Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Public vs. Private Business

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 8 of 13
 [ 246 posts ] 
Public vs. Private Business
Author Message
ArthurWilbornPosts: 964Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

There's something wrong with the thinking of people who think that "free markets" are the solution while condemning government as being incapable of producing positive results, and vice versa. The reality of human nature is that markets don't do anything... people do things. Most of us understand on some level that government is just people too, but some people have less awareness than others. The idea that government should get out of the way and allow free markets to find solutions... it is just dumb! It is saying people should get out of the way and allow people to find solutions.


Let's give it the substitution test:

There's something wrong with the thinking of people who think that (science is) the solution while condemning (religion) as being incapable of producing positive results, and vice versa. The reality of human nature is that (science doesn't) do anything... people do things. Most of us understand on some level that (religion) is just people too, but some people have less awareness than others. The idea that (religion) should get out of the way and allow (science) to find solutions... it is just dumb! It is saying people should get out of the way and allow people to find solutions.
Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:08 pm
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Gnug215 wrote:How about we try to get to core of this stuff instead?

Ilikemustard, since you currently seem to be sole voice on the private side, how about talking more in depth about a relatively fully-formed, plausible model that is an alternative to... the current state of things, I suppose.

The rest of you... could you try to clarify your positions a bit? I am seeing some arguments, but I'm not seeing a cohesive explanation for your positions. (Genrally speaking. It's the gist of what I've seen from some of the posts here so far.)

Also, does this debate have to be a matter of either or? It seems to be we have a bit of both in most societies today, and it does seem like both sides here realize and accept that, and are NOT in fact debating for the extreme version of either side - which leads me to wonder how deep the disagreements really are.

Lastly, I'm wondering what people here think about the basic view of human nature in terms of these two different versions of society. I've always had the notion that not everyone functions in the same way, so there would never be a society that would work perfectly for every kind of personality. With that in mind, I personally think it's clear that any extreme kind of society will always be unstable, because some people will always work against it.

Arrh.


Well to recap, it's not a matter of strictly either or for me as the title of the thread suggests. I think different "markets" can benefit from a blend of privatization + social programs/government oversight, and I agree wholly with your last sentence, but at what point do you consider any of the ideology "extreme"? Because I do think privatizing law enforcement and the judicial system is pretty much going extreme.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:29 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2561Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

televator wrote:Well to recap, it's not a matter of strictly either or for me as the title of the thread suggests. I think different "markets" can benefit from a blend of privatization + social programs/government oversight, and I agree wholly with your last sentence, but at what point do you consider any of the ideology "extreme"? Because I do think privatizing law enforcement and the judicial system is pretty much going extreme.


I suppose defining when something in this sense becomes extreme is difficult, but in its most extreme, it would be the pure form of either. So, a totally communist state with a plan economy and all that jazz on one hand, and a total free-market anarchy on the other.

I agree that privatizing law enforcement and the judicial system is extreme. I am having trouble even grasping how these two things could even function as private enterprizes.

Btw, I don't think I've ever heard a "fully detailed vision" of what an anarchistic, no-regulations state would look like. Is that even what libertarians are aiming for? I don't think I've ever heard a libertarian or even an anarchist say that NOTHING should be left. Do they even want this?
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:56 pm
ImprobableJoeLime TordUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Gnug215 wrote:
Btw, I don't think I've ever heard a "fully detailed vision" of what an anarchistic, no-regulations state would look like. Is that even what libertarians are aiming for? I don't think I've ever heard a libertarian or even an anarchist say that NOTHING should be left. Do they even want this?

I'm not sure if libertarians even know what they want, other than to have their cake and eat it too. I've never had a conversation with a libertarian that was coherent enough to tell the difference between it being a political viewpoint and it being an excuse for being a selfish asshole, or where they didn't shift their views constantly to avoid looking like a selfish asshole. I prefer the second type better. At least they realize that their hypothetical beliefs have real-world consequences, and that other people's lives and well-being DO matter on some level.

