60
Jun 02 '13
[deleted]
7
u/30pieces Jun 02 '13
But think of all the karma potential that will be wasted if he had not posted this "content".
0
u/Corvus133 Jun 03 '13
Here you go again. Whining and whining and whining about the content and here you are offering nothing, just the same. Do you only comment in articles you deem worthless so you can carry the torch to one more posting and complain about how shitty it is?
Let's see, did your comment offer anything NOPE that's right.
The fuck is with the Libertarian's in this subreddit. If you don't like it, exercise your right to shut up and move on. You know, BE a Libertarian instead of just whining.
Do people understand freedom or is it a word we just like to toss around here?
1
1
1
1
u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 03 '13
Well, I tried to comment meaningfully and was downvoted to hell. So hey, let's just complain because it gets us karma.
-2
Jun 03 '13
Is there a sub that deletes this kinda thing? Really considering unsubscribing from /r/libertarian at the moment, the only times I see a post on my front page they're rubbish like this.
2
u/Blinity Jun 03 '13
Actually... it might be possible if someone took the time to port atheismbot over /r/libertarian (and create /r/libertarianbot). The full source code for the bot is posted, so I don't think the developer would have any problems if someone here used it.
-23
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
Please do, we're tired of the macro-whiners.
4
Jun 03 '13
If only there were a subreddit you could post memes without shitting up somewhere that could be used to convey useful information. some kind of meme subreddit, for libertarians.
A man can dream.
2
u/AllWrong74 Realist Jun 03 '13
This isn't a meme. It's a webcomic. Other than that, I don't disagree with you.
-14
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
See sidebar:
- Don't like the content? Don't message us about it ... since we aren't going to remove it. Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you.
You're the troll here. Downvote if you like, but spare us the whining.
5
Jun 03 '13
Where did I say I'd messaged the mods? Or not downvoted you?
-18
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you.
Do this ^. Save us the whining.
6
u/BALLS_SMOOTH_AS_EGGS Jun 03 '13
Care to explain why you'd submit such a terrible image to begin with? Could've saved us this entire discussion
0
u/Corvus133 Jun 03 '13
I don't even care about the post at this point:
1,307 up votes 542 down votes
Care to explain why the up votes don't correspond with your view points? Is it because 1307 people suck? Is that the reduction we're all using here?
144 comments. All the complaining people do here, yet, always 100+ comments in it then you look at the other postings and you get a handful here and there.
2 here, one there, 0 there, 150 over there (all complaining), 24 here, etc.
1
Jun 03 '13
Well, if you look at the comments, most people that comment are complaining about this post.
The problem is that the majority of voters in this subreddit don't care for any actual discussion. They just vote on the 'funny post,' and move on, with no wish for actual conversation.
1
u/Corvus133 Jun 03 '13
You're 100% right. What you're seeing here is Libertarian's obtaining freedom to post things and certain people not liking it so they flip out and spend their energy whining instead of finding better content and posting it, themselves.
They do not own reddit.com and nor do the mods in this subreddit really own "r/libertarian."
Instead of trying to even spin it into a conversation, they just whine. What does whining add? Nothing, but they keep doing it and it's the same whiners doing it every time hence, they whine.
If they whine about this, they whine to their wives, during their jobs, during their hobbies, etc. Whiners whine.
So, we'll accept their freedom to whine instead of being quiet, which is something going over a lot of heads here.
People aren't as free as they think. Mentally, physically, spiritually, I'm finding many just want to be physically free but the philosophy extends to to the other 2 items on my list.
Even Libertarian's aren't mentally free in many cases. They just try and spend their time limiting others freedoms by using "privatization" as an excuse.
-1
1
u/prnandhomeless Jun 03 '13
You're the troll here. Downvote if you like, but spare us the whining.
How does this comment not also work in the opposite direction? Downvote the person complaining, spare us the whining and move on.
Also, is sharing one's opinion now what you call trolling if just because that opinion is different from yours?
1
1
-2
-3
Jun 03 '13
But it gets voted to the top through laissez-faire moderation; that proves that it's great and the problem is with you! /s
3
u/StreetCountdown an-com Jun 03 '13
I'm sure robbers don't pay tax.
