Rand Paul

[Ryantology]

Haven't taken a close look at the history of the US -Army- Air Force eh? We do have private armies. They just get public finding, lol.

That's one. What if we had dozens, or hundreds, of them? How would you oversee them so that they all fight for the common cause of national defense and not as mercenaries (possibly against one another)? How would you coordinate them? How would you ensure that all meet certain standards?

Competition, of course. Others can deliver justice ,more efficiently, at a lower cost, to a broader base.

Companies today have a lot of leeway in how they operate. Would you want private companies having leeway to interpret law according to their own desires? Our justice system is self-regulating, in theory if not always in practice. To whom would these companies be accountable? How would you prevent corruption? Stuff like the kids for cash scandal in my hometown?

I'm not just being contentious, these are all things I'm honestly curious about.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, long ago in a galaxy far away, us fighters and bombers had USAAF decals on their wings and tails, because the air force was a small branch of the army. One of the gentleman in charge of this small branch thought that maybe his outfit deserved more of the public pie, and realized that he wouldn't be getting any more of the public pie so long as he was just a small branch of a larger force. So he continually petitioned his betters until a special designation was created for his interests, so that cash could be dumped into those interests. Thus the US Air Force.

---

Companies today have a lot of leeway in how they operate. Would you want private companies having leeway to interpret law according to their own desires?

They already do, law and enforcement are entirely seperate propositions- and this is leveraged in a big way to generate profit.

Our justice system is self-regulating, in theory if not always in practice.

-and also for sale, not in theory but in practice.

To whom would these companies be accountable?

To each other via competition and to ourselves via consumption.

How would you prevent corruption?

By refusing them my business.

I'm not just being contentious, these are all things I'm honestly curious about.

As am I.

[Tiberius]

FWIW I doubt that any of the Libertarians I am personally acquainted with would go for being labeled any kind of anarchist. They'd consider it an insult. Can't see why, myself. After all, it fits the definition of anarchy, doesn't it?

No, it really doesn't. The definition of anarchist (from Dictionary.com):

"a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed."

The definition of Libertarian (same source):

"a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct."

No Libertarian wants to overturn all institutions in society / government and leave them without any kind of replacement. Libertarians require government to exist to enforce laws and protect liberty. Liberty being the "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control". Libertarians don't hate government; they hate excessive government.

But these guys consider anarchism to be radical left wing political philosophy, no better than my socialist leanings. Oh, well.

Strange, I know a load of anarchists who would make the same claim (that anarchism is a radical left-wing political philosophy). I see it differently; anarchism is the absence of a government, which logically must support multiple forms of economics (from communism to capitalism). An "anarchist society" would likely have factions that were communistic (i.e. everyone shares what they produce), and those that were capitalistic (i.e. everyone trades what they produce). Neither communism or capitalism requires government enforcement; both can be voluntary. Most forms of socialism on the other hand cannot possibly be anarchistic, since they require a state to own the means of production.

For me, the whole purpose of government is to take care of the citizenry, social welfare is it's primary purpose. If it can't manage that, what good is it?

Social welfare is but one way the government takes care of its citizens, notably, the ones that are worse off. However, there are more people than just the worse off in society which require protection. That is why governments must also manage the justice system (to punish citizens who harm others), the legislature (to enact laws that protect citizens), and the military (to protect citizens from foreign nations).

[The Grand Nudger]

Social welfare is but one way the government takes care of its citizens, notably, the ones that are worse off. However, there are more people than just the worse off in society which require protection. That is why governments must also manage the justice system (to punish citizens who harm others), the legislature (to enact laws that protect citizens), and the military (to protect citizens from foreign nations).

Wouldn't private enterprise offer a higher quality service in those areas? Why should I spend my dollar buying government justice, legislature, or defense? Further, why should government have a monopoly on these services/products?

[Ryantology]

They already do, law and enforcement are entirely seperate propositions- and this is leveraged in a big way to generate profit.

I know, but this isn't something I find attractive.

-and also for sale, not in theory but in practice.

Again, that seems to be a flaw rather than a virtue, not something we should encourage.

To each other via competition and to ourselves via consumption.

How would you ensure a competitive atmosphere? How would you prevent monopolizing collaboration?

By refusing them my business.

Seems as if that leads to justice serving the interests of whoever has the most money. Yunno, even more than it already does.

As am I.

[Something completely different]

Dont know much about him.


But his dad is an asshole!

[Tiberius]

Wouldn't private enterprise offer a higher quality service in those areas? Why should I spend my dollar buying government justice, legislature, or defense? Further, why should government have a monopoly on these services/products?

Possibly in the defense department (which is why I think private security / defense contractors are fine and should exist), but I don't think it works with the others, mainly because they aren't actually trade services.

