How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[MoonShadow]

Nothing is getting ripped apart in here.  And this entire thread wasn't worthy of reading weeks ago.  I honestly don't care what you opinion of my political persuasion actually is, and don't really feel obligated to defend myself to you.

[bb113]

About Corporations being sociopathic:

Who determines the rules corporations must follow or get fined/investigated/sued?

That's right... The State. For sure some people and companies would be sociopathic anyway, but if that company wasn't going to be a sociopath it sure will become so once it pays the state for access to the privileged legal system. Noam Chomsky (AFAIK the originator of this concept) says this as well.

[Rudd-O]

About Corporations being sociopathic:

Who determines the rules corporations must follow or get fined/investigated/sued?

That's right... The State. For sure some people and companies would be sociopathic anyway, but if that company wasn't going to be a sociopath it sure will become so once it pays the state for access to the privileged legal system. Noam Chomsky (AFAIK the originator of this concept) says this as well.

Exactly.  Corporations are fictitious entities that are "wished" into existence by people who believe that magical papers change reality.  In this specific example, the reality that these papers pretend to change, is the reality of responsibility.  They have a whole special category of non-reality called "corporate liability", where it is this fictional entity that is made responsible for the actions of the people who control them, who usually end up being sociopaths because hey, with a corporation, you too can be a sociopath and get away with it!  Of course, the rest of us do not get this privilege -- we only get to be responsible for what we do.

[myrkul]

I have difficulty understanding how some people, fearing a system where justice might be sold to the highest bidder, instead advocate a system where the justice is already sold to one side of the equation.

[Rudd-O]

I have difficulty understanding how some people, fearing a system where justice might be sold to the highest bidder, instead advocate a system where the justice is already sold to one side of the equation.

Easy to understand, when one realizes they literally worship the people on that side of the equation, with the adoration and obedience reserved only for the highest priests of the most widespread cult of sociopathy: statism.

Really, it pets very easy to understand and predict what statists will do, once you see them as the cult they are. They are no different from what the Catholic Church was a few centuries ago, and they will xelebrate the punishment of anyone that the priests or their holy scriptures punish. In that sense, they are completely oblivious to the total grip that the cult has over their warped minds.

[bb113]

To everyone: please do not feed blahtrollblahtrollblahtroll. He does not want to have a rational conversation -- all he desires is provoking others by misrepresenting ideas and lying in general. He wants to waste your time and tire IOU out, so he can derive psychic pleasure from you. Don't give him that pleasure. thanks.

I don't think he/she is a troll, plenty of people think along similar lines. The way this person talks (no ad hom intended, this is just observations) is what often results from not knowing enough about the world to be able to consider how multiple factors interact to produce the end result. I think it is encouraging when people are even aware of the existence of AnCap and do not immediately equate anarchy with "chaos". Once bbb takes the time to try finding historical evidence for claims of the superiority of the state beyond vast generalizations like "if ancap's so great why don't we already do it..." I believe a much more balanced view will emerge from that mind.

Here is my opinion: the state apparatus is a tool that can be used for good or evil. This much is clear from even a cursory understanding of history. Also, the arguments for gun control can be applied pretty much directly as arguments for "state control".

[myrkul]

Here is my opinion: the state apparatus is a tool that can be used for good or evil. This much is clear from even a cursory understanding of history. Also, the arguments for gun control can be applied pretty much directly as arguments for "state control".

True, the apparatus of state can be used for good... but it's mere existence requires the use of some evil. It's like the One Ring: no matter your intentions, it is a thing of evil, and you'll most likely end up doing more harm than good. Government has a regional monopoly on the industries of defense and justice. Monopolies are never beneficial to those they serve. Remove the monopoly. It's not rocket science.

[augustocroppo]

It's like the One Ring: no matter your intentions, it is a thing of evil, and you'll most likely end up doing more harm than good. Monopolies are never beneficial to those they serve. Remove the monopoly. It's not rocket science.

There's only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

[MoonShadow]

It's like the One Ring: no matter your intentions, it is a thing of evil, and you'll most likely end up doing more harm than good. Monopolies are never beneficial to those they serve. Remove the monopoly. It's not rocket science.

There's only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

I'd like you to explain how the non aggression principle could lead to a monopoly on force, because I can't see it.

Really, no matter how you look at it, the NAP is expressed as a social more in every major religion on Earth.  In judeo-christian history, it's the golden rule.  In the book Whatever Happened to Justice? Rich Maybury did a wonderful job showing that it's not possible to find a moral code that does not have a similar principle expressed for members of the tribe, it's in the exceptions that these moral codes differ.  The NAP has no exceptions, not for those who would portend to serve God, nor those who serve government.

[MoonShadow]

To everyone: please do not feed blahtrollblahtrollblahtroll. He does not want to have a rational conversation -- all he desires is provoking others by misrepresenting ideas and lying in general. He wants to waste your time and tire IOU out, so he can derive psychic pleasure from you. Don't give him that pleasure. thanks.

...Once bbb takes the time to try finding historical evidence for claims of the superiority of the state beyond vast generalizations like "if ancap's so great why don't we already do it..."...

Here is my opinion: the state apparatus is a tool that can be used for good or evil. This much is clear from even a cursory understanding of history. Also, the arguments for gun control can be applied pretty much directly as arguments for "state control".

It's easy to point out flaws in various past and present governments/States/regimes/empires/etc. because there have been so many of these organisations. However, historical examples of AnCap seem so rare and involve relatively few people that there's really no historic precedent to support AnCap's alleged superiority. So you're basically comparing an idealised, untested thought-experiment against real-world structures with all their real-world flaws. Isn't that a double standard?

