Guns

[Renton]

3 guys share a flat with one kitchen. They need to take turns to clean it up. They assign a day for each of them to clean it up.

That's a form of government. Please explain how the 3 are better off all doing wtf they please and not abiding by the centrally set regulations.

That's not even remotely related to government. Cooperation for mutual gain is one of the cornerstones of basic economics and something I'm obviously greatly in favor of. In that example each of those three guys is CONSENTING to that agreement. If any of them believes its not a fair deal he's free to opt out and live in a different apartment or live alone. The whole point of government is that its coercion-based.

I don't understand why there's the perception that because someone is critical of government, he must automatically be against any form of collective. There are tons of systems in the economy that do a lot of good things for society and operate mostly or entirely outside of the purview of the state.

For example, the credit system has improved the standard of living of billions and requires very little input from states. Lenders and retailers cooperating for mutual gain. If you have a history of welshing on your loans, you pay a higher interest rate or are denied altogether. You demonstrate that you're a responsible payer of your debts and you pay lower rates and get bigger loans. Probably best of all, you don't HAVE to participate in the system if you don't want. Just pay cash for everything.

I'm not against a system. I'm against a force-based system.

[boost]

That's not even remotely related to government. Cooperation for mutual gain is one of the cornerstones of basic economics and something I'm obviously greatly in favor of. In that example each of those three guys is CONSENTING to that agreement. If any of them believes its not a fair deal he's free to opt out and live in a different apartment or live alone. The whole point of government is that its coercion-based.

I don't understand why there's the perception that because someone is critical of government, he must automatically be against any form of collective. There are tons of systems in the economy that do a lot of good things for society and operate mostly or entirely outside of the purview of the state.

For example, the credit system has improved the standard of living of billions and requires very little input from states. Lenders and retailers cooperating for mutual gain. If you have a history of welshing on your loans, you pay a higher interest rate or are denied altogether. You demonstrate that you're a responsible payer of your debts and you pay lower rates and get bigger loans. Probably best of all, you don't HAVE to participate in the system if you don't want. Just pay cash for everything.

I'm not against a system. I'm against a force-based system.

It is exactly a government. Further, it's a government who's cogs are greased by the threat of force. Should Tim both refuse to do his share of cleaning and refuse to vacate, then what?

[Renton]

It is exactly a government. Further, it's a government who's cogs are greased by the threat of force. Should Tim both refuse to do his share of cleaning and refuse to vacate, then what?

Tim has a right to live in that apartment because its a contractual obligation. Klaus and Wilhelm have no right to force their majority-decided rules onto Tim. If Tim is contributing to the disarray of the place and not cleaning up after himself, that is an act of aggression against the others and they THEN have the right to respond with force. Tim can either A) agree to the shared cleaning obligation, or B) clean up after himself only. As long as Tim's doing one of those two things, he's in no way aggressing the others and they have no recourse but to allow it until the end of the lease contract, after which Wilhelm and Klaus can move on to living arrangements more suitable to their authoritarian regime. And maybe next time they'll agree to such cleaning obligations with the new third roommate, who will have to consent to such obligations before signing the lease.

[boost]

Tim has a right to live in that apartment because its a contractual obligation. Klaus and Wilhelm have no right to force their majority-decided rules onto Tim. If Tim is contributing to the disarray of the place and not cleaning up after himself, that is an act of aggression against the others and they THEN have the right to respond with force. Tim can either A) agree to the shared cleaning obligation, or B) clean up after himself only. As long as Tim's doing one of those two things, he's in no way aggressing the others and they have no recourse but to allow it until the end of the lease contract, after which Wilhelm and Klaus can move on to living arrangements more suitable to their authoritarian regime. And maybe next time they'll agree to such cleaning obligations with the new third roommate, who will have to consent to such obligations before signing the lease.

Lots of hand waving here.

[Renton]

Reasoned, unsarcastic, argument that assumes the reader isn't a petulant 9 year old.

Five word pejorative remark.

.

[boost]

You're quick with the butthurt.


You are essentially claiming that the complete restructuring of society is the most reasonable solution. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and libertarian theoretical talking points are not that. You are rightfully frustrated with the flaws of our current system, but this frustration has rendered you blind to all the drawbacks and potential cobra effects of the solutions proposed by the ideology you've adopted.

