To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[ascent]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

This.

[NghtRppr]

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.

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.

[MoonShadow]

even if only a little bit.

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

[ascent]

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

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.

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

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.

[myrkul]

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

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.

[ascent]

Yep, an error. It makes little difference.

[JA37]

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.

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".

[myrkul]

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.

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.

[JA37]

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?

[ascent]

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.

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.

[AyeYo]

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.

You are already subject to those same market forces.

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.

[AyeYo]

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.

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.

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

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.

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.

[jgraham]

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.

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.

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.

[NghtRppr]

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.

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

Why not? Why is your ideology so reactive?

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 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".

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.

[NghtRppr]

Medicine erects a difficulty in understanding the issues... So what then?  People hire me?  How does anyone know to hire me?

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.

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 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.

[myrkul]

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?

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.

[NghtRppr]

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?

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.

[jgraham]

Medicine erects a difficulty in understanding the issues... So what then?  People hire me?  How does anyone know to hire me?

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.

All of the things you mentioned do have government regulation.  

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 do you think they test drugs in the first place?

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.