire me?  Oh, by people observing person A not dying when I tell them to take drug X over Y and person B dying when someone else took drug Y over X.    Where did they get that information from again?  How many deaths does it take?  How did they determine the cause of death not being a ME?  How about issues that are subtler?  Like HRT?  It took a huge study over decades to figure out that as a cancer prophylaxis it didn't just not work...it caused it (mildly).  Who is paying for these studies now?  Not the drug companies, they have no self-interest in having a large study done when a body of evidence already exists which confirms what they are selling.   Independent research groups?...same problem really.  Where's the self-interest?  They can't even sell the reults to anyone until the result is determined.   Even if they could I'm willing to bet that the drug companies could outbid most of the consulting firms.  It goes on, and on.

I strongly disagree but then again, I'm extremely principled and don't abandon my principles just because I might be inconvenienced.


Why is yours? Why do you wait to lock up teenage males before they attack someone instead of locking them up before they do it?
 

Why should we force them to when you can't prove they're going to get in a wreck? In 2009 there were 24,474 deaths in vehicles and 16,591 murders. Clearly we also need murder insurance. In case you decide to kill me, my family can collect.

I know very little about cars, televisions, cellular phones, photocopiers, vacuum cleaners, etc. My body is only one of the things I don't know how to repair. How do I know how to hire people for those things? If not being an expert in something opens the door for government control then we need the government to control just about everything.


How do you think they test drugs in the first place? Obviously, we test it on animals, then we take volunteers from the terminally ill that are willing to try anything at that point. After a while, we start human trials in healthy people. How else are you going to test new drugs? Magic?

Trust me, I'm more worried about not dying than you are or some government agency. If I die, it REALLY matters to me. You probably won't shed a tear and some government agency won't even lose any money because they aren't subject to market forces.

You're right. You may some day potentially wreck my car. Therefore, I demand that you buy me a new one now as a backup for when and if that happens.

It's more effective because the market would sort it out. If most people want to drive on roads where everyone else is insured then private road owners that require insurance to drive on the roads will make more money and the others would either follow or go out of business. The reason why we don't have a pizza crisis but we do have 40,000 people dying on our roads each year is because of government management. If people die, they lose nothing. They just raise taxes. If pizza restaurants start killing people, they go out of business. The market is better but you can't even get that far because all you can see is that "people aren't forced by the government to do X so therefore X will never arise in the market" which is absurd.

All of the things you mentioned do have government regulation.  

I'm actually talking about after whatever testing process the various companies decide to employ and decide or don't decide to publish part or all of the data, outcomes, methodology,  and analysis because they're under no regulation to do so.

You seem to imply that judging this data is trivial.  Get some bunnies, some nearly dead people.  Go to it.  Did you miss that we discovered a complete lack of utility and a small number of fatalities in a therapy which there was already an existing body of evidence that said otherwise?

Would it surprise you that there is considerable analysis that is done AFTER the drug companies are done with the bunnies and near-corpses?

Aside: Also you have no answer to what happens to issues for which there are no nearly-dead people available.

Can't wait to see the canned responses about rape and murder.

You amaze me with your argumentation technique. I advocate proactivity while you do not, and you call me reactive?

Murders are rarely accidents, car accidents are rarely intentional. Clearly you need to have a look at your society and try to figure out what's making people so violent. Desperate people perhaps? Desperate people with guns? Perhaps a bigger social safety net to catch those who fall down? Check out the ratio of vehicle deaths compared to murders in most European countries.

I think the difference between you and me is that I'm a bit older and as such a bit more pragmatic. Ideology is fine, but reality supersedes it.

I don't need a license to repair vacuum cleaners. There isn't government regulation in those industries comparable to the medical industry. Try to attack the spirit of the argument rather than a superficial "government has its hands in every cookie jar" type of response.


No, but I can judge which companies are doing a better job than others. People that use company X over Y to approve medicine have a lower incident rate. Of course, the more strict their controls are, the higher it costs so if I'm willing to take a higher risk for a lower cost then I'm able to.

