No, never is me understanding humans.

No, I don't believe you've explained how it can work (without pie-in-the-sky assumptions, or something analogous to the typical "profit motive" or "markets will solve it" vaguarities)

You don't understand reality. It's sad.

OK, I'll admit there can be a very dysfunctional society based on extreme libertarian views. But to have anything approaching something anyone would want to live in, libertarians must appeal to the "greater" or "societal" good.

The point is that libertarians use profit motives when it suits them, but then conveniently ignore them when, deep down, they know something won't work because of human nature.
Ummm...please don't put words in my mouth. I am not thinking about either of those specifics when making my points. What I am thinking about are essentially any public good or common resource.

So that's essentially an argument against "I want a free pony". Here's the critical problem with your example: cars are private goods. I would agree that the government should (generally) stay out of the allocation of private goods, at least those with little to no externalities associated with them.

But goods with large externalities, public goods, and common resources are things the government should get involved in.

I love your sloganeering throughout, but you should probably argue from a logical perspective instead of trying to coin cute phrases. Cars, health care and education (I'm talking about those because you are, not because I was thinning about them) have differing characteristics which affect their allocation and people's decision making with regards to those. Some of those different characteristics are (probably) the reason you separated out national defense.

Note: Public goods, private goods, externalities, and common resources have specific economic meanings...I don't know if you know them or not, but if not, please look them up and understand them if you reply to those points.

I don't understand how you make every road a toll road. How do you make the little road my house is on, a toll road? Who pays for the sewer systems in spots where there isn't residential housing? In theory your idea is ok, but the actual execution of it would be a godamn nightmare.

But, profit motive! Conveniently ignored here (again, this is my beef with most libertarians--profit motive when it helps, but ignored when it does').

Don't understand? Wow.

By the way, the cost to people of donating to charity is reduced because of taxes. You can't ignore that when you claim the below, it's just sloppy thinking.

Like "let them die"?

And where are those privatized roads? Mostly highways, right? Nobody is saying that some roads can't be privatized, so your argument is against a straw man. By saying "there's no issue there at all" conveniently sweeps many issues under the rug.



Ah, the 'taxation is theft' meme again. Words have meaning, use them.

I wanted to say in the law and order thread "barking is theft", which it is, at least using the libertarian arguments.

I don't think you know what "by ... definition" mean. More empty sloganeering. Also empty assertions below.

And the free market has never produced anything bad? LOL. First, it's a horrible point because there are many bad things that the free market has done, second, it's just horrible.

Those are exactly the things I was saying he was sweeping under the rug with the empty slogans of "profit motive" and "free markets will solve everything".

The trust in the free market from some libertarians (MBN is one) is on par with religious zealots.

But because there are main highways that are private, it must be scalable up and applicable to any other road in existence.

It would be wonderful!

I'm going to buy the road in front of your house and only charge you the quite reasonable sum of "sign your house over to me."

At some point, you will get a bit hungry and agree.

@Brian

I'll grudgingly agree with the way you describe our fundamental differences. You and others think certain forceful measures work and are okay ethically. Libertarians don't. Fair enough.

I only say the government is based on forceful coercion because that is the absolute truth. There's nothing "emotional" about it.

Finally, I said in my description of libertarianism, that ideally defense of the nation would be done by voluntary citizens. I generally take the "police is okay" approach just because if I feel it is reasonable compromise, "normies" wouldn't even give us the time of day if we didn't cede this. But I don't think it is ideal.

For discussions sake, it is true that generally the entire population is comfortable ceding their defense to government. Ideally though this wouldn't be the case as I mentioned, and you could choose an alternative means of property protection and conflict resolution (private security, bodyguards etc).

If you want to read more on true anarcho-libertarian police philosophy here you go. Not for the faint of heart. And I won't answer questions on it, it's simply going to be too big of an argument. But feel free to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute...n_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police

Charity has nothing to do with the profit motive. There is more to life than just $. Human beings are at heart, caring compassionate creatures and I think the amount of charity per year proves that. That is how charity/welfare will and should operate, and it will STILL operate on free market principles (people don't want to be wasteful with their compassion).

