 |
| |
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
You are the only user? Sure, if the population is 1.
There are two moral ways to fund a police force. The first, which I have mentioned, is to charge anyone who uses it an equal amount. The second, which you have hit on, is for one person to donate all the money the police need. So if you want to give the government $50 million to run the police department, go right ahead - but that won't exempt you from laws against violating the rights of others.
Then I guess the government will rent land from someone else, buy land from someone else, or run the police department from land the government already owns. |
I"m only violating their rights if they paid the user fees. cuz if they didnt pay the user fees, they have no rights. remember?
the reason no1 else will givethem land is cuz they are as smart as I am and they understand this system is gravy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
David,
quote:
Now who exactly made this claim? No Libertarian I know of. I know for a fact that people will commit crimes, even in a Libertarian system. Fortunately, Libertarianism deals with that by providing for a)an armed populace, and b)a government that has it's duties limited to, among other things, a judiciary and law enforcement. Stands to reason the Libertarian government would be pretty good at this, seeing as how it has little else to do |
When referring to the bad guys, I didn't mean criminals. I meant people or organizations that wish to use their individual freedoms to trample on others. Tobacco companies represent a good example of this to me. They make their money by selling a product that is both addictive and in many cases harmful. In a Libertarian society, would these companies have advertising restrictions on them? I mean it is up to each individual to guarantee their own health and welfare, so wouldn't the burden of researching the negative effects of Tobacco use be up to them? Should packs of Cigarettes carry a surgeon general's warning?
Also how is the Judiciary, police, and politicians any different in a Libertarian society? Politicians seem to be particulary vulnerable to expanding their power or helping their constituients at the expense of others.
quote:
The real world? What "real world" island is covered completely, half with banana groves and half with pineapple farms? If you want to make a real world example, then make one, but let's keep the world of banana and pineapple plants in Boshko's Fantasy Land. |
strike real world and insert Boshkosian Allegory as needed *grin* 
quote:
Very true. Now you're getting closer to the real world. Fortunately, Libertarianism also provides a solution to this "problem". If the competing interests are a result of a contract, then we have courts. Again, you are showing your ignorance of Libertarianism by equating it with anarchy. |
Contracts don't cover every competing claim. Since gay marriage is a hot topic, lets use this as an example. Should the government and court systems recognize a marriage contract between two people of the same gender, just as it does people of the opposite gender? Certainly they have an individual right to be with anyone who they choose, but should the government recognize it? Of course many (including probably you and I because neither of us like authoritarians of any kind) will say yes of course, but many others feel that they have a competing interest to keep marriage defined as a union between male and female. Any other definition is an attack on their moral beliefs, and such abominations constitutes a violation of their individual right to truly believe in their religion. As long as elections exists, people can petition their representatives (or ballot inititive etc) to stop gay marriage.
Unless the Libertarian Constitution completely restrains the legislature, I don't see how it could keep them from passing tons of non-Libertarian laws. What would constitute a crime? I'm guessing a violation of individual rights, but how far do those rights extend? Would burning laws still be in place? I mean I'm confident that I can a fire under control even if I light it before 4pm. Would zoning regulations still matter? I bought this piece of property, so I should be able to do anything I want to it, correct?
quote:
As for your point about NGOs, you are correct that they exert a lot of influence on politicians, who they often pay off, and on people, who they often sway to vote their way through emotional arguments. I'm sure that the corrupt people who run NGOs (not that all NGOs are necessarily corrupt, naturally) would have a lot to lose with Libertarianism, but this is more an indictment of corruption than Libertarianism, right? |
I don't think that this is an indictment of corruption at all. I'm not sure exactly how much corruption there is in any given Congressional race, but I don't think that all or even most politicians are true criminals. If two candidates had similar views on everything except for abortion, then the candidate who favors abortions would probably have support from the NOW while the candidate who opposes it would have support from the NRLC. This doesn't involve any corruption, just competition for the hearts and minds of people.
Though NGO's using and abusing their power makes me think of a fight over high voltage powerlines where I live. The local power utility wants to go through a section of national forests that has some rare and endangered species. If the utility company could do whatever it wanted, then it would have chopped those trees down a long time ago.