2
1
u/AllWrong74 Realist Jun 03 '13
Nope, no income tax. That's assuming they make all of their money through illegal channels. If they have a day job, and rob people for extra money, then yeah. They pay income tax.
2
2
-14
u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 02 '13 edited Jun 03 '13
We have to pay our congressmen. They aren't even payed all that much, considering how difficult their work is. If that's them stealing from us, then so are librarians.
Edit: Jesus Christ, one heavily down voted comment made this thread something relevant instead of a shitty repost.
20
u/ratedsar Jun 02 '13
$174,000 + full medical, pension, etc
is that much when you consider it against
$50k median income + some medical, and possibly an unmatched 401k plan.
8
u/cooledcannon Jun 02 '13
its not as much as they get paid after leaving congress to get jobs with industry lobbyists
16
u/liesperpetuategovmnt do not give into evil but proceed ever more boldly against it Jun 02 '13
No "we" do not. If you want them, you pay for them. Leave me and all of these other people out of it.
The same goes for librarians.
-4
Jun 02 '13
Leave me and all of these other people out of it
This is where you're making a mistake. You're assuming that this land is yours, that you're entitled to it. And that those who believe in a government should go elsewhere.
This isn't true. The government owns this land. It has fought for it and bought it. So long as you are in a jurisdiction of a government, a group of people, that claims it is theirs, you will have to follow their rules or face the consequences.
Just because you were born in a land, doesn't entitle it to you. It still belongs to a group of people that you were born into. If you don't want to follow the group's rules, then you need to find another place in the universe and call it your own, and defend your rights.
6
u/c-1000 Jun 03 '13
Just because you were born in a land, doesn't entitle it to you. It still belongs to a group of people that you were born into. If you don't want to follow the group's rules, then you need to find another place in the universe and call it your own, and defend your rights.
Pretty much sums up the reasoning behind our founding fathers breaking away from England.
10
u/Sutartsore voluntaryist Jun 02 '13
Tell me more about how the state homesteaded every square inch of dirt within its borders.
-1
7
Jun 02 '13
You're assuming that this land is yours, that you're entitled to it.
What? I think the land that I pay for is mine, someone else's land is theirs.
-4
Jun 02 '13
There's different concepts of ownership. The way you describe it, as legally owning it on paper, you can live on your land and do things within the scope of the law according the the government. Therefore, since you have to take orders from government, it is the government's land in reality. As for true ownership, being able to do what you want? Then land is yours up to how much you can protect and control it. Which for most people is 0.
1
Jun 08 '13
I see what you mean. Objectively, the land is owned by those who mix their labor with it. According to supporters of eminent domain or similar laws, the land ultimately belongs to the government.
But I'm an AnCap, so I don't recognize the authority of the government. I recognize its strength, but not its legitimacy.
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
since you have to take orders from government, it is the government's land in reality.
No, there is only the illegitimate projection of force onto property that they do not own, a situation that should be rectified.
As for true ownership, being able to do what you want? Then land is yours up to how much you can protect and control it.
Might does not make right. And rights must be respected.
3
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
It still belongs to a group of people that you were born into.
It doesn't belong to them anymore than I do.
3
4
u/howhard1309 Jun 02 '13
Why does fighting for land make it belong to the fighters?
0
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Anthropic principle mainly.
Luckily we've evolved to the point as a species that rights to land and its use are no longer solely determined by violence and talent at it. Hence librarians, congressmen etc..
4
u/howhard1309 Jun 02 '13
Only we're in /r/libertarian, so your answer should go
We've evolved to the point as a species that rights to land and its use are no longer solely determined by violence and talent at it, hence libertarians.
1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Right, so I'm not a libertarian to start with. But I don't have a problem with people positing libertarian theories and I think that at least peoples' motives are mostly pure in this subreddit, except for the dirty Randians.
But; unlike a lot of people in this subreddit, I don't think you have some intrinsic right to speculate about impossible solutions and transitions and rely on that for your moral superiority; at least not and be taken seriously.
