/liberty/ - Liberty

>>14887

>government

>>14892

Preferably not exist or be really small.

>>14893

No government. Do you really want that?

You want to evict your own unruly unpaid tenants instead of sending the Sheriff.

You want to collect your own debts instead of taking them to court and having their wages garnished.

>>14894

>wut is anarchocapitalism?

>You want to evict your own unruly unpaid tenants instead of sending the Sheriff.

Nope. I hire someone to evict them.

>Why not hire him to kill your tenant?

That would be against the NAP.

>Okay, I just looked that up on Wikipedia. Why would you follow that, if no government could enforce it?

Because acting against it would be against my conscience, just like acting against all major laws is usually against our conscience.

>What if you have no conscience?

Then I'll still follow it to avoid being socially stigmatized. I would harm my own reputation and thus my business and my social life.

>What if you don't care about that?

Then I'll be taken to court and sued or punished for murdering a tenant.

>Ha! No government means no courts, right?

Wrong. Private courts are, and always have been, a thing. Ireland had only private courts before the Brits rolled in, after several hundred to thousand years of this working like a charm.

>Why not just bribe the judges? AYNCRAPS BTFO!!!!1

Because that would hurt the reputation of the judge you bribed, his court and his reputation, and because the court could be set up in a way that minimized the risk and the damage of bribes. For example, both parties could pick one judge each, and these two judges would agree upon a third judge. This is how modern private arbitrators work.

Now thank me for summing up the next twenty posts in this thread.

>>14900

>Private courts are, and always have been, a thing

Private courts are awesome.

How would you like to pay someone to prosecute the person who committed a crime against out of your own pocket?

People used to have to do that.

In some places you had to drag them into court yourself too.

and you didn't answer the question about collecting your own debts rather than having the court garnish their wages.

I reckon hiring someone to just go over and break their kneecaps would be an improvement over the current system wouldn't it?

>>14892

Government should enforce the law and the law should only be the collectivization of the individual's right to defend -even by force- their rights of life, liberty and property.

At least that is what most classical liberals thought in the 18th and 19th century.

>>14910

>How would you like to pay someone to prosecute the person who committed a crime against out of your own pocket?

You could pay a flatrate to a Dispute Resolution Organization and then it would prosecute crimes against your person. Kinda like how we pay taxes nowadays, except these also go into prosecuting victimless crimes (like the drug trade, voluntary prostitution, copyright infringement, certain economic crimes) and you have no guarantee the government will even act. Most crimes nowadays, even when they are detected, never make it into court.

Or you could sell your compensation claims to the DRO in advance, which would also be a good way of making sure only credible claims are prosecuted, and a very good way of making sure even rich people don't easily get away with crimes.

>and you didn't answer the question about collecting your own debts rather than having the court garnish their wages.

Put a clause in the contract you made with the court so it can enforce the verdict. Problem solved.

>I reckon hiring someone to just go over and break their kneecaps would be an improvement over the current system wouldn't it?

It wouldn't. It also wouldn't happen, and would still be illegal. Asking questions like this would also still be a dirty, intellectually dishonest approach. You know I won't say that it would be an improvement. You also know I'll attack this argument the way I just did. Why, then, even ask the question? What do you hope for? Is proclaiming your moral superiority your only goal here?

>>14918

>Put a clause in the contract you made with the court so it can enforce the verdict. Problem solved proposed no government at all.

>>14893

And let's face it, no government at all is fucking stupid. All Anarchism is stupid,, even if you slide the word capitalism next to it.

and you've just got help from state.

This particular line of argument started because someone

>>14900

>wut is anarchocapitalism?

its pretty dumb

>>14952

Problem is that even small governments tend to gradually increase their power over time. Happened to the US before. This, and taxation, no matter how small it is, is still theft, and the monopoly of force is just that: A monopoly. If the government fucks up its one job, protecting the citizens, you have no one else to turn to.

>>14953

I agree. I'm actually on board with the idea of a limited government.

That's kind of the idea behind this thread, if we define the role of the government we limit it.

We can say.. "excuse me, this isn't in your job description."

taxation is not theft if it keeps up it's side of the social contract.

Let's set the terms of the contract.

>>14959

>taxation is not theft if it keeps up it's side of the social contract.

True, but as it is now, we don't have a social contract. If you really want one, no problem, go ahead. Just don't expect your children, or people who have never signed the contract, to abide by it.

>>14961

Interesting concept.

So if you don't want to enter into the social contract, should you leave the country?

Normally, people with no loyalty to the nation are deported or something.

You are obviously not happy with the way things are being done.

What would you like to see done differently?

>>14952

no, fuck no.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.

>>14978

>So if you don't want to enter into the social contract, should you leave the country?

The entire point of the social contract is that is puts the state on a voluntary basis. Not very voluntary if it's a contract that cuts into the rights of third parties, now, is it? You can't grant the state rights you don't have. You have no right to my property, therefore, the state doesn't have that right, either.

>What would you like to see done differently?

I don't want to support the state, because I don't like people having a fun time with my money, unless I like them. Which, in the case of state officials, I don't.

>>14984

dank

sounds like bastiat tbh

>>14952

The flaw with that argument is that the USA had virtually everything you mentioned without taxes subsidizing them in the past.

Turns out completely privatized education, courts, etc. are both extremely cheap and effective.

So I don't think you need a government to do that.

>>15000

checked tbh

Plus, that's Ayn Rand.

>>15016

I guess you are not a big fan of social mobility and like people to stay in the social class they were born in.

With public schools the child of some low brow idiots who don't care about his/her education at least has a chance to learn and maybe improve their station.

and if you are going to have democracy with universal voting rights,, I'd really consider making sure the people aren't ignorant fools.

