|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 30, 2013 22:42:36 GMT -5
Also according to you libertarians 1) government is a monopoly on force, and 2) monopolies can't exist without government. Conclusion: government can't exist without government. Monopolies could exist outside of the state but it wouldn't be a monopoly like you think of one. If one business is providing good service at good prices and everyone else goes out of business because they can't compete there will only be that one business left. If they continue to provide good service at good prices then that is not a bad thing. However if they stop with the good service at good prices other businesses can pop up to oppose them. People will frequent that business instead. Government cannot survive without forcing someone to adhere to its demands. Marxism cannot survive without forcing people to adhere to its demands. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 30, 2013 22:46:55 GMT -5
Wow. I have nothing at all to add. You are advocating the execution of those who disagree with you politically solely because they disagree with you. I can't even see where you are coming from with that one. you seriously want a society where people are executed for being greedy? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards Glad I got you out of the conversation finally with your nonsensical bickering about your bickering and your false accusations that Lenin ordered the deaths of 8000 priests whereas he had no reason to? Just like the "Black Book of Communism" that is another story spun in the early 20s against Lenin by Nationalist Europeans. Wilson was quick to agree with that story since the bolsheviks destroyed the Mensheviks in the civil war which the US gave support to the Menshevieks. Goodbye DOC! It's not a false accusation. There are execution orders with his signature. Furthermore you've said that if you set up a communist state you would execute your political enemies. Can you not see why that is so terrifying? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 22:50:30 GMT -5
Glad I got you out of the conversation finally with your nonsensical bickering about your bickering and your false accusations that Lenin ordered the deaths of 8000 priests whereas he had no reason to? Just like the "Black Book of Communism" that is another story spun in the early 20s against Lenin by Nationalist Europeans. Wilson was quick to agree with that story since the bolsheviks destroyed the Mensheviks in the civil war which the US gave support to the Menshevieks. Goodbye DOC! It's not a false accusation. There are execution orders with his signature. Furthermore you've said that if you set up a communist state you would execute your political enemies. Can you not see why that is so terrifying? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards I wouldn't execute them. I would train them, through state media and put an emphasis on how greed, hate, and racism is evil. I dont advocate executions at all. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 30, 2013 22:52:29 GMT -5
It's not a false accusation. There are execution orders with his signature. Furthermore you've said that if you set up a communist state you would execute your political enemies. Can you not see why that is so terrifying? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards I wouldn't execute them. I would train them, through state media and put an emphasis on how greed, hate, and racism is evil. I dont advocate executions at all. Up to this point you never dismissed the idea of killing anyone. So you would brainwash people. That's nearly as bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 30, 2013 22:55:53 GMT -5
It's not a false accusation. There are execution orders with his signature. Furthermore you've said that if you set up a communist state you would execute your political enemies. Can you not see why that is so terrifying? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards I wouldn't execute them. I would train them, through state media and put an emphasis on how greed, hate, and racism is evil. I dont advocate executions at all. And those who refused to fall in line? How is forcing your ideology on people a good thing? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 22:59:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't execute them. I would train them, through state media and put an emphasis on how greed, hate, and racism is evil. I dont advocate executions at all. Up to this point you never dismissed the idea of killing anyone. So you would brainwash people. That's nearly as bad. But I have never advocated it And its not called brainwashing its called mass teaching and its the cleanest and less violent way of spreading a message. Just look at this: www.campaignforliberty.org/Libertarians love brainwashing too. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 23:01:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't execute them. I would train them, through state media and put an emphasis on how greed, hate, and racism is evil. I dont advocate executions at all. And those who refused to fall in line? How is forcing your ideology on people a good thing? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards Just ignore them. And if the ideology is pure then why not? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 30, 2013 23:04:54 GMT -5
And those who refused to fall in line? How is forcing your ideology on people a good thing? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards Just ignore them. And if the ideology is pure then why not? And if they are the majority? Sent from my GT-P7510 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 30, 2013 23:07:33 GMT -5
Up to this point you never dismissed the idea of killing anyone. So you would brainwash people. That's nearly as bad. But I have never advocated it And its not called brainwashing its called mass teaching and its the cleanest and less violent way of spreading a message. Just look at this: www.campaignforliberty.org/Libertarians love brainwashing too. What about that is brainwashing? I don't see anyone advocating for mass re-education camps like you are suggesting. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 1:02:02 GMT -5
I am probably more on the anarco-something side than I am Libertarian side because even though I'm defending Libertarianism and using the Constitution as a guide for the philosophy, it's much deeper than that.
