Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[RKMBrown]

Far more patient posters than I have 'splained all of the principles and nuances to you...I've watched them do so in the thread.

If you're so imbecilic as to not have allowed the least of those principles borrow their way into your thick skull, you're beyond salvage.

Just go watch some Gilligan's Island reruns and order a Dominos pizza.

Seen em all. Dominos is too greasy. Papa-Johns is better.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hunger and survival are probably the two biggest motivators in existence.

People who have privately owned farm plots are more motivated by hunger and survival because 100% of their effort goes to feed themselves.

Under collectivism, you eat the same as everyone else regardless of how much work you do. So if there are 20 people working a collective plot, you get 100% of the benefit of goofing off while you only suffer 1/20 of the reduction in output. The scales are weighted entirely in the direction of goofing off, or more likely of devoting your time to other means of providing yourself with food.

Collective agriculture has been demonstrated to be grossly inefficient wherever it was tried. In the Soviet Union private farm plots, which were all under one acre, produced almost half the food for the entire country.

It's hard to believe that anyone in this day and age would defend collectivized agriculture. but that just goes to show the truth of the claim the so-called "progressives" are really just communists.

That is only true when you are dealing with marginal utility not when you are trying to survive.

This is true whenever dealing with a work/reward system that has any timescale at all. IOW, your hunger is a meaningless motivator when the crops to cure that hunger needed to be planted MONTHS ago. Sure, base needs are good motivators that force people to fill those basic needs NOW but they are completely useless when compared to the complex actions that fill those needs over the long term.

In the example given, by the time those people would have been motivated to ensure the crops were planted and harvested, it would be too late. That ‘extra’ motivation supplied by hunger would be useless at that point. People, in general, are always willing to let someone else take care of something and then blame them when they fail rather than taking care of it themselves. At least they are when there is no perceivable loss when those other succeed.

As far as the Indians go, they are a bad example as communal ownership or socialism is actually very effective in small groups. Even today, there are a million successful examples all around us of successful socialistic societies in families and the like. On that scale – when everyone knows the name of everyone else, is closely tied together and (most importantly) each individual cares for the others, socialism is very effective. The Indians, mostly, lived in communities just like that. There were very few examples of large scale societies that were successful with the Indians. They are there, just not many and none on anything that even remotely resembles the scale that we have today.

 

[bripat9643]

So libertarians don't allow for groups or leadership or type-A personalities? If they don't I'll just stick to constitutional conservative. I don't think I'd like to live in a world where everyone was forced to live independently.

Independence from the initiation of force, yes. From other human beings? No. People still work together and live together. No libertarian believes everyone should just be on their own. Group leadership? Sure why not. Leadership? Well of course, how could any society function without it? Type-A personalities? Again, sure. Libertarians are not against any of those things.

So can I choose to live in a sub-division that has a mandatory tax on property to pay for security, fire, and maintenance of the common areas of the sub-division? Or would libertarians make those illegal? The above discussions sure seemed to indicate their authority over us would result in forcing us to not have any form of mandatory taxation for commonly held property.

If you live in a townhome and you have to pay maintenance fees for upkeep of the grounds and the exterior of the building, is that a tax? How about if you live in a condo?

 

[Eric Cartman]

People who have privately owned farm plots are more motivated by hunger and survival because 100% of their effort goes to feed themselves.

Under collectivism, you eat the same as everyone else regardless of how much work you do. So if there are 20 people working a collective plot, you get 100% of the benefit of goofing off while you only suffer 1/20 of the reduction in output. The scales are weighted entirely in the direction of goofing off, or more likely of devoting your time to other means of providing yourself with food.

Collective agriculture has been demonstrated to be grossly inefficient wherever it was tried. In the Soviet Union private farm plots, which were all under one acre, produced almost half the food for the entire country.

It's hard to believe that anyone in this day and age would defend collectivized agriculture. but that just goes to show the truth of the claim the so-called "progressives" are really just communists.

That is only true when you are dealing with marginal utility not when you are trying to survive.