Also hear a lot of "I'm a libertarian, but I'm not that kind of libertarian", whatever they find themselves confronted with positions that they know look bad. Sort of like everyone else, come to think of it.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:03 pm
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Gnug215 wrote:
televator wrote:Well to recap, it's not a matter of strictly either or for me as the title of the thread suggests. I think different "markets" can benefit from a blend of privatization + social programs/government oversight, and I agree wholly with your last sentence, but at what point do you consider any of the ideology "extreme"? Because I do think privatizing law enforcement and the judicial system is pretty much going extreme.


I suppose defining when something in this sense becomes extreme is difficult, but in its most extreme, it would be the pure form of either. So, a totally communist state with a plan economy and all that jazz on one hand, and a total free-market anarchy on the other.

I agree that privatizing law enforcement and the judicial system is extreme. I am having trouble even grasping how these two things could even function as private enterprizes.

Btw, I don't think I've ever heard a "fully detailed vision" of what an anarchistic, no-regulations state would look like. Is that even what libertarians are aiming for? I don't think I've ever heard a libertarian or even an anarchist say that NOTHING should be left. Do they even want this?


Yeah, I tend to think pure anarchy is impossible. But most pure ideologies are impossible, because people are in no way pure to begin with.

The extreme of libertarianism / anarchy would be zero social and/or government influence. Technically, not even social clubs and cliques.

And I suspect that in the degrees of libertarianism there are at least a couple different approaches that are entirely opposite. Socialist/Capitalist. And I suspect that as with most hypothetical ideologies, the extremes of both tend to meet and become virtually indistinguishable from each other.
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:44 pm
IlikemustardUser avatarPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Ok, first off, calling my stance "extreme" is as weird to me as an agnostic calling atheism "extreme". I'm sure you've never thought of atheism as "extreme" before. Atheism just makes sense to you.

Have you ever noticed the trend of statism? Have you noticed how the further civilization progresses, the less statist it becomes?
Take what is considered to be the first state, Ancient Egypt. It was a total monarchy with its leader revered as a demi-god. The pharaoh's word was law and he could do as he pleased. Ancient Egypt had many slaves, all of which had almost no freedom.
Compare that to today's model of statism. Slavery has been abolished, leadership has been almost entirely decentralized, and economies are far more free.
This is analagous with natural selection. The stronger states survive, and a state becomes stronger by being less statist.
This is evidently crystal clear, even in modern history, and today. Planned economies, and more statist nations (Communist China, The Soviet Union, North Korea) perform poorly whilst less statist nations (United States, Hong Kong, etc.) flourish.

So if you were to graph this with one axis representing the degree of statism and economic freedom, and the other axis representing the level of growth and wealth of the state, according to objective data it should visually reflect an increase in growth and wealth as the degree of statism decreases. So... What happens when we hit the point where the degree of statism is zero, i.e. statelessness? According to pretty much everyone on this board, the level of growth and wealth suddenly drops.

Why though? Do we need a form of central power to bark out orders, and take money in order to redistribute it to enable "stability"? Imagine if you were living in Ancient Egypt and you were debating with an Egyptian why their economy should be more free and their leadership decentralized. "Oh no", he would cry, "if you took the power away from the pharaoh it would lead to instability! Who would carry out the law, and see criminals punished?"
To which you would reply "It could possibly be done by using multiple law-enforcers known as judges. These judges could preside over a courtroom, in which a group called a jury would listen to the case and decide on the ruling. The plaintiff and defendant could hire legal agents called lawyers to make their case for them."
The Egyptian scoffs at you, and remarks "How could you decentralize the legal system? It would lead to all kinds of nasty things, like corruption and abuse of power! And what if two judges disagree with one another, what then? And what about the economy, we NEED the pharaoh to distribute resources, otherwise we will face instability!"

