SPC (and other libertarians) Political Views Discussion Thread

[SPC]

This will serve as the official thead for those who wish to debate my views.

[SPC]

Why do you believe crack dealers are better role models for inner city black kids than Barack Obama?

Simply, crack dealers are entrepeneurs who find ways around artificial constraints on their business. On the other hand, Obama has threatened to steal now, steal later, or indirectly steal hundreds of billions of dollars on the faux basis of "stimulating the economy".

[SPC]

Anarchist court doctrine is where we left off, I think.

How would you ensure that courts stay impartial if they are privately funded?

First off, if any of your family members has ever fought a traffic ticket, you would know that monopolized courts aren't impartial, and usually side with the entity that pays their salary. Also, judges today supress jury nullification/substantive due process in favor of procedural due process, meaning that they have no power to declare someone innocent even if the defendant commited a victimless crime. Second, if a conflict between two parties were to arise, the insurance companies of the respective parties would have to come to an agreement over which court to use, a process that I wouldn't expect to be hard. Third, just as in civil lawsuits today, I doubt most cases would even be settled in court. Instead, I would bet that the insurance companies would reach an out-of-court settlement.

[SPC]

I should disclaim that my views do not reflect those of all libertarians, though I would be happy if other libertarians wanted to defend some of my views.

[SPC]

Why do you believe crack dealers are better role models for inner city black kids than Barack Obama?

Simply, crack dealers are entrepeneurs who find ways around artificial constraints on their business. On the other hand, Obama has threatened to steal now, steal later, or indirectly steal hundreds of billions of dollars on the faux basis of "stimulating the economy".

Grow up, please.

You didn't seem to refute the argument. Could you care to explain how any of the hundreds of billions Obama plans to spend for "stimulating the economy" is voluntarily received? Try not paying your taxes to see what I mean.

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees? Second, you act as if similar situations don't happen under monopoly government. I don't believe that any of the ATF agents involved with Waco or Ruby Ridge had a day of jail time. Third, if the court is corrupt, they will never have any clients again, thus being a net monetary loss.

[SPC]

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees? Second, you act as if similar situations don't happen under monopoly government. I don't believe that any of the ATF agents involved with Waco or Ruby Ridge had a day of jail time. Third, if the court is corrupt, they will never have any clients again, thus being a net monetary loss.

Let's say he's paranoid and wants to destory all potential competition.

People get destroyed over much smaller things here. Have you ever heard of Watergate?

Or, the corruption attracts other rich people, who bring their cases their to buy out the court. How is the authority of a court guaranteed, at any rate?

If private courts would be as vulnerable to corruption as you claim they are, why do you think a court that has a monopoly would be less corrupt and not more corrupt.

[SPC]

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees?

If that's true then Bill Gates would not be working day and night to promote Microsoft.

Non-sequitor. A more accurate example would be Bill Gates ordering an attack on Apple headquarters.

[SPC]

taxation= stealing? Uh, no.

Try not paying your taxes and see what will happen. In my view, anyone who takes goods by threatening the owner of the goods is a thief. A voluntarily-enforced tax is an oxymoron.

How would privately-funded courts even enforce their rulings? And what would stop people from setting up their own courts in order to benefit themselves? And how would you maintain the hierarchy of courts if they're privately funded?

Nobody would use a court set up solely for the benefit of the judge. Courts with neutral judges would have the most customers, since they would be best at dispute resolution. Court rulings would be enforced by the insurance companies who were disputing. The insurance companies would lose more by not enforcing the ruling than by providing the other insurance company restitution for the crime that their client has commited. As a result of this, rates would rise for that client, and they would be slightly higher for any client deemed likely to commit crimes.

[SPC]

How come no government-less communities have succeeded to date?

First of all, it is a false premise, Somalia has lacked a government for 17 years, although they still have clan governments. Second, that would probably be there hasn't been much opportunity for a government-less community to present itself.

[SPC]

taxation= stealing? Uh, no.

Try not paying your taxes and see what will happen. In my view, anyone who takes goods by threatening the owner of the goods is a thief. A voluntarily-enforced tax is an oxymoron.

Perhaps, but the alternative would be essentially safety and rule of law only for those who could afford it. Even a sales tax requires some sort of coercion for enforcement. To say nothing of the political radicalism, crime and poverty that emerges in societies with no state-created social safety net.

