Jared Warren

"You're cruisin' for a bruisin'"

Heard my father say this once or twice when I was very young. Heard my uncle say it once to his kids. Makes me thing it was intergenerational.

Smacking kids is wrong (reasonable restraint is another story). Discipline should be in the form of a tax on pocket money earned through chores. Unfortunately, these days parents just give their kids money to shut them up.

Oops, double post

Hi! Welcome to OL.

I'm also a newbie; to the site and to Ayn.

"I read a fair bit of philosophy but came to the conclusion that much of it was absurd and merely 'words about words'."

As I was saying in my original post to this thread (which obviously didn't stick), Ayn brings sanity to philosophy. By the time the average philosopher decides whether furry animals have rights, whether his mind is a brain in a vat, and whether or not he exists, millions of vegetarian animals will have been devoured by carnivores, people in comas will be experiencing life through virtual reality and the philosopher himself will cease to exist.

From today's news:

Microsoft was helped by an unusually low tax rate of 7 percent in the quarter, which cut its tax bill by more than $1 billion from the year before, to $445 million. The company, which gets most of its revenue from overseas, said the savings were due to a one-time tax gain and more business flowing through its regional centers in the low-tax jurisdictions of Ireland, Singapore and Puerto Rico.

("Microsoft Windows fizzles as PC fears loom" here)

That's why we must protect the fat cats from breaking their nails. Cut corporate taxes to zero! Then laugh when socialist havens crumble as business moves to where it is pampered.

Jared:

Thanks. Be careful if Lindsay "Pigero" finds out you post here, he may move to deport you!

Adam

Is there something about this forum that I don't know?

Lindsay Pigero Website

I was not involved in the internet wars concerning Ayn, Nathanial and Barbara, I was only involved back in the 60's when I attended NBI. Having decided to investigate Ayn on the internet some five or so years ago, I ran across OL and loved it. I found out that there was a clear cut war that had occured between many of the members of OL, including Michael, one of it's owners and the owner of SOLO, Lindsay Pigero's internet forum.

I chose the side of the issues that my gut and my integrity made clear was more open and honest. However, since you are a New Zealand, you may be involved on the other forum. Therefore, this was my satirical and tongue in cheek "warning" because, upon information and belief, Lindsay had waged a personal campaign to deport and ruin another individual who he disagreed with.

As Brant noted on one of the Lindsay threads, "I'm sure they are thinking of you. All you have to do is post here--just once. And ye shall know them by the mark of the beast, which is a number, 666.,"in reference to the SOLO forum here.

So, do your due diligence and decide.

Adam

I have watched a couple of Lindsay Perigo's TV interviews on youtube, and I was naturally glad to see a New Zealand libertarian as they are in such short supply. That being said, his personal website is a bit pompous for a Kiwi, and I am not going to be persuaded to join a forum because it is 'without a doubt' on the right side of an internet war. That might not go down well with the Libertarianz Party I recently joined (which Perigo apparently founded), but I am certainly not one to get tied up in inertia.

I went overboard with my criticism; it's just what I enjoy doing, don't take it personally.

I would say that the chief of the tribe was our first politician, and the witchdoctor was our first star-gazing bureaucrat pulling the strings behind the scenes. The former was the mouthpiece for the latter, who always managed to find a new scapegoat for the warriors to pick on.

Do you have empirical evidence to show that your assertion is true say 150,000 years ago?

In the days of hunter gathering the humans did not have time to indulge in such nonsense.

Please look at this:

where were the witch doctors? The ad hoc response to problems is the key to human survival.

Ba'al Chatzaf

i don't have empirical evidence 'on hand' to support most of my posts (nor do most people). I do have a lot of stored evidence in my mind, but to compile it all after each post would defeat the marginal benefit I receive from typing the post in the first place.

Hunger-gatherers had a variety of spare time available, depending on the scarcity of resources within their territory. When you establish routine methods of obtaining resources, e.g. setting booby traps for animals, returning to the same areas for wood/plants, getting the village women to do the cooking, etc, you have time left over to stargaze. Establishing routines allowed some tribes to work for just 4 hours a day (google it). In fact I remember perfectly well watching a documentary about a Papua New Guinea tribe that had almost zero contact with 'western ways', and they had witch hunts whenever someone mysteriously died (e.g of disease, etc). It was inevitable that one of the tribe members would be found guilty of practising black magic, and would subsequently be tortured and hacked to death. Anywhere in the world, tribal people are shit-scared of black magic; it's part of the God delusion; the fear of the unknown. Thus, humans hide behind stargazers, who direct the witch hunters to the witches. This is true today in ways you could never imagine.

