SPC (and other libertarians) Political Views Discussion Thread

[Хahar 🤔]

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

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

Would you like to live in Somalia?

This shows what appears to me to be the inevitable results of anarchy: feudalism. People will crowd around strong men, who will protect them under the stipulation that the commoners serve him.

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[Matt Damon™]

Presenting a picture of the logical consequences of libertopia is now a non-sequitor?

[Mint]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The United States also had the largest percentage of home-grown anarchists and socialists from 1900-1939 in it's history. After the New Deal established basic welfare people calmed down. In many ways FDR went too far (particularly in regulations), and I'm happy that we've taken steps to fine tune or eliminate programs where necessary. But the overall idea was and still is necessary to keep society in check.

[Mint]

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

[Matt Damon™]

If you're rich enough to have hired guns your property is safe. IF you're not well you don't matter in libertopia.

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

On the contrary, it would be very good at defending its clients, even when such defense was illegal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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!

One of your greatest posts.

[Torie]

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.

[A18]

Ridiculous. If there were no government, who would we throw shoes at?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

Where do natural rights come from?

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

So, where would courts get their authority? Would it stem from force?

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[Matt Damon™]

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.

[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.