3 ms·

As a libertarian, I'd say yes, but I don't want to start a shitstorm, so...

gottorf 3y ago
Even a libertarian would agree that some small level of taxation is necessary to fund the apparatus of the state that would enforce property rights and contracts, safeguard the border from invasion, and whatnot. One can only dream of a time and place where government is only funded by a strict land-value tax, though...
- churchill 3y ago
  Lol - if you study libertarianism deeply, you'll find out most of these edge cases you think a centralized government is needed can be provided by a free market. In the Private Production of Defense, Hoppe argues that property owners and businesses can buy covergae from insurance agencies who will then have a vested interest in keeping their houses and communities crime-free. Likewise, in a contract republic (or a charter city) individuals will agree to a neutral third party to arbitrate between them if they ever have a disagreement. This can be anyone from a spiritual authority they both respect, an authority in their industry, or a private court that's built a reputation for fairness, promising to pay the private court a percentage of any arbitration settlement they bring before it. And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party. In a contract republic, individuals will be free to have their case judged by any judge, as long as both parties agree beforehand. Opening the justice market will make sure crime gets punished, expedite justice, and reduce its cost.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Lol - if you study libertarianism deeply, you'll find out most of these edge cases you think a centralized government is needed can be provided by a free market. In the Private Production of Defense, Hoppe argues that property owners and businesses can buy covergae from insurance agencies who will then have a vested interest in keeping their houses and communities crime-free. If, instead of studying libertarian theory, you study history deeply, you’ll find that there is no magical distinction between private actors and government, and that when you rely on non-governmental actors to provide things like defense without a more powerful government to constrain them, that positions allows them to become a government. > And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party. No one wants a neutral third party, everyone wants someone that is biased towards them but which the opposing party can be conned into believing is not. Neutral is just what you would get, were such a market viable, when both sides happen to have equal success. (Which outside of naive assumptions about perfect information, is unlikely to be normal in practice.)
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    There are different libertarian philosophies. You are describing anarchists.

Even a libertarian would agree that some small level of taxation is necessary to fund the apparatus of the state that would enforce property rights and contracts, safeguard the border from invasion, and whatnot. One can only dream of a time and place where government is only funded by a strict land-value tax, though...

churchill 3y ago
Lol - if you study libertarianism deeply, you'll find out most of these edge cases you think a centralized government is needed can be provided by a free market. In the Private Production of Defense, Hoppe argues that property owners and businesses can buy covergae from insurance agencies who will then have a vested interest in keeping their houses and communities crime-free. Likewise, in a contract republic (or a charter city) individuals will agree to a neutral third party to arbitrate between them if they ever have a disagreement. This can be anyone from a spiritual authority they both respect, an authority in their industry, or a private court that's built a reputation for fairness, promising to pay the private court a percentage of any arbitration settlement they bring before it. And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party. In a contract republic, individuals will be free to have their case judged by any judge, as long as both parties agree beforehand. Opening the justice market will make sure crime gets punished, expedite justice, and reduce its cost.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Lol - if you study libertarianism deeply, you'll find out most of these edge cases you think a centralized government is needed can be provided by a free market. In the Private Production of Defense, Hoppe argues that property owners and businesses can buy covergae from insurance agencies who will then have a vested interest in keeping their houses and communities crime-free. If, instead of studying libertarian theory, you study history deeply, you’ll find that there is no magical distinction between private actors and government, and that when you rely on non-governmental actors to provide things like defense without a more powerful government to constrain them, that positions allows them to become a government. > And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party. No one wants a neutral third party, everyone wants someone that is biased towards them but which the opposing party can be conned into believing is not. Neutral is just what you would get, were such a market viable, when both sides happen to have equal success. (Which outside of naive assumptions about perfect information, is unlikely to be normal in practice.)
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  There are different libertarian philosophies. You are describing anarchists.