I think that the abuses of power from corporations such as railroads during the robber baron era of the late 1800's will crop back up. If I'm getting screwed by people in the form of people stealing my hard owned dollars, I'd rather it be in the form of taxes, going to politicians I can in theory vote out of office, instead of corporations that have a small group of individuals who own all of the voting stock.
That being said though, I think the current system is horrible, but I think Libertarianism could be worse. Maybe our current system is the best theory, but it has a horrible implementation, so maybe Libertarianism wouldn't be any worse. My point of view is that government is unwanted collective/social control on the individual with at least limited checks for individuals to express dissatisfaction. In Libertainianism, it seems that other forces would exert similar unwanted collective/social control over the individual without any checks on their power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -
Why? People buy and sell land all the time.
It's not in my interest to sell land? Explain that one to landowners and the realtors they hire to sell land.
But in the real world unintelligent, "altruistic" people own land too. Still dodging, yavoon... Your argument has been shot down numerous times now... |
in today's system there is security for ppl who don't own land. there are literally thousands of laws of what landowners can and can't do. in ur system, everything is up for negotiation. there is literally no security if u don't own land. in that system only an enormous moron would ever sell land. and only a person not acting in his self interest WOULDN'T enter the plan w/ me.
altruistic ppl are an anomoly and will not dominate the dynamics of ur system. unless u want to be communist and assume everyone is altruist, ur really out to lunch. a nd who's to say I can't do my thing anyway but become a philanthropist. I can ownthe cow and pass out some milk, not a bad idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
cuz if they didnt pay the user fees, they have no rights. remember? |
No, that's not true at all. I never made that claim. My only claim was that if they decide not to chip in for user fees, then the police have no moral imperative to go out of their way to protect them.
You still can't go up and shoot someone, and if the police see you do it, you'll get arrested no matter who the other person is. But if your house gets robbed, and the police find out that you didn't pay user fees, then it's certainly within their rights to refuse to go out of their way to investigate unless/until you pay. You don't have a claim on their labor any more than you have a claim on my labor.
quote:
the reason no1 else will givethem land is cuz they are as smart as I am and they understand this system is gravy. |
Sure, if everyone wants to live in an anarchist system, this will be the result, but the existence of a Libertarian government is pre-supposed by the very nature of this discussion.
quote:
no I dont own all the land. but all the land owners are as smart as I am and realize the insane advantage that we as a unit posess. |
But we'll go back to my point I made earlier. Even if there are no user fees, and you and your buddies pay 100% of the police budget, you are still subject to the same laws that everyone else is - you can't go around killing people.
The point of user fees is to ensure the police are not working for free, not to ensure that everyone pays equally. You can pay 100%, or everyone can pay .0005% - it's not gonna matter in terms of the law and how the law is enforced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
No, that's not true at all. I never made that claim. My only claim was that if they decide not to chip in for user fees, then the police have no moral imperative to go out of their way to protect them.
You still can't go up and shoot someone, and if the police see you do it, you'll get arrested no matter who the other person is. But if your house gets robbed, and the police find out that you didn't pay user fees, then it's certainly within their rights to refuse to go out of their way to investigate unless/until you pay. You don't have a claim on their labor any more than you have a claim on my labor.
Sure, if everyone wants to live in an anarchist system, this will be the result, but the existence of a Libertarian government is pre-supposed by the very nature of this discussion.
But we'll go back to my point I made earlier. Even if there are no user fees, and you and your buddies pay 100% of the police budget, you are still subject to the same laws that everyone else is - you can't go around killing people.
The point of user fees is to ensure the police are not working for free, not to ensure that everyone pays equally. You can pay 100%, or everyone can pay .0005% - it's not gonna matter in terms of the law and how the law is enforced. |
I assume shooting someone is only against the law if they didn't want me to do it. just like taking something from someone's house. so if I shoot someone its not neccessarily a violation of their rights, since they are free to give or negotiate away any rights they like. so upon me shooting the person the police can just decide he didn't pay user fees so they will not put demand upon their labor to figure out if I indeed violated his rights or not.
not that hard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
I"m the one turning the profit not them. what are they going to do? take my land? thats not very libertarian of them. are they going to make it impossible for me to freely negotiate rent contracts? thats not very libertarian of them. are they going to outlaw me working in cooperation w/ the other land owners? thats not very libertarian of them.
what exactly will stop me from executing what I will now call "plan urinal" |
A couple of things:
1)The free market. Let's say that you and 9 of your friends own all the land. Let's say that you decide to charge the police $1000 in rent, and split the profits equally. But then one of you gets smart. He thinks to himself, why not get out of this partnership, and rent land to the police for $500, and keep all of the profits? After all, what amount is greater, 10% of $1000 or 100% of $500? I know what I'd do.