Jared:

Thanks. Be careful if Lindsay "Pigero" finds out you post here, he may move to deport you!

Adam

Is there something about this forum that I don't know?

Jared:

Welcome to OL.

You have been making some interesting posts.

Are you a student? Worker slave for the state? Entrepreneur?

I try to ask this of everyone who joins.

Additionally, where do you hale from?

Adam

I'm a business student hailing from New Zealand, which feels like an outer suburb of the US on the internet. So in order to have any serious communications with anyone online, I naturally adopt US terminology.

While it is true that government has a monopoly on force a proper government (like what is seen in the United States) protects individual rights according to objective, philosophically validated and consistent procedures from its constitution down to its laws and regulations. Reality and man's nature require a government to protect us against any kind of physical aggression including also the right to self defense in the event access to government courts or police is not available to citizens.

Ah… yes, a proper government. If only there were more of those. It is no coincidence that most of the world’s governments are corrupt, parasitical structures constantly fending off coups from their own military. That is why I feel more anarcho-capitalist than objectivist, to be honest.

The US is lucky that the founding fathers were relatively sane (albeit a slave-owner here and there), but what if they weren't? What if they forgot to add a few clauses into the constitution? The only time a society gets an opportunity for a new constitution is about every 200 years when the shit hits the fan. Until then, Americans will continue squabbling over what their constitution means in practice.

To the best of my knowledge, the existence of contradictory laws, customs and rules are things anarchists still have not adequately addressed. For example, whose laws shall prevail in a contract dispute or case involving an act of fraud? What standards shall be followed to determine the applicable procedures that should govern a particular case? In disputes involving a Muslim who subscribes to Sharia Law and non-Muslim which person's legal system will govern it? Can a non-Muslim petition for a change of legal system or judge(s) if they would prefer the case litigated elsewhere or by another arbitrator? What will be the court of final decision should neither party agree with the other's dispute resolution entity conclusion? How would conflicting jurisprudence among different legal systems be worked out? By what standards would conflicts be resolved?

Here is how.

In order for a contract to be upheld and enforced, parties have to stipulate which protection agency would uphold and enforce the contract. Protection agencies seeking to maximize business opportunities, would contract with other protection agencies to streamline processes for dispute resolution. For instance, protection agency X may contract with protection agency Y, to agree to enforce contracts formed by clients from either agency, provided that disputes are resolved through a particular independent private court. If a client does not participate in the designated dispute resolution, a condition may be that he receives a fine or possibly loses his protection coverage.

Protection agencies will do anything to avoid unresolved disputes with other protection agencies, because that invites the prospect of war. Why would a client tolerate a business that continually raises its premiums in order to wage war with another protection agency? Clients would flock to cheaper, peaceful agencies at the drop of a hat, bankrupting the instigator of a war. Therefore, in their contracts with their clients, protection agencies would gradually stipulate relatively uniform conditions regarding life, liberty and property. This would maximize business opportunities for their clients, whilst enabling their business remain competitive.

Whilst this may in effect resemble a conceptual libertarian society, the difference is that individuals would be able to choose their arbitration and enforcement systems, and we all know the result of that: more efficiency, cheaper costs and better service.

For example, a potential client of a health insurance provider would be unwilling to sign a contract if the designated arbitrator of disputes has a reputation for favoring businesses over consumers. Likewise, the health insurance provider would be unwilling to sign the contract if the designated arbitrator has a reputation for favoring consumers over businesses. Therefore, the only way a private court can maximize profits and stay competitive, is if it can demonstrate it is 99.9% fair in its arbitration and more.

