Libertarianism in practice

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Thing is: such scenarios are far from common. Lil Jerome, for example, can put his shoes on and leave. His future is uncertain (aren't all our futures uncertain?) but he's not committed to stayin' in his dismal circumstance.

But Jerome has been to a school that failed him, has had parents that failed him, and nobody wants him elsewhere.

[RCSaunders]

From where you are looking every other human is reality to you. If other humans are imposing limits on you - that's reality limiting you.

If I limit your movement that's reality limiting you - because I am real.

It's not the fact other human beings exist that limit one's freedom, it is when other human beings write their phony laws and use coercive force to intentionally interfere in others' lives that human freedom is limited.

You are missing the point.

When other human beings write "phony laws and use coercive force to intentionally interfere" in YOUR life. That IS reality limiting YOU.

To draw a distinction between humans and reality is special pleading.

Of course. What I mean by reality is everything sans human interference.

If your more comfortable with it, make it material existence, i.e. the ontological excluding the psychological.

[Skepdick]

Of course. What I mean by reality is everything sans human interference.

Why do you exclude humans from reality?

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Thing is: such scenarios are far from common. Lil Jerome, for example, can put his shoes on and leave. His future is uncertain (aren't all our futures uncertain?) but he's not committed to stayin' in his dismal circumstance.

But Jerome has been to a school that failed him, has had parents that failed him, and nobody wants him elsewhere.

And? The failures around him ought light a fire in him to get out, to go. That he mebbe won't or doesn't find safe harbor, this should keep him rooted in barren surroundings?

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Thing is: such scenarios are far from common. Lil Jerome, for example, can put his shoes on and leave. His future is uncertain (aren't all our futures uncertain?) but he's not committed to stayin' in his dismal circumstance.

But Jerome has been to a school that failed him, has had parents that failed him, and nobody wants him elsewhere.

And? The failures around him ought light a fire in him to get out, to go. That he mebbe won't or doesn't find safe harbor, this should keep him rooted in barren surroundings?

How might his school and his parents be improved so they will fire his ambitions and hopes?

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:



But Jerome has been to a school that failed him, has had parents that failed him, and nobody wants him elsewhere.

And? The failures around him ought light a fire in him to get out, to go. That he mebbe won't or doesn't find safe harbor, this should keep him rooted in barren surroundings?

How might his school and his parents be improved so they will fire his ambitions and hopes?

His parents? Hell if I know.

His school? Get rid of the dept of education and school boards; break the back of the teacher's union.

It's a start.

His ambitions and hopes are best served by gettin' the hell out of his way.

[FlashDangerpants]

What say you, mick? Can I unpack the 3 laws for flash?

Well now—that's gping to look a lot like you asking us to "read theory",and you've forbidden that, remember? I don't have a problem with you "unpacking" in the "expanding on the principles" sense, provided you give up trying to rule it out of order in other related discussions.

thanks, mick, for the quick and decisive response

flash: I'll open a new thread this evening and unpack the 3 lines for you

So now you have two threads where you aren't unpacking this? Including the one that you linked to here in this context and which has "unpacking" in its title.

[henry quirk]

This thread is for describin' a working Libertarian community, society, nation if the citizens, workers, etc. got it right.

The other is to unpack the 3.

I believe I have done, am doin', both.

You disagree?

Okay by me.

You think my assessments and conclusions are faulty?

Okay by me.

What's not okay by me is sayin' I said sumthin' I didn't.

Now, I'm done with this.

As I can: I'll answer questions and make posts about the Free Zone here, and answers questions and make posts about the 3 over there.

'nuff said.

[FlashDangerpants]

Alrighty. So you have abandoned your counter to this point I made back near the start.

Nobody makes their enterprise complicated for shits and giggles

and why would folks livin' in a minarchy be less serious-minded about their enterprises -- large and small, simple and complex -- than you or I livin' where we do?

why are you challenging me to explain why fancy contracts wouldn't get written?

you said (nobody) would domicile within (my) borders to carry out a multibillion dollar R&D programme when it seems unlikely that the contracts to supply funding couldn't be written. I asked, those fancy-schmancy contracts wouldn't get written why?. With less snark: why would a minarchy preclude contracts to supply funding?

Does Minarchy cure cancer?

mebbe someone livin' in one might.

So perhaps you would like somebody to spend billions of dollars on somethin that does.

seems to me: that's not my call.

That does amount to nothing more than saying you can't take stuff without good reason.

they do a damn-sight more than that: you have to unbox the contents and apply them

How the fuck is an appeal against a judicial ruling not a court matter?

I'm gonna put that one off for the moment...remind me when we get further down the discussion road, and I'll return to it.

I assume there's other version of minarchism out there, so I'm not necessarily saying that none of them can support a diverse and complex economy. I am saying that your's can't because you have created a recipe for a capricious legal system.