This is true whenever dealing with a work/reward system that has any timescale at all. IOW, your hunger is a meaningless motivator when the crops to cure that hunger needed to be planted MONTHS ago. Sure, base needs are good motivators that force people to fill those basic needs NOW but they are completely useless when compared to the complex actions that fill those needs over the long term.

In the example given, by the time those people would have been motivated to ensure the crops were planted and harvested, it would be too late. That ‘extra’ motivation supplied by hunger would be useless at that point. People, in general, are always willing to let someone else take care of something and then blame them when they fail rather than taking care of it themselves. At least they are when there is no perceivable loss when those other succeed.

As far as the Indians go, they are a bad example as communal ownership or socialism is actually very effective in small groups. Even today, there are a million successful examples all around us of successful socialistic societies in families and the like. On that scale – when everyone knows the name of everyone else, is closely tied together and (most importantly) each individual cares for the others, socialism is very effective. The Indians, mostly, lived in communities just like that. There were very few examples of large scale societies that were successful with the Indians. They are there, just not many and none on anything that even remotely resembles the scale that we have today.

You are right, hunger is a strong motivator in the moment but watching people starve season after season should still motivate people to at least get a crop planted. I think the original point was that the settlement failed because of collectivism but you point out that communal ownership works in small groups (i.e. the Jamestown settlement).

There might be some libertarian web site that uses Jamestown as an example of the failure of collectivism but all the historical sites that I found using a unbiased google search pretty much give the same reasons for the failure that I posted previously.

For example:
History of Jamestown -- Jamestown Rediscovery

The whole topic has really went off track. I simply was trying to show that it is government (whatever form that it might take) dictates/regulates/assigns/protects land ownership. I don't advocate communism. We have a better system and profit motive is a useful incentive.

 

[bripat9643]

That is only true when you are dealing with marginal utility not when you are trying to survive.

This is true whenever dealing with a work/reward system that has any timescale at all. IOW, your hunger is a meaningless motivator when the crops to cure that hunger needed to be planted MONTHS ago. Sure, base needs are good motivators that force people to fill those basic needs NOW but they are completely useless when compared to the complex actions that fill those needs over the long term.

In the example given, by the time those people would have been motivated to ensure the crops were planted and harvested, it would be too late. That ‘extra’ motivation supplied by hunger would be useless at that point. People, in general, are always willing to let someone else take care of something and then blame them when they fail rather than taking care of it themselves. At least they are when there is no perceivable loss when those other succeed.

As far as the Indians go, they are a bad example as communal ownership or socialism is actually very effective in small groups. Even today, there are a million successful examples all around us of successful socialistic societies in families and the like. On that scale – when everyone knows the name of everyone else, is closely tied together and (most importantly) each individual cares for the others, socialism is very effective. The Indians, mostly, lived in communities just like that. There were very few examples of large scale societies that were successful with the Indians. They are there, just not many and none on anything that even remotely resembles the scale that we have today.

You are right, hunger is a strong motivator in the moment but watching people starve season after season should still motivate people to at least get a crop planted. I think the original point was that the settlement failed because of collectivism but you point out that communal ownership works in small groups (i.e. the Jamestown settlement).

Collectivism doesn't even work good in small groups. A company is a small group of people. My company pays bonuses to its consultants based mostly on the number of hours they bill. Your bonuses can constitute up to about 1/3 of your total pay. What do you imagine someone's motivation to be billable would be if every consultant received the exact same bonus based on how many hours all the consultants billed? There's a reason companies don't structure the compensation that way - because they know from experience that it doesn't produce the desired result.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is true whenever dealing with a work/reward system that has any timescale at all. IOW, your hunger is a meaningless motivator when the crops to cure that hunger needed to be planted MONTHS ago. Sure, base needs are good motivators that force people to fill those basic needs NOW but they are completely useless when compared to the complex actions that fill those needs over the long term.

In the example given, by the time those people would have been motivated to ensure the crops were planted and harvested, it would be too late. That ‘extra’ motivation supplied by hunger would be useless at that point. People, in general, are always willing to let someone else take care of something and then blame them when they fail rather than taking care of it themselves. At least they are when there is no perceivable loss when those other succeed.

As far as the Indians go, they are a bad example as communal ownership or socialism is actually very effective in small groups. Even today, there are a million successful examples all around us of successful socialistic societies in families and the like. On that scale – when everyone knows the name of everyone else, is closely tied together and (most importantly) each individual cares for the others, socialism is very effective. The Indians, mostly, lived in communities just like that. There were very few examples of large scale societies that were successful with the Indians. They are there, just not many and none on anything that even remotely resembles the scale that we have today.

You are right, hunger is a strong motivator in the moment but watching people starve season after season should still motivate people to at least get a crop planted. I think the original point was that the settlement failed because of collectivism but you point out that communal ownership works in small groups (i.e. the Jamestown settlement).

Collectivism doesn't even work good in small groups. A company is a small group of people. My company pays bonuses to its consultants based mostly on the number of hours they bill. Your bonuses can constitute up to about 1/3 of your total pay. What do you imagine someone's motivation to be billable would be if every consultant received the exact same bonus based on how many hours all the consultants billed? There's a reason companies don't structure the compensation that way - because they know from experience that it doesn't produce the desired result.

Your small group is missing the other requirements – mostly that they must all care for one another. The example I gave was within the family where such ownership does, indeed, wok. The community in this case needs to actually care how the others are treated or how unfair the workload is. Usually that requires a very close relationship and that is why the most telling examples lie within the family.

This unit also works within religious conclaves. The group is tied so strongly that they are willing to sacrifice for the whole. Again, I am not advocating this as a governmental solution as the unit breaks down when those ties break and almost certainly leads to failure in larger groups and when tried with groups that are not as tightly bound.

 

[RKMBrown]

Independence from the initiation of force, yes. From other human beings? No. People still work together and live together. No libertarian believes everyone should just be on their own. Group leadership? Sure why not. Leadership? Well of course, how could any society function without it? Type-A personalities? Again, sure. Libertarians are not against any of those things.

So can I choose to live in a sub-division that has a mandatory tax on property to pay for security, fire, and maintenance of the common areas of the sub-division? Or would libertarians make those illegal? The above discussions sure seemed to indicate their authority over us would result in forcing us to not have any form of mandatory taxation for commonly held property.

If you live in a townhome and you have to pay maintenance fees for upkeep of the grounds and the exterior of the building, is that a tax? How about if you live in a condo?

What's the difference between condo fees, association fees to maintain a road and local taxes to maintain a road? Seems like the same thing to me.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, Liberty is Dangerous to Tyrants.

Yes, indeed it is.

Under a Libertarian administration NSA, IRS and TSA agents would be unemployed.

.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

So can I choose to live in a sub-division that has a mandatory tax on property to pay for security, fire, and maintenance of the common areas of the sub-division? Or would libertarians make those illegal? The above discussions sure seemed to indicate their authority over us would result in forcing us to not have any form of mandatory taxation for commonly held property.

If you live in a townhome and you have to pay maintenance fees for upkeep of the grounds and the exterior of the building, is that a tax? How about if you live in a condo?

What's the difference between condo fees, association fees to maintain a road and local taxes to maintain a road? Seems like the same thing to me.

The key difference, in my mind, would be the fact that tax is applied throughout the state and as such, you cannot avoid it. The condo fees are associated with the contract that you took part in when you purchased the property from the last owner. There is a pretty big difference as one involves just you and the owner of that previous property – two parties to the sale. The other, taxing, has a third party that has never owned the property edging in and demanding funding without the proper consent of either of the parties.

 

[RKMBrown]

If you live in a townhome and you have to pay maintenance fees for upkeep of the grounds and the exterior of the building, is that a tax? How about if you live in a condo?

What's the difference between condo fees, association fees to maintain a road and local taxes to maintain a road? Seems like the same thing to me.

