J'accuse le libertarians

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 12:24PM

whatstherush wrote: »

This is the nub of the problem for me, there is no way that property rights mean the same thing to everyone because they are subjective to the individual. If you take what suryavarman said about not needing a vote to decide and look at the practicallity of it. There would have to be some sort of vote to say a society is going to move to a libertarian model. So would this vote leave the whole issue of what exactly property rights are out and just take what suryavarman said they are as a given. Seems unlikely to me. A concensus needs to be formed to decide what property rights are. Then for a society to be truly libertarian this concensus would have to satisfy everyone, which ain't going to happen.

Property rights mean that you can do whatever you wish with your property so long as you don't impose a cost upon a third party. If you do impose a cost on a third party then appropriate compensation should be decided on in court. I wouldn't think there could be any other definition of property rights.

I didn't say we wouldn't need a vote on moving to a libertarian society, I said we wouldn't need a vote on what liberties need to be protected.

Valmont · 25-06-2011 12:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

What if one party was prepared to pay the unbiased third party more than the other? Especially if they were prepared to pay many orders of magnitude more than the other could afford?

The business of unbiased third parties would be based on not taking bribes. Do you not think that any company wanting to present themselves as fair and upstanding would submit to an ethical audit of some kind? Want to prove that they are fit for purpose? If they were shown to be unethical then I'm sure there would be another upstart waiting in the wings.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, so he is forced to go...

...where?

Somewhere else presumably, another community. And he has every incentive to start paying his dues or he would have to move on again because word would get around and nobody would want to deal with him. Perhaps there would be an insurance company to deal specifically with this sort of debtor. Like companies who buy up bad debt and chase it themselves.

whatstherush · 25-06-2011 02:00PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Property rights mean that you can do whatever you wish with your property so long as you don't impose a cost upon a third party. If you do impose a cost on a third party then appropriate compensation should be decided on in court. I wouldn't think there could be any other definition of property rights.

Well that definition is certainly different to others given on this thread. Every other one I have seen says you can do what you like as long as you don't affect other people property rights. You have narrowed it down to imposing a cost on the third party. I would consider clean air a fundamental right that I would like on my property. A neighbour burning rubbish everyday is infringing my property rights, but there noting I can do cause falls outside your definition as its not costing anything.

Suryavarman wrote: »

I didn't say we wouldn't need a vote on moving to a libertarian society, I said we wouldn't need a vote on what liberties need to be protected.

Apologies, on a phone, thats what I was trying to convey but it must have got lost in translation

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 02:18PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Well that definition is certainly different to others given on this thread. Every other one I have seen says you can do what you like as long as you don't affect other people property rights. You have narrowed it down to imposing a cost on the third party. I would consider clean air a fundamental right that I would like on my property. A neighbour burning rubbish everyday is infringing my property rights, but there noting I can do cause falls outside your definition as its not costing anything. Apologies, on a phone, thats what I was trying to convey but it must have got lost in translation

A neighbour burning rubbish would be imposing a cost upon you though. If the smoke was blowing into your garden, it would be affecting air quality and causing adverse health effects, therefore imposing a cost. If you had clothes on the clothesline the smoke would make them smell, forcing you to wash your clothes again, therefore imposing a cost. Debris could blow off the fire landing in your garden forcing you to clean it up, therefore imposing a cost. As far as i'm concerned, infringing someones property rights is imposing a cost upon someone. As the neighbour burning rubbish would infringe your property rights/impose a cost upon you, they would not be allowed to do it, unless you were able to make a compromise with them.

whatstherush · 25-06-2011 02:40PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

A neighbour burning rubbish would be imposing a cost upon you though. If the smoke was blowing into your garden, it would be affecting air quality and causing adverse health effects, therefore imposing a cost. If you had clothes on the clothesline the smoke would make them smell, forcing you to wash your clothes again, therefore imposing a cost. Debris could blow off the fire landing in your garden forcing you to clean it up, therefore imposing a cost. As far as i'm concerned, infringing someones property rights is imposing a cost upon someone. As the neighbour burning rubbish would infringe your property rights/impose a cost upon you, they would not be allowed to do it, unless you were able to make a compromise with them.

