Libertarianism in practice

[FlashDangerpants]

A large group of people with lots of money move into a small town and buy several plots of land.

Why would anybody sell to these folks? I'm a property owner: I ain't sellin' 'em nuthin'.

What say have you got in who other persons sell their property to?

They have now met the only standard of citizenship that I can imagine you are able to support?

Buyin' citizenship?

No, if you wanna be a citizen, you gotta be a signatory to this...

Charter of the American Free Zone

I-A man belongs to himself.

II-A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

III-A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

To defend, and offer redress of violations of, life, liberty, and property, the following safeguards are recommended...

I-a local constabulary

II-a local court of last resort

III-a border patrol

IIII-militia

Establishing any or all of these safeguards, or variations of these safeguards, is at the discretion of individual communities, however: as citizens are the final safeguard it is strongly recommended no other safeguard be established without the oversight of militia.

Ok, so they buy some property in exchange for other property such as money. Then they sign the piece of paper that recomends not amending the constitution without fully consulting with the military. Now they are signed up citizens with a complete set of rights.

At the spot nearest the border they use their plot of land to build and operate a meth lab that generates large profits from drug tourists who aren't breaking any rules as long as they don't do anything to any property.

Meth kills, meth makers are killers: assumin' they got that far, they'd be hung.

Explain please how the selling of a recreational product to a willing buyer who is aware of the risks gets the death penalty?
Do you smoke cigarettes? If so, have you hanged your tobacconist recently?

This is natural rights minarchy, not an ancap.

It's looking more like a death cult at the moment.

Limiting communal responsiblity to nothing but not depriving from others of property doesn't really unpack very elegantly.

If that's all you think is there, in the 3 lines, you've haven't unpacked 'em.

Should I explain them to you? I'd be divin' into principles, though: that might put me in violation of mick's opening instructions.

What say you, mick? Can I unpack the 3 laws for flash?

It's ok, I'm gonna grant you that privilige without the need for Mick. However if you can't demonstrate that there is exactly one correct way to unpack this thing that covers every possible dispute, then you are going to be stuck with a capricious legal system. You'll probably need something a little bit more universal than some stuff about Crom.

[henry quirk]

What say have you got in who other persons sell their property to?

The opening asks for a picture of a working Libertarian community, not one just startin' out. The minarchy I'm describin' is seasoned, been thru it's start up period. Only folks livin' it are folks, well, like me.

Ain't no different than what I asked for in the other thread: a picture of a working Marxist community. Folks like me woulda been expelled, jailed, or killed early on. There would be no natural rightists in a seasoned marxist community.

So, yeah, I can say with confidence: your lil band of meth- makers are gonna have an up hill climb, from start to finish.

As aside: it'll be interestin' to see if you interrogate anyone about their vision of a working Marxist community as you've been interrogatin' me (assumin' any one steps up). My gut tells me you won't.

Ok, so they buy some property in exchange for other property such as money.

Probably not.

Then they sign the piece of paper that recomends not amending the constitution without fully consulting with the military.



The charter sez no such thing.

I'm gonna grant you that privilige without the need for Mick.

Not your thread: not your call.

You'll probably need something a little bit more universal than some stuff about Crom.

Worked well enough for this...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[FlashDangerpants]

At the spot nearest the border they use their plot of land to build and operate a meth lab that generates large profits from drug tourists who aren't breaking any rules as long as they don't do anything to any property.

Meth kills, meth makers are killers: assumin' they got that far, they'd be hung.

Explain please how the selling of a recreational product to a willing buyer who is aware of the risks gets the death penalty?
Do you smoke cigarettes? If so, have you hanged your tobacconist recently?

[henry quirk]

At the spot nearest the border they use their plot of land to build and operate a meth lab that generates large profits from drug tourists who aren't breaking any rules as long as they don't do anything to any property.

Meth kills, meth makers are killers: assumin' they got that far, they'd be hung.

Explain please how the selling of a recreational product to a willing buyer who is aware of the risks gets the death penalty?
Do you smoke cigarettes? If so, have you hanged your tobacconist recently?

recreational product



I don't have to explain it: see for yourself what meth does to all long term users compared to what tobacco does to a small number of long term users. It's the difference between eatin' Drano and eatin' processed sugar.

My minarchy has room for pot heads, but meth-makers?

They'll be hung.

[mickthinks]

What say you, mick? Can I unpack the 3 laws for flash?

Well now—that's gping to look a lot like you asking us to "read theory",and you've forbidden that, remember? I don't have a problem with you "unpacking" in the "expanding on the principles" sense, provided you give up trying to rule it out of order in other related discussions.

[FlashDangerpants]

At the spot nearest the border they use their plot of land to build and operate a meth lab that generates large profits from drug tourists who aren't breaking any rules as long as they don't do anything to any property.

