How about I decide to start following you around Secret-Service-style to ensure your security against potential terrorists. Shouldn't you pay for that protection?
No. Going to answer my question now? I'm talking about something that would INEVITABLY ARISE from a libertarian opt-out. This is inevitably an issue in a sta- thingy of any viable size; people on the borders wind up bearing the brunt of the burden of defense, while those in the middle get the benefits. Do you just endorse a parasitic solution to this and move on?
I didn't endorse it.
An endorsement of the current state of affairs follows directly from this:
I put a nation's right to exist before individual rights and liberty
No, actually it doesn't. A list of priorities does not an endorsement make. An endorsement might follow from the fact that you haven't got anything better than the status quo, though.
I described how things are. But I would like to hear about your alternative before I put my foot any further into your rhetorical bear trap. I'm pretty sure I can tear it to shreds if it's anything close to what I've seen presented so far in this thread.
My personal alternative is to remove monopoly protection from all services currently provided by government organizations. A fair price (if one exists) can be established in a free market, and all agents can bear liability for their actions.
Which hardly answers my point; force underlies claims of ownership, and power that giveth also taketh away.
But all of this is really quite irrelevant if you're willing to employ or advocate force in pursuit of your goals. Debate is for civilized people.
Statists always use that old roads thing as their trump card against the free market. As if private roads are impossible, or something. But, private roads can and do exist. (As I said, there are plenty around here.)
Try to control your libertarian reflex. I'm not a statist. Or are you calling me a liar? If so, I'd like to know your telepathic method. I've been showing that pure libertarianism (at least as it's been presented here), is unworkable. That doesn't make me a statist.
Stefan Molyneux points out that this is really a trick question, designed to bog the libertarian down on details.[
LOL. God forbid anyone ask for details.
The correct answer is, "How the hell do I know how free market roads will work? All I know is that people need roads, and so someone or some group of people will supple them."
Yeah, but how are your immigrants going to use them? Suppose the people who own the roads don't want immigrants on them? Suppose ONE FREAKIN' STOCKHOLDER doesn't want them on his roads? I mean, we all know it would be wrong for the other 99 stockholders to FORCE that 1 stockholder to do something with his property he doesn't want done. And we all know keeping the billion immigrants ready to invade and take over your libertarian paradise waiting would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Ayn Rand observed that if government had always suppled shoes, and some free market proponent suggested that shoes be suppled privately, statists would object. "What! How's THAT going to work! Why, only the rich would have shoes!"
Wow, Rand showing her usual full-of-shit-ness.
If someone REALLY wants some examples of how such a system might work, they can find plenty of explanations on the web without much trouble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads
I'll check it out. Sorry if the effort put you behind in your quest for national suicide.
Oh, I see. Your free marketeers would just chat calmly with violators. Nice fantasy you have there.
This guy doesn't seem to like a bit of healthy competition in his totalitarian vision.
This guy doesn't seem to like following a conversation.
Why cant there be competing governments or do you argue for the monopoly?
I don't know, and no I don't. I'd like to see my questions answered. I point out a litany of flaws and you guys just ignore them and start attacking straw men. Which doesn't help your case much; I can be a Nazi Commie Theocrat Satan-worshiper, but that isn't going to repair the enormous holes I've exposed in your ideology.
we want free market competition in this area as in all others.Roads or any other service makes no difference it can be better with competition and market pressure.This has been shown with the rate of growth in the computer industry which has little government intervention.
Well, there's certainly one big down side to a free market in roads; three competing companies means three road systems, which is a hideously inefficient allocation of resources. Same goes for utilities; what would be the point of 5 electrical grids? Is there a place with free competition in roads and utilities? If so, do they have multiple road or utility systems? If so, have they benefited from same? If the answers are no, no, and no, how, other than pure theory, do you know that's a good idea?
But that wasn't why I asked the question. I asked about roads because I'd like to know how libertarians would do roads. I guess I've got my answer; they haven't got a fucking clue how they'd do roads. They'd just pray to the gods of the free market for roads. Mystical thinking.
According to libertarians, 5 guys have the right to own and control property, but they don't have the right to form a collective substrate beneath their property, call it a nation, and own and control it.
No one here has said you can't form voluntary unions ,why do you refuse to acknowledge that?
I've been told time and again that nations have no rights, no right to control immigration, etc. Are you following the converation?
Why do you have such a hard on for the military industrial complex?
When did you stop beating your wife?
How would roads work in libertarian Erewhon? I mean, who controls these private roads? One guy? A group?
Whoever OWNS them.
Uhm, yeah, I got that. DESCRIBE AN EXAMPLE FOR ME. How hard is that? Christ. That's what "how would the roads work in libertarian Erewhon?" means.
How would libertarian Erewhon (a thingy, not a state, mind you) protect itself from the Canadian Paratrooper invasion? Hell, the Bruneian Paratrooper invasion?
How would libertarian Erewhon (a thingy, not a state, mind you) protect itself from our nuke-equipped-RV-driving immigrant?
If your ever loving government doesnt take everyones guns the population would defend its own property.Your canadian analogy is invalid-canadians are too nice lol
No, we've already established that it's wrong to use force to take property or prevent immigration, any immigration. So your libertarian population is wringing its hands about our nuke-havin' immigrant friend, but nothing more. Then the nuke goes off, and your libertarian population is ash.
As for the Bruneian paratrooper invasion, well, the libertarian population might
want to defend itself, but how could it without violating libertarian principles? As the paratroopers are landing, the libertarian masses remind themselves that immigration - any immigration - cannot be opposed. As the paratroopers are getting into position, the libertarian masses remind themselves that they can't use force until force is initiated against them. Then the paratroopers exploit their advantages in position and before the libertarians can do anything, the battle's over and they've lost.
And Canadians aren't much of a threat, I agree. That's why I picked them.
and what is stopping any of this happening right now?It is impossible even with a totalitarian police state to stop a motivated individual.That is the point,you have given up your liberty for no apparent reason.That is the height of futility in my opinion.Most of your arguments are fear based.Your fear of healthy competition and rational market forces leads you into a police state every time.You have offered no solutions to the problems you present except the status quo.
I'm going to let you wrestle with that straw man all you want, all by your lonesome. You don't like my criticisms of your ideology, fine. You can't answer them, fine. That doesn't mean you get to make up an ideology for me and attack it. Well, it does, but it doesn't mean I'll play along like a moron.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism (Read 22959 times)