Your imposing clear cut examples how smoke might cause damage, but real life is always more subtler than this. If it comes down to a case of my subjective opinion that my air quality is affected, to my neighbour subjective opinion that they are exercising there property rights to burn rubbish what do we do. And no, no contract exists between us and obviously no general law regarding air quality exists.

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 02:52PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Your imposing clear cut examples how smoke might cause damage, but real life is always more subtler than this. If it comes down to a case of my subjective opinion that my air quality is affected, to my neighbour subjective opinion that they are exercising there property rights to burn rubbish what do we do. And no, no contract exists between us and obviously no general law regarding air quality exists.

If the two of you can't come to a compromise then you will have to find a compromise in court. You'll have to show that your neighbour is affecting your air quality, either through health effects or damaging your house, garden or other ways such as the clothes example. Just saying you don't like smoke isn't enough to qualify as affecting your your air quality.

oscarBravo · 25-06-2011 02:59PM

Valmont wrote: »

The business of unbiased third parties would be based on not taking bribes. Do you not think that any company wanting to present themselves as fair and upstanding would submit to an ethical audit of some kind?

An ethical audit carried out by whom? Who pays for the audit? In a world where everything (by definition) is for sale, there's no such thing as a neutral third party.

Suppose I'm in dispute with (say) GE. We take the dispute to an unbiased arbitrator. That arbitrator doesn't have to be explicitly bribed to know that finding against GE too often will result in GE finding a different arbitrator. Against that, they weigh up the possible cost of losing my business. Yeah, that'll work.

oscarBravo · 25-06-2011 03:01PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If the two of you can't come to a compromise then you will have to find a compromise in court.

Which is fine, if both parties can afford the same level of legal representation. If not, the one with less money loses by default.

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 03:10PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is fine, if both parties can afford the same level of legal representation. If not, the one with less money loses by default.

Not necessarily, money doesn't always buy quality. If in the burning rubbish situation where both people are neighbours, it is likely that both people will be of similar wealth, therefore being able to afford similar levels of representation. Obviously that won't always be the case but it isn't always a fair playing field in our current society either.

Lockstep · 25-06-2011 03:22PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Not necessarily, money doesn't always buy quality.

When referencing lawyers, it nearly always does.

oscarBravo · 25-06-2011 03:29PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Not necessarily, money doesn't always buy quality. If in the burning rubbish situation where both people are neighbours, it is likely that both people will be of similar wealth, therefore being able to afford similar levels of representation. Obviously that won't always be the case but it isn't always a fair playing field in our current society either.

Suppose the neighbour burning rubbish is a multinational corporation?

That's another of my criticisms of much of libertarian philosophy: the total disregard for edge cases. I keep hearing "most of the time" or "how likely is that?" or "why do you keep bringing up worst-case scenarios?"

I'm a software developer by training. I've learned over the years that the most robustly designed systems are those where normal scenarios and edge- and corner-cases are handled equally well by the same processes. If you design a society that copes fairly well when adversaries are equally matched, but that collapses when one can out-spend the other, you've designed an inherently broken society.

Yes, I'm aware that our current society grants rich people and corporations better access to justice than poor people. That's a good argument for fixing the flaws in the current system, but a piss-poor argument for throwing away the current system and replacing it with one containing precisely the same flaws.

whatstherush · 25-06-2011 03:32PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If the two of you can't come to a compromise then you will have to find a compromise in court. You'll have to show that your neighbour is affecting your air quality, either through health effects or damaging your house, garden or other ways such as the clothes example. Just saying you don't like smoke isn't enough to qualify as affecting your your air quality.

As I said the smoke isn't causing any obvious damage. Re health how can I prove that the particular dioxins released by there burning might cause me cancer twenty years down the line. I suppose you could use scientific evidence to say a certain level of dioxins are harmful, but if the judge uses this scientific evidence to decide his judgement isn't he implying a defacto law exists regarding air quality.

