Well that would be more convenient than having to go to Big Larry the Jamaican.
What’s wrong with drug addicts? They’re fun.
Well, I’ve been pushing some of these thoughts on a friend lately. Here’s the reply I got:
"It doesn’t help being ideological if you’re not pragmatic. There is a reason why almost all Western European countries have adopted a governmental welfare ideology that is synonymous with wellbeing, happiness, life quality, safety and equall opportunities for everyone. "
How does any service business make money? By charging a fee.
And if you cannot pay, there’s no police there to protect your rights?
His/her whole thought structure in that comment hinges on this sentence and it’s unclear.
Does it mean you can be ideological as long as you can put it into practice? But yet how to put something into practice that gets so far and then is coerced into submission repeatedly for centuries?
A) Are we assuming the person is incapable of protecting theirselves? In a libertian society where private property is relished your likely to see homeowners equally take their private land’s security very seriously. Meaning alot more gun owners.
B) For the budget buyers like renters, or people who buy homes in ‘community’s’ there are already provisions available to them to accomplish this. HOA could charge a fee which provides security. Perhaps the neighborhood has a cooperative. Renters would wouldn’t pay for security it would be a part of their rent.
The over all distribution of proteciton would far more effeciently distributed then the normal police system. As it stands cops have no insentive to go to one place or another short of meeting a quota to right x number of tickets in a month.
Maybe. You are left with self-defense or you might be covered by a neighbor, family member, work or friend. Maybe a charity, or a church.
The alternative, is to force people to pay for the defense of others (which is a violation of their rights, to protect the “positive” rights of another person). We don’t believe public goods can be provided at gunpoint.
This entire statement is a massive assumption, the conditional “In a libertarian society where private property is relished…” is of a the Marxist class “In a Marxist society where, every individual recognizes themself apart of a larger whole…”, and it is a pure hypothesis (who really know what will hapen in a “libertarian society”?) despite the fact that it claims apodictic certaintly.
Fair enough. My logic comes from the idea that we live in a nanny state and where people assume big brother will watch over them and take care of them. In that condition people naturally tend towards the socialized means of service rather then the private.
I guess in my mind I’m assuming a larger body of people would be more self responsible in a stateless society and personally tend to their land as opposed expecting society to tend to their land for them.
Additionally, I think modern evidence will prove that where objects are available for use on the free market people will make an attempt to use what they preceive is the most effecient means possible. Objects that are socialized however are discouraged from using any means outside of the state. I believe that in a stateless society people may prefer a higher degree of protection individually just from the point of efficiency.
Think of it as car owner who’s taken it upon himself to learn how to change the oil in his car. This saves him the expense of having someone else do it. At the same time in a stateless society someone may not want to pay for a 24/7 watchguard, so they instead may sacrifice with the type of protection/insurance they purchase with the idea they will be more vigilant in protecting their land as opposed to someone else.
If I was a private security/insurence contractor I would be giving discounts to homeowners with firearms.
You know I was just thinking about this. Here’s a company that already succesfully does some of this in the free market.
A=A
You and I won’t live to see it old man, but maybe with hard work, our predecessors will.
You can make a one time investment to buy a gun.
If you want to be protected, it seems reasonable to expect you to at least put in some part of your own work.
Geez. Do you want me to take your pit-bulls out and polish your shotgun too?
Lazy.
Indeed, I’ve always found this assumption a bit odd. The fact is the matter is that the respect individuals have for private property depends on a multitude of factors, granted, there will be some who respect private property because of religious or cultural beliefs. But besides that you’re just going to have to find the right institutional setting.
The future is undetermined. Have faith! [;)]
And it’s a pure hypothesis that the state alone can provide protection for property rights, in fact one that routinely clashes with economics, much like the notion that only it can provide healthcare.
The future is determined by the past. Otherwise, our actions today have no meaning.
Instead of imagining a glorious victory, successful people visualize all of the tiny steps to get to the goal.
Indeed. Here’s an article making a related point:
Rothbard wrote that the problem with those kinda contracts is that breaking them isnt aggression. It is like a promise. Breaking a promise is an opppurtunity loss, not aggression against property. So they cant really be punished due to punishment having to be proportional to crime,
First, Rothbard wasn’t very good on IP.
Second, I don’t believe you can’t contract against aggression legitimately since aggression is illegitimate. If I am wrong, can you give an example of such?
Here it seems to me, Rothbard is assuming (based on your post) that violating a contract is not a property rights violation. Certainly in the case of IP, no real property right exists. In the case of real (tangible) property, ownership still applies if a contract is broken. If I contract with you to sell you a Rolex for $25, and I give you a knockoff, that is fraud which is theft. Likewise, if I contract to lease your land and pay you rent, and I don’t pay rent, or I keep your land, those are property rights violations not just broken promises. The only way we could believe otherwise is if the contract explicitly indemnifies against fraud.
Am I making sense? I haven’t had a coffee in 4 weeks and my brain-jitsu isn’t what it could be.