Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:03 am
doodle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:37 am
Yes, our government has been co-opted by big money and their lobbyists. My solution is to take measures to reduce big money's influence on government. Your solution is to eliminate government. I think my position is more moderate and yours is quite radical and at this particular point not realistic. In that way you share a lot in common with AOC. You are proposing the mother of all green new deals in terms of level of radical change.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that my solution is to "eliminate government." In fact, I don't know of any declared libertarian on this forum that would take such a position. It's a curious thing how libertarians are uniquely painted by the Left in the most extreme, wholly theoretical, terms possible. In reality, a good number of us libertarians are staunch advocates of the rule of law, and by that I'm not referring to the present, corrupted system of justice, but rather the rule of law as a construct that strives to achieve a balance between conflicting rights and liberties while maximizing the freedom of every member of society to pursue, without interference, his or her own view of a good life.
But getting back to the point: Whatever kinder and gentler government you may have in mind, that's not the government we have. And without taking on the century-old power structure that has infiltrated literally every branch and level of government--much as Trump has--it is the same corrupted, crony-corporatist government that will continue to run the show. So it it puzzles me to no end why you would see government as offering the common man anything other than the opportunity to receive scraps from a banquet to which he will never be invited.
This recent thread contained quite a bit of elimination of government talk
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/f ... &t=11610
PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:38 pm
doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:13 pm
Can one of the hardcore libertarians explain to me simply how ownership and enforcement of property rights would exist in a system absent a single arbiter who held a monopoly on the use of force?
There is always a single arbiter. Each party consents to the arbiter instead of being forced by the government monopoly. Imagine each county having more than one legal system, you belong to one group, and they provide you with the services. If there is a dispute from another group, they wouldn't use your judge because that's biased, you wouldn't use their judge because that's biased. Therefore both parties would have to pick a third group that has no interest in either party, their only interest is maintaining their integrity with the market by being neutral. If the third party failed to be neutral and just, people would leave that group and join another one.
You'd have market judges and jury's, not government judges and jury's. The free market holds the monopoly of force.
Mark advocated for the elimination of police in favor of private security forces.
doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:33 pm
PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:31 pm
doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:09 pm
Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm
A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
I don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?
Anyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.
So what's to keep my better funded and equipped security force from just overrunning a less worthy competitor? In the case of a property dispute would that not just default back to law of the jungle?
Tomfoolery and Tech, have also frequently made statements that they are anarcho capitalists and favor wholesale elimination of government.
I'm for property rights, rule of law, liberty etc. all those things you advocate for...but I see things from a different angle. How do these quotes from Thomas Paines work strike you?
Liberty and Property are words expressing all those of our possessions which are not of an intellectual nature. There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe--such as the earth,air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property--theinvention of men.
In the latter, equality is impossible; for to distribute it equally it would be necessary that all should have contributed in the same proportion, which can never be the case; and this being the case, every individual would hold on to his own property, as his right share. Equality of natural property is the subject of this little essay. Every individual in the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kindof property, or its equivalent.
It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.
But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that parable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.
Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.
It is deducible, as well from the nature of the thing as from all the stories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing, as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may credited in probable things, were owners of land.
Their property consisted, as is always enumerated in flocks and herds, they traveled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also show that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property.
There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made.
The value of the improvement so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that time, as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But there are, nevertheless, distinct species of rights, and will continue to be, so long as the earth endures.
It is only by tracing things to their origin that we can gain rightful ideas of them, and it is by gaining such ideas that we, discover the boundary that divides right from wrong, and teaches every man to know his own. I have entitled this tract "Agrarian Justice" to distinguish it from "Agrarian Law."
Nothing could be more unjust than agrarian law in a country improved by cultivation; for though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor of it in its natural state, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor of cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no owner. While, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his.
I kid, you're all aces.