This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man.

[AyeYo]

Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.

It doesn't matter where the money is going unless that's part of the agreement. I hope you understand the difference between "I'll buy that watch from you" and "I'll buy that watch from you but only if that watch wasn't made by Chinese orphans". If you agree to the former then it's irrelevant who made the watch, it's still voluntary. If you agree to the later then it's fraud if it is the case that the watch was made by Chinese orphans.

Oh but it very much matters where the money is going because the entire laissez faire system hinges on it.  If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

Consumers will NEVER be fully informed because of the huge information disparity between massive business and little Joe Consumer.

Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry.

Emphasis mine.

Having a limited choice of alternatives is not the same thing as being forced to pick one of those alternatives rather than another. You might be "forced" to rape a woman or go without sex tonight but it's still a voluntary choice to rape or not rape.

Another piss-poor example.

Real world example #1:

A computer has become a necessity these days in this country.  However, all computer hardware is made by companies that exploit third-world wage slavery labor.  I have a choice between supporting these companies doing things I don't agree with or going without a very important piece of equipment that will have a large impact on my ability to communicate efficiently, get a job, etc.  There is no substitute for computers.


Real world example #2:

Credit cards are another modern necessity.  However, the banks and financial institutions offering them are crooked, corrupt, and the same places that caused the recent financial collapse.  Once again I'm forced to support bad thing or simply go without.  There is no substitute for a credit card.

Real world example #3:

Cars are a modern necessity, especially to those that live in areas with poor public transportation and/or spread out populations.  Cars run on gas.  Liberland theory say that if Company A and Company B charge too much for gas, I can buy at the cheaper Company C.  In the real world, there are so few gas companies that ALL of them charge outrageous prices.  I'm forced to either buy the overpriced gas or go without a car/motorcycle/scooter.  Once again, that is not a true choice, that's an ultimatum.

They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.

Then that's fraud, which I'm against. That's not an argument against my position. If I say my watches are made in the USA but are really made by Chinese orphans, that's fraud. If I say my investments are safe but they're not, that's fraud.

So, you still haven't met my challenge. Give me an example of anything you are forced to do under threat of physical violence other than keep your hands off of other people and their property.

No, that's not fraud.  That's a lack of disclosure and it was perfectly legal.  Information disparities are NOT fraud (though I understand that libertarians like to change defintions whenever it suits them, it's the only way to stay seemingly consistent).  These CDO's were sold as... CDO's.  "What's in it?" you ask.  "It's a bunch of mortgages," they say.  Fine and dandy.  What they didn't tell you is that it's a bunch of crappy mortgages with a high probability of default.  Even one better, the INDEPENDANT, PRIVATE rating agencies gave these investments AA to AAA safety ratings because of the way in which the CDO's were contructed.  So what's in them?  Well they're mortgages and the investment is very safe.  They only had to jump through all those hoops and be creative because of the government regulations.  In Liberland they wouldn't even need to do that much because there wouldn't be anyone policing them or setting any disclosure standards at all!

That's not fraud, that's creative marketing and creative finanical work to great something with a high rating out of a bunch of crap.  When Joe Investor comes along though, he has a massive information disparity with the financial institutions, just as the consumers in the examples above do, just as ALL consumers do in an unregulated market.



Your physical violence BS is a redherring.

More relevant quotes:

"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

"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?"
-Noam Chomsky

[MoonShadow]

Real world example #1:

A computer has become a necessity these days in this country.  However, all computer hardware is made by companies that exploit third-world wage slavery labor.  I have a choice between supporting these companies doing things I don't agree with or going without a very important piece of equipment that will have a large impact on my ability to communicate efficiently, get a job, etc.  There is no substitute for computers.


Real world example #2:

Credit cards are another modern necessity.  However, the banks and financial institutions offering them are crooked, corrupt, and the same places that caused the recent financial collapse.  Once again I'm forced to support bad thing or simply go without.  There is no substitute for a credit card.

Real world example #3:

Cars are a modern necessity, especially to those that live in areas with poor public transportation and/or spread out populations.  Cars run on gas.  Liberland theory say that if Company A and Company B charge too much for gas, I can buy at the cheaper Company C.  In the real world, there are so few gas companies that ALL of them charge outrageous prices.  I'm forced to either buy the overpriced gas or go without a car/motorcycle/scooter.  Once again, that is not a true choice, that's an ultimatum.

