Is Libertarianism a Good Idea? - General

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432209]It's called an example.[/QUOTE] yes. an irrelevant and outdated example from many years ago [QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432268]Same thing you do if a rich dude pays them to kill you with a public police force.[/QUOTE] oh jesus if this thread is going to become a debate on anarcho-capitalism im outta here, kakistocrat had some credible points but you're batshit insane

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432204]well you would have to if there was more of them than you mercenaries aren't restricted by geneva conventions they fight for the highest bidder, as soon as they get a higher bidder, they abandon the old i.e if somebody is richer than you, they could probably pay somebody to kill you[/QUOTE] i dont see why anybody would suddenly want me dead in a libertarian society more than in my current socialist swedish one? or how a government would be remotely helpful or more effective for long term benefit its not very economical of merceneries to kill me and just leave a body that cant produce wealth like i would if i was alive and paid them a fee every month for protection?

[QUOTE=KaIibos;37432274]if the public didn't actually FEEL in control of its government (and I guarantee you they didn't) then they didn't control it. you said it yourself. the government controlled them. it was a gross imbalance of power a) how does that quote support the claim that it was a socialist system b) is a planned economy your only criteria for what you'd call a socialist state?[/QUOTE] Your right. But Russia was supposed to be controlled by the public. The reason it wasn't (and China wasn't, and North Korea isn't) is because of the Communist Party taking too much power. It's thanks to socialism that they don't own the government. because a planned economy is a form of socialist state.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430255]I think you're seeing politics as more bipolar than they are. Not everyone has to be all the way to one end or the other. Rights and liberties can coexist. I would even say you can't have one without the other.[/QUOTE] But that's what it is. That's what Libertarianism is. That's the [I]whole damn point of Libertarianism[/I] is the limitation of government and diminishing of rights in favor of increased liberty. I don't think you understand the relationship between state, liberty, and rights. Rights can no exist without a state to enforce them. Liberties are limited by enforcement by the state- always- though it varies widely. Rights can not exist without liberties but liberties can exist without rights. Libertarianism advocates minimal government, [I]which is why[/I] liberty is maximized in Libertarianism. Because there is minimal government, there are minimal rights. You can't have rights, liberties, and state all at the same time without compromise. Which is why Libertarians cut out the state to near entirety and rights go with it. You can't have all three co-exist without compromising the primary principles of Libertarian social policy.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37432286]yes. an irrelevant and outdated example from many years ago oh jesus if this thread is going to become a debate on anarcho-capitalism im outta here, kakistocrat had some credible points but you're batshit insane[/QUOTE] otherwise anarcho capitalism and libertarianism are just highly related

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432268]Same thing you do if a rich dude pays them to kill you with a public police force.[/QUOTE] except public police forces are already given funding and resources, it does not operate on a for profit basis a private one would need to acquire its own funding and resources, and since it would operate on a for profit basis, it would naturally be more likely to accept cash from a rich dude who hates you

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432204]well you would have to if there was more of them than you[/quote] I don't know about you, but if a group of people are trying to kill me, I'd rather try to kill them than to sit there and let them kill me. Better to die fighting than to die submissive, or at least that's how I look at it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432262]what do you do if a rich dude pays them to kill you? free market =/= free people[/QUOTE] Yes, it does. Markets are made of people. And are you trying to say that removing those zones would restore democracy to North Korea? [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;37432286]yes. an irrelevant and outdated example from many years ago oh jesus if this thread is going to become a debate on anarcho-capitalism im outta here, kakistocrat had some credible points but you're batshit insane[/QUOTE] sorry, but it was bound to happen. Anarcho-capitalism and Minarchism are closely related.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432316]Yes, it does. Markets are made of people. And are you trying to say that removing those zones would restore democracy to North Korea?[/QUOTE] you implement democracy through political reform, not economic

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37432305']But that's what it is. That's what Libertarianism is. That's the [I]whole damn point of Libertarianism[/I] is the limitation of government and diminishing of rights in favor of increased liberty. I don't think you understand the relationship between state, liberty, and rights. Rights can no exist without a state to enforce them. Liberties are limited by enforcement by the state- always- though it varies widely. Rights can not exist without liberties but liberties can exist without rights. Libertarianism advocates minimal government, [I]which is why[/I] liberty is maximized in Libertarianism. Because there is minimal government, there are minimal rights. You can't have rights, liberties, and state all at the same time without compromise. Which is why Libertarians cut out the state to near entirety and rights go with it. You can't have all three co-exist without compromising the primary principles of Libertarian social policy.[/QUOTE] it's called a political spectrum. Libertarianism means you want liberty, not all liberty and no rights. By your argument, all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432309]except public police forces are already given funding and resources, it does not operate on a for profit basis a private one would need to acquire its own funding and resources, and since it would operate on a for profit basis, it would naturally be more likely to accept cash from a rich dude who hates you[/QUOTE] and if there is competitive business then competitors would just trash the reputation of whatever defense service the "rich dude who hates you" uses and nobody would ever use that service after that having a great reputation is sort of fundamental in a competitive economy unlike in an economy ran by the state, which creates ineffective and expensive monopolies

