/liberty/ - Liberty

You know that you can have voluntary taxes, right? Revolutionary war was funded with voluntary taxes.

Not to mention in Liberland, you wouldn't have victimless crimes, and could solve nonviolent crimes with arbitration/mediation.

Some libertarians don't even believe in the constitution anyways.

Fuck the poor

If one were to look at it from an AnCap perspective, would a DRO be capable of representing someone in a private court?

>>11778

Nice try gommie.

>>11774

>Is the payment of a poor defendant's attorney with taxpayer money an unjust redistribution of wealth?

Taxes are collected by force, it's theft with a variety of bullshit justifications, so what it's spent on isn't as important as the fact that it's fucking stealing.

>Should the poor be dragged into court by the state, unable to obtain the counsel of someone competent in the law?

No, violent criminals should be tried by private courts instead of a monopolized system funded by expropriation. Such private courts would make contracts with defense agencies and private citizens before they are victimized and would then ascertain guilt of the accused.

>>11787

You have to be kidding

>>11787

>No, violent criminals should be tried by private courts instead of a monopolized system funded by expropriation. Such private courts would make contracts with defense agencies and private citizens before they are victimized and would then ascertain guilt of the accused.

Okay, lets say I have a membership to Private Court A. You move into my neighborhood, and you do not have a membership to PCA. I accuse you of stealing from me. The private defense agency working with the private court comes and arrests you.

How is there not a monetary incentive to find you guilty. How is this not justice-by-wealth.

>>11800

Not him, but the short answer is public ratings and social ostracization.

You can't just arrest someone without decent proof, and there wouldn't be arrests for those sort of things. What would most likely happen is private judge Bill would go around to the utilities companies, shops, local businesses, etc. And go…

"Hey, there's a general consensus that I'm a good judge. If I make a ruling, and the criminal doesn't pay reparations like they're supposed to, could you create market ostracism by not selling to them? All the other shops in town said/are saying yes and I don't want you to look like a dick."

And the shop/business owner would say "yeah sure, that makes sense, after all I'm also a citizen in our town and want to properly make sure a system of law is in place even if it's decentralized."

And everyone lives happily with that system. That's just one of hundreds of examples of how it could work through a private court. If the court's decisions are unjust, the businesses break their agreements and explain clearly why they did so when the public/courts ask them why, thus a new court starts up creating competition and forcing each court to value just decisions in order to keep getting funding.

Notice how private police don't give a shit about minor crimes where they've been utilized in the USA. They tell the feds "look, we'll only arrest for these violent crimes or economically destructive crimes. Do it yourself if you want to arrest people for victimless crimes." In those towns, people are generally pretty prosperous.

>>11807

Not to mention the court may be under contract to only take cases under X conditions, or get paid a set amount every year making it their incentive to use an arbitrator/mediator instead of holding a trial since more trials = less profits for them.

>>11807

What you are talking about is exactly how it worked in the wild west, before the territories had statehood.

Fun and free times to live I'm sure, but in complete violation of the NAP filled with lynchings without due process. Basically, you got lynched if you butted heads with the local power brokers (be they wealthy ranchers, or the mining company, whatever).

This is what happens with privatized authorities. Miners are striking? Send in the cops (which work for the mining company) to "legally" shoot all of them.

>>11812

I think you've watched one too many wild west films and not read up on the reality, anon. Yeah it wasn't the greatest because you actually had to work to survivr, but it would have been awesome with modern technology.

When space colonization (or even ocean colonization) begins, do you think they're going to obediently listen to their government word-for-word? People establish voluntary hierarchies/work together all the time when government isn't around to stop them because it's natural. No violence necessary until an overarching entity that doesn't understand the local populace tries to step in.

Need I even mention that Pennsylvania actually overthrew their government and established peaceful private relations for a few years before their former governor (read: your "state-sponsored mining executive") brought in the Feds to end their fun?

>>11774

The way I see it, putting a poor, uneducated guy in front of a court without giving him any access to legal counsel makes it hard, if not impossible, to prove his guilt. He simply doesn't know his rights and cannot effectively defend himself. To punish him, then, might be a crime in itself, or even an attempted crime if he actually was guilty.

I'm assuming a court that works like a contemporary criminal court. If it's less biased against the accused, then maybe you can presume his guilt even if he wasn't defended by a legal counselor.

>>11829

>, then maybe you can presume his guilt

no

>>11834

Germanfag here, I accidentally at the wrong word. "Assume his guilt" would be what I actually meant.

The poor should be customers of rights enforcement agencies like everyone else. Presumably even the budget tier ones will include legal representation as part of the package.