Right now, if I want a doctor to pull a splinter out of my finger the fee is several hundreds of dollars, mainly because he has to have malpractice insurance but if I could sign a piece of paper saying I promise not to sue if you do it for cheaper then I could have it done for a lot less.

How old are you?

So exactly like he said, there's a large pile of dead people behind every proven-safe choice.  In fact, that pile of dead people isn't even necessarily a guarantee because of what he pointed out here:




Enjoy your future ailments and disease because of longer-term drug/treatment effects that could be seen by observing people around you.  Since companies aren't required to do anything at all, they can sell you a product that they know full well is going to kill you, but they'll tell you it's good for you!  Where have I heard that before?  Oh yea, tobacco companies from like.... ever until the 1960's.

I appear to be talking about product safety.   Each of those products comes under a wide variety of regulations to ensure their safety.


What does a "lower incidence rate" mean?

Here's a drug that was approved by the FDA:


It looks like making mistakes is just something that humans do so that doesn't bother me too much. What really pisses me off is that the FDA is still alive and well. If that were a private company that made a huge mistake like that, they would be sued out of existence or at least broke because nobody would trust them. The market weeds out incompetence, which is inevitable even with government agencies, but with government agencies, they get to keep on approving bad drugs, keep on killing people, and never go out of business.


Incident rate, i.e. complications from the medicine, side effects, birth defects, organ failure, etc. If company X has a lower incident rate while company Y doesn't but both cost the same amount, I'm going to go with company X and company Y will be out of business. Like I said, the market weeds out incompetence.

Irrelevant to the discussion.  You're defending your idea of unregulated companies, remember?  The FDA and its imperfection (god forbid!) are not part of this discussion at all.  Pointing out an FDA slip up does NOTHING to prove your point that an unregulated world is at all sustainable or desireable.

Uh are you high?

They die less often.

We don't want to get rid of drug testing and approval, we just want the FDA to allow competition.

So either you are claiming that a simple one number result is all you would use to make you're judgment or your leaving out something.

Please provide your complete process for determining incidence rate or affirm that it is one and only one number regardless of anything behind said number.

I'm now going to ignore you since you've clearly shown that you're not interested in a rational debate but would rather hurl childish insults.

Especially since the FDA...pause for effect....never cleared Thalidomide for general use.  If this is an example of Bitcoin2Cash's ability to judge medicine I don't expect him to live long in the Libertarian utopia.  It was actually a better example of free market failing and regulation fixing things.

No that's just my impatience with people who clearly don't have a clue attempting to teach someone who does.

He is advocating the absence of coercive force, you are arguing for it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that government regulation is useful. He can't prove a negative.

Even if the US didn't clear Thalidomide, other countries did and suffered because of their government agencies. It seems the fashion of the day for statists is to only acknowledge points that agree with their conclusions.



My point stands. If you were unlucky enough to be under the thumb of those agencies that approved this tragic use of the drug, you didn't even get the comfort of seeing them go out of business.

Is everyone out to ire me today?

The only thing that erodes my faith in the market making sense of complex sets of medical data more than the idea that hardly anyone understands that almost any positive statement can be reformed as a negative statement is the fact that nobody wants to #$#$ing google this oft-repeated nonsense before posting it.

He's defending his world view and the FDA is irrelevant to his world view.

If I like the Yankees and I'm trying to prove that they're the best team in baseball, going on and on about how much the Devil Rays suck ass is not getting me any closer to proving my point.

Do you really think the FDA has never approved a drug that killed people and then later revoked that approval? Even worse though are the drugs that the FDA refuses to approve or approves too slowly.


The FDA kills people in two ways, not just one. They allow bad drugs through and don't allow good drugs through. Like I said, mistakes are something all humans make. I don't require humans to not make mistakes but I do require them to pay for them. The FDA should have been driven out of business a long time ago and would have, if they were subject to market forces.

Why don't you address this instead of making ham-fisted analogies?