Anarchism is not only seriously flawed due to a lack of specifics but is also a form of faith grounded in a rejection of reality, order, objectivity and justice. Aside from ignoring even obvious cases of government checking itself from encroaching on a person's liberty, by default anarchism ultimately results in giving a blank check to organized gangs and other groups who can take advantage of a state-less order so they can impose their will on others with little means to stop them. This also includes groups (such as communists and Islamists) who oppose the very things libertarians stand for. As far as Islamists and communists are concerned individual rights such as the right to bear arms, free speech or even the rights to life, liberty, and property would be put on the chopping block in order to sacrifice mankind to the needs of their collective will.

‘Rights’ are a one-size-fits-all application. Most gorillas have more intelligence than some intellectually-disabled adults. You might say that such adults have the potential to become intelligent through the use of brain implants. So do gorillas.

Morals are what uphold society, not laws. A democratic government will always be enforced by mob rule; i.e. the collective will. Hypothetically, the best individuals can do is form their own protection agency to compete with those already in existence. At least that way, individuals can keep the mob out of their pockets, thus reducing the occurrence of war.

Organized gangs will probably exist in isolated areas, because it won't be economical for protection agencies to operate there. So I don't know, maybe you should stay away from isolated areas? I don't see why protection from human-induced 'force' is so different from other risk management markets, or the need for government to be the sole provider. A thief is like a virus; it travels from person to person, latching itself onto the entity and extracting the nutrients, until finally it stumbles upon your property. I would imagine that going without protection insurance is a bit like going without health insurance; a scary thought but not really a big deal depending on your circumstances. It is only after a few years or so that the probabilities start to side with the viruses. An opportunistic thief cannot be sure if you don't have protection insurance, just as a virus cannot be sure that you don't have health insurance. You can increase your risks of death by venturing out into rural areas and the wilderness, or you can remain in the cities and towns, where it is generally safer. Furthermore, just because someone doesn't have protection insurance, doesn't mean they are a vulnerable target. Such a person is likely to be packing a revolver wherever they go, and possibly have booby traps set on their property. Likewise, someone without health insurance is likely to watch their diet and weight carefully, and possibly have an exercise routine.

Furthermore and hypothetically speaking, there is also nothing to stop a terrorist who hates capitalism and freedom from intentionally infecting themselves with a deadly strain of a virus (such as typhoid or tuberculosis) in order to spread it among the populace of an anarchist libertarian enclave resulting in its destruction. You can make the argument that an armed citizenry can halt such a person from doing so but by the time patient zero is identified it will be too late. The way things are now in order for a foreigner to enter the U.S. or any other country for business or leisure, the person in question is screened by government agents which is another example of how government protects people from force and fraud. If the person wishing to enter said country knowingly has a criminal background or has an infectious health condition they are quarantined until their background or health is investigated and, rightly, sent back to their country of origin if it is determined that the person or people in question pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

What part of ‘20 million illegal immigrants’ do you not understand? The US border doesn’t work, nor would state borders or county borders. Perhaps a township border might work, in which case, what was so wrong about private property rights in the first place? Only property rights can effectively quarantine anything - by quarantining anything that is so demanded.

An anarcho-capitalist society would actually reflect something of a big brother society, where everything you do and say is monitored, the difference being that you can get a new big brother if you don't like you're current one. This is because protection agencies would amass data on all individuals in the competition to reduce the incidence of crime. In a state of anarchy, all individuals will come under pressure to disclose their personal information, in order to help protection agencies keep the peace. The difference here is that they will actually achieve it. Private businesses would collaborate with respectable protection agencies to portray themselves in a positive light, and to help protect their customers. For instance, toll-funded highways would restrict the movement of hazardous substances along their property. Whilst health insurance companies would discriminate with DNA information, DNA information would also enable such discriminated individuals to be eligible for charity funds. Likewise, there is no reason why a large private military cannot be funded through voluntary donation, the difference being that a private military would be more rigorously vetted for loyalty. This would be a military that a society could trust to develop powerful weapons; something governments cannot be trusted with. Thus a terrorist is unlikely to spread tuberculosis in the US, when a united voluntaryist army can potentially spread the Black Death in the terrorists' home country.

As Robert Bidinotto correctly points out anarcho-capitalism really is a demand for the right to secede from the judgments of other people concerning the validity of one's own use of force while simultaneously denying that there is a basic need to subject any use of force to objective -- that is, socially demonstrable -- standards. In other words, anarchist libertarian reliance on market forces treats capitalism as a floating abstraction and is really an excuse for them wanting to choose their morality while simultaneously rejecting any semblance of justice and objectivity.