You look at the Egyptian system and call it barbaric. I look at your system and call it barbaric.



Private police is an easy subject. Pay into an insurance fund and receive on-call protection. Simple.

Private police already exist partially today - What do you call a security guard? Malls hire security guards to protect the people using their mall, the same thing would happen without state police. The same thing will happen when it comes to law-breakers, private police will detain them and take them to a court to decide their fate.

Why is this better than the current system?
A state has a monopoly on police. As with any other area of the market, a monopoly is always a bad thing. If state police go on strike, you lose protection entirely, and this has happened many times before. Multiple competing private police firms mean if one goes on strike, you still have access to protection. Furthermore, because a state has a "right" to a monopoly on police, what is regulating their police force? Logically their police force would be able to do what ever they want to further the state's goals, to the point where they incite revolution. That's exactly what's happened recently in Egypt, police exerted their power a little too much and Egypt went into total revolt. But this is logically the only thing regulating state police, the fear of revolt. Private police are regulated by competition - If one police firm starts abusing their power, people are going to switch to a different police firm and the first firm will lose profits. So they have incentive to act in the people's interests in order to make a profit.

I already know the multiple criticisms people are going to make, but I will wait until they are made before I address them. Except for one, which comes up all the time. No, people aren't going to get beaten up while police watch on without doing anything because they're uninsured. Silly argument. Firstly, they're not going to do nothing, because that gives their company a bad reputation. A bad reputation means less customers, which means less profit. Secondly, yes, if you call a police firm requesting their service while you are uninsured, you should owe them the cost of helping you. This eliminates the freerider problem, otherwise no one would actually get protection insurance.
This is all of course assuming protection would actually cost so much that it would require insurance. Who knows, maybe it won't cost much at all to get police service. I can't really predict that.



Private courts. Much more difficult subject. This is one way private courts could work. Note that there are a multitude of ways private courts could work, just as with any other service.

Obviously you will pay a court, or court firm, to preside over your case. Once again I don't know whether or not this will cost so much that it will require insurance, I can't be sure, though it's likely.

What's stopping your court from ruling in your favour everytime, just so they can get more customers? Well, to sum up most of my argument, courts will be regulated by each other. If I go to a court because I want to sue some guy because of something arbitrary (like giving me a funny look or something), and the court's all like "ok, whatever, pay us now", then the guy who was sued is going to be like "wtf" and go to a different court and tell them his case. This second court is going to demand the first court overturn their case, because their ruling was too outlandish (By outlandish I mean it doesn't follow 'common law', I'll talk about that in a moment). If the first court refuses, suddenly all the other courts in the area are going to join in and forcibly punish the first court in some way, because they see it as a legitimate way of limiting their competition. The punishment could be something as simple as seizing some of the first court's assets. So courts have incentive not to make stupid rulings for fear of retribution by the other courts.

So what's stopping all the courts from banding together and making up stupid laws that only further their agenda? Well, that would be law-making, not law-taking. Law-making simply does not work. Almost all forms of law adapt to the society that they govern, the society's 'common law'. A state can't make up stupid laws or they will simply not be followed, and will be rejected by society. A state has to try and adapt their laws to what society wants. The same is true for private courts, only they have the added benefit of economic competition regulating them. A court that tries to enforce outlandish laws will lose customers not only because of their laws, but because they will be seen as illegitimate. People don't want to pay for a court's services if they don't think the ruling can be enforced or followed.

Then there's the problem of all the courts ending up enforcing severe penalties because people are greedy. The thought process is "I don't want to pay for a court that will not give me as much money when I sue someone. I know it's not fair, but everyone else will do it and I don't want to be left out."
The problem is if people are going to want courts that deal out severe penalties, everytime one of these severe penalties is dealt you're going to have someone else going to a different court trying to have common law enforced because they feel their penalty was unfair. Once again, courts will regulate each other. Not only this, but people fear retribution as well as being greedy. If they support courts that deal severe penalties, they have the added fear of receiving a severe penalty if they ever break a law. If a court advertises "we will enforce common law as well as enforcing other courts to follow common law, use our court!", they will likely receive more customers as they will be seen as just and fair.