There are many examples of social movements that had no precedent.  The end of slavery was one such movement.  No one could say who would pick the cotton, but the cotton still gets picked.  We don't need an example of such an existing society (although we actually do have a couple of examples that were pretty close) in order to point out the flaws in the current system.  I'm not an ancap either, in part because I am concerned about it's weaknesses & stability, but using the fact that no such societies exist is not an argument that they cannot.

[FirstAscent]

NAP isn't a law. It's a guiding principle to draw inspiration from while designing an AnCap society. It actually has zero effect with regard to what happens in a NAP inspired AnCap society though. In the end, the people within an AnCap society will still murder, rape, rob, deceive, and fight others over lovers, property, race, and ideas. In arbitration, someone will lose, perhaps unjustly. People will be inundated with contracts, subscriptions, tolls, fees, and bills. Lawyers will abound. Lawsuits will be the order of the day. Money will reign supreme.

[MoonShadow]

NAP isn't a law. It's a guiding principle to draw inspiration from while designing an AnCap society. It actually has zero effect with regard to what happens in a NAP inspired AnCap society though. In the end, the people within an AnCap society will still murder, rape, rob, deceive, and fight others over lovers, property, race, and ideas. In arbitration, someone will lose, perhaps unjustly. People will be inundated with contracts, subscriptions, tolls, fees, and bills. Lawyers will abound. Lawsuits will be the order of the day. Money will reign supreme.

Probably so.  We assume anyway.  We have no more evidence that ancap can't work than they have that it can.  What you argue for is the status quo; because you have no evidence that things could be better, you'd rather stick with the devil that you know.  I can understand that position, actually; because I'm of the same vein.  I'm as vested in this broken system as much as anyone, and would have much to lose if the US government were to collapse within the next decade.  And that is something that I need to change rather quickly because it will collapse, in some catastrophic manner or another.  I'm wise enough to have long understood that Social Security is a generational scam, and old enough to hope that I might make it so that I might be able to get some of my money back.  But now there are talks to avoid (not going to happen) this "fiscal cliff" that involve raising the standard eligibility age to 67.  Even if that doesn't happen now, it has to happen before I turn 65 if there is going to be any chance at all at there still being a meaningful amount of spending power in that monthly check.  If these government social services are not reformed soon, the Millinials will take over the electorate (probably before the next presidential election, maybe before the mid-terms, but soon) from the Boomers, and they are as likely to destroy those programs as reform them.  Many of the ancap people that you are arguing with are those very Millinials, who have little, if any, vested interests of their own into the status quo.

And yes, I am fully aware that SS is screwing the younger generations, but I'm also aware that I got screwed too.  Two wrongs dom't make a right, and I'd not cry in my soup if the SS system were to implode efore I made it, but I am not shy about taking the spoils that I can get if the system is still there whtn I arrive.

[myrkul]

NAP isn't a law. It's a guiding principle to draw inspiration from while designing an AnCap society. It actually has zero effect with regard to what happens in a NAP inspired AnCap society though. In the end, the people within an AnCap society will still murder, rape, rob, deceive, and fight others over lovers, property, race, and ideas. In arbitration, someone will lose, perhaps unjustly. People will be inundated with contracts, subscriptions, tolls, fees, and bills. Lawyers will abound. Lawsuits will be the order of the day. Money will reign supreme.

Probably so.  We assume anyway.  We have no more evidence that ancap can't work than they have that it can.  What you argue for is the status quo; because you have no evidence that things could be better, you'd rather stick with the devil that you know. 

He has plenty of evidence things could be better. He ignores it. You, at least, acknowledge the evidence, but would prefer proof. I understand. Fear is a powerful motivator. Especially fear of the unknown. Your imagination creates horrors much worse than reality ever could.

For instance: "Lawyers will abound...." I wonder how, when arbitration is party A, party B, and the arbitrator. Perhaps he thinks they will focus on contract law? A few, maybe. There may also be a few who focus on running class-action arbitrations for groups of people harmed by a company. But I just don't see that much of a market for lawyers in such a simple legal system. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a dozen bills for services I signed up for, than a single tax for something I didn't, and don't even use.

The theory is sound. All we need is a laboratory to test it in. It's looking like that laboratory will be New Hampshire.

[FirstAscent]

New motor developed at MIT from a government grant. I love university research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AQf0qsRTsoA

[MoonShadow]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/grover-and-annie

With regard to government research.

[myrkul]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/grover-and-annie

With regard to government research.

...it's not exactly about government research, but metaphor, simile, and analogy have a poor track record on this forum.

Good article, though. Thanks, MS.

[FirstAscent]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/grover-and-annie

With regard to government research.

Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't. Corporations typically will only engage in R & D that has a payoff within a certain amount of time, typically much less than government funded research might yield. This is known, and examples abound.

And here we have new motors, the result of government funded research. Are you saying the motors don't now exist?

[MoonShadow]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/grover-and-annie

With regard to government research.

Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't.

It hasn't been shown to me.  And it hasn't been shown to you, either.  You just take it on faith, really.  In our modern world, it's literally impossible for us to actually understand all of the science, so we have to take some things on faith.  That was exactly the point of the story.

And who said anything about corporations?  There are other ways to fund research than taxes or potential profits.

[FirstAscent]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/grover-and-annie

With regard to government research.

Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't.

It hasn't been shown to me.  And it hasn't been shown to you, either.  You just take it on faith, really.  In our modern world, it's literally impossible for us to actually understand all of the science, so we have to take some things on faith.  That was exactly the point of the story.

And who said anything about corporations?  There are other ways to fund research than taxes or potential profits.

I thought the point of the story was that governments get in the way of research. It sounded very preachy to me.

And yes, there are other ways to fund research. That's good. We shouldn't limit ourselves to one single method.

[myrkul]

Did I get it right?

No. Try again on Fluorine.