Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 63. (Read 105875 times)

There are no real world examples of lib-land, so no real world issues it currently faces, thus


is fail in a discussion about hypothetical governing systems, and


is just total fail, period.

If you wanted to discuss free market capitalism supported by libertarians, as it would apply within a democratic government based on taxation and regulation, you should have said so, instead of resorting to childish insults. Though I believe the original discussion WAS about hypotheticals...

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to. I like the sound of that very much. Your statist beliefs are also entirely built on 'oughts' and 'shoulds' arguments. If we were talking physics, there'd be very little to actually argue about.

I can't take back the millions of deaths already caused by smallpox, nukes and car bombs, and I can't say that any version of Libertopia would make all of that go away either any more than yours does/did. Human nature is unpredictable, you have to just deal with it. As I've said before, there are many different ways to "skin a cat". Let's not just assume that yours is the best way, just because it's the only way at the moment.

Most people bold face another's words to indicate the precise wording they used.

Well since no other anarchist can answer, maybe you can help me

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

I thought it was quite obvious (I emphasized my changes and linked to your original post) that those were not your words, but what it sounded like to me.

I'll edit my post to explicitly note that the emphasis is mine.

Do you understand why it's ridiculous that you insist we work within the framework that you consider necessary for civilized society? We reject that framework as completely uncivilized.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves.

Do not change my words when you quote me. It only undermines your credibility. You may bold face words that I have actually said if you wish to draw attention to them.

NOTE to everyone else: Bitter Tea is changing words written by me (the bold faced ones).

You're beyond help. Police and military ARE funded by citizens. What do you think taxes are for?


Private security firms don't need to worry about finding and pleasing customers because they collect tax by force just like a mob organization.

Fred you can't justify your own framework. 

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

I don't like your framework. If I pointed a gun at your head and said, "let's play", don't think for a second I'd find it fun, or particularly enlightening.

Yes.  The Troubles in Northern Ireland.  War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side. 

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

Creating a situation where people will die unnecessarily of smallpox and radiation poisoning for the sake of what you freely admit are random ideas from your head is not justice.

Surely you can think of some reason for people to take your ideas seriously?  Or are they intended to be simply thought provoking?  I've enjoyed having being provoked into thinking so its no disrespect to say that your objective is to make people think.

That's what I hear from you.

edit... For clarification (thought I though it obvious), the emphasized words and phrases in the quote above are my words, attempting to show how ridiculous it is to ask us to work within the framework we consider completely immoral.

If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by government. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the framework we are living.

I never claimed that. As you suggested, I think both systems of government will have similar results. The only big difference will be that certain rules (laws) will exist because some companies are blatantly enforcing them for their own financial benefit, not because of some random arbitrary political bullshit. Current private security forces answer to corporations, and current armies and police forces answer to politicians (and sometimes also corporations). They do not seek funding from private citizens, do not depend on it, and thus do not have to answer to citizens. Can you not at least concede that having a portion of their income come from protecting individuals would at least give them an incentive to work on keeping individuals safe, and not waste money on arbitrary wars on concepts like war on terrorism?
Also, um, why would private corporations waste money on paying their security companies to wage war?



Because unlike you, I don't believe I have all the correct answers, don't believe the world is exactly as I have constructed it in my limited scope of mind, and am willing to learn about other alternatives, even if I don't believe they are realistic, as opposed to just dismissng them out of hand with "that's stupid?" In short, I don't think I'm an omnipotent god with all the answers. THAT would be delusional.

Can you name a war not funded by taxation?

It's ok, I know you're laughing so you don't cry.

Hahahahahahaha!

Nope. Can't have war without taxation.