You seem to be blaming for you inability to comprehend things?

You need to be smarter and not blame others because you are dumb.

Again the dumbed down version is:

- any of the systems COULD work well if people were perfect
- however people are not perfect
- so then the system with the best checks and balances is the preferred one
- that system is not Socialism or Communism which have less layers of checks and balances than our Western Democracies do

I am going to ask you to read the above twice before responding and if necessary get someone to help you with the big words as it makes perfect sense.


------

Now on to your non-sequitur.

I do not claim capitalism is the 'antidote' to imperfect people. I claim it has more layers of checks and balances and it DOES. When you have imperfect people, then the more layers, the better.

And take your strawman sh*t about 'money being shipped to the richest people" out of here as we all accept that corrupt (imperfect people) will always do corrupt things regardless of the system in place. The question at issue is which system has the BEST chance to hold anyone accountable? That is not Socialism or Communism.

thats all just random crapp youre asserting

And for the record I absolutely think the US system, is absolutely being swung in a major way to prop of the fortunes of the uber rich with taxpayer money disproportionately, and this is a terrible and borderline evil thing that has been happening in gov't even Pre Trump.

But that was not what we were discussing. I am just addressing the strawman in the room.

And the below is why i hate posting on my phone.

Note to proof read and noting the irony and the deserved mocking I should get for that miss especially within that specific sentence.

----
corrected...

"You seem to be blaming (me) for you(r) inability to comprehend things?"

Sure free riders will be a problem in pretty much any system. It will be a challenge that the property owner will have to deal with.

That just says they took a loan, how does that conflict with Libertarianism?

Right, we all have the same rights.

mob rule, ok.
More mob ruling, ok. This is just religion absent of any logic. No one consented to any of this.

So when is the next meeting where we get the chance to consent to all this? Was it a 1 time vote that bound every generation to this "contract"? How many humans do I need to make up some new rights? Apparently all I have to do is say I'm acting on behalf of people I never met and form a group.

So you say you can't delegate a right you don't have, and that you don't need to in order for the State to have it. Well...

You just said here they did delegate additional rights to certain agencies.

Anyway, you will just say the US is a corporation again and blah blah blah. No principles, no consistency, no concern for the individual, just power and control.

We disagree on whether our bodies are our property or not, I don't see us getting past this. Worth noting that communal territories can exist in a free market system.


Well then 'perfect' means they can read minds, I didn't know this.

We don't have Capitalism, we have Cronyism.

This would be the example of Math problem you might get in University Math or Economics class:



So in this hypothetical example we are going to assume perfect people. That would be people who make the exact right decision each and every time, and get the ideal outcome each and every time.

We are going to assume the people are perfect so that we can just compare two situations on equal footing without human error or bias creeping in.

------


It seems to me you would be completely unable to deal with that type of question in a University setting and instead you keep arguing there are no perfect people.


And remember my point was not that there WERE perfect people. It was that perfect people do not exist and thus when you compare the three systems (W.Democracy, Communism, Socialism) that the one with the most checks and balances was best, since people will make mistakes or act in self interest.

Exactly, that you can disagree over this proves his point.

Whether your bodies are your property or not will be decided over which of you has the most force to enforce such.

You might have your bodies labour forcibly exploited, and you will think huh, objectively my body is my property, but that is just an ideality in your mind. Its not a reality. The reality is dig harder *****.

You will never understand this and 10 9 8 to glib handwaving away of this truism.

Luckproof, I don't understand why you seem to think that your "rights", whatever you think they are, are moral absolutes, yet society's "rights" are a fiction created by "mob rule". Where did you derive these rights that you think you have, and why can't society derive its rights from the same place?

It's quite easy to persuade yourself you're correct when instead of backing up your arguments with logic you just declare them as axiomatic, but you won't find many people subscribing to your ideas when you do so, as evidenced by this thread.

I said the group acting as a whole has rights over and above those of its members acting in their individual capacity. Sure, the group can then delegate those rights to individuals or agencies acting on its behalf.

Whenever the next general election is in your jurisdiction. If there is no candidate that is running on a platform that you find sufficiently sympathetic, you are free to run on your own platform, and if enough people agree with you, you will be vested with the power to implement the changes you think are appropriate. You call it "mob rule", sane people call it "democracy".