Honestly, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination.  #1 Seriously?  Have you ever heard of a hackerspace?  Adafruit?  Just because it's cheaper for Chinese factories (not slave labor) to make them and ship them around the world, does not mean that you couldn't find someone locally with the skill set to do this.  You just probably couldn't afford it.  #2  Look around the forum you are on.  What do you think is happening here?  Personally I haven't used a credit card in a decade.  They aren't necessary.  #3 What says that your vehicle must run on gasoline?  What says that you even need your own vehicle?  What about flinc.mobi, zipcar.com, relayrides.com or the many other private transit solutions popping up?

[AyeYo]

Honestly, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination.  #1 Seriously?  Have you ever heard of a hackerspace?  Adafruit?  Just because it's cheaper for Chinese factories (not slave labor) to make them and ship them around the world, does not mean that you couldn't find someone locally with the skill set to do this.  You just probably couldn't afford it.

OMG, the solution was right in front of me the whole time!  There is a third option!  Manufacture my own computer components, find/drill/refine my own oil, create my own investments!!!  OMG that's a totally realistic solution! 

You failed to address the argument.

#2  Look around the forum you are on.  What do you think is happening here?  Personally I haven't used a credit card in a decade.  They aren't necessary.

Enjoy trying to get a car or home loan without a credit history via a card.   

Again you sidestep and fail to address the argument.

#3 What says that your vehicle must run on gasoline?  What says that you even need your own vehicle?  What about flinc.mobi, zipcar.com, relayrides.com or the many other private transit solutions popping up?

OMG YES!  I'll pay a service that's non-existent in my area to drive me around everywhere I go at very high cost!!

Three strikes, and you haven't addressed the argument.  Try again.



How about that second section?  Where's your response to that?

[AntiVigilante]

http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/obama-stop-the-rise-of-the-machines/

...is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers . . . . If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller.

This reminds me of time when people were against lightbulbs because it would put candle workers out of business. I'm sorry you would prefer unskilled production over skilled technicians building our new tomorrow.

But bitcoin. . . .you think ATM's put tellers out of business?  You ain't seen nothin' yet

Look everyone knows candle workers can't turn a bulb in its socket.

[MoonShadow]

Honestly, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination.  #1 Seriously?  Have you ever heard of a hackerspace?  Adafruit?  Just because it's cheaper for Chinese factories (not slave labor) to make them and ship them around the world, does not mean that you couldn't find someone locally with the skill set to do this.  You just probably couldn't afford it.

OMG, the solution was right in front of me the whole time!  There is a third option!  Manufacture my own computer components, find/drill/refine my own oil, create my own investments!!!  OMG that's a totally realistic solution!  

You failed to address the argument.

No, I didn't.  Troll.  I pointed out that there are people who have the skills to manufacture the computer componets for you in your locale.  You just can't afford their services.  Mass production by semi-skilled labor always wins on economies of scale.

#2  Look around the forum you are on.  What do you think is happening here?  Personally I haven't used a credit card in a decade.  They aren't necessary.

Enjoy trying to get a car or home loan without a credit history via a card.    

I don't have a credit card, and have never had an issue getting any kind of installment loan.  Revolving credit is not comparable to an installment loan with collateral.  Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

Again you sidestep and fail to address the argument.

No, I didn't. Troll.

#3 What says that your vehicle must run on gasoline?  What says that you even need your own vehicle?  What about flinc.mobi, zipcar.com, relayrides.com or the many other private transit solutions popping up?

OMG YES!  I'll pay a service that's non-existent in my area to drive me around everywhere I go at very high cost!!

Three strikes, and you haven't addressed the argument.  Try again.

Three times, no I didn't, troll!  If the service doesn't exist (yet) in your area, that is not evidence that it couldn't be if the need were to exist in the future.

How about that second section?  Where's your response to that?

The top was so much crap, I didn't bother to continue.

[NghtRppr]

If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please.

Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry.

Emphasis mine.

Having a limited choice of alternatives is not the same thing as being forced to pick one of those alternatives rather than another. You might be "forced" to rape a woman or go without sex tonight but it's still a voluntary choice to rape or not rape.

Another piss-poor example.

Why is it a "piss-poor" example? Just because you assert that it is so? You didn't even attempt to give a rational argument to back up your claim.

