SPC (and other libertarians) Political Views Discussion Thread

[SPC]

This will serve as the official thead for those who wish to debate my views.

[Playing tracks 6 and 7, again and again]

Why do you believe crack dealers are better role models for inner city black kids than Barack Obama?

[Хahar]

Anarchist court doctrine is where we left off, I think.

How would you ensure that courts stay impartial if they are privately funded?

[SPC]

Why do you believe crack dealers are better role models for inner city black kids than Barack Obama?

Simply, crack dealers are entrepeneurs who find ways around artificial constraints on their business. On the other hand, Obama has threatened to steal now, steal later, or indirectly steal hundreds of billions of dollars on the faux basis of "stimulating the economy".

[SPC]

Anarchist court doctrine is where we left off, I think.

How would you ensure that courts stay impartial if they are privately funded?

First off, if any of your family members has ever fought a traffic ticket, you would know that monopolized courts aren't impartial, and usually side with the entity that pays their salary. Also, judges today supress jury nullification/substantive due process in favor of procedural due process, meaning that they have no power to declare someone innocent even if the defendant commited a victimless crime. Second, if a conflict between two parties were to arise, the insurance companies of the respective parties would have to come to an agreement over which court to use, a process that I wouldn't expect to be hard. Third, just as in civil lawsuits today, I doubt most cases would even be settled in court. Instead, I would bet that the insurance companies would reach an out-of-court settlement.

[Eraserhead]

Why do you believe crack dealers are better role models for inner city black kids than Barack Obama?

Simply, crack dealers are entrepeneurs who find ways around artificial constraints on their business. On the other hand, Obama has threatened to steal now, steal later, or indirectly steal hundreds of billions of dollars on the faux basis of "stimulating the economy".

Grow up, please.

[Хahar]

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

[dead0man]

It seems more direct than buying off politicos like rich people do today.  Is it worse?  I don't know.

[Хahar]

It seems more direct than buying off politicos like rich people do today.  Is it worse?  I don't know.

Well, our courts are still reasonably fair, even if the laws they enforce aren't always.

[SPC]

I should disclaim that my views do not reflect those of all libertarians, though I would be happy if other libertarians wanted to defend some of my views.

[SPC]

Why do you believe crack dealers are better role models for inner city black kids than Barack Obama?

Simply, crack dealers are entrepeneurs who find ways around artificial constraints on their business. On the other hand, Obama has threatened to steal now, steal later, or indirectly steal hundreds of billions of dollars on the faux basis of "stimulating the economy".

Grow up, please.

You didn't seem to refute the argument. Could you care to explain how any of the hundreds of billions Obama plans to spend for "stimulating the economy" is voluntarily received? Try not paying your taxes to see what I mean.

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees? Second, you act as if similar situations don't happen under monopoly government. I don't believe that any of the ATF agents involved with Waco or Ruby Ridge had a day of jail time. Third, if the court is corrupt, they will never have any clients again, thus being a net monetary loss.

[Хahar]

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees? Second, you act as if similar situations don't happen under monopoly government. I don't believe that any of the ATF agents involved with Waco or Ruby Ridge had a day of jail time. Third, if the court is corrupt, they will never have any clients again, thus being a net monetary loss.

Let's say he's paranoid and wants to destory all potential competition.

People get destroyed over much smaller things here. Have you ever heard of Watergate?

Or, the corruption attracts other rich people, who bring their cases their to buy out the court. How is the authority of a court guaranteed, at any rate?

[SPC]

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees? Second, you act as if similar situations don't happen under monopoly government. I don't believe that any of the ATF agents involved with Waco or Ruby Ridge had a day of jail time. Third, if the court is corrupt, they will never have any clients again, thus being a net monetary loss.

Let's say he's paranoid and wants to destory all potential competition.

People get destroyed over much smaller things here. Have you ever heard of Watergate?

Or, the corruption attracts other rich people, who bring their cases their to buy out the court. How is the authority of a court guaranteed, at any rate?

If private courts would be as vulnerable to corruption as you claim they are, why do you think a court that has a monopoly would be less corrupt and not more corrupt.

[猫主席]

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees?

If that's true then Bill Gates would not be working day and night to promote Microsoft.

[SPC]

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees?

If that's true then Bill Gates would not be working day and night to promote Microsoft.

Non-sequitor. A more accurate example would be Bill Gates ordering an attack on Apple headquarters.