The key difference, in my mind, would be the fact that tax is applied throughout the state and as such, you cannot avoid it. The condo fees are associated with the contract that you took part in when you purchased the property from the last owner. There is a pretty big difference as one involves just you and the owner of that previous property – two parties to the sale. The other, taxing, has a third party that has never owned the property edging in and demanding funding without the proper consent of either of the parties.

The third party in all three examples is the other interested parties. At best you could argue you don't like it because there are more parties involved with county tax (fees) than with property association fees.

 

[bripat9643]

What's the difference between condo fees, association fees to maintain a road and local taxes to maintain a road? Seems like the same thing to me.

The key difference, in my mind, would be the fact that tax is applied throughout the state and as such, you cannot avoid it. The condo fees are associated with the contract that you took part in when you purchased the property from the last owner. There is a pretty big difference as one involves just you and the owner of that previous property – two parties to the sale. The other, taxing, has a third party that has never owned the property edging in and demanding funding without the proper consent of either of the parties.

The third party in all three examples is the other interested parties. At best you could argue you don't like it because there are more parties involved with county tax (fees) than with property association fees.

What "other interested parties?" If I take an interest in the deal, do I get to impose my own personal fees? There is no third party in the case of the condo maintenance fees. There are only two parties to that transaction. Taxes are imposed by external third parties who have nothing at stake.

 

[RKMBrown]

The key difference, in my mind, would be the fact that tax is applied throughout the state and as such, you cannot avoid it. The condo fees are associated with the contract that you took part in when you purchased the property from the last owner. There is a pretty big difference as one involves just you and the owner of that previous property – two parties to the sale. The other, taxing, has a third party that has never owned the property edging in and demanding funding without the proper consent of either of the parties.

The third party in all three examples is the other interested parties. At best you could argue you don't like it because there are more parties involved with county tax (fees) than with property association fees.

What "other interested parties?" If I take an interest in the deal, do I get to impose my own personal fees? There is no third party in the case of the condo maintenance fees. There are only two parties to that transaction. Taxes are imposed by external third parties who have nothing at stake.

The other paying members of the group are the other interested parties. In the case of the condo, many condos have shared dues to pay for the grounds maintenance. If one person of the group decides to stop paying the maintenance fees he screws over the others. Because he signed a contract for the maintenance, the condo commando association can take legal action against him, including taking his condo. Same with home owner association contracts. Same with city, county, state, and federal contracts. You sign a contract you are fiscally responsible for making payments. Condo commando associations typically have elections and votes on fees. So, if you try you, can probably get into a position where you can impose your own personal fees. The point being, the condo group would be stupid to put you in that position. But, yes it does happen. Your dream of the two party real-estate transaction, is a fantasy for two people that live on an island with no other inhabitants.

Note that we changed our laws such that everyone of voting age is an interested party in governments. Sucks that we allow people who have no skin in the maintenance to force the others to provide said maintenance. But there you have it.

 

[bripat9643]

The third party in all three examples is the other interested parties. At best you could argue you don't like it because there are more parties involved with county tax (fees) than with property association fees.

What "other interested parties?" If I take an interest in the deal, do I get to impose my own personal fees? There is no third party in the case of the condo maintenance fees. There are only two parties to that transaction. Taxes are imposed by external third parties who have nothing at stake.

The other paying members of the group are the other interested parties. In the case of the condo, many condos have shared dues to pay for the grounds maintenance. If one person of the group decides to stop paying the maintenance fees he screws over the others. Because he signed a contract for the maintenance, the condo commando association can take legal action against him, including taking his condo. Same with home owner association contracts. Same with city, county, state, and federal contracts. You sign a contract you are fiscally responsible for making payments. Condo commando associations typically have elections and votes on fees. So, if you try you, can probably get into a position where you can impose your own personal fees. The point being, the condo group would be stupid to put you in that position. But, yes it does happen. Your dream of the two party real-estate transaction, is a fantasy for two people that live on an island with no other inhabitants.

Note that we changed our laws such that everyone of voting age is an interested party in governments. Sucks that we allow people who have no skin in the maintenance to force the others to provide said maintenance. But there you have it.

This has already been explained to you at least 5 times, so I'm not going for another ride on your wheel of circular logic. Government is not a party to the transaction, end of story.

