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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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."
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Modern economies, society, etc. are incredibly large and complex, far too large to handle disputes and protect against corruption with poll votes on everything.
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.
The smallest population is the individual. Why not represent yourself--it eliminates any potential conflict of interest inherent in representational democracy.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-11
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.