8 ms·

All of that is a result of government action and the government hiring private corporations, not private corporations acting on their own.

by muninn_ 10y ago

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.
        consentist 10y ago
        My claim is: highly objective criminal-code/constitution ==> low corruption. Do you disagree with this ? Any couter examples. Note: "jailtime += 20yrs if skin_color==black" is objective but not libertarian.
- consentist 10y ago
  > ... hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into Violates NAP. Cant Happen. But the state police does have constitution-granted right to confine you for repeatedly violating NAP such as by breaking into people's homes.
  - zzzeek 10y ago
    NAP by definition is an ethical stance. Your claim is that non-ethical behavior in all humans will vanish when governments no longer exist (going against literally all of written history). Burden of proof.
    - consentist 10y ago
      > NAP by definition is an ethical stance. Following NAP is constitutional requirement irrelevent to ones ethics.
      - zzzeek 10y ago
        who enforces it?
        consentist 10y ago
        Police.
        zzzeek 10y ago
        this entire subthread is entertaining the notion that a true libertarian society would have no government capable of using force against the citizenry. If the "police" here are hired as a private contractor, who is hiring them? the government ? (then you have government coercion). Random small communities pooling together? (then you have the wealthiest and most powerful citizens owning the police. in other parts of the world these people are called "warlords"). edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord#Warlordism_as_the_dominant_political_order_of_pre-state_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord#Warlordism_as_the_domi... > The other major consideration in categorizing warlords is through the lens of history. Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies until the modern state became globally ubiquitous. Often warlord governance in pre-modern state history was constructed along tribal or kinship lines and was congruent with early perceptions of "nation." In colonial empires warlords served in both cooperative political capacities and as leaders of rebellions. In modern states the presence of warlords is often seen as an indicator of state weakness or failure. American historian David G. Herrmann noted, "Warlordism is the default condition of humanity."[5] So, that's the highly "pure" form of libertarianism discussed in this thread (e.g., no government). A highly libertarian state is by definition very "weak" and we can observe that warlordism rises out of such states (as common sense would suggest in any case). Been there, done that.
- StreamBright 10y ago
  And why does anybody think that a state run police is the best? It is like anything else: - transportation - health care - financial system Run by government guarantees that we get the lowest quality most expensive shittiest solution you ever dream of.

All of that is a result of government action and the government hiring private corporations, not private corporations acting on their own.

by 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.
      - consentist 10y ago
        My claim is: highly objective criminal-code/constitution ==> low corruption. Do you disagree with this ? Any couter examples. Note: "jailtime += 20yrs if skin_color==black" is objective but not libertarian.
consentist 10y ago
> ... hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into Violates NAP. Cant Happen. But the state police does have constitution-granted right to confine you for repeatedly violating NAP such as by breaking into people's homes.
- zzzeek 10y ago
  NAP by definition is an ethical stance. Your claim is that non-ethical behavior in all humans will vanish when governments no longer exist (going against literally all of written history). Burden of proof.
  - consentist 10y ago
    > NAP by definition is an ethical stance. Following NAP is constitutional requirement irrelevent to ones ethics.
    - zzzeek 10y ago
      who enforces it?
      - consentist 10y ago
        Police.
        zzzeek 10y ago
        this entire subthread is entertaining the notion that a true libertarian society would have no government capable of using force against the citizenry. If the "police" here are hired as a private contractor, who is hiring them? the government ? (then you have government coercion). Random small communities pooling together? (then you have the wealthiest and most powerful citizens owning the police. in other parts of the world these people are called "warlords"). edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord#Warlordism_as_the_dominant_political_order_of_pre-state_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord#Warlordism_as_the_domi... > The other major consideration in categorizing warlords is through the lens of history. Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies until the modern state became globally ubiquitous. Often warlord governance in pre-modern state history was constructed along tribal or kinship lines and was congruent with early perceptions of "nation." In colonial empires warlords served in both cooperative political capacities and as leaders of rebellions. In modern states the presence of warlords is often seen as an indicator of state weakness or failure. American historian David G. Herrmann noted, "Warlordism is the default condition of humanity."[5] So, that's the highly "pure" form of libertarianism discussed in this thread (e.g., no government). A highly libertarian state is by definition very "weak" and we can observe that warlordism rises out of such states (as common sense would suggest in any case). Been there, done that.
StreamBright 10y ago
And why does anybody think that a state run police is the best? It is like anything else: - transportation - health care - financial system Run by government guarantees that we get the lowest quality most expensive shittiest solution you ever dream of.