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432345]you implement democracy through political reform, not economic[/QUOTE] exactly. Which is why, for the sake of the argument, it doesn't matter whether North Korea has a few trade zones. They are still a socialist, authoritarian government that squashes innovation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432309]except public police forces are already given funding and resources, it does not operate on a for profit basis a private one would need to acquire its own funding and resources, and since it would operate on a for profit basis, it would naturally be more likely to accept cash from a rich dude who hates you[/QUOTE] What leads you to this logic? Both are receiving money from somewhere. Assuming we're talking about the same person/group in these two hypotheticals, why should they care where it comes from? Just because somebody is paid by the government doesn't mean they don't accept outside "help". Not to mention that a private police force would be killing one of their own sources of income. Bribery exists in every group, regardless of who they are or what they do or where they come from.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432422]What leads you to this logic? Both are receiving money from somewhere. Assuming we're talking about the same person/group in these two hypotheticals, why should they care where it comes from? Just because somebody is paid by the government doesn't mean they don't accept outside "help". Not to mention that a private police force would be killing one of their own sources of income. Bribery exists in every group, regardless of who they are or what they do or where they come from.[/QUOTE] The logic which leads me to it is this: A private police force works on a [b]for profit[/b] basis. A public police force does not work on a [b]for profit[/b] basis. Now, can you try to think up potential problems that may arise if [b]justice[/b] operates on a [b]for profit[/b] basis?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432309]except public police forces are already given funding and resources, it does not operate on a for profit basis a private one would need to acquire its own funding and resources, and since it would operate on a for profit basis, it would naturally be more likely to accept cash from a rich dude who hates you[/QUOTE] Yeah implying that celebrities and rich bastards don't already get off cleaner because of their connections. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, and it doesn't mean that the government wouldn't stop them from doing it, it will happen regardless. There is corruption everywhere, in private and public markets, and no amount of political or economic reform will ever change that.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432353]it's called a political spectrum. Libertarianism means you want liberty, not all liberty and no rights. By your argument, all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.[/QUOTE] But they almost are. And it's not called the political spectrum, it's called "Libertarianism is an ideology with well-formed and developed ideas and opinions and what you're arguing compromises some of those." Libertarianism does not mean you want liberty. Libertarian means that you adhere to the ideology of Libertarianism. Libertarianism specifically advocates for increased liberty and minimalised state, the combination of which is incompatible with universally acknowledged and enforced rights. State-enforced rights specifically go against liberty and the concepts inherent in Libertarianism. It's like saying that a Fascist would be cool with worker control of industry because they want social control of the economy. That's not the case. This is not the issue of the political spectrum. You either are or you are not in the camp of Libertarian, and the camp of Libertarian has a set of rules you need to follow, like all ideologies, to be in the camp. The state enforcement of rights and state enforcement of social justice are idea opposed by the Libertarian camp. It's as simple as that.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37432457]There is corruption everywhere, in private and public markets, and no amount of political or economic reform will ever change that.[/QUOTE] except in a libertarian system, corruption wouldn't be punished at all

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432453]The logic which leads me to it is this: A private police force works on a [b]for profit[/b] basis. A public police force does not work on a [b]for profit[/b] basis. Now, can you try to think up potential problems that may arise if [b]justice[/b] operates on a [b]for profit[/b] basis?[/QUOTE] An ideal Libertarian government would have restrictions on certain markets (like justice, in this example) to avoid situations like that. Total free market is insane, there does need to be restrictions on certain markets.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432453]The logic which leads me to it is this: A private police force works on a [B]for profit[/B] basis. A public police force does not work on a [B]for profit[/B] basis. Now, can you try to think up potential problems that may arise if [B]justice[/B] operates on a [B]for profit[/B] basis?[/QUOTE] quality of products does so why wouldnt defense services? other services like privatized health care is (almost always) better than a state healthcare system so why not?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432482]except in a libertarian system, corruption wouldn't be punished at all[/QUOTE] You're taking Libertarianism at its purest form, which should absolutely never happen. Like I said in the previous post there should be restrictions on certain markets to guard against that sort of corruption. And again, we'll never completely get rid of it. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kentz;37432499]quality of products does so why wouldnt defense services? other services like privatized health care is (almost always) better than a state healthcare system so why not?[/QUOTE] I agree, also if some private justice system was known for being corrupt I'm pretty sure they'd get fired/lose a lot of rep and no other cities would hire them. Good reputation goes a long way, especially in a more free market scenario.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37432467']But they almost are. And it's not called the political spectrum, it's called "Libertarianism is an ideology with well-formed and developed ideas and opinions and what you're arguing compromises some of those." Libertarianism does not mean you want liberty. Libertarian means that you adhere to the ideology of Libertarianism. Libertarianism specifically advocates for increased liberty and minimalised state, the combination of which is incompatible with universally acknowledged and enforced rights. State-enforced rights specifically go against liberty and the concepts inherent in Libertarianism. It's like saying that a Fascist would be cool with worker control of industry because they want social control of the economy. That's not the case. This is not the issue of the political spectrum. You either are or you are not in the camp of Libertarian, and the camp of Libertarian has a set of rules you need to follow, like all ideologies, to be in the camp. The state enforcement of rights and state enforcement of social justice are idea opposed by the Libertarian camp. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE] actually, libertarianism is a pretty wide spectrum of ideas, all advocating liberty, but to different degrees. I support public education because it is nessescary for equal opportunity, a very libertarian ideal. Anyways, aren't you a libertarian socialist?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432453]The logic which leads me to it is this: A private police force works on a [b]for profit[/b] basis. A public police force does not work on a [b]for profit[/b] basis. Now, can you try to think up potential problems that may arise if [b]justice[/b] operates on a [b]for profit[/b] basis?[/QUOTE] [U]Bribery[/U] [U]still[/U] [U]exists[/U]. Everyone has a price. Your argument is based on a fantasy world where receiving government money suddenly makes you a good person. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432482]except in a libertarian system, corruption wouldn't be punished at all[/QUOTE] Can't corrupt something that doesn't exist. Besides that, you think that companies don't have reputations? They do something you don't like, you stop paying them.