Why is this better than the current system? It makes the law more dynamic and more in-line with society's demands. A state can still make laws that further the state's goals if they can try and justify them in some way, and if they are not too outlandish. If a private court tries to do this, it will be blackballed by other courts.


I would love criticism on this idea of private courts, so I can try and better my stance and fix any flaws in my ideas. I will also be able to clarify my position more thoroughly.


TL;DR, the state is an outdated and unneccessary system that inhibits freedom and economic growth.
Why more atheists than anti-statists?




Here is some YouTube channels of other anti-statists if you want other people's views on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot
http://www.youtube.com/user/fringeelements
http://www.youtube.com/user/Morrakiu
http://www.youtube.com/user/InTheEndIWasRight
Last edited by Ilikemustard on Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:50 am
AdmiralPeacockUser avatarPosts: 453Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:31 pmLocation: Australia Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Ilikemustard wrote:Private courts. Much more difficult subject. This is one way private courts could work. Note that there are a multitude of ways private courts could work, just as with any other service.

Obviously you will pay a court, or court firm, to preside over your case. Once again I don't know whether or not this will cost so much that it will require insurance, I can't be sure, though it's likely.

What's stopping your court from ruling in your favour everytime, just so they can get more customers? Well, to sum up most of my argument, courts will be regulated by each other. If I go to a court because I want to sue some guy because of something arbitrary (like giving me a funny look or something), and the court's all like "ok, whatever, pay us now", then the guy who was sued is going to be like "wtf" and go to a different court and tell them his case. This second court is going to demand the first court overturn their case, because their ruling was too outlandish (By outlandish I mean it doesn't follow 'common law', I'll talk about that in a moment). If the first court refuses, suddenly all the other courts in the area are going to join in and forcibly punish the first court in some way, because they see it as a legitimate way of limiting their competition. The punishment could be something as simple as seizing some of the first court's assets. So courts have incentive not to make stupid rulings for fear of retribution by the other courts.

So what's stopping all the courts from banding together and making up stupid laws that only further their agenda? Well, that would be law-making, not law-taking. Law-making simply does not work. Almost all forms of law adapt to the society that they govern, the society's 'common law'. A state can't make up stupid laws or they will simply not be followed, and will be rejected by society. A state has to try and adapt their laws to what society wants. The same is true for private courts, only they have the added benefit of economic competition regulating them. A court that tries to enforce outlandish laws will lose customers not only because of their laws, but because they will be seen as illegitimate. People don't want to pay for a court's services if they don't think the ruling can be enforced or followed.

Then there's the problem of all the courts ending up enforcing severe penalties because people are greedy. The thought process is "I don't want to pay for a court that will not give me as much money when I sue someone. I know it's not fair, but everyone else will do it and I don't want to left out."
The problem is if people are going to want courts that deal out severe penalties, everytime one of these severe penalties is dealt you're going to have someone else going to a different court trying to have common law enforced because they feel their penalty was unfair. Once again, courts will regulate each other. Not only this, but people fear retribution as well as being greedy. If they support courts that deal severe penalties, they have the added fear of receiving a severe penalty if they ever break a law. If a court advertises "we will enforce common law as well as enforcing other courts to follow common law, use our court!", they will likely receive more customers as they will be seen as just and fair.

Why is this better than the current system? It makes the law more dynamic and more in-line with society's demands. A state can still make laws that further the state's goals if they can try and justify them in some way, and if they are not too outlandish. If a private court tries to do this, it will be blackballed by other courts.


I would love criticism on this idea of private courts, so I can try and better my stance and fix any flaws in my ideas. I will also be able to clarify my position more thoroughly.