With legislature, you would have no single authority to actually enforce law. One company might create a law saying "Murder is illegal", whilst another creates one saying "Murder is legal". Who gets to decide which law we go with? The bigger company? How do they enforce such a law? Do "customers" of the smaller company have the right to ignore the bigger company's law? If not, why not? They aren't paying that company for their laws...they are paying the other company.

Laws aren't services or products that can be traded (though some lobbyists seem to think they are). Laws are entirely different. They are supposed to make society a fair and free place to live, and that sometimes means that some people are prevented from doing things, even if they are wealthy.

In the court system, is it fair that a wealthy person can buy a judge or a "not guilty" verdict for some crime they have committed. How would courts judge which crimes to follow anyway? Again, if people pay for private courts / laws, what happens when someone pays for a court that doesn't respect the laws of the company the person pays to? What happens when someone sues a person over some violation of law X, and the other person pays for a different court that doesn't believe in law X?

I'm not entirely sure you are serious, or if you are just trying to provoke discussion. It's an interesting proposal, but I just don't think it works in theory or in practice. Laws and the justice system aren't something that can be traded; they are the systems in place which allow for fair trade.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know, but this isn't something I find attractive.

attractive =/= effective

Again, that seems to be a flaw rather than a virtue, not something we should encourage.

Again what appears top be a disagreement in tastes. Would you prefer something that works, or something that lines up with your values?

How would you ensure a competitive atmosphere? How would you prevent monopolizing collaboration?

If I'm in a position to "ensure" anything how am I promoting competition? Why not just ensure my continued profitability (as is already done)?

Seems as if that leads to justice serving the interests of whoever has the most money. Yunno, even more than it already does.

Indeed. But for every 5 star restaurant there are hundreds of McDonald's -es..., eh?

---

Possibly in the defense department (which is why I think private security / defense contractors are fine and should exist), but I don't think it works with the others, mainly because they aren't actually trade services.

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

With legislature, you would have no single authority to actually enforce law. One company might create a law saying "Murder is illegal", whilst another creates one saying "Murder is legal". Who gets to decide which law we go with?

The consumer.

The bigger company? How do they enforce such a law? Do "customers" of the smaller company have the right to ignore the bigger company's law?

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

Laws aren't services or products that can be traded (though some lobbyists seem to think they are). Laws are entirely different.

Why and how?

They are supposed to make society a fair and free place to live, and that sometimes means that some people are prevented from doing things, even if they are wealthy.

Nothing that free market law couldn't accomplish.

In the court system, is it fair that a wealthy person can buy a judge or a "not guilty" verdict for some crime they have committed. How would courts judge which crimes to follow anyway? Again, if people pay for private courts / laws, what happens when someone pays for a court that doesn't respect the laws of the company the person pays to?

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

What happens when someone sues a person over some violation of law X, and the other person pays for a different court that doesn't believe in law X?

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

I'm not entirely sure you are serious, or if you are just trying to provoke discussion. It's an interesting proposal, but I just don't think it works in theory or in practice. Laws and the justice system aren't something that can be traded; they are the systems in place which allow for fair trade.

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 , medical care, or shelter?

[Raven]

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. But that is not what most people think when they hear the word. They think far left radicals. Anyone I know with anarchist leanings think that way of themselves. It's a pretty notion, but realistically would not work. The Old West frontier was probably the closest thing to anarchy as a social construct, or so it seems to me. The really was no government, and you were pretty much on your own. Groups of people helped one another out due to mutual necessity. As things progressed they moved toward having a government.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently but of course you need an army, justice system and all the usual government stuff, but that is not what we were really on about at that moment. I just feel that if you don't take care of everyone when they need it, you have no excuse to consider yourself a civilized society. Capitalism is a particularly predatory phase in cultural evolution.

[Ryantology]

attractive =/= effective

Effectiveness is a broad term, though. What is the standard of effectiveness?

Again what appears top be a disagreement in tastes. Would you prefer something that works, or something that lines up with your values?

I place a much higher value in getting the optimal outcome in regards to the law. Whether that outcome is reached with optimal operational efficiency, while not of no importance, is of secondary concern to me.

If I'm in a position to "ensure" anything how am I promoting competition? Why not just ensure my continued profitability (as is already done)?

There would have to be some mechanism in place to prevent monopolization, otherwise, we end up (at best) with a system very much like what we have.

Indeed. But for every 5 star restaurant there are hundreds of McDonald's -es..., eh?

That's the problem I keep seeing in your proposal. One of the biggest problems with the justice system in its present form is that the quality of justice one receives often has too much to do with their financial resources. Legitimizing such a system seems wholly unlikely to improve it.