I know if the Constitution doesn't mention something that means it is up to the states to decide and make laws on. However, I don't feel the state has the right to discriminate or make laws that treat people unfairly. I don't think the state has the right to tell me what I can do as long as what I'm doing is harmful to no one else. And if I do somehow harm someone (but not to the extent of serious bodily harm or death) then it should be between us and maybe a court to decide if I did in fact harm his property or being in some way.
We don't need the state or federal government telling us what to do or how to live, I think we can pretty much figure out how to do that without some ominous government dictating everything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 5, 2024 13:46:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 8:09:25 GMT -5
Hey, don't attack the man - the Soviets were our allies during WWII and helped us take out Hitler and Nazi Germany. Communism is probably more tolerable than the Nazis' version of fascism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 8:16:23 GMT -5
I disagree with that. Government is needed because a disinterested 3rd party is needed. Let's say you do something that I think is wrong. Let's say we're neighbors and you put up a fence that is 5 feet on to my property. You are basically stealing land from me. So we talk it out like reasonable adults and you don't think you've done anything wrong. You think you own that land. I disagree. Where do we go from here if there is no government? Government acts as a disinterested 3rd party to settle this dispute. Now you can say that we could hire a 3rd party arbitrator from the private sector. The problem is you don't think you've done anything wrong (and maybe you haven't). So you aren't going to pay for said arbitrator and you aren't going to abide by the decision of said arbitrator either. The arbitrator in this case is completely toothless. He has no ability to enforce his decision. He has no ability to make you move your fence. What's worse is he may come to the wrong decision simply because you have no interest in participating in the process. Even worse than that, he may be corrupt because I'm paying for him. The government, in theory, acts as a disinterested 3rd party to settle such disputes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 5, 2024 13:46:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 9:11:33 GMT -5
I think governmental ideology boils down to speaking volumes about the personality of a person and essentially becomes a culture war. Gun laws, gay marriage, abortion, social issues in general especially. I've said it before and it's very true, a hipster from San Francisco probably doesn't ACTUALLY hate guns (and left wing celebrities in Los Angeles are constantly surrounded by bodyguards with guns), but it's "cool," "hip," and "metropolitan," to be anti-gun. Meanwhile, the rural, small town conservatives think the evil Marxists are coming to take their guns or force them to love the gays, so they revolt as well.
I can find interest in the left or right (though the fiscal debates are much more weighty and interesting, and require more intelligence), if the individual verbalizing it is entertaining and interesting. Noam Chomsky is a "boring speaker," but he has balls, and criticizes every establishment that exists (liberal and conservative news); Michael Savage, who's on the other side of the political spectrum, is also very inspirational as he's an incredibly creative and entertaining speaker who is very quick on the draw.
To me, it's like genres of music (that being both sides of the political debate), and both have enjoyable features. It's entertainment to me.