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 04:04PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Suppose the neighbour burning rubbish is a multinational corporation?

Supposing it is a multinational corporation, in cases where there is evidence of a cost being imposed the company is still going to be punished in a court of law. Of course there will be cases where the effects will be more subtle and the corporation will more than likely win.

That's another of my criticisms of much of libertarian philosophy: the total disregard for edge cases. I keep hearing "most of the time" or "how likely is that?" or "why do you keep bringing up worst-case scenarios?"

I'm a software developer by training. I've learned over the years that the most robustly designed systems are those where normal scenarios and edge- and corner-cases are handled equally well by the same processes. If you design a society that copes fairly well when adversaries are equally matched, but that collapses when one can out-spend the other, you've designed an inherently broken society.

All systems have flaws, I'm not trying to claim that minarchist libertarianism is perfect and I think it would be foolish for anyone to make that claim. I am also not trying to design a computer programme so the system does not need to be perfect. I do believe it's the best system for society though because the flaws in the system are more than outweighed by the positives.

Yes, I'm aware that our current society grants rich people and corporations better access to justice than poor people. That's a good argument for fixing the flaws in the current system, but a piss-poor argument for throwing away the current system and replacing it with one containing precisely the same flaws.

I am not advocating nor do i think anyone else is advocating replacing our current system for a libertarian system solely on the basis of the differences in the legal system. As fixes for the current system are found i'm sure some of them could be applied to the libertarian system.

whatstherush wrote: »

As I said the smoke isn't causing any obvious damage. Re health how can I prove that the particular dioxins released by there burning might cause me cancer twenty years down the line. I suppose you could use scientific evidence to say a certain level of dioxins are harmful, but if the judge uses this scientific evidence to decide his judgement isn't he implying a defacto law exists regarding air quality.

I would imagine the use of scientific evidence would be how you'd prove it. The use of scientific evidence in making a decision wouldn't imply that there was a law in place. The judges job is to find a solution to disputes, so the use of scientific evidence would just be him doing his job in protecting rights.

oscarBravo · 25-06-2011 04:26PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Supposing it is a multinational corporation, in cases where there is evidence of a cost being imposed the company is still going to be punished in a court of law. Of course there will be cases where the effects will be more subtle and the corporation will more than likely win.

Wow, you just perfectly illustrated my last point. If the damage is blatantly obvious (routine case), the plaintiff has a fighting chance. If it's subtle (edge case), the one with the most money will win.

All systems have flaws, I'm not trying to claim that minarchist libertarianism is perfect and I think it would be foolish for anyone to make that claim. I am also not trying to design a computer programme so the system does not need to be perfect. I do believe it's the best system for society though because the flaws in the system are more than outweighed by the positives.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Our current system, with its flaws, allows for pre-emptive regulation, which means that the multinational corporation is required to meet certain standards before its neighbours are forced to take the expensive legal route of trying to get compensation for damage that's already done. Libertarianism so often seems to be about the belief that the market will eventually punish companies if they do enough bad things to enough people for long enough - how could that possibly be an improvement on a society that includes protection against those bad things in the first place?

I am not advocating nor do i think anyone else is advocating replacing our current system for a libertarian system solely on the basis of the differences in the legal system. As fixes for the current system are found i'm sure some of them could be applied to the libertarian system.

I'm not critiquing libertarianism solely on the basis of legal systems. The legal argument is a microcosm of the fundamental flaw with libertarian thinking, which is that it's OK for businesses to cause untold damage because they'll be punished for it eventually; that it's better to allow people the liberty to do bad things and clean up their mess later than to curtail their liberty in any way in the first place.

whatstherush · 25-06-2011 04:55PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

I would imagine the use of scientific evidence would be how you'd prove it. The use of scientific evidence in making a decision wouldn't imply that there was a law in place. The judges job is to find a solution to disputes, so the use of scientific evidence would just be him doing his job in protecting rights.