A computer has become a necessity these days in this country.  However, all computer hardware is made by companies that exploit third-world wage slavery labor.  I have a choice between supporting these companies doing things I don't agree with or going without a very important piece of equipment that will have a large impact on my ability to communicate efficiently, get a job, etc.  There is no substitute for computers.

Do without. Become a farmer. The rest of the world doesn't owe you a living.

Credit cards are another modern necessity.  However, the banks and financial institutions offering them are crooked, corrupt, and the same places that caused the recent financial collapse.  Once again I'm forced to support bad thing or simply go without.  There is no substitute for a credit card.

Use cash. Don't spend more than you earn. Nobody owes you a line of credit.

Cars are a modern necessity, especially to those that live in areas with poor public transportation and/or spread out populations.  Cars run on gas.  Liberland theory say that if Company A and Company B charge too much for gas, I can buy at the cheaper Company C.  In the real world, there are so few gas companies that ALL of them charge outrageous prices.  I'm forced to either buy the overpriced gas or go without a car/motorcycle/scooter.  Once again, that is not a true choice, that's an ultimatum.

I just came back from the Netherlands. A friend of mine living in Rotterdam doesn't own a car. Most people don't there. He only owns a bike and survives just fine. Lots of people ride bikes over there. Maybe you should too? It's good exercise.

No, that's not fraud.  That's a lack of disclosure and it was perfectly legal.

Don't confuse our current legal system with the hypothetical libertarian legal system you're trying to argue against. You said that X was being passed off as Y. That's fraud. You can't imply that X is Y when it's not. However, if all you're doing is selling X and people mistakenly think it's Y because they didn't do due diligence, research it, read the label, whatever, then that's not fraud. That's ignorance on the customers part and the blame rests on them.

These CDO's were sold as... CDO's.  "What's in it?" you ask.  "It's a bunch of mortgages," they say.  Fine and dandy.  What they didn't tell you is that it's a bunch of crappy mortgages with a high probability of default.

That's why you should ask what the probabilities are and if they don't know or can't provide evidence to back up their claims, don't do business with them.

Even one better, the INDEPENDANT, PRIVATE rating agencies gave these investments AA to AAA safety ratings because of the way in which the CDO's were contructed.  So what's in them?  Well they're mortgages and the investment is very safe.

That sounds like fraud to me.

They only had to jump through all those hoops and be creative because of the government regulations.  In Liberland they wouldn't even need to do that much because there wouldn't be anyone policing them or setting any disclosure standards at all!

In one sentence you say the regulations didn't prevent what they were designed to prevent and then in the next system you despair that we wouldn't even have those nonworking regulations? That sounds like nothing of value would be lost. However, there will be policing and standards set by the market. That's why we have things like Consumer Reports and other independent agencies that are actually independent because they don't have an artificial barrier to entry. You can't look at our current hybrid system of private companies regulated by the government and draw conclusions about a purely free market from that.

When Joe Investor comes along though, he has a massive information disparity with the financial institutions, just as the consumers in the examples above do, just as ALL consumers do in an unregulated market.

That's why you do your homework and factor that risk into your investments.

Your physical violence BS is a redherring.

No, it's the issue at hand but since you want to ignore it and refuse to meet my challenge to give me an example of anything you are forced to do under threat of physical violence other than keep your hands off of other people and their property then I guess there's nothing left to debate. You give up.

Oh, I get it now.  AyeYo doesn't actually understand the difference between force and the initiation of force.

I'm sure he understands the difference. He just wants to pretend that there's more to liberty than that. He wants alternatives that suit his personal tastes but that's just too bad. I go back to my previous example, he may be "forced" to rape a woman or do without sex tonight but that doesn't mean his choice to rape or not rape isn't voluntary. Just because he doesn't like the alternatives doesn't mean there isn't one that doesn't involve him being forced under threat of physical violence.

[AyeYo]

Honestly, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination.  #1 Seriously?  Have you ever heard of a hackerspace?  Adafruit?  Just because it's cheaper for Chinese factories (not slave labor) to make them and ship them around the world, does not mean that you couldn't find someone locally with the skill set to do this.  You just probably couldn't afford it.

OMG, the solution was right in front of me the whole time!  There is a third option!  Manufacture my own computer components, find/drill/refine my own oil, create my own investments!!!  OMG that's a totally realistic solution!  

