Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with you guys that there should be much less power given to the government concerning how they control certain areas of our life.  The extent of how much that power should be lessened, though, is probably where I draw the line.  I've always associated libertarianism with being a stone's throw away from anarchism, and I for one like the concept of government.

NecronCommander wrote: I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with you guys that there should be much less power given to the government concerning how they control certain areas of our life.  The extent of how much that power should be lessened, though, is probably where I draw the line.  I've always associated libertarianism with being a stone's throw away from anarchism, and I for one like the concept of government.

Just certain areas? I don't like nobody controlling pretty much any area of my life. Well, with taxes and all of that I guess I'm assuming they can control a little of my financial/income/spending life. But there's no need for 100 rich people to decide absolutely everything regarding my life.

I don't think less government equals anarchism though. Less government switches the locus of chaos control from the governing body to the individual I guess. Also, there will always need control forces to protect rights (and not private forces or judges, please Shields).

Private police forces?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force.

A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).

Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.

A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force.  A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally). Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid. A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness. Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection.

By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.

harmonium.ro wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness. Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.

Epignosis wrote: It's called a "conflict of interest."  I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for.  That isn't police- it's thugism.  We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.

That too.

harmonium.ro wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness. Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw. How is that implied by that logic exactly? Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness. Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw. How is that implied by that logic exactly? Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products. The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also?

I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.