Why Libertarians Should Be Socialists

[yavoon]

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.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Right. Berz forgot. You own all the land.

I will repeat just for the fun of it. 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. that we can basically control everyone through our working cooperation.

that is what I am assuming.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Says the person who wants to treat the world as his urinal, and then try to screw the government

Contrary to your flawed understanding, a Libertarian government is not interested in turning a profit - or at least, that is not a primary concern. Just because you could bribe the government in the United States doesn't mean you could buy your way around the law in a Libertarian government.

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"

[Berzerker]

yavoon -

while its certainly possible for u to do that. it would be insanely stupid.

Why? People buy and sell land all the time.

so while we are assuming ppl are doing whats in their best interests. that is most certainly not it.

It's not in my interest to sell land? Explain that one to landowners and the realtors they hire to sell land.

no the hypothetical magically granted land to intelligent ppl who act in their selfish interests.

But in the real world unintelligent, "altruistic" people own land too. Still dodging, yavoon... Your argument has been shot down numerous times now...

[korn469]

David,

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.

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*

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Berzerker]

yavoon -

I will repeat just for the fun of it. no I dont own all the land.

Glad we cleared that part of your fantasy up.

but all the land owners are as smart as I am and realize the insane advantage that we as a unit posess. that we can basically control everyone through our working cooperation.

But this insane advantage does you no good if people can't afford to buy your land. That's why Henry Ford, who was smart, paid his employees enough to buy the cars he produced. But according to you, that would be dumb because 'ol Henry should have built ~100 cars and kept them himself to charge exorbitant amounts for taxi rides. Btw, millions of people own land so this little conspiracy of yours certainly qualifies as fantasy. I'm a landowner and I'm not in on your conspiracy, and while you and your friends are all the way to the...oh...wait...that's right...I'm the one going to the bank with the money I just acquired from selling my land because y'all thought you could hold out and get that huge profit... Now you're screwed...

[David Floyd]

korn,

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.

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.

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.

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.

What would constitute a crime? I'm guessing a violation of individual rights

You again answered your own question

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -

Glad we cleared that part of your fantasy up.



But this insane advantage does you no good if people can't afford to buy your land. That's why Henry Ford, who was smart, paid his employees enough to buy the cars he produced. But according to you, that would be dumb because 'ol Henry should have built ~100 cars and kept them himself to charge exorbitant amounts for taxi rides. Btw, millions of people own land so this little conspiracy of yours certainly qualifies as fantasy. I'm a landowner and I'm not in on your conspiracy, and while you and your friends are all the way to the...oh...wait...that's right...I'm the one going to the bank with the money I just acquired from selling my land because y'all thought you could hold out and get that huge profit... Now you're screwed...

everyone can afford to live on my land. no1 can afford to buy it. and henry did something brilliant for the economy in a highly regulated(compared to this) system. I am doing my own self interest. not others, in an extremely deregulated system.

[yavoon]

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]

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.