Socially demonstrable… standards? Like beating your wife with a stick according to the rule of thumb? Like beating your child with a stick, period? I don’t think the collective will of society can ever determine the most 'correct' way of using force.

By default anarchists treat competition and the initiation of force as rights in themselves. But no such rights exist and a proper understanding of the nature and souce of individual rights and how they are implemented negates any idea that anarchism as an ideal or proper extension of liberty. The non-aggression principle does not negate government and, in turn, does not inherently contradict actual individual rights. Relations among humans are contextual and in the tradition of other libertarian thinkers Ayn Rand conjured it up as an ethic in Objectivism with government being a logical extension of her thought in order to protect an individual's ability to live and prosper.

Might is right. However, capitalism in its purest form is an arrangement that dilutes might as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Duty of Care is part of social contract theory, where a doctor or other provider of a service has a legal obligation to adhere to a reasonable standard of care. It was established after the privity barrier was quashed (MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.); which allowed a consumer who bought a faulty product from a 'retailer', to sue the 'manufacturer' for making it in the first place.

A definition of it is:

a duty to use care toward others that would be exercised by an ordinarily resonable and prudent person in order to protect them from unnecessary risk of harm a typical medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that the physician had a legal duty of care to the patient, that the physician breached that duty, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duty+of+care

I personally think that is a load of shit. What about the consumer's responsibility to be reasonable and prudent when buying services? Why is it that someone who offers a service to another individual, suddenly has an obligation to provide a particular quality of service? Would you prefer them not to provide any services at all? If red tape is what trips up the private sector, why wouldn't legal precedents like Duty of Care have a similar effect?

Why should people bear the costs of defensive medicine and the fees that someone with a doctorate degree can charge, all so they can get a check up? Furthermore, Duty of Care and regulations are what the AMA uses to destroy the health insurance market for poor people. If the AMA didn't exist, why should Medicaid? The Poor would just hire medical students for the services they require, using their grades and other information as references.

The list of "experts" who use Duty of Care to their advantage goes on and on. Psychologists are one notorious example. They have books full of so-called 'mental disorders', none of which have been proven to exist. So if a psychologist doesn't diagnose your child with adolescent rebellion disorder and notify the police, who knows, she may be liable for damages.

I wonder to what extent this would apply to lawyers. The reality is that a defendant can choose to act as his own lawyer, or decide not to have a lawyer at all. Yet most governments require lawyers to adhere to a strict code of conduct, and pay rent to the appropriate regulatory authority. Why bother if a defendant can choose not to make use of their services? Isn't that a lot worse than having a shitty lawyer? Obviously a Government needs to ensure prosecutors and defense lawyers are of an excellent quality, but that includes ensuring public lawyers have politically correct prejudices of an excellent quality, hence the need to hire an affordable law student who can portray the case in a different perspective to a jury. Moreover, most public defenders couldn't care less about their defendants unless they are reputable enough to appear innocent. Therefore, the market should be allowed to replace them with cheaper, more dedicated lawyers.

There is really no conflict between what is moral and what is practical in the long run. And you are quite right. People can work out ways of living if they are not constantly interfered with by congenital butt-in-skis. Our kind of human has been around for maybe a quarter of a million years and we have only inflicted governments on ourselves for the last ten thousand years or so. So how did we survive? By seeing what was there and doing what needed to be done.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would say that the chief of the tribe was our first politician, and the witchdoctor was our first star-gazing bureaucrat pulling the strings behind the scenes. The former was the mouthpiece for the latter, who always managed to find a new scapegoat for the warriors to pick on.

Praise the Lord of circular reasoning for finding me this hive of libertarianism.

No, I'm not a cult fan of Rand, but I do believe descending into a pit of philosophagus tends to drive one insane. That is why I support the straightforward rules that Rand proposed. That being said, it is surprising how pragmatic objectivism turns out to be, even though it is based on moral principles.

My main point of guidance is that taxation is theft, and capitalism has a knack of landing on its feet when left alone (and off the leash). Exploitation is too ambiguous to define and often mutually beneficial, therefore coercion must be the only point of departure from morality.