SPC (and other libertarians) Political Views Discussion Thread

[Earth]

What if there's clearly malice or fraud in a situation before the court? What's done in that case?

Could you clarify please? Thank you.

I mean fraud uncovered by the arbitration agency. Who would have the capabilities to fine, if necessary, individuals who are found guilty? Could this arbitration agency function as a civil court?

[SPC]

What if there's clearly malice or fraud in a situation before the court? What's done in that case?

Could you clarify please? Thank you.

I mean fraud uncovered by the arbitration agency. Who would have the capabilities to fine, if necessary, individuals who are found guilty? Could this arbitration agency function as a civil court?

If they are caught commiting fraud, it would look bad for their case and their credibility. People who be much more reluctant to ever enter into a contract with them again. The arbitration agency could impose a fine in exchange for the fraud being taken off the record.

[Earth]

But on what authority would this agency be based on? Simply having two companies agree on the agency's role in a case doesn't necessarily imply that they'd have the authority to levy fines.

[SPC]

But on what authority would this agency be based on? Simply having two companies agree on the agency's role in a case doesn't necessarily imply that they'd have the authority to levy fines.

The contract between the two companies and the arbitration agency would have to sort such matters out.

[k-onmmunist]

To sum up this thread, SPC gave everyone a drubbing.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Im' sorry.. I've read this entire thread now.  The number of posts that SPC has simply chosen to ignore and the lack of concrete arguments as well as the number of times he has simply distracted from the issue at hand leads me to believe that while his fantasy of Libertyland might look good in his mind, it only comes to that due to a healthy dose of ignorance and lack of real world application.

Human society has been through this in the past.  It resulted in Feudalism.  As hunter-gather tribes settled down (which were largely much more equal and communist with the idea of each according to his ability and each according to his need) they began to farm. 

As time went on, the natural state of warring between people led to certain strong people able to defend themselves from attackers.  Neighbors saw this and began to gather around this guy for support.  In exchange they paid him a "tax" and offered military support.

When the new chief bore children, he bequeathed that power to his children who then inherited their father's wealth.  It was no longer the strongest man in charge, but his children... and they kept the system in place.. the people paid their tax to him in exchange for protection.

As time went on, however, the leader began to take advantage of his position and started to oppress those he protected and used his position of power to keep them from rising up.. also using fear and public shows of force to keep people in their place.

People lived for centuries to millennia in this fashion until either

A)  Population grew enough and people started to become educated and they incited a revolution

or

B)  Population grew, health improved, and people became educated, and the natural government already in place, in order to prevent revolution and to keep most of their power and comfortable position of wealth, allowed reforms over a period of time that ultimately gave freedom to the people incrementally.

WIth the advent of capitalism, the wealth was still highly concentrated among the top.... and while the rising tide did lift all boats, the vast majority of people still lived in relative poverty.. free or not.

THis resulted in the rise of socialist, anarchist, and communist movements.  Again, some went full force with revolution.. while others sought a more moderate approach.

All your society would do SPC, is start this whole process all over again.. except this time I don't think we could incite revolution.. what with all the military/weapons technology we have today.  It would be permanent oppression for 99.9% of us and immense wealth, privilege,  and power for the other 0.1%.

[Vepres]

If a giant meteor was heading towards Earth and would impact the planet in three months, and totally obliterate human civilization, and you were President, would you just let the free market solve the problem?

[Ban my account ffs!]

If a giant meteor was heading towards Earth and would impact the planet in three months, and totally obliterate human civilization, and you were President, would you just let the free market solve the problem?

The meteor wouldn't strike earth because its insurance company would determine that it would cost too much money to pay the insurance companies of all the people negatively affected by the impact.  Besides, if the meteor hit the earth, the reputation of meteors would seriously decline.

[Хahar 🤔]

To sum up this thread, SPC gave everyone a drubbing.

OK, then, little imperialist anarchist. You explain how courts could make impartial decisions if funded by donations.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To sum up this thread, SPC gave everyone a drubbing.

