If the city mayor is a private entity just trying to turn a profit he doesn’t have to have a concrete set of rules to abide by. He can special case whatever will result in the highest profit (as far as he is concerned). This may mean allowing the picketer or it may mean disallowing it to appease the shop owner.
For the most part I would prefer to see all of those things allowed except detaining someone you suspect of a crime. However, crime punishment really is dependant on how your society is setup. Even in an ancap society it’s easy to argue over the best way to go about it.
But don’t you realize that in practice the city major will have to create regulations? For a city of 10 million people the city major wouldn’t just randomly pick on people to make profit. He would instead attempt to create a more fair and just system. In practice this system will be not different than the current systems we have, and I think the goal should be even in such system to have as few regulations as possible.
I personally don’t believe in a city mayor owning the road systems. Even in the current world it has been shown that private entities will build and maintain roads themselves. A while back Walmart opened shop in China and build a major roadway so people could get to the store easily.
Why does the city mayor own the land in front of the shop? If the shop is in a mall it then the mall may own the land in which case it’s not an issue of 1 guy running 10M people but rather 1 guy managing maybe a few dozen shop front areas in which case little decisions can be effectively made. If it’s a street side shop then the street is owned and maintained by someone who has an interest in keeping people on his street happy (road tolls is how he makes money, he wants lots of people using his roads, he wants shops on his roads to prosper).
It will be a lot different, because it will be aimed at profiting or serving his personal preferences. In any case this is no more objectionable than your church or house or Pepsi offices having ‘regulations’. If you don’t want to wear the funny hat, don’t come to my house.
For those who adhere to doctrines of property rights, the one who owns the lands/properties where such acts might occurs, ultimately calls the shots in what to criminalize either way.
You can’t really have road tolls in the city, otherwise drivers will have to stop before each road and pay money. I don’t see how this can be done technically. However it does make sense for the shopkeepers on a particular road to own the road, and maintain it with their own money so that people will come and shop there.
Shop keepers owning the road does make sense as well.
With a digital toll system I can see city toll roads. A lot of toll roads these days are automated already, you just drive under a meter and it bills you, you don’t even have to slow down.
I would recommend reading “The Privatization of Roads and Highways” he covers multiple ways this may be fulfilled in the market (and how it was handled in the past before the government monopoly).
One example I remember is in (Singapore?), they had a sticker system. You would pay a certain amount per month/year in order to get a certain color sticker, the colors would expand outward from the city center, and you would pay more per month the closer to the center of the city you would want to ride. If they caught you in a zone you have not paid for, you would be fined.
Or there might not even be a need to charge users of the road in the first place. A perfectly good example of this nowadays is a parking lot. They are owned and maintained by the business, and you do not see a toll being charged for every car which pulls in to park.
By that reasoning, you must reject the validity of concepts such as implied warranties, merchantability, etc. Are you prepared to do that?
Furthermore, it seems like you would have no problem with lying to people so that they’ll do what you want. Isn’t that one of the foundations of statism?
By that reasoning, you must reject the validity of concepts such as implied warranties, merchantability, etc.
Wrong again; when you engage in a contracted exchange there is presumed to be a meeting of the minds, so there can be rational claims that you misrepresent yourself and thus breach contract; and contract is the one and only source of rights or duties. Even so, there are circumstance and norms where caveat emptor applies, and you buy at your own risk. Whatever the standard is it really doesn’t matter so long as people are generally aware. Anyways, this is a stupid non-problem because real companies in a capitalist market are going to be brought to task by standards of conduct their liability insurance and vetting agencies impose on them.
Furthermore, it seems like you would have no problem with lying to people so that they’ll do what you want.
Whether I have a problem with it is irrelevant to whether it should be legal. I have a problem with Communists and meth heads.
Who’s going to declare it illegal, Eugene? The government? Understand that not all of us in this thread are presuming the existence of government. So with that in mind, tell me - who’s “we”?
How do you know that “a lot less women will complain, and criminals will walk”?
“Potential criminals”? What do you mean by that? The way I see it, we’re all potential criminals, aren’t we?
You do understand that there’s a difference between “as minimum violence as possible” and “as minimum aggression as possible”, don’t you? The former doesn’t distinguish between aggression and non-aggression. In theory, there can be lower levels of violence where some of the violence concerned is aggression. Libertarians aren’t against violence per se - they’re against aggression specifically. If that means more violence overall, so be it.
Driving a car can lead to physical harm. Should it be illegal?
What do you mean by “public territory”?
Explain to me just who exactly is going to “create a peaceful and free society”. And again, who is “we”?
How “strong” do “police” and “support from the community” (please define these things) need to be, in your opinion? How much “censorship” is fine with you, exactly?
With all due respect, I don’t see how you can consider yourself a libertarian with positions like these. Maybe you don’t actually think you are one?
How is an exchange necessarily contractual? I don’t see where there is an explicit contract involved if I buy something with cash, for example.
The presence of “norms” goes against your contractarianism. If you consider contract to be the source of all rights, then you must reject any and all “norms”.
I don’t care if you think it’s “a stupid non-problem”. But if you really think that, why even bother debating it?
The applied nature of liability insurance depends on what people consider to be torts. If one cannot be held liable for making false claims, why would there be liability insurance against that?
So do you have a problem with lying to people so that they’ll do what you want?
Furthermore, it would seem you’d have no problem hurting people as long as they don’t have (explicit) contracts with you stipulating that you won’t.
Auto, I am a minarchist, not an an-cap. I think the government should have a very strong army, and a very strong and efficient police force, and a criminal court system. The rest should be left to the fre market.
Therefore “we” is the democratic assembly of the citizens of the libertarian state. Now since policing is mostly a government function, I want it to be very efficient. Even with today’s police, they can’t get rid of the mafia and the crime is skyrocketing. I want a stronger police, one that is not so limited by so many procedures that makes the criminal escape. I want stronger punishment, preferrable one/two/three strikes and you are out rules. I like capital punishment and I think it should be used more.
Am a Libertarian? I see myself as one. However my views on crime and police and very different than of most libertarians. I want a peaceful, non aggressive society. For that to happen we need to kill/imprison the thieves, robbers, murderers, rapists, extortionists, and all of these people who don’t respect the “live and let live” principle.
If we are to make all of this happen, we need to have some limits on free speech. For example publishing the name of a rape victim brings enormous shame to the victim, so it creates every incentive for her not to complain.