2)The police and the judicial system. You're still subject to laws preventing you from violating the rights of others. Justice isn't for sale in a Libertarian system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
so upon me shooting the person the police can just decide he didn't pay user fees so they will not put demand upon their labor to figure out if I indeed violated his rights or not. |
This has nothing to do with the first half of your posts. You are simply saying, here, that because you pay 100% of the police budget, then the police will let you do whatever you want. That is an example of police corruption, and is an indictment of corruption, not Libertarianism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
korn,
quote:
Tobacco companies represent a good example of this to me. They make their money by selling a product that is both addictive and in many cases harmful. In a Libertarian society, would these companies have advertising restrictions on them? |
The restriction is they cannot commit fraud.
quote:
Also how is the Judiciary, police, and politicians any different in a Libertarian society? Politicians seem to be particulary vulnerable to expanding their power or helping their constituients at the expense of others. |
Sure, because our system encourages that type of behavior. A Libertarian system would not.
quote:
Since gay marriage is a hot topic, lets use this as an example. Should the government and court systems recognize a marriage contract between two people of the same gender, just as it does people of the opposite gender? |
The government can "officially recognize" whatever it wants. However, if it is going to give certain benefits to certain people in a marriage contract, it must give those same benefits to all people in a marriage contract - non-discrimination. However, this is also a non-issue - there are no tax breaks for being married, for example, because taxes do not exist, except in the form of very limited user fees, which do not get altered just because you enter into a marriage contract.
quote:
Unless the Libertarian Constitution completely restrains the legislature, I don't see how it could keep them from passing tons of non-Libertarian laws. |
You answered your own question. The Constitution could largely serve as its own legislature, as everyone would be clearly defined in the Constitution - the government can do such and such, and cannot do anything not specifically granted. The judicial system and law enforcement branch are responsible for enforcing the Constitution, and for preventing people from violating the rights of others, which is also Constitutionally prohibited. If the Constitution is written tightly enough, a Legislature is largely superfluous.
quote:
What would constitute a crime? I'm guessing a violation of individual rights |
You again answered your own question 
quote:
Would burning laws still be in place? I mean I'm confident that I can a fire under control even if I light it before 4pm. |
Great, but if the fire (or smoke) damages someone else's property, you are responsible for the damage.
quote:
Would zoning regulations still matter? I bought this piece of property, so I should be able to do anything I want to it, correct? |
I would agree with that. You still can't dump pollution on other people's property or into their drinking water, though, so don't try that objection.
quote:
I don't think that this is an indictment of corruption at all. I'm not sure exactly how much corruption there is in any given Congressional race, but I don't think that all or even most politicians are true criminals. If two candidates had similar views on everything except for abortion, then the candidate who favors abortions would probably have support from the NOW while the candidate who opposes it would have support from the NRLC. This doesn't involve any corruption, just competition for the hearts and minds of people. |
There are a lot of corrupt politicians, who will be conveniently voting the way of whoever gives them the most money.
quote:
Though NGO's using and abusing their power makes me think of a fight over high voltage powerlines where I live. The local power utility wants to go through a section of national forests that has some rare and endangered species. If the utility company could do whatever it wanted, then it would have chopped those trees down a long time ago. |
The utility company can't cut across land it doesn't own in a Libertarian system. If, however, they bought land with endangered species on it, they would still be free to cut through the land.
quote:
I think that the abuses of power from corporations such as railroads during the robber baron era of the late 1800's will crop back up. |
Poor objection - laws were in place that were skewed in favor of big business. In a Libertarian system, NO ONE is allowed to violate the rights of anyone else. Justice is not for sale.
quote:
In Libertainianism, it seems that other forces would exert similar unwanted collective/social control over the individual without any checks on their power. |
There are always checks on power - the restriction against violating individual rights. It is also quite hard to bribe a politician to do something when very likely he doesn't even have the power to do what you want.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
This has nothing to do with the first half of your posts. You are simply saying, here, that because you pay 100% of the police budget, then the police will let you do whatever you want. That is an example of police corruption, and is an indictment of corruption, not Libertarianism. |
which step in the process was corrupt? the police were completely w/in their rights to not use their labor to investigate. I was completely in my rights to negotiate the contract for the police land.
