What is a libertarian?

[Darat]

Because in this context a bribe would generally be understood to be a payment in trade for conclusion they otherwise wouldn't, that is, it's a dishonest conclusion. They're stating that somehthing is safe when it isn't. Otherwise, no, I can't punish someone for simply recieving money, except to refuse to trust them if I suspect dirty pool.

But that is surely the responsibility of the person relying on the accuracy of a report by a third person? No one is forcing that person to rely on that information, no one is forcing them to use that agency so it is entirely a free choice to use a particular agency's rating or not. It is up to the person wishing to use that agency to research into whether that agency can be "trusted" or not - not up to society to, by way of force, ensure that information supplied by anyone is accurate.

What you are saying is that people should be forced into being truthful which is contradictory to the big L'ers core principle of "no initiation of force".

The big L'ers approach is of course the nadir of the "buyer beware" philosophy, a philosophy which has been proved not to work in the real world time and time again.

 

[CaptainManacles]

But that is surely the responsibility of the person relying on the accuracy of a report by a third person?

not by any definition of libertarianism that I've ever heard. Everyone includes intentional fraud under the umbrella of initiated force.

No one is forcing that person to rely on that information, no one is forcing them to use that agency so it is entirely a free choice to use a particular agency's rating or not. It is up to the person wishing to use that agency to research into whether that agency can be "trusted" or not - not up to society to, by way of force, ensure that information supplied by anyone is accurate.

it isn't up to society to ensure the information supplied is accurate. But there's nothing wrong with retaliation against intentional fraud.

What you are saying is that people should be forced into being truthful which is contradictory to the big L'ers core principle of "no initiation of force".

No more then being "forced" into being a non-murderer.

The big L'ers approach is of course the nadir of the "buyer beware" philosophy, a philosophy which has been proved not to work in the real world time and time again.

When has this been proved? I've seen plenty of evidence entirely consitent with the predictions of this philosophy, private oversight finds and eliminates potential issues while public oversight suppresses these findings and applogizes after people have been murdered.

 

[Darat]

not by any definition of libertarianism that I've ever heard. Everyone includes intentional fraud under the umbrella of initiated force.



it isn't up to society to ensure the information supplied is accurate. But there's nothing wrong with retaliation against intentional fraud.



No more then being "forced" into being a non-murderer.

Therefore you are saying that it would be a crime in the big L world to not be truthful.

When has this been proved? I've seen plenty of evidence entirely consitent with the predictions of this philosophy, private oversight finds and eliminates potential issues while public oversight suppresses these findings and applogizes after people have been murdered.

Why do you think society decided to regulate commerce?

 

[CaptainManacles]

Therefore you are saying that it would be a crime in the big L world to not be truthful.

Pretty well. I've never heard a libertarian who doesn't include fraud and such as a crime.

Why do you think society decided to regulate commerce?

The same reason society has made mistakes in the past, it's not infalliable. It thinks government is some kind of magic wand that can override reality.

 

[delphi_ote]

What is a Libertarian?

A person whose political philosophy is best summed up as "anarchy light".

 

[Michael Redman]

So much for the individual knowing best. Why is it you think the government knows better than an individual whether he can drive safely?

Because individuals regularly demonstrate that they do not know whether they can drive safely. The individual often does not know best. There isn't really any doubt about this, is there?

What is the libertarian's solution to the public interest in not being put at risk by drunk drivers (including the economic risk of loss beyond what the driver can compensate)?

 

[Suddenly]

Because individuals regularly demonstrate that they do not know whether they can drive safely. The individual often does not know best. There isn't really any doubt about this, is there?

What is the libertarian's solution to the public interest in not being put at risk by drunk drivers (including the economic risk of loss beyond what the driver can compensate)?

There is none, as far as I can tell. You have the right to do what you want with your property but have the responsibility to live with the results.

Once risky behavior is established as something that can be regulated, we are off to the races as in a complex society our ability to place others at risk is immense. At that point the argument no longer turns on a concept of personal freedom, rather it turns on causation and probablility. "Libertarianism" is now for all practical purposes meaningless.

