Official Lolbertarian thread. Discuss the benefits of No goverment

[Rob Roy]

There is nothing to refute.
Your answer clearly leans to the negative; I just don't understand why you can't bluntly say "no, it is wrong". You--more often than not--seek to obfuscate the response using a style akin to "legalese", tossing in confusing caveats to seemingly cover your ass for no apparent reason. That's just fucking dumb. You only create more problems for yourself by doing so.

If you were in a court of Law in your Utopia, how long do you think it would take before the judge found you in contempt?

Not obfuscating. He asked "can" something happen. That is different from whether or not I approve of it, isn't it?

I respect your intelligence, when you use it, that is.

 

[Rob Roy]

Sure, that's why I'm confident in saying Rob Roy isn't libertarian. That doesn't stop the peanut gallery from saying stupid shit like move to Somalia if you want libertarianism. Sorry to offend, just pointing out the thread is built on a false premise by a few who are not real bright.

If you want to make fun of people who respect individual rights and want to minimize the intrusiveness of the central planners then have it. Just try to do it without making up things like it's the same as wanting no government.

As far as Rob Roy's philosophy, I've already stated my issues with that. How do we deal with the floor shitters if there is no authority? If there are people that broken during times of a nanny state, can you imagine how they'd be without it? So no, until humanity evolves to the point where people like the floor shitter no longer exists, I can't get behind anarchy.

I was a Libertarian, now I'm more libertarian in a non political sense.


You asked a good question too.

How you deal with floor shitters is the person owning the floor, is the person that sets the rules of the use of the floor.

How a misuse of the floor would be arbitrated I think is really the question though...I may get to that, but first I want to entertain myself for awhile, besides not all of the jackals have showed up yet in this thread.

 

[Rob Roy]

Sorry but his utopia would not have any laws. Laws mean force to Rob Roy.

Erroneous assumption. The primary law would be that laws are not arbitrary or enforced by a coercive monopoly.

Maybe I'll delve into your post, but I'll have to think of a way to dumb it down for you, after working outside today, I'll swill down a six pack, smoke a couple of fatties and be able to give it a try later.

 

[ginwilly]

Let's start with roads. Are you saying that if there were no government based in coercion, that roads would never have existed ?

We had roads long before there was personal income tax in this country, even had a transcontinental railroad (thanks in part to the Mormons, oh my!). The road argument is one they obviously heard and repeated without thinking too hard.

 

[ginwilly]

You seem unusually focused on that line of questioning, obsessed even. I'd certainly think less of you, if you were trying to diddle the baby sitter.

I think the better answer is it depends on where they live and what arbitrary rules are set up there. If you live where the age of consent is 13, then a 13 year old has the arbitrary legal right unless they move to a different imaginary boundary. That imaginary boundary can be the difference between consensual sex and prison time. Makes perfect sense (when you worship at the altar of the all-knowing government).

 

[ChesusRice]

Erroneous assumption. The primary law would be that laws are not arbitrary or enforced by a coercive monopoly.

Maybe I'll delve into your post, but I'll have to think of a way to dumb it down for you, after working outside today, I'll swill down a six pack, smoke a couple of fatties and be able to give it a try later.

Then how are they enforced Rob?

 

[Fogdog]

Isn't it the reality that your government has as its underlying foundation coercion / capture of the individual rather than actual consent of the individual?

no

 

[UncleBuck]

You created a thread to specifically discuss Rob Roy's POV and then pull this crap in it?

Seriously, you are a troll and have no interest in gaining any understanding. You are just mad that he pissed in your cheerios...

what more do you need to understand?

he refuses to say pedophilia should be illegal, and you still defend him.

i know you love racists and all, since you are one, but pedophiles too?

 

[UncleBuck]

If you want to make fun of people who respect individual rights and want to minimize the intrusiveness of the central planners then have it. Just try to do it without making up things like it's the same as wanting no government.

why do you wnt to make it legal for businesses to kick people out based on their skin color?

and why do you not want to discuss your neck down evolution theory anymore, ever since i pointed out how thrilled white power types are with it?

 

[UncleBuck]

Terrible grammar aside, do you consider "trying to control him" as granting him freedom? I know you were military and voluntarily gave over control of your body/mind, that doesn't mean the rest of us want to too. It worked for you because you are built that way, others may not be but deserve to live the life they choose too. Not everyone is built to just shut off the mind and follow orders and fall in line, if you try to force your way of living on them, then yes, it is a form of slavery. Sorry that's not PC to admit.

In other words, if you want to work in that massage parlor that's your choice, if you force me to work there, it's slavery.

The saddest part of your line of thought is you think Robroy is the one in the wrong for not wanting to be controlled. That's just sad as fuck.

Side note: In my utopia the Lions win the Superbowl this year and the election comes down to Biden/Trump just so a third party candidate can become viable again.

Lions are gonna shock the world!

in your world, somehow intelligence does not get selected for in the evolutionary process, and thus some "geographic regions" did not "evolve from the neck up".

yet you refuse to state which regions these are, or how it could be possible that intelliegnce does not get selected somehow.

what the fuck is up with that, loser?

 

[UncleBuck]

Nice to see you back around.

you now have yet another ally in your quest to make it legal to kick black people out of stores.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think the better answer is it depends on where they live and what arbitrary rules are set up there. If you live where the age of consent is 13, then a 13 year old has the arbitrary legal right unless they move to a different imaginary boundary. That imaginary boundary can be the difference between consensual sex and prison time. Makes perfect sense (when you worship at the altar of the all-knowing government).

that;'s an endorsement of pedophilia if i've ever seen one.