 

[RKMBrown]

What "other interested parties?" If I take an interest in the deal, do I get to impose my own personal fees? There is no third party in the case of the condo maintenance fees. There are only two parties to that transaction. Taxes are imposed by external third parties who have nothing at stake.

The other paying members of the group are the other interested parties. In the case of the condo, many condos have shared dues to pay for the grounds maintenance. If one person of the group decides to stop paying the maintenance fees he screws over the others. Because he signed a contract for the maintenance, the condo commando association can take legal action against him, including taking his condo. Same with home owner association contracts. Same with city, county, state, and federal contracts. You sign a contract you are fiscally responsible for making payments. Condo commando associations typically have elections and votes on fees. So, if you try you, can probably get into a position where you can impose your own personal fees. The point being, the condo group would be stupid to put you in that position. But, yes it does happen. Your dream of the two party real-estate transaction, is a fantasy for two people that live on an island with no other inhabitants.

Note that we changed our laws such that everyone of voting age is an interested party in governments. Sucks that we allow people who have no skin in the maintenance to force the others to provide said maintenance. But there you have it.

This has already been explained to you at least 5 times, so I'm not going for another ride on your wheel of circular logic. Government is not a party to the transaction, end of story.

There is no person named Government, just as there is no person named Corporation, nor is there a person names Land owners association. Your insistence on assigning government life is really silly. The people of the group are the persons who are the third party to the the transaction. Just as with a group of homeowners a group of citizens is a party to contracts for the group of citizens. If you don't want to sign a contract that has a third party rider, don't sign it.

 

[bripat9643]

The other paying members of the group are the other interested parties. In the case of the condo, many condos have shared dues to pay for the grounds maintenance. If one person of the group decides to stop paying the maintenance fees he screws over the others. Because he signed a contract for the maintenance, the condo commando association can take legal action against him, including taking his condo. Same with home owner association contracts. Same with city, county, state, and federal contracts. You sign a contract you are fiscally responsible for making payments. Condo commando associations typically have elections and votes on fees. So, if you try you, can probably get into a position where you can impose your own personal fees. The point being, the condo group would be stupid to put you in that position. But, yes it does happen. Your dream of the two party real-estate transaction, is a fantasy for two people that live on an island with no other inhabitants.

Note that we changed our laws such that everyone of voting age is an interested party in governments. Sucks that we allow people who have no skin in the maintenance to force the others to provide said maintenance. But there you have it.

This has already been explained to you at least 5 times, so I'm not going for another ride on your wheel of circular logic. Government is not a party to the transaction, end of story.

There is no person named Government, just as there is no person named Corporation, nor is there a person names Land owners association. Your insistence on assigning government life is really silly. The people of the group are the persons who are the third party to the the transaction. Just as with a group of homeowners a group of citizens is a party to contracts for the group of citizens. If you don't want to sign a contract that has a third party rider, don't sign it.

Your sales agreement is not between you and the government. It's between you and the property owner. Government is a third party with nothing at stake in the deal.

End of story.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[RKMBrown]

This has already been explained to you at least 5 times, so I'm not going for another ride on your wheel of circular logic. Government is not a party to the transaction, end of story.

There is no person named Government, just as there is no person named Corporation, nor is there a person names Land owners association. Your insistence on assigning government life is really silly. The people of the group are the persons who are the third party to the the transaction. Just as with a group of homeowners a group of citizens is a party to contracts for the group of citizens. If you don't want to sign a contract that has a third party rider, don't sign it.

Your sales agreement is not between you and the government. It's between you and the property owner. Government is a third party with nothing at stake in the deal.

End of story.

You're grasping at straws.

Yes, my property sales agreement most certainly did involve many third parties. My particular sales agreement involved the seller, a reseller, another party that held 10% of the mineral rights, the land owner's association for all properties in my sub-division, the county commish who represents the citizens of my county, and the state comptroller of Texas who represents the citizens of the State of TX.