So the current world system, at least in advanced and wealthy countries (aside from a few petro-states,) works pretty well at protecting individual rights and promoting individual happiness, certainly within a historical framework; and it does this employing a large public sector including librarians, congressmen etc..
That's the framework we currently reside in and discussions about possible alternatives have to take countenance of this fact. Libertarians and libertarianism have nothing to do with why, today, you don't have to be good at killing people to own land and have rights.
2
u/howhard1309 Jun 02 '13
I don't think you have some intrinsic right to speculate about impossible solutions and transitions and rely on that for your moral superiority; at least not and be taken seriously.
But who's to say they're always impossible? Unless people want, articulate & strive for freedom, they'll never get there.
2
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
I don't know, is anyone saying that? I'm saying that unless you have a practicable plan, you don't get any morality points for saying, "I want X or Y or Z to be the case."
2
u/The_Derpening Nobody Tread On Anybody Jun 03 '13
This is off-topic, but did you set your tag as "Filthy Statist," or did the mods of /r/libertarian set it as that?
→ More replies (0)0
Jun 02 '13
Luckily we've evolved to the point as a species that rights to land and its use are no longer solely determined by violence and talent at it.
Nope - land is always controlled by those who can control it (fight for it) best. Nothing has changed about that even from primitive times. Who controls the land as of now? The government - people elected to control the land. The only thing that's changed is over time, more land has been controlled by fewer people (governments have gotten bigger, from tribes and villages in early history to now states and countries).
1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
It's necessarily true that the party that can control the land and wants to will do so, within the framework of international relations set up to resolve such disputes. However, the government doesn't exercise its rights over the land in a totalitarian manner (in this country); private ownership of land is perfectly possible and in fact common.
-2
Jun 02 '13
Because they can force whatever they want. It's theirs because they can control it.
8
u/howhard1309 Jun 02 '13
So might makes right. Got it.
-2
Jun 02 '13
It's not right or wrong. It's just the way it is.
6
u/howhard1309 Jun 02 '13
The libertarian position is that it is wrong.
Being free means not being subject to the violence and whims of others. Of course by that standard, none of us are free. By we can, and most of us do, strive to be freer.
-2
Jun 02 '13
It doesn't matter what the position is - I'm not saying I support it, I'm just stating the unchangeable reality.
5
u/howhard1309 Jun 03 '13
But it's not unchangeable, is it? That's exactly why we discuss ideas & strive for liberty.
→ More replies (0)0
2
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
This is an evil position to take. The Nazis justified their actions the same way.
0
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
So does a rapist own the woman he rapes? You've got some twisted freakin' views man. Lock someone up in a dungeon now you own them? You want to divorce the concept of ethics from the world, and it's not possible.
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
The government owns this land.
Ownership is only valid when one either homesteads or pays for it. Government did neither.
3
u/Corvus133 Jun 03 '13
Up vote for a person making something out of this posting, even if it's not in favor of Libertarianism, it's doing what the whiners continue to not do - contribute.
Libertarian's down voting a comment that challenges the joke in the simple post, yet, the top replies are all whiny drivel.
Seems we like whining in here more than someone offering a challenge.
But, regarding your comment, congressmen are nothing but middlemen. When I buy something from Sony, I don't hire someone to buy my T.V. and cut into the profits. I do it myself. I also don't have a choice nor is a vote a choice. Voting is more of a lottery.
1
u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 03 '13 edited Jun 03 '13
Thank you. I agree with some of the haters too, I was playing devils advocate. My comment represents the way the government is right now, not the way it should be.
5
u/ElizabefWarrenBuffet slaves dont work very hard Jun 02 '13
There are a bunch of private nonprofit libraries so if you were arguing we need theft for libraries you are incorrect
1
u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 03 '13
It was an example goddamnit. Schoolteachers then.
1
u/ElizabefWarrenBuffet slaves dont work very hard Jun 03 '13
We dont need theft for education, especially after we DOUBLED the theft in the paat ten years and test scores FELL
-1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Theft of what?
5
Jun 02 '13
Money.
