Are you going to dispute the taste in sunglasses of a man who lives in Las Vegas?
I don’t see what you haven’t understood seeing as you summarized it far better than I managed to.
What do you mean?
This is all I was asking.
What I tried to summarize is a possible scenario/outcome which I would not call libertarian at all. For instance, a worst case scenario in which minority X gets wiped out. Of course, such a scenario will play out according to the laws of economics. Is it expensive for minority X to buy security ? They can’t afford it ? Too bad…
We agree on the economics of the situation.
That disposing of minority X according to supply and demand of ‘security’ has nothing to do with a libertarian moral system ?
You’ve said that people are not interested in philosophy and so they will buy the product “security/justice” as offered by entrepreneurs. But in reality you’re forgetting that entrepreneurs must provide what the market demands. So, if the majority wants to buy the torturing of redhead, redheads are out of luck ?
Well I personally agree that things could (and would) take that turn. However, I doubt that’s the kind of thing that ‘cultural conservatives’ want to hear.
Still I think that it depends on relative numbers. Yes, it will be impossible for one person to push people around. On the other hand, in a ‘community’ in which a substantial group can pool resources against a minority, it sounds far more plausible.
But that’s all I’ve commented on. Do I want to see red heads killed in large numbers? Not particularly, do I acknowledge that it might well happen? Yes.
You think it might happen in a libertarian society ?
It doesn’t matter what one wants to hear. There are those who want to hear that libertarianism will result in egalitarianism. It won’t. It won’t result in murdering people either.
- You concede that it would be impossible for one rich guy to push all people around. It would be insane. 2. Well, if there’s more than one person they have self-defense. They likely have PDAs. Also if PDAs pulled their resources to pay for a inter-PDA contractual police force to enforce contracts and individual rights between them, which some have suggested but I remain agnostic, the police force would arrest them. 3. The cost to fight this would be huge. While private companies might be better at violating rights(your argument a while back), the ones who defend rights will also be better at it. Those who were offended would be able to retaliate or use self-defense. 4. As GS freely admits and I hope you would too, people who don’t like each other tend not to live in each others midst without putting those differences aside. It wouldn’t be one black against a community of whites. It would be a small community of blacks against a larger community of whites, at worst. 5. A “rights-insurance” would not insure people who violate rights because when you start doing that race riot stuff, it’s not an insurable risks. 6. It costs a lot, a lot, a lot to wage war. It costs a lot to wage war in Iraq. It costs a lot to wage war on drugs. It costs a lot to wage war on minorities of color, sex or creed. Because of this, the inherent risks, the much more widespread philosophic belief in libertarianism making this taboo* etc. there would be a smaller labor pool of “PDAs” willing to take such a job. This would raise the price tremendously. This cannot be said enough. The average person simply could not afford to hire a PDA to do this for them. 7. As such they would either have to agress themselves and open themselves up to retaliation, hire someone to aggress which is for the above reasons not at all economic, or not aggress. The great thing about AnCap is that either the later is chosen, or you end up knee high in a heaping pile of dung. *This is not to imply that entrepreneurship cannot aid in, contribute to or be the proximate cause of the fall of the state, per se. However, as faith in PDAs goes up Faith in States goes down. When the emperor has no clothes it’s harder to support his right to be evil.
The problem is that there are only two ways to aggress in AnCapLand: 1- Do it yourself. This sets you up for personal retaliation. It’s less available to the physically disinclined. In this situation, almost always the person will be out numbered. Either he’ll attack someone who is packing. Or has a PDA. Or maybe all the insurance companies in the area pooled their resources for a private police force. Again, in the end your in at least, at least. as much trouble as you are in a Statist society. 2- Hire someone. Unlike defense, this could not be covered by insurance because rights violations are uninsurable. In fact, for either of these ways it is an uninsurable risk to attack someone. Therefore, the costs would be prohibitive, for reasons I’ve explained several times. Only the super rich could afford it. Paradoxically,the super rich tend not to care enough about the habits of the poor to do this. Would Hugh Hefner, Gene Simmons and Co. launch the next assault on fornication or would poor baptists? To ask the question is to answer it. Those who’d be most likely interested in doing so would likely be stopped by economics. 3- Once we’ve established that the super-rich are the only ones who could possible munster a force to fight these kinds of battles is the elimination of redheads, gays, blacks or any real minority the real threat? No. The only threat is they might try and use their force to establish a sick Stateless Welfare State, so to speak. But again. Then people wouldn’t buy their movies. And since the cost of aggression is many, many times greater than that of defense, even if they could spend something equal to what the resistors, writ large, spend on defense they would only get a small fraction of the troops. The costs would destroy them.
The gist of literally hundreds of arguments.
It might happen, unless you believe that a libertarian society would be perfect. I do not. PDAs will not only be required to deal outside the libertarian society, but to maintain order and enforce property rights within.
Well, I asked Giles, not you. And it seems he has declined to answer ?
Sorry, I didn’t see it, the answer is no it wouldn’t be libertarian, at least not truly. But then, no society ever will be.
And here we see your attempt to misapply libertarian theories to justify your own insanity. Do you really think a rational protection agency is going to be okay with you engaging in crimes on people just because they’re black or homosexual? Sounds like you’re just looking for an excuse.
This just echoes the statist love or or leave it sentiment, and you appear to just being looking for a justification for treating people badly.
Your new avatar is so sexy, I feel drawn to your posts.
True to my childish/immature nature, I can’t give up watching ‘cartoons’. Japanese animation is awesome.
Back in the day, republicanism was the means to roughly the same ends we desire, human liberty. Our ancestors, the classical liberals didn’t get what they bargained for, Hoppe is extremely right on this point. That’s not to say I agree with him as a categorical statement that monarchy > democracy, as too nondescript. Or that on a whole ones better than the other. I’m sort of of two minds on that issue. But that’s beside the point. The republicanism is not what made a classical liberal society, classically liberal. A respect for freedom was on the whole their ends. It is our belief that democracy, or technically republicanism, is not conducive to these ends. So we as libertarians seek an anarchocapitalist society. But the anarchocapitalist society would not become libertarian until the economic processes I described are taking to their logical extent. So as a matter of definition, I must answer categorically no. And yes I realize this was initially geared towards Giles.
I’m not trying to justify anything, just explain.
Yes.
I find it quite intriguing that as the thread develops, the perils of a stateless society appear to be exactly those of a democratic state: majority enslaving minority, pressure to conformity due to increasingly centralized legislative institutions (first gays, then Muslims, then atheists and in the end, we only get protection for Christians?) and a lack of productivity due to the expectation of invasion and plunder by the ruling group.
For the first time in a long time, I’m actually flirting with minarchism. See where that got us?
As for Dr. Hoppe’s choice of sunglasses, he’s getting better. Just look at the last Bodrum group picture. One sexy beast!