May 2011 Election

[Ad Lib]

Both things are nanny government pish.

Politicians know best

Time to abolish government once and for all. Let people make their own mistakes and take full responsibility for the consequences.

[renton]

Time to abolish government once and for all. Let people make their own mistakes and take full responsibility for the consequences.

Yeah! Down with government, dismantle the state and all societal controls, f**k the rule of law, zero taxes = zero services, break down the rules by which we live, a return to the hunter gatherer society, man with biggest stick wins!

vive la revolution.

[Ad Lib]

Yeah! Down with government, dismantle the state and all societal controls, f**k the rule of law, zero taxes = zero services, break down the rules by which we live, a return to the hunter gatherer society, man with biggest stick wins!

vive la revolution.

If I may quote Karl Hess:

Libertarianism is a people's movement and a liberation movement. It seeks the sort of open, non-coercive society in which the people, the living, free, distinct people, may voluntarily associate, dis-associate, and, as they see fit, participate in the decisions affecting their lives. This means a truly free market in everything from ideas to idiosyncrasies. It means people free collectively to organize the resources of their immediate community or individualistically to organize them; it means the freedom to have a community-based and supported judiciary where wanted, none where not, or private arbitration services where that is seen as most desirable. The same with police. The same with schools, hospitals, factories, farms, laboratories, parks, and pensions. Liberty means the right to shape your own institutions. It opposes the right of those institutions to shape you simply because of accreted power or gerontological status

[capybara]

If I may quote Karl Hess:

Looks good written down, but as Renton says it will be the most powerful that will win out. It is actually what Republican America is aiming for. The rest of us will need to doff our caps and hope for the best. Maybe what Thatcher meant with her "no such thing as society " quip.

[Ad Lib]

Looks good written down, but as Renton says it will be the most powerful that will win out. It is actually what Republican America is aiming for. The rest of us will need to doff our caps and hope for the best. Maybe what Thatcher meant with her "no such thing as society " quip.

The problem with the current system is that with the existence of government is the existence of vested interest. If you remove government, you remove the vested interest and the free market makes the establishment of monopolies impossible. For as long as political power has the strength of monopoly of force over people, the strong will manipulate the system. Where there is no system, there can be no manipulation.

Where there are limited resources there will always be those who suffer. The question is whether you trust power-hungry bureaucrats to solve the problem or humans in their innate capacity for cooperation, free from parasitic coercion. I trust the latter.

[Reynard]

Yeah! Down with government, dismantle the state and all societal controls, f**k the rule of law, zero taxes = zero services, break down the rules by which we live, a return to the hunter gatherer society, man with biggest stick wins!

vive la revolution.

Government bills us every year in order to carry out its agenda. It makes us pay with the threat of jail if we refuse. I'd be quite happy to pay for a bare minimum. Maybe around what it costs me to run my mobile phone for a year would be plenty.

[renton]

Government bills us every year in order to carry out its agenda. It makes us pay with the threat of jail if we refuse. I'd be quite happy to pay for a bare minimum. Maybe around what it costs me to run my mobile phone for a year would be plenty.

you wnat a small state, that's fine. The minimum state required for collective defence and the enforcement of a rule of law. That's your egg. I disagree fundamentally with it, but that's up to you.

That's not what Ad Lib said, he'd be happy for general opt outs from the collective rules we all live by, all in the plaintive hope that the 'free market' will fill the gaping social holes created by his system. His right wing anarchism is as misjudged as that of the extreme left.

[renton]

The problem with the current system is that with the existence of government is the existence of vested interest. If you remove government, you remove the vested interest and the free market makes the establishment of monopolies impossible. For as long as political power has the strength of monopoly of force over people, the strong will manipulate the system. Where there is no system, there can be no manipulation.

Where there are limited resources there will always be those who suffer. The question is whether you trust power-hungry bureaucrats to solve the problem or humans in their innate capacity for cooperation, free from parasitic coercion. I trust the latter.