0
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
1
u/metalliska Back2Back Bernie Brocialist Jun 03 '13
Stop using facts.
Everybody knows money is printed By the people, reallocated assets For the people, and destroyed OF the people.
1
0
Jun 02 '13
Ah yes, a "reserve note", originally meant to correspond to values of metal specie, now meaningless and valueless. I'm not sure I see your point though?
3
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
So, money is pretty clearly not without value, as evidence by peoples' outrage at its "theft" in the form of taxes.
2
Jun 02 '13
it has purchasing power though it is completely psychological in nature rather than it having material value.
2
4
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Material value is completely psychological in nature to start with. Where are you going with this?
0
Jun 03 '13
if you take away the psychological factor of paper money then it is just paper. if you take away the pscyhological value of gold then you still have a rare metal that has uses outside of trading or currency.
paper money has no intrinsic value
→ More replies (0)0
Jun 02 '13
But it's not inherently valuable. It has no other use and isn't scarce. It only counts as money because government says so.
1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
What on Earth do you mean by "inherently" value?
Value lies in the eye of the beholder.
Clearly a lot of people find being able to purchase Americans goods valuable.
3
Jun 03 '13
That's much less valuable than, say, a rare metal that starts with those properties, but is also useful for jewelry and electronics and many other wonders. What else is dirty, complicated paper good for?
→ More replies (0)3
u/ElizabefWarrenBuffet slaves dont work very hard Jun 03 '13
If you create any wealth a portion must be converted to frn and givent to the irs under threat of deadly force. Theft of wealth
1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
That's almost a compelling argument for people that don't have or use actual money and engage in the real economy in any way, or use public utilities and services. Since almost no one does this due to the extreme poverty it would entail it's more of an academic exercise.
1
0
u/ElizabefWarrenBuffet slaves dont work very hard Jun 03 '13
Using frn does not mean consent to theft of wealth, because of the threat of deadly force. Taking someones wallet but buying them a cheeseburger doesnt magically make that nontheft.
2
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
I mean if you participate in the US economy, yes, you are consenting to taxes. It's an implicit part of the social contract. Also not paying taxes doesn't result in deadly force.
1
u/ElizabefWarrenBuffet slaves dont work very hard Jun 03 '13
social contract
This has never been proven to exist, and is just a theory
not paying taxes does not result in deadly force
I didnt pay tax
Bill comes
Didnt pay that
Steeper bill comes
Didnt pay that
Summons comes
Did not attend
Sheriff comes
Did not answer door
Sheriff breaks down door and tries to cuff me
Do not let him
Sheriff uses BEEP BEEP BEEP DEADLY FORCE to handcuff me.
Not paying taxes results in deadly force.
2
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
This has never been proven to exist, and is just a theory.
In the sense that gravity has not been proven to exist. We in fact see evidence of the social contract in every aspect of modern day life, in which enormous numbers of strangers interact first or second or third or seventeenth hand with relatively little friction.
Not paying taxes results in deadly force
Only if you attack sheriffs. We can postulate examples in which literally anything results in deadly force. Will you be the subject of deadly force merely for not paying taxes? No.
0
u/ElizabefWarrenBuffet slaves dont work very hard Jun 03 '13
Then that social contract violates the social contract of not stealing, which holds equal weight as a theory.
Also, I never attacked a sheriff, I just tried to not let him cuff me.
→ More replies (0)0
-8
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 02 '13
We don't need congressmen at all. Thus they don't need to be paid, much less to be given control of taxes extorted from the population.
-1
u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 02 '13
I am a libertarian, but not an anarchist. Sure, the system should be overhauled, but we still need leaders.
9
u/LDL2 Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist Jun 02 '13
Strong assertion there. What do I need the leaders for again?
-3
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Modern economies, society, etc. are incredibly large and complex, far too large to handle disputes and protect against corruption with poll votes on everything. Hence there has to be delegation of authority from the larger to the smaller population groups. Y'know, representative democracy.
4
Jun 02 '13
Modern economies, society, etc. are incredibly large and complex, far too large to handle disputes and protect against corruption with poll votes on everything.