[QUOTE=Kentz;37432499]other services like privatized health care is (almost always) better than a state healthcare system so why not?[/QUOTE] no it isnt. the british have arguably one of the the best healthcare systems in the world, and its socialised as do many other european states

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432422]What leads you to this logic? Both are receiving money from somewhere. Assuming we're talking about the same person/group in these two hypotheticals, why should they care where it comes from? Just because somebody is paid by the government doesn't mean they don't accept outside "help". Not to mention that a private police force would be killing one of their own sources of income. Bribery exists in every group, regardless of who they are or what they do or where they come from.[/QUOTE] I'll give you a historical example. Back when most Eastern states had private fire departments, you would need to place a plaque on your building announcing that you are covered under the insurance of that fire department. If your house caught on fire, then you simply would have to deal with it if you didn't pay the overpriced fine for the department's protection. Your home would burn down and you would suffer. They would only protect homes that were covered under their insurance. They would not protect homes covered under competing insurance. They might help you if your house fire was going to spread to a neighbor's house, if that neighbor was covered by them. This is the reason that the fire departments were nationalized in the first place. Because private social utilities were shit and only applied to those who could afford them. So poor and middle class folks got their houses burned down and got sick and died and ate off the street, and rich people lived with protection and health services and whatnot. A public service with public funding is required to protect all using resources obtained through the pooling of collective taxes. A private company gets to choose and pick what and how and why it protects, and the charge to do so.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37432575']I'll give you a historical example. Back when most Eastern states had private fire departments, you would need to place a plaque on your building announcing that you are covered under the insurance of that fire department. If your house caught on fire, then you simply would have to deal with it if you didn't pay the overpriced fine for the department's protection. Your home would burn down and you would suffer. They would only protect homes that were covered under their insurance. They would not protect homes covered under competing insurance. They might help you if your house fire was going to spread to a neighbor's house, if that neighbor was covered by them. This is the reason that the fire departments were nationalized in the first place. Because private social utilities were shit and only applied to those who could afford them. So poor and middle class folks got their houses burned down and got sick and died and ate off the street, and rich people lived with protection and health services and whatnot. A public service with public funding is required to protect all using resources obtained through the pooling of collective taxes. A private company gets to choose and pick what and how and why it protects, and the charge to do so.[/QUOTE] exactly. Fire protection is a public good, which means it should be provided by the government.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432570]no it isnt. the british have arguably one of the the best healthcare systems in the world, and its socialised[/QUOTE] if access to universal waiting lists and overly expensive health care expendures is better then ok [video=youtube;Nt0tKl0J-S4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4&feature=relmfu[/video]

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432540] Besides that, you think that companies don't have reputations? They do something you don't like, you stop paying them.[/QUOTE] if only life were as simple as you state it to be [QUOTE=Kentz;37432602]if access to universal waiting lists and overly expensive health care expendures is better then ok[/QUOTE] i know, its shocking that people will have to wait for certain operations, it might actually be /fair/.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432537]actually, libertarianism is a pretty wide spectrum of ideas, all advocating liberty, but to different degrees. I support public education because it is nessescary for equal opportunity, a very libertarian ideal. Anyways, aren't you a libertarian socialist?[/QUOTE] Yes. But we're arguing American right-Libertarianism, are we not? Free markets and all that? Because if we're just arguing the entire spectrum, then you need to start making cases for my ideology as well and anarchism here. Left-Libertarianism and right-Libertarianism are incompatible and totally different politically and economically. Public education and equal opportunities are NOT American-Libertarian ideals. They are universally opposed by Libertarians not in the left-wing. In fact, I'd argue that most all Libertarian ideologies would oppose state-sponsored education.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432620]if only life were as simple as you state it to be[/QUOTE] Yet you think that organizations that receive government money are never corrupt.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432620]if only life were as simple as you state it to be[/QUOTE] it is, actually because unlike a socialist system you have a choice what you want to use or not [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432620]if only life were as simple as you state it to be i know, its shocking that people will have to wait for certain operations, it might actually be /fair/.[/QUOTE] yeah who cares about waiting lists when youre waiting for promised universal healthcare by the government