You failed to address the argument.

No, I didn't.  Troll.  I pointed out that there are people who have the skills to manufacture the computer componets for you in your locale.  You just can't afford their services.  Mass production by semi-skilled labor always wins on economies of scale.

You failed to address the argument.  Here's the argument not obscured by an example: there is not true choice when all the choices are the same - ironically similar to the current American political system.  There is nothing in your free market fantasy land that corrects this or prevents it, in fact, without regulation it is encouraged.

#2  Look around the forum you are on.  What do you think is happening here?  Personally I haven't used a credit card in a decade.  They aren't necessary.

Enjoy trying to get a car or home loan without a credit history via a card.    

I don't have a credit card, and have never had an issue getting any kind of installment loan.  Revolving credit is not comparable to an installment loan with collateral.  Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

"I know a guy who" fallacy.  Your personal experience doesn't change reality.  Credits card are an important part of modern life.

I know a guy who lives with a car, tv, computer, and SSN, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or a good way to live.

#3 What says that your vehicle must run on gasoline?  What says that you even need your own vehicle?  What about flinc.mobi, zipcar.com, relayrides.com or the many other private transit solutions popping up?

OMG YES!  I'll pay a service that's non-existent in my area to drive me around everywhere I go at very high cost!!

Three strikes, and you haven't addressed the argument.  Try again.

Three times, no I didn't, troll!  If the service doesn't exist (yet) in your area, that is not evidence that it couldn't be if the need were to exist in the future.

That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't exist now, thus my point still applies and you have still not addressed the argument.

The top was so much crap, I didn't bother to continue.

Yet another cop out.  I'd respect you and your position more if you just admitted the inconsistency of your position or, at the very least, your inability to properly defend it.

[AyeYo]

If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please.

Wrong.  The argument is about the inconsistent, contradictory, and hypocritcal nature of libertarianism.  In typical fashion, you're attempting to narrow the bounds of the argument to one of your preset talking points - not going to happen.


lol @ asking the probabilities

Methinks you're a bit over your head.

[NghtRppr]

If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please.

Wrong.  The argument is about the inconsistent, contradictory, and hypocritcal nature of libertarianism.  In typical fashion, you're attempting to narrow the bounds of the argument to one of your preset talking points - not going to happen.


lol @ asking the probabilities

Methinks you're a bit over your head.

Since you continuously refuse to address my points, wish to ignore what I say and are constantly engaging in name calling, I'll be ignoring you now. As far as I'm concerned, you were refuted. Bye.

[AyeYo]

If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please.

Wrong.  The argument is about the inconsistent, contradictory, and hypocritcal nature of libertarianism.  In typical fashion, you're attempting to narrow the bounds of the argument to one of your preset talking points - not going to happen.


lol @ asking the probabilities

Methinks you're a bit over your head.

Since you continuously refuse to address my points, wish to ignore what I say and are constantly engaging in name calling, I'll be ignoring you now. Bye.

I won't address your strawmen and I will not let you narrow the focus of the arugment to a talking point (oldest libertarian trick in the book), so I bid you farewell and will be happy to be put on ignore.

[MoonShadow]

No, I didn't.  Troll.  I pointed out that there are people who have the skills to manufacture the computer componets for you in your locale.  You just can't afford their services.  Mass production by semi-skilled labor always wins on economies of scale.

You failed to address the argument.  Here's the argument not obscured by an example: there is not true choice when all the choices are the same - ironically similar to the current American political system.  There is nothing in your free market fantasy land that corrects this or prevents it, in fact, without regulation it is encouraged.

That wasn't the argument, but I'll address this one.

By definition, government imposed regulation limits consumer choice.  It is their primary tool.  In the absence of regulation, therefore, consumer choice would be greater.  There is nothing that promises that those other choices are actually better, this much is true.  But on average, history shows us that the kind of innovations that drive technology and culture forward (thus society as a whole) are the very kind of innovations that regulators cannot forsee (how could they?  otherwise they would have been the innovators) and whose limiting powers tend to restrict choices and delay progress.  I will concede that there is nothing in libertarian thought (I'm not an anarchist) that actually prohibits such a worst case scenario, but there are natural regulatory forces in a free market that you are wont to acknowledge.

