Oh so now private roads can be built, but it just depends on your political philosophy? Brilliant stuff. Libertarians can't build roads, therefor the State. Solid justification.

I'm done with the roads discussion, you've been dealt with .

Have you ever helped maintain a private road? Let me tell ya bud--just getting a half dozen people on the same page--and to kick in their fair share is already a major headache. And it ain't cheap.

As you and other libertarians hurl waves of keywords at others, the one thing you have not yet done - build an actual road...

All the best.

The COVID response in New York, and other countries outside the US, which featured a very active and involved central authority succeeded brilliantly.

The COVID response in Florida, Texas, and Arizona, and countries like Brazil, in which a strong central authority has not been present and the people have been left to their own devices has been a disaster.

Thats cool. Its good to have that as a principle I guess & a thing to work towards. Like I want a state that ensures equality of opportunity for all, but ensuring this is impractical.

Practically though, do you see the benefit of a state in a world with other states? For example, in the aid of preventing invasion?

Its more how your trying to use the US government as an example of why all states are bad. The US is not an equivalent to all states globally. Example:

Its like if I got everyone to say they agreed that cauliflower is rubbish as a reason no one should eat vegetables.

What are those things, and why am I, someone who may not be savvy to your system or a party to its creation, obligated to respect the system you chose?

I'm asking if in the libertarian system the investor class is shielded form liability like they are now.

If you build a car that blows up and kills a few hundred people are you responsible for that or will a fictitious legal entity be ?

Just wondering.

Would this be something that could be covered by contracts?

Enforced by the private courts/etc.

No government means no court system to sue in. Problem solves itself

They were eliminating competition though. That's the point.

You were arguing that monopolies are bad but now you seem to be okay with them as long as they keep the price low for consumers.

That's an example of how things aren't quite a simple as you're making them out to be itt.

So caveat emptor ?

The gimp will be wearing a ballgag way before any of that stuff has a chance to formulate And by the time they do they will be owned outright by the guys distributing the ballgags.

He thinks he's building paradise--but what he's really building is something that will make Russia in the 90s look like it's on crystal meth. Let's go dig up all the guys from back then and ask them if they still think it's a 'neat' idea.

It's, uh, not a dilemma. I push the left button, and fine businesses that don't require masks, and require them to close if their employees get sick.

I will grant the Libertarian ethos one point: shunning of non-mask wearers should be implemented to the greatest extent possible.

A much better dilemma meme would be

ABOLISH THE POLICE

ARREST VIOLENT CRIMINAL IN MIDST OF CRIMINAL ACT

Didn't Cuomo send CV patients into nursing homes?

Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong but you would need to show some sort of cost benefit analysis. We have a lot of unemployment right now, we don't know how many jobs are coming back. This wasn't some surgical move by the State it was a napalm strike. A lot of damage was done due to the lockdown.

Well if a State is using coercion against its people then yes that is immoral imo. If you just imagine a private citizen doing to you what the State does you would have a huge problem with that. Because when those actions are applied to one person the morality of those acts are crystal clear. So why is the State exempt from morality and how is that authority even legtimate.

As far as an invasion, just look at the countries the US invaded, and how out-gunned the "enemy" was. They weren't exactly a walk in the park. Invading a country this size with no State apparatus to take over where everyone was armed would be suicide imo.

You think a private third party registration system or a court couldn't determine ownership, or even banking history for that matter? What magical powers does the State have at determining ownership? You don't have to respect the system I chose to prove ownership, you can challenge it in a private court.

Ok I figured it was something like that. Seems like something contracts and courts could solve. There would be no State to shield these companies so they would likely be more liable.

Well it looks like you have a lot of catching up to do

Well coercively eliminating competition is bad obviously, because you didn't earn that market share in a voluntary manner. You would be forcing a service on people who may not like it and stopping people from offering that same service at a lower price or better quality.

Hahaha, either participation in a given registration system and court is compulsory, which is basically a state, or do I get to shop around and find a court that agrees with me that I own your house (say you claimed you were renting it to me and thus aren't the occupant), and then you just give it to me?

Privatize everything, remove the State and its immoral laws and the technicalities they can use to arrest you at pretty much any time.
Private security, private courts
Removing the State. If companies are trying to coercively shutdown competition then take them to court.

Whats the mechanism now for preventing the State from bailing out businesses and propping up monopolies?

How would you know the court agrees with you before they try the case?

Well if I was renting you my house we would have a rental agreement. With your signature on it.

Since land ownership and occupancy are important issues in a society that demand (demand being the key word here) arbitration frequently and efficiently. Then there would be courts that specialize in that area, and they would want a reputation as a fair court for obvious reasons.

I think Wookie's general point, which I agree with, is that the system you've presented for handling disagreements relies on signed contracts that specify an arbiter.

But say I've never signed a contract with you. You think you own a piece of land. I think I own it. You have your court that you think is the authority for decisions on that piece of land, but either I don't recognize the legitimacy of that court that I've never signed any kind of deal with, or maybe I've contracted with a separate court (that you've never dealt with) that also thinks I own the land.

What then? My court says you stole from me and that I'm justified in using force against you (and vice versa, your court says you're justified in defending it). Does the best marksman win?

The state solves this problem because there is one answer: if the land is in the United States, then courts of the United States answer the question and enforce the ruling.

I honestly think something like this can be solved fairly easily with bank statements and the purchasing contract from the previous owner. Unless you give me more details on how we would get to a point where we are both under the impression we own the same land or one of us is scamming the other, not sure what else to say.

If I had to prove I bought the laptop I'm using right now even without the receipt I could do it. I could pull up a credit card statement and we could contact the seller.

Good luck organizing any kind of business that depends on access to a quilt of 1000s of different road owners. Nightmare. Guess we're back in court Again today.

Oh crap is that a fire? One of Captain Molotov's 'firefighters' must be at it again. There goes another fortune. fml Hope they don't do it again next month.

Wait a minute I feel dizzy The Cartel must've released aerosolized fentanyl again. I just detox'd off that **** last month. Cost me 50gs--the Kochs aren't even Doctors those animals. Why does it seem like they have a vacuum cleaner hooked up to my bank acct? Pass me the gas mask ffs.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. The details aren't particularly important; the problem is not about who actually owns the land, it's that it's not clear at all who has authority to pass judgement on the ownership of that land to begin with, when we're both working under completely separate, independent systems that each think a different person "owns" the land. Who gave your court that right? Or my court? Us, when we said to our individual courts "hey I own this land and I declare you the arbiter of disagreements about it"? That seems silly.

States do not have that problem (except in disputed border areas where it's basically might makes right I guess), because the state is the sole arbiter of such disagreements.

Ok, one of us is scamming the other. You claim I'm scamming, and I claim you're scamming. You claim my paperwork is forged and I claim your paperwork is forged. Previous owner is dead. Now what? A duel?

In case you think this is purely academic, a quick Google search tells me that there are about 40 million court cases filed per year in the US. In each one of those cases, the plaintiff says one thing, and the defendant says a different thing. So, who decides who is right in your hypothetical society?