The scientific evidence says x amount of particles of dioxin are harmful and the judge uses this, then the defacto law regarding air quality is that judge will always find for the person whose air quality is affected by more then the x amount. That is an air quality law.

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 05:08PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow, you just perfectly illustrated my last point. If the damage is blatantly obvious (routine case), the plaintiff has a fighting chance. If it's subtle (edge case), the one with the most money will win. You couldn't be more wrong.

In a blatantly obvious case, I think it would be fairer to say that the defendant had no chance as opposed to to prosecution just having a fighting chance. Even in cases as subtle as the ones I previously outlined in the burning rubbish example, the prosecution would still have the better chance. In even more subtle cases again is where the quality of legal representation would make the difference.

Our current system, with its flaws, allows for pre-emptive regulation, which means that the multinational corporation is required to meet certain standards before its neighbours are forced to take the expensive legal route of trying to get compensation for damage that's already done. Libertarianism so often seems to be about the belief that the market will eventually punish companies if they do enough bad things to enough people for long enough - how could that possibly be an improvement on a society that includes protection against those bad things in the first place? I'm not critiquing libertarianism solely on the basis of legal systems. The legal argument is a microcosm of the fundamental flaw with libertarian thinking, which is that it's OK for businesses to cause untold damage because they'll be punished for it eventually; that it's better to allow people the liberty to do bad things and clean up their mess later than to curtail their liberty in any way in the first place.

At what cost does our system allow pre-emptive regulation? What about the small businesses that cannot afford to obey arbitrary regulation? What about the additional costs to the consumer in order to comply with the regulation? When businesses are punished for causing damage they will start to automatically try and prevent causing damage in the first place without the need for regulation.

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 05:12PM

whatstherush wrote: »

The scientific evidence says x amount of particles of dioxin are harmful and the judge uses this, then the defacto law regarding air quality is that judge will always find for the person whose air quality is affected by more then the x amount. That is an air quality law.

This wouldn't be an official law though. The law would be a product of the market.

whatstherush · 25-06-2011 05:33PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

This wouldn't be an official law though. The law would be a product of the market.

Ok the market has delivered an outcome that its in all intense and purposes is an air quality law. Has the market not given us every law we have today. Politicians put them selves forward to enact x laws. The most successful ones will get to enact there laws.

Suryavarman · 25-06-2011 05:57PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Ok the market has delivered an outcome that its in all intense and purposes is an air quality law. Has the market not given us every law we have today. Politicians put them selves forward to enact x laws. The most successful ones will get to enact there laws.

I suppose you could argue that case. The thing is though, politicians enacting laws stops the free market from working. The previous example was an example of free market solution to the problem. In the previous example people were able to decide that burning rubbish imposed a cost on them and decided to get compensation or that burning the rubbish and paying compensation was still cheaper than disposing of it in another way. If there was a government law neither option would have been available. This would have had negligible effects on the victim but the person burning rubbish would now have to choose a less efficient way of burning rubbish.

Take the other example of the company burning rubbish. The company would have had the choice to burn rubbish and pay out compensation or not burn rubbish and save the cost of compensation. The more efficient option allowing them to pass savings onto the consumer. Whereas if there was a government law they would be forced to impose the cost of a less efficient option onto the consumer to the net benefit of nobody. Maybe where the company was burning rubbish somebody decides to buy devalued land to build a house deciding that the poorer air quality was a price worth paying.

The fact is a lot of laws are the product of politicians passing laws to benefit one company at the expense of another or at the expense of the consumer. In the absence of official laws companies can choose the more efficient option to nobodies loss.

Valmont · 25-06-2011 06:40PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

An ethical audit carried out by whom? Who pays for the audit? In a world where everything (by definition) is for sale, there's no such thing as a neutral third party.

But if the very product on sale is neutrality, then why must that automatically become corrupted? If their current and future business depends on neutrally arbitrating between two parties, then surely they would have more financial motivation to jettison any bias they may have.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Suppose I'm in dispute with (say) GE. We take the dispute to an unbiased arbitrator. That arbitrator doesn't have to be explicitly bribed to know that finding against GE too often will result in GE finding a different arbitrator. Against that, they weigh up the possible cost of losing my business. Yeah, that'll work.

