xoxoxoBruce wrote:

 Climate change has been proven, it is a fact. What's causing it is being debated, and won't become a fact until proven one way or the other.

What can you mean by that claim, Bruce?  You can't mean that if carbon emissions eventually turn out to be causing climate change, that they weren't the factual cause until they were discovered, can you?   The "facts" go on, regardless of somebody's "opinions."  And if they aren't the cause, then no number of "opinions," however passionately held or however popular among ever so many people, will ever make them the cause.

That's one definition of "reality," as Jordan Peterson has said:  "Reality is the thing that pushes back against your stupid theory."  A blunt way to put it, perhaps, but opinions are just "theories" about  how things are.  And they may or may not turn out to be facts.  

But whether or not anything turns out to be "reality" or "a fact" will never depend even one iota on an "opinion."  There are good and bad "opinions": and the difference always turns out to be whether or not they conform to reality.
 

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

It's still theory until proven to be a fact.  In all cases we're talking about human knowledge of reality.
 

Actually, it's a fact regardless of what theories people have.  And the right theory will turn out to be the one that lines up with the facts that already exist.

We must not mistake an epistemological problem (i.e.  the question "What do people presently know?") for an ontological problem (i.e. "What actually exists, regardless of what people think they know.")  Our ignorance of the facts does not change any facts, or make them not facts.  It just makes us wrong.
 

Another:  

I cannot pay my fee for the use of roads, because I have been right-sized by the corporation I work for (which offered as a benefit a subsidization of the road fee). Can I use the sidewalk, or is there a risk that the road's owner will have the pay cops come by and arrest me for that?  I can't afford the jail fees.

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"?  

 

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)

Flint wrote:

And we should replace it with nothing?

 
you need to read, not scan

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.
 

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.


 

Or the guy who wants to build his own sewer and live every day in a feud-to-the-death with his neighbors.

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)

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)

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.