Stupidest nitpick ever. You are right. People would contribute much less charity if there were no taxes. My mistake. LOL

What do I sweep under the rug? Privatization of the road system (even small roads can be billed easily and at a much more efficient cost) is insanely, insanely do-able. It's been done all over the place and has always been an effective measure...

I was merely saying that if you want to critique my philosophy choose another angle, because that one is airtight. Privatizing roads is not a problematic process.

I've described ad nauseum ITT the ethical process in which paying for coercive positive rights via taxation is tantamount to theft. Sorry you don't agree.

What? No... how does a dog barking violate property rights? You don't own the air... A dog barking in your house, or close/loud enough to cause physical damage (or by some bizzare case, mental damage, say to a child) would be a violation of property rights (you own yourself, harming a person is a violation of property rights by extension)

But dog barking, construction noises, yelling homeless people are going to be a big fun part of a libertarian society . More intrusive things, like neighbors bumping music etc would be dealt w/ via contractual obligation in your lease or ownership agreement(much as it is today)...

I never said that. Ever. I said the Government empirically produces less effective and more harmful research due to it's necessity to threaten or brutalize populations domestic and abroad.

Of course the private sector creates bad things... Bad things happen. Lets optimize the situation instead of nitpicking. Government controlling scientific research in any way is about the least optimal situation imaginable.

It matches with independent calculations done by MIT profs etc. The trillion dollar bond market would also have to be part of any obvious under reporting conspiracy.

It is the absolute truth in all forms of government. It cannot be the dividing factor between libertarianism and other forms of government. You have to admit that enforcing property rights requires forceful coercion.

What is more true is that we generally agree that things like welfare and education are pretty important, so no coercion actually exists. You wouldn't say that me locking the door of a room you wanted to be in was coercion.

And these volunteers are to use their own pitchforks to defend the nation? Or are they required to build their own fighter jets as well?

We are also generally willing to put the government in charge of all the things governments normally do. Education, roads, feeding the destitute, rules and regulations of private enterprise, etc.

That is where the libertarian argument falls apart (in addition to the misunderstanding of the nature of man and under what conditions people thrive). We, the people, don't want it. Seems rather rude to reduce our freedom to choose the style of government we want.

Hungary must be pretty backward compared to the US. We already have both of those.

What city in the world has 100% private roads? How do you roll this out for a city like New York. I've gotta hear the plan, it sounds insane.

I still loath the idea of a world where if some idiot hits me with his car and I need an ambulance, somehow him and I are getting billed for that. I love living in a society where the weak are protected by everyone. There is something decidedly un-free about letting the unlucky ones just "die" because "people die". That place sounds like garbage.

And that's the thing. Are people motivated by profit, or by something else. When it's convenient for libertarians, people are entirely profit motivated. But for other things, they're not.

I'm sorry you feel bad for missing something critical in your analysis. When you argue something will increase, you can't just ignore reasons that something might decrease and call yourself victorious.

In theory, perhaps--if nobody does what Brian mentioned. Also, I seem to remember an earlier discussion of roads evolving into something where the libertarians starting arguing for flying cars or something like that.. In practice, you're missing a tremendous amount of details. And, you're setting up a NSA-level data collection system (actually, probably even worse and more pervasive)

Hahaha. If you assert so. People have mentioned some issues you've left unaddressed, and there are others. Your hubris is clouding your intellect.

You can argue it's similar, or it's 'tantamount'. But not "is".


So you won't mind the foghorn I'm going to set up on my land, right next to your house. Cool

We've read plenty of 5150 ranting...

Wait...so you're going to do something contractually tell me what I can do with my land? You're restricting my freedomz!!!!

Besides, how do you get to insert yourself as a third party into an agreement? Why would anyone put something in there to start, and where is the consideration from you for putting that clause into that contract? Or are you saying that a contract is valid even if there isn't consideration from both sides in the contract?
I didn't say you did. Ever.

So the list was an appeal to emotion. OK. (in other words, it makes it look like your point is bolstered, but there's no point to the list, since you're not using the list--at least correctly--to support the point you're making above. Sort of like the "ignore all the things that will decrease X, therefore X will increase".)