WHERE IS THE FLAW. u say the result is bad and I agree, but still u have no shown where the trip is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
everyone can afford to live on my land. |
Yeah, but the point here is the government can BETTER afford to rent my land. I'll make less money than the amount you want to charge, but I'll make a LOT MORE money than you are ACTUALLY making.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Yeah, but the point here is the government can BETTER afford to rent my land. I'll make less money than the amount you want to charge, but I'll make a LOT MORE money than you are ACTUALLY making. |
it would be against ur self interest to not be in cahoots w/ me.
since we could each have our own police station and each make as much money as I originally would have made. so ur really only undercutting urself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
the police were completely w/in their rights to not use their labor to investigate. |
If the police see, or otherwise know, that you shot someone, then they'll come arrest you, and make you pay for it. IF the police don't know who committed the murder, and IF no one tells them, and IF that person didn't pay user fees (which, by the way, is unlikely), then no, the police don't have to investigate.
But wait a second. If you are funding the police out of your own pocket, voluntarily, then they are already getting paid, which is what they are concerned with, so they are going to do their job, which is to investigate crime.
Aha, you think: If someone refuses to pay user fees, this drives up costs for everyone else, but the police are still getting paid, and still have to investigate. However, you are missing one major difference - the issue that the people who want to pay user fees are being forced to pay more than they would ordinarily have to by the person who doesn't want to pay, while if someone VOLUNTEERS to pay, no one is being forced to pay more than they ordinarily would.
This system is designed to encourage people to pay into the police, not as a mechanism for you to gain power. If you find a way to abuse the system through corruption - and I still don't really see how your way does that - that doesn't indict the system, it indicts YOU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -
In a libertarian system your rights are secured by law, including the right to negotiate the purchase of land. Your hypothetical is based on the fantasy that everyone who owns land won't sell unless they get millions (or whatever). Do any of these laws we have now require landowners to sell me land at the market value? No. So why don't we see all these landowners employing your tactic now? Because some (actually damn near all) landowners will see the wisdom of ignoring your appeals for this conspiracy and sell at market values. We're in the process of selling off a house now and we aren't holding our for 100x the market value of the house. Why? Because the house won't sell.
Why is it in my self-interest to hold onto land I don't need but could sell off? You keep dodging this reality...
Really? So when people donate to charity, that's an anomaly?
I don't need to be a communist to know that there are plenty of people who take altruistic actions out of self-interest. I feel good when I donate to charity. I feel good when I stop for a stranded motorist. I feel good when I treat people as I want to be treated. These are actions taken out of self-interest that have altruistic results... |
is it or is it not in one's self interest to carry out the plan I proposed? I say it is. I say that holding onto the land is in one's self interest under ur system.
so all u have is that "ppl don't act in their self interest." pretty laffable ground to argue from.
again the reason ppl buy and sell land all the time is cuz its safe. and the possible exploitation isnt nearly as high. the possible profit from my scheme is enormous. but it needs the massively deregulated libertarian society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
If the police see, or otherwise know, that you shot someone, then they'll come arrest you, and make you pay for it. IF the police don't know who committed the murder, and IF no one tells them, and IF that person didn't pay user fees (which, by the way, is unlikely), then no, the police don't have to investigate.
But wait a second. If you are funding the police out of your own pocket, voluntarily, then they are already getting paid, which is what they are concerned with, so they are going to do their job, which is to investigate crime.
Aha, you think: If someone refuses to pay user fees, this drives up costs for everyone else, but the police are still getting paid, and still have to investigate. However, you are missing one major difference - the issue that the people who want to pay user fees are being forced to pay more than they would ordinarily have to by the person who doesn't want to pay, while if someone VOLUNTEERS to pay, no one is being forced to pay more than they ordinarily would.