Economics tells us that when there is competition in a good rather than a monopoly, prices fall and quality rises. Thus, under polycentric law, law enforcement would be cheaper and of higher quality. So, while it would be protection for those who could afford it, much more people would be able to afford it. The United States didn't have a state-created "safety net" during the 19th century, and much economic progress was made in that same period.

[SPC]

taxation= stealing? Uh, no.

Try not paying your taxes and see what will happen. In my view, anyone who takes goods by threatening the owner of the goods is a thief. A voluntarily-enforced tax is an oxymoron.

How would privately-funded courts even enforce their rulings? And what would stop people from setting up their own courts in order to benefit themselves? And how would you maintain the hierarchy of courts if they're privately funded?

Nobody would use a court set up solely for the benefit of the judge. Courts with neutral judges would have the most customers, since they would be best at dispute resolution. Court rulings would be enforced by the insurance companies who were disputing. The insurance companies would lose more by not enforcing the ruling than by providing the other insurance company restitution for the crime that their client has commited. As a result of this, rates would rise for that client, and they would be slightly higher for any client deemed likely to commit crimes.

That makes little sense. How would a plaintiff and a defendant even decide on which court to go to? Presumably, both would want to go to courts that they've respectively funded. And how would insurance companies enforce payments? You'd need some sort of police or law enforcers. And you'd essentially be destroying the entire court hierarchy and nullifying and sort of authority of any courts, but ok. I don't feel like arguing so I'll just concede defeat and assume that you're right

1. They wouldn't. Their insurance companies would decide, and as I said earlier, in most cases would simply reach an out-of-court settlement.
2. The insurance companies wouldn't enforce payments. They would simply discontinue service for those who don't pay their bills.
3. An insurance company that doesn't obey the ruling of a neutral judge isn't going to have many customers.

[SPC]

Here in Libertopia where the sky's grey and the water tastes like metal we get reminded by the corporate loudspeakers about our freedom every single day. Semper Liberty!

Are you going to make a point, or are you just here for the non-sequiters?

Don't you think it would be more likely that people would use force against rulings with which they disagreed?

Since insurance companies defend entirely on voluntary customers, I doubt they would risk losing customers by disobeying a neutral judge.

[SPC]

Don't you think it would be more likely that people would use force against rulings with which they disagreed?

Since insurance companies defend entirely on voluntary customers, I doubt they would risk losing customers by disobeying a neutral judge.

What about private armies? It wouldn't be too hard for a rich man to get one.

Also, disobedience would probably gain customers, because people doing questionable things would go to a service which would help them at any cost.

Hiring a disobedient insurance company is a double-edged sword. While you could in the short-run, get away with a crime, you would also be more vulnerable to crime yourself, since your insurance company couldn't defend its clients.

[SPC]

Economics tells us that when there is competition in a good rather than a monopoly, prices fall and quality rises. Thus, under polycentric law, law enforcement would be cheaper and of higher quality. So, while it would be protection for those who could afford it, much more people would be able to afford it.

How is it of 'higher quality' if they have no motivation to go after all crime equally? The Police would being even more selective in their enforcement of the law because of lack of resources. Whole neighborhoods would deteriorate almost immediately as a result, and the criminal justice system would become a fractured mess. Plus being able to call 411 and have the police show up regardless of your immediate ability to pay is more convenient and reliable than hiring mercs. Some utilities are government monopolies for a reason.

1. Police wouldn't lack resources. They would get their resources from their voluntary customers.
2. You act as if monopolized police have incentive to go after crime equally. Under monopolized police, police spend most of their time enforcing victimless "crimes" that give them revenue. At least under polycentrism, you can fire your police force if they don't enforce laws adequetely.
3. I'd would be concerned about you if you call 411 for the police.
4. In most cases, under monopolized police, by the time the police show up, it is too late for them to defend you.
5. Who says that the police would case about your ability to pay? You already pay for insurance, so I doubt you would be paying the police on the spot.
6. Presumably, even if it were in the public interest for a monopoly over a service to develop, the public would all pay for the same service on the free market. Thus, even the worst case scenario for polycentric law would be the same as monopolized law.

I'd like to know how you think property rights would be exist, let alone be protected, without state-made law.

Property preceded government, which was supposedly formed to protect property. I see that you subscribe to positive law rather than natural law.