The debt ceiling is nothing more than a PR economic move. It doesn't address the underlying fiscal problems that has caused the budget to go vastly into the red it simply assures the market that the government has provided an upper limit for the debt to grow to and then hopefully it reduces from that level.

Therein lies the problem of socialism. And what has caused the majority of Europe to be a basketcase if I may say. Socialism exudes inefficiency. You will just not get everyone living in these socialist societies that will work for the common good. It just won't happen. So you inevitably get leeches who do no work and still expect the rest of society to support them which puts an unfair burden on the rest of society and consequently, socialist economies just can't keep up and go into recession.

Look at the situation in California this year. That state would otherwise be demolished without Federal aid. Farmers and entire towns going busto. So libertarians just shrug that off like "it happens". Katrina would have basically all but eliminated New Orleans then. No help would have come (even though they needed way more help than they even got).

Libertarians just sound like selfish a-holes to me. What would old people do if they got laid off before being able to get most of their pensions? I know tons of stories like that. These old people can barely make ends meet with the social assistance they do get. Without it, they would literally die of starvation. Yay they're freeeeee! "People die man, they just die"

That clearly explains why the United States did so well prior to 1935 when we enacted our very first welfare programs.

It, just like everything, isn't a matter of choosing between one extreme ideology or another. There is a vast middle ground where the smart thinking people reside.

Not likely. Libertarians would usually cry foul and point to the government's incompetency for not being able to live within its own means. It is the socialists that live within these capitalist societies like California that would shrug off the massive amounts of debts incurred or the fact that the state has gone bankrupt.

Strange that the State of California going bankrupt hasn't gotten into the news, isn't it?

I wonder why... Perhaps it, and I'm going out on a limb here, is because it is running a surplus and isn't filing for bankruptcy?

Speaking in the theoretical sense about socialists and not particularly about California being a state which is bankrupt. Irregardless, point still stands given California's debt levels.

Ah, yes, I see and comprehend your point.

It is good that you are here. Can't have the full hydra without the proper number of heads. Three more and we've got ourselves a psychiatry ward!

No idea what this has to do with a record drought that is gonna knock out farms and livestock. But anyway.

One thing I have trouble understand is why the eventual QE taper is going to cause our economy to greatly contract and assets to deflate. Judging from her comments and that she seems like another Ben I'm not sure Yellen is going to taper as they have said regardless but that is besides my point/question.

When we stop buying 30-40B a month each of MBS/Treasury what exactly is the economic fallout from this? I keep hearing it is going to cause stocks to collapse etc but I really don't understand why. If companies are doing better and the economy can then stand on its own, won't the taper have limited effect?

Just a quick ramble, I'll try to post more thoughts on this but great thread...

The "eventual" (as you put it) taper is already happening. Tapering started a while ago, and I'm not sure how you missed the news. If you had listened to Yellen, you'd know that she is planning on continuing to taper as long as it seems reasonable based on economic data. She also is not the only vote. She is, just like Ben, just one vote in the Fed.

Oh yeah I knew that they started the taper from 85B to something like 65ish right now.

I meant as it gets more drastic in the taper process (re: approaching 0), why will this cause **** to hit the fan?

There is no forceful coercion in libertarianism! Defense of private property (and your own body) is not coercion. Seriously? There is no ethical allowance other than property rights defense... absolutely 0 people are coerced in a free society.

I can link you guys some more information about it if you want, but please don't say "defending against stealing is coercion"... it's defense of property, and it's the only thing we believe in.

Libertarians don't make the arrogant claim that they understand people, or what they need to do, or how a society "should" operate. That's the whole point! The "Freedom" to threaten violence towards others if they don't want a positive rights society is wrong in in our view. (Coercive positive rights generally aren't acknowledged by libertarians as they violate non-aggression).

So you can ask about toll roads, or health care, or blah blah blah. I've been a libertarian since 19 so I can actually answer all of these questions pretty adequately. But you are missing the point. You ONLY have to stop being unethical and violently coercing others. Nothing else matters.

A good example I heard on a radio debate once was "how is the cotton going to be picked after slavery?"... It just doesn't matter from an ethical standpoint... You need to do the right thing before real progress can be made. And forcing people at gunpoint to pay for a majority imposed social construction is unethical, plain and simple.