Not necessarily. If GE customers are finding that arbitration company X consistently sides with GE then they will decide that GE are untrustworthy provider and choose one of their competitors. Also this company will realise that being involved in shady deals with GE will reduce their future client base who will be seeking them on account of their impartiality. With that in doubt, their business will not do so well.

What if my contract with GE stipulates a specific arbitration company? What if I want one that isn't in their pocket? Perhaps the contract specifies that I must use a company specified by GE, then I take my business to GE's competitor who offers more choice and flexibility with their dispute resolution procedures as detailed in the contract.

Freedom, choice, voluntarism; these factors are the root of any fair and equitable market system.

oscarBravo · 25-06-2011 11:06PM

Valmont wrote: »

But if the very product on sale is neutrality, then why must that automatically become corrupted? If their current and future business depends on neutrally arbitrating between two parties, then surely they would have more financial motivation to jettison any bias they may have.

[...]

Not necessarily. If GE customers are finding that arbitration company X consistently sides with GE then they will decide that GE are untrustworthy provider and choose one of their competitors. Also this company will realise that being involved in shady deals with GE will reduce their future client base who will be seeking them on account of their impartiality. With that in doubt, their business will not do so well.

What if my contract with GE stipulates a specific arbitration company? What if I want one that isn't in their pocket? Perhaps the contract specifies that I must use a company specified by GE, then I take my business to GE's competitor who offers more choice and flexibility with their dispute resolution procedures as detailed in the contract.

Freedom, choice, voluntarism; these factors are the root of any fair and equitable market system.

At this point, I think it's time for me to bow out of the discussion again for a while. Sooner or later it always comes back to the belief that the all-powerful market will correct any mistakes that happen. It might even be true: after a couple of decades of monopoly abuse by a corrupt arbitrator, it's conceivable that a small, plucky competitor would manage to topple the evil Goliath. It comes down to the question of whether you believe that it's better to allow businesses the freedom to do bad things, trusting in the market to punish them eventually (which would be very comforting to the tattered remnants of the businesses and lives they had destroyed in the meantime) than to steer a middle course by putting controls on how much damage a business is allowed to do in the first place.

Worse still is the belief that the mere fear of being punished by market forces would be enough to prevent a company from doing something wrong. I can't wrap my head around the sort of blind faith that's required to believe in that, any more than I can grasp the idea that in a socialist paradise, people will magically stop wanting to have more than other people do. Both ideologies are equally daft in their naive trust in a theoretical principle. I've worked for large corporations: their only motivation is maximising shareholder value on a quarterly basis.

As a parting shot, consider this: how many smokers do you know that would shop around for their cigarettes, taking into account the small print on the packet that told them which "neutral" arbitrator they could take their claim to for damage to their health? Better yet: in a perfectly free market society, whose role would it be to inform people of the risks to their health from products like cigarettes?

RussellTuring · 25-06-2011 11:21PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of people not being discriminated against on the basis of race through the law(with the exception of the minimum wage law of course ). On the subject of more lenient sentences with rich people i'm sure this could be changed by editing the law and leaving less room for interpretation when it comes to sentencing.

When did race come into it? And are you saying you're in favour of stricter law enforcement?

Not at all, I don't see how this would be the case at all. The law isn't really based on property rights, the law just recognises that people have property rights and that those rights must be respected and protected.

Ah ok. I suppose that's good in theory. I just don't think that any full-time judiciary can be truly impartial.

The only people that would have a say in the matter would be those that own the property or those that would have their property affected. For example if someone wanted to build a road or an airport beside your house, you would probably be entitled to compensation due to the noise having an impact upon the value of your house. Another example would be if someone was to build a power plant near your property, again you would have a right to compensation due to a negative impact due to pollution having an adverse health effect and lowering the value of your property.

What if you just didn't want an airport or power plant near your home?

