Offline
IC wrote:
Luce wrote:
So, I've subscribed to the fire department and the pay cops, but the fire department is resisting a rate increase with the corporation that owns the roads to my place, and the negotiations aren't going well. So the fire department can't get to my house if there's a fire. The police CAN, but they do not offer fire protection.
What do?You have "pay cops" and a "subscription fire department"?
I just like to have fun with libertarian ideas like the one in the OP.
Offline
Luce wrote:
IC wrote:
Luce wrote:
So, I've subscribed to the fire department and the pay cops, but the fire department is resisting a rate increase with the corporation that owns the roads to my place, and the negotiations aren't going well. So the fire department can't get to my house if there's a fire. The police CAN, but they do not offer fire protection.
What do?You have "pay cops" and a "subscription fire department"?
I just like to have fun with libertarian ideas like the one in the OP.
problem with yer lil scenarios is you imagine them happenin' in a state capitalism/welfare state instead of a free enterprise minarchy
most of the criticism you folks foist up about (any strain of) libertarianism are rendered null when the problems you imagine are considered in the proper context
roads, for example: most folks value them and are willin' to pay to have them
where folks get their undies twisted is with a seemingly unaccountable system takin' their money, ostensibly to maintain current roads and build new ones, and then findin themselves -- year in and year out -- drivin' on crappy roads with new roads never bein' built, or bein' built -- substandard-like -- only after years of expensive dickin' around with studies and commissions
simply: it ain't road-buildin' (or fire prevention or police or whatever else you wanna rub your nipples against) that's the problem, and it ain't free folks that's the problem
it's gov that's the problem
Last edited by henry_quirk (2/08/2021 1:15 pm)
Offline
And we should replace it with nothing?
Offline
Flint wrote:
And we should replace it with nothing?
you need to read, not scan
Offline
lol
Offline
henry_quirk wrote:
simply: it ain't road-buildin' (or fire prevention or police or whatever else you wanna rub your nipples against) that's the problem, and it ain't free folks that's the problem
it's gov that's the problem
Yes, and you can either have those things with a government, or you can go with the descriptions I gave. Those are your two options.
Offline
Luce wrote:
henry_quirk wrote:
simply: it ain't road-buildin' (or fire prevention or police or whatever else you wanna rub your nipples against) that's the problem, and it ain't free folks that's the problem
it's gov that's the problemYes, and you can either have those things with a government, or you can go with the descriptions I gave. Those are your two options.
there's a viable third...I've written about it here, in the old place, and elsewhere
but: you won't have none of it...*shrug*...as you like
Offline
I was gonna say, there is a third option-- just cross your fingers and hope that everything works out, with no planning and no organization.
Offline
Flint wrote:
I was gonna say, there is a third option-- just cross your fingers and hope that everything works out, with no planning and no organization.
I'm not sure which is more pathetic...
the ones who insist they ought to govern
...or...
the ones who insist they ought to be governed
Offline
Or the guy who wants to build his own sewer and live every day in a feud-to-the-death with his neighbors.
Offline
Flint wrote:
Or the guy who wants to build his own sewer and live every day in a feud-to-the-death with his neighbors.
see, it's that kinda moronic statement that illustrates you've never read or understood a damn thing I've written
ain't nuthin' about a natural rights minarchy, or natural rights libertarianism, or free enterprise that leads to what you describe
meh
you're a waste of my time
but -- sometimes -- you amuse, so, here, have a 🍪
Offline
I guess there's hope for anyone who has a sense of humor.
henry_quirk wrote:
ain't nuthin' about a natural rights minarchy, or natural rights libertarianism, or free enterprise that leads to what you describe
What I think you're missing is where the burden of proof lies. There's nothing about natural rights that guarantee the outcomes I describe wouldn't be the result. Why? Because any natural system isn't designed to move from chaos to order-- that's the opposite of the way things work. Entropy will produce chaos out of everything that exists, eventually. We've got to hang on and preserve any order we can--it's survival. People like you think that if you tear everything down, something better will just somehow fill the gap. That's not how anything works. That's a fantasy, and a naive one at that. You can gripe about leashes and slaves all you want, the fact is-- you've got nothing else to offer. Your ideas are magical thinking.
