/liberty/ - Liberty

>>14798

In real life politics, the referee you're hoping for is inevitably a part of the game and not an un-interested third party.

>>14798

Essentially true but there are also these things called bad rules. A rule has to judged by its merits.

In the real world, there are a lot of bad rules.

Life has no rules.

>>14800

also true

>>14800

This. Being in the legal field, I know how neutral our judges and policemen really are. Think about how far technology has advanced, in the last decades. Now think of ways this is used to fuck the accused over. Public surveillance, phone tracking, sometimes outright hacking of computers. Yet we still don't even record witness interrogations on tape, or film them, even though it's already well-established how easy it is to manipulate witnesses. The judges are already in bed with the police and the prosecutors in my country, and I doubt it's much better in the US.

>>14822

>under what regulation

Oh god, are you another level 9000 noob?

>>>/readabook/

>>14834

link here

>>>/readabook/

>>14822

It's okay, bro, just put "private" in front of it and it's OK.

A referee is supposed to be an independent individual, and is heavily vetted and watched to make sure they don't fuck up. They still proceed to fuck up, be bribed, etc. all the time.

Government isn't even vetted/watched. We just accept it at face value as being needed when you can have someone to do every one of its jobs without it.

>>14822

A private enterprise will function differently than a central authority on the very basis of not being a central authority- it can not benefit from distributed costs and concentrated benefits without having provided a very, very good service prior to this. Peer-to-peer technology will revolutionize these sorts of things and you'll see what anarchists are capable of in the next decade or so- you already can to an extent by looking at companies like AirBnB, Uber, and Kiva, and currencies like Bitcoin.

If your goal is to shitpost, then by all means go ahead and bump our IP count, but if you actually care about these sort of things enough to pitch a fit about it/act like a sophist, you need to at least understand the basics of the Libertarian mindset before you jump on the attack against Voluntarism- otherwise you'll just look like an idiot acting smug- a smug idiot is still an idiot.

Go study up on Classical Liberalism and the likes of some of our founding fathers/early economists. Economics and Politics are directly related unless you want politics to strictly be a system of law (at which point congratulations- you're a minarchist).

The referee doesn't touch the ball… he just calls you up if you break the rules.

A libertarian society has a referee who only exists to prevent cheating, but the rules that he applies to the game also apply to him. So if we aren't allowed to cheat, then neither can he.

>>14798

>Working hard, and playing by the rules only works if everyone is playing by the rules.

Incorrect. Game Theory shows that prisoner's dilemmas only occur for single interactions between actors with no capacity to communicate. Long-term interactions advantage cooperative behavior over cheating.

>People playing games can get ahead by cheating.

Only when their cheating is generally not detected, or considered to be legitimate. When Cartman takes out your knees and scores a point in basketball, only he considers himself a winner. To everybody else, he's a cheating sack of shit and they aren't going to give him anything for it.

>This is why we have referees at sporting events.

Referees are to make the games worth watching. If there were no referees, and if players generally took to cheating, then spectators couldn't expect a proper game with consistent rules. It wouldn't be interesting anymore (unless you just want to watch bloodsport, but then very few people would want to play). Without spectators, there's no money in the game.

Referees are employed voluntarily by the competing firms (teams) to satisfy the consumer demand for a fair game. The players agree to abide by his rulings in advance, as part of the contract of the game. If they didn't, they wouldn't get to play in profitable sporting events.

You can ignore the referee, but then your team won't let you play with them anymore. The leagues could choose not to have referees, but then nobody would want to watch the games. Everybody agrees to the rules voluntarily instead of having them imposed because it's more profitable that way, and the entire system is much more adaptable to changing circumstances than a centrally-imposed order.

To a considerable extent, the whole thing is actually market self-regulation in microcosm.

>>14877

>Referees are to make the games worth watching

As if you wouldn't want to watch a no-hold barred good ole' fashioned brawl ..

>>14888

Companies could do that, but no one would work for them if they did, unless there wasn't a better choice around, which is very unlikely.

>>14888

>>14898

Also, like with all excesses of the gilded age, it's important to consider that a) the economy was NOT unregulated and b) standards of living were STILL rising, despite all the crap the corporations pulled. That said, there's a lot of crap they couldn't have pulled without the government helping them. Case in point: Air pollution. Would've been regarded as an attack on the person and property of everyone suffering from it, under common law, if the British courts hadn't changed their ruling and declared that poisoning the air was alright if it served the greater good. The government also cracked down on workers protests, sometimes with the freaking national guard. It basically subsidized the defense of the corporations; every security or insurance company would've helped the corporations out, within the confines of the law, and then raised their fees because the corporation fucked up and caused the situation by being a bunch of faggots. It's what insurance companies do: You provoke an insured loss, you pay higher fees.

>>14898

>Companies could do that, but no one would work for them if they did, unless there wasn't a better choice around, which is very unlikely

Yes, that's your theory. But history shows it didn't happen that way.

People took the logging and mining jobs, traveled to the middle of no where and got ruthlessly boned by the company.

It happened. It happened over and over again.

It happened until they passed the Truck acts which forbid the use of company script.

Your theory has been disproven and is now invalid.

go take a seat with the Marxists and shut up.

>>14888

>had little choice but to purchase goods at a company store

Only because employers included contract provisions requiring employees to patronize the company store. Otherwise, nothing is stopping one of the worker's starting up competing general goods store.

