Regrettably I'm going to have to bow out of this debate for a while - it's taking up too much of my time. It's great fun and I'd love to continue, but I'm satisfied that, at least as b2c and Fred present it, libertarianism is fundamentally flawed. For example, in liberty-land:
1. Any person may use mortal violence to defend from any perceived mortal threat, or injurious violence from any perceived injurious threat; and any person may carry mortal weapons at any time. One person's right gives another the right to kill him. You might be doing something perfectly legitimate, and yet another can legitimately kill you for doing it.
2. You must make irrational economic decisions based on some arbitrary morality which other people may or may not adhere to.
3. To enjoy a reasonable level of safety in your own property, your only choice is to pay a security tax to some private police force and hope they keep a watch on fertiliser producers all over the world, making sure they do background checks on all their clients (though they are not obliged to do so), then checking all produce and people travelling near your territory to see if anyone has a bomb. And if they *do* have a bomb, well, whaddyaknow, they are free to do so, so the security team has to follow them day and night and just wait until they stop merely *holding* the bomb and actually start "threatening" with it - whatever that might mean, bearing in mind that the interval between starting to threaten and actually detonating could be far far far far far less than the reaction time of the security company.
4. There is no limit to permissible behaviour - anything arbitrarily dangerous is permitted, as long as there is no intentional menace to others. Competence, mental stability, physical ability, are of no consequence as long as the buyer can convince the seller that he intends no harm. You could juggle live grenades in the street as long as the street owner didn't think of prohibiting that and, of course, as long as you don't intend to *deliberately* drop any. You could randomly shoot your gun while blindfolded in the street with impunity as long as you don't deliberately intend to hit anyone.
5. Any justice, any justice at all, will always be bought. The enforcement of that justice will be bought as well. The wealthier (=strongest) members of society will have access to more powerful justice. Poorer members can only hope that the wealthy do not use abuse their greater power to subjugate them.
6. There will be no stability to one's life; when the terms&conditions of neighbouring property changes in such a way as to become intolerable to you, you must sell and move elsewhere.
7. There is no guaranteed minimum access to healthcare, other than what an individual can fully pay for. You could join a 'healthcare cooperative' of some kind, and hope that it honours its contract with you. If not, paid justice will prevail.
8. There is no guaranteed level of safety anywhere, other than what the owner of a property is willing to offer. Even then, there is no way to be certain that he will follow the code. Even in cases where he proclaims membership of some paid private-standards group, it is not known if he actually follows the stated code or even if he actually is a member of the standards group at all.
Great post. Right on the money. Sums up all the issues that these guys will never directly address. Look at point number 4. Recall the knife wielding juggler on the inflatable raft that we were all stuck on months ago. It just goes to demonstrate how they will (after months of arguing) still continue to defend the most absurd concepts. Are they all missing the common sense gene? |
|
|
|
That may or may not be so. Your statement only afirms the general principle that everyone considers himself to be the 'moderate', and assumes that most people believe as he does. Most people also assume that a popular opinion is evidence for it's validity. This has often been proven in error in the past.
I can assure you with a very very high degree of confidence the following two things: 1) Most people would consider what b2c considers sensible to be absurd. 2) Regulating WMDs is better than not regulating WMDs. Feel free to conduct a public poll. Even here if you want, but that's kind of like asking fans who their favorite baseball team is at a ballpark. |
|
|
|
What seems sensible to you seems absurd to me.
What seems sensible to you seems absurd to most. |
|
|
|
- protection of your own person and property, same as in libertarian beliefs
Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection. - protection of property
Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection. - protection of property
Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection. - not sure, but that sounds like the right to stay ignorant. What is "overly burdered?" Is reading a nutrition label on food you buy 'overly burdened?"
Why do you think the nutrition label is there in the first place? - protection of property, either contract with government or private providers of service would work here
- and ditto here, since you'd be paying either a government organization, or a private one.
Totally missed the point here. But you kind of missed the point on all of them. What exactly is the difference again?
Everything. |
|
|
|
The right to own nukes.
The right to carry a gun anywhere.
The right to pollute the earth.
How are these rights you pulled out of your ass any more real or correct?