This system is designed to encourage people to pay into the police, not as a mechanism for you to gain power. If you find a way to abuse the system through corruption - and I still don't really see how your way does that - that doesn't indict the system, it indicts YOU. |
the stipulation of my rent contract for the police station predetermines required user fees.
and its not murder if they wanted me to shoot them. which then the police would have to ascertain that they didn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
it would be against ur self interest to not be in cahoots w/ me.
since we could each have our own police station and each make as much money as I originally would have made. so ur really only undercutting urself. |
Why would the government put a police station on every single plot of land? That sounds more like a Republicrat pork project than a Libertarian system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Sure you had more economic and social non-intervention then, but you also did have government charters for bridges (ie, giving monopolies over a waterway to one company or another) and so on |
And some fun things like Established Churches in some states.
quote:
Yes, Boshko... most extreme Libertarians probably already consider me a socialist anyway... you aren't helping |
Sorry
quote:
Expect a lot of LOOOONG che posts |
Well as long as we can avoid another flame war over Lenin we should do OK.
quote:
It relys on simple greed and self-interest, which hardly sounds utopian to most people. |
I disagree with you here. "I don't want to tax people who're richer than me even though doing so would mean me getting better education and health care than I would otherwise" doesn't seem like a terribly good example of greed and self interest.
quote:
I've noticed that the people coming out of non-public schools seem to be skewed far heavier towards the libertarian viewpoint, which makes sense to me. |
Probably more of a class thing, with private school kids being disproportionately rich.
quote:
But with a few minor changes (such as tort reform and subsidy elimination) our current system would be even better suited for it. |
Better than it is now yes. Better than it was in the early US north? Hardly. Nothing's a better backbone for libertarianism than having a huge chunk of the population being self-employed craftsmen/farmers/merchants.
quote:
Some things just take time to build properly. |
It'll take more than that. Just like it'll take more than that for any far-left party to have any success.
quote:
However, if the farmers switched over to the other crop, prices for the crop they switched to would drop to unsustainable wages because of supply and demand and it would harm the island's economy. One year banana blight strikes all of the banana farmers, killing their crop. |
A partial solution to this sort of thing is the sorts of institutions that exist in the Mondragon Co-operatives in northern Spain. Basically there's a good-sized bank affiliated with the co-operatives that could tide the banana farmers over with short-term credit. Or loan the bankrupt banana farmers enough money to start planting mangoes or somethng. Also in the co-operative federations all the co-ops pools some of their profits so that if any group has a single tough year they'll get a hand to make sure they don't go under (but not enough money to keep a money-losing business from going under indefinately). You don't need government intervention, you just need the right voluntary institutions.
quote:
Also as mentioned earlier, corporations, religious organization, etc. can wield a great deal of collectivist power even in the absense of government that limits individuals. |
Right a libertarian society needs voluntary organizations with a lot of power in order to work properly (especially various co-op organizations).
quote:
If other people can't be bothered to understand Libertarianism before going off on it, then I can't be bothered to take them seriously. |
DF is the best example of what I was talking about in the beginning of the post. Lots of talk about the morality of libertarianism and never anything about how it could be implemented in a feasible manner.
quote:
I personally dislike tresspassing laws. As long as you don't harm somebody's land it, or the people on it then tresspassing seems like trumphed up charges to me. |
A better example is pollution and how to regulate it in an absolutely libertarian society (ie David Floyd Land, I think berzerker and Wraith are at least a bit more moderate).
quote:
its obvious david floyd is not interested in what will happen. only what should. |
Couldn't have said it better myself.
quote:
In that it may be more acceptible to the majority, not to morality. |
Who cares what morality wants, its an abstraction. If it doesn't make life better in a concrete way, what's the point?
quote:
That's the old "the state will wither away once wealth is fairly distributed" argument. |
Right.
quote:
Once government and it's bureaucracies have a power, they'll use it to create more power. |
Not if it isn't the government that's doing the redistributing. The ONLY way to get to either real libertarianism or real socialism is non-coercive wealth redistribute (through co-operatives, syndicalist unions or whatever, or simple unplanned socio-economic change (the internet in at lease some cases)) since if you have government do the wealth-redistributing you get tyranny and if there's no wealth redistributing its very hard to institute libertarianism since a welfare state is in the economic interests of the majority if there's enough inequality.
