Rand Paul

[Tiberius]

The hell they aren't........

They aren't though. If laws don't apply to everyone, there is no point to having them in the first place.

The consumer.

That's not a valid answer. There are multiple consumers in my example. Which ones do we go with? Consumers of company A ("murder is illegal"), or consumers of company B ("murder is legal")?

Of course. Though the other company may make good on a service that someone else paid for against their interests, same as debt collection.

Then there is no point in having the laws in the first place.

Why and how?

Laws are supposed to keep everyone in check; they are supposed to apply equally for everyone. That isn't something the free market can provide, nor is it something that the free market is designed to provide. The "best" law for someone might not be the "best" law for someone else, but it doesn't matter, if it is the "best" law for the overal society. We have a system for choosing these laws; it's called "voting", and to keep things fair everyone is supposed to get one vote each.

Nothing that free market law couldn't accomplish.

Yes, it really is, especially in the scenario you propose. Can you describe how it would work?

Why would you pay for a court if it didn't respect the laws you also payed for?

Multiple reasons; there may not be any alternatives in the area, for example. Or perhaps the court may support most of the laws you paid for, but not a small subset of them.

Whose jurisdiction is it, and by this I mean, which company bought the rights?

You didn't answer my question. Also, how can a company buy "the rights" (as a single entity) when those rights are supposed to be created by law, which any company can create. That is to say, any company in your system could create contradictory rights to another company. Who wins then?

Of course I'm not serious..come on, but I think that stumping for it very adeptly describes the ways in which it would not be applicable..to..oh...say...food or healthcare either. Tell me Tibs, why do your objections to my corporate justice and legislature not hold when the subject is food or medical care?

I'm glad you're not serious, but I don't think this is a very good example of what you are trying to prove. Food is a trade commodity, and so is healthcare.

I'm not saying that food and healthcare can't be provided by government; clearly they both can, and if that is what most of the people want, then fine. However, they also work well as trade commodities. Laws and court systems do not.

[Tiberius]

The OED defines anarchy as belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis. No mention of violence, so a no government needed libertarian would be an anarchist.

That's effectively saying "an anarchist would be an anarchist". I don't disagree. The point is though, libertarians aren't anarchists, in the same way liberals aren't anarchists. The two words mean entirely different things, and it isn't correct to equate them. A libertarian who believes that the best government is no government is simply not a libertarian.

Capitalism is a particularly predatory phase in cultural evolution.

Capitalism has nothing to do with culture...it's an economic theory.

[Anomalocaris]

Dont know much about him.


But his dad is an asshole!

He is a more cynical asshole.

[The Grand Nudger]

They aren't though. If laws don't apply to everyone, there is no point to having them in the first place.

Laws -don't- apply to everyone...Tibs...we still find use for them......

That's not a valid answer. There are multiple consumers in my example. Which ones do we go with? Consumers of company A ("murder is illegal"), or consumers of company B ("murder is legal")?

Its a perfectly valid answer. "We" go with whoever bought the rights to jurisdiction , and "they" go with whoever paid them for their services.

Then there is no point in having the laws in the first place.

See above. The laws are useful as a way to ensure that you recieve the service you paid for, you know....like a contract.....

Laws are supposed to keep everyone in check; they are supposed to apply equally for everyone. That isn't something the free market can provide,

It isn't? The free market doesn't self regulate through competition? Wonder of wonders....

nor is it something that the free market is designed to provide. The "best" law for someone might not be the "best" law for someone else,

Then they don't have to pay for that law which is "best" for someone else.

but it doesn't matter, if it is the "best" law for the overal society.

Communist!

We have a system for choosing these laws; it's called "voting", and to keep things fair everyone is supposed to get one vote each.

Vote with your wallet. It works (unless it doesn't)

Nothing that free market law couldn't accomplish.
Yes, it really is, especially in the scenario you propose. Can you describe how it would work?

Someone ( or a group of someones) is always wealthier than you. The company which serves them would outcompete.

Multiple reasons; there may not be any alternatives in the area, for example.