Further and again, I will ask whether less government is always the solution, or if there are circumstances where it would be detrimental? Supposing Libertopia is the winning ticket, is it really to be assumed that the transition to Libertopia will see a progressively better world the further we get along? For example, let's retire all police forces tomorrow. We have less government, but are we better off? How do we taper down until it's gone? Is there not a legitimate concern that the transition is insurmountable?

My point is, the complexity of the undertaking is immense and daunting, so instead of figuring that out you just rail against the evils of government and claim if we dismantle government the invisible hand will guide us to salvation. This is unsubstantive rhetoric, and if you weren't raging so hard you might see that it doesn't deserve much more than a five word pejorative remark.

[Renton]

You're quick with the butthurt.

I'm not quick with the butthurt. It's been your debate strategy time and again to insult the intelligence of the other without providing an according retort of his point, and it's become tiresome. You keep acting like I'm the one with the brittle and unbending belief system when your's is cast iron.

You are essentially claiming that the complete restructuring of society is the most reasonable solution. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and libertarian theoretical talking points are not that. You are rightfully frustrated with the flaws of our current system, but this frustration has rendered you blind to all the drawbacks and potential cobra effects of the solutions proposed by the ideology you've adopted.

Further and again, I will ask whether less government is always the solution, or if there are circumstances where it would be detrimental? Supposing Libertopia is the winning ticket, is it really to be assumed that the transition to Libertopia will see a progressively better world the further we get along? For example, let's retire all police forces tomorrow. We have less government, but are we better off? How do we taper down until it's gone?

My point is, the complexity of the undertaking is immense and daunting, so instead of figuring that out you just rail against the evils of government and claim if we dismantle government the invisible hand will guide us to salvation. This is unsubstantive rhetoric, and if you weren't raging so hard you might see that it doesn't deserve much more than a five word pejorative remark.

I've always argued the anti-government side while being in favor of incremental change, not a complete restructuring. You may note that at the start of this I said that American society would be "much better off" without the cops. That doesn't mean I'm not in favor of a police force, it just means the current situation is so abysmal that the alternative of no cops at all would be merely less abysmal, a net positive but still a bad situation. Am I in favor of reform? Of course. Any improvement would be better. To me the easiest improvement in every case is a contraction of the duties/responsibilities/powers of the state. It's curious that you invoked the cobra effect, nearly every government endeavor does harm to the very issue it means to remedy.

As far as providing evidence to support my unsubstantive/fantastic/Libertopian claims, I've done nothing but to do that. I've provided examples on top of examples in this thread and others of how nearly everything the state does is harmful. It is you who has countered each of my reasoned critiques time and again with flippant dismissal and very little actual retort. The other statists like coccobill who have responded to my points have at least done so with according courtesy and that's the reason I even bother with these threads. I enjoy puzzling out the strengths and weaknesses of the other side and, believe it or not, I question the libertarian argument constantly.

[CoccoBill]

That's not even remotely related to government. Cooperation for mutual gain is one of the cornerstones of basic economics and something I'm obviously greatly in favor of. In that example each of those three guys is CONSENTING to that agreement. If any of them believes its not a fair deal he's free to opt out and live in a different apartment or live alone. The whole point of government is that its coercion-based.

I don't see any conflict there. If any member of the apartment/nation wants to opt out from the set of rules set by the majority, he can indeed go live in a different apartment/nation. Coercion comes around whenever participants of the system start breaking the rules, no matter what the scale of the community. A government is inherently just a larger flat share ground rule set, not a sentient machine of evil and destruction. I do understand your cynicism and skepticism though, having had only the US system to use as a benchmark.

[Renton]

I don't see any conflict there. If any member of the apartment/nation wants to opt out from the set of rules set by the majority, he can indeed go live in a different apartment/nation. Coercion comes around whenever participants of the system start breaking the rules, no matter what the scale of the community. A government is inherently just a larger flat share ground rule set, not a sentient machine of evil and destruction. I do understand your cynicism and skepticism though, having had only the US system to use as a benchmark.

No, there is no opting out analog with states. You have to get a state-issued passport to leave, you usually have to pay income taxes even while working abroad, in some cases paying double taxes. Your apartment example only illuminates the massive gulf between voluntary and involuntary collective.