The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#176
#176
Anybody see her call libertarians "pussies" on Stossel? LMFAO

anigif_enhanced-buzz-5219-1361551870-0.gif
 
#177
#177
Today Walter Williams is testifying to the S Carolina judiciary committee in support of the constitutionality of state nullification.
 
#179
#179
This does a pretty good job of explaining Anarcho/Capitalism.

Mises Daily | Mises Institute

Sooner or later, we will all hopefully come to realize that anything government can do, a truly free market can do better. Through peaceful, voluntary interactions.

It's my hope this thread can lead to some interesting discussions.
 
Last edited:
#180
#180
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
This does a pretty good job of explaining Anarcho/Capitalism.

Mises Daily | Mises Institute

Sooner or later, we will all hopefully come to realize that anything government can do, a truly free market can do better. Through peaceful, voluntary interactions.

It's my hope this thread can lead to some interesting discussions.
Click to expand...

so go back to the days before the FDA required companies to put the contents on the label. I hear that cyanide and arsenic add real nice flavoring to food. And that whole asbestos thing, sure am glad the government didn't look into that and its links to cancer. I also miss lead pipes and paint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#182
#182
LouderVol said:
so go back to the days before the FDA required companies to put the contents on the label. I hear that cyanide and arsenic add real nice flavoring to food. And that whole asbestos thing, sure am glad the government didn't look into that and its links to cancer. I also miss lead pipes and paint.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, government fixed all those things? Or was it the market in action, by people refusing to do business with those folks who would not offer a quality product?
 
#183
#183
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So let me get this straight, government fixed all those things? Or was it the market in action, by people refusing to do business with those folks who would not offer a quality product?
Click to expand...

it was the government requiring them to change. You think businesses spent millions of dollars investigating whether or not their products are safe. As soon as you remove the gun to the head (government) the businesses go back to lying about what is in their stuff. and most people would be none the wiser. the only reason testing goes on now is because it is required. businesses care about the bottom dollar and if that means you eat fish with more mercury in them than a (old) thermometer so be it. basically as long as their product doesn't kill the user instantly they will continue to make it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#184
#184
even today with the requirements companies are producing products that are hazardous. Look at Toyota and seat belts, and numerous car manufacturers who have various recalls. You think that goes away if the gov isn't looking over their shoulder?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#185
#185
Seems like part of why you don't trust/like the government because they make money off of us, taxes; yet you are willing to trust corporations because they make money off of us.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#186
#186
LouderVol said:
even today with the requirements companies are producing products that are hazardous. Look at Toyota and seat belts, and numerous car manufacturers who have various recalls. You think that goes away if the gov isn't looking over their shoulder?
Click to expand...

In the 70's, Ford decided it was cheaper to deal with potential lawsuits over exploding Pintos rather than fix a design flaw.
 
#187
#187
LouderVol said:
even today with the requirements companies are producing products that are hazardous. Look at Toyota and seat belts, and numerous car manufacturers who have various recalls. You think that goes away if the gov isn't looking over their shoulder?
Click to expand...

If they'd like to remain profitable I do. As soon as word gets out that their vehicles aren't up to snuff, people will stop buying their products. Why would you need government for that?
If someone is injured, that's a matter for the courts. In this case, in an AnCap society, it would be a private court that both parties agree to beforehand.

I'm glad you used the term "gun in the room" because that's exactly what government is.
 
#188
#188
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If they'd like to remain profitable I do. As soon as word gets out that their vehicles aren't up to snuff, people will stop buying their products. Why would you need government for that?
If someone is injured, that's a matter for the courts. In this case, in an AnCap society, it would be a private court that both parties agree to beforehand.

I'm glad you used the term "gun in the room" because that's exactly what government is.
Click to expand...

there aren't courts for this already????? we have too much litigation as it is already and you want to give the lawyers more power????

corporations will, and already do,spend millions if not billions of dollars advertising their products and the few good things about them while ignoring the bad, it would be worse and people would buy into it, as they already do, even more because at the end of the new miracle pill commercial they wouldn't have to spend ten seconds covering the side effects.
 
#189
#189
LouderVol said:
there aren't courts for this already????? we have too much litigation as it is already and you want to give the lawyers more power????

corporations will, and already do,spend millions if not billions of dollars advertising their products and the few good things about them while ignoring the bad, it would be worse and people would buy into it, as they already do, even more because at the end of the new miracle pill commercial they wouldn't have to spend ten seconds covering the side effects.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we have courts for it already. So you can see how it would work. Minus the government force of course.

You do understand that corporations are a creation of government right?

