At the risk of seeming spammy:
It’s always cheaper to pay someone to say you produce a quality product than to actually produce a quality product.
But how could this be? In Libertopia, the government has no authority to limit my freedom of speech. If I wish to advertise filthy tap water as pure spring water, the government cannot punish me for exercising my innate freedom. Unless you are suggesting we must give up this freedom to have pure water, in which case, we shall have neither.
Freedom of speech doesn’t cover fraud. Fraud can be either or both a crime with a victim or a violation of a contract. You guys may want to learn about the principles of libertarianism before you attacking every aspect of it. Like the ridiculous claims of “libertarians should go live in Somalia, that’s exactly what they want!”
Saying the libertarian has no problem with fraud because it stems from freedom of speech is like saying it has no problem with murder because moving a knife through someone’s chest is really about the free excercise of where your limbs are at any time and what you can hold in your hand.
Ultimately, yes, if I have a grievance with the apparatus of government, I can take it to the mayor, or the governor, or my representatives, or the president. If they let me down, I can vote against them and try to get other people to do the same. And if I ultimately wish to make allegations of government misconduct in public, I think I have more protections than if I were to make similar acusation against a private, for-profit company.
No, it is not. A knife through the chest is clearly coercion, whereas freedom of speech leaves it up to the listener whether they lend credence to the speech. No coercion. Fail.
If you claim your bottled water is safer and/or higher quality than the local tap water, yet it is actually tap water, you’re lying to sell someone something. That’s fraud. Coercion.
So misleading someone about the nature of water is coercion, but telling someone they’ll be fired if they won’t work unpaid overtime or if they object to dangerous working conditions isn’t coercion. Okay then.
No. It’s lying. It’s fraud. Being coerced necessitates some punishment for not doing it or some extra inducement for doing it. “Extra” being the important word.
Sorry - you’ll have to explain to me where I, or anyone in this thread, or where some official libertarian handbook, makes these declarations.
Not only is this a straw man, but it isn’t even analogous. Changing someone’s work assignment/conditions aren’t fraud unless there was a contract or other agreement to the effect.
Whatever. Semantics. Fraud is still a crime in a libertarian world - probably a more serious one than in our society.
I’m not asserting it’s fraud. I’m asserting it’s coercion.
Sure. He only gets to keep his job if the voters are happy. If a bunch of cases of food poisoning start cropping up at area restaurants, that gives his opponent an issue to run on, so it’s in the mayor’s best interest to lean on the local health inspectors to make sure they’re doing their jobs. If the inspectors are incompetent or corrupt, political pressure can be used on the elected officials who are their bosses to get them reprimanded or fired.
This sort of stuff is the meat and potatoes of local politics. You don’t get elected mayor because of your theories about free enterprise. You get elected mayor because you promise to fill the potholes, and keep the streets safe, and repair the leaky sewer system. And you keep your job by making sure that all the city employees (including the restaurant health inspectors) do a decent job of whatever they’re supposed to be doing.
Actually, I think it is an important distinction. Coercion necessitates that the player doing the coercion has the ability to either punish or reward you. In a discussion about a form of government it is important to keep this straight, as the player with the ability to coerce is the government, not a particular business.
Fine. Replace where I said coercion with fraud. Still a crime and/or cause of action in a libertarian world. And a straw man.
Fair enough, I was careless with my terms. Still, fraud is bad. The idea that libertarians advocate someplace with no laws where you’re encouraged to con everyone you can is a misunderstanding of the philosophy.
There is no Libertarian society and has never been one. Any more than there is a dwarven kingdom beneath the Misty Mountains. It is a pure fantasy of people who don’t like government. The closest thing is Somalia. Eww.
Fraud would be a hell of a lot easier to perpetrate in a Libertarian society, and have the consequences be minimal.
I tolerate racist free speech in the sense that I walk away from it. My free speech is necessarily dependent on something more extreme being legal. But I don’t like it. I let those with a more cast iron stomach defend it, like the ACLU, but I make damn sure no ACLU affiliate I give to supports Nazis speaking in Skokie.
I am of the opinion that it is true in every case. If there are those who are insulted by it, alas, they have to endure my opinion of their racist nature. But it isn’t wrong. Voltaire never said “I despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” If what a person advocates results in racism at lunch counters, I can infer that any human being who is not severely mentally retarded can understand the consequences. Most mentally retarded people understand that they have a right to put their hand on a burner, but know better than to do it. Libtard people are pretending to be obtuse. If you think people should be able to defy the law of gravity by speaking out against it, that is a bit nutty. But if you advocate that the whole of society should jump out of an airplane without a chute because gravity ain’t in the constitution, that’s obtuse bullshit. Fortunately, it isn’t dangerous because only Libtards are stupid enough to do it. If Libtards believe that it isn’t racist to allow public lunch counters all over the country to hire and serve only those of the proper skin tone, maybe they are that stupid not to see that it is in fact racist by the constitution and statutes that are on the books: they are the ones that want to erase that. Oh, no, not because it is racist, but because it is the right thing to do? Only in a Libtard universe.
No. Not at all. I did not say that you, Sam Stone and John Mace are racist. I am saying that if people are holding a certain opinion and not severely mentally retarded, that they are racists. I have not connected individual posters with my opinion that people who want to scratch the 64 voting rights act are racist. Are you?
If you know anything that is true as an absolute, then you know more than I. I know that it is entirely fair to conclude that anyone whose opinion is that the voting rights act of 1964 is wrong and that private discriminating clubs are okay and not hiring blacks should not be illegal is a racist. Don’t piss on my back and tell me it’s raining.
So, let me get this straight. In your ideal society, it would be illegal to sell contaminated water, and claim that it’s pure. But it would not be illegal to simply sell contaminated water, and make no claims to its purity one way or the other?
Can you explain how this system works better than simply making it illegal to sell contaminated water? I really don’t see any reason why I’d prefer your hypothetical to the way we do things now. How would changing this make my life better?
Fraud is not coercion. Let the buyer beware.
Here’s a stupid question. It’s 1959. Alabama. I want to run an integrated lunch counter. The guy next to me wants to run a segregated lunch counter.
Which of us will make more money? According to what I understand from Rand Paul’s discussion, I clearly should, and the racist should go out of business. However, even a basic understanding of history suggests that the guy next to me will, as there’s a lot more people who support racism than people who support integration. In fact, I’d lay odds that the racists might come over and coerce me to close through physical force.
Where am I understanding this wrongly?
You might be correct that the racist would do more honest business, but you would be incorrect to assume a libertarian government would not intervene on your behalf against the threat of coercion or physical force.
Personally, I think in your scenario whoever made the best sandwiches at the best price would probably make the most money. The racists might try to beat you up, but that has nothing to do with the type of government in power.
I can imagine a scenario in which defining “contaminated” in a legal sense is extremely difficult, or maybe impossible. Libertarians could make the argument that regulating the degree of purity in water is too expensive to be worth the effort, especially since people would just decide to stop buying contaminated water all on their own without any government intervention, anyway.
nm