>>15025

Actually, the idea of the social contract was first created by Thomas Hobbes.

>>15026

>With public schools the child of some low brow idiots who don't care about his/her education at least has a chance to learn and maybe improve their station.

This is not what is happening now. Children of poor parents tend to go to schools that are underfunded, understaffed and visited by other children of poor parents, who may or may not be little assholes. A free market would likely lead to poor children getting worse schooling, (although I think it's fairly unlikely they'd ever end up getting no schooling, not in our time and age), but this is exactly what we have now, so it would not exactly be a loss. In fact, with competition between different schools and more competition from free online courses that anyone can take, they'd likely get better for everyone, including poor children.

>and if you are going to have democracy with universal voting rights,, I'd really consider making sure the people aren't ignorant fools.

Look at his flag. Now look back at your comment. And now back to his flag.

>>15032

Fun fact: American public schools didn't always suck. The Public school system in New York City was once praised as a model for the world and their success at helping immigrants from around the world assimilate was celebrated.

And Japan still has great public primary education.

The public schools system can work.

and the free market schools will not help the children of apathetic parents which a mentioned earlier.

Didn't know it was Hobbes, thanks for the correction. But Mister Locke's view does demonstrate the social contract is intended to respect our rights.

>>14910

Saga-period Iceland had no government enforcement mechanism. All the courts could do was pass a ruling, and it was up to the parties involved to collect. That actually worked out pretty well.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

>>15026

>Social class

Pre-WWI/II America had fewer social classes than any country in modern history.

You could go into a movie theater dirt poor alongside a rich kid, and get the exact same experience for the exact same price.

>With public schools the child of some low brow idiots who don't care about his/her education at least has a chance to learn and maybe improve their station.

Except public schools inevitably rely on more people getting in (promises of more people graduating) in order to stay in business, thus they lower their standards. If you actually compare ye olde private American schooling, families had other ways to pay if they couldn't afford it such as housing the teacher- shit, there's a private school right down the street from my house that accepts different rates based on your income bracket. The education standards were actually much higher than they are today to the point where what I learned in my first two years of Uni before becoming an electrician was the equivalent of what many folks learned at the end of middle school/beginning of high school.

>and if you are going to have democracy with universal voting rights

>Democracy

>voting

Top kek.

>>15050

I should also state that rural folk are not low-brow idiots. Living out in the boonies actually requires a great deal of intelligence- it's just more street smarts and farming smarts than actual "educational attainment."

>>15036

>public school system

depends if taxes are voluntary or not, and further if the Taxpayer can specify activities on which his money will be spent.

Making schools public is the same as making Healthcare public - it sentences Teachers as Slaves and public slaves (in a situation where taxes are mandatory) and makes it very easy for the state to institute propaganda in the children. If schooling is made compulsory, then it is disastrous.

I don't think schools (or anything, tbh) should be subsidised or run by the gubmint except the armed forces and the courts. Also, they should switch the legal age for working to 13.

>>15050

>>15051

Which profession are you in currently?

>>15058

Electronics Technology and Manufacturing.

Which is a fancy way of saying I'm an electrician with manufacturing certifications/with the knowhow to work on robots and with 3D modeling on a professional level.

>>15036

>Fun fact: American public schools didn't always suck. The Public school system in New York City was once praised as a model for the world and their success at helping immigrants from around the world assimilate was celebrated.

How do you know a private school system couldn't have done an even better job?

>And Japan still has great public primary education.

I'd say their educational system sucks pretty damn hard when the average Japanese guy still commits suicide twice a week.

>The public schools system can work.

You have yet to demonstrate that a private school system can't.

>and the free market schools will not help the children of apathetic parents which a mentioned earlier.

How do you know that? And how do you know these aren't the same children that will suck in public schools, too? Far as I know, the best students have always been the ones that have been pushed the hardest by their parents.

>Didn't know it was Hobbes, thanks for the correction. But Mister Locke's view does demonstrate the social contract is intended to respect our rights.

As long as the social contract only binds the contracting parties, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

>>15060

what was you major in college? How long ago did you leave it and why?

I'm in my first year, CompSci, and I can't believe I volunteered for this shit. Two months in, and classes and assignments already feel like torture and worse than high school.

>>15071

Well I was in Mech Engineering for about two years before realizing that you couldn't get into the hands on stuff until pretty much your final semester.

Then this program (literally called it "Electronics Technology") took me about two years to complete. The certification part took a year and a half, but I went ahead and did an extra semester to get an "associates of applied science" out of it as well).

I've been working for some local companies for the last two years. The pay's not great, but I'm not living paycheck to paycheck either. I don't want to use exact numbers since the pay is usually derived from where you're living for this line of work, but you can expect minimum 40-50k per year starting out with the right employer. The only downside is I'm not "officially" an electrician, so I can work with engineers or with electricians, but I'm not supposed to do solo work (legally- I still work on my friends' houses, local churches, etc. since I know how to do it through my instructors).

I'm Considering going and getting my official electrician certs since I can apply my current job experience as part of an "apprenticeship" though.

Benefits of electronics technology/manufacturing: Pay is decent from the start, goes up every year, etc. Gives you the knowledge to work on projects with Engineers as sort of a "middleman."

Benefits of actual electrician work: Pay is a bit lower, but you're more independent and have more options if you want to move around. The electrical unions are some of the most corrupt unions in the world though because so few people go into it these days.

>>15073

>you couldn't get into the hands on stuff until pretty much your final semester.

haha, same here. It's just math for me.

two-thirds of my class can't do fizzbuzz