My actual views, though, are what I stated above: there is no answer to anything, and the world is a mish-mash of disarray and chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 31, 2013 11:34:31 GMT -5
Hey, don't attack the man - the Soviets were our allies during WWII and helped us take out Hitler and Nazi Germany. Communism is probably more tolerable than the Nazis' version of fascism. Hell, the Soviets essentially won WWII. They put in far more than anybody else. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 16:04:30 GMT -5
I disagree with that. Government is needed because a disinterested 3rd party is needed. Let's say you do something that I think is wrong. Let's say we're neighbors and you put up a fence that is 5 feet on to my property. You are basically stealing land from me. So we talk it out like reasonable adults and you don't think you've done anything wrong. You think you own that land. I disagree. Where do we go from here if there is no government? Government acts as a disinterested 3rd party to settle this dispute. Now you can say that we could hire a 3rd party arbitrator from the private sector. The problem is you don't think you've done anything wrong (and maybe you haven't). So you aren't going to pay for said arbitrator and you aren't going to abide by the decision of said arbitrator either. The arbitrator in this case is completely toothless. He has no ability to enforce his decision. He has no ability to make you move your fence. What's worse is he may come to the wrong decision simply because you have no interest in participating in the process. Even worse than that, he may be corrupt because I'm paying for him. The government, in theory, acts as a disinterested 3rd party to settle such disputes. Everything government does, the people can do. Yes, you can get a 3rd unbiased party or even a group of people to act as a jury. What teeth does the government currently have regarding property disputes? They can fine the person everyday they continue to infringe on the other person's property but their only recourse after that is to throw the person in jail. Well, if they are in jail they certainly can't remove the fence. Being in jail won't pay the fines. I guess government could forcibly go in and take down the fence but the people could do that as well. Society would still have some semblance of a police force that could go in and take down the fence. The neighbor could even take it down after it has been found that the fence infringes on his land. If the fence owner becomes belligerent and harms either the neighbor or police for taking down the fence then they can go to jail for causing bodily harm. Not only should the person have to remove their fence (should they be found guilty) they should also have to pay a fine to the other person. I have a feeling the government would just keep the money from the fine and the neighbor would not get any restitution for his property rights being infringed upon. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 16:39:34 GMT -5
Sure you can, but there's no way to enforce a decision. Let's say we dispute the property line. You don't think you've done anything wrong. I find a 3rd party arbitrator. He's got to get paid and I pay him because you don't think you've done anything all wrong (and maybe you haven't). So you have no motivation to participate in the process. The 3rd party finds in favor of me because you don't bother because you don't think you've done anything wrong and I'm paying him to boot. So now I go knock your fence down. What is your recourse? You have none really. That's the problem. You may be 100% in the right and I'm a complete nutjob. And what's worse is if I'm the nutjob neighbor who complains about every little thing I do (and every block has one) then you're really screwed 'cuz either a) you have to take time out of your day to respond to every single complaint or b) I'm going to walk all over you as my 3rd party arbiter finds in my favor every single time. So a disinterested 3rd party like the government is needed to say, "Listen nutbag, the guy can park his car in his driveway if he wants."
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 16:52:53 GMT -5
Sure you can, but there's no way to enforce a decision. Let's say we dispute the property line. You don't think you've done anything wrong. I find a 3rd party arbitrator. He's got to get paid and I pay him because you don't think you've done anything all wrong (and maybe you haven't). So you have no motivation to participate in the process. The 3rd party finds in favor of me because you don't bother because you don't think you've done anything wrong and I'm paying him to boot. So now I go knock your fence down. What is your recourse? You have none really. That's the problem. You may be 100% in the right and I'm a complete nutjob. And what's worse is if I'm the nutjob neighbor who complains about every little thing I do (and every block has one) then you're really screwed 'cuz either a) you have to take time out of your day to respond to every single complaint or b) I'm going to walk all over you as my 3rd party arbiter finds in my favor every single time. So a disinterested 3rd party like the government is needed to say, "Listen nutbag, the guy can park his car in his driveway if he wants." You shouldn't pay the arbitrator ahead of time. Whoever loses should pay them, that way it avoids what you are saying. If they feel they have done nothing wrong (and this would only apply in civil matters not crimes like murder or rape) then they should have no problem going before the arbitrator and telling them why they are in the right. If the government is involved and the person doesn't think they've done anything wrong and they no show the court appearance then the government will just side with the neighbor. That's how it works now. If you don't show up, you lose. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 17:29:19 GMT -5