I don't have a credit card, and have never had an issue getting any kind of installment loan.  Revolving credit is not comparable to an installment loan with collateral.  Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

"I know a guy who" fallacy.  Your personal experience doesn't change reality.  Credits card are an important part of modern life.

I know a guy who lives with a car, tv, computer, and SSN, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or a good way to live.

It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid.  Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not.

Three times, no I didn't, troll!  If the service doesn't exist (yet) in your area, that is not evidence that it couldn't be if the need were to exist in the future.

That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't exist now, thus my point still applies and you have still not addressed the argument.

It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible.  I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.

Yet another cop out.  I'd respect you and your position more if you just admitted the inconsistency of your position or, at the very least, your inability to properly defend it.

I don't require your respect.  You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults.  I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not.  Libertarianism is not on trial here.  This is our house.  You are a guest, who is quickly wearing out his welcome.  From what I can see, you are very poor at presenting valid and rational arguments to support your own position, relying heavily on repeation of falsehoods, a lack (or feight of) ability to understand the positions and arguments presented to you by your opposition, and attacks upon the writing skills of your opposition.

[MoonShadow]

If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please.

Wrong.  The argument is about the inconsistent, contradictory, and hypocritcal nature of libertarianism.  In typical fashion, you're attempting to narrow the bounds of the argument to one of your preset talking points - not going to happen.


lol @ asking the probabilities

Methinks you're a bit over your head.

Project much?

[AyeYo]

I will concede that there is nothing in libertarian thought (I'm not an anarchist) that actually prohibits such a worst case scenario, but there are natural regulatory forces in a free market that you are wont to acknowledge.

You mean the ones that I've explained DON'T work without fully informed consumers that are on equal footing with the supplier?

It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid.  Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not.

Prove it.

It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible.  I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.

If it doesn't exist where I live then it's of no use to me, kind of like the fact that water exists while people die of dehydration in the desert.


Still, you avoid the actual point being made.  The argument over transportation is fluff.

I don't require your respect.  You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults.  I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not.  Libertarianism is not on trial here.  This is our house.

Wrong.  You're the one that believes in an ideaology that has no real-world examples of actual use.  The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it's everything you claim it is.  I'm not making anY claims, I'm just shooting holes in your claims.

[MoonShadow]

It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid.  Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not.

Prove it.

I can't prove a negative any more than you can, despite your repeated attempts to do exactly that.  All of your arguments are rooted in your belief system.  While that may be true with us as well, at least we can make a credible appeal towards logical premises. 

It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible.  I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.

If it doesn't exist where I live then it's of no use to me, kind of like the fact that water exists while people die of dehydration in the desert.

Still, you avoid the actual point being made.  The argument over transportation is fluff.

So it has to be true for you to be true anywhere?  Wow, that's a novel argument!

I don't require your respect.  You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults.  I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not.  Libertarianism is not on trial here.  This is our house.

Wrong.  You're the one that believes in an ideaology that has no real-world examples of actual use.  The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it's everything you claim it is.  I'm not making anY claims, I'm just shooting holes in your claims.

You believe you are doing such a thing, but really you are just upsetting your hosts and making a general ass out of yourself.  BTW, there are actually real examples of societies that were very libertarian in their own times.  The Swiss cantons from ~1270 till at least the 1600's is a fince example of this.  Yes, the Swiss were a stable society because of their social constraints and homogenous racial makeup, but their actual national government was almost non-existent for hundreds of years.

[AyeYo]

It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid.  Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not.

Prove it.

I can't prove a negative any more than you can, despite your repeated attempts to do exactly that.  All of your arguments are rooted in your belief system.  While that may be true with us as well, at least we can make a credible appeal towards logical premises.  

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.  I told you a prove your statement that credit cards wouldn't be necessary in Liberland.  Proving a negative would you asking me to prove... "why not?"  Which is what you've done repeatedly.  You made a statement, I'm asking for proof that the statement is true.  You make the statement, you shoulder the burden of proof.  Argumentation and debate 101

It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible.  I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.

If it doesn't exist where I live then it's of no use to me, kind of like the fact that water exists while people die of dehydration in the desert.

Still, you avoid the actual point being made.  The argument over transportation is fluff.

So it has to be true for you to be true anywhere?  Wow, that's a novel argument![/quote]

If I don't have access to what you're claiming is a valid alternative, then possession of a valid alternative doesn't apply to me.