Does he still have you on ignore? |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important. That was the point. Now you know how I feel. No, I don't know how you feel. The rights I posted are the basis for whole government agencies. I don't know of any government agencies in place to enforce the rights you posted. Therefore, I draw the following conclusion: Nobody takes the rights you posted seriously. |
|
|
|
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly. - The right to live when in the presence of wackos - The right to not have the Earth spoiled - The right to breathe clean air - The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things - The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers - The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system I can make up random rights too. - The right to free cable TV.
- The right to have people with red hair executed.
- The right to have Nirvana playing in every elevator.
- The right to have X-ray vision.
This is fun. You mean fun like making up your own silly libertopia? I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important. Try again. Or you can just put me back on ignore if you want. Makes little difference to me. |
|
|
|
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly. - The right to live when in the presence of wackos - The right to not have the Earth spoiled - The right to breathe clean air - The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things - The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers - The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system |
|
|
|
Thanks for being so clear about your preconceived notions of the people you are hoping to debate with.
You're welcome. It's nothing personal. It's more a frustration with circular arguments presented by two particular individuals here. Your comments have been more balanced and well thought out. I don't know if anyone else actually proposed applying this to a currently existing block of "heavily populated civilized society" before I came here. I certainly would advise against doing that. I do think the SeaSteading idea, and what's being somewhat tried in parts Somalia, as interesting though, and likely only practical ways of testing this type of society.
Lots of arguments here are worthless - I'm not referring to yours. Honestly, the last ten (I didn't count them - just a wild guess) pages here are just absurd. Do you actually buy into the soundness of b2c and Fred's ideas? |
|
|
|
What happened in America circa 1400-1500? That was when the Americas was 'discovered' by Europe, right? I don't know of any large group of people choosing paths of action that led to their deaths. Please elaborate.
More fallacies by these clowns. What works in frontiers isn't necessarily applicable to heavily populated civilized society. |
|
|
|
I don't change my own brake fluid nor do I know anything about brakes yet I find quality workmanship just like everyone else, using the wisdom of crowds. If you don't read reviews or do research before you do business with someone, you deserve half of what you get.
Never does he (bitcoin2cash) see the fallacy of his arguments. Never, never does he realize that his anecdotal stories are from life in this world, not his fabled world. Let's take a look: b2c: I don't know anything about cars, but I seem to have fairly good luck with such and such brand. OtherDude: Oh yeah? b2c: yeah, I did my research and selected an ACME car. OtherDude: that's good to know. b2c: yep. OtherDude: Must be tough, having to select between 10 different brands, where regulations have pretty much filtered out any really really badly made cars, huh? b2c: Ummm, that doesn't have anything to do with it. OtherDude: It has everything to do with it. Your stories do not apply to your fabled world. |
|
|
|
You asked about fertilizer for heck sake! I can't be ambiguous about a specific thing. You'd accuse me of being obtuse (you probably mean abstruse) again. You asked, I answered. Regulation limits utility, which limits innovation, which limits change, and of course, as per usual, it limits my rights.
I'm quite certain he meant obtuse. The word has naturally come to my mind many times while here. |
|
|
|
What's so particularly special about having a central authority for enforcement? Could I not just hire a private security firm to protect me? If you can't understand the NAP, then we have worse things to worry about (I'm not referring to the detonate-by-water-droplet-nuke problem either)
Couldn't I just hire a bigger and meaner private security firm to nullify the protective capabilities of your security firm? |
|
|
|
NAP is absurd, because its membership is voluntary.
What's the matter? You don't like the idea of rules that you only follow if you feel like it?  It's so funny. They both keep trotting out the NAP, as if they've been indoctrinated by some cultist book they both read. And they keep making this horrific assumption that everyone just follows the NAP - but how exactly does that work unless some central authority enforces the NAP? |
|
|
|
|
NAP is absurd, because its membership is voluntary.
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow, What a strange reply. The statement that rankled me was when you said: "Governments don't build roads." Totally false, and your reply indicates how odd your viewpoint is. It would be like us having the following conversation: You: "Grocery stores don't sell groceries." Me: "Uhhh, yes they do." You: "No, the cashiers sell groceries. Grocers only manage it." I guess what you seem to think is the one who is paid to do subtasks of the overall project is considered the reason for the product getting to the consumer. That's not really how projects are considered. The organization which delivers the product to the consumer is the one who is generally credited with getting the product to the consumer. No other way to put it. Most people would consider that project management, would they not?
