How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Skylar]

I wasn't talking to you in the post you're replied to. I was talking with Centenial. And we were discussing his conceptions of anarchy. Which involve a complete lack of 'aggression'. Without taxes or mandatory laws

And such a system is utterly unsustainable. Its also too weak to withstand external forces. Which is why it exists.....no where.

That you want to jump in and move the goal posts of the conversation you're replying to is quite irrelevant.

He never claimed they lived in a "state of non-aggression" either. You're trying to move the goal posts. Stick to what has actually been proposed or said rather than positions that you invent for your critics.

He never mentioned them at all. It was your awkward example.....where you ignored the standard of the conversation you pushed your way into. And then tried to move the goal posts.

Um, no. The standards of the Anarchy proposed in the discussion we were having was non-aggression. Which includes no taxation and no mandatory laws.

Nothing you've described meets those standards. As pre-state man most definitely didn't exist in a state of non-aggression.

Non aggression by the state is the only issue under dispute since even someone as clueless as you admits that aggression by your neighbors is wrong.

\

Non aggression by 'the state' wasn't the standard. Non-aggresssion.....by anyone was the standard.

You're again trying to move the goal posts.

Are you saying you think it's OK for your neighbors to commit aggression against you?

You can tell the invading army all you like that its 'not okay to invade'. It doesn't amount to much.

You're putting moralizations up against firearms. And historically, the firearms have a much higher rate of success.

 

[bripat9643]

I can offer dozens of such examples. And you will ignore them all. A rational person won't. Which is why your proposed Anarchy doesn't sit well with most rational people.

I can offer dozens of examples of the state initiating aggression.

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

As you believe in absolute property rights.....there would be no such checks. Nor any for the abuses that can and often do arise under Anarchy. Private power can be abused with no legal repercussions.

Anarchy is not a functional system. Its too fragile, too corruptible, and too injust in practice.

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

Self interest prevents it. Just after the Civil War the railroads allowed blacks to ride in the same seats as whites. One of the reason the Jim Crow laws were passed is the fact that Southern bigots couldn't convince private businesses to discriminate against blacks. That doesn't help the bottom line, and profit is just about the only thing that matters to a business.

 

[bripat9643]

He never claimed they lived in a "state of non-aggression" either. You're trying to move the goal posts. Stick to what has actually been proposed or said rather than positions that you invent for your critics.

He never mentioned them at all. It was your awkward example.....where you ignored the standard of the conversation you pushed your way into. And then tried to move the goal posts.

Um, no. The standards of the Anarchy proposed in the discussion we were having was non-aggression. Which includes no taxation and no mandatory laws.

Nothing you've described meets those standards. As pre-state man most definitely didn't exist in a state of non-aggression.

Non aggression by the state is the only issue under dispute since even someone as clueless as you admits that aggression by your neighbors is wrong.

\

Non aggression by 'the state' wasn't the standard. Non-aggresssion.....by anyone was the standard.

You're again trying to move the goal posts.

Are you saying you think it's OK for your neighbors to commit aggression against you?

You can tell the invading army all you like that its 'not okay to invade'. It doesn't amount to much.

You're putting moralizations up against firearms. And historically, the firearms have a much higher rate of success.

The Irish held off the British for 800 years with no formal government.

You didn't answer the question: is it OK for your neighbors to commit aggression against you?

 

[Skylar]

I can offer dozens of such examples. And you will ignore them all. A rational person won't. Which is why your proposed Anarchy doesn't sit well with most rational people.

I can offer dozens of examples of the state initiating aggression.

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

As you believe in absolute property rights.....there would be no such checks. Nor any for the abuses that can and often do arise under Anarchy. Private power can be abused with no legal repercussions.

Anarchy is not a functional system. Its too fragile, too corruptible, and too injust in practice.

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

 

[Skylar]

He never mentioned them at all. It was your awkward example.....where you ignored the standard of the conversation you pushed your way into. And then tried to move the goal posts.

Um, no. The standards of the Anarchy proposed in the discussion we were having was non-aggression. Which includes no taxation and no mandatory laws.

Nothing you've described meets those standards. As pre-state man most definitely didn't exist in a state of non-aggression.

Non aggression by the state is the only issue under dispute since even someone as clueless as you admits that aggression by your neighbors is wrong.

\

Non aggression by 'the state' wasn't the standard. Non-aggresssion.....by anyone was the standard.

You're again trying to move the goal posts.

Are you saying you think it's OK for your neighbors to commit aggression against you?

You can tell the invading army all you like that its 'not okay to invade'. It doesn't amount to much.