If you have ideas for improving things, that's something of value. Just saying "tear everything down and then hope for the best" is hogwash.
Last edited by Flint (2/08/2021 8:12 pm)
Offline
Offline
You've described it very effectively. I understand it perfectly, unless you're describing it wrong.
You think you can throw a bunch of watch parts in a box and a Rolex will appear. No need for anyone to get an education and be capable of designing it, no need for a supply chain or economic system to provide the raw materials, you just *want* a watch and bingo, bango-- magical results
Think this is a mischarecterization? Buddy, you're the one saying we should tear down thousands of years of human effort, and--if you wish upon a shooting star-- a better society will magically spring up from the ground.
Last edited by Flint (2/08/2021 9:42 pm)
Offline
You've described it very effectively.
yes, I did
I understand it perfectly
no, you don't, not if you think I advocate for...
tear(ing) down thousands of years of human effort
...or...
a better society magically spring(ing) up from the ground
but, enough of this...merry-go-rounds ain't my thang
you think I'm wrong; I think you're wrong
I'll never get you to see the value of a minimal proxy; you'll never get me to see the value of a large, involved government
you prefer a well-managed economy; I believe free enterprise is superior
you crave a safety net; I don't
it's the same as it always was
✌️
Offline
henry_quirk wrote:
you crave a safety net; I don't
You are absolutely free to not use the safety net if you so desire.
Offline
henry_quirk wrote:
Luce wrote:
henry_quirk wrote:
simply: it ain't road-buildin' (or fire prevention or police or whatever else you wanna rub your nipples against) that's the problem, and it ain't free folks that's the problem
it's gov that's the problemYes, and you can either have those things with a government, or you can go with the descriptions I gave. Those are your two options.
there's a viable third...I've written about it here, in the old place, and elsewhere
but: you won't have none of it...*shrug*...as you like
There is not. Any alternate system will eventually move to one of those two systems. By which I mean "By next Tuesday."
Offline
Flint wrote:
I was gonna say, there is a third option-- just cross your fingers and hope that everything works out, with no planning and no organization.
I'm thinking that equals 1999 Monrovia in about 2 months.
Offline
Luce wrote:
henry_quirk wrote:
you crave a safety net; I don't
You are absolutely free to not use the safety net if you so desire.
I don't use any nets....I'm a daredevil
so: can I stop payin' for it?
anywho: as I say to your twin sister, up-thread...
enough of this...merry-go-rounds ain't my thang
you think I'm wrong; I think you're wrong
I'll never get you to see the value of a minimal proxy; you'll never get me to see the value of a large, involved government
you prefer a well-managed economy; I believe free enterprise is superior
you crave a safety net; I don't
it's the same as it always was
✌️
Offline
Offline
henry_quirk wrote:
Luce wrote:
henry_quirk wrote:
you crave a safety net; I don't
You are absolutely free to not use the safety net if you so desire.
I don't use any nets....I'm a daredevil
so: can I stop payin' for it?
No.
Offline
Luce wrote:
henry_quirk wrote:
Luce wrote:
You are absolutely free to not use the safety net if you so desire.
I don't use any nets....I'm a daredevil
so: can I stop payin' for it?No.
slaver
Offline
henry_quirk wrote:
Luce wrote:
henry_quirk wrote:
I don't use any nets....I'm a daredevil
so: can I stop payin' for it?No.
slaver
Just call me the John Armfield of civil infrastructure.
Offline
nah...you're not notorious or notable
just another would-be/wanna-be
Offline
subject 57902--back in line! your insolence displeases lord zuccerbork