Uh...just a second there jerky.  

I didn't make the point that the FDA should have been "sued out of existence".  You. Did.  Don't go pretending you didn't or that you didn't write a paragraph of invective against them.  Hence warranting my asking if you are on some other sort of pharmaceuticals.


Not really - perhaps you need to understand what makes a general case and what doesn't?  Regulation doesn't catch everything in this case the free market didn't stop anything either.   In fact in the US the free market actively promoted Thalidomide even when regulators said no.  So if we were keeping score...but like I was implying that doesn't make a general case.

All I pointed out is that out of all the drugs and all the regulatory agencies you could have picked you couldn't even take the time to Google the right answer...which merits you some mockery.  Probably more than you got.

I don't give two shits about the FDA because it's not part of the discussion.  YOU are defending YOUR idea that unregulated business is great and a good idea.  Pointing to one government regulatory agency (not to mention getting shot down for false information) and telling me how much you think they suck is NOT proving your case.

Don't bother talking to me again because you clearly cannot keep this discussion academic as evidenced by your repeated childish insults. You will be ignored.

::)

You're a funny guy, highly ironic for sure, but I think that's all part of the funny.

Yes, I do stay consistent.  Thanks for pointing it out.

You'll be ignored as well.

People don't call each other 'jerky' where you are?  Weird.  It's a common term here.   I sincerely apologize.

I am waiting for you to answer the one question I asked only a few posts ago.
Unless you're looking for an out...in which case...by all means take the "You hurt my feelings" door. 

Apology accepted.


You can't hurt my feelings but I will not debate with someone that can't stick to the arguments instead of making things personal. You've been warned that such behavior will not be tolerated. So if you want an easy way out, all you have to do is insult me. From this point on, I'll assume that's why you're doing it, should you continue.

Now, on to your question...


There are two metrics, quality and price. I would expect to see something like a consumer reports for medicine or some other voluntary organization. You see, despite what some people think, there are businesses out there that know they can make money by simply providing a useful service. There can be voluntary industry standards. The mounting brackets on flat-screen displays is one example. There was no government agency that said "all flat screen displays must use this bracket" but rather, major companies realized they could benefit by setting a standard. That's why I can take a single display and mount it on one stand, then later another and finally a bracket on my wall in my exercise room. If we can have things that are somewhat trivial, imagine what we can have with something important.

So to put a finer point on things, I don't know how rating agencies should operate because I'm not in that business. However, I do know that our current government agency kills people but doesn't go out of business. It seems to me that if other private agencies existed, they too would kill people but they would go out of business and the ones that remain would be better than the ones that went out of business. That's how markets work. They weed out inefficiency and incompetence.

I hope I answered your question to your satisfaction. If not, explain what I'm missing and I'll be more than happy to clarify.

An FDA, etc requires action.

No FDA, etc requires the ABSENCE of action.

YOU must prove that the FDA is worthwhile, not the other way around. Stop the sophistry.

I have a world view that there are NOT pot smoking monkeys on Mars. Do you think I have to PROVE that there AREN'T pot smoking monkeys on Mars?

No. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim in favour of something, not against it. You can shift it to someone else if you provide evidence (for example, pictures of pot smoking monkeys on Mars), but you can't offhandedly force him to prove a negative.

Wow, this conversation has gone all over the place.  Too much noise.  Too much emotion, also.  Considering locking this thread and forcing the party to start another thread.

Just as a general comment.  There is nothing in libertarian ideology that is against drivers having insurance, but not having insurance doesn't change the liabilities of the drivers.  It only transfers the costs of those liabilities to the insurance company hired to underwrite the drivers.  Uninsured drivers are still responsible for the damage that they cause.  This is generally true now.

Likewise, libertarian thought is not against an organization such as the FDA, so long as it's not a government monopoly.  Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Labs are two examples of private institutions that perform similar functions to that of regulatory oversight, and do it well, without restricting the individual to the choice of ignoring their advice.  If the FDA only warned me against using certain drugs, but didn't actually prevent me from the choice, then I'd be okay with it (yes, even though it's funded by taxation; but that's a pragmatic compromise not an ideal).

