Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 21. (Read 28705 times)

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 07:34:13 PM

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

But that's how you want the world to be.

Indeed it is. And, adhering my principles, I choose not to agree to the terms above specified, and therefore chose to cease speaking with you. Also, as this is my thread, I ask that you not post in it unless someone has paid you to do so.

LOL And you're going to enforce that how?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 07:28:58 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on July 11, 2011, 07:24:25 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 07:28:58 PM

Private roads.

Your choice:

take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
take the one that has armed patrols,
or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

That's perfectly reasonable.

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance. So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land. Tell me again where you took issue with it?

Right here.

That's what I figured. You're just scared of the word government. If it's the EXACT same type of entity with the EXACT same issues that yields the EXACT same results, but under the title "business", then you're perfectly ok with it. So you position boils down to semantics are simple hate for the government and love for the free market, no matter what the government and the free market are or actually do. That's what I've known all along, thanks for confirming.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

That's perfectly reasonable.

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance. So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land. Tell me again where you took issue with it?

I do take issue. But first I'll answer your question with a question. Who is this "government", or "state", or "locality", or force-to-be-reckoned-with?

It seems we conflate private association with forced association. How did the government come by this property they created a road with? Was it point of a gun, coersion, paid with out of the "public" treasury?

The definition of non-coercion land has to be one in which you negotiated with another man (collectively or individually) sans force to exchange what you have for what he has. And if you haven't induced or incentivized the other individual to part with his property, you must leave him be.

Last I checked greater than 90% of all lands used for roads had been acquired thru extortion and expropriation. It's a little legal concept they call "emminent domain" and there isn't anything non-coercive about it. It is theft and plunder thru and thru.

Physics rules.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ascent on July 11, 2011, 07:40:26 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 07:38:47 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 07:38:47 PM

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

But that's how you want the world to be.

Indeed it is. And, adhering my principles, I choose not to agree to the terms above specified, and therefore chose to cease speaking with you. Also, as this is my thread, I ask that you not post in it unless someone has paid you to do so.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

But that's how you want the world to be.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 11, 2011, 06:38:23 PM

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 07:28:58 PM

In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving. Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.

Only on roads that allow it, which would be absolutely no roads or very few. Would you go to a bar that allowed someone to stab you? Then why would you drive on a road that allowed drunks to smash into you?

Three common flaws of statists on these forums:

1. Extreme deficit in civility/maturity.
2. Terminal lack of imagination.
3. Inflated sense of entitlement.

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on July 11, 2011, 07:24:25 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on July 11, 2011, 07:24:25 PM

Private roads.

Your choice:

take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
take the one that has armed patrols,
or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

That's perfectly reasonable.

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance. So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land. Tell me again where you took issue with it?

Right here.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Private roads.

Your choice:

take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
take the one that has armed patrols,
or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

That's perfectly reasonable.

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance. So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land. Tell me again where you took issue with it?

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 06:09:28 PM

Private roads.

Your choice:

take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
take the one that has armed patrols,
or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

We seem to think this is rocket science. It isn't. If you injure or about to imminently injure someone, there should be a proportional punishment. Geez. Admittedly my physics arguments do fall short when trying to incorporate imminent threat, as no harm has come to you until just after the purported crime. Something I've given much thought to, but just can't get a grasp on.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

How do I know if my life is in danger?

This one?

That's one of the main moral quandaries in any society. It's a judgment call, and if you make the right decision, good. If, after the fact, it turns out you did not, well, you have to pay the piper.

Example: A police officer sees a shadowy figure raise what appears to be a gun and point it at him. Does he shoot? What if it's a kid with a squirtgun? or a stick? What if it's an escaped criminal, with a sawed-off shotgun? Cop can't be sure, so he has to make a judgment call. If he chooses wrong, he has to pay the consequences of his actions.

indio007

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

The problem you are all having is really a legal one.
Some people like the gov't statutory limited liability insurance schemes.
Others want strict and full liability for injuries IN FACT to people and property.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 06:21:30 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 06:09:28 PM

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

You're right, Mario Andretti is far to skilled to run into the other drivers. There's no need to penalize them for his good.

You seem to have missed answering the other question I asked. An oversight I'm sure.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 06:42:19 PM

PLEASE justify that worldview for me.

Private roads.

Your choice:

take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
take the one that has armed patrols,
or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

There aren't any roads that allow it now, but people DUI all the time. The only thing that stops it is alert cops and DUI checkpoints. Not allowing something is laughable, because unless there's force behind the rule, it's not a rule. And since no one is allowed to initiate force or stop "victimless" crime, no one can do a damn thing to the drunk driver until AFTER he actually hurts someone.

You don't even understand libertarianism. If you voluntarily agree to my enforcement, which will be a condition of driving on my road, then I can stop you, arrest you or anything else you agreed to. If you agree to let me beat you if I catch you speeding or driving while intoxicated, I can beat the hell out of you. Go read up on libertarianism because you can't even cogently disagree with something that you are ignorant of.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 11, 2011, 06:38:23 PM

In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving. Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.

Only on roads that allow it

There aren't any roads that allow it now, but people DUI all the time. The only thing that stops it is alert cops and DUI checkpoints. Not allowing something is laughable, because unless there's force behind the rule, it's not a rule. And since no one is allowed to initiate force or stop "victimless" crime, no one can do a damn thing to the drunk driver until AFTER he actually hurts someone.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God