"if you don't like America then you can git out!"

[Rooster Cogburn]

God, not another anarchist. It's not as if the system even damn well works, let alone would create anything similar to the free market. In case you haven't noticed, every economist, intellectual, thinker and anyone half-sane for the past three centuaries has noted that for the existence of any economic activity beyond the primitive level, you need law and order. At least regular anarchists understood this, unlike these new idiots.

The different schools of anarchy are as far apart as communism and capitalism.

You know, I honestly don't like thinking of myself as an anarchist. It rankles me. But the logical conclusion of libertarian thought puts one in league with certain anarchists. I do not propose that society does not need law and order. It does need law and order. However, I believe law and order would be better provided on a voluntary and competitive basis. The government does not compete with free institutions of law, order and defense because it cannot compete. These institutions tend toward equality and efficiency and prevent abuse. People would choose them if given a chance. That is what I propose. If that puts me in league with some anarchists, so be it. I support consistent non-aggression.

 

[daxter101]

You have to challenge the flaws in a countrys system, and you have to question a leaders ideals, however no matter how far your country falls you should never hate it.

Why not, a country is just a patch of land with different rules and sometimes weather than another one. If that place becomes crap why not give it the one finger salute and find somewhere better.

Its a little word called loyalty

Yes but why should one be loyal to a country, what purpose dose it serve to be loyal to some arbitrary patch of land?

And then again it falls back to the main argument, you are loyal to said arbitrary patch of land because it is your home, it is your country, and if your not willing to make sacrifices to help it, or even give it your support it, then why are you there? and why should they let you live there?.

My country has my back and i sure as hell have it's

 

[Rolling Thunder]

God, not another anarchist. It's not as if the system even damn well works, let alone would create anything similar to the free market. In case you haven't noticed, every economist, intellectual, thinker and anyone half-sane for the past three centuaries has noted that for the existence of any economic activity beyond the primitive level, you need law and order. At least regular anarchists understood this, unlike these new idiots.

The different schools of anarchy are as far apart as communism and capitalism.

You know, I honestly don't like thinking of myself as an anarchist. It rankles me. But the logical conclusion of libertarian thought puts one in league with certain anarchists. I do not propose that society does not need law and order. It does need law and order. However, I believe law and order would be better provided on a voluntary and competitive basis. The government does not compete with free institutions of law, order and defense because it cannot compete. These institutions tend toward equality and efficiency and prevent abuse. People would choose them if given a chance. That is what I propose. If that puts me in league with some anarchists, so be it. I support consistent non-aggression.

Pretty words, but foolish ideas, if you will forgive the aggressive tone. In essence, you are adovacting that the Judicary, Police force, and army be sold off to the highest bidder. In essence, you are advocating we put our safety in the hands of a bunch of mercenaries, thugs and clerks.

1. How do private institutions tend towards equality and efficency? When socialised medicine can provide better quality of care for half the cost, I would argue that the reasoning that the free market is always the most efficent means of resource allocation is an utter fallacy. Because it is.

2. So....what is there to stop, say, a business owner, from hiring a band of thugs from burning down the premises and murdering the staff of another business owner? And if you were to answer 'the thugs the second business owner hired', then might I ask: What is to stop him from simply hiring far more thugs?

3. So, if I am a rich man, and I contest a matter with a poor man by means of the courts, rather than, say, by means of an armed thug, I can simply pay for the decision to go my way?

4. You do realise that this is, in essence, feudalism? Rich men have power, armies and law on their side. Poor men have nothing. Rich men extort money from poor men. The supreme irony of this is that this is the starting point for government. And you are advocating a return to it.

5. This is why Libertarianism is regarded as an utter joke.

6. How many economists support this? How many business owners?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Pretty words, but foolish ideas, if you will forgive the aggressive tone. In essence, you are adovacting that the Judicary, Police force, and army be sold off to the highest bidder. In essence, you are advocating we put our safety in the hands of a bunch of mercenaries, thugs and clerks.

There is a big difference between that and allowing these systems to arise from market processes. Those things you say will be in the hands of mercenaries, thugs and clerks currently are in the hands of mercenaries, thugs and clerks who externalize their costs onto third parties and cannot be made accountable to taxpayers who are prevented from seeking alternatives.

1. How do private institutions tend towards equality and efficency? When socialised medicine can provide better quality of care for half the cost, I would argue that the reasoning that the free market is always the most efficent means of resource allocation is an utter fallacy. Because it is.

You are committing the most common economic fallacy- conflating context and causation. It is quite common for both sides of the 'socialism' vs. 'capitalism' thing to point to today's conditions as indicators of free market results. But this is fallacious. Licensing, charter, corporations, limited liability, corporate welfare, monetary inflation, taxation, eminent domain, state provided 'services', government fiat and fiat money etc. etc. etc. make conditions in, say, the United States of America far and away from any theoretical free market, despite what any Republican or Democratic hack may tell you. The government makes policy to ensure that certain industries are cartelized by erecting artificial barriers to entry. The result is, of course, worse quality for more money.