Incidently, US building codes just about everywhere require that installed products sport a 'listing mark', but does not require a particular listing mark.  This means that, in practice, products must have been tested by UL or a competitor to be installed in any new or existing structure in the United States.  UL has few competitors, because they do their job so well, but there are a couple.  I've seen products 'listed' by the Canadian counterpart to UL (which I believe is a government operation) but very few of them.  This is because, even though the building codes don't require a particular testing lab, many insurance companies do.  So it's not like the FDA does anything that can't be done by the marketplace.

Riddle me this...

Let's pretend the FDA is how you want it.  It warns, but doesn't actually restrict.  You choose to ignore the warnings and because of it, you get sick.  Now, you and rape boy will bequick to point out that you've made a personal choice, which is true, you'll also say that your personal choice only affected you, but that's completely untrue.

Now you're sick.  You can't work, because you're sick.  That's lost productivity for your employer.  Your poor choice is costing your employer money.  Someone else has to fill in for you at work.  Your poor choice is inconveniencing someone else.  Your insurance company (if you have one) now has to pay out to get your health fixed.  More paid out claims means raised rates for everyone.  Your poor choice is costing your insured peers money.  Sick people don't do much other than lie around the house.  That means you won't be eating out, going to movies, burning gas in your car, etc.  That's less consumption in the economy, thus less revenue for business.  Your poor choice is costing the economy revenue.


We can play this domino effect game all night long, because ripple effects in the market have influence far and wide.  You don't seem to want to take this influence into account.  Your poor choices, while on the surface seem to only affect you, actually negatively affect many, many more people and even society as a whole.  How do you deal with that?  In the real world, this is why we force people to do certain things or restrict their choices whether they like it or not, because their poor (but freely made) choices negatively affect more than just themselves.

His employer and society beyond are not entitled to said sick individual. There is no loss.

SOLVED! ... Use your knowledge to live without money.

Tell that to the people losing money because of his poor choice.


You are not entitled to the benefits of living in the US without paying taxes.  Stop crying and pay your taxes.  See how that works?

The former was not qualified. The latter was. You imply that paying taxes grants entitlements. That is what is wrong with the world today.

We should also outlaw suicide because if I'm dead, my employer loses my labor and someone else has to fill in for me. Also, dead people don't eat out, go to the movies, burn gas, etc. That's less revenue for businesses. In fact, it would be better if all decisions were made by the government for fear of hurting anyone's inflated sense of entitlement.

If I recall correctly, Suicide is illegal, or, at least attempted suicide. (If you succeed, who are they going to charge?)

Yup, in most jurisdictions.  You are the property of the state.

As far as I know, suicide is legal in all 50 states and some states even allow for physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

The Book of Knowledge (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Suicide_legislation#United_States) agrees. I stand corrected.

All these fun facts are all fun and good.

I'm just not clear on something. Tell me again how a libertarian society limits its own destructiveness? Because I don't buy the reactive models you keep proposing. Try to be a little more precise and less general in your explanations. Your explanations result in society causing destruction, and at a crucial time in human history.

Let's follow through with this:

1. Resources exist, some easier to procure than others.
2. By 1, it follows that the easier resources are consumed by many, if not all businesses who have an interest in said resources.
3. The procurement of said resources is more cost friendly if fewer restrictions are placed on how said resources are procured.
4. By 3, it follows that the fewer the restrictions involved in procurement, the more damage is done during the procurement This damage is over and above the depletion of the resource itself.
5. Damage is often irreversible in the short term (short term can still mean tens and hundreds of thousands of years).
6. Consumption of the resource does not necessarily mean an improvement in the entire system. It often only means the creation of a bigger system that in turn needs to consume more resources.
7. We return to 1, but the system which is consuming has a larger appetite, the above induced damage not healed, and further damage is yet to come.