What if you can't afford to go to court, any court?


TL;DR, the state is an outdated and unneccessary system that inhibits freedom and economic growth.


heh, you've yet to come close to establishing things. So far you've basically said, "State bad, private good... [insert some inane crap] and because I say so".
"Attention all competitors, this is your ONE minute warning. I repeat ONE minute until race commencement.
Members of the public you now have ONE minute to reach minimum safe distance. "
Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:07 am
WWW
IlikemustardUser avatarPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

AdmiralPeacock wrote:What if you can't afford to go to court, any court?

Private charity could pay for it. If I feel sorry for people that cannot afford court service, I can donate to a charity. But forcing me to pay for someone else's court service is barbaric.

Also, if the person can prove to the court that they honestly cannot afford it, the court may engage in their own charity to give themselves a better reputation. Better reputation means more profits.

AdmiralPeacock wrote:heh, you've yet to come close to establishing things. So far you've basically said, "State bad, private good... [insert some inane crap] and because I say so".

Come on dude, seriously? This is your argument? Did you not read the mod note? I'm just going to ignore you if you continue with this.
Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:13 am
AdmiralPeacockUser avatarPosts: 453Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:31 pmLocation: Australia Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Ilikemustard wrote:
AdmiralPeacock wrote:What if you can't afford to go to court, any court?

Private charity could pay for it. If I feel sorry for people that cannot afford court service, I can donate to a charity. But forcing me to pay for someone else's court service is barbaric.


Ummm no, allowing people to fall prey to a class system is barbaric.

Also, if the person can prove to the court that they honestly cannot afford it, the court may engage in their own charity to give themselves a better reputation. Better reputation means more profits.

Or order an indenture.

AdmiralPeacock wrote:heh, you've yet to come close to establishing things. So far you've basically said, "State bad, private good... [insert some inane crap] and because I say so".

Come on dude, seriously? This is your argument? Did you not read the mod note? I'm just going to ignore you if you continue with this.


It wasn't an argument, it was an observation.

But it's true - your arguments can be boiled down to a kind of quasi-juvenile interpretation of inherent social obligation which is evident in the language you use. Example "But forcing me to pay for someone else's court service is barbaric". It can be further simplified into "this is mine and I ain't sharing it, unless I feel like it" - in every instance you fail to establish that you even have the right to possess what you have at a base point. That your land, the resources you use, the air that you breathe is yours by right. There's more... (Real Life Distractions)
"Attention all competitors, this is your ONE minute warning. I repeat ONE minute until race commencement.
Members of the public you now have ONE minute to reach minimum safe distance. "
Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:25 am
WWW
kenandkidsUser avatarPosts: 1117Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:00 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Ilikemustard wrote:Private charity could pay for it. If I feel sorry for people that cannot afford court service, I can donate to a charity. But forcing me to pay for someone else's court service is barbaric.


I really want to be nice... but... Are you freaking insane? Private courts are what has held back every civilisation and permitted the rape of this planet on a scale I can't even describe. I now know you are white and privileged because until now the courts have acted exactly as a private charity would: those with money get the decision, those without get the sentence. It's "barbaric" that people have an outside and impartial judge to determine the outcome of what might very well be something that their life hangs on? Barabaric? WTF? I sincerely hope that the judge in any case you might even be peripherally part of is bought and paid for by the opposition!

I hope this actually hurts you:
Even Dark Age Catholics knew that judges needed to be at least presumably impartial, it is the reason that the decree about priests being married was instituted. The Dark Ages! Catholics! They had more insight into right and wrong, as well as human intellect, than you seem to.



Also, if the person can prove to the court that they honestly cannot afford it, the court may engage in their own charity to give themselves a better reputation. Better reputation means more profits.


What the Fuck? Read above, but this time please amplify.

AdmiralPeacock wrote:heh, you've yet to come close to establishing things. So far you've basically said, "State bad, private good... [insert some inane crap] and because I say so".

