Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Hahahahahahaha!

Can you name a war not funded by taxation?

It's ok, I know you're laughing so you don't cry.

Yes.  The Troubles in Northern Ireland.  War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side. 

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

[FredericBastiat]

If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by government. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the framework we are living.

I don't like your framework. If I pointed a gun at your head and said, "let's play", don't think for a second I'd find it fun, or particularly enlightening.

[Hawker]

If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by government. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the framework we are living.

I don't like your framework. If I pointed a gun at your head and said, "let's play", don't think for a second I'd find it fun, or particularly enlightening.

Fred you can't justify your own framework. 

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

[AyeYo]

So the megacorporations run things now because of the existence of the state.  But if we replace the state with private security forces, thus allowing megacorporations to own military hardware directly, wage war, create their own kangaroo courts to try people in, and basically do whatever the fuck they want, etc. they'll magically turn benevolent and everything will be happy happy joy joy?

I never claimed that. As you suggested, I think both systems of government will have similar results. The only big difference will be that certain rules (laws) will exist because some companies are blatantly enforcing them for their own financial benefit, not because of some random arbitrary political bullshit. Current private security forces answer to corporations, and current armies and police forces answer to politicians (and sometimes also corporations). They do not seek funding from private citizens, do not depend on it, and thus do not have to answer to citizens. Can you not at least concede that having a portion of their income come from protecting individuals would at least give them an incentive to work on keeping individuals safe, and not waste money on arbitrary wars on concepts like war on terrorism?
Also, um, why would private corporations waste money on paying their security companies to wage war?
PO

Tell me again why I shouldn't think you're delusional.

Because unlike you, I don't believe I have all the correct answers, don't believe the world is exactly as I have constructed it in my limited scope of mind, and am willing to learn about other alternatives, even if I don't believe they are realistic, as opposed to just dismissng them out of hand with "that's stupid?" In short, I don't think I'm an omnipotent god with all the answers. THAT would be delusional.

You're beyond help. Police and military ARE funded by citizens. What do you think taxes are for?


Private security firms don't need to worry about finding and pleasing customers because they collect tax by force just like a mob organization.

[FirstAscent]

If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what slavery-free land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by slave owners. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the slavery.

That's what I hear from you.

Do not change my words when you quote me. It only undermines your credibility. You may bold face words that I have actually said if you wish to draw attention to them.

NOTE to everyone else: Bitter Tea is changing words written by me (the bold faced ones).

[FredericBastiat]

Yes.  The Troubles in Northern Ireland.  War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side. 

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves.

[BitterTea]

Do not change my words in a quote. It only undermines your credibility.

I thought it was quite obvious (I emphasized my changes and linked to your original post) that those were not your words, but what it sounded like to me.

I'll edit my post to explicitly note that the emphasis is mine.

Do you understand why it's ridiculous that you insist we work within the framework that you consider necessary for civilized society? We reject that framework as completely uncivilized.

[AyeYo]

Yes.  The Troubles in Northern Ireland.  War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side. 

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves.

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

[Hawker]

Do not change my words in a quote. It only undermines your credibility.

I thought it was quite obvious (I emphasized my changes and linked to your original post) that those were not your words, but what it sounded like to me.

I'll edit my post to explicitly note that the emphasis is mine.

Do you understand why it's ridiculous that you insist we work within the framework that you consider necessary for civilized society? We reject that framework as completely uncivilized.

Well since no other anarchist can answer, maybe you can help me

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

[FirstAscent]

Do not change my words in a quote. It only undermines your credibility.

I thought it was quite obvious (I emphasized my changes and linked to your original post) that those were not your words, but what it sounded like to me.

Most people bold face another's words to indicate the precise wording they used.

[FredericBastiat]

Fred you can't justify your own framework. 

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to. I like the sound of that very much. Your statist beliefs are also entirely built on 'oughts' and 'shoulds' arguments. If we were talking physics, there'd be very little to actually argue about.

I can't take back the millions of deaths already caused by smallpox, nukes and car bombs, and I can't say that any version of Libertopia would make all of that go away either any more than yours does/did. Human nature is unpredictable, you have to just deal with it. As I've said before, there are many different ways to "skin a cat". Let's not just assume that yours is the best way, just because it's the only way at the moment.

[FirstAscent]

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to.

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

[Rassah]

engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces...

There are no real world examples of lib-land, so no real world issues it currently faces, thus

stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like,

is fail in a discussion about hypothetical governing systems, and

We'll happily debate you at an adult level

is just total fail, period.

If you wanted to discuss free market capitalism supported by libertarians, as it would apply within a democratic government based on taxation and regulation, you should have said so, instead of resorting to childish insults. Though I believe the original discussion WAS about hypotheticals...

[Hawker]

Fred you can't justify your own framework. 

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to. I like the sound of that very much. Your statist beliefs are also entirely built on 'oughts' and 'shoulds' arguments. If we were talking physics, there'd be very little to actually argue about.

I can't take back the millions of deaths already caused by smallpox, nukes and car bombs, and I can't say that any version of Libertopia would make all of that go away either any more than yours does/did. Human nature is unpredictable, you have to just deal with it. As I've said before, there are many different ways to "skin a cat". Let's not just assume that yours is the best way, just because it's the only way at the moment.

But your way guarantees the millions MORE deaths.  In your vision, people will have free access to the smallpox virus.  Smallpox killed more people in the 20th century that all wars combined.  

Surely there is something you can offer to justify these extra deaths?  Or are you just saying we ought to put up with it?

[Hawker]

engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces...

There are no real world examples of lib-land, so no real world issues it currently faces, thus

stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like,

is fail in a discussion about hypothetical governing systems, and

We'll happily debate you at an adult level

is just total fail, period.

Isn't that because you say that everyone should have free access to nukes and to the smallpox virus?  In the real world, deaths to a hideous disease and to radiation poisoning are considered bad.

[AyeYo]

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to.

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

And what if I don't agree with those rules? Will I be forced by violence to abide by them?

[FredericBastiat]

Yes.  The Troubles in Northern Ireland.  War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side. 

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves.

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

That's a non sequitur and a Straw Man if I've ever seen one. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Making a law doesn't make people inherently good. I could just as easily say, when was the last time 6 million Jews were murdered?

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

[Rassah]

You're beyond help. Police and military ARE funded by citizens. What do you think taxes are for?


Private security firms don't need to worry about finding and pleasing customers because they collect tax by force just like a mob organization.

I didn't say anything about where the funding came from, I said specifically who they answer to. I don't pay police directly, so they have nothing to worry about regarding their paychecks if they decide to pull me over and beat me up for some made up reason. As long as the politicians, and I guess the majority of the voters support them, they feel safe (though even the later is questionable, since cops have been known to keep their jobs even when most of the neighborhood was pissed at their actions).
I wonder if there is a comparison out there between police brutality in public spaces, and security brutality at malls and stores?

[FirstAscent]

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

Nukes have only been used in an anarchic libertarian context - one member using a nuke against another member within an anarchic libertarian framework. Interpret the result how you wish. The various court systems and privates security firms may not have resolved the matter to your liking.

[FredericBastiat]

But your way guarantees the millions MORE deaths.  In your vision, people will have free access to the smallpox virus.  Smallpox killed more people in the 20th century that all wars combined.  

Surely there is something you can offer to justify these extra deaths?  Or are you just saying we ought to put up with it?

Guarantees? Thats an assumption. If you're going to assume, say you're going to assume. Libertarianism does not guarantee death. People eventually die, some get killed, that's about all you can say. Saying it any other way and it's a logical fallacy. If however you're going to presume that there is a higher probability of death, then show how that might be.