I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.
You're entitled to your opinion (which is all it is) but just don't pretend there isn't a working solution already implemented.
Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 26. (Read 28705 times)
You're entitled to your opinion (which is all it is) but just don't pretend there isn't a working solution already implemented.
I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.
You're entitled to your opinion (which is all it is) but just don't pretend there isn't a working solution already implemented.
I think you missed the point. The point is, the same solution that works in the USA can also work in a libertarian society.
I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.
I think you missed the point. The point is, the same solution that works in the USA can also work in a libertarian society.
Yes, that happens with our current system as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance_in_the_United_States
US Problem. The rest of the world have solved it.
Ok, following your logic B will eventually go out of business. That doesn't really solve the immediate problem, does it? You still have a piece of land with two owners.
Yes, that happens with our current system as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance_in_the_United_States
No-one will enforce it.
Private security firms will enforce it but it's unlikely the problem will arise in the first place. Let's say that there are two very large companies, A and B. If you have a piece of land registered with A and I try to register that land with B there are two possibilities. One possibility is that B is incompetent and will allow it to happen. In which case, people won't trust B and they will go out of business.
Ok, following your logic B will eventually go out of business. That doesn't really solve the immediate problem, does it? You still have a piece of land with two owners.
No-one will enforce it. As he admits himself, its just an absurd idea.
No, you called it absurd, I said it was sad that it was considered absurd. Nor did I ever say it wouldn't win popular support. I do wish you would stop trying to twist my words.
No-one will enforce it.
Private security firms will enforce it but it's unlikely the problem will arise in the first place. Let's say that there are two very large companies, A and B. If you have a piece of land registered with A and I try to register that land with B there are two possibilities. One possibility is that B is incompetent and will allow it to happen. In which case, people won't trust B and they will go out of business. Insurance companies won't deal with them. Mortgage companies won't deal with them. The other possibility is that B is competent and will notice that the land is already registered with A and tell you to get some sort of documentation from A allowing you to transfer registration from A to B.
Now, let's say that some joker starts up his fraudulent C company that just lets anyone register anything regardless of being registered at A or B. First of all, nobody is going to insure property registered at C, nobody is going to finance property C and only groups of bandits are going to help you take C by force if you have enough money. But suppose you just pay cash to C and get your piece of paper. Now you go to claim your land with your group of bandits. That's when the private security firms get involved. Being smart, A and B already have insurance against this sort of thing. When you register land at A or B, it costs more but if there is a dispute, they will send a private security firm to protect you, enforce any judgements, etc. The private security firms are much bigger, more organized and better armed because they have funds from millions of land owners while C has a tiny fraction of that.
There would be so many safeguards in place to stop things like that from happening because most people don't want that to happen. It's only a minority of people that want to defraud others. The market responds to what people want and prevents such disputes from occurring.
No-one will enforce it. As he admits himself, its just an absurd idea.
Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow. If you have a single set of laws you have a state.
What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?
Of course its involuntary. If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.
Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.
And what entity is going to enforce that agreement? In order to have enforceable agreements and consistent contract law, you need a central authority because everyone needs to agree on the standard. The losing party can simply claim the contract isn't binding and tell the court to go pound sand. Furthermore, why would he even bother to sign the agreement in the first place? If I have a piece of land registered at land registry A and you register that land at land registry B, I'm just going to shoot you in the face when I see you on my property and I'll get away with it because it's defense of property.
I admire you for trying so hard to defend such an outlandish position 
It's kind of sad that keeping your hands to yourself is seen as "outlandish".
Or in this case, 'absurd'
Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence. No state needed for that.
But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute. You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on. That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.
But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute. You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on. That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.
No, you really don't.
From your article: "Anarchists use this argument in their attempts to convert other libertarians to their views, while opponents of libertarianism use it to support the claim that consistent application of libertarian principles would result in the complete abolition of the state - which, in their view, is an extremist and absurd position to hold."
Your position is indeed absurd. I can see why you don't believe it will ever win popular support.
Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence. No state needed for that.
But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute. You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on. That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.
But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute. You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on. That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.
No, you really don't.
No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision. Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances.
Anyway, think through the logic of your position. The court is interpreting the law. And the law means there is a state.
Anyway, think through the logic of your position. The court is interpreting the law. And the law means there is a state.
No. the law is right here (And it's the only one needed): The Non-aggression principle
Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence. No state needed for that.
But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute. You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on. That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.
No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision. Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances.
Anyway, think through the logic of your position. The court is interpreting the law. And the law means there is a state.
Anyway, think through the logic of your position. The court is interpreting the law. And the law means there is a state.
No. the law is right here (And it's the only one needed): The Non-aggression principle
Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow. If you have a single set of laws you have a state.
What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?
Of course its involuntary. If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.
Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.
No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision. Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances.
Anyway, think through the logic of your position. The court is interpreting the law. And the law means there is a state.
Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow. If you have a single set of laws you have a state.
What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?
Of course its involuntary. If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.
Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.
Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow. If you have a single set of laws you have a state.
What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?
Of course its involuntary. If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.
Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow. If you have a single set of laws you have a state.
What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?
Jump to: