why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?

[Caledvwlch]

BTW: I'm not trying to suggest that limiting suffrage to property-owning males is actually something that we should try to pursue. It would only be a means to an end, and one that would likely be harder to attain than just going for the end directly. If anything I'd just fight to abolish the concepts of voting, taxation, and lawmaking all together and at the same time. The only time any enforcement of any law should be necessary is if someone asks for it because their rights have been violated, in which case private arbitrators can handle it.

Would those private arbitrators have to be paid? And upon what would they base their decisions? I'm imagining some kind of new Private Property Rights Compact or something of that nature.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Spare me. You've got an arrogant idea stuck in your head and you're just too stubborn or obtuse (or both) to realize how appalling your views on voting really are. At this point, nothing's going to get through your thick skull.

Yes, I will admit that I have a sufficiently open mind to overcome the preponderance of misinformation doled out by the leftists that have been trying to convince people that a democracy is a good form of government.

You? You have no excuse.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Would those private arbitrators have to be paid? And upon what would they base their decisions? I'm imagining some kind of new Private Property Rights Compact or something of that nature.

User fees.

Just for curiosity, have you heard of anarcho-capitalism before?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Granting access to the ballot only to home owners is a swell way of disenfranchising folks whose voices need to be heard.

No one is taking away their right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Quincy]

Yes, I will admit that I have a sufficiently open mind to overcome the preponderance of misinformation doled out by the leftists that have been trying to convince people that a democracy is a good form of government.

You? You have no excuse.

Democracy isn't perfect and it's hardly a concept in line with liberty or freedom but you won't find a better form of government for a nation as large in population as the US, with the individuals it's comprised of. There might be better forms of government, but they require a smaller population made up of individuals who are moral. Good luck with whatever delusion you've cooked up for yourself.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Democracy isn't perfect and it's hardly a concept in line with liberty or freedom but you won't find a better form of government for a nation as large in population as the US, with the individuals it's comprised of. There might be better forms of government, but they require a smaller population made up of individuals who are moral. Good luck with whatever delusion you've cooked up for yourself.

constitutional republics are better.

Voluntarism is best.

 

[Caledvwlch]

User fees.

That sounds incorruptible.

Just for curiosity, have you heard of anarcho-capitalism before?

Yes. It sounds kind of awful to me now, but there was a time I was a big Robert Heinlein fan (although I think he called his version "rational anarchy"). Let me take this opportunity to once again recommend that you read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Democracy isn't perfect and it's hardly a concept in line with liberty or freedom but you won't find a better form of government for a nation as large in population as the US, with the individuals it's comprised of. There might be better forms of government, but they require a smaller population made up of individuals who are moral. Good luck with whatever delusion you've cooked up for yourself.

A Republic is better than a Democracy.
This was well understood when the United States was founded.
It is only in the last century that the leftists have used constant repetition of the word "Democracy" to the point that most people are so confused that they think that the United States is a Democracy.

_____
Republic vs. Democracy: Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin​

_____​

 

[Christian Liberty]

That sounds incorruptible.

Anything is corruptable, but if the starting point is non-coercive, that's better.

Yes. It sounds kind of awful to me now, but there was a time I was a big Robert Heinlein fan (although I think he called his version "rational anarchy"). Let me take this opportunity to once again recommend that you read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Will do when I get the chance. I've been very busy reading lately. THanks for the recommendation.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Anything is corruptable, but if the starting point is non-coercive, that's better.

Allow me to get hypothetical.

A landlord rents low-quality units to low-income tenants, and reserves the right to change monthly rents at his discretion, and prints this plainly, if a bit small, in the lease agreement.

First of all, this is not a contract between equals. The landlord has leverage. The tenant needs a roof over his head. Housing is not a worry for the landlord. The tenant might ask at the lease signing if the clause about variable rents is really necessary, but he won't be able to force the landlord to remove it. He can either sign and get the keys or he can walk away.

Now it's a few months later, and the landlord decides to raise the rents in this building. Not to give it a new roof of course, because there is no government organization to inspect his rental properties and ensure they're up to code, but he's reserved the right to adjust the payments, so he does. The tenant is unable to make up the difference.

The landlord drags the tenant to a private arbitrator to demand back pay after several more months of only receiving the original rent amount. The tenant can't afford the arbitrator's fee either. How does the landlord not have an unfair advantage here?

Perhaps only the complaintant (the Landlord) is required to pay the arbitrator's fee. Fine.

Instead let's say that water leaks in through the un-inspected roof and into the tennant's apartment, where it shorts out his refrigerator and spoils a week's worth of groceries. Now the tenant can not only not afford the extra rent, or the arbitrator's fee to seek redress from the landlord, but he is also going to have to subsist on cornmeal, flat pancakes and one jar of olives until payday. Again, how does the landlord not have an unfair advantage?

Told you I was going to get hypothetical. But neither scenario involves corruption.

Will do when I get the chance. I've been very busy reading lately. THanks for the recommendation.

:thumb: It won't teach you anything you don't know. It is just a sci-fi novel, but it's a pretty good one, and Heinlein is a pretty consistent libertarian.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Allow me to get hypothetical.

