Florida teachers vs. poor parents

[Хahar 🤔]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

[SPC]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune? What is Paris Commune?

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

[Хahar 🤔]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

What is Paris Commune?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

Or they'd be impressed, and hire them to bend the law in their favor.

[SPC]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

What is Paris Commune?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

Or they'd be impressed, and hire them to bend the law in their favor.

Even if that were to happen, there would always be competing defense agencies who would sue them for obsructing justice.

[StateBoiler]

I'm a libertarian, but I draw a line at having zero public education and everything private.

The reason back in the early 1800s that the governments finally decided to have public education was cause the rich people realized that for the country to improve they had to teach the poor people's kids too.

It is in the country's interest that everyone be able to read and write English coherently, do math, know basic history, and also that there is a largely standard curriculum for everyone up to a certain age.

I think there's also a wide segment of the population that just wouldn't send their kids to school if they had to pay for it, they would call it "home schooling", except their kid wouldn't actually be schooled.

Another disadvantage is there would be very selective education based on the whims of the teachers. Take Mexican immigrants for example. Do you think Mexicans should be taught in English? That wouldn't happen, their education would be in Spanish at most schools cause it's what they're comfortable with. Some would then get taught the Mexican version of history, some nationalists may even teach the kids that the Southwest was stolen from them and should be taken back. Some Southerners might get taught in their schools not about the Civil War, but the War of Northern Aggression and are hammered home the virtues of "The Lost Cause". What if foreign governments like the Chinese financed free schooling in disadvantaged areas so that they can condition the kids at their schools over the formative years of their childhood to think "government control and socialism is okay and good for the world" or "Mao was a good man"?

Complete privatization is one can of worms I'd rather not open. Especially considering if we want our country and its workforce to be competitive on the global marketplace.

Maybe one answer is giving everyone a basic education up to a point, say to 16 years old. And then from that point on we compartmentalize people more, based on their desired college education or a trade they want to go into. I also think the Department of Education should disappear cause they do not educate anyone, as well as No Child Left Behind.

[Хahar 🤔]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

What is Paris Commune?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

Or they'd be impressed, and hire them to bend the law in their favor.

Even if that were to happen, there would always be competing defense agencies who would sue them for obstructing justice.

And the agency being sued would bribe the judiciary. Duh.

[SPC]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

What is Paris Commune?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

Or they'd be impressed, and hire them to bend the law in their favor.

Even if that were to happen, there would always be competing defense agencies who would sue them for obstructing justice.

And the agency being sued would bribe the judiciary. Duh.

At which point the general public would find out about this and fund a different court. Duh.

[Хahar 🤔]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

What is Paris Commune?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

Or they'd be impressed, and hire them to bend the law in their favor.

Even if that were to happen, there would always be competing defense agencies who would sue them for obstructing justice.

And the agency being sued would bribe the judiciary. Duh.

At which point the general public would find out about this and fund a different court. Duh.

What "general public"? Didn't you describe yourself as an anarchist individualist?

[SPC]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

What is Paris Commune?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

Or they'd be impressed, and hire them to bend the law in their favor.

Even if that were to happen, there would always be competing defense agencies who would sue them for obstructing justice.

And the agency being sued would bribe the judiciary. Duh.

At which point the general public would find out about this and fund a different court. Duh.

What "general public"? Didn't you describe yourself as an anarchist individualist?

Individual Anarchist. By public, I mean those who donate to the court system. If it frustrates them, they can fund another court.

[Хahar 🤔]

3. Democracy is a sham, though. For one thing, the chances of your individual vote making a difference are next to zero. Second, you're individual freedom is not affected by who you vote for; if 51% of the people vote for a tax hike, then 100% of the population must pay it. Therefore, you have no incentive whatsoever to vote in your economic self-interest, because you have no punishment if you make a bad decision.

WTF?

If one faces no punishment for voting against his economic self-interest, he cannot be trusted to vote rationally.

So you're suggesting abandoning the secret ballot?

No, I'm suggesting the elimination of majority rule. How much sense would it make if the majority of people decided to drink Pepsi, so everyone had to drink Pepsi?

If the beverage choices of each person had an impact on all of us, it'd make perfect sense.

The agency that protects my life and property does not impact you, and vice-versa.

Yes, it does; taxes will be equal for two people in the same situtation.

I'm suggesting the elimination of taxes, so what's your point?

How exactly do you propose the state funds its court system?

