Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[shanek]

If police protection is totally privatized,

Strawman and you know it.

I'm free to murder as long as I choose victims that have paid for inferior protection!

What are you blathering about? You are NOT free to murder ANYONE under Libertarianism! You know this, too, but you're just so desperate to discredit it you have to continually make up LOES—YES, LIES—about what it says.

 

[shanek]

By being a citizen.

But they're a citizen at birth. So they can't be said to have taken any action to agree to anything.

By staying there.

But a 1-year-old can't exactly move away. At what point does this contract come into effect? If it comes into effect before they can leave the country, then how is it not forced on them under duress?

 

[shanek]

I may have missed something, but where in the LP do they advocate private police?

They don't. EvilYeti's pulled this crap before, and I called him on it. Now he's trying it again.

I just re-read their executive summary and they seem to be very for a swift and bold police force to arrest those that have committed crimes.

Quite so. From http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.html:

The Libertarian Party's anti-crime plan would do what the Democrats and Republicans have not done:

• Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
• Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.
  [*]Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.
• Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.
• Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.
• Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.

This Libertarian program would help make America's streets safe again.

Note the highlighted (by me) portion.

And national defense is one of the primary mandates they feel government should have.

Right again. From http://www.lp.org/issues/national-defense.html:

Certainly America's defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States.

Again, EvilYeti knows this. It's been pointed out to him before.

 

[shanek]

How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

User fees and excises.

Is there any way to read that other than advocating private police protection?

Yes: It means that you would have the freedom to hire people to defend you. The police, as I've proven to you, have no obligation to defend you. They only have to mop up afterwards. They're a retributive force, not a defensive force.

 

[Diezel]

How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

By taking in money other ways and cutting out everything but the police force and national defense.

Is there any way to read that other than advocating private police protection?

It seems it can be read that way, but I think I understand what he is saying.

I can't vouch for what Harry Browne thinks, but when I hear this, I think he is talking about having the extra money to spend on home security, etc.... With the extra money, the choice is yours on how and where to spend it. When paying such high taxes, you don't have the extra money to spend on home protection. But this doesn't mean you get rid of the police force entirely. People do this now anyway!

But I concede that Harry Browne is very close to saying what you think he is saying. It could be a bad choice of words, or he could mean it - I don't know. If he does mean, then that is just another reason I would never call myself a Libertarian - they seem to even go against their own principles.

 

[Diezel]

But they're a citizen at birth. So they can't be said to have taken any action to agree to anything.

Ok, we can go with that. And the government doesn't ask anything from them in return. Actually, until you turn 18, they ask very little, if anything from you. It is not until you are 18 that the government really starts to ask you to fulfill your contract. At that time, you are free to leave. When you stay, you are consenting.

But that doesn't matter, because you are consenting even before that, by using their goods and services. The second you begin to use those, then you are consenting to the contract. The second you receive mail or drive down a road, you have accepted their goods and services. So they have taken an action to agree.

But a 1-year-old can't exactly move away. At what point does this contract come into effect? If it comes into effect before they can leave the country, then how is it not forced on them under duress?

Funny, you are worried about a 1-year old giving consent, yet you were the one asking for a signed piece of paper. Ok, we will give a pen to every newborn, if they sign the paper, they can stay and be a citizen.

You forget, the second they are born, they start to use and enjoy the benefits of the society they are born into. And, like I said, except for a few minor things, that society doesn't ask much from that person until they turn 18. At that point, they can leave if they no longer feel they agree with the contract.

 

[shanek]

By taking in money other ways and cutting out everything but the police force and national defense.

I should point out here that Constitutionally national defense is a Federal obligation while law enforcement is left to the states, and, by extension, to municipalities. So the Feds would have to raise the money for defense but not police; states and municipalities would raise money for the police but not national defense.

 

[EvilYeti]

User fees and excises.

Ah I see, Law Enforcement only for those that can afford it. So anyone is free to rape and murder the penniless with impunity, thanks for coming clean and admitting that.

Yes: It means that you would have the freedom to hire people to defend you. The police, as I've proven to you, have no obligation to defend you. They only have to mop up afterwards. They're a retributive force, not a defensive force.

Anyone is free to hire people to defend them NOW!!! Why do you think that is a special privelege only provided for Libertarian societies?

 

[Diezel]

I should point out here that Constitutionally national defense is a Federal obligation while law enforcement is left to the states, and, by extension, to municipalities. So the Feds would have to raise the money for defense but not police; states and municipalities would raise money for the police but not national defense.

Agreed. We have been kinda lumping it all together in this thread, so I am at fault for doing the same.

 

[EvilYeti]

The Libertarian Party's anti-crime plan would do what the Democrats and Republicans have not done:

* Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
* Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.
* Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.
* Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.
* Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.
* Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.

This Libertarian program would help make America's streets safe again.

*Criminals in our society pay restitution ALL THE TIME. We have an entire civil litigation system to cover this.

*Criminals are already held responsible for their actions in our society, REGARDLESS of whether their victims are able to pay usage fees or not. Contrast with the Libertarian ideal of police protection only for those that can afford it.