Sure you can, but there's no way to enforce a decision. Let's say we dispute the property line. You don't think you've done anything wrong. I find a 3rd party arbitrator. He's got to get paid and I pay him because you don't think you've done anything all wrong (and maybe you haven't). So you have no motivation to participate in the process. The 3rd party finds in favor of me because you don't bother because you don't think you've done anything wrong and I'm paying him to boot. So now I go knock your fence down. What is your recourse? You have none really. That's the problem. You may be 100% in the right and I'm a complete nutjob. And what's worse is if I'm the nutjob neighbor who complains about every little thing I do (and every block has one) then you're really screwed 'cuz either a) you have to take time out of your day to respond to every single complaint or b) I'm going to walk all over you as my 3rd party arbiter finds in my favor every single time. So a disinterested 3rd party like the government is needed to say, "Listen nutbag, the guy can park his car in his driveway if he wants." You shouldn't pay the arbitrator ahead of time. Whoever loses should pay them, that way it avoids what you are saying. If they feel they have done nothing wrong (and this would only apply in civil matters not crimes like murder or rape) then they should have no problem going before the arbitrator and telling them why they are in the right. If the government is involved and the person doesn't think they've done anything wrong and they no show the court appearance then the government will just side with the neighbor. That's how it works now. If you don't show up, you lose. So, again you've got a case where the busybody neighbor (and like I said every street has one) can make life hell for the entire street because they go to the arbiter over and over and over again for every little thing (loud music, barking dog, trash can at the curb, newspaper not being taken in by 1000, keep their lights on too late, etc.....) so you need someone like the government to be a disinterested 3rd party and step in and tell the neighbor to go pound sand. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 17:32:57 GMT -5
Sure you can, but there's no way to enforce a decision. Let's say we dispute the property line. You don't think you've done anything wrong. I find a 3rd party arbitrator. He's got to get paid and I pay him because you don't think you've done anything all wrong (and maybe you haven't). So you have no motivation to participate in the process. The 3rd party finds in favor of me because you don't bother because you don't think you've done anything wrong and I'm paying him to boot. So now I go knock your fence down. What is your recourse? You have none really. That's the problem. You may be 100% in the right and I'm a complete nutjob. And what's worse is if I'm the nutjob neighbor who complains about every little thing I do (and every block has one) then you're really screwed 'cuz either a) you have to take time out of your day to respond to every single complaint or b) I'm going to walk all over you as my 3rd party arbiter finds in my favor every single time. So a disinterested 3rd party like the government is needed to say, "Listen nutbag, the guy can park his car in his driveway if he wants." You shouldn't pay the arbitrator ahead of time. Whoever loses should pay them, that way it avoids what you are saying. If they feel they have done nothing wrong (and this would only apply in civil matters not crimes like murder or rape) then they should have no problem going before the arbitrator and telling them why they are in the right. If the government is involved and the person doesn't think they've done anything wrong and they no show the court appearance then the government will just side with the neighbor. That's how it works now. If you don't show up, you lose. Another question. Let's say I lose, but refuse to pay. What then? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 17:39:15 GMT -5
You shouldn't pay the arbitrator ahead of time. Whoever loses should pay them, that way it avoids what you are saying. If they feel they have done nothing wrong (and this would only apply in civil matters not crimes like murder or rape) then they should have no problem going before the arbitrator and telling them why they are in the right. If the government is involved and the person doesn't think they've done anything wrong and they no show the court appearance then the government will just side with the neighbor. That's how it works now. If you don't show up, you lose. So, again you've got a case where the busybody neighbor (and like I said every street has one) can make life hell for the entire street because they go to the arbiter over and over and over again for every little thing (loud music, barking dog, trash can at the curb, newspaper not being taken in by 1000, keep their lights on too late, etc.....) so you need someone like the government to be a disinterested 3rd party and step in and tell the neighbor to go pound sand. The arbitrator won't take the case unless the neighbor is actually being harmed in some way. Trash cans at the curb or newspapers not being taken in or keeping lights on don't harm him so the arbitrator will tell him to sod off. If the neighbor abuses the system then arbitrators around the community will know not to bother with any case he brings forward. How it is now, you don't take your neighbor to court for loud noises or whatever else you mention. You call the police or the landlord, you don't jump straight to a civil suit against the person. There would still be a police force that you could call with any problem you had and they could tell your noisy neighbor to keep it down. If the community has a problem with the noisy neighbor (and not just the neighbor who complains at everything) then maybe a Pigovian tax could be laid on the noisy person. |
|