The fact is we are much wealthier and charity is much more widespread nowadays. Look at the poor countries of Africa, where to the best of my knowledge they don't have serfdom. If serfdom can be avoided in these countries I don't see why it couldn't be avoided here.

That's a good point. However, there are still some reports of indentured servitude, something I would consider a modern day equivalent, happening in some wealthier countries so I don't think anywhere is immune.

I believe it would be harder because people with the means to do so usually use the power of politicians to pass favourable laws. Therefore if we limit the power of politicians to pass these laws, we limit the ability of the rich to abuse their power. Of course they will still be able to use their power to bribe law enforcers but that is a fault with all systems not just minarchism. Maybe through tougher laws that could be stamped out though.

But do they do that because the politicians enable it or because the politicians are an obstacle? Most statists would say that they are there as a necessary evil to prevent people from doing the evil deeds they would otherwise do.

SupaNova wrote: »

Who has the exact same amount of property now? If that's your goal you might find that you like Socialism, we could all get paid the same too.

I don't see how capital accumulation would work much differently than it does now. Only that now you are taxed a lot along the way. In a free market you have to accumulate capital by giving people what they want, how horrific!

And would this lack of taxation not make it far easier to accumulate this capital? In the past when there have been huge differences between levels of wealth, it wasn't easy for those without.

Valmont · 25-06-2011 11:41PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

At this point, I think it's time for me to bow out of the discussion again for a while. Sooner or later it always comes back to the belief that the all-powerful market will correct any mistakes that happen.

There is no singular entity fixing problems, gaining power, and planning for our collective wellbeing, but alas, such is the inability of the statist to think in anything other than the terms of the state itself.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It might even be true: after a couple of decades of monopoly abuse by a corrupt arbitrator, it's conceivable that a small, plucky competitor would manage to topple the evil Goliath.

These 'multinationals' and evil corporations you speak of with such disdain are nothing more than the product of a corrupt state dishing out favours to its vested business interests and crony corporate golfing buddies.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It comes down to the question of whether you believe that it's better to allow businesses the freedom to do bad things, trusting in the market to punish them eventually (which would be very comforting to the tattered remnants of the businesses and lives they had destroyed in the meantime) than to steer a middle course by putting controls on how much damage a business is allowed to do in the first place.

All of this rests on the idea that businesses are naturally inclined towards destruction and evil and that it is only through our benevolent rulers that we are protected from them; I disagree with that premise entirely. Indeed looking at the deep water horizon rig and the legislative currying that made it profitable for them to be out there in the first place has me thinking otherwise.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Better yet: in a perfectly free market society, whose role would it be to inform people of the risks to their health from products like cigarettes?

Scientists? Doctors? Niquitin? Nicorrette? I find it slightly unimaginative that without the state, we wouldn't have anyone telling us about the harmful things in life.

Suryavarman · 26-06-2011 12:30PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

When did race come into it? And are you saying you're in favour of stricter law enforcement?

You disagreed with my statement with there being equality before the law and I was just pointing out that people aren't discriminated against based on race. I'm in favour of more consistency in handing out sentences having equal time for equal crimes maybe. I have no views on the length of sentences though, whatever is most effective while being fair at the same time is the best approach though.

Ah ok. I suppose that's good in theory. I just don't think that any full-time judiciary can be truly impartial.

Nobody could be truly impartial but that wouldn't mean they couldn't make a correct decision.

What if you just didn't want an airport or power plant near your home?

I don't think that would be a good enough reason to stop people from exercising their property rights.

That's a good point. However, there are still some reports of indentured servitude, something I would consider a modern day equivalent, happening in some wealthier countries so I don't think anywhere is immune.

I would hope that as we become richer those cases would become rarer and as far as I'm concerned the best and fastest way to create that wealth is in the free market capitalist system that comes with minarchist libertarianism.

But do they do that because the politicians enable it or because the politicians are an obstacle? Most statists would say that they are there as a necessary evil to prevent people from doing the evil deeds they would otherwise do.

I believe they do it because politicians enable it.