*Double resources with no additional spending? Are you sure this isn't a Republican claim? There is no free lunch, resources cost money, Libertarian politics or not.

*"Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets". Wow, what a brilliant idea! Those stupid politicians have been trying to INCREASE the criminals on the street! Thank god the LP is here to figure out such things for us! In LP land there would be MANY more criminals at large, since there would be no way to pay for jails with out income and property taxes. Not to mention that criminals that prey on the poor would never be prosecuted.

*There is zero evidence that private ownership of guns deterrs more crime then it enables.

*"Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education."
And Libertarians are the only party working towards these goals? Seems I've seen these claims from before from Democrats and Republicans alike!

 

[shanek]

Ah I see, Law Enforcement only for those that can afford it. So anyone is free to rape and murder the penniless with impunity, thanks for coming clean and admitting that.

Why do you lie? You know this isn't the case! Everyone would have equal protection under the law. The method of raising money to pay for it doesn't change that. You're jsut a sad, desperate little troll.

Anyone is free to hire people to defend them NOW!!!

Provided they comply with the thousands upon thousands of gun laws and other regulations that are getting in the way of this.

 

[shanek]

*Criminals in our society pay restitution ALL THE TIME.

No, they don't. Very few victims ever see a dime.

*Criminals are already held responsible for their actions in our society,

No, they aren't. There are so many ways criminals weasel out of it it's pathetic. Check the Enron guys, for example.

Contrast with the Libertarian ideal of police protection only for those that can afford it.

That's not a Libertarian ideal; that's another lie by you.

*Double resources with no additional spending? Are you sure this isn't a Republican claim?

No, the Republicans don't want to get rid of the War on Drugs.

There is no free lunch, resources cost money, Libertarian politics or not.

If you'd bother to actually read the whole thing, you would see that this is the case because Libertarians would end the War on Drugs, which right now is consuming half of the law enforcement resources in this country.

But you don't want to read. You don't want to know. You want only to troll and insult and belittle.

*"Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets". Wow, what a brilliant idea! Those stupid politicians have been trying to INCREASE the criminals on the street!

Yes, they have, by stuffing the prisons full of non-violent people who have committed victimless crimes. As a result, murderers, rapists, and child molesters have had to be set free because there's not enough space.

there would be no way to pay for jails with out income and property taxes.

Prove this.

Not to mention that criminals that prey on the poor would never be prosecuted.

No, this is you lying again.

*There is zero evidence that private ownership of guns deterrs more crime then it enables.

Wrong. There are reams of evidence, and it has been presented on this board before. Again, you know this, because you were there, so this is another lie.

*"Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education."
And Libertarians are the only party working towards these goals?

Yes. The big government parties are only stifling this.

Seems I've seen these claims from before from Democrats and Republicans alike!

The claim is made, but the reality doesn't back them up.

 

[EvilYeti]

Why do you lie? You know this isn't the case! Everyone would have equal protection under the law. The method of raising money to pay for it doesn't change that. You're jsut a sad, desperate little troll.

You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."? If they are entitled to equal protection under the law who is going to pay for it?

 

[jj]

You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."? If they are entitled to equal protection under the law who is going to pay for it?

Yeti, you've obviously won the argument, after all, Shanek's turned to the end-all insult he uses when he's completely stonkered and out of ammo, he's called you a liar, in a situation where you are obviously (from the quote of his own words) no such thing.

 

[Diezel]

You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."? If they are entitled to equal protection under the law who is going to pay for it?

I know this wasn't meant for me, but maybe I can clarify this a little better. When he says it will be paid for by "usage fees and excises", that doesn't mean those usuage fees are directly related to the police force.

As in income tax, the government collects money and disperses it to different programs. Your usage fee for, say, gasoline, would be paying for the police force.

So, no, you wouldn't have people not getting protection because they couldn't pay the usage fees. Everyone is protected. It is just a shift from where the government makes collects their money today (income tax & property tax, etc....) to a different way to collect money (usage fees and excises, etc....) But this doesn't in anyway mean there would be unequal protection from the police forces.

 

[Cain]

This actually happens in reality in many areas today, such as malls and apartment complexes. They hire their own police force. And yes, they are actual police, not just security guards; they have the full power to make arrests etc. And they do indeed have the choice of who is going to run their police force.

I have no doubt. But don't you agree private defense agencies should be allowed into all aspects of our lives (if we so choose, of course)? Not long ago auto manufacturers hired the Pinkertons to violently subdue workers!

EvilYeti writes:

Yeah, but then [private defense agencies] A+B would probably just team up, kill me and divvy up my guns. Libertarianism really is the "Pro-Warlord" platform!

They could team up and kill you! But we have to remind ourselves, as Shanek reminded Suddenly, what's in the rational self-interest of these capitalists. First, they might want to out-compete one another. Second, you could be a lot more valuable to them alive rather than dead. Third, if more guns really do cause less crime, as Libertarians insist, then it's in the rational self-interest of defense agencies to make sure every person is allowed to keep a firearm. That will end up reducing costs in the long term.