Mises Daily | Mises Institute
 
#190
#190
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yeah, we have courts for it already. So you can see how it would work. Minus the government force of course.

You do understand that corporations are a creation of government right?

Mises Daily | Mises Institute
Click to expand...

1. the courts (civil) don't solve jack
2. what happens when the offender is broke and has no money?
3. how is the judge a dependable figure? corporation/rich people slip them some money and game over for us small guys. no oversight.
4. lets say you and I get in a fist fight and I beat the crap out of you, or you beat the crap out of me, one of us sues. whats to stop the other from continuing to beat the other one up while we wait on the court system?
5. how does court enforce its rulings?

i could go on but this is what i quickly came up with.

and what is the point about corporations and government being tied to each other? you think they dissolve if the government is? the governments busted up the monopolies before WWII (can't remember exact dates) and they need to do it again, no one else can.
 
#191
#191
LouderVol said:
1. the courts (civil) don't solve jack
2. what happens when the offender is broke and has no money?
3. how is the judge a dependable figure? corporation/rich people slip them some money and game over for us small guys. no oversight.
4. lets say you and I get in a fist fight and I beat the crap out of you, or you beat the crap out of me, one of us sues. whats to stop the other from continuing to beat the other one up while we wait on the court system?
5. how does court enforce its rulings?

i could go on but this is what i quickly came up with.

and what is the point about corporations and government being tied to each other? you think they dissolve if the government is? the governments busted up the monopolies before WWII (can't remember exact dates) and they need to do it again, no one else can.
Click to expand...

1. That's a claim, not an argument.
2. Something would be worked out depending on the debt owed. If he's broke, he still has property, or labor he could offer the plaintiff.
3. The judge being a dependable figure is an interesting question, It would be based on people with a good reputation in the area of deciding cases. Someone who is trustworthy.
It would be a market driven "business" with "customers" after all.
More on judges.
"The same would go for private judges. If a private judge were proven or even highly suspected of taking bribes or being unfair, that judge would develop a negative reputation and be far less likely to be hired by private judicial firms. These firms would want to have judges with good reputations in order to attract more customers. In a system without a monopoly, judicial firms would have to compete on the basis of reputation, consistency and fairness. Corrupt and unpredictable judges would not get very far in a free market, whereas in the State system judges often excel based on cronyism and political favoritism. In a free market, only the best judges would rise to the top."

So how would it work?

"So what role does a judge serve in private law? A judge, simply put, is someone who sells their opinion. Private judicial firms would hire judges based on their perceived fairness and their ability to be consistent in relation to accepted principles of law in a society. People would employ these firms, either by subscription services or perhaps on a case by case basis, based on the judgement of each individual. Each case would involve two parties, an accuser and an accused, and both parties would have a vested interest in receiving a fair hearing."

The above is from this link.
Lions of Liberty

pt2
Lions of Liberty
 
#192
#192
LouderVol said:
1. the courts (civil) don't solve jack
2. what happens when the offender is broke and has no money?
3. how is the judge a dependable figure? corporation/rich people slip them some money and game over for us small guys. no oversight.
4. lets say you and I get in a fist fight and I beat the crap out of you, or you beat the crap out of me, one of us sues. whats to stop the other from continuing to beat the other one up while we wait on the court system?
5. how does court enforce its rulings?

i could go on but this is what i quickly came up with.

and what is the point about corporations and government being tied to each other? you think they dissolve if the government is? the governments busted up the monopolies before WWII (can't remember exact dates) and they need to do it again, no one else can.
Click to expand...

You are arguing with the same guy that believes Mike Brown's "parents" would pony up for a private police force. Good luck my friend.
 
#193
#193
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
1. That's a claim, not an argument.
2. Something would be worked out depending on the debt owed. If he's broke, he still has property, or labor he could offer the plaintiff.
3. The judge being a dependable figure is an interesting question, It would be based on people with a good reputation in the area of deciding cases. Someone who is trustworthy.
It would be a market driven "business" with "customers" after all.
More on judges.
"The same would go for private judges. If a private judge were proven or even highly suspected of taking bribes or being unfair, that judge would develop a negative reputation and be far less likely to be hired by private judicial firms. These firms would want to have judges with good reputations in order to attract more customers. In a system without a monopoly, judicial firms would have to compete on the basis of reputation, consistency and fairness. Corrupt and unpredictable judges would not get very far in a free market, whereas in the State system judges often excel based on cronyism and political favoritism. In a free market, only the best judges would rise to the top."

So how would it work?