Complex business entities have complex procurement arrangements with other complex entities. They have complex contracts safeguarding intellectual property, others for the demarcation and sharing of risks. They need to have these complexities because they also need complex financing arrangements which you can't get if there is not a predictable protection of intellectual property and quantifiable risk mitigation processes.

You can't do any of that if you can't refer to case law precedent to predict the outcome of disputes.

Consider the constitution of your own country that you live in today. It has a provision against unlawful search and seizure, but it has no specific provision for privacy. So an unwritten privacy guarantee was eventually, but controversially, inferred from the assumed intent of the search and seizure on among others.

Your thing is sort of doomed either to end up in that sort of quagmire or worse: to just end up being endlessly "unpacked" in whichever way whoever does the unpacking feels like doing it on that day.

In your other thread you have rendered such topics as animal pornography and abortion moot because even with your 3 line law, people get to decide for themselves on the day, at the time, what counts as a person. Meanwhile in this thread you have changed your own mind over whether to execute a drug dealer

It follows from this that you will not have a reliable legal system that can be trusted to render similar judgments in similar cases, and as you have already confirmed that your make it up on the day legal system doesn't need settled law and binding precedents (also, still no lawyers) you simply cannot possibly provide a jurisdiction with adequate protections for any complex industry.

You've already ceded the question of things being unpacked in whichever way whoever does the unpacking feels like doing it on that day.

[henry quirk]

In your other thread you have rendered such topics as animal pornography and abortion moot because even with your 3 line law, people get to decide for themselves on the day, at the time, what counts as a person.

No. Personhood is a reality. It's commonsensical. We -- you and me -- we're persons. If you'd like to include dog in that very special, natural, category: let's talk about it. Let's figure out if dogs, cats, platypi, or any other animal meets the criteria.

Meanwhile in this thread you have changed your own mind over whether to execute a drug dealer

Indeed I have. As I say: you're makin' me think, and -- in that particular instance -- admit my own prejudice colored my thinkin'

would you prefer I was a stone, comsiderin' nuthin' you post?

I came to this thread with the conviction the 3 could form the basis of a workin' natural rights libertarian community, but I never claimed to have all the details...I'll consider amendin' anything as long as the amendments are consistent with the 3

you have already confirmed that your make it up on the day legal system doesn't need settled law and binding precedents

see, flash, that's a flat-out lie: I made it clear, at least twice, that I was still ponderin' on the subject of precedent and appeals...I thought I might have had an answer yesterday but I'm still thinkin' on it...as I say: I can see how both fit into the Free Zone, but it's not clear to me on detail...till it is: you'll wait

so: quit lying and play fair (that's the second time I ask)

[FlashDangerpants]

In your other thread you have rendered such topics as animal pornography and abortion moot because even with your 3 line law, people get to decide for themselves on the day, at the time, what counts as a person.

No. Personhood is a reality. It's commonsensical. We -- you and me -- we're persons. If you'd like to include dog in that very special, natural, category: let's talk about it. Let's figure out if dogs, cats, platypi, or any other animal meets the criteria.

There's a couple of issues there. For the sake of convenience I am currently probing whether your rationale works as described.
But no, I don't actually agree that a chicken needs to be a person for it to be immoral to fuck a chicken.

I am however curious what makes you so sure you could assemble a functional society of people who assent that chickens can be fucked without recrimination because they aren't people.

Meanwhile in this thread you have changed your own mind over whether to execute a drug dealer

Indeed I have. As I say: you're makin' me think, and -- in that particular instance -- admit my own prejudice colored my thinkin'

would you prefer I was a stone, comsiderin' nuthin' you post?

My point wasn't that you lose because you changed your mind and that's what makes me feel like a winner. My point was that the unpacking of these laws stops being clear and obvious as soon as any details have to be considered.

A secondary point would be that application of these laws officiously would probably end up with a lot of people having to tolerate acts they find deeply and offensively immoral, which is a tricky thing for social cohesion and you aren't designing a society with many safety valves other than bullets here.

I came to this thread with the conviction the 3 could form the basis of a workin' natural rights libertarian community, but I never claimed to have all the details...I'll consider amendin' anything as long as the amendments are consistent with the 3

you have already confirmed that your make it up on the day legal system doesn't need settled law and binding precedents

see, flash, that's a flat-out lie: I made it clear, at least twice, that I was still ponderin' on the subject of precedent and appeals...I thought I might have had an answer yesterday but I'm still thinkin' on it...as I say: I can see how both fit into the Free Zone, but it's not clear to me on detail...till it is: you'll wait

so: quit lying and play fair (that's the second time I ask)

Feisty. My bad, I had overlooked the line where you signalled a rethink was impending. I would however like to draw your attention to the fact that I explicitly asked about that topic on page 1 and you were being fairly blunt there when you wrote "The only precedent that matters is those three lines" so talk of dirty liars is possibly a bit excessive.