Come on dude, seriously? This is your argument? Did you not read the mod note? I'm just going to ignore you if you continue with this.


Fuck the mod note, Peacock described you with such a delicate brush...
Teapublican commandment:
Thou shalt not educate or improve the lives of the lesser classes, the lesser races, or women.

Fiddler on:

http://obnoxi.us/
Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:35 am
ArthurWilbornPosts: 964Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

I would love criticism on this idea of private courts, so I can try and better my stance and fix any flaws in my ideas. I will also be able to clarify my position more thoroughly.


Gladly!

A type of private court exists today in the form of binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is usually considered a bad idea because it usually favors one side; that is, the side that hires it more often.

For example, in union negotiation arbitration favors the union over the business, since the arbitrators will work with the same union many times but different businesses each time.
http://www.schoolreport.com/vbe/article ... ration.htm

Similarly, arbitration between businesses and the public favors businesses since the arbitrators deal with a small pool of businesses but different members of the public each time.

Similarly, a private court would probably favor repeat customers, which would almost invariably be businesses and people who make profit off lawsuits. The court would act simply as a method of extortion.
Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:09 pm
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

kenandkids wrote:Fuck the mod note, Peacock described you with such a delicate brush...


Okay, this is doing more harm than good.

Anyway, I feel like this discussion just goes around in circles. Realizing that, I think I've had my fill for now.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Last edited by televator on Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:13 pm
obsidianavengerPosts: 840Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:44 am Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Andiferous wrote:Yeah, I tend to think pure anarchy is impossible. But most pure ideologies are impossible, because people are in no way pure to begin with.

The extreme of libertarianism / anarchy would be zero social and/or government influence. Technically, not even social clubs and cliques.


i've been avoiding this thread cause theres enough drama in it already, but it drives me crazy when people misunderstand the libertarian/anarchist position in this way. voluntary organizations, even ones that seem to exert control over their members, are perfectly ok. people working together/cooperating for a common good is not only ok, its desirable. the only thing not ok is some organization calling itself government forcing people to participate in such things. social influence is fine, social control (in the form of jailing/punishing people who don't hold up to some social ideal) is not. also note that refraining from stealing and murder are not "social ideals" they are requirements of the non-aggression principle which most anarchists (at least an-caps) see as the root of their position. influence still allows someone the option to choose differently. control/force does not.
Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:25 pm
obsidianavengerPosts: 840Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:44 am Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

kenandkids wrote:
Ilikemustard wrote:Private charity could pay for it. If I feel sorry for people that cannot afford court service, I can donate to a charity. But forcing me to pay for someone else's court service is barbaric.


I really want to be nice...


i really don't think you do, judging from the rest of this post :P

Private courts are what has held back every civilisation and permitted the rape of this planet on a scale I can't even describe.


there have been no "private courts" there have been corrupt government courts that jailed and punished anyone who dissented with them. presumably in a free market of arbiters, those that offered corrupt rulings could themselves be sued by other courts and divested of their assets. it wouldn't benefit anyone to pay such agencies for their protection unless the agencies managed to gain monopoly power in a given area which would just make them the government again lol...

slapping the label of "government" on a group of people doesn't make them less liable to corruption. holding people accountable for their actions does. and that is what competing protective agencies are meant to do. think about it, how often have you seen the government holding itself accountable?

I now know you are white and privileged


doesn't add to the discussion at all. is it ok if a black person is an anarchist but not a white person or something?

because until now the courts have acted exactly as a private charity would: those with money get the decision, those without get the sentence. It's "barbaric" that people have an outside and impartial judge to determine the outcome of what might very well be something that their life hangs on? Barabaric? WTF? I sincerely hope that the judge in any case you might even be peripherally part of is bought and paid for by the opposition!


you misunderstand. he's not against the idea of "impartial judges"; he's against the idea that having a government is the only way to create them. try engaging his argument instead of mocking him.