2. So....what is there to stop, say, a business owner, from hiring a band of thugs from burning down the premises and murdering the staff of another business owner? And if you were to answer 'the thugs the second business owner hired', then might I ask: What is to stop him from simply hiring far more thugs?

People choose peaceful arbitration because violence is risky and unprofitable. The government not only does not solve that problem, it institutionalizes the violence and makes it profitable by externalizing costs onto third parties. Besides, people do not refrain from violence only because it is 'against the law.' WMDs do not arise from a free market. It takes an organization which can externalize costs onto third parties to makes such horrific waste of time worthwhile. What you are doing is setting up a 'doomsday' scenario, but I should point out that a state cannot survive such a scenario, either.

3. So, if I am a rich man, and I contest a matter with a poor man by means of the courts, rather than, say, by means of an armed thug, I can simply pay for the decision to go my way?

Again, that is the system we live under now. A competitive third party arbitrator would, presumably, have to maintain a reputation of fairness in comparison to other arbitrators. This would prevent abuse. Our current monopolized system has no such correcting mechanism and as a result is riddled with abuse. Private regulation industries are often outlawed just to allow this abuse to continue.

4. You do realise that this is, in essence, feudalism? Rich men have power, armies and law on their side. Poor men have nothing. Rich men extort money from poor men. The supreme irony of this is that this is the starting point for government. And you are advocating a return to it.

Rich men have the power, armies and law on their side now. Rich men extort money from poor men now. Feudalism was a heavily statist system- this should be obvious. What I advocate is another step away, toward civilization and equality of rights.

5. This is why Libertarianism is regarded as an utter joke.

6. How many economists support this? How many business owners?

Argumentum ad populum is no argument.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

git?

A colliqualism used in place of the word "get". It's a phoenetic spelling, derived from the way people from certain regions not held in high regard for education will pronounce the word "get". Generally speaking, it is a southern US and appalicaian pronunciation. It is likely used in this case because the OP believes people who believe in the whole "if you don't like it then leave" policy are uneducated, soft-headed moonshiners. In this case, technically the title is a rhethorical device, more specifically a fallacy (ad-hom - where you argue against the person rather than agains their argument).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Simple fact:

You dumb americans would all be better off under an English Monarch.

What has the monarch done of note in the last 30 years? This isn't entirely snarky - I am simply not aware of anything that really mattered in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Systems of law, order, and defense already do compete.. they do so at the level of nations. I often find it ironic how libertarians seem unable to recognize that the system they're in is already completely libertarian. They just happen to be currently residing in one section of it. Don't like taxes? Move to Saudi Arabia. They don't have them there. There are other trade-offs though. And this is the way the world over. When you choose to live in a society, even though you sign no explicit contract, there is an implicit contract made with the members of that society -- that being, you have the responsibilities that we, as a group, dictate you have, and in return you receive the priveleges, that we, as a group, provide and allow you. For the Libertarian, the problem is that this doesn't mesh *exactly* with their desired responsibilities and privileges, and they have this naive and idealistic view that if only people were allowed free choice they'd eventually find their niche. They never seem to clue in that people have had their free choice for generations -- and the system we have is the system we chose.

As for the original post, the full quote is actually "get involved or get out of the way".

And surprisingly, whining on random boards on the internet is not actually getting involved.

You are anthropomorphizing a purely abstract concept. Obviously, I am not literally engaging any sort of contract with 'society' unless each member of a society explicitly consents in the absence of coercion or duress, which has never happened. Furthermore, implicit consent is false consent. It cannot be said I 'consent' to anything merely by being alive. To say this is not to pit myself against society. I am saying that is a dupe.

People by and large have never had free choice, that is simply false on its face. Besides, that has nothing to do with me in the here and now.

Governments do not compete in the economic sense, unless I am free to withdraw my patronage and buy from another government instead. Of course, it would cease to be a 'government' in the traditional sense if I could do that. A tennis match is 'competition' of a sort, but it has nothing to do with market competition. Geographic mobility does not mean competition in the normal economic sense. I suppose you could say that governments represent an absurdly cartelized kind of competition, but this does not mesh at all with a free market.

 

[Weaver]

I find your writing style to be rambling, segregated and disjoint.

 

[AngloDoom]

I'm not surprised people make the 'you can get out' kind of come-backs to people 'dissing' their country. It's a logical one to come from, but as you said it's just plain retarded. These people are the same people who say shit like:
"These football hooligans are a disgrace! They should send them to Iraq; that's where we need people fighting." - Random woman on radio

Bleh, I can see why people get annoyed. I mean, they are coming over to tukk ur jerb!*

* Previous reference explained in the following Youtube link...to South Park.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI&feature=related


And yes, I've been looking for a specific place to post that since I watched the episode. God bless you OP.

Also, can someone explain how to make text behave as a hyperlink on this forum? I'm a computard, unfortunately.