Don't worry though, since in libertarian world the road is privately owned and driving drunk would violate the terms of service agreement. So you can take your business to a competing road...

err...

 

[Michael Redman]

Don't worry though, since in libertarian world the road is privately owned and driving drunk would violate the terms of service agreement.

I suppose the penalty for driving drunk on the private road would be the loss of the right to drive on that private road.

Now, what is the penalty for driving on that private road without permission?

 

[Suddenly]

I suppose the penalty for driving drunk on the private road would be the loss of the right to drive on that private road.

Now, what is the penalty for driving on that private road without permission?

Trespassing. Usually a misdemeanor.


ETA: If the TOS specifically forbids using the road while drunk doing so could be a trespass perhaps...

 

[Schneibster]

Here's where "caveat emptor" big-L Libertarianism falls down: if you're going to have an advanced technological society, you can't be spending all your time figuring out whether there's subtle poison in the food you're buying. That means someone has to inspect the food, and they have to be trustworthy. Now you've got regulations, and a bureaucracy. You don't even have to postulate malice; just carelessness, and the desire not to have to throw it all out when you find out there's a problem. Otherwise, we're spending all our time checking our food, and our water, and our cars to make sure they won't blow up when rear-ended, and not making that technological society go. It's a waste of time. And I and I say time be mos' precious.

So now, as a matter of convenience, we've got bureaucracy. It's not just some moral thing; it's a matter of expediency, and it makes everything else work smoothly. So, what I wanna know is, if we do this whole "no bureaucracy" thing, who's gonna make sure the food is good to eat? Because if I have to do it for myself all the time, sorry, I got no extra time to be doing what I want to do instead of inspect all my food all the time. I wanna walk in the supermarket, buy what I want to eat, take it home, and cook it, and never worry. If I'm doing what I want to do, I got no time to fuss with it. Now, make that happen, Libertarians. Have fun figuring out how to run the bureaucracy that has to be there to do it.

I'm sure you'll CLAIM it's not a bureaucracy. I'm equally sure it will BE one. And that's the end of that conversation.

 

[Michael Redman]

I suppose the penalty for driving drunk on the private road would be the loss of the right to drive on that private road.

Now, what is the penalty for driving on that private road without permission?

Trespassing. Usually a misdemeanor.


ETA: If the TOS specifically forbids using the road while drunk doing so could be a trespass perhaps...

So, ultimately, it is up to the government to keep drunk drivers from driving on the road, even in the libertarian dreamland.

 

[Suddenly]

So, ultimately, it is up to the government to keep drunk drivers from driving on the road, even in the libertarian dreamland.

I don't know. Since this is private property in libertopia, the officers wouldn't be allowed on without permission.

If a person was driving drunk he would be in violation of the TOS, and it would not be proper to use public law enforcement as security guards looking for a breach of contract. Based on the facts the person might need to be expressly notified of his being banned from a privately owned but generally open to the public area.

So there would (we are assuming.. the road owner could allow drunk driving) hired guards to watch the road for unauthorized useage, etc. In the end it would come back to the police, but using the police as a primary enforcement mechinism seems a bit unlibertarian in that government resources are being used for personal enrichment.

I'm thinking it would be like driving down the middle of the mall in a way. An officer could be present as part of a beat but has no business enforcing mall policy...

 

[Suddenly]

Here's where "caveat emptor" big-L Libertarianism falls down: if you're going to have an advanced technological society, you can't be spending all your time figuring out whether there's subtle poison in the food you're buying. That means someone has to inspect the food, and they have to be trustworthy. Now you've got regulations, and a bureaucracy. You don't even have to postulate malice; just carelessness, and the desire not to have to throw it all out when you find out there's a problem. Otherwise, we're spending all our time checking our food, and our water, and our cars to make sure they won't blow up when rear-ended, and not making that technological society go. It's a waste of time. And I and I say time be mos' precious.