Sounds like room for competition, my system would thrive here.

Or perhaps the court may support most of the laws you paid for, but not a small subset of them.

It was your choice to pay for them, unless you didn't, and if you didn't someone else did (or else why are you in this position?)...so I don't see the problem, they're just acting on a contract they made with the purchaser.

You didn't answer my question. Also, how can a company buy "the rights" (as a single entity) when those rights are supposed to be created by law, which any company can create. That is to say, any company in your system could create contradictory rights to another company. Who wins then?

I did answer your question, you didn't like the answer. They buy the rights by garnering the consumers support, same as any other share of any market. Any company -could- create a law, but only those companies who out-compete their fellows could be said to have "bought the rights". Any company could bu contradictory rights, who cares, it's happened before, in the end the consumer decides who actually has them.

I'm glad you're not serious, but I don't think this is a very good example of what you are trying to prove. Food is a trade commodity, and so is healthcare.

They are both commodities, sure. What I;m asking..is why don't we consider law or courts commodities?

I'm not saying that food and healthcare can't be provided by government; clearly they both can, and if that is what most of the people want, then fine. However, they also work well as trade commodities. Laws and court systems do not.

Except that you haven't made them any different than food or healthcare. I don't see anything about law or courts that is in any way fundamentally different from food or healthcare, and if government can offer law or courts more effectively or "properly" than private enterprise.,.why not food and healthcare? Similarly, if private enterprise can offer food and healthcare more effectively or "properly" than government then why not law or courts?

[Raven]

Capitalism is a particularly predatory phase in cultural evolution.

Capitalism has nothing to do with culture...it's an economic theory.
[/quote]
As per OED: capitalism (noun) an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state.

No it isn't a culture, but such a system produces a culture that is very predatory.

[Tiberius]

Laws -don't- apply to everyone...Tibs...we still find use for them......

They really do. Some depend on circumstances, but the point of laws is that they apply to everyone. There may be different laws on murder depending on the type of murder, but the law is still there, preventing people who murder from getting away with their crimes.

Its a perfectly valid answer. "We" go with whoever bought the rights to jurisdiction , and "they" go with whoever paid them for their services.

Either you didn't understand my question, or you haven't thought your idea through very well. If we are going with an entirely private system, then there is nobody who owns the "rights" in the first place, so no company can buy them. A company can just say "I now own these rights, and anyone who pays me can have them too". However, that doesn't stop another company from saying "I also own these rights, and anyone who pays me can have them as well". If the first company tries to sue for ownership, well guess what, the second company can just go to a court which favours it (or heck, even create one) and win the court battle (or the first company could do the same). I thin this example shows how ridiculous the concept of laws and the justice system as private enterprises can be.

See above. The laws are useful as a way to ensure that you recieve the service you paid for, you know....like a contract.....

Right, so say I form a contract with you that says you give me $1,000 for my product. After you give me the money, I refuse to give you my product. You try to take me to a court that sides with you, but I refuse to go, and instead go to a court that sides with me. Since there is no single point of authority on the law or the justice system, I win by default (I already have your money, and you have no way of getting it from me). Of course, if you had a lot of money, I suppose you could hire an army and come to kill me, but what does that say about your idea of a society? That the rich and powerful have all the power? I don't like that idea at all. Hence why laws and the justice system needs to treat everyone equally, and be fair.

It isn't? The free market doesn't self regulate through competition? Wonder of wonders....

This has nothing to do with self regulation. The market does not treat everyone equally; nor does it have to. A business can refuse to do business with you if you don't have enough money. A court cannot (and should not) be able do the same thing.

Then they don't have to pay for that law which is "best" for someone else.

I've shown in multiple examples now why this is ridiculous.

Communist!

Do you want me to be serious with you or not? I'll gladly debate this thought experiment, but not if you're going to be silly about it.

Vote with your wallet. It works (unless it doesn't)

What part about the "one vote each" thing did you not understand? The wealthy should be able to pay for more expensive clothes, food, etc. because those don't have an immediate (negative) affect on anyone else...in fact, they often have a positive affect (i.e. the producers get more money). If the wealthy simply paid their way out of committing crimes, well then, that does have an immediate negative affect on other people.