"So what role does a judge serve in private law? A judge, simply put, is someone who sells their opinion. Private judicial firms would hire judges based on their perceived fairness and their ability to be consistent in relation to accepted principles of law in a society. People would employ these firms, either by subscription services or perhaps on a case by case basis, based on the judgement of each individual. Each case would involve two parties, an accuser and an accused, and both parties would have a vested interest in receiving a fair hearing."

The above is from this link.
Lions of Liberty

pt2
Lions of Liberty
Click to expand...

don't know if you are ignoring 4 & 5 or if you are getting to that. but as far as the judges go it still doesn't add up. How does judge get paid? loser pays, both pay a fixed amount? what happens to a small town when only a very few judges are available, even 1, easily corruptible there. and if you think privatizing the law works, look up the Pinkertons they were the biggest it has ever gotten and was generally a terrible terrible thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#194
#194
SpaceCoastVol said:
You are arguing with the same guy that believes Mike Brown's "parents" would pony up for a private police force. Good luck my friend.
Click to expand...

i figured this to be the same as any e-fight. nobody convinces anybody else of anything. just have to fight the 'good' fight. i guess i have to call him a poopy head for this to be an official e-fight.
 
#195
#195
LouderVol said:
i figured this to be the same as any e-fight. nobody convinces anybody else of anything. just have to fight the 'good' fight. i guess i have to call him a poopy head for this to be an official e-fight.
Click to expand...


Roger the poopy head.
 
#196
#196
LouderVol said:
don't know if you are ignoring 4 & 5 or if you are getting to that. but as far as the judges go it still doesn't add up. How does judge get paid? loser pays, both pay a fixed amount? what happens to a small town when only a very few judges are available, even 1, easily corruptible there. and if you think privatizing the law works, look up the Pinkertons they were the biggest it has ever gotten and was generally a terrible terrible thing.
Click to expand...

The pinkertons existed because of state priveledge run amuck. Working for the highest bidder and breaking contracts is not what I would call private law, I'd call that a gang of thugs.

To your #4, you could subscribe to a security firm who would have your safety in their best interests. Or you could utilize self defense up to and including lethal force if you thought it called for it. (Better be able to prove it though)
Judges would be paid by subscribers of their services, as was stated in the link provided.

So sorry, your #5 the answer would be both parties would have to agree abide by the judges ruling beforehand.
 
Last edited:
#197
#197
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The pinkertons existed because of state priveledge run amuck. Working for the highest bidder and breaking contracts is not what I would call private law, I'd call that a gang of thugs.

To your #4, you could subscribe to a security firm who would have your safety in their best interests. Or you could utilize self defense up to and including lethal force if you thought it called for it. (Better be able to prove it though)
Judges would be paid by subscribers of their services, as was stated in the link provided.

So sorry, your #5 the answer would be both parties would have to agree abide by the judges ruling beforehand.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that those with a lot of money would simply "own" the security firms, mercenaries, and judges? Those with little money would be screwed. I can't imagine such a system getting off the ground.
 
#198
#198
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The pinkertons existed because of state priveledge run amuck. Working for the highest bidder and breaking contracts is not what I would call private law, I'd call that a gang of thugs.

To your #4, you could subscribe to a security firm who would have your safety in their best interests. Or you could utilize self defense up to and including lethal force if you thought it called for it. (Better be able to prove it though)
Judges would be paid by subscribers of their services, as was stated in the link provided.

So sorry, your #5 the answer would be both parties would have to agree abide by the judges ruling beforehand.
Click to expand...

as soon as you went back to a private police force it would go back here, and no reason to believe the judges would be any different. and what if I don't agree to abide by the judges decision and like beating your peaceful face in, not threatening you here going back to the hypothetical. What happens when you want a judge that I know favors your side, not strictly corrupt but biased (as all humans are) I am not going to agree to listen to him or vise versa. what happens if i get out of dodge? what happens if i have no money for a private firm to defend me or hear my case? your subscription is starting to sound a lot like taxes, you just want to argue who ends up with the money.
 
#199
#199
Danl said:
Don't you think that those with a lot of money would simply "own" the security firms, mercenaries, and judges? Those with little money would be screwed. I can't imagine such a system getting off the ground.
Click to expand...

It depends, remember, reputation would mean a lot to these firms. If everyone knew they were on the take, I imagine they'd be out of business.
 
#200
#200
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It depends, remember, reputation would mean a lot to these firms. If everyone knew they were on the take, I imagine they'd be out of business.
Click to expand...

Good old capitalism. What would most beneficial to privatized police? Protecting the rich or the poor? What's the safest return on investment?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top