So now, as a matter of convenience, we've got bureaucracy. It's not just some moral thing; it's a matter of expediency, and it makes everything else work smoothly. So, what I wanna know is, if we do this whole "no bureaucracy" thing, who's gonna make sure the food is good to eat? Because if I have to do it for myself all the time, sorry, I got no extra time to be doing what I want to do instead of inspect all my food all the time. I wanna walk in the supermarket, buy what I want to eat, take it home, and cook it, and never worry. If I'm doing what I want to do, I got no time to fuss with it. Now, make that happen, Libertarians. Have fun figuring out how to run the bureaucracy that has to be there to do it.

I'm sure you'll CLAIM it's not a bureaucracy. I'm equally sure it will BE one. And that's the end of that conversation.

The usual answer is that private accreditation/inspection/whatever firms will pop up. The good housekeeping seal of approval type things for foods that live up to certain standards and so on. Public demand requires vendors to pay the inspection company and so on.

Then there is consumer reports.

It is like speculating about a parallel universe though.

 

[Schneibster]

So, I can pay for a private firm to inspect my food, or I can pay for the government to do it. Tell me why I should prefer a private firm, motivated by profit, accountable to no one but those who pay them, over a government bureaucracy, that I can hold accountable by my vote. Should I pay them, to ensure their accountability to me? If so, how is this different from paying a tax to ensure that the government inspects the food?

 

[CaptainManacles]

So, I can pay for a private firm to inspect my food, or I can pay for the government to do it. Tell me why I should prefer a private firm, motivated by profit, accountable to no one but those who pay them, over a government bureaucracy, that I can hold accountable by my vote. Should I pay them, to ensure their accountability to me? If so, how is this different from paying a tax to ensure that the government inspects the food?

choice. Ultimately your vote buys you one of two canidates who are likely equally incompetent. A profit motive has been shown time and time again to work far better. And it's not like transparency has to be the sole dominion of government.

 

[Schneibster]

No, a profit motive has shown that the person exhibiting it is available for sale to the highest bidder without notice. At least with a government functionary there's some sort of chance that they might refuse the bribe.

 

[NeoRicen]

choice. Ultimately your vote buys you one of two canidates who are likely equally incompetent. A profit motive has been shown time and time again to work far better. And it's not like transparency has to be the sole dominion of government.

Yeah, just like the US health care system. /sarcasm

Also just because the US Government sucks doesn't mean Government sucks. Even in Australia with our 11 years of a Government I didn't support (I'm a liberal, it was conservative, arguably still is) it still worked pretty well.

It's my theory that the US has just gotten to big to function well as a Democracy (I think, merely based on observation, that Democracy works better in smaller countries) and should split.

I am totally 110% AGAINST For-Profit Government, which is basically the nickname I give a would be Libertarian nation, where the Private sector essentially fulfills all the current functions of the Government but demands not only the money to pay for it (as Government does) but a lot extra to satisfy the insatiable greed of the wealthy who run it.

 

[Michael Redman]

A profit motive has been shown time and time again to work far better.

Only when linked to competition. The profit motive linked to monopoly has been proven, time and time again, to screw the consumer.

So, when we have something that, by it's nature, must be a monopoly, and we decide to turn that thing over to private actors, we have to introduce regulation to provide an artificial profit motive for the private actor to do the job the way we want it done. Otherwise, the motive is to do the job as cheaply as possible, and keep as much of the money as possible.

I don't have any problem looking to private entities to do things for the public good, but simply holding to the religion of government-bad-private-company-good gets you Halliburton in Iraq.

 

[varwoche]

Now, what is the penalty for driving on that private road without permission?

I wish you'd call "the road" something more entertaining, such as The Diet Pepsi Tollway.

 

[Michael Redman]

I wish you'd call "the road" something more entertaining, such as The Diet Pepsi Tollway.

How about: The Diet Pepsi Freedom Way Which Cures Cancer Just By Driving On It.