 

[Fogdog]

I did clarify my answer. The answer is if something is not impossible, it is obviously possible, even if it is not very likely. Your poor attention to the form of the question and your preponderance for obeying idiots when they direct you to answer "yes" or "no" on a question when the answer is really "it all depends" is very telling.

Now to your question sir,

The answer is covered in chapter 7 of the book Market for Liberty, by Linda and Morris Tannehille. It might be a good idea to check out chapter 8 as well.

Have you read this book, yes or no ?

Of course I haven't read your source material. Not interested. But since you preach your philosophy here every day then its fair to ask you a valid question regarding your assertions. What actions can you take under your philosophy to make yourself whole if your uncooperative neighbor pollutes your water, renders your land unusable, poisons your family and denies the act?

Oh and thanks for the laugh. I checked out Wikipedia on your reference for chapter 7. What a joke. "Chapter 7, Arbitration of Disputes, argues that it is not necessary for there to be governmental arbiters, since a man who agrees to the settlement of disputes by a third party and then breaks the contract would suffer harm to his reputation and be ostracized, thus solving the problem of noncompliance."

Really, do you think the neighbor that pollutes his own and your land and water for extraordinary profit cares about you or will agree to a settlement made by a third party? These kind of people will just deny they did anything wrong and without the force of law will never pay damages. They don't even need to live nearby, hence can't be ostracized. What a naive joke show you are.

 

[ChesusRice]

If someone upstream of you dams the creek that flows thru your land and irrigates your crop causing harm what redress do you have?

 

[Glaucoma]

Rob has no real answer for enforcement. Last time I asked, I was answered with a 'first let me ask you blah blah', which I answered. Still no answer to my question, though.

I expect there never will be.

 

[ChesusRice]

Rob has no real answer for enforcement. Last time I asked, I was answered with a 'first let me ask you blah blah', which I answered. Still no answer to my question, though.

I expect there never will be.

He does take 3 paragraphs to say nothing though

 

[see4]

You failed to mention your bulbous penis, please try again.

My tiny bulbous penis is exactly that, it's bulbous. And sometimes people have observed it to be quite erect in stature.

 

[heckler73]

When you don't have all the information available it is easy to draw the wrong conclusions.

You don't say...

So again, you have made some assumptions which are erroneous. First off, in the absence of a central authority, the "corporation" (a government construct) as its known today would not exist would it?

Correct, they would be more onerous and deviant, like the illegitimate bastard child of the Mafia and Apple.

If contracts need to be enforced, can you show me the contracts that individuals signed when they "joined" the respective countries they are in?

Do you have a birth certificate? THAT is a contract between the Nation and you. Canucks also have a SIN which is a further contractual agreement. The Yank equivalent would be a SSN, I believe.
Even Spooner acknowledges the contractual nature of the US Constitution, although erroneously presumes no one signs it through voting.
There are many contracts you sign--by proxy--if you function in modern society. The product of Nation being most notably its currency in the modern era, you are constantly using the system provided by the Nation in one form or another, despite your protestations. You equally agree to the protections and costs inherent in that system. Your voluntary (non)actions--not your thoughts--give rise to the validity of the State's existence. You have the power to change it, but not ignore it. To which, why does it appear Spooner ignores Common Law?

Surely, such a scholarly person as you have read Lysander Spooners essays on why the nature of government is built on something fallacious.

Have you read any "scholarly" critiques of Spooner's ideas?
Can you show me where Spooner defines "natural rights" and how he reconciles the contradiction with contract law ? After all, if someone has "natural rights" to contract, how can they have "obligations" ab initio ? What are those duties, anyway? I don't recall you defining those, either.

His foundations, from my observation, are based on quicksand and signature fetishes. Perhaps in 1870 the simplicity of life afforded room to make reference to concepts like "natural rights" since the scope of definition was comparatively limited, and therefore quasi-axiomatic. It could also have been a literary crutch resulting from his defense against the US Gov't over his postal service; it got him some leverage once, so why not abuse it some more? I guarantee his psychology and perspective would have been vastly different had he been born in the 1900s as mine would be had I been in the 1800s, which brings into question the relevancy of his diatribe due to its focal point.

You can go on telling me how fantastic the technology of the 8-track cassette is in relation to reel-to-reel, but I'm using MP3 for most of my audio amusement now, so what does it matter? If you can make his words relevant in the here and now, I would be more inclined to consider the value. As he wrote them, they are pointlessly anachronistic at best, much in the same manner as I'd view Newton's "corpuscular theory of light" or a large chunk of the Neo-classical canon. His ridiculous "highwayman" analogy is just plain WRONG in the present context. There are several fundamental aspects of modern society his analysis omits due to temporal ignorance (i.e. his crystal ball was broken).

Do you know much about Spooner's life beyond his writing?

 

[god1]

....How a misuse of the floor would be arbitrated I think is really the question though...

Yup.

One could easily argue that the only valid reason our current convoluted government exists is because in the name of civility, resolution of human conflict in itself has become a pigsty of nonsense.

Unfortunately brother, until you come to grips with the fact that human interactions are full of conflict, and come up with a functional methodology other than "might makes right" for resolution, I'd be careful who you invite into Rob land.

As funny as it seems, this thread is a case in point. If you get my drift.

Cheers.

 

[londonfog]

Let's start with roads. Are you saying that if there were no government based in coercion, that roads would never have existed ?

They would not exist, NOR be maintained in the fashion that they are today. What type of regulations would your Utopia have concerning roads ? Will you have any ? Who does the building ? Who maintains ? Who decides what roads go where. What if we disagree ?
I have more questions about roads after you answer these few.