Government inevitably fails to recognize these "obvious" facts because it has an effective monopoly on force. So it grabs your guns and doesn't even protect you.

Three cheers for the free-market!

 

[EvilYeti]

No, they don't. Very few victims ever see a dime.

Because most criminals are poor. Libertarianism won't change that.

No, they aren't. There are so many ways criminals weasel out of it it's pathetic. Check the Enron guys, for example.

Haha, yeah, under LP polices the Enron gang wouldn't even be criminals! They would be enterprising capitalists!

That's not a Libertarian ideal; that's another lie by you.

Under a Libertarian government, whom would pay for police protection of the very poor?

No, the Republicans don't want to get rid of the War on Drugs.

I'm all in favor of ending the drug war so I ain't gonna argue with you there. I will say that if you think decriminalizing drugs

If you'd bother to actually read the whole thing, you would see that this is the case because Libertarians would end the War on Drugs, which right now is consuming half of the law enforcement resources in this country.

Great, I'm all in favor of that. But I'm also in favor of taxing and regulating the sale of drugs, so unfortunately I can't support

But you don't want to read. You don't want to know. You want only to troll and insult and belittle.

Thats the Libertarians fault for being such an easy target. If they took a rational position I would leave them alone.

Yes, they have, by stuffing the prisons full of non-violent people who have committed victimless crimes. As a result, murderers, rapists, and child molesters have had to be set free because there's not enough space.

Again, not disagreeing with you there. I think jails shouls be reserved for violent and career offenders only.

Prove this.

Jails are expensive to operate and are currently funded through income and property tax at the state level. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide


No, this is you lying again.

You have to demonstrate who would pay for the protection of those that cannot afford it in a Libertarian society.

Wrong. There are reams of evidence, and it has been presented on this board before. Again, you know this, because you were there, so this is another lie.

All you have to do win that debate is provide evidence of two things.

1) That American has signifigantly less crime than other industrialized nations with stricter gun control.

2) That criminals are shot, wounded and killed more often than innocent victims domestically OR that more crimes are prevented than comitted with guns.

Until then, in the abscence of evidence I reserve the right to be skeptical.

Yes. The big government parties are only stifling this.
The claim is made, but the reality doesn't back them up.

Why don't you wait until the LP has a non-zero amount of political influence before you go claiming they do more than real parties?

 

[shanek]

You yourself said that the police would be paid by "usage fees and excises".

Yes, and the money from that would go to the budget for the police to be used exactly as it is now.

We don't favor people who pay more Income Tax, do we? We don't favor property owners at the expense of non-property owners because they pay the property tax, do we? No, clearly not. It's the same thing here, and anyone can see it. It's just another one of your pathetic attempts at discrediting something you're biased against instead of understanding it.

What happens to people who cannot afford the "usage fees and excises."?

The same thing that happens to people now who don't make enough to pay income tax or own property to pay property tax.

 

[shanek]

I have no doubt. But don't you agree private defense agencies should be allowed into all aspects of our lives (if we so choose, of course)? Not long ago auto manufacturers hired the Pinkertons to violently subdue workers!

Of course there is a difference between a defense agency and a hired thug. The difference is whether or not they actually defend you, or if they just attack people you don't like.

 

[shanek]

Because most criminals are poor.

No, it's because the avenue is being closed to them. They aren't even allowed to try.

Haha, yeah, under LP polices the Enron gang wouldn't even be criminals! They would be enterprising capitalists!

No, they would be criminals. They initiated fraud against their stockholders. They should be thrown in jail and have their assets siezed until enough money is gained to pay back every cent they swindled. I've said this to you before, so this is, survey says...ANOTHER LIE!!!

Under a Libertarian government, whom would pay for police protection of the very poor?

It's not an issue. You pay for police protection; the police protect everyone equally, regardless of income.

Of course, right now, we're seeing a very unequal protection as police are less inclined to go into poor areas, which is arguably where they're needed most.

Thats the Libertarians fault for being such an easy target. If they took a rational position I would leave them alone.

The only irrationalities you can point out are ones that you've just made up.

Jails are expensive to operate and are currently funded through income and property tax at the state level.

Show this. Show the amount of taxes in the state budges that is NOT gathered through income and property taxes and show that it is less than the amount spent on prisons.

1) That American has signifigantly less crime than other industrialized nations with stricter gun control.

As I've pointed out to you before, cross-cultural comparisons are invalid because there are so many other variables than simple gun ownership.

2) That criminals are shot, wounded and killed more often than innocent victims domestically OR that more crimes are prevented than comitted with guns.

Already done. Check the other threads.

Why don't you wait until the LP has a non-zero amount of political influence

That would be, uh, now. In fact, my home state just added another elected Libertarian to office this year. Libertarians ARE getting elected, and they ARE making a difference. I've given you references to them doing just that. It might not be much right now, but it is non-zero.