You entirely misunderstand the level of our disagreement. Our bodies could be "our property" (kind of a meaningless statement but I understand what you're getting at) but that is only the case if it is enforced through the initiation of violence. You (nor anyone else) have done nothing to prove that it is the case universally and/or objectively.

This property enforced by force is partly true but it's also in large part nonsense.

Property right are sustained in large part without force. Tom, d2 etc would almost certain by lying if they said they would treat my wallet like their wallet if it wasn't for some treat of force.

It's more that the libertarians seem to take umbrage with the fact that they have to comply with things like taxes and laws and court rulings because non-compliance would result in compulsion by force.

You can't just isolate one tiny instance. If there wasn't the initiation of violence backing up property rights the idea of "your wallet" wouldn't even make sense.

Force is the ultimate arbiter. That is simply a fact.

Exactly. If you're not in the libertarian (as defined by the US right wing) brainspace then none of these arguments apply. It's a logical sequence that proves "initiation of violence" is a faulty premise when applied by libertarians. They apply it far too narrowly and (conveniently) only to the things they happen to dislike personally, such as taxation and not to things they happen to like personally such as personal private property. It destroys any claim of objectivity and shows US libertarianism to be nothing but personal preference inflicted on others.

If you've built your worldview on more solid foundations than the the NAP and other related nonsense then this discussion shouldn't even register.

Nonsense

You have it arse over tit


In one way but like all our laws they only really work (and perhaps more importantly are only good) when they enforce something with a natural/moral underpinning.


That's a very different thing but it's probably also a strawman in a lot of case. Some simply don't agree very strongly with the idea that democracy confers consent. Another, possibly related, common view is that it would be better if consent was given on an a more individual basis rather than via government

chez,

Maybe you can answer the question then? Again no libertarian I've asked has ever even attempted an answer.

What is the objective reasoning for imposing, through the initiation of force, the concept of personal private property onto people who don't agree with it?

Or if you disagree with the premise

Show, using objective statements only, that personal private property does not derive from the initiation of force (or the threat thereof).

Well, luckproof's original point ITT was something about Coronavirus lockdown measures being implemented "under the threat of force", and others ITT have used similar language to describe, inter alia, taxation, so there's no strawman here.

Not sure what you mean by individual consent. Like, if I don't consent to paying taxes or obeying laws then I don't have to do it? Not sure how you see that working, my dude, but I'll be happy to come and exploit the **** out of your new society if it ever happens.

Chez, it's really quite straightforward. Society, acting through its agents in the legislature, has decided that some activities are mandatory (e.g. paying taxes) and some other activities are proscribed (e.g. rape, theft, murder). If an individual chooses to not comply with these edicts, then society, acting through its agents in law enforcement, the judiciary, and the prison system, compels or punishes that individual. At what point do you see "individual consent" playing a role here?

Exactly.

The rest is just ideology.

'Objective' can only work based on an object morality - not sure that's helpful path to go down. It's all about consent where possible and we can consent to thing we don't agree with.

What sort of objective morality would you like to start from?

The point is there is no such thing as objective morality. Every moral statement is subjective and every attempt to enforce morality is arbitrary. That doesn't mean bad and doesn't imply that its not necessary to enforce morality for society to function or anything like that. Just that any moral prescription even one as seemingly fundamental as 'don't take "my" stuff' requires the enforcement, through the initiation of violence, of a subjective opinion.. Ie the opinion that this stuff is "mine" or that there can even be such a thing as "my" stuff.

Cliffs; when libertarians say taxation is theft the only logical response is that by that definition, all property is theft, so the statement carries zero prescriptive value.

The strawman comes from taking posters post as some definitive statement about a complex political topic. It's like criticising QM because some say stuff about it that we dont agree with.

The difference between individual consent and democratic consent is the need to, as far as is possible, enter a contract before you can be charged for anything or judged under it. It doesn't imply consenting to the particular charges associated with the contract or agreeing with the judgement of any authority specified in the contract.

I'm pleased I didn't fall for the 'objective' trap then

Your mistake is thinking that not-objective implies arbitrary. It doesn't, we have morality.