Can you imagine, if this were a society based on ethical principle, how ridiculous you would sound if you proposed a system that would create untold thousands of new laws and regulations every year? And can you imagine proposing that you should have to pay for arbitration services in that system when already you have been robbed of most of your earnings by a tyrannical nanny government, which sucks up money like a runaway recursive GetChunk procedure?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t libertarian theory encourage the use of lawsuits to resolve problems. (The idea being that lawsuits between aggrieved parties is preferable to government regulation?) Just checking for inconsistencies here…
Oh, please. Another libertarian rant about a pie-in-the-sky system that would never work and that you personally cannot defend. Let’s just take a look at your latest:
Anytime I deal with you, I have to “imagine” because you refuse to even attempt to apply your idealistic principles in the real world.
The question is not the number of laws created in a particular period of time, but whether those laws are necessary. You could probably make a strong argument that many of them are not, but then you’d have to come back down here to the “real world.” My jurisdiction (or “society,” if you will) does not pass “thousands of laws a year;” it passes dozens of laws every two years, many of which have the effect of modifying or repealing other, older laws.
More rhetoric, with the usual amount of substance to it, which is to say none. The irony, of course, is that the libertarian system would do little to bring down the cost of prosecuting or defending civil claims. In your theoretical free-market system, I, as a professional lawyer or “maker of arguments before the Great Arbitrator,” or whatever you want to call me, can charge whatever I want for my services – thousands of dollars included.
If you have a legitimate complaint about the American justice system – and, lo, you could make many – spit it out. But your pseudo-libertarian rhetoric, without any basis in fact, is nothing more than tiresome nonsense.
In Libertaria you already paid for arbitration when you signed up. Not only that, you did it voluntarily. And you don’t need expensive lawyers to help you in your arbitration 'cause there’s only one law!
After this many years, I’ve been pretty well all around the consistency check. Glad to see you’re alert, though.
I need to keep this pitworthy, so let me say once more, “Damn those ruling bastards!”
Nicely avoiding the real world; glad to see you’re consistent.
Obviously unworkable. Who sets the fee? If I use the system 400 times, do I pay the same fee as the person who uses it once? Or is it a per use fee? Doesn’t that disfavor those whose claims have merit but who cannot afford to access the system? Does the fee go up so that “new” members pay more, so justice is more expensive for some then for others? If the initial assessment for the system in insufficient, the system simply dies, because there is no mechanism for getting any more operating money from the citizenry. Then there’s justice for none.
Right, so if you refuse to pay, or cannot afford to pay, there is no justice for you, because you have no right to access the system, no matter how egregious the wrong done to you.
Oh, right. One law that is theoretically applicable to every single argument, dispute, crime, or battle, no matter how it arises. You don’t need expensive lawyers in our system – you’re perfectly free to represent yourself. Of course, you’re generally at a distinct disadvantage when up against trained lawyers who know how the justice system works and who make their living presenting persuasive arguments before it. You’d be equally disadvantaged to represent yourself pro se against professional lawyers in your totally unworkable Never-Neverland.
After this many years, I’ve been pretty well all around the consistency check. Glad to see you’re alert, though.
I need to keep this pitworthy, so let me say once more, “Damn those ruling bastards!”
Lib, I honestly try to be nice about this; I really do. But it’s impossible to be anything other than fed up with your posts and your behavior. Here’s my take on it:
You are congenitally unable to have any conversation longer than six words that doesn’t somehow get dragged over to your personal pet, libertarianism. Religion, politics, current events, how to make a nice BLT – it all somehow mutates back to libertarianism with you.
Yet – and this is the irony – when people question you about this philosophy, which you adore with every fiber of your being and which you refuse to shut up about (regardless of its relevance to the topic under discussion), you either cannot or will not undertake to defend it from the serious problems people who are not so in love with it might raise. Instead, you retreat back to your fantasy of “Libertania,” where everything works perfectly because everyone is peaceful and honest – a hypothetical place with zero relevance to the issues facing real people in the real world. Or you attack people who question you – calling me personally “idiotic” and “moronic” and asking me how I’d like to be gang-raped.