RussellTuring · 26-06-2011 02:04PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

You disagreed with my statement with there being equality before the law and I was just pointing out that people aren't discriminated against based on race. I'm in favour of more consistency in handing out sentences having equal time for equal crimes maybe. I have no views on the length of sentences though, whatever is most effective while being fair at the same time is the best approach though.

I don't know how you can say that people aren't discriminated against based on race. That just seems completely incongruous with reality. And I've never met another person calling themselves a libertarian who was in favour of less flexibility with the law. I suppose those on the right really are a different species to the left.

Nobody could be truly impartial but that wouldn't mean they couldn't make a correct decision.

Of course not. However, why do you seem to trust judges that much more than politicians when the latter as opposed to the former are appointed positions and not elected? Would something like a randomly selected jury not be far more impartial? Or is that a violation of people's rights in your mind?

I don't think that would be a good enough reason to stop people from exercising their property rights.

In other words, tough luck?

I would hope that as we become richer those cases would become rarer and as far as I'm concerned the best and fastest way to create that wealth is in the free market capitalist system that comes with minarchist libertarianism.

That's not answering the question at all. You just want me to accept that it won't become an issue.

I believe they do it because politicians enable it.

There would be no corruption in business if politicians didn't allow it?

Suryavarman · 26-06-2011 02:43PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I don't know how you can say that people aren't discriminated against based on race. That just seems completely incongruous with reality. And I've never met another person calling themselves a libertarian who was in favour of less flexibility with the law. I suppose those on the right really are a different species to the left.

What laws discriminate against people based on race then? I believe firmly in equality before the law and see no reason why two people committing the exact same crime should not get the exact same punishment.

Of course not. However, why do you seem to trust judges that much more than politicians when the latter as opposed to the former are appointed positions and not elected? Would something like a randomly selected jury not be far more impartial? Or is that a violation of people's rights in your mind?

I trust the judges more because if you don't agree with a decision you can appeal the decision to a higher court with a different judge and jury. With politicians and the laws they make you are stuck with them until you can get a majority of people to vote in another candidate to repeal the laws. I would imagine that we would continue to have a randomly selected jury, sorry for not being clearer on that. As long as people could opt out of doing jury duty I wouldn't consider it a violation of their rights.

In other words, tough luck?

Yes.

That's not answering the question at all. You just want me to accept that it won't become an issue.

I don't consider it an issue, if people wish to sign themselves into serfdom that's their choice and their problem. I do think that the likelihood of people doing that would be rare under this system.

There would be no corruption in business if politicians didn't allow it?

Businesses wouldn't corrupt politicians if the politicians didn't have the power to help the businesses.

oscarBravo · 26-06-2011 03:19PM

Valmont wrote: »

There is no singular entity fixing problems, gaining power, and planning for our collective wellbeing, but alas, such is the inability of the statist to think in anything other than the terms of the state itself.

I'm not a statist. I'm someone who's capable of believing that companies will do bad things if they think it's more profitable than not doing bad things. I'm also someone who believes that allowing them to do so as a sacrifice on the altar of the free market is as stupid as the belief that all companies are inherently evil, and that only a state can be trusted with running things.

These 'multinationals' and evil corporations you speak of with such disdain are nothing more than the product of a corrupt state dishing out favours to its vested business interests and crony corporate golfing buddies.

That's that fundamentalism I'm talking about: the belief that corporations would be incapable of doing bad things if only they weren't constantly dragged off the path of truth and light by evil politicians.

All of this rests on the idea that businesses are naturally inclined towards destruction and evil and that it is only through our benevolent rulers that we are protected from them; I disagree with that premise entirely.

That's a textbook definition of a straw man. I've never claimed that businesses are inclined to evil and destruction; merely that many businesses by their nature will do destructive things if they think it's more profitable to do so than not - and indeed, will do them for short-term profit even at a long-term cost.

Businesses are owned and run by people. Some people are asshats, and will continue to be asshats in a free-market society.

Indeed looking at the deep water horizon rig and the legislative currying that made it profitable for them to be out there in the first place has me thinking otherwise.

