4 ms·

The difference is very very simple: the government has the legitimized use of force. Private corporations don't. A private corporation can't force me to do anyt

by muninn_ 10y ago

The difference is very very simple: the government has the legitimized use of force. Private corporations don't. A private corporation can't force me to do anything. Only the government can. If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal. I'll also point out that your comments about libertarianism seem to be misguided. Libertarians are the first to defend constitutional rights, because those rights include core, fundamental libertarian tenets, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I don't like seeing them mischaracterized.

zzzeek 10y ago
> A private corporation can't force me to do anything. unless they are paid to be the local police force. > If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. then they would bring much larger guns. > I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal. you can vote. With Blackwater in charge, you cannot (unless you are wealthy and powerful, of course).
- muninn_ 10y ago
  All of that is a result of government action and the government hiring private corporations, not private corporations acting on their own.
  - zzzeek 10y ago
    nonsense. Let's go to libertarian land. There's no government for internal affairs. We live in a town. Are there any police? No police? Really? Of course there are police. The townspeople got tired of all the poors breaking into their houses and shops and whatnot, didn't feel like all individually standing outside holding guard all night, got together to pool their money and hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into. And that police force is easily corruptible by the wealthiest members of the town who decided they don't like you very much. It's just like software. Any community needs to have some degree of shared resources, and in the absense of government this leads them to "roll your own". You're in the same reinventing the wheel problem except real lives are at stake.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      This has nothing to do with libertarianism nor serves as a coherent critique of it. In fact, some of your points are things that we see readily in governments today. As an example, many corrupt police officers exist in many government systems, including western countries. A critique of libertarianism based on such things is not well thought out.
      - zzzeek 10y ago
        we live in a democracy. In Ferguson, police were abusive and corrupt. Mass protests followed, media attention was gathered, changes were made. In libertarian land, mass protests against police corruption and abuse occur, the media is not allowed to enter, the protestors are all shot on sight. The end. The burden is on libertarians to explain exactly why this would not happen in the absense of any democratically elected government.
        muninn_ 10y ago
        Or maybe it doesn't happen. In hypothetical land anything goes!
        consentist 10y ago
        > The burden is on libertarians to explain exactly why this would not happen in the absense of any democratically elected government. This is why libertarian constitution is designed to be simple and objective, as much as possible. Corruption can happen anywhere but libertarian governments would be among the last to have it. The philosophy also happen to rely on technology to enforce the constitution which rules out subjectiveness/corruption considerably. Also though there are many variations in libertarianism but none of it will interfere between two consenting adults (such as buying drugs etc). Thus no wars on drugs.
        zzzeek 10y ago
        > Corruption can happen anywhere but libertarian governments would be among the last to have it. which, as pointed out, is completely hypothetical and additionally defies common sense. burden is on libertarians to prove this extraordinary claim. unfortunately, most non-libertarians don't know/care enough about the whole issue to even demand such proof which is why we are stuck with all this "soft" libertarianism roaming about causing great damage.

by muninn_ 10y ago

zzzeek 10y ago

> A private corporation can't force me to do anything. unless they are paid to be the local police force. > If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. then they would bring much larger guns. > I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal. you can vote. With Blackwater in charge, you cannot (unless you are wealthy and powerful, of course).

muninn_ 10y ago
All of that is a result of government action and the government hiring private corporations, not private corporations acting on their own.
- zzzeek 10y ago
  nonsense. Let's go to libertarian land. There's no government for internal affairs. We live in a town. Are there any police? No police? Really? Of course there are police. The townspeople got tired of all the poors breaking into their houses and shops and whatnot, didn't feel like all individually standing outside holding guard all night, got together to pool their money and hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into. And that police force is easily corruptible by the wealthiest members of the town who decided they don't like you very much. It's just like software. Any community needs to have some degree of shared resources, and in the absense of government this leads them to "roll your own". You're in the same reinventing the wheel problem except real lives are at stake.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    This has nothing to do with libertarianism nor serves as a coherent critique of it. In fact, some of your points are things that we see readily in governments today. As an example, many corrupt police officers exist in many government systems, including western countries. A critique of libertarianism based on such things is not well thought out.
    - zzzeek 10y ago
      we live in a democracy. In Ferguson, police were abusive and corrupt. Mass protests followed, media attention was gathered, changes were made. In libertarian land, mass protests against police corruption and abuse occur, the media is not allowed to enter, the protestors are all shot on sight. The end. The burden is on libertarians to explain exactly why this would not happen in the absense of any democratically elected government.
      - muninn_ 10y ago
        Or maybe it doesn't happen. In hypothetical land anything goes!
      - consentist 10y ago
        > The burden is on libertarians to explain exactly why this would not happen in the absense of any democratically elected government. This is why libertarian constitution is designed to be simple and objective, as much as possible. Corruption can happen anywhere but libertarian governments would be among the last to have it. The philosophy also happen to rely on technology to enforce the constitution which rules out subjectiveness/corruption considerably. Also though there are many variations in libertarianism but none of it will interfere between two consenting adults (such as buying drugs etc). Thus no wars on drugs.
        zzzeek 10y ago
        > Corruption can happen anywhere but libertarian governments would be among the last to have it. which, as pointed out, is completely hypothetical and additionally defies common sense. burden is on libertarians to prove this extraordinary claim. unfortunately, most non-libertarians don't know/care enough about the whole issue to even demand such proof which is why we are stuck with all this "soft" libertarianism roaming about causing great damage.