That's a funny way to put it. It's almost as if you're saying ACME Engineering decided to build a road, and then hired the government to invest in the project, and then manage it. Some government agency finances and manages the maintaince contracts of completed roads. Only very large cities such as Chicago and NYC do this kind of skilled labor without contracting out the work to private contractors, and even they do it sometimes. It's literally impossible for smaller cities and independent towns to do it without contracting, because they can't maintain the expertise.
Really? Just about every city out there has a public works yard filled with dump trucks, backhoes, and other such equipment, and they're sent out daily to do street repair. And states don't do it because of the distances involved and political issues with county governments that make such a thing a logistical nightmare.
This is ignorance incarnate. Normally, I'm ok with ignorance, but when you say things like this: This is a field that I have worked within in the past, from several different perspectives. I know how things actually get done.
I then have to hold you to a higher standard. I guess you just don't know what's going on out there on a regular basis. Here's some information for you: CalTrans Organizational chart: http://www.dot.ca.gov/orgchart/departmentalorgchart.pdfPhoto of CalTrans engaging in road work: http://www.westsideconnect.com/2011/04/21/feature-photo-caltrans-work/More road work: http://pfostrain.ucsd.edu/gvs/photos/caltrans.krail.gifThat sometimes is the vast majority of the time. I would say almost all of the time, but I have no doubt that there are a few exceptions.
Umm, no. It's actually sometimes. The majority of the time, significant repairs and improvements are not occurring. See the above two statements by me. And utility companies are private corporations, not mere extensions of government. And like all companies, they have the right to sub-contract those maintaince duties to other, more specialized, contractors. And they do, everywhere in America.
No fucking shit. What do you think I said in my prior post. But that isn't road building, is it? Let me explain to you how it really works, in simple terms for you (with handy heuristics for the visually inclined). If the equipment is yellow, it's probably a contractor building new infrastructure as specified by the government. If the equipment has a government logo on it and general maintenance and repair is occurring, it's the government. In nearly all cases, it's the government which decided to build it, it's the government which specified what was to be built, and it's the government which delivers it to the public, and it's the government which actually gets their hands dirty maintaining it. If it's utilities being laid down or repaired, then it's not road construction or maintenance, so it doesn't apply to our discussion about road building. |
|
|
|
Governments don't build roads in America. They never have. They fund roads and maintaince via taxation, but there are other ways to fund roads if need be. The roads are built and maintained by construction contractors, and governments (at most) function as management.
Wrong. 1 ) The government decides to build roads (except in the case of a new tract under development by a developer). 2 ) The government sets up a planning commission which involves public and private planning firms. 3 ) The government decides on a plan, involving many government organizations, ranging from the ESA, the EPA, city councils, and so on. 4 ) The government contracts various firms to do the actual surveying, grading and paving. 5 ) Some government agency (state transportation agency, etc., depending on jurisdiction) oversees the project to completion. 6 ) Some government agency (state transportation agency, etc., depending on jurisdiction) maintains the completed road, installs signs, etc. 7 ) Sometimes, that government agency hires outside contractors to engage in significant repairs or improvements. 8 ) Utility companies are allowed, as per agreements with the government, to do installation and maintenance on their utilities which lie underneath the road or alongside it. |
|
|
|
Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.
Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.
I don't mind giving incentives to people to change their ways. I've found that a combination of carrot and stick works very well. Actually it's the only thing that works. Then read this post of mine from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg526491#msg526491 |
|
|
|
The problem with this line of argumentation, is that the second I concede (I won't), you can immediately justify regulating any object or compound as long as it can be proven to be potentially dangerous in at least one case, hypothetical or otherwise.
Why would you think such an idiotic thought? The goal is (and has always been) to regulate and/or prevent the ownership of the key components that allow the construction of said offending WMDs, and additionally, regulate the construction or manufacturing of said WMDs. Why would we want to regulate the possession of stainless steel, which is almost certainly a component, but not the defining component? |
|
|
|
Please Please answer this question.
If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?
Please .
Nope. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