Seriously? You're absolving business of any wrongdoing in that incident, and blaming it entirely on government?

There's none so blind as them that will not see.

Scientists? Doctors? Niquitin? Nicorrette? I find it slightly unimaginative that without the state, we wouldn't have anyone telling us about the harmful things in life.

I'm sure that in the absence of regulations, businesses would be simply queueing up to be the first to put nutritional information on food packaging.

RussellTuring · 26-06-2011 06:20PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

What laws discriminate against people based on race then? I believe firmly in equality before the law and see no reason why two people committing the exact same crime should not get the exact same punishment.

Racism doesn't have to be codified in law to exist. The law is enforced by human beings and as such is subject to their flaws and biases. Drug laws, for example, while not explicitly targetting particular groups, nonetheless have the result of punishing certain people more than others depending on their ethnicity. As for your second sentence, few would disagree with you in theory. That doesn't change reality.

I trust the judges more because if you don't agree with a decision you can appeal the decision to a higher court with a different judge and jury. With politicians and the laws they make you are stuck with them until you can get a majority of people to vote in another candidate to repeal the laws. I would imagine that we would continue to have a randomly selected jury, sorry for not being clearer on that. As long as people could opt out of doing jury duty I wouldn't consider it a violation of their rights.

So you have no problem with people assuming positions without any particular mandate from those over whom they exert authority. If these judges aren't elected, who appoints them? The politicians you don't trust? Also, you can't keep appealing to progressively higher courts ad infinitum. Eventually you run out and what happens then? At least with elected positions there is a limited term and, depending on the system, the possibility of instant recall.

Yes.

And what of my property tights? Do we just rule in favour of whomsoever has the most property?

I don't consider it an issue, if people wish to sign themselves into serfdom that's their choice and their problem. I do think that the likelihood of people doing that would be rare under this system.

Do you not consider this incompatible with individual sovereignty? Or is it ok for people to voluntarily renounce their fundamental rights?

Businesses wouldn't corrupt politicians if the politicians didn't have the power to help the businesses.

Just as politicians wouldn't help the businesses if they didn't try to corrupt the former. It's easy to blame it on the others but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

Suryavarman · 26-06-2011 07:19PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

Racism doesn't have to be codified in law to exist. The law is enforced by human beings and as such is subject to their flaws and biases. Drug laws, for example, while not explicitly targetting particular groups, nonetheless have the result of punishing certain people more than others depending on their ethnicity. As for your second sentence, few would disagree with you in theory. That doesn't change reality.

The law itself isn't racist though even if the application of it is.

So you have no problem with people assuming positions without any particular mandate from those over whom they exert authority. If these judges aren't elected, who appoints them? The politicians you don't trust? Also, you can't keep appealing to progressively higher courts ad infinitum. Eventually you run out and what happens then? At least with elected positions there is a limited term and, depending on the system, the possibility of instant recall.

No I don't have a problem with people assuming these positions without a popular mandate. I believe electing judges will have a detrimental effect on their ability to enforce the law. If you run out of courts then you will have to accept that you have no case.

And what of my property tights? Do we just rule in favour of whomsoever has the most property?

If your property rights are affected then you will receive compensation, if not you won't and the other party will be allowed to develop their property. whoever has the most property shouldn't matter.

Do you not consider this incompatible with individual sovereignty? Or is it ok for people to voluntarily renounce their fundamental rights?

Of course it's ok for people to renounce their rights. One of the most important aspects of libertarianism is responsibility and self determination. If they wish to give up rights that is entirely their decision and theirs alone.

silverharp · 27-06-2011 07:14AM

RussellTuring wrote: »

Fantastic. Back to feudalism it is so. The fact that we don't now have real democracy is no reason to revert to a much more tyrannical way of organising society.

I dont mind democracy, just in limited amounts. btw I am probably subject to higher taxes and more limitations on my freedom then in feudal times so be careful of the examples you pick :pac: .

J'accuse le libertarians

Comments