The argument that the above system contains benevolent entities which recognize the damage does not preclude the existence of parasitic entities which continue to engage in willful damage.

The argument that a reaction to the damage allows the system to self correct does not address the issue that the entire system is poorer in resources than it was before it began the process.

The argument that the destruction is acceptable in exchange for the development of alternative processes that will replace the existing system presupposes that such alternative processes will absolutely be developed, and in time, and also wrongfully presupposes that it is necessary to continually engage in a growth model that is not in a steady state.

I'm sorry but it just doesn't matter. Any laws that are incompatible with libertarianism shouldn't exist. I don't need to convince you that libertarianism will do anything other than provide for a just legal system.

"If consequences dictate our course of action then it doesn't matter what's right. It's only wrong if you get caught."

I will take your answer as an indication that you are not up to the task of really detailing a system that has any merit.

Also, you seem to think the resources are just spewed into space, and that nobody cares about profit tomorrow.

Sure, it's easy to clearcut a forest, and it does cost a little more to replant or cut responsibly, but if you turn all your trees into paper, you can't make more paper later.

Me: Slavery is wrong and it should be abolished.
You: But how will slaves get jobs? Where will they live? What will they eat?
Me: That doesn't matter. Slavery is wrong and it should be abolished.
You: I guess you aren't up to the task of detailing a system that has any merit.
Me: I guess you aren't up to the task of accepting justice, no matter the consequences.

Please show why you think I believe that. But I have a better way for you to spend your time. Show how you are calculating profit. Because, honestly, I don't think you know how. And I'm not taunting you. I'm asking you to think harder. This is not an easy question. I expect way more effort out of you than the standard responses you've been giving.

Show how you calculate profit.

Profit = income (usually from sales of final product) - costs (everything from overhead, such as mining equipment, to wages and other expenditures)

Not even close, and not much of an effort, either. And remember, you accused me of not caring about profit, while you indicated to me that you do care about profit, so I think the burden falls upon you to really show how profit is calculated.

I'll give you a hint. Subtract your costs from the utility gained. But you need to start focusing on the whole system. You're only thinking about a subset of the system.

Tell you what. If you have a lesson here, Write a book. I'll read it. I graduated Highschool long ago, and Don't feel like another class.

There's no such thing as units of utility. We have mass, length, speed, etc, but there's no such thing as "utils". You can rank preferences. You can assign ordinal values. It makes sense to say you love your mom more than your dad. But how absurd would it be for someone to say that they love their mom 48% more than their dad? How absurd would it be for someone to say they love their mom 48% more than you love your mom?

If you argue that you can't attach value (negative or positive) to the consequences of actions or to resources when discussing economics, then you're probably acknowledging that the subject matter is making your brain hurt. This is now the second consecutive post from you that is essentially drivel and clearly an avoidance of actually wading deeper into the complexities of economic theory.

And this is just another in the long list of posts from you that is pure, undiluted d-baggery. If you have a point, make it. if not, move on.

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually address the points I made but instead resorted to childish name-calling. I think that's rather telling.

I apologize, in advance I can see that the conversation has run on prior to my departure last night and I don't really have much time this morning to read through.   So if it's been covered I'd appreciate everyone's patience and just quote the relevant portions of the thread in their responses.


No that's not the way it works.   Well technically there is no "way it works" there are actually only rules of thumb.  The burden of proof is colloquially considered to be with the one asserting the claim.   The whining OP could be considered the person asserting the claim, or Bitcoin2Cash could be considered to be asserting the claim that the market will fix everything the only thing I've personally mentioned is that:

i) Historically regulation appears to have done more for the safety of medicine than the free market.
ii) ...and while it seems plausible that the free market could eventually stumble drunkenly toward the same level of safety I don't see that happening without some kind of bodycount per product.

I'm not talking about the FDA, neither is Ayeyo.  So please direct your criticism at those making claims about the FDA.