Your pseudo-libertarian posts are nothing more than empty rhetoric, and this latest thread is a prime example. You do not even attempt to state with any degree of peculiarity why the existing system does not work, or why you think your proposed system would work better. It’s all just mouth-noises, and it’s aggravating. As I’ve said before, more than once, if you want to discuss libertarianism, fine; but expect to be asked to defend it. If you’re not willing to answer the difficult questions intelligent people who are not persuaded it is the ‘be-all, end-all’ are certain to ask you, then you ought to shut up about it.
If you want me to be nice, then stop making every flipping discussion about your own personal cause.
Yeah, and I exposed your “rant” for the meaningless, idiotic blather that it is.
Profanely, here in the Pit, or politely, in another forum, you shouldn’t post unless you actually have something to say – preferably something new. You never do. You’re your own sock puppet. And I’ll kiss your butt the day it’s seasoned, cooked, and served up for my dinner on a social-democratic platter, and not one minute before.
jodih:
How is it that one can discuss Libertarianism in the context of the real world? Libertarianism is a political theory that hasn’t actually been tried out yet. I’m sure many people would love Libertaria to exist, and we would all be able to debate Libertarianism using it as an example, but it doesn’t, so we have to be hypothetical.
If you don’t like the existence of another “Ethics of…” thread, find another one to post to.
Actually, the answer to this seems to me to be pretty obvious; if libertarianism has any relevance at all (beyond its dubious worth as a pure theory), it must be in the way it could be made to work, even hypothetically, in the real world. But, you know, it’s not for me to say how it would or would not work; if Libertarian wants to post examples from the real world about how shitty our existing system is, I think it’s reasonable to expect him to explain why his system would work better. This he steadfastly refuses to do.
So? Either it is workable in the real world, or it is not. If it’s not, why are we talking about it ad nauseum? Just as a theory? Fine. Then stop contrasting it to the existing system our society currently functions other. IMO, it hasn’t been “tried out yet” and never will be, because, in it’s purest state, it is totally unworkable. Is there room in the real world for libertarian principles – less government, more personal responsibility? Sure. Is there room for pure libertarianism? No. All this is beside the point, by the way, because my complaint – as should be obvious by now – is not that libertarianism does or does not work, but that Libertarian continually posts about it but then refuses any substantive discussion. He just parrots “libertarianism is great” over and over and over, and I assure you I’m not the only one bothered by it.
The post opening this thread was hypothetical only to the extent it attempted to draw an obvious parallel between the existing system (bad) and some nonexistent ideal system (goo), without articulating how the existent system was bad or why the existing system is good.
I’ll post to whatever threads I damn well please. I am not required to ignore Libertarian’s aggravating blather as he posts it over and over and over again. If you don’t like it, then I suggest you] find some other thread to post to.
My four year old son heartily agrees with you on this point.
–
From an actual catalog: “Disco balls create an enchanting, dazzling effect of light shafts, adding movement and glamour to any occasion” the Abrams’ bris was certainly memorable
O p a l C a t www.opalcat.com
OK Lib, since I sort of inspired this thread I’ll jump in. I’m relatively new here and have sort of stayed away from the political theory debates over in GD, but I’d like to understand your libertarian theory of dispute resolution. (Perhaps if I understand one small part of the the libertarian theory, I’ll be able better able to follow what the heck you are talking about in the libertarian discussions in general.)
Now in your quote above, you say that you’ve already paid for arbitration when you signed up. Now my first question is how and when do you get into the system (sign up, buy in)? And what happens if you do not sign up?
Second, you say that “there’s only one law!” What is that law (and I’d appreciate it if you could phrase it in simple words and concepts, not abtruse theory)? How does that law balance competing interests?
I’m interested in hearing how disputes get resolved in “Libertaria.” But, this being the Pit: Dammit, Lib, you better defend your views or you’re a diseased turnip decaying in a putrid ditch (or other venomous but mild insult to that effect ;)).