Meth kills, meth makers are killers: assumin' they got that far, they'd be hung.

Explain please how the selling of a recreational product to a willing buyer who is aware of the risks gets the death penalty?
Do you smoke cigarettes? If so, have you hanged your tobacconist recently?

recreational product



I don't have to explain it: see for yourself what meth does to all long term users compared to what tobacco does to a small number of long term users. It's the difference between eatin' Drano and eatin' processed sugar.

My minarchy has room for pot heads, but meth-makers?

They'll be hung.

Hmmm ....

I-A man belongs to himself.

II-A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

III-A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

So the drug user's life belongs to himself.
The drug user's money belongs to himself.
The drug user is allowed to exchange his money for any goods or services he likes?

It's the drug user who does his own depriving.

Also yeah, you might have to kill the sugar dealers too. Whatever principle you aren't unpacking from your 3 laws out of obedience to Mick doesn't only apply when you want it to does it? It's a principle that extends to wherever its logic takes it, right? It that's sort of principle, isn't it? The real type that isn't just a temporary convenience to be forgotten if it gets uncomfortable?

[mickthinks]

... see for yourself what meth does to all long term users compared to what tobacco does to a small number of long term users. It's the difference between eatin' Drano and eatin' processed sugar.

That seems to be a gross overstatement of the comparative harm done by meth. So I'm going to put you to the test of citing some stats to back this up.

Because flash's point about lynching the tobacconists looks to be a valid one.

[henry quirk]

What say you, mick? Can I unpack the 3 laws for flash?

Well now—that's gping to look a lot like you asking us to "read theory",and you've forbidden that, remember? I don't have a problem with you "unpacking" in the "expanding on the principles" sense, provided you give up trying to rule it out of order in other related discussions.

thanks, mick, for the quick and decisive response

flash: I'll open a new thread this evening and unpack the 3 lines for you

[henry quirk]

So I'm going to put you to the test of citing some stats to back this up.

I'll pull some comparisons this evening.

[henry quirk]

I'll address this in the evening.

[promethean75]

Is Henry over here still trying to work out his minarchism?

Lemme ax you sumthin, Quirk. What happens to public utility development when no capitalist investors find any incentive to invest in them?

And what happens when thousands of workers are laid off by big companies when there is no government to bail-out or subsidize those businesses to prevent the resulting mass unemployment?

Minarchism mighta worked for a neat little village of pilgrims and shit trading leather for chickens, but this is the 21rst century, homes. We are waaaaaay past that romantic nonsense.

Talk about LARPers. Jesus H. Christ.

[henry quirk]

pro,

What happens to public utility development when no capitalist investors find any incentive to invest in them?

what happens now?

what happens when thousands of workers are laid off by big companies when there is no government to bail-out or subsidize those businesses to prevent the resulting mass unemployment?

why would a profit-maker need subsidizin'?

why would intelligent people stick with a failin' company?

why is private unemployment insurance not on the table?

[Skepdick]

What happens to public utility development when no capitalist investors find any incentive to invest in them?

what happens now?

They cease to exist; or fail to scale up to meet the social need. Scarcity happens.

why would a profit-maker need subsidizin'?

Pop quiz: how many years between mRNA vaccines being invented; an being sold for profit?

It's not about profit - it's about cashflow and operating costs.

why would intelligent people stick with a failin' company?

A company that hasn't yet succeeded is not a failing company. And even if a company fails its ideas/products could live on.

New ideas take lots of upfront capital to develop. And that's before we even figure out if they are commercially viable.

I mean... computers. Hello! They won a world war (subsidised by governments) long before they did anything useful for the average person.

[Skepdick]

Tell me how Liberty is supposed to work: paint me a picture of a working Libertarian community, society, nation if the citizens, workers, etc. got it right.

I don't wanna read theory, no: I wanna read your vision of application.

You forgot the most important question of all. What's the maximum size of a Libertarian society?

I am yet to meet a Lolbertarian who understands that ideas which work at the size of a commune don't work at the size of a city, country, continent or a planet.

[henry quirk]

That seems to be a gross overstatement of the comparative harm done by meth.

you may be right

my distaste for (prejudice against?) against such things may have skewed my recollections of meth stats

and about those stats: it's difficult to find raw data (number of users, length of time usin', charted effects, deaths, etc.)

the most prominent studies are all weighted in some fashion

so, until I can assess some raw data, for the moment, meth-makers will be treated neutrally in the minarchy

I don't expect their business to flourish, though cuz while tobacco ain't exactly healthy (and, yeah, gettin' raw data there too is is chore), tobacco doesn't induce psychosis

anyway: as I say, we'll treat the meth producer neutrally (neither criminal or legal) till I inform myself