This is fucking laughable. No ssytem, no rule of law. They won't need to manipulate anything becuase they can just walk up and take everything they damn well want. The powerful will get more powerful and will walk over everyone else.

[Ad Lib]

This is fucking laughable. No system, no rule of law. They won't need to manipulate anything because they can just walk up and take everything they damn well want. The powerful will get more powerful and will walk over everyone else.

Non sequitur. Especially the bit in bold.

[vikingTON]

http://newsnetscotla...minimum-pricing

So Labour think the smoking ban is something that can be legislated in Scotland, but alcohol, oh no, thats for our London masters to decide!

Given alcohol pricing is a market-based policy whereas the smoking ban was a behaviour-based policy, the two situations aren't comparable. No-one was going to go down to Carlisle for a fag in a pub.

[Ad Lib]

Given alcohol pricing is a market-based policy whereas the smoking ban was a behaviour-based policy, the two situations aren't comparable. No-one was going to go down to Carlisle for a fag in a pub.

Yeah, this is a reasonable distinction. I seem to recall that Labour wanted any alcohol minimum pricing to be tax based as well, so it would be of debatable competence for their model if done through the Scottish Parliament.

[renton]

Non sequitur. Especially the bit in bold.

So who enforces the rule of law? How do you make it so that everyone plays by the same rules in your libertarian opt-out system.

And it is at least evidence based that in a system with minimal, and basically local laws that can easily be ignored, that the general trend is such that the strongest come out on top, everyone else gets trampled.

[Granny Danger]

The problem with the current system is that with the existence of government is the existence of vested interest. If you remove government, you remove the vested interest and the free market makes the establishment of monopolies impossible. For as long as political power has the strength of monopoly of force over people, the strong will manipulate the system. Where there is no system, there can be no manipulation.

Where there are limited resources there will always be those who suffer. The question is whether you trust power-hungry bureaucrats to solve the problem or humans in their innate capacity for cooperation, free from parasitic coercion. I trust the latter.

So there would be no vested interests in a society without government?

Where are the examples of a free market where the poor and vunerable are protected?

[Ad Lib]

So who enforces the rule of law? How do you make it so that everyone plays by the same rules in your libertarian opt-out system.

The whole point is that the law can only be enforced to the extent that the citizen expressly agrees to it. Judicial arbitration where wanted, and gone without where not. It's not an "opt-out" system at all; it's an "opt-IN" system.

And it is at least evidence based that in a system with minimal, and basically local laws that can easily be ignored, that the general trend is such that the strongest come out on top, everyone else gets trampled.

You assume that local laws can be ignored? Why is this? If a community wants a law, then it will exist by virtue of unanimity and have enforceability by agreed mechanisms. If they do not want it, then the law should not subject them. That's the POINT of laws.

[Ad Lib]

So there would be no vested interests in a society without government?

Where are the examples of a free market where the poor and vunerable are protected?

No. Without the STATE there would be no vested interest. I am at pains to make that distinction as it is always institutions that create vested interest, and as such institutions should be as restricted in their scope as possible.

In every example of a state where the vast majority have been pulled out of poverty and destitution, the market has been freer than it has been managed. It is not about protection of the vulnerable and the poor, but about what is the most effective. Artificial redistribution of wealth doesn't solve the problem, but the symptoms of poverty. Absolute individual responsibility is not only fair, but it is also necessary if people are to liberate themselves from the problems of material deficiency.

[renton]

The whole point is that the law can only be enforced to the extent that the citizen expressly agrees to it. Judicial arbitration where wanted, and gone without where not. It's not an "opt-out" system at all; it's an "opt-IN" system.

Great, but what about the people who choose not to opt in.

You assume that local laws can be ignored? Why is this? If a community wants a law, then it will exist by virtue of unanimity and have enforceability by agreed mechanisms. If they do not want it, then the law should not subject them. That's the POINT of laws.

yeah, what about the community next door, who have a different set of priorities and sensiblities and have no qualms about pushing their laws onto anyone else. It's the proto-fuedal order. Those with strength are able to push themselves onto those without, and with no over arching global law that is inclusive to all, are outside the remit of laws estalbished by smaller like minded communities.