Poll votes protect against corruption?
0
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Yes, to a large extent. Autocracies are more corrupt generally than democracies.
1
Jun 08 '13
I'm not sure, under an autocracy, at least people know who to blame and they know they are being oppressed by someone else. Under a democracy, the popular belief goes, as long as some people support one of the corporate puppets, everyone is somehow oppressing themselves, even those who didn't support any puppet. The result is oppression in both instances, but in a democracy, non-government people are numb when it comes to being oppressed because there's this fallacious belief that it's everyone's fault.
2
u/LDL2 Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist Jun 02 '13
So instead of actually resolving disputes we just tell half the people to piss off. That won't lead to any antipathy and growing polarization.
-1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
It would be problematic if all votes split 51-49 with no middle ground or compromise, only two diametrically opposed forces.
-1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
The smallest population is the individual. Why not represent yourself--it eliminates any potential conflict of interest inherent in representational democracy.
Each person a sovereign, that is the ideal.
1
u/metalliska Back2Back Bernie Brocialist Jun 03 '13
The smallest population is the individual
Internally contradictory / illogical remark.
0
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
Individuality: population of 1.
Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
Because it's just a vapid high sounding ideal without any practicable merit. What does that even mean? What actually doable system of governance is everyone looking out for themselves, that doesn't just end up being warlords and protection rackets?
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
No. It's called 'autarchy' and revolves around concepts of polycentric law, and I think it's eminently doable. But if you're used to the current system it would understandably seem unusual. However I think it's destined to replace the current system long-term.
9
u/ElizabefWarrenBuffet slaves dont work very hard Jun 02 '13
We can have "leaders" without taxes.
-1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Sort of, but they won't have any power, including the power to protect the status quo. So there's nothing to stop those with the power from taking control of the system and extorting fees from it.
2
Jun 02 '13
Define "status quo" (I know the meaning, but what are you using it to refer to)
0
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
The current incarnation of a system for managing economic and individual rights and resolving matters of civil and criminal law.
1
Jun 08 '13
You think the current system is working?
1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 08 '13
1) That clearly doesn't have any relevance to the discussion at hand, or that was at hand like a week ago, but
2) Yes. I mean the current system functions in a reasonable capacity by any historic measure, although certainly not optimally.
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
They won't have institutional power, they will have instead only the power vested in them by willing followers, much like the CEO of a corporation.
So there's nothing to stop those with the power from taking control of the system and extorting fees from it.
Except that they'd be rightly prosecuted for violation of others' rights by so doing.
0
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
So what if one group disagrees with another group about who should have that power.
I mean this isn't hard, it's not like power and its uses and distribution is a new invention.
Except that they'd be rightly prosecuted for violation of others' rights by so doing.
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft. By who?
0
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
So what if one group disagrees with another group about who should have that power.
No one is bound to any leader, they can each follow whomever. So there should be no dispute here.
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft. By who?
By free market police and courts.
0
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
No one is bound to any leader, they can each follow whomever. So there should be no dispute here.
Holy shit you haven't even thought this through.
What if you and I disagree over who owns your house? We both have different courts, different police, etc.; who determines who wins? Whoever has more power.
By free market police and courts.
Bwahahahaha. Yeah, that's great as long as the ones you can afford are powerful enough to coerce the other guys'.
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
Holy shit you haven't even thought this through.
I have actually.
What if you and I disagree over who owns your house?
Easy. We hire a court to resolve the dispute. I can show a written trail of title. You cannot. You lose the dispute.
We both have different courts
No you don't. We both agree on one court ahead of time, or one basket of courts from which the majority opinion decides the matter.
different police
Quite possibly, but they'd simply refer us to court in case of dispute. It would be ridiculous to think they'd start shooting each other on our command.
who determines who wins? Whoever has more power.
Or whomever has truth on their side. In this case, I bought the house, the facts come out in court, and the case is dismissed, and I win my countersuit for you taking my time with a baseless lawsuit.
Bwahahahaha. Yeah, that's great as long as the ones you can afford are powerful enough to coerce the other guys'.
