301–310 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ahahahahaah!... You're killing me my friends. Just killing me here. You can make the same argument without being an ass about it.
I dunno man. I agree with you on that, of course you're right. But, people have limits not everyone wants to talk at length to a libertarian so mockery is employed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. Your claim is like saying that you'd rather there only be a single restaurant available rather than a group of restaurants, because then you only have to worry about one restaurant poisoning you or otherwise providing bad service.
This libertarian polycentric government system is not like having multiple restaurants to choose from. To me it sounds like you're at one restaurant (the place you live at), and there's multiple cooks, instead of choosing they are going to decide what food is best for you (they all cook different kinds of poison food), and compete with each other over who gets to give you the food. If that's not how the libertarians…
Certainly some restaurants will only be available in certain regions, either because physical distance makes providing the service impractical, or the restaurant chooses to only serve customers in one region.
It's also very possible that one region won't have any restaurants of a certain type which you like (there weren't any Indian restaurants where I grew up in rural Missouri). If that is sufficiently important to make you move to another region, then you are free to. Of course, you are also free to open an Indian restaurant in that area.
But there is no restriction (other than economical) on the number of restaurants that can simultaneously offer services to one particular region.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers" Ahahahahaah! That's the same as not having laws! And even then, what you're saying is they believe someone should bring this guy to justice...and then do nothing to him. Then it's not justice. You're killing me my friends. Just killing me here.
All due respect, you're missing the point. The 'monopoly of laws' to which the parent refers are the ones like those against home distillers -- such that you're allowed to buy a distillation device, you're allowed to buy corn, you're allowed to buy sugar, yeast, etc., but you're not allowed to put them altogether to make whiskey, despite that you're allowed to buy whiskey. Another example is the Lacey act, which, if…
The set of laws is not really the problem then. Literally everyone agrees that "government should be as small as possible", the problem is that no one ever agrees as to how small that can possibly be.
As soon as you're accepted the state, the "men with guns" whom the libertarians trot out as their boogeyman, the existence of a judicial system and police, etc. then the libertarians are suddenly not that far different in practice from many other parties and are even closer in theory (since apparently everyone agrees that courts and police are OK now...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your common or garden libertarian will construct all manner of complex arguments as to how that isn't so, but there's really nothing in the philosophy which forbids it.
.. so their answer to a single central government is a multitude of smaller governments? How is that better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mob justice is not law. For an illustration of this, check out the very first scene of the TV series Deadwood. There's a lynch mob outside the sheriff's office, and they want to kill the person in the jail. The sheriff fends them off so he can legally hang him instead. The creator originally wanted to do a series on ancient Rome, about the birthplace of civilization. The studio wanted a Western. He said, oh, perfect,…
Perhaps citing a television show is not the most credible evidence one can bring to a discussion? Edit (since I cannot reply directly, apparently): why is it not credible? Can I start citing the X-Files or Star Trek? How about a broadcast of the Nancy Grace show?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All due respect, you're missing the point. The 'monopoly of laws' to which the parent refers are the ones like those against home distillers -- such that you're allowed to buy a distillation device, you're allowed to buy corn, you're allowed to buy sugar, yeast, etc., but you're not allowed to put them altogether to make whiskey, despite that you're allowed to buy whiskey. Another example is the Lacey act, which, if…
> Even the most staunch of minarchists wouldn't generally repeal the 'base' laws, which are those laws that, if violated, infringe upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not, for example, suggest that murder should be legal -- everyone has the right to life. The set of laws is not really the problem then. Literally everyone agrees that "government should be as small as possible", the problem is that no one ever a…
How close or far away Libertarianism is from more statist methodologies is outside the scope of the point I was trying to make, but if I were making a point, it's that yes, they are closer together than his lawless society (which couldn't be further apart) suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have a deep misunderstanding of libertarianism (which is your right of course). Libertarians don't necessarily not believe in laws, they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers. This is kind of the whole point. Its clear that in your world view "justice" is somehow inexorably tied to government, but there others that disagree (which leads to your confusion in thinking that because som…
"they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers" Ahahahahaah! That's the same as not having laws! And even then, what you're saying is they believe someone should bring this guy to justice...and then do nothing to him. Then it's not justice. You're killing me my friends. Just killing me here.
for those that do not know the story..
Frank Zappa disarmed someone that tried to shoot him and than refused to call the cops
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is seriously the most hilarious response to a hacker news thread i have seen in a long time. it's got it all; > Here we have a group of objectivist libertarians wild conjecture? you bet. > who believe that there should be effectively no laws other than the law of economics and self-interest please, tell me, what else do they think? perhaps next you can tell me what i think, i'd love to hear it. > We need the gov…
Haha, Ted Bundy? The ultimate strawman slippery slope argument! Oh so good, all your defenses do nothing but point out the deeper contradictions in the statements. Seriously go back and read your replies to my replies. They're even funnier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I notice you don't question the "everyone is greedy" assertion, however. As I understand it, libertarians believe that justice can be attained through the adversarial institution of the market. That is, by everyone greedily fighting within the bonds of normal commerce, a just (but likely not equal), situation will arise. The gaping hole in this scenario is that those who are greedy and, say, losing or just not gettin…
> those who are greedy and, say, losing or just not getting what they want from the normal framework, have every incentive to cheat in this competition. This is also clearly the case with centralized government law.
It's one thing to complain about the government; I mean, you'd practically not be a red-blooded American if you didn't bitch and moan about the government. But providing options that are actually better should be a precondition for a switch to something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mob justice is not law. For an illustration of this, check out the very first scene of the TV series Deadwood. There's a lynch mob outside the sheriff's office, and they want to kill the person in the jail. The sheriff fends them off so he can legally hang him instead. The creator originally wanted to do a series on ancient Rome, about the birthplace of civilization. The studio wanted a Western. He said, oh, perfect,…
Perhaps citing a television show is not the most credible evidence one can bring to a discussion? Edit (since I cannot reply directly, apparently): why is it not credible? Can I start citing the X-Files or Star Trek? How about a broadcast of the Nancy Grace show?
If the result is the same (the prisoner dies), does it matter whether a legal authority performs the killing, or whether a mob does? I think it does.
You may not agree with the legal authority's process or laws, but at the very least it is written down.