4 ms·

> being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. Everything should be shielded from government i

> being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. Everything should be shielded from government interference. That's the point. > Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access. Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, or monopoly privileges to ISPs or any other service providers.

mindslight 9y ago
> Everything should be shielded from government interference. That's the point. Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an IRS that is unfettered by Congress. > Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, monopoly privileges to ISPs. The problem is that these things have already been granted, and these government-founded corporations are basically wriggling out of their charters (/contractual obligations) more and more.
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an IRS that is unfettered by Congress. "Libertarian IRS" has as much meaning as "vegan foie gras." I have no idea how to parse this statement.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Actually, the Romans put taxation up for bid, tax farming. Isn't that a libertarian IRS? The winning bidder bid the highest rate and then was granted the right to extract it from the province. Cicero made his legal bones prosecuting Verres who had plundered Sicily. Yes, it was a province but Sicilians were also Roman citizens and it was a Roman province. Verres actually crucified Sicilians at the beach facing Rome. Not a nice guy.
    - Cyberdog 9y ago
      I'm so confused. Are you saying that a libertarian society would permit people to arbitrarily tax others? Because they gained the right to do so somehow? Do you actually understand anything about libertarianism at all?
      - CalChris 9y ago
        I understand plenty about libertarianism. The Rome example was a digression about taxation. In Rome, the taxman was not the state but rather a sole proprietor more akin to a corporation. Did that make his over reach any better? No. I have no idea what a libertarian society would do since it is a theoretical construct. You could have a libertarian city or even state but somehow practice falls well short of theory. Y'all prefer to live here rather than there. I too prefer to live here. Must be a reason for that. You can't imagine a libertarian IRS. Yeah, well it does sound kinda funny. But then I can't imagine a libertarian corporation either and again, I understand plenty about libertarianism. I only understand Delaware C corporations in each of the 50 states.
CalChris 9y ago
So by creating a corporation (royal charter), you've robbed Joe of the ability to sue the owners of BigCo for his losses for BigCo's failure to pay and that should be shielded from government interference. That's your libertarianism? Really?
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  First, there are no corporations/royal charters in "my libertarianism." We've been over this. Secondly, no, if BigCo has defrauded Joe, Joe has every right to sue for restitution. I have no idea where you got the idea that I'd disagree with this concept from what I'm saying. Again, I suspect you're over-thinking things.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    If there are no corporations in your libertarianism then your libertarianism doesn't apply to net neutrality ... which is pretty much what I said up at the top of this thread, that I don't see a libertarian argument for net neutrality. As for my BigCo example, yes, you can sue BigCo but you cannot sue BigCo's owners. They are shielded from personal liability for BigCo's debts. This actually happens in the real world with contractors. Plumbing123 LLC owned by Low Life Larry goes out of business to be followed by Plumbing124 LLC also created by Low Life Larry.
    - Cyberdog 9y ago
      > I don't see a libertarian argument for net neutrality. Do you see a libertarian argument against legislation? If so, then that's all you need to see, because that's all there is to see.

mindslight 9y ago

> Everything should be shielded from government interference. That's the point. Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an IRS that is unfettered by Congress. > Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, monopoly privileges to ISPs. The problem is that these things have already been granted, and these government-founded corporations are basically wriggling out of their charters (/contractual obligations) more and more.

Cyberdog 9y ago
> Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an IRS that is unfettered by Congress. "Libertarian IRS" has as much meaning as "vegan foie gras." I have no idea how to parse this statement.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Actually, the Romans put taxation up for bid, tax farming. Isn't that a libertarian IRS? The winning bidder bid the highest rate and then was granted the right to extract it from the province. Cicero made his legal bones prosecuting Verres who had plundered Sicily. Yes, it was a province but Sicilians were also Roman citizens and it was a Roman province. Verres actually crucified Sicilians at the beach facing Rome. Not a nice guy.
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    I'm so confused. Are you saying that a libertarian society would permit people to arbitrarily tax others? Because they gained the right to do so somehow? Do you actually understand anything about libertarianism at all?
    - CalChris 9y ago
      I understand plenty about libertarianism. The Rome example was a digression about taxation. In Rome, the taxman was not the state but rather a sole proprietor more akin to a corporation. Did that make his over reach any better? No. I have no idea what a libertarian society would do since it is a theoretical construct. You could have a libertarian city or even state but somehow practice falls well short of theory. Y'all prefer to live here rather than there. I too prefer to live here. Must be a reason for that. You can't imagine a libertarian IRS. Yeah, well it does sound kinda funny. But then I can't imagine a libertarian corporation either and again, I understand plenty about libertarianism. I only understand Delaware C corporations in each of the 50 states.

CalChris 9y ago

So by creating a corporation (royal charter), you've robbed Joe of the ability to sue the owners of BigCo for his losses for BigCo's failure to pay and that should be shielded from government interference. That's your libertarianism? Really?

Cyberdog 9y ago
First, there are no corporations/royal charters in "my libertarianism." We've been over this. Secondly, no, if BigCo has defrauded Joe, Joe has every right to sue for restitution. I have no idea where you got the idea that I'd disagree with this concept from what I'm saying. Again, I suspect you're over-thinking things.
- CalChris 9y ago
  If there are no corporations in your libertarianism then your libertarianism doesn't apply to net neutrality ... which is pretty much what I said up at the top of this thread, that I don't see a libertarian argument for net neutrality. As for my BigCo example, yes, you can sue BigCo but you cannot sue BigCo's owners. They are shielded from personal liability for BigCo's debts. This actually happens in the real world with contractors. Plumbing123 LLC owned by Low Life Larry goes out of business to be followed by Plumbing124 LLC also created by Low Life Larry.
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    > I don't see a libertarian argument for net neutrality. Do you see a libertarian argument against legislation? If so, then that's all you need to see, because that's all there is to see.