I hope this actually hurts you:
Even Dark Age Catholics knew that judges needed to be at least presumably impartial, it is the reason that the decree about priests being married was instituted. The Dark Ages! Catholics! They had more insight into right and wrong, as well as human intellect, than you seem to.


you seem to have an extreme fondness for strawmen. if you think impartiality would be impossible in groups of competing courts go ahead and say so... and say why. and then go ahead and explain why calling one monopoly group of courts the "government" and giving them power over everyone solves that problem.

Also, if the person can prove to the court that they honestly cannot afford it, the court may engage in their own charity to give themselves a better reputation. Better reputation means more profits.


What the Fuck? Read above, but this time please amplify.


1. breathe plz
2. just cause you don't understand what he's saying, it doesn't follow that he's wrong :P
Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:38 pm
RichardMNixonUser avatarPosts: 1047Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:45 pmLocation: USA Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

I skimmed it, two points that stood out.

Ilikemustard wrote:Private police is an easy subject. Pay into an insurance fund and receive on-call protection. Simple.


So people who can't afford to hire police are free to be enslaved or eaten? Homeless buffet?
I don't see police here, I see gangs. Someone with more money (though how money will even mean anything in your system I can't fathom) than you hires better police than yours and tells them you took his shit. His police get in a conflict with yours and open fire. His police win. Your shit belongs to him now. What's the difference between private police and hit men? Your whole system is begging to be ruled by a mob boss.

The punishment could be something as simple as seizing some of the first court's assets.

WTF? "That ruling was stupid, give me your assets." "No, you're stupid." How do you enforce any of this?

I also disagree very strongly with your belief that state-power started at some maximum in eons past and is coming down to a minimum. I certainly think Pericles had less power than Louis XIV, and I certainly think Grover Cleveland exercised less state power than Reagan.
"When I come to my own beliefs, I find myself quite unable to discern any purpose in the universe, and still more unable to wish to discern one." ~ Bertrand Russell
"If we do not succeed, we run the risk of failure." ~ Dan Quayle
Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:01 pm
obsidianavengerPosts: 840Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:44 am Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

Ilikemustard wrote:private police and courts etc


ok, heres my issue with that. private businesses competing require a free market- free meaning not only free from regulations and government interventions, but also meaning free from the intrusion of force and fraud. in order for private courts or police to compete then, they would have to be able to approach their customers and potential in an arena without the use of force/fraud. the minute one protective agency becomes more powerful than the others in an area, that goes out the window, because theres nothing stopping them from forcing people to do their will at gunpoint. alternately (probably more likely that one agency out and out gaining monopoly power) all the agencies operating in an area could band together and agree not to prosecute one another for committing violence against customers or issuing corrupt rulings. there would be no way for people to challenge this; they would be forced to obey or be killed.

how is government an improvement? because it seems like government is just a monopoly protective agency writ large, right? well, the difference is that a government is formed under the guidelines of clear objective laws that apply equally to everyone (including the government officials themselves) and that it is periodically emptied and replaced by different individuals, making it harder (though obviously not impossible, as corruption still occurs) for any individual to steer the course of government power perpetually in their favor. the operations of the government are also at least nominally transparent to the people over which they rule, though this isn't always the case as much as it should be. its much easier to limit the power of a government than it is to limit the power of a private agency competing against other private agencies. the tendency in business is for companies to merge and become larger and larger. competition in the arena of courts and police could be pretty quickly eliminated if this occurred. certainly its already eliminated in the case of government, but at the very least, people can exert a modicum of control over how their governments proceed, something that is utterly impossible in the case of private protective agencies.

finally, and i think most importantly, all of this requires the concept of inviolable human rights to do a lot of work- the entire framework of anarchy/libertarianism is dependent on them- and yet i have never encountered a satisfactory defense for their existence. i don't like being forced by others to do things or being threatened; i'm sure no one else does. but the mere fact that everyone feels a certain way about something doesn't create a set of rights out of thin air. this is the weakest point in the libertarian/anarchist argument, and one that people have pretty much given up on addressing... because they know its their weak point. lol. if theres no basis for rights, theres no basis for libertarianism or anarchy except utilitarian arguments... and those generally fail miserably.
Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:06 pm
AdmiralPeacockUser avatarPosts: 453Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:31 pmLocation: Australia Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

obsidianavenger wrote:
Andiferous wrote:Yeah, I tend to think pure anarchy is impossible. But most pure ideologies are impossible, because people are in no way pure to begin with.