I and many others never agreed to a coercive positive rights society, hell... congress has a 9% approval rating. 9%! This stuff is absolutely, absolutely imposed on society after it is manipulated into existence via the political process. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner is NOT ethical. Wake up.

@coffee

We don't "conveniently ignore" this or that or whatever you've been saying. We acknowledge the power of the voluntarism in every sphere, $, having children, social situations, charity etc. The profit motive is just one positive aspect of the unencumbered freedom to choose.

Of course charitable contribution is affected positively by voluntarism. RE: tax deduction for charitable contributions, I know this of course (As I donate every every year and pay taxes). I didn't say it because anyone with half a brain already knows that contributing to charity gives you a deduction. But seeing as you really need someone to explain it to you, tax deductions don't provide a better incentive to give than having no taxes at all. Voluntarism produces far far more charity, that is my claim. It frees up countless trillions of private wealth. If even 10% of it went toward charity we would have a better funded system. You can't refute it and you know it, so you nit pick. It's kind of cute actually.

Anyways, I feel we've addressed all of our differences multiple times. Only fundamental ethical differences remain, statists feel they have the right to have a coercive positive rights society, libertarians don't... so I see no point in going on. I need to work, and this has taken a lot of my time with not enough exposure, so I'm over it.

I might start an "ask a libertarian/anarchist" thread if people are interested. I think it would be informative for a lot of people, because even if you don't agree with my philosophy i'd consider myself pretty knowledgeable on this reasonably obscure subject so can answer questions. if anyone is interested lmk, if not whatever.

Implicitly, you do. Those incentives are swept under the rug when discussing the allocation of some goods, but at the fore when discussing others. Always (surprise!) going in the direction that the libertarian wants.

So you don't see the need to consider or discuss things that go against your main point. Check. See above. At best, it's intellectually dishonest. And I find it interesting you're being so defensive about this issue.

What? Perhaps you're missing something, but your hubris here is unwarranted. At least as far as incentives go, let's assume you're in a 25% tax bracket. You give $100 to charity. Your net out of pocket expenses are then $75, as you've given $100, but save $25 in taxes. Without taxes, you're out $100. If you don't think that $100 is more than $75, I can't really help you.

And--to not do what you do--yes, having more money overall would tend to increase charitable donations.

So, we've got one factor tending to increase donations, one factor tending to decrease donations. That's the correct way to do the analysis, rather than figuring out what conclusion you want and then ignoring everything that goes against said conclusion. Like this, for instance:

Sure, I'll admit I can't refute made-up numbers pulled out of your ass and bald assertions.

I've addressed all of your issues. You just aren't reading them. Here it goes again: I never ignore incentives, they are the keystone of of why libertarian philosophy is so economically effective, but they should never be imposed. The libertarian doesn't "want" the argument/incentives/whatever the hell you are talking about to go in any direction AT ALL. Whatever is provided through free participation will be provided. Allocation of goods must be voluntary... whatever results from voluntarism is the ethically correct, and whatever results from violation of non-aggression is ethically incorrect. I don't know how I could possibly be more clear.

The nearly meaningless argument that tax deductions are (lol?) a significant causal factor for charitable contribution is a joke. Everyone in this thread knows charity is tax deductible. There is some incentivizing effect, but it is not what drives the system of charitable contribution in the slightest, so there is no need to mention it prophylactically. Charitable contribution would undoubtedly be much much higher if forced positive right taxes were eliminated, (domestic tax revenue is in the trillions, this is absolutely not made up) The argument that eliminating taxes almost entirely would vastly increase charitable contribution is pretty airtight.

But please realize...All of this is aside the point. If the system is unethical, (threatening people into paying for positive rights is unethical, for the reasons i've laid out ad nauseum) it doesn't matter how things you consider essential are provided, the unethical system must be removed. It doesn't matter how pyramids get built after slavery. Slavery has to go before the discussion can even begin.

I'd advise you to look to what was likely an abusive up-bringing to address any other problems you might have with the philosophy of nonviolence. Our conversation isn't one based on informational exchange, no point in continuing it.

If I get more feedback, or if others want me to make a thread re:libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism so they can take pot-shots at me/debate, i'd actually be happy to. LMK