Why Libertarians Should Be Socialists

[David Floyd]

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.

I cannot imagine a situation in which a claim that you shot someone because he told you to would be taken seriously enough to merit the police investigating your claim, as opposed to the court telling you to prove it.

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.

Again, if we are the only two landowners, why would the police need a police station on each plot of land? If only one police station is required, why would the government build two? That's a Republicrat pork project. And if you want to extend this situation to a population of 1 million landowners, it becomes even more ridiculous. Yes, all million of us are going to write up a contract stating that if the police want to build a police station, then they must build a station on EACH of our plots of land - all one million of them - and pay out the nose for each one

If you think that is reasonable, then you are missing the point of this discussion. If no one actually wants a Libertarian system, then it won't happen.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -

Then what's the problem? You're changing your hypothetical, you said people could not afford to live on your land because you discovered a way to screw people by over-charging... Would you settle on one hypothetical so we don't around for 500 posts?



Then they can seek land you don't own.



But Henry did that out of self-interest too. You say what he did was brilliant but a while ago you were describing his behavior as stupid. And there was no regulation requiring him to sell cars or pay his employees enough to buy his product, he did that because he knew how markets and mass production work.



What are you talking about? The current system of land ownership is a result of private property which is libertarianism at work. Systems where only a handfull of people own all the land are called feudalism or monarchies.



Why? People have rented land throughout US history with the goal of saving enough to buy land. You've gone from dodging to making stuff up.

man ur dense. the current system of land ownership has THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF RESTRICTIONS TO IT. it is NOTHING LIKE THE SYSTEM UR IN. its like saying that jail is libertarian cuz u can shank urself.

our present system and ur libertarian paradise are so insanely far apart that drawing paralells is a frigging joke.

selling land in ur system is retarded, land is the only security. as long as u can't use an army to take someone's land. then land is everything(otherwise army and/or land is everything).

I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said ppl couldn't afford to live on my land. tons do. I said they coudln't afford to own it.

[David Floyd]

public support sounds a lot like democracy. we hate democracy.

No ****, but even if/though Libertarianism is the only moral system, I have no way to put it in place by myself. I have to get other people to buy into it. This isn't democracy, this is common sense.

I suppose I can set up the United States of Floyd, population 1, and invite people to come join me - but come on. In order to realistically get a Libertarian system in place, people have to favor such a system. In the US, this would be done by voting a majority of Libertarians into Congress, and a Libertarian President, or by getting enough Libertarian votes in Congress and the State Legislatures to amend the Constitution at will.

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.

In that case, I'll go back to my 100% of $500 vs. 10% of $1000 argument.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I cannot imagine a situation in which a claim that you shot someone because he told you to would be taken seriously enough to merit the police investigating your claim, as opposed to the court telling you to prove it.



Again, if we are the only two landowners, why would the police need a police station on each plot of land? If only one police station is required, why would the government build two? That's a Republicrat pork project. And if you want to extend this situation to a population of 1 million landowners, it becomes even more ridiculous. Yes, all million of us are going to write up a contract stating that if the police want to build a police station, then they must build a station on EACH of our plots of land - all one million of them - and pay out the nose for each one

If you think that is reasonable, then you are missing the point of this discussion. If no one actually wants a Libertarian system, then it won't happen.

since when does the court accuse u of a crime then tell u to prove ur innocence? seems like a pretty f'd up way of going bout it.

I've already replied to the "many land owners" inane retort. so no need to further humble u.

I think ur last paragraph sums it up. commie. the system doesn't work unless everyone plays fair. but I have broken no rules, and I am clearly acting in self itnerest. so ur only retort therefore is ppl have to be altruistic(think of others) for this to work.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No ****, but even if/though Libertarianism is the only moral system, I have no way to put it in place by myself. I have to get other people to buy into it. This isn't democracy, this is common sense.

I suppose I can set up the United States of Floyd, population 1, and invite people to come join me - but come on. In order to realistically get a Libertarian system in place, people have to favor such a system. In the US, this would be done by voting a majority of Libertarians into Congress, and a Libertarian President, or by getting enough Libertarian votes in Congress and the State Legislatures to amend the Constitution at will.



In that case, I'll go back to my 100% of $500 vs. 10% of $1000 argument.

how many ppl have to favor it? over 50%?

and conspiring w/ other land owners is still in far better interest to u then trying to undercut me. it always willb e, and u can do nothing to refute it.

[David Floyd]

since when does the court accuse u of a crime then tell u to prove ur innocence? seems like a pretty f'd up way of going bout it.

I'm quickly getting tired of this ignorance. If the police have reason to believe you committed a crime, they'll arrest you and put you on trial. In this trial, you do not have to prove your innocence, but rather, your guilt must be proven. However, if your only defense is "sure, I shot him, but he said I could", I guarantee that if you don't back that claim up, you will be found guilty.

I think ur last paragraph sums it up. commie. the system doesn't work unless everyone plays fair. but I have broken no rules, and I am clearly acting in self itnerest. so ur only retort therefore is ppl have to be altruistic(think of others) for this to work.