Donations. Most people would support upholding the law, and as such, would be willing to donate to a court.

But the courts will feel obliged to rule for big "donors", so that they keep giving "donations".

If they rule unfairly, the rest of the citizens will simply withhold their donations or donate to another court.

You place far too must trust in people. If they rule unfairly, people will donate more to make the court rule in their favor.

Your argument relies on a Hobbesian view that people are generally bad. I believe that most people are good people, and prefer justic, even if they don't realize it.

Our experiences with anarchy have shown that people need government of some sort, that they cannot regulate themselves.

What experiences with anarchy are you referring to? The entire Old West era had less deaths that Detroit does anually.

Paris Commune?

What is Paris Commune?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

3. Urban roads would be more likely to be sold to local residents than to a private company, due to what you say about the inconvenience of competition in an urban road system.

Why? If a private company puts up a bid in a poor urban area, they'll get the road.

And if the private company charges the poor ridiculous user fees, than walking will become more frequent. The private company either lowers prices, sells the road, or goes out of business.

But walking is not always an option. And in your system, there would be no affordable public transportation.

It would have to be affordable, or else no one would use it, and the transportation companies would go out of business.

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a motorized vehicle?

What about when people have to make trips that require use of a horse and buggy? If the roads refuse to charge low prices (which they won't), then a new method of transportation will just form.

Imagine you lived in, say, South-Central LA, where there is no alternate means of transportation. What would you do?

Your begging the question. If you think that a road operator is going to charge excessively high prices in poorer areas, then you're an idiot. As much as I would like to be polite, its hard to, since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the road operator is going to lose money.

Exploitation makes more money than you'd think. Tell me, have you ever been in the Third World?

The Third World isn't capitalist. In fact, the Third World countries are the most socialist.

Proof that you haven't been to a Third World country.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the third world isn't capitalist. They are among the lowest countries on the index of economic freedom.

Only for those who aren't smart enough to game the system.

?

If you pay a few bribes, you can do whatever you want.

You just dont understand, do you? Assuming that most people want justice for themselves, a security company would lose money if they resorted to roberry.

Unless the robbery helped its clients.

But while it might help some clients, other clients wold be repulsed by the agency's lack of respect for the law.

Or they'd be impressed, and hire them to bend the law in their favor.

Even if that were to happen, there would always be competing defense agencies who would sue them for obstructing justice.

And the agency being sued would bribe the judiciary. Duh.

At which point the general public would find out about this and fund a different court. Duh.

What "general public"? Didn't you describe yourself as an anarchist individualist?

Individual Anarchist. By public, I mean those who donate to the court system. If it frustrates them, they can fund another court.

But who decides what court what cases go to?

[StateBoiler]

Are the others that are incessantly posting incapable of seeing their stupidity of constantly hitting the quote button and not deleting all but the recent one?

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Quote pyramids are fun!

[SPC]

Are the others that are incessantly posting incapable of seeing their stupidity of constantly hitting the quote button and not deleting all but the recent one?

I have done that before, but I would like to make it so that onlookers can view the entire conversation.

[Хahar 🤔]

Bump. Or have I won?

[SPC]

Bump. Or have I won?

No, you haven't won. I'm not quite clear about anarchist court theory, but I think that the defense and prosecution would have to come to a mutual agreement about the court. Don't quote me on that, though.

[Хahar 🤔]

Bump. Or have I won?

No, you haven't won. I'm not quite clear about anarchist court theory, but I think that the defense and prosecution would have to come to a mutual agreement about the court. Don't quote me on that, though.

What if the defense had bought up half the courts, and the prosecution the other half?

[SPC]

Bump. Or have I won?

No, you haven't won. I'm not quite clear about anarchist court theory, but I think that the defense and prosecution would have to come to a mutual agreement about the court. Don't quote me on that, though.

What if the defense had bought up half the courts, and the prosecution the other half?

The public would be dsgusted by the corruption and fund a new neutral court.

[Хahar 🤔]

Bump. Or have I won?

No, you haven't won. I'm not quite clear about anarchist court theory, but I think that the defense and prosecution would have to come to a mutual agreement about the court. Don't quote me on that, though.

What if the defense had bought up half the courts, and the prosecution the other half?

The public would be dsgusted by the corruption and fund a new neutral court.

Remember the Gilded Age? That wasn't fixed until government came in.

And who decides what's a court and what isn't?