Shut your cakehole.   I was being mildly pedantic in correcting your asinine and ignorant belief that one can not prove a negative.  I was not, in any way being deceptive.

Not clear what you are referring to but other than my complete shock at someone taking huge offense at the term 'jerky' I like to think I was making an objective assessment of a comment of yours.


Please stuff your warnings in the applicable orifice.  I will likely insult you, your parents and possibly your pets.  Again if that's all it takes to render you incapable of defending your point.  Then the door is there and I encourage it's use.  It is a misapprehension that your opinion is so valuable that it can't be defended by someone else who can take a few barbs.


And likewise I'll assume that you are taking your ball and going home when you leave.  ;D On your way out I suggest that you also take advantage of the door just to right of it marked "The Internet".   I hear it gets rough in there.

Now that the ground rules are clear.


So you suppose there are...let's call them "Standards Bodies" and these bodies approve drugs and drug companies.

Question one:  Where do these SB's get their information from?

I'm more than willing to argue anything you can throw at me, if you're willing to remain civil. If you can't remain civil then you're either incapable or unwilling. I'm well aware of the nature of the Interwebs, but if you don't know the difference between a rational debate and a flame war then you need to figure out. I react the same way during any debate, be it in person, phone, email or message board. If you keep pushing when there's no need to, it's obvious that you're the one trying to find an easy way out. I'll be here to debate all the tough questions you can muster. Don't get it twisted and think that because I won't tolerate name calling that you've got any kind of upper hand. Like I said, I'll just assume you aren't up to the debate if you keep pushing.


I would imagine the same place the FDA gets them, extensive laboratory testing by private laboratories and then clinical trials by private doctors. However,I wouldn't be surprised if a private business, which is highly competitive, comes up with some improvements that a government agency, which has no competition, didn't think of.

Then why don't you actually debate some of the tough questions I've mustered above? Post #301, that is.

I've already explained how a libertarian society would handle pollution but you "just don't buy the reactive models" which isn't really my concern. That's how it would be handled and that's justice.

Your answer is inadequate. Furthermore, post #301 isn't only discussing pollution. By assuming the question is only about pollution, you've demonstrated that you're woefully uninformed of all the problematic issues. It stands to reason that there would be plenty more like yourself in your fantasy libertarian society, all assuming that the problem is simpler than it is, and as a result, your reactive model is not only poor simply because of its reactive nature, its overly slow to respond to those issues that you're not even aware of.

Don't worry.  I'm not.

False dichotomy.  I could also simply have no majority understanding of your definition of 'civil'.  Furthermore since here I act in a way that is acceptable to my social context and which clearly does not conform to your definition.  It is not unreasonable to assume that I lack such knowledge.  Not to mention your keeping this particular barn door open so very, very, very wide wouldn't be so irrational if you were looking for an easy way out.

By the by your colossal arrogance (this is not invective it can be objectively shown) isn't appreciated where I come from.  Just sayin...


Well a) Except in the broadest of terms, I'm simply not debating you.  False assumption. b) Given that your statement seems to be prejudical language.  A rational debate is where the argument conforms to some shared ideas about how conclusions are derived from premises - it's a stretch to say it also governs how argument is phrased.   If I, in the process of making a reasoned argument scatter some vitriol it does not change the fact that the argument is rational.  To wit:

i) All men are mortal
ii) Socrates is a man
iii) Socrates is mortal

Is no more a rational argument than:

i) All men are mortal, idiot.
ii) Socrates is a man. You troglodyte.
iii) Socrates is mortal, imbecile.

Way too many logical flaws to list. 

It is so noted that you will make an blindingly incorrect assumption - one even demonstrably inconsistent with your own logic stated just sentences above - whenever you feel like it but you are still not looking for an easy way out.



They get them because it is regulated.  The FDA has constructed requirements based on a history of free market shenanigans.  Now you are, I assume saying there is nobody forcing anyone to divulge this information.  Please, in detail, describe the process to get this information from the drug companies.

In for an answer.

And we're done here.