My last paragraph says nothing of the sort. All my last paragraph says is that putting a Libertarian system in place - JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SYSTEM - requires a measure of popular support.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I'm quickly getting tired of this ignorance. If the police have reason to believe you committed a crime, they'll arrest you and put you on trial. In this trial, you do not have to prove your innocence, but rather, your guilt must be proven. However, if your only defense is "sure, I shot him, but he said I could", I guarantee that if you don't back that claim up, you will be found guilty.



My last paragraph says nothing of the sort. All my last paragraph says is that putting a Libertarian system in place - JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SYSTEM - requires a measure of popular support.

why do u guarentee that? the police having put forth zero labor towards proving my guilt the case gets quickly thrown out on grounds of lack of evidence.

there is no other way.

[David Floyd]

how many ppl have to favor it? over 50%?

In the United States, 270 electoral votes would be required to elect a Libertarian. Simple majorities are enough to elect Libertarian Congressmen, Senators, and members of State Legislatures. I would have thought this was obvious.

and conspiring w/ other land owners is still in far better interest to u then trying to undercut me. it always willb e, and u can do nothing to refute it.

Instead of this BAM, why don't you try responding to my actual argument? To recap:

If and 9 other conspire to charge $1000, but then I step in with an offer for $500, I get more money than I would have gotten by conspiring with you, and you get nothing. I win, you lose.

[David Floyd]

the police having put forth zero labor towards proving my guilt the case gets quickly thrown out on grounds of lack of evidence.

You already proved your guilt, by admitting to shooting someone. You say you have an excuse, and that's fine, but the police don't have to put labor into determining whether or not you shot someone, because you already admitted to it.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


In the United States, 270 electoral votes would be required to elect a Libertarian. Simple majorities are enough to elect Libertarian Congressmen, Senators, and members of State Legislatures. I would have thought this was obvious.



Instead of this BAM, why don't you try responding to my actual argument? To recap:

If and 9 other conspire to charge $1000, but then I step in with an offer for $500, I get more money than I would have gotten by conspiring with you, and you get nothing. I win, you lose.

u would rent a police station to police my land? I dont f'in think so. ur police can not step foot on my land, they do not have my permission. I have my own police to patrol my land thank u very much.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You already proved your guilt, by admitting to shooting someone. You say you have an excuse, and that's fine, but the police don't have to put labor into determining whether or not you shot someone, because you already admitted to it.

when did I admit I shot someone? u mean after I shoot him I walk down to the police station and tell the police I've shot someone?

what kind of insanity are u babbling about. and once again, in libertarian society someone is free to ask someone else to shoot them. while that is not a problem here(cuz shooting someone is illegal regardles of the other persons wishes). it is an issue in a libertarian society.

[David Floyd]

u would rent a police station to police my land? I dont f'in think so. ur police can not step foot on my land, they do not have my permission. I have my own police to patrol my land thank u very much.

Wonderful. However, you're missing something. We aren't talking about two private security companies. We are talking about YOUR private security company, and the police force mandated by the government to prevent violations of rights. So, if you kill a tenant farmer who works on your land, then the police will come arrest you. You can't violate the rights of others, even on your own property.

However, if you don't like the police, then don't pay user fees. No one's forcing you to. Social sanctions might make it difficult for you not to pay, of course, but that's your problem.

[David Floyd]

when did I admit I shot someone? u mean after I shoot him I walk down to the police station and tell the police I've shot someone?

That was the whole premise of your argument, or at least, that's the way in which you stated it.

and once again, in libertarian society someone is free to ask someone else to shoot them.

Certainly, and the person they are asking is free to grant the wish. However, he better make damn certain that if the police come after him, he can prove he didn't commit murder. There is also, again, the issue of social sanctions to think about - people might not want to live near someone who is apparently willing to shoot someone upon that person's request, with no apparent qualms.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wonderful. However, you're missing something. We aren't talking about two private security companies. We are talking about YOUR private security company, and the police force mandated by the government to prevent violations of rights. So, if you kill a tenant farmer who works on your land, then the police will come arrest you. You can't violate the rights of others, even on your own property.

However, if you don't like the police, then don't pay user fees. No one's forcing you to. Social sanctions might make it difficult for you not to pay, of course, but that's your problem.

why would the police enter my land? did they hear the gunshot across the vast expanse? last I checked police can't walk onto ur land at will. so I'd like to know how they ever got close enuff to even sniff a crime.

and its NOT MY OWN SECURITY FORCE. its the gov't sanctioned police force for my land. they pay me rent and collect user fees just like any other gov't sanctioned police force.

and also obviously the tenant farmer has not paid any user fees. so there's no reason to expend labor on him.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That was the whole premise of your argument, or at least, that's the way in which you stated it.



Certainly, and the person they are asking is free to grant the wish. However, he better make damn certain that if the police come after him, he can prove he didn't commit murder. There is also, again, the issue of social sanctions to think about - people might not want to live near someone who is apparently willing to shoot someone upon that person's request, with no apparent qualms.

having to prove ur innocence is tyranny. and I agree, it is not a desirable area tolive in. then again, I am not a desirable landlord to have. the problem arises that the other landlords aren't any better. because acting in our own self interest we have conspired a brilliant plot to screw u.