OK, then, little imperialist anarchist. You explain how courts could make impartial decisions if funded by donations.

An impartial decision... is a decision that goes the way the invisible hand wants it to. Obviously.

[Vepres]

I don't want to bring the Lincoln debate up again, but I found an interesting article on the subject. Interesting that he had a change of heart on the issue after dealing with Missouri.

[Vepres]

I have a question too. Do you believe corporations should have the same rights as an individual person?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I have a question too. Do you believe corporations should have the same rights as an individual person?

     Well, I'd say that corporations should "have" whatever rights can be inferred as an extension of their owner's rights. To elaborate, strictly speaking they themselves would have no rights, though certain rights of their owner & of their agents would effectively, if not technically, extend to being rights of the corporation.

[Vepres]

I have a question too. Do you believe corporations should have the same rights as an individual person?

     Well, I'd say that corporations should "have" whatever rights can be inferred as an extension of their owner's rights. To elaborate, strictly speaking they themselves would have no rights, though certain rights of their owner & of their agents would effectively, if not technically, extend to being rights of the corporation.

Does that include to right for a corporation to donate to run political ads? What about bribing politicians through a "campaign donation"? Campaign donations in general?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I have a question too. Do you believe corporations should have the same rights as an individual person?

     Well, I'd say that corporations should "have" whatever rights can be inferred as an extension of their owner's rights. To elaborate, strictly speaking they themselves would have no rights, though certain rights of their owner & of their agents would effectively, if not technically, extend to being rights of the corporation.

Does that include to right for a corporation to donate to run political ads? What about bribing politicians through a "campaign donation"? Campaign donations in general?

     I suppose you are referring to bundling, in that case. a CEO would be within his rights to make a donation & request that all employees do the same, though giving them incentives for doing so or forcing them to do so would be immoral.

[k-onmmunist]

SPC, how would you enforce free market roads? Who would own the sidewalks?

[Free Palestine]

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.

Grow up, please.

[Vepres]

I have a question too. Do you believe corporations should have the same rights as an individual person?

     Well, I'd say that corporations should "have" whatever rights can be inferred as an extension of their owner's rights. To elaborate, strictly speaking they themselves would have no rights, though certain rights of their owner & of their agents would effectively, if not technically, extend to being rights of the corporation.

Does that include to right for a corporation to donate to run political ads? What about bribing politicians through a "campaign donation"? Campaign donations in general?

     I suppose you are referring to bundling, in that case. a CEO would be within his rights to make a donation & request that all employees do the same, though giving them incentives for doing so or forcing them to do so would be immoral.

Funny, I typically don't think of CEOs as "moral".

[Swing Voter]

I have a question too. Do you believe corporations should have the same rights as an individual person?

     Well, I'd say that corporations should "have" whatever rights can be inferred as an extension of their owner's rights. To elaborate, strictly speaking they themselves would have no rights, though certain rights of their owner & of their agents would effectively, if not technically, extend to being rights of the corporation.

Does that include to right for a corporation to donate to run political ads? What about bribing politicians through a "campaign donation"? Campaign donations in general?

     I suppose you are referring to bundling, in that case. a CEO would be within his rights to make a donation & request that all employees do the same, though giving them incentives for doing so or forcing them to do so would be immoral.

Funny, I typically don't think of CEOs as "moral".

That's why you aren't a libertarian. (Or a Republican)

[SPC]

I have a question too. Do you believe corporations should have the same rights as an individual person?

     Well, I'd say that corporations should "have" whatever rights can be inferred as an extension of their owner's rights. To elaborate, strictly speaking they themselves would have no rights, though certain rights of their owner & of their agents would effectively, if not technically, extend to being rights of the corporation.

Does that include to right for a corporation to donate to run political ads? What about bribing politicians through a "campaign donation"? Campaign donations in general?

     I suppose you are referring to bundling, in that case. a CEO would be within his rights to make a donation & request that all employees do the same, though giving them incentives for doing so or forcing them to do so would be immoral.

Funny, I typically don't think of CEOs as "moral".

Do you think they are subhuman and incapable of morality?