Have you never bought a piece of property? You appear to be grasping for facts that are merely imagined in your head.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no person named Government, just as there is no person named Corporation, nor is there a person names Land owners association. Your insistence on assigning government life is really silly. The people of the group are the persons who are the third party to the the transaction. Just as with a group of homeowners a group of citizens is a party to contracts for the group of citizens. If you don't want to sign a contract that has a third party rider, don't sign it.

Your sales agreement is not between you and the government. It's between you and the property owner. Government is a third party with nothing at stake in the deal.

End of story.

You're grasping at straws.

Yes, my property sales agreement most certainly did involve many third parties. My particular sales agreement involved the seller, a reseller, another party that held 10% of the mineral rights, the land owner's association for all properties in my sub-division, the county commish who represents the citizens of my county, and the state comptroller of Texas who represents the citizens of the State of TX.

Have you never bought a piece of property? You appear to be grasping for facts that are merely imagined in your head.

You're a hopeless moron.

We're done.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your sales agreement is not between you and the government. It's between you and the property owner. Government is a third party with nothing at stake in the deal.

End of story.

You're grasping at straws.

Yes, my property sales agreement most certainly did involve many third parties. My particular sales agreement involved the seller, a reseller, another party that held 10% of the mineral rights, the land owner's association for all properties in my sub-division, the county commish who represents the citizens of my county, and the state comptroller of Texas who represents the citizens of the State of TX.

Have you never bought a piece of property? You appear to be grasping for facts that are merely imagined in your head.

You're a hopeless moron.

We're done.

I'm a property owner... you are the hopeless internet troll looking for a piece of property on an asteroid where no one gives a poo what you do on it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Libertarians are the modern Maoists, communists, Utopians who think people are really really nice and government really really bad, all you need is love love, love is all you need. Can anyone name a single project started by libertarians who did it just cause it was required to do it? What comics they are. Anyone remember reading in your history books about a whole bunch of libertarians getting together and building something, cause jeez, they needed to get to the other side, kinda like the chicken did. No? Why not?

Why I Am Not a Libertarian

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50564-libertarianism-in-a-nutshell-ii.html
Why is libertarianism wrong?

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right

Whatever comrade. How many times are you gonna post that stupid straw-man cartoon?

 

[FA_Q2]

There is no person named Government, just as there is no person named Corporation, nor is there a person names Land owners association. Your insistence on assigning government life is really silly. The people of the group are the persons who are the third party to the the transaction. Just as with a group of homeowners a group of citizens is a party to contracts for the group of citizens. If you don't want to sign a contract that has a third party rider, don't sign it.

Your sales agreement is not between you and the government. It's between you and the property owner. Government is a third party with nothing at stake in the deal.

End of story.

You're grasping at straws.

Yes, my property sales agreement most certainly did involve many third parties. My particular sales agreement involved the seller, a reseller, another party that held 10% of the mineral rights, the land owner's association for all properties in my sub-division, the county commish who represents the citizens of my county, and the state comptroller of Texas who represents the citizens of the State of TX.

Have you never bought a piece of property? You appear to be grasping for facts that are merely imagined in your head.

Yes but there is a clear difference with those parties and the government. With the association, they manage communal property that you all OWN. A piece of that property is included in your property and you are therefore liable for its upkeep. Same goes with all the others that you mentioned they are all party to the process not because they are some random third party that is edging into your deal but because they are actual owners of something connected with that purchase. Government, on the other hand, owns nothing at all within that area. They are not a party to it in any shape or form. Those taxes are arbitrarily imposed on any transaction and there is nothing that you can do about it. Don’t want an association? Buy a property that has no communal property. Don’t want to be taxed, buy….. um… er….

Nothing. There is no way out of that state tax other than purchasing a property that is not in the state. Now, that’s even out of the question as there is no state that does not impose some sort of property tax that I am aware of. In essence, you don’t actually own anything. You did not really purchase any property at any time in your life. What you did was lease it from the government. They can raise that cost on your lease at any time and if you don’t pay, they are going to take it away.

There is a clear difference in tax and what you are mentioning and that clear difference is actual ownership of the property.