[SPC]

Someone born dumb, ugly and poor in a society with no social safety net, might as well just be aborted before hand it would seem to me in this perfection of social anomie  on this other side of the looking glass. A society that does not have as one of its primary goals the effecting of equality of opportunity, needs to go into moral receivership.  The practicalities of this libertarian hallucination are of course themselves fanciful.

 And there you have it.

Even those who are relatively untalented would play important roles in a libertarian society. Obviously even the most talented people can't do everything, and would become worse at doing what they do best if they tried to do so. Thus, the less talented people do a better job at those occupations that the more talented people would do if they had to do all of the occupations.

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

[SPC]

As I said on the other thread, I don't see how "those who work hardest should get the greatest reward" (if it's true - and as the last eight years have shown - it's not) is a really good idea. Personally I prefer dangerous and bored bureaucrats fumbling at their greasy tills to the masters of the universe on Wall Street.

I don't think that those who work hardest should get the greatest reward. If someone spends all of their labor digging holes to the center of the Earth with no practical use, that doesn't deserve reward. I think that those who provide the most valuable things to society should be given the greatest reward. "How would that be measured?", you may ask. It would be measured by the voluntary members of society voting for which goods are the most valuable, only they use money instead of ballots.

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

[SPC]

There are lots of societies where we can go to see this all privatized, no services states. The easiest to access are in central america though. Somalia is the classic example of this with the DRC being a second one.

The DRC is a totalitarian dictatorship. Somalia, while a terrible situation, is still better off than it was 20 years ago.

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

[SPC]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

God, though that is not meant to say that atheism and natural law are incompatible. The idea of "God-given rights" is meant that only fate itself can strip you of your rights.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

[SPC]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

I hope to read it, but it doesn't answer my question.

Well, being a monarch, if he became wealthy through theft/taxation, then that money deserves to be given back to its rightful owners. Same with those who use corporate welfare.

[SPC]

Where do natural rights come from?

Not from government, clearly.

Then where?

God, though that is not meant to say that atheism and natural law are incompatible. The idea of "God-given rights" is meant that only fate itself can strip you of your rights.

So how do we justify it for those who don't believe in God? You say they aren't incompatible, but can you explain why they aren't incompatible?

I think you hit the nail on the head though when you call it the 'idea' of 'God-given rights'. Can an abstract idea be proved to be true? If natural rights exist, they only do so because we believe they exist. In other words, if there were no human society, then how can we say there would be natural rights?

I think I explained it well in the second sentence of that post. The idea that rights come from society is false, since no individual could infringe on your rights. That would be slavery. Thus, if no individual can infringe on your rights, how could a group of individuals infringe on your rights? For example, if someone told each of his kids that they couldn't draw on the walls, why would they be permitted to draw on the walls if both of them were doing it together?

[SPC]

Why is it false? Why can no individual infringe on your rights? Do these rights exist in a state of nature? How can they exist without a society to recognise them? If that is the case, how can they be 'natural'?

Using this logic, if you believe that an individual can infringe on your rights, which would include the right to life, than you believe that an individual can infringe on your right to life, meaning that you support murder. Since no civilized person could possibly support this, obviously individuals have no right to infringe on your rights, meaning that no group of individuals have a right to infringe on your rights either. Yes, they exist in a state of nature, since man evolved to the point where he realized that his chances of survival are better if he cooperates with his neighbor than they would be if he killed his neighbors. As for the society question, this gives way to the old question about the tree in the forest. One could argue that since hearing sounds requires humans to be in the area, that sounds are just a human invention, and not a natural phenomenon. Of course, this is false, and the same scenario applies to rights. Just because there is no one to hear sounds doesn't mean that they don't exist, and just because there is no one to recognize rights doesn't mean that they don't exist. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, positive rights cannot be natural, since they inherently infringe on other rights. Freedom from want cannot be enforced without infringing on the right to liberty. Also, since government inherently infringes on the rights to life, liberty, and property, it cannot be trusted as an enforcer of natural rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could make the same example regarding Antebellum slavery. I doubt most slaves would consider themselves as possessing the rights to life, liberty, and property, but all that means is that someone is illegitimately infringing upon their natural rights. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since you argue that society is greater than the sum of its parts, could I not make the same argument for any other group of people? Is a marriage any more than the sum of its parts? If such is the case, then would divorce be illegal? Also, the man & child example isn't representing one man and the rest of society. I was using it to represent laws & society. If one person is prohibited from doing something, then he is not permitted to do the act when joined by millions of others prohibited from the same activity.