>>14976

>>14976

So excepting to work for lousy pay in dangerous conditions rather than simply passively staving to death is a good thing.

and I don't suppose you ever considered those people were lied to when they were recruited to work..

>>14981

>So excepting to work for lousy pay in dangerous conditions rather than simply passively staving to death is a good thing.

Depends. Personally, I'd rather work under shitty conditions than starve to death.

>and I don't suppose you ever considered those people were lied to when they were recruited to work..

Have sources for this? I wouldn't normally ask, but you're an asshole, so I want sources.

>>14798

Then who regulates the regulators?

>>15005

The regulators. Maybe also different regulators. And they are regulated by the public. Because we all know regulators listen to the public.

>>15006

If the public is capable of regulating, then why not skip the middle man regulators?

>>15011

Why not?

>>14981

>That's a shifty choice

The starting point in society/in making a society is nothing. You have to create wealth (I'm not talking money) to show you are worth something. These were the options because we didn't have the technological opportunities at the time. No one had access to the internet, cable, central heating in their home (some people not even a fireplace), etc. You can't use modern terms to define your expectations of the past. In today's terms, Mining was the equivalent of modern Welding or HVAC- something that anyone could do with a little training, but that's worth a lot more than retail or fast food work. For the Chinese, this is the equivalent of working the assembly line instead of agriculture because assembly lines are a better, more fulfilling job that leaves you with more free time and less worries of starving.

So since you wanted to use modern society lenses to look at a very old problem, I'll point out that modern common law (the law that most anarchists work off of, and which the state tried to destroy post-civil war, allowing these mining town barons to exist) would throw out the contract. Additionally with internet and peer-to-peer technology, anyone willing to spend 10, minutes researching their company could find out if they were lying corporate cocksuckers.

>>14986

Historically,, recruiters for really shitty work environments have lied and tricked people.

Here's a story about some Chinese men who thought they were going to California but instead wound up mining bird shit on a completely barren island from the shore of South America.

I read about this in Mann's book 1493,, here's the only link on the internet that I could find that proves this happened.

http://www.sarahalbeebooks.com/2013/10/the-grim-tale-of-guano/

and why am I an asshole, because I dare to disagree with you? Are you are a god?

>>15027

>and why am I an asshole, because I dare to disagree with you? Are you are a god?

Nope, because you're a pretentious, smug, economically and legally illiterate shithead. And because you still haven't answered to >>15015.

>>15028

>This happened back in the 1890's when a guy wrote about the meat packing industry and guess what? the public demanded the government get involved and we got the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Remember the time millions of people complained about the government torturing arabs, sexually harassing people at airports and wasting billions of dollars on public surveillance? What came of that?

>Gosh, it not like the government is run by people who have to win elections or anything.

Look at modern America. You win elections by not being the other guy and creating dank reddit-tier memes.

>>15037

>How long do you think it would take the rich and power to buy up all those information outlets and only tell you what they want you to know?

Interesting way of rephrasing the monopoly-question.

>How many news stories are already being buried by the market driven "Infotainment" media?

News stories have always been buried. Even more so in the absence of a market.

>You do lock the door when you leave home, don't you?

>Your neighbors are all probably fine upstanding people,, but sooner or later someone will try your door.

>It's best that it's locked. It's good to have some laws to deter people from exploiting you.

We already have these laws. They just need to be applied. They would be applied, if the state courts had done their job.

Even if we didn't have those laws, your analogy wouldn't work unless I forced all of my neighbors to pay so I can buy myself a better lock, and then broke into their homes to check if they had crowbars to open my front door.

>>15037

>How long do you think it would take the rich and power to buy up all those information outlets

Hmm, this internet thing is marvelous. I'll buy it. That's right; the whole internet.

>How many news stories are already being buried by the market driven "Infotainment" media?

You know; in that free-market news media we apparently have.

>Look at his way,, having some laws to appeal to is like locking your door when you leave your home.

How? Complete the analogy. How does an individual's use of their private property to make burglary somewhat more difficult equate to procuring funds from the public under threat of force to restrict the ways in which other people may non-violently conduct their business?

>Your neighbors are all probably fine upstanding people,, but sooner or later someone will try your door.

But locks actually make it physically more difficult to get into your house. Laws don't mean shit if you don't get caught.

>>15041

>Hmm, this internet thing is marvelous. I'll buy it. That's right; the whole internet

I guess you have not heard of the issue of net neutrality. You might want to look into that.

>>15037

>How long do you think it would take the rich and power to buy up all those information outlets and only tell you what they want you to know?

A long time, because consumers will move elsewhere when the data gets leaked that a third party was corrupted- not to mention some groups will avoid accepting bribes in such a manner specifically because they know it will ruin their business if people ever found out (in bounty hunter movies/books/real life, they refuse to accept more money from the "bad guy" for this exact same reason- in the long run it's not profitable/they will be out of work if people know they'll betray them for a few more credits). There's nothing stopping many corporations from doing the same thing today anyways, so this isn't exactly a good argument.

>How many news stories are already being buried by the market driven "Infotainment" media?

How many news industries rely on the the cable-satellite oligopoly held together by government regulations right now?

>Having some laws to appeal to is like locking your door when you leave your home.

If it doesn't fall under common law, it's like locking your door and handing it to the robber's best friend hoping he won't give it to said robber.

>>15047

>now equating government with capitalism

lol

>>15049

this