6 ms·

Exactly. I only have to worry about being declared a criminal by one rather than [arbitrary number] of groups that I have literally no control over.

baddox 13y ago
You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. Your claim is like saying that you'd rather there only be a single restaurant available rather than a group of restaurants, because then you only have to worry about one restaurant poisoning you or otherwise providing bad service.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  > You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. I'm sorry, a competitive market of private organizations trying to lynch me gives me control... how?
  - baddox 13y ago
    In informal language, the market chooses winners and losers by "voting with their dollars." Obviously, no single individual has absolute control over any aspect of society in either system.
    - mden 13y ago
      I'm not sure I understand how that gives you personally more control. It seems to give more control to whoever wants to hurt you as he is the one purchasing the services. So with one body of force, I only need to worry about them coming after me, but with multiple bodies, I have less control as any one of them can come after me (even worse, without my knowledge of their existence in the first place). What am I missing?
      - baddox 13y ago
        > I'm not sure I understand how that gives you personally more control. Because you don't pay for the services you don't want, unlike with government. Government can decide to come after you and hurt you, after a lifetime of taking a large portion of your income. Again, it's just like any market. Obviously one individual doesn't have direct control over what bread a supermarket stocks, but a competitive market of grocery stores will lead to grocery stores stocking bread in an attempt to meet the demand of its customers. In that sense, you clearly have more control over your local break market than you would if all grocery stores were controlled centrally by government.
        Nursie 13y ago
        But you may still be subject to someone else's concepts of justice, with no control over that at all. It removes even the illusion of democratic control and makes you subject to the whims of others, especially if they have more money.
        baddox 13y ago
        > But you may still be subject to someone else's concepts of justice, with no control over that at all. That sounds like the current state of all governments, unless you're one of the tiny portion of society that gets to decide what government does. > It removes even the illusion of democratic control and makes you subject to the whims of others, especially if they have more money. I don't desire democratic control or the illusion thereof. In fact, democratic control "makes you subject to the whims of others, especially if they have more money," so I don't understand why you implied a difference between the two.
        Nursie 13y ago
        If they're the same that doesn't make one superior to the other. QED.
- tinco 13y ago
  This libertarian polycentric government system is not like having multiple restaurants to choose from. To me it sounds like you're at one restaurant (the place you live at), and there's multiple cooks, instead of choosing they are going to decide what food is best for you (they all cook different kinds of poison food), and compete with each other over who gets to give you the food. If that's not how the libertarians envision it, and you can actually choose what government you want by actually moving into one governments influence (so you are without the influence of another) then what you describe is basically Europe. Is Europe the libertarian dream? (Ironically, in Europe there is the problem of too many inhabitants of poor more liberal (corrupt/lawless) countries migrating to rich euro-socialist countries)
  - baddox 13y ago
    I don't speak for all "libertarians," but the way I envision it is that it's precisely like restaurants. In other words, anyone can start a restaurant anywhere they choose that offers any services they choose with any restrictions (geographical, etc.), and any individuals can choose whether to pay for any services that are made available to them. Certainly some restaurants will only be available in certain regions, either because physical distance makes providing the service impractical, or the restaurant chooses to only serve customers in one region. It's also very possible that one region won't have any restaurants of a certain type which you like (there weren't any Indian restaurants where I grew up in rural Missouri). If that is sufficiently important to make you move to another region, then you are free to. Of course, you are also free to open an Indian restaurant in that area. But there is no restriction (other than economical) on the number of restaurants that can simultaneously offer services to one particular region.
    - tinco 13y ago
      (Note, I'm not dismissing libertarianism, I just want to understand this idea) I understand the public services part of the idea, but the public services is not what I hear libertarians complain about. What I hear complains about are the public restrictions, and their enforcements. Suppose I live in Birmingham Alabama, and I do not want to be mugged. I would want to subscribe to the restaurant that offers me protection from muggers. But these muggers are smart, they subscribe to the restaurant that do not do anything to muggers. What happens now? Will my restaurant use force to protect me from them, infringing on the rights of the muggers? Or will they simply not be able to offer such a service? The result of that would be that a mugger simply is an outcast as no restaurant would openly service muggers?
- corford 13y ago
  "You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups." In other words gangs? Are you seriously suggesting that we devolve back to paying protection money to the most "competitive" mafia family? What happens when one family finally emerges as the winner? Whoops... you're back to a monopoly only this time you can't vote them out because they'll murder you. Christ. Some days I love reading HN and other days I feel like I'm looking through a window to a childishly naive bizarro world.
- dreamfactory2 13y ago
  Let's all build private roads and railway systems for every corporate entity while we're at it.

baddox 13y ago

You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. Your claim is like saying that you'd rather there only be a single restaurant available rather than a group of restaurants, because then you only have to worry about one restaurant poisoning you or otherwise providing bad service.

ceejayoz 13y ago
> You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. I'm sorry, a competitive market of private organizations trying to lynch me gives me control... how?
- baddox 13y ago
  In informal language, the market chooses winners and losers by "voting with their dollars." Obviously, no single individual has absolute control over any aspect of society in either system.
  - mden 13y ago
    I'm not sure I understand how that gives you personally more control. It seems to give more control to whoever wants to hurt you as he is the one purchasing the services. So with one body of force, I only need to worry about them coming after me, but with multiple bodies, I have less control as any one of them can come after me (even worse, without my knowledge of their existence in the first place). What am I missing?
    - baddox 13y ago
      > I'm not sure I understand how that gives you personally more control. Because you don't pay for the services you don't want, unlike with government. Government can decide to come after you and hurt you, after a lifetime of taking a large portion of your income. Again, it's just like any market. Obviously one individual doesn't have direct control over what bread a supermarket stocks, but a competitive market of grocery stores will lead to grocery stores stocking bread in an attempt to meet the demand of its customers. In that sense, you clearly have more control over your local break market than you would if all grocery stores were controlled centrally by government.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        But you may still be subject to someone else's concepts of justice, with no control over that at all. It removes even the illusion of democratic control and makes you subject to the whims of others, especially if they have more money.
        baddox 13y ago
        > But you may still be subject to someone else's concepts of justice, with no control over that at all. That sounds like the current state of all governments, unless you're one of the tiny portion of society that gets to decide what government does. > It removes even the illusion of democratic control and makes you subject to the whims of others, especially if they have more money. I don't desire democratic control or the illusion thereof. In fact, democratic control "makes you subject to the whims of others, especially if they have more money," so I don't understand why you implied a difference between the two.
        Nursie 13y ago
        If they're the same that doesn't make one superior to the other. QED.
tinco 13y ago
This libertarian polycentric government system is not like having multiple restaurants to choose from. To me it sounds like you're at one restaurant (the place you live at), and there's multiple cooks, instead of choosing they are going to decide what food is best for you (they all cook different kinds of poison food), and compete with each other over who gets to give you the food. If that's not how the libertarians envision it, and you can actually choose what government you want by actually moving into one governments influence (so you are without the influence of another) then what you describe is basically Europe. Is Europe the libertarian dream? (Ironically, in Europe there is the problem of too many inhabitants of poor more liberal (corrupt/lawless) countries migrating to rich euro-socialist countries)
- baddox 13y ago
  I don't speak for all "libertarians," but the way I envision it is that it's precisely like restaurants. In other words, anyone can start a restaurant anywhere they choose that offers any services they choose with any restrictions (geographical, etc.), and any individuals can choose whether to pay for any services that are made available to them. Certainly some restaurants will only be available in certain regions, either because physical distance makes providing the service impractical, or the restaurant chooses to only serve customers in one region. It's also very possible that one region won't have any restaurants of a certain type which you like (there weren't any Indian restaurants where I grew up in rural Missouri). If that is sufficiently important to make you move to another region, then you are free to. Of course, you are also free to open an Indian restaurant in that area. But there is no restriction (other than economical) on the number of restaurants that can simultaneously offer services to one particular region.
  - tinco 13y ago
    (Note, I'm not dismissing libertarianism, I just want to understand this idea) I understand the public services part of the idea, but the public services is not what I hear libertarians complain about. What I hear complains about are the public restrictions, and their enforcements. Suppose I live in Birmingham Alabama, and I do not want to be mugged. I would want to subscribe to the restaurant that offers me protection from muggers. But these muggers are smart, they subscribe to the restaurant that do not do anything to muggers. What happens now? Will my restaurant use force to protect me from them, infringing on the rights of the muggers? Or will they simply not be able to offer such a service? The result of that would be that a mugger simply is an outcast as no restaurant would openly service muggers?
corford 13y ago
"You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups." In other words gangs? Are you seriously suggesting that we devolve back to paying protection money to the most "competitive" mafia family? What happens when one family finally emerges as the winner? Whoops... you're back to a monopoly only this time you can't vote them out because they'll murder you. Christ. Some days I love reading HN and other days I feel like I'm looking through a window to a childishly naive bizarro world.
dreamfactory2 13y ago
Let's all build private roads and railway systems for every corporate entity while we're at it.