If my only choices are Company A and Company B, then the fact that Company C exists on the other side of the planet doesn't change the fact that my choice is still only Company A and Company B, thus free choice does not exist for everyone in this hypothetical Liberland.  So what you're saying is that as long as you have free choice it's cool.  Everyone that doesn't get just get fucked, tough luck for them.  Sounds like real freedom to me.

If the only companies I can choose from support things/do things I don't agree with, charge too much, offer shitty products, etc., then the fact that one tiny company exists in an alternate universe that doesn't do these things doesn't do me a damn bit of good and doesn't change my restricted, ultimatum choice.  Yet you'll keep pointing to that one tiny irrelevant company because it'd destroy your belief system to admit that truly free choice doesn't always exist in an unregulated market.

I don't require your respect.  You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults.  I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not.  Libertarianism is not on trial here.  This is our house.

Wrong.  You're the one that believes in an ideaology that has no real-world examples of actual use.  The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it's everything you claim it is.  I'm not making anY claims, I'm just shooting holes in your claims.
[/quote]
You believe you are doing such a thing, but really you are just upsetting your hosts and making a general ass out of yourself.  BTW, there are actually real examples of societies that were very libertarian in their own times.  The Swiss cantons from ~1270 till at least the 1600's is a fince example of this.  Yes, the Swiss were a stable society because of their social constraints and homogenous racial makeup, but their actual national government was almost non-existent for hundreds of years.
[/quote]


Of course I'm upsetting the hosts.  The hosts are libertarians and they're getting called out to support and defend their belief systems.  It's much easier to believe in something you're never challenged on or forced to prove.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Real world example #1:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, the consumer has no idea that Company A is a gross polluter and Company B doesn't pollute at all.  That blows this entire idea of "the market will work everything out" right out of the water, and also shows how what you don't know can hurt you.  Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.

In free market landia (where property rights are respected), pollution would be treated as a form of trespass.  Company A will be held legally liable for any damage done to neighboring property owners affected by the pollution.

Real world example #2:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, BOTH Company A and Company B are gross polluters.  There are no other companies in the industry.  Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry. 

In free market landia, Company A and Company B will be shutdown immediately.  The stock owners and the managers responsible for the pollution will be held legally liable for any damages done.  Therefore they must provide restitution.  If not, then the private defense agencies of the homeowners and other property owners affected by the pollution will collaberate to arrest the managers or otherwise forcibly shut down Company A and Company B.

Real world example #3:

AIG et.al. create complex, dangerous finanical instruments.  They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.  The investments aren't safe, but the investors don't know that (access to information disparity, strike two).  These "safe" investments go bust and take down the entire world's economy.  The decisions of just a handful of corporate executives negatively impacted the majority of the developed world's population who had absolutely no say in the decision making, but nevertheless suffered the consequences (the actions of a few affect the lives of many, strike three).

In free market landia, ordinary people will not be forced to use government fiat currencies that are regulated by the FED and banks.  Ordinary people will be able to use bitcoin, a peer-to-peer distributed currencies which makes the entire banking industry obsolete.

[lemonginger]

hmmm interesting discussion devolving quickly into anger and pissing contest....Best to start up new and civil discussions on specifics aspects of right-libertarian philosophy (strong-property vs weak-property // self-ownership vs world-ownership // externalities and information disparities // etc)

[AyeYo]

Real world example #1:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, the consumer has no idea that Company A is a gross polluter and Company B doesn't pollute at all.  That blows this entire idea of "the market will work everything out" right out of the water, and also shows how what you don't know can hurt you.  Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.

In free market landia (where property rights are respected), pollution would be treated as a form of trespass.  Company A will be held legally liable for any damage done to neighboring property owners affected by the pollution.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere!

Who will hold them legally liable?  Who will assess damage?  Who will put a monetary figure on, say, decreased air quality?

Real world example #2:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, BOTH Company A and Company B are gross polluters.  There are no other companies in the industry.  Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry. 

In free market landia, Company A and Company B will be shutdown immediately.  The stock owners and the managers responsible for the pollution will be held legally liable for any damages done.  Therefore they must provide restitution.  If not, then the private defense agencies of the homeowners and other property owners affected by the pollution will collaberate to arrest the managers or otherwise forcibly shut down Company A and Company B.