You're putting moralizations up against firearms. And historically, the firearms have a much higher rate of success.

The Irish held off the British for 800 years with no formal government.

Not in a state of non-aggression they didn't. And give us the time frame you're discussing.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No monopoly has ever existed? Really?

You need to define your terms first. With evidence.

I have just this one observation. YOU NEVER DEFINE TERMS AND NEVER PRESENT EVIDENCE other than your opinions in my experience. How far does your hypocrisy run?

 

[bripat9643]

Non aggression by the state is the only issue under dispute since even someone as clueless as you admits that aggression by your neighbors is wrong.

\

Non aggression by 'the state' wasn't the standard. Non-aggresssion.....by anyone was the standard.

You're again trying to move the goal posts.

Are you saying you think it's OK for your neighbors to commit aggression against you?

You can tell the invading army all you like that its 'not okay to invade'. It doesn't amount to much.

You're putting moralizations up against firearms. And historically, the firearms have a much higher rate of success.

The Irish held off the British for 800 years with no formal government.

Not in a state of non-aggression they didn't. And give us the time frame you're discussing.

Your "state of non-aggression" is a diversion. We are talking about government. If they didn't have a government, they had no state to aggress against individuals or businesses.

 

[Centinel]

We generaqlly don't allow monopolies in our system. In yours they are entirely possible. As there is nothing to prevent them.

Now you're insisting that monopolies aren't even possible. Which most rational people would disagree with. Which again is why your argument lacks persuasive power. And why no one uses your flavor of Anarchy.

Please go ahead and try to explain how one producer could monopolize the production of a particular class of goods. And maybe when this has ever actually happened in the real world.

Being the only one with the access to the raw materials necessary.....or with control over the means of distribution to a particular area. The roads or rail roads for example. If the only goods you'll allow to enter a given area are the goods you own.....you have a monopoly.

Anti-competative practices would run rampant in your system. And in fact be encouraged and protected.

As would abuse and exploitation.

And when has this ever happened in the real world (not including government granted monopolies)?

 

[Skylar]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Nothing.

What would prevent anti-competative practices like price fixing?

Nothing.

What would prevent exploitation and wild abuse by the wealthy?

Nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

No monopoly has ever existed? Really?

You need to define your terms first. With evidence.

I have just this one observation. YOU NEVER DEFINE TERMS AND NEVER PRESENT EVIDENCE other than your opinions in my experience. How far does your hypocrisy run?

His remark was satirical because Skylar is always demanding evidence and continually changes the definition of his terms.

 

[Centinel]

I have just this one observation. YOU NEVER DEFINE TERMS AND NEVER PRESENT EVIDENCE other than your opinions in my experience. How far does your hypocrisy run?

What terms don't you understand?

 

[Centinel]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Nothing.

People not agreeing to those terms of employment.

What would prevent anti-competative practices like price fixing?

Nothing.

A firm who wanted to make money at the expense of the price fixers by undercutting them.

What would prevent exploitation and wild abuse by the wealthy?

Nothing.

The law.

 

[Skylar]

We generaqlly don't allow monopolies in our system. In yours they are entirely possible. As there is nothing to prevent them.

Now you're insisting that monopolies aren't even possible. Which most rational people would disagree with. Which again is why your argument lacks persuasive power. And why no one uses your flavor of Anarchy.

Please go ahead and try to explain how one producer could monopolize the production of a particular class of goods. And maybe when this has ever actually happened in the real world.

Being the only one with the access to the raw materials necessary.....or with control over the means of distribution to a particular area. The roads or rail roads for example. If the only goods you'll allow to enter a given area are the goods you own.....you have a monopoly.

Anti-competative practices would run rampant in your system. And in fact be encouraged and protected.

As would abuse and exploitation.

And when has this ever happened in the real world (not including government granted monopolies)?

When have anti-competative practices occured? All the time. Price Fixing is as common as dirt. Selling below cost to run new companies out of business is as old as dirt.

And of course, with no checks on personal power and rampant abuses of that power everywhere.....why wouldn't they also influence the government? With unchecked personal power, of course they would influence the government to change the laws to benefit themselves.

And your conception of Anarchy dies. Its a useless system as its inherently exploitative....and inherently unsustainable. As it leaves VAST pools power completely unchecked.

 

[bripat9643]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Such companies don't last long because no one wants to work there.

Nothing.

Then why isn't the U.S.A infested with such companies?

What would prevent anti-competative practices like price fixing?

Nothing.

Competition. Price fixing has been tried time and time again, and it always fails.

What would prevent exploitation and wild abuse by the wealthy?

Nothing.

What constitutes "exploitation and wild abuse?"