When did I ever say government should have anything to do with making society more egalitarian? Of all people, libertarians should have enough imagination to realize that there's more ways to get things done then to call in government intervention. Also if all that's keeping things equal if taxation then as soon as the tax goes away the things go back to being unequal so that can hardly make the state wither away, that you need is fundamental economic restructuring.
quote:
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime... The socialist would give us fish, the libertarian would teach us to fish...
|
Doesn't matter if he can fish if he doesn't own the pond, that's the only real solution.
quote:
but they shouldn't expect the police or courts to do anything about it if someone robs them |
So you only get the rights that you can afford? And if police are just pretty glorified protection companies then where do they get the authority to violate the freedom of suspects by arresting them from?
quote:
I don't see how it could keep them from passing tons of non-Libertarian laws. What would constitute a crime? I'm guessing a violation of individual rights, but how far do those rights extend? Would burning laws still be in place? I mean I'm confident that I can a fire under control even if I light it before 4pm. Would zoning regulations still matter? I bought this piece of property, so I should be able to do anything I want to it, correct? |
Very good points. I'm only a quasi-libertarian (being a socialist complicates things a bit  ) and my opinion is that a certain amount of state is inevitable until there's really fundamental socio-economic change (the whole withering away of the state idea).
quote:
Sure, because our system encourages that type of behavior. A Libertarian system would not. |
 human nature is human nature.
quote:
The judicial system and law enforcement branch are responsible for enforcing the Constitution, and for preventing people from violating the rights of others, which is also Constitutionally prohibited. If the Constitution is written tightly enough, a Legislature is largely superfluous. |
What would keep a Libertarian Constitution from being a dead letter? You need more than moral richeousness (sp?) to make a system work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
the stipulation of my rent contract for the police station predetermines required user fees. |
Then the police will rent land from someone who is more reasonable - namely, me. I have used my simple calculation I posted above (10% of $1000 vs. 100% of $500) to determine that it's in my interest to get the police to rent from me.
quote:
and its not murder if they wanted me to shoot them. which then the police would have to ascertain that they didn't. |
That's really just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can't just go around killing people and then try to force the police to prove they didn't want you to. In fact, that would be UNPROVABLE by definition - the person you shot was DEAD. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that they wanted your help in committing suicide - and if you're smart, you'll secure that permission by getting a notarized, pre-death statement from the person you just shot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Then the police will rent land from someone who is more reasonable - namely, me. I have used my simple calculation I posted above (10% of $1000 vs. 100% of $500) to determine that it's in my interest to get the police to rent from me.
That's really just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can't just go around killing people and then try to force the police to prove they didn't want you to. In fact, that would be UNPROVABLE by definition - the person you shot was DEAD. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that they wanted your help in committing suicide - and if you're smart, you'll secure that permission by getting a notarized, pre-death statement from the person you just shot. |
its improvable if its beyond a shadow of a doubt. beyond reasonable is easily provable. just ask around investigate, do police work. but alas, he didnt pay user fees. so there's no reason to use labor on him.
and whats REALLY in ur best interest is to enter into agreement w/ me to have 2 police stations. one for each of us. and carry out my scheme. like I said, if we assume best interest, THIS IS the best interest. so stop feeding me thsi tripe w/o disproving that simple statement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Boshko,
quote:
So you only get the rights that you can afford? And if police are just pretty glorified protection companies then where do they get the authority to violate the freedom of suspects by arresting them from? |
The answers to these questions are in the thread. I'm not going over this ground again.
quote:
human nature is human nature. |
Some systems make corruption easy, and some make it difficult.
quote:
What would keep a Libertarian Constitution from being a dead letter? You need more than moral richeousness (sp?) to make a system work |
Sure, you need a judicial system and a police force to stop people from acting immorally. And obviously you need some measure of popular support - if no one wants to behave morally, it's pretty tough to make them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Why would the government put a police station on every single plot of land? That sounds more like a Republicrat pork project than a Libertarian system. |
nitpick.
eitherway the system works. as long as we all act in our best interest and are all aware of the power of my scheme.
so the police station has 50 users. it makes no material difference. so long as there is a sufficiently large base below us that do not own land.
infact u making me make this post to say that is an insult.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Boshko,
The answers to these questions are in the thread. I'm not going over this ground again.
Some systems make corruption easy, and some make it difficult.
Sure, you need a judicial system and a police force to stop people from acting immorally. And obviously you need some measure of popular support - if no one wants to behave morally, it's pretty tough to make them. |
public support sounds a lot like democracy. we hate democracy. we live under the rule of freedoms by user fees. of which I have violated none.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-11-2003 08:31
around for 500 posts?
|