Sounds reasonable and realistic enough.  Just a couple questions...

Again, who sets the value on the damages done when the value is abstract?  Who determines at what point these company's are subject to arrest by these private defense funds?  Pollution is a fact of production.  Who sets the threshold?

If Company A and B are successfully shut down, what happens to their assets?  

What happens to property owners who cannot afford a defense fund, who protects their right to not be poisoned by toxic waste?

How is the scope of affect determined?  If I've got soot on the side of my house and my drinking water tastes like sewage, those are obvious affects.  When all the bees die off and the farmer has nothing to pollenate his crops, who pays for that?  When food prices go up because of this, who pays for that?  Markets are massively linked, how are all the far-reaching affects dealt with so that people who had no voluntary connection to the original issue are not affected by it (or at least compensated for it)?

Real world example #3:

AIG et.al. create complex, dangerous finanical instruments.  They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.  The investments aren't safe, but the investors don't know that (access to information disparity, strike two).  These "safe" investments go bust and take down the entire world's economy.  The decisions of just a handful of corporate executives negatively impacted the majority of the developed world's population who had absolutely no say in the decision making, but nevertheless suffered the consequences (the actions of a few affect the lives of many, strike three).

In free market landia, ordinary people will not be forced to use government fiat currencies that are regulated by the FED and banks.  Ordinary people will be able to use bitcoin, a peer-to-peer distributed currencies which makes the entire banking industry obsolete.

I think P2P currencies will be more of a suppliment than a replacement, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Sorry for all the questions, but you seem to the best first person that might actually give me answers instead of dodging them.

[MoonShadow]

It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid.  Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not.

Prove it.

I can't prove a negative any more than you can, despite your repeated attempts to do exactly that.  All of your arguments are rooted in your belief system.  While that may be true with us as well, at least we can make a credible appeal towards logical premises.  

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.  I told you a prove your statement that credit cards wouldn't be necessary in Liberland.  Proving a negative would you asking me to prove... "why not?"  Which is what you've done repeatedly.  You made a statement, I'm asking for proof that the statement is true.  

Which I have already done, and you ignored it.  It's possible to live, and even use credit, without maintaining a credit card right now.  I, therefore, conclude that it would still be possible to do so in an imagined free market society.  The burden of proof, if there actually could be any, rests upon yourself to show that I'm wrong on that assumption.

It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible.  I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.

If it doesn't exist where I live then it's of no use to me, kind of like the fact that water exists while people die of dehydration in the desert.

Still, you avoid the actual point being made.  The argument over transportation is fluff.

So it has to be true for you to be true anywhere?  Wow, that's a novel argument!

If I don't have access to what you're claiming is a valid alternative, then possession of a valid alternative doesn't apply to me.

Although this true enough taken alone, it's not relevent to the argument because I have already shown that it's possible, by presenting an existing solution.  Are you twelve?

I don't require your respect.  You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults.  I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not.  Libertarianism is not on trial here.  This is our house.

Wrong.  You're the one that believes in an ideaology that has no real-world examples of actual use.  The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it's everything you claim it is.  I'm not making anY claims, I'm just shooting holes in your claims.

You believe you are doing such a thing, but really you are just upsetting your hosts and making a general ass out of yourself.  BTW, there are actually real examples of societies that were very libertarian in their own times.  The Swiss cantons from ~1270 till at least the 1600's is a fince example of this.  Yes, the Swiss were a stable society because of their social constraints and homogenous racial makeup, but their actual national government was almost non-existent for hundreds of years.

Of course I'm upsetting the hosts.  The hosts are libertarians and they're getting called out to support and defend their belief systems.  It's much easier to believe in something you're never challenged on or forced to prove.

This forum doesn't exist to support the ideologies of the hosts, or anyone else.  It exists to support Bitcoin and educate those who wish to be educated in this subject.  The fact that one ideology predominates, for which you disagree with, is not material.  So you are calling out your hosts to defend something that they shouldn't have to defend in this forum.  Thus 'calling out' in this context is trolling by definition.  Granted, so was the original post that started all this, and I'm ashamed that I was sucked into this at all.

[MoonShadow]

Sorry for all the questions, but you seem to the best first person that might actually give me answers instead of dodging them.

That is provablely not the case, and he will grow weary of your crap soon enough.