-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
You haven’t said what you are. You keep skirting the issue. I’ll say it again. Provide an alternative or STFU.
fair enough, so if i want some land i should kill the owner, and all descendants, then there will be no one to take me to court.
Your claim to the land would be easily defeated by someone way less connected to it by virtue of your crime. You won’t be able to do much with the land when behind bars anyway.
no
tax is theft. using tax to write laws, pay police, build jails and courts all is theft. All is paid and run by illegitimate governments who theft our private wealth.
The only way to put B17 in his rightful place behind bars is to build it yourself.
Of course that would then become kidnapping.
Far better to kill him upfront.
And me for reading this thread.
what is this behind bars that you speak of?
tax is theft. using tax to write laws, pay police, build jails and courts all is theft. All is paid and run by illegitimate governments who theft our private wealth.
The only way to put B17 in his rightful place behind bars is to build it yourself.
Of course that would then become kidnapping.
Far better to kill him upfront.
And me for reading this thread.
Interesting isn't it?
Suddenly the so-called libertarian is wanting to lock people up for challenging property rights.
Geez, violence, prisons, but apparently there is no coercion in this dystopia of his.
The fundamental problem is that without a coercive power, such as a state or some private version thereof, you cannot have property. Property without coercion is unenforceable and unenforceable property is not property at all.
DS
orright orright. but you expats get it easy.
On the other hand its us decent and hard working migrants who should be applauded.
We are working like navvies to build a new life and make the country great.
Of course the truth is that I am that type of migrant in france... i dont speak the language, i dont watch the local football, and still keep our strange customs and foods. The french are shocked by vegemite!
Here's something that will blow your brain...laws, police, jails and courts don't require a monopoly on violence! That's a lie that statists propagate.
It's not kidnapping to put a murderer behind bars, you see when you murder someone, your freedom becomes forfeit.
Last edited:
What's interesting is your intellectual cowardice. You still haven't provided a solution to the problem of what to do with people that prefer you with your head off your shoulders because they want your car. All you do is snipe others and provide tumbleweed. Laughable.
Again you misrepresent my position. I have said all along violence can be justified, coercion to prevent coercion. Violence is necessary to enforce laws. I just don't believe a monopoly entity should hold this power and violence shouldn't be used to prevent peaceful cooperation between people like it currently does.
Convincing me that violence can be justified to stop peaceful cooperation between people is pretty much impossible, just like convincing the vast majority of you of the opposite is pretty much impossible.
Just a couple of question. In your world who makes these laws you speak of? the ones where violence is necessary to enforce laws? How are these law makers selected? Do they get paid? Where do we get the money to pay them? Can we vote on these laws?
Not simple questions to answer and to fully answer them requires more than a PRE post, but to summarise:
1. Freely competing protection agencies that provide a set of laws in which you will be expected to comply if you are to receive their protection services
2. Through agreeing to contracts (this involves actual agreement not through some invisible social contract people pretend we currently sign)
3. They will provide these services for a fee
4. The same place we get money to pay for our existing monopoly services
5. You can choose to move to a different protection agency if you are unsatisfied with their performance or set of laws
For a more in-depth look at the issue: https://mises.org/library/idea-private-law-society
This is not so much a straw-man as a Statue of Liberty sized haystack with arms, legs and a head.
Thanks for the answers
I will need to read the link as I cannot get my head around the scenario of myself having a protection agency under one set of laws and my neighbor has a different protection agency with a different set of laws. Would make life pretty difficult
You also said you can either have freedom or differing levels of coercion, I'll take freedom thanks.
Libertarianism is looking more and more like liberty for the few and coercion towards the many, not a surprise at all.
DS
This is what is often called competitive monarchism: you get to choose who lords it over you.
Simply the privatisation and marketisation of the current role of the state. Opposition to the abuse of power by the state is fine, if you posit a solution where the abuse of power is just privatised then you end up with an even worse system, at least we get some say in who runs the state, we get no say in who runs a private organisation.
DS