The extreme of libertarianism / anarchy would be zero social and/or government influence. Technically, not even social clubs and cliques.


i've been avoiding this thread cause theres enough drama in it already, but it drives me crazy when people misunderstand the libertarian/anarchist position in this way. voluntary organizations, even ones that seem to exert control over their members, are perfectly ok. people working together/cooperating for a common good is not only ok, its desirable. the only thing not ok is some organization calling itself government forcing people to participate in such things. social influence is fine, social control (in the form of jailing/punishing people who don't hold up to some social ideal) is not. also note that refraining from stealing and murder are not "social ideals" they are requirements of the non-aggression principle which most anarchists (at least an-caps) see as the root of their position. influence still allows someone the option to choose differently. control/force does not.


Do you get annoyed when people like mustard misunderstand every other position? I really have no sympathy for libertarians/anarchists when people exaggerate or parody their position, as they among the worst culprits consistently doing the same with mine and other positions.
"Attention all competitors, this is your ONE minute warning. I repeat ONE minute until race commencement.
Members of the public you now have ONE minute to reach minimum safe distance. "
Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:42 pm
WWW
obsidianavengerPosts: 840Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:44 am Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

AdmiralPeacock wrote:
Do you get annoyed when people like mustard misunderstand every other position? I really have no sympathy for libertarians/anarchists when people exaggerate or parody their position, as they among the worst culprits consistently doing the same with mine and other positions.


tbh... i think people get upset when libertarians claim taxes or theft or that government essentially forces people to do things at gunpoint because its emotionally charged language. but its not untrue. kind of like calling a fetus a parasite in an abortion argument. its the nature of force. on the other hand, it is ridiculous when libertarians run the reductio on need based arguments and claim it leads to people starving to death therefore its a fail argument. thats not even remotely true.
Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:00 am
AdmiralPeacockUser avatarPosts: 453Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:31 pmLocation: Australia Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

obsidianavenger wrote:
AdmiralPeacock wrote:
Do you get annoyed when people like mustard misunderstand every other position? I really have no sympathy for libertarians/anarchists when people exaggerate or parody their position, as they among the worst culprits consistently doing the same with mine and other positions.


tbh... i think people get upset when libertarians claim taxes or theft or that government essentially forces people to do things at gunpoint because its emotionally charged language. but its not untrue. kind of like calling a fetus a parasite in an abortion argument. its the nature of force. on the other hand, it is ridiculous when libertarians run the reductio on need based arguments and claim it leads to people starving to death therefore its a fail argument. thats not even remotely true.


Pfft - it's more than simply "emotionally charged language", but what ever. Just don't get butthurt when people use "emotionally charged language" to describe the libertarians position in return.
"Attention all competitors, this is your ONE minute warning. I repeat ONE minute until race commencement.
Members of the public you now have ONE minute to reach minimum safe distance. "
Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:03 am
WWW
obsidianavengerPosts: 840Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:44 am Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Public vs. Private Business

AdmiralPeacock wrote:
Pfft - it's more than simply "emotionally charged language", but what ever. Just don't get butthurt when people use "emotionally charged language" to describe the libertarians position in return.


its not just emotionally charged though, its downright inaccurate. andiferous basically said that voluntary associations wouldn't exist under anarchy. thats not even close to true.
Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:13 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 8 of 13
 [ 246 posts ] 
Return to Business & Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest