3 ms·

> And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. Most countries have a benefits system which allows th

> And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. Most countries have a benefits system which allows the poor a minimum level of quality of life. Additionally, cars, shoes, and computers, are all available second-hand for much reduced prices, because of consumerism. That is how they can afford these things. Are you suggesting that the poor should only be allowed to access lesser court systems than the rich? Why don't you look up fire services in the past - if you did not have the money, which some did not, they would let your house burn to the ground. Why don't you look up medicine today - in the countries where the Government does not provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, the poor regularly die of very treatable diseases. Your theory that everybody will be able to afford what they need does not work out. > It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. We have a history of this happening. It still happens in many countries which have weak or compliant court systems, India for example. I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world.

snitko 13y ago
> I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts. Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.
- vertex-four 13y ago
  > In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
  - snitko 13y ago
    The solution is to encourage everyone to become richer, not equalize people. If you argue that rich people should not get better treatment in court, then why not argue for the rich people to buy the same cars as everyone else, the same houses, the same clothes and same everything else. You see, what you're arguing is selective communism. I for one have no problem with the fact that rich people get better protection from the police, provided they made their money honestly. If you truly wanted equality, you'd be arguing for lesser or no government intervention into the economy, so that people could easily and freely start businesses without the need to acquire licences and red tape. In the words of Milton Friedman: "If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that [free market]. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
    - vertex-four 13y ago
      Some things are necessities for a stable, non-violent civilisation where everybody can live in relative peace. Cars are not included in that. Shelter is, but only a minimum level of shelter is necessary, and anything above that is discretionary spending, which I have no real problem with so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. Thank you for your statement that you literally could not care less about how people with less money than you are treated. I've been in a country where the vast majority of businesses never touch Government red tape. They don't pay taxes, the Government doesn't know they exist. Anyone who owns property could easily start up such a business. It still has massive poverty issues. I've lived there for years. I never want to go back. It would be unsafe for me to go back; due to a medical condition that I have, it is very likely that I would be discriminated against, and very possibly raped, with no recourse. And it'd be worse for a native.

snitko 13y ago

> I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts. Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.

vertex-four 13y ago
> In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
- snitko 13y ago
  The solution is to encourage everyone to become richer, not equalize people. If you argue that rich people should not get better treatment in court, then why not argue for the rich people to buy the same cars as everyone else, the same houses, the same clothes and same everything else. You see, what you're arguing is selective communism. I for one have no problem with the fact that rich people get better protection from the police, provided they made their money honestly. If you truly wanted equality, you'd be arguing for lesser or no government intervention into the economy, so that people could easily and freely start businesses without the need to acquire licences and red tape. In the words of Milton Friedman: "If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that [free market]. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
  - vertex-four 13y ago
    Some things are necessities for a stable, non-violent civilisation where everybody can live in relative peace. Cars are not included in that. Shelter is, but only a minimum level of shelter is necessary, and anything above that is discretionary spending, which I have no real problem with so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. Thank you for your statement that you literally could not care less about how people with less money than you are treated. I've been in a country where the vast majority of businesses never touch Government red tape. They don't pay taxes, the Government doesn't know they exist. Anyone who owns property could easily start up such a business. It still has massive poverty issues. I've lived there for years. I never want to go back. It would be unsafe for me to go back; due to a medical condition that I have, it is very likely that I would be discriminated against, and very possibly raped, with no recourse. And it'd be worse for a native.