>but what about the homeless who can't afford it?

The overwhelming majority of people are not homeless and can afford it. For those few who can't, charity will go the rest of the way.

>>11858

>Germanfag here, I accidentally at the wrong word. "Assume his guilt" would be what I actually meant.

The courts should NEVER assume the guilt of accused. That's terrible.

>>11903

>The courts should NEVER assume the guilt of accused.

They totally should. Maybe I'm missing a nuance of the language here, but I see no contradiction between "reasonable doubt", "presumption of innocence" and assuming something for a fact, if you do it for a good reason.

>>11953

It wouldn't. Even the most straightforward laws can be very hard to apply sometimes. Not to mention that you need lawyers to interpret contracts, when things get unclear. Legal counsel wouldn't become redundant. It would, however, become much less important. Nowadays, you can't take a shit without breaking two dozen laws.

>>11962

>Nowadays, you can't take a shit without breaking two dozen laws.

brb, goin to the toilet to rebel against the gubmint

>>11800

But you would have membership in private court B. Private court A and private court B would have a meeting to sort it out.

> How is this not justice-by-wealth.

Wealth is always a factor. Why do you think people hire expensive lawyers in America? OTOH, there's a strong incentive for private courts to be widely regarded as fair, otherwise they will be not just economically ostracised but eventually treated as criminal gangs. Besides, people who worry about this problem can raise funds to defend the innocent poor.

>>11774

>Is the payment of a poor defendant's attorney with taxpayer money an unjust redistribution of wealth?

yes

>Should the poor be dragged into court by the state

no

>unable to obtain the counsel of someone competent in the law?

yes

note however that the current (us-) court system is super fucked. its ladden with a shitton of technicalities and other bullshit that make a lawyer not only necssariy but a serious advantage

if you have a proper court system you wont need a lawyer. the judge will be noncorrupt enough that you can just show up and answer the questions, without legal knowledge.

no bullshit backdoors. no bullshit pelading guilty to reduce sentence. no bullshit common law allowing murderes to get a away because of a vague interpretation of some case 200 years ago. etc etc

>>11774

You present a false dichotomy.

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe some government is necessary, but simply that it must be limited to and focused on a narrow set of things and do them well rather than do everything poorly at great expensive.

So yes in Liberland there must be taxes, of course.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's say you live where I live and want to sell your vehicle to some other person through craigslist.

1) The buyer has to pay sales tax on the amount

2) The seller to pay income tax on the same amount

3) The buyer has to get it inspected, registered, insured and licensed and these are all completely separate fees that are tantamount to taxes.

That's like triple dipping here.

While on the subject of cars every time you buy gas you pay a gasoline tax and sales tax and the business is paying a tax and the trucking company is taxed and everyone is taxed. As a private citizen you probably pay municipal and city taxes for roads, but then there are also toll roads and parking meters. And all sorts of weird parking laws – where I live it is run like a scam where cops just write bullshit parking tickets for city revenue. We're talking a $400 ticket for obstructing an unmarked crosswalk. Literally this happened to me. In fact everything is taxed in every way imaginable. We pay all this "transportation tax," but still have to buy a bus ticket or metro ticket at cost. So many working class people today walk out their door thinking "what bullshit way is the system going to squeeze me today for my last dollar."

And where do these taxes go? Do they go to services provided for ordinary people? No, of course not. They go into the pockets of billionaires and bankers. Literally, from your pocket straight into theirs through the magic of fractional reserve banking, corporate welfare, and a fiat currency system. This new Robber Government is demonstrably even worse than the Robber Barons of last century!

So it's pretty disingenuous when Libertarians point out the gross and stifling burden of taxes on the working class, on small business, on the ordinary person just trying to live his life that some jackass comes along on a liberty-minded forum and brays about how Libertarians want to live in a magical fantasy land where a government provides no services and taxes are as rare as unicorns.

Because clearly there is no difference between being literally taxed to death by a corrupt authoritarian corporate oligarchy, and being taxed infrequently and transparently for essential services actually provided by a government which is democratically elected by the same people it actually taxes.

>>11774

You know there are other ways to look at that, right? Such as a court case can't be held if the defendant can't get an attorney?

You do know there are also voluntary means of raising cash such as a lottery or through land development on land that has been privately bought by an individual but donated to the government, right?

>>11774

>Libertarianism means no taxes ever, and anarchy

>>11774

if the court system werent extremely shitty you wouldnt really need money for legal defense

>>18977

>in liberland there must be taxes

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

TRIGGERED