[henry quirk]

I don't actually agree that a chicken needs to be a person for it to be immoral to fuck a chicken.

Okay. Then why might it be immoral to have congress with a chicken?

I think it's disgusting, whacky, and I'll have no truck with a chicken lover but I don't think chicken-love is immoral ('course, there are strict vegans [or is it vegetarians?] who think my enjoyin' a bucket of the Colonel's is disgusting, whacky, and who'll have no truck with me [and I'm sure some even think chicken-eating is immoral]).

I am however curious what makes you so sure you could assemble a functional society of people who assent that chickens can be fucked without recrimination because they aren't people.

Oh, I don't think I'd have to. Beastiality may not be immoral, but most folks think it's disgusting and whacky and won't have truck with a chicken lover. Chicken Joe, for example, has tons of sex with his flock, privately, behind close doors. No one knows about it. Most think Joe is an okay guy. It gets out, though, and suddenly no one, or nearly no one will transact with him.

Shunning can work, and it cuts deep when it does.

My point was that the unpacking of these laws stops being clear and obvious as soon as any details have to be considered.

I disagree. Determinin' if the crank maker is in violation, is about application of the 3, not a flaw in the 3. And I, as I say, let my own prejudice skew my view. Like chicken lovers , I find crank-makers digusting, I'd have no truck with 'em, but, within the context of the 3, they aren't immoral.

a lot of people having to tolerate acts they find deeply and offensively immoral

Only for as long as the shunned can bear bein' shunned.

A society is shared ideas, notions, feelings, reasons, both formal and informal morals, and more. In the particular version I'm writin' about, the 3 -- as philosophical/moral undergirding, as foundation for a legal system -- is silent on odd, peculiar, or disgusting habits and behaviors. It's also silent on people's responses to those odd, peculiar, or disgusting habits and behaviors (outside of prohibiting violations of life, liberty, and property).

Joe, you've done nuthin' with your chicken-lovin' to deprive me of life, liberty, or property, so I ain't gonna deprive you of yours, but I ain't got to associate with you, transact with you, think kindly of you, or lift a finger to help you in any way.

I explicitly asked about...

This is true. I was overly prickly.

[henry quirk]

Christmas week: time in-forum will be limited by work, shoppin', bein' with my out-of-school-for-the-holidays kid, and tryin' to get beer virus while attendin' various enjoyable family & friends get-togethers. Be kind: please, I don't wanna come back to the thread with ten pages of comments, criticisms, etc. I'll never catch up. May I suggest a year's end hiatus with festivities to resume January 2nd, '22?

Anyway: I'll poke in as I can.

Merry Christmas, folks.

[Belinda]

And? The failures around him ought light a fire in him to get out, to go. That he mebbe won't or doesn't find safe harbor, this should keep him rooted in barren surroundings?

How might his school and his parents be improved so they will fire his ambitions and hopes?

His parents? Hell if I know.

His school? Get rid of the dept of education and school boards; break the back of the teacher's union.

It's a start.

His ambitions and hopes are best served by gettin' the hell out of his way.

The parents will neglect him or murder him, and there would be no teachers or social workers to intervene. Meanwhile, young MacTrump has parents who see no need to murder of neglect small sons and can pay for the best schools and leisure activities.

Do you see where this is going? It's proceeding towards a society where the affluent class is closed to the poorer class for ever and ever.

[henry quirk]

The parents will neglect him or murder him, and there would be no teachers or social workers to intervene.

Well, let's look at that: bad parents kill kids (thru abuse and neglect) now and we overflow with social services, with educators. Mebbe it's time to try sumthin' different instead of doublin' down.

Meanwhile, young MacTrump has parents who see no need to murder of neglect small sons and can pay for the best schools and leisure activities.

Your envy is showin'.

It's easy to point at the rich and blame them (btw: I'm not rich; I didn't grow up rich). That's part of the game. Blame the one with advantage then wallow in disadvantage.

Do you see where this is going? It's proceeding towards a society where the affluent class is closed to the poorer class for ever and ever.

B, that's how it is now with, as I say an overflow of social services, educators and whatnot. Half of the U.S. federal budget is related to social services, education, programs for the needy, etc., and that gap grows.

We throw money at problems, at folks who say they can solve or, at least put a dent in, problems. The problems not only remain, they worsen.

We can keep doin' this for another ten, twenty, thirty years, or, we can excise what doesn't work and do sumthin' different.

But: we won't. The problem solvers (who are also the problem makers and inflaters) won't allow it. And we're too dumb or cowed to remember they work for us, not the other way 'round.