[Ad Lib]

Great, but what about the people who choose not to opt in.

They receive no benefit conferred by it, and are not part of that social group to the extent that they have chosen not to participate.

yeah, what about the community next door, who have a different set of priorities and sensiblities and have no qualms about pushing their laws onto anyone else. It's the proto-feudal order. Those with strength are able to push themselves onto those without, and with no over arching global law that is inclusive to all, are outside the remit of laws estalbished by smaller like minded communities.

The community next door would not exist, as it would be irrational for them to adopt such a policy. The other communities would rationally co-operate with each other to the extent necessary to prevent such nefarious forces from imposing their will.

And if they didn't, all that would happen is that we revert to our current status quo, where people are bullied and threatened with state sanctioned violence and have little or no recourse because said force is monopolised in the state.

[renton]

They receive no benefit conferred by it, and are not part of that social group to the extent that they have chosen not to participate.

And thus operate outside of it, not limited by it or deterred by it either.

The community next door would not exist, as it would be irrational for them to adopt such a policy. The other communities would rationally co-operate with each other to the extent necessary to prevent such nefarious forces from imposing their will.

And if they didn't, all that would happen is that we revert to our current status quo, where people are bullied and threatened with state sanctioned violence and have little or no recourse because said force is monopolised in the state.

Congratulations. The point is that you think you are articulating some radical solution to society's woes based on a patently false idea of the free market as the great enabler. In fact, all you are doing is turning back the clock to a time when things really did work like that, and it wasn't a particularly pleasant trip for anyone outside the truly powerful.

You talk of other communities co-operating to stand up to the aggresive force, all this does is promote the the idea of collective defence, which was one of the original functions of any proto state, even if it sometimes meant paying protection money to your so called more powerful ally, and thus the overlord becomes king. Once you have a common defence, you have a common way of collecting the levy for said defence, once you have that, you have the state.

[renton]

Thing is Ad Lib, you talk of the state in the explicity negative terms of being a vested interest in it's own right, that's not necessarily true, is it? The state is merely the focal point of control in society, and thus becomes the natural target for outside vested interests trying to make their influence felt. It seems to me then that short circuiting the state only serves to remove the focal point, not the vested interest - who then merely find the next viable power structure to pour money into.

It seems to me that it is the vested interest itself - be it big business, unions, whomever, not the host it chooses to manifest through that you should be directing your ire at.

[Ad Lib]

And thus operate outside of it, not limited by it or deterred by it either.

Problem?

Congratulations. The point is that you think you are articulating some radical solution to society's woes based on a patently false idea of the free market as the great enabler. In fact, all you are doing is turning back the clock to a time when things really did work like that, and it wasn't a particularly pleasant trip for anyone outside the truly powerful.

The free market IS a great enabler. I am not turning back the clock. This is a world beyond the nation state, where all aspects of human life are influenced by choice and freedom rather than allegiance, imposed obligations, coercion and dictation.

You talk of other communities co-operating to stand up to the aggressive force, all this does is promote the the idea of collective defence, which was one of the original functions of any proto state, even if it sometimes meant paying protection money to your so called more powerful ally, and thus the overlord becomes king. Once you have a common defence, you have a common way of collecting the levy for said defence, once you have that, you have the state.

It doesn't "promote" the idea of a collective defence. It allows communities to CHOOSE whether or not to have it. It wouldn't be done by "paying protection money" - this is caricature. Individuals would choose to contribute to a collective defence or to prepare their own, or if they were so inclined, could do both. No one, however, would be forced to contribute to a collective defence force, and there would be no obligation for such a force to protect those who did not contribute to it unless it so desired and self-imposed by the providers out of mutual interest.

The point you keep missing is that the discriminant feature is the nature of the levy. In an opt-in system, those who do not contribute simply don't get the benefit, rather than are expressly punished for non-conformity as happens with the state. That is what distinguishes taxation (which is theft) from voluntary financial co-operation.