Someone ( or a group of someones) is always wealthier than you.

You know that's not true. Simple application of mathematics demonstrates it...

I did answer your question, you didn't like the answer. They buy the rights by garnering the consumers support, same as any other share of any market. Any company -could- create a law, but only those companies who out-compete their fellows could be said to have "bought the rights". Any company could bu contradictory rights, who cares, it's happened before, in the end the consumer decides who actually has them.

The point of capitalism is that multiple companies have competing, but ultimately similar products. What happens when the consumers decide that two or more companies own the same laws / rights?

They are both commodities, sure. What I;m asking..is why don't we consider law or courts commodities?

I've demonstrated again and again how they aren't commodities. They do not trade, and any system which attempts to use them like that cannot function.

Except that you haven't made them any different than food or healthcare. I don't see anything about law or courts that is in any way fundamentally different from food or healthcare, and if government can offer law or courts more effectively or "properly" than private enterprise.,.why not food and healthcare? Similarly, if private enterprise can offer food and healthcare more effectively or "properly" than government then why not law or courts?

If you don't see the fundamental difference between something like law / the justice system and something like food / healthcare, then you are either blind or you have not been paying attention to a thing I've said.

The Law and Justice are required to be applied equally for the entire system of society and government to work. If laws don't apply to everyone, and if justice can't handle cases equally, then the system is unfair and falls apart (as I demonstrated). This is simply not true for food / healthcare. People can survive on a certain amount of food and healthcare, but it does not have a knock on affect for fairness and equality if someone who earns more eats more (or better quality) food and has a better doctor.

What you eat and how good your doctor is affects you and you alone. The law and the justice system affects everyone.

[DeistPaladin]

Dont know much about him.


But his dad is an asshole!

Here's a documentary about how Rand Paul was raised, complete with video footage and everything.

[DeistPaladin]

And here's a documentary of Rand Paul's Tea Bagger Party

[The Grand Nudger]

Your objections seem to center around a "what if two interests compete" scenario....which is puzzling, given that competition is the very thing which is supposed to confer benefits or advantages to a "free market" -anything-....in any case. If two interests compete, I say -excellent!-, that's my thought experiment, I encourage competition. Why not invoke a third party as a "free market" arbitrator? In fact, this is precisely what I am doing when i argue for free market law or courts. I still don't understand why law is not a commodity, if food is. Help me see that?

[DeistPaladin]

Your objections seem to center around a "what if two interests compete" scenario....which is puzzling, given that competition is the very thing which is supposed to confer benefits or advantages to a "free market" -anything-....in any case. If two interests compete, I say -excellent!-, that's my thought experiment, I encourage competition. Why not invoke a third party as a "free market" arbitrator? In fact, this is precisely what I am doing when i argue for free market law or courts. I still don't understand why law is not a commodity, if food is. Help me see that?

Libertarians seem to draw a lot of arbitrary lines and then present them as if they were self-evident axioms. To the skeptic, they seem to have a lot of "this-but-not-that" and "here-but-not-there" rules on the "proper" role of government.

For example:
A government should pay so that I may have:
1. ...a police officer to stop a burgler from invading my home
2. ...a standing army to stop an army from invading my town
3. ...but NOT a doctor to stop a virus from invading my body

And I ask them similar why-not questions that used to drive me nuts when I was a believer. Why not have people pay for their own protection? If I'm a poor person with less to lose from a robbery, why should I pay to protect a rich person's mansion? Seems like I'm subsidizing what the rich guy wants. I also have less to lose from an army invading my town than a rich man has. I can go to ground and personally protect and hide my limited assets. Why should my taxes pay to have an army that protects my country when the rich have far more to lose.

It seems to me that a lot of "this-but-not-that" rules are slanted to favor the rich over the poor or middle class. These biased interests are hidden behind arbitrary assertions of axioms disingenuously presented as self-evident.