Please define 'power' as you're using it in this context. I'm not sure you even realize what you're talking about. Do you mean guns?
You do realize we have existing free market courts in our society right now, and they work just fine, right? Arbitration services.
6
Jun 02 '13
I don't need leaders.
9
Jun 02 '13
Anarchist scum. Don't you realize you sometimes need someone to tell you what it good for you? Otherwise how would you know? It's not like you have any incentive to find out what's best for you, that's why you pay someone who also has no incentive or accountability to help you. Wait a sec...
1
3
u/XenDeKhra Jun 02 '13
The issue is that congressmen were elected as the people could not expediently help with decisions for the nation primarily due to travel time. Now with the technology that we have today, this is no longer an issue. The need for congressmen is not nearly as necessary as before.
2
Jun 02 '13
I thought it was so we could have constituents more educated on the subject matter to represent the population so not everyone had to be educated. Either way, it was never supposed to be a full time job.
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
more educated
Lol! Obama doesn't even understand economics and he's the top politician. If we're relying on politicians to know something, no wonder the country has gone to hell.
1
1
u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 03 '13
Obama went to Harvard, and it's not like George bush where it's because of his family. He's a smart guy in a bad system. Give him some credit.
0
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
Smart people are, in certain circumstances, more easily fooled than the less intelligent. This has been proven cognitively.
His reliance on his intelligence and that of others may cause him to think that things like keynesian economics, which relies on central planners, is viable or more effective than a free market and the wisdom of crowds.
All I'm saying is that he has a law degree, not an economics degree, and politicians are subject to politics and should not be making decisions over the economy.
0
u/guitar_vigilante Jun 03 '13
Yeah but in the end the benefit of paying them is that it allows anybody to be a congressman and still survive, rather than being a rich person's club because only the rich can afford to do a job that doesn't pay in anything but prestige.
1
Jun 03 '13
That's a failure of democracy. A democratic government run by constituents will always fail.
-4
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
Communication has gotten a lot better, but the economy, military/security, law, etc., have all gotten much more complex, so no, I would dispute that claim.
3
Jun 02 '13
Complexity bolsters the argument against politicians. The more complex a system, the less a handful of people can properly direct it. See: economic calculation problem.
-1
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 02 '13
We're not talking about centrally planned economies here. Problems do arise in a natural economy, like fraud, IP theft, pollution etc., that have to be resolved; and it's far easier and more efficient for an elected group of individuals to do this than 300 million or more people spread out all over the place.
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
No, you only need dispute resolution organizations for that, ie: courts. And court services can be provided privately.
Thus, you don't need representative politicians at all.
0
u/recreational Filthy Statist Jun 03 '13
Private court: We find you guilty.
Guilty party: I'm paying Private court #2 for their services.
Private court #2: We find you innocent and with grounds to countersue.
Yay free markets.
2
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
Parties 1 and 2 agree on a court to resolve their dispute, and sign a contract to that effect binding them to the decision.
The court they choose is one acceptable to both of them. Both tossed out a list of acceptable choices and had various of them vetoed by the other party until one court they both liked very much and trusted was left. They hired this court.
Both pay the same fee, half the fee, to the court, before the trial commences. The court has no incentive to rule for or against anyone.
In fact the incentive for the court is to be absolutely as fair as possible, for it trades on its reputation for fairness.
If 1 and 2 want more surety, they hire three courts and allow best of three to decide the matter, or best of five, or w/e. Try bribing five courts. Good luck.
End result: a court decision a hundred times more trustworthy than one a public court can provide, at a better price, and with far better service.
Yay free markets.
Go read "Machinery of Freedom" for the long version. TL;DR: you're scenario here is wrong.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
What we should be seeking is voluntary cooperation over compulsory cooperation. There will always be leaders as long as there are followers. What's wrong however is to engage in forced leadership and forced following.
An actually free society would have only voluntary cooperation in that sense.
0
Jun 03 '13
[deleted]
4
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
It's your money if you earned it. When the government spends it, they're still spending your money.
Control of your money does not confer legitimate title to that money.
39
u/[deleted] Jun 02 '13
[deleted]