A landlord rents low-quality units to low-income tenants, and reserves the right to change monthly rents at his discretion, and prints this plainly, if a bit small, in the lease agreement.

First of all, this is not a contract between equals. The landlord has leverage. The tenant needs a roof over his head. Housing is not a worry for the landlord. The tenant might ask at the lease signing if the clause about variable rents is really necessary, but he won't be able to force the landlord to remove it. He can either sign and get the keys or he can walk away.

Now it's a few months later, and the landlord decides to raise the rents in this building. Not to give it a new roof of course, because there is no government organization to inspect his rental properties and ensure they're up to code, but he's reserved the right to adjust the payments, so he does. The tenant is unable to make up the difference.

The landlord drags the tenant to a private arbitrator to demand back pay after several more months of only receiving the original rent amount. The tenant can't afford the arbitrator's fee either. How does the landlord not have an unfair advantage here?

Perhaps only the complaintant (the Landlord) is required to pay the arbitrator's fee. Fine.

Instead let's say that water leaks in through the un-inspected roof and into the tennant's apartment, where it shorts out his refrigerator and spoils a week's worth of groceries. Now the tenant can not only not afford the extra rent, or the arbitrator's fee to seek redress from the landlord, but he is also going to have to subsist on cornmeal, flat pancakes and one jar of olives until payday. Again, how does the landlord not have an unfair advantage?

Told you I was going to get hypothetical. But neither scenario involves corruption.

Its a valid hypothetical. I can't give you a definitive answer to this, but I can give you some general things to think through.

First of all, there are no taxes. So the average person would have more disposable income than they do today.

Second of all, there is no corporatism. No big corporations lobbying "the government" to make difficult laws and licensing procedures that make it hard for other people to compete. No Eric Garner's being forced out of business because some established companies don't want competition. No barbers being forbidden to offer their services because they don't have licenses. I suspect there would be a few careers in which people would want to make sure that the person providing the service is qualified (like a surgeon) so in those cases, people would likely only be willing to see surgeons that have their skills verified by some reputable organization, whether a reputable college or whatever. But there would be no arbitrary, binding rules on everyone that prohibit certain people from entering the market. And if a person decides to pick a less skilled, unverified worker to do whatever for them because its cheaper or whatever, that's an option.

So, anybody with even a little money can start a business easily, and no compulsory taxes. Most people would spend a small amount of their income to hire a private police force to come help them in cases of crime, but nobody is even being forced to do that. If you need 100% of your income for essentials, you can do that, and nobody will force you to do otherwise.

And third of all, there are no regulations on landlords. This is actually a double-edged sword. Yes, on the one hand maybe it means landlords can charge high prices, but on the other hand, it means its very easy to be a landlord. So there would be competition among landlords to give land to tenants. I don't see why, in such a situation, a tenant would sign an agreement that lets the landlord just arbitrarily raise the price like that, at least not without having some type of an "out."

Now, I also think private charity is very important. And I'm not really saying I like circumstances like the ones you describe. But I don't think "imbalance of power" is nearly the evil that outright force is. I support peace, not just peace in overt cases like war, but also in subtler cases like stealing from or kidnapping people because you don't like their behavior.

:thumb: It won't teach you anything you don't know. It is just a sci-fi novel, but it's a pretty good one, and Heinlein is a pretty consistent libertarian.

Should be fun

 

[Granite]

See, I don't think this is inherently the case. I would say the less influence government has on your life, and the more free you are to do what you like without other people forcing you to do otherwise, the more free you are.

To a point, I agree. But this kind of government requires a self-discipline I'm not sure many Americans either possess or are ready for.

I don't think getting to vote for a master inherently makes you more free than otherwise.

Somebody's gotta show up, pass a budget, make sure the roads are paved, and the like.

Its not just "lazy moochers". Its also old people who vote for candidates who will keep the SS ponzi scheme going on forever, MIC loving people who want to "spread democracy" on everyone else's dime and who gives a crap about who dies, war on drugs proponents, etc.

You seem to think these folks are acting maliciously. I disagree. For the most part Americans (like virtually everybody else) vote for what they see are their best interests. The fella who votes for a neo-con because he wants to see some brown people blown up is the exception, I would think. A grandmother living from Social Security check to Social Security check isn't going to vote to starve herself. Just the nature of the beast.

The thing is, if only those who are actually paying for these things are able to vote, it does provide some incentive to do less of it.

...or to actually get some bang for your buck.

This is a different question than whether its a right. I agree with what Nang originally said that male property owners should be the only ones that should be able to vote...

Lost me there, and I don't care to even address this foolishness.

 

[genuineoriginal]

To a point, I agree. But this kind of government requires a self-discipline I'm not sure many Americans either possess or are ready for.

Is there an easy test to see whether a person possesses the necessary self-discipline?

 

[Christian Liberty]

To a point, I agree. But this kind of government requires a self-discipline I'm not sure many Americans either possess or are ready for.

True, as indicated by the fact that Americans are consistently voting for governments that aren't like this.

Somebody's gotta show up, pass a budget, make sure the roads are paved, and the like.

Government doesn't need to do any of those things.