 

[Skylar]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Nothing.

People not agreeing to those terms of employment.

And if their choice was starvation.....or monopoly? Or the company store?

Death or submission to monopoly, abuse and exploitation. With libertarianism sanctioning and protecting the monopoly, abuse and exploitation. You can ignore these consequences. But rational people woudlnt'. And didn't.

Again, there's a reason why your Anarchy isn't practiced....anywhere.

 

[bripat9643]

We generaqlly don't allow monopolies in our system. In yours they are entirely possible. As there is nothing to prevent them.

Now you're insisting that monopolies aren't even possible. Which most rational people would disagree with. Which again is why your argument lacks persuasive power. And why no one uses your flavor of Anarchy.

Please go ahead and try to explain how one producer could monopolize the production of a particular class of goods. And maybe when this has ever actually happened in the real world.

Being the only one with the access to the raw materials necessary.....or with control over the means of distribution to a particular area. The roads or rail roads for example. If the only goods you'll allow to enter a given area are the goods you own.....you have a monopoly.

Anti-competative practices would run rampant in your system. And in fact be encouraged and protected.

As would abuse and exploitation.

And when has this ever happened in the real world (not including government granted monopolies)?

When have anti-competative practices occured? All the time. Price Fixing is as common as dirt. Selling below cost to run new companies out of business is as old as dirt.

Really? Price fixing has succeeded? When?

And of course, with no checks on personal power and rampant abuses of that power everywhere.....why wouldn't they also influence the government? With unchecked personal power, of course they would influence the government to change the laws to benefit themselves.

How does law, created by government, prevent the government from being "influenced?" If there was no government, how would the rich influence it? What your claiming is that the non-existence of something would be a problem because when it exists it's a constant problem. Apparently you think there some kind of logic in that theory.

And your conception of Anarchy dies. Its a useless system as its inherently exploitative....and inherently unsustainable. As it leaves VAST pools power completely unchecked.

You have failed to prove it. Like all statists, you merely assume it. Government creates vast pools of power that are completely unchecked.

 

[Centinel]

I can offer dozens of examples of the state initiating aggression.

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

As you believe in absolute property rights.....there would be no such checks. Nor any for the abuses that can and often do arise under Anarchy. Private power can be abused with no legal repercussions.

Anarchy is not a functional system. Its too fragile, too corruptible, and too injust in practice.

You have no evidence that a road owner would deny black people access to his road.

What would prevent it under your system? Absolutely nothing.

What would prevent it under statism? Absolutely nothing.

Checks on personal power. Like....rights. Constitutions. Courts. Local ordinances. Federal laws. All backed, ultimately, by violence. Or as you put it, by 'aggression'.

So as long as the state wishes to allow black people to access its roads it will. And when it doesn't, it won't. Got it.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What would prevent it under your Anarchy? We both know the answer: nothing. As you have no checks on personal power.

The profit motive. A road is a capital investment and requires upkeep. The road owner would increase his profits by having as many people use his road as possible.

 

[bripat9643]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Nothing.

People not agreeing to those terms of employment.

And if their choice was starvation.....or monopoly? Or the company store?

Where has that ever been the only choice?

Death or submission to monopoly, abuse and exploitation. With libertarianism sanctioning and protecting the monopoly, abuse and exploitation. You can ignore these consequences. But rational people woudlnt'. And didn't.

Again, there's a reason why your Anarchy isn't practiced....anywhere.

Provide some examples. No one is required to accept your entirely unsupported claims.

 

[Skylar]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Such companies don't last long because no one wants to work there.

Nothing.

Then why isn't the U.S.A infested with such companies?

Because they we

What would prevent anti-competative practices like price fixing?

Nothing.

Competition. Price fixing has been tried time and time again, and it always fails.
[/quote]

Prove that it always fails. And you can't cite any example where the government breaks it up.

 

[Centinel]

And of course, with no checks on personal power and rampant abuses of that power everywhere.....why wouldn't they also influence the government?

What government?

 

[bripat9643]

What would prevent a company from only paying in company money....that could only be used at the company store. Which, of course, sold products at a wildly inflated price. And kept you in perpetual debt to the very company you're working for?

Such companies don't last long because no one wants to work there.

Nothing.

Then why isn't the U.S.A infested with such companies?

Because they we

? I assume you mean "because we were." The correct answer is that "no we weren't."

What would prevent anti-competative practices like price fixing?

Nothing.

Competition. Price fixing has been tried time and time again, and it always fails.

Prove that it always fails. And you can't cite any example where the government breaks it up.

It's your theory. Provide a single example where it succeeded.