You seem to think these folks are acting maliciously. I disagree. For the most part Americans (like virtually everybody else) vote for what they see are their best interests. The fella who votes for a neo-con because he wants to see some brown people blown up is the exception, I would think. A grandmother living from Social Security check to Social Security check isn't going to vote to starve herself. Just the nature of the beast.

No, we agree on this for the most part. A grandmother who votes to maintain social security doesn't realize that she's voting for robbery and a ponzi scheme (typically) but that's still what she's actually doing. People who are living off the government and do not possess property of their own should not have the opportunity to do this. Or better yet, nobody should.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Its a valid hypothetical. I can't give you a definitive answer to this, but I can give you some general things to think through.

First of all, there are no taxes. So the average person would have more disposable income than they do today.

Second of all, there is no corporatism. No big corporations lobbying "the government" to make difficult laws and licensing procedures that make it hard for other people to compete. No Eric Garner's being forced out of business because some established companies don't want competition. No barbers being forbidden to offer their services because they don't have licenses. I suspect there would be a few careers in which people would want to make sure that the person providing the service is qualified (like a surgeon) so in those cases, people would likely only be willing to see surgeons that have their skills verified by some reputable organization, whether a reputable college or whatever. But there would be no arbitrary, binding rules on everyone that prohibit certain people from entering the market. And if a person decides to pick a less skilled, unverified worker to do whatever for them because its cheaper or whatever, that's an option.

So, anybody with even a little money can start a business easily, and no compulsory taxes. Most people would spend a small amount of their income to hire a private police force to come help them in cases of crime, but nobody is even being forced to do that. If you need 100% of your income for essentials, you can do that, and nobody will force you to do otherwise.

And third of all, there are no regulations on landlords. This is actually a double-edged sword. Yes, on the one hand maybe it means landlords can charge high prices, but on the other hand, it means its very easy to be a landlord. So there would be competition among landlords to give land to tenants. I don't see why, in such a situation, a tenant would sign an agreement that lets the landlord just arbitrarily raise the price like that, at least not without having some type of an "out."

Now, I also think private charity is very important. And I'm not really saying I like circumstances like the ones you describe. But I don't think "imbalance of power" is nearly the evil that outright force is. I support peace, not just peace in overt cases like war, but also in subtler cases like stealing from or kidnapping people because you don't like their behavior.

You make a lot of assumptions about a society that is much more hypothetical than my lousy landlord and his low-wage tenant. Corporations won't be able to lobby government organizations to make difficult laws, they'll just be able to impose their will directly on the intended targets. One thing that I've never seen adequately addressed by libertarians is how the weak (poor) could ever possibly stand up to the powerful (rich). At least in a republic, the wealth leverage of the rich is occasionally counteracted by the social leverage afforded by representative government.

 

[Granite]

True, as indicated by the fact that Americans are consistently voting for governments that aren't like this.

I'm not sure if the government you idealize has ever existed anywhere.

Government doesn't need to do any of those things.

Well this is where it falls apart. Someone's got to do the dirty work. I've never seen beyond vague platitudes about "the market" or what have you any explanation for how this grand libertarian society would actually work.

No, we agree on this for the most part. A grandmother who votes to maintain social security doesn't realize that she's voting for robbery and a ponzi scheme (typically) but that's still what she's actually doing.

Solve her problem, or tell me how she can herself, or, better yet, don't let her starve. It's this selfishness at the heart of libertarianism, the flippancy to it, that I can't abide. Grandma ain't "stealing," CL. She's trying not to freeze and starve. Not too much to ask.

 

[Jose Fly]

Grandma ain't "stealing," CL. She's trying not to freeze and starve. Not too much to ask.

And she's drawing money out of an account she paid into in the first place. Many libertarians will counter "Why does the gov't need to do that for her? Can't she just keep that money and manage her own retirement?"

It's at that point the libertarians forget history and the fact that we tried that....and ended up with old people dying in the streets.

 

[Quincy]

A Republic is better than a Democracy.
This was well understood when the United States was founded.
It is only in the last century that the leftists have used constant repetition of the word "Democracy" to the point that most people are so confused that they think that the United States is a Democracy.

_____
Republic vs. Democracy: Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin​

_____​

Thanks for the information. I'd never heard of these words or people before.

Ah yea, a Republic. When the most densely populated districts/states no longer have more representation than less populated areas, we do away with a two party system and the representatives no longer use a majority vote to democratically pass legislation, then I'll listen. As it is, a Republic isn't going to fair any better until it embraces minimal statism.

 

[Christian Liberty]

And she's drawing money out of an account she paid into in the first place. Many libertarians will counter "Why does the gov't need to do that for her? Can't she just keep that money and manage her own retirement?"

It's at that point the libertarians forget history and the fact that we tried that....and ended up with old people dying in the streets.

Wrong. Her grandparents already took her money. Its a ponzi scheme.

Even if old people WERE dying in the streets, that isn't an excuse to steal. Ends do not justify means.

 

[TracerBullet]

No, we agree on this for the most part. A grandmother who votes to maintain social security doesn't realize that she's voting for robbery and a ponzi scheme (typically)

A monstrous truth