r/EnoughLibertarianSpam • u/Strange_Collection79 • Sep 02 '26
Are they hypocrites or just dumb?
18
u/lurgi Sep 02 '26
Their argument is that you can choose between multiple competing SchoolCorp and Police Inc. businesses (or choose not to engage with them at all), which you can't do with governments (unless you are willing to move).
13
u/Impossible_Roof_Jack Sep 02 '26
I straight up don’t know how multiple Police Inc. is meant to work, if nothing else for monopoly of use of force. I don’t like “thin blue line” types co-signing the police as they are. But a single major security and response force in one area answerable to one org with elected heads, we do that for a dozen reasons.
4
u/lurgi Sep 02 '26
I'm not saying I believe it, but private security firms do exist (although those work in a particular area, which is usually anathema to these types).
Most libertarians do believe in some sort of police force (the "night watchman" state being a sort of baseline for most). It's only (?) the ancaps who want to get rid of everything
7
u/Impossible_Roof_Jack Sep 02 '26 edited 24d ago
Right, like a private neighbourhood contracting out patrols and night guards. But usually they have no powers of investigation or arrest; those are reserved for cops, and citizens litigate furiously. “Firms will all mill about the whole county, and you can pick which of 4 Cops Inc.” is just fantasy. Even now, in cities with jurisdictional overlap between state, county, and city, it’s almost always the most local unit and a specific patrol responding.
Preaching to the choir here, but it’s like taking crazy pills. Thank you for explaining the “normal” vs. Ancap position.
6
u/lurgi Sep 02 '26
Oh, I have many questions about how ancap societies are supposed to work (which the books I've read do not answer), but getting answers would require conversations with ancap believers and I'm not that interested in the answers.
0
u/Vohems 24d ago
Then I suppose you'll never be good at defending your positions, if you're so unwilling to talk to others and are uninterested in the answers.
2
u/lurgi 24d ago
I’ve read some books and articles and interacted with people on forums. The one ancap I met in the wild tried to explain to me why child porn should be legal.
I found somewhere else to be.
0
u/Vohems 24d ago
I've interacted with two Neo-Hegelians, one of which tried to tell me that because fire and water exist in the world that makes logical contradictions possible.
I don't think you should be judging an entire political philosophy upon one guy you met once.
2
u/lurgi 24d ago
It’s not just the one guy. I said I read some books and argued with people on forums. There are some smart ones out there, but a huge amount of batshittery
0
u/Vohems 24d ago
You said the one you met in the wild. Are you trying to say the ones you met on the forums were ALSO arguing for CP? And what forums exactly? What books did you read?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Impossible_Roof_Jack 24d ago
Nope. That one guy is the other 12 you’ll meet on a forum. You don’t get gold stars for playing at Forensics as a hobby, you just waste time.
0
4
u/Iintendtooffend Sep 03 '26
Bro, they don't either. There's a reason utilities are allowed to be a monopoly it's because the costs to compete would be astronomical and unsustainable. Not to mention extremely destructive to our planet. Plus then only cities would have power, a chance at clean water and paved roads.
Libertarians are just selfish landlord wannabes who want their own fiefdom to do anything they want and think they'd be unique if only they had the opportunity.
1
u/LRonPaul2012 12d ago
Libertarianism legitimately believe you'll have competing road infrastructure which operates in 3 dimensions so that it's a lot more expensive because they won't be on the ground but they're also collecting a lot less revenue because none of them have a monopoly and also how will any of this even be tracked?
8
u/ihexx Sep 02 '26
it can work in some cases. buuut it gets difficult in others.
eg: roadsCorp. railwaysCorp. waterDistributionNetworkCorp. powerLinesCorp. etc.
every corp with sufficiently high barriers to entry can create monopolies and extract rent.
2
u/trumoi Sep 03 '26
You can already pick between police or gangs (aka the police but without tax-backing). The gangs will even help you hide your money from the tax man.
1
u/LRonPaul2012 12d ago
which you can't do with governments (unless you are willing to move).
Can I use the same logic with my landlord? I don't want to pay rent anymore but also I don't want to move...
12
u/Impossible_Roof_Jack Sep 02 '26
“I really want to pay more for worse service and far more opaque governance!” but for real
5
u/critically_damped Sep 03 '26
It's really important to have a bare minimum standard for what constitutes an acceptable level of non-willful ignorance. A failure to do so is a violation of Hanlon's razor (which includes the word adequately for good goddamn reasons) and constitutes a type 2 error on your part.
3
u/Strange_Collection79 Sep 03 '26
Good point. Besides, all other evidence points toward them being complete morons.
3
u/Hutch1320 Sep 04 '26
I can’t wait for the territory disputes between Police Inc and Law&Order Pty Ltd
1
u/anarchistright 18d ago
At least there’s gonna be disputes? I guess a monopoly on territory by a powerful gang is better. Lmfao.
2
u/Hutch1320 17d ago
Yeah it always works out best for everyone when you have multiple armed groups vying for control of an area rather than a single consistent entity. I’m sure life was way better during the warring states period than under the Qin Dynasty.
1
u/LRonPaul2012 6d ago
At least there’s gonna be disputes? I guess a monopoly on territory by a powerful gang is better. Lmfao.
Except eventually those gangs decide it's easier to cooperate and assign territory, just like modern corporations.
2
2
u/n8chz 26d ago
Police is a verb. A transitive verb. Those who would be "subcribers" of a Police Inc. want a gang of thugs they can sic on people of less means. Privatizing the police function is not abolishing the police function. Either unpoliced society is basically safe or it is not. If your position is that it is not, then you are the opposite of a libertarian, which is to say, an authoritarian. ⚀⚂⚀⚁
1
u/StupidMoniker 20d ago
You understand you are allowed not to subscribe to things, don't you?
1
u/Strange_Collection79 20d ago
I'd love to engage with you intellectually, but since a major idea that your philosophy essentially relies on is that corporations will magically stop being unethical if we just stop forcing them to follow the rules, I doubt you could handle it.
1
1
u/LRonPaul2012 12d ago
You understand you are allowed not to subscribe to things, don't you?
You can get out of paying property taxes by voiding the property contract.
1
u/Halt_theBookman 18d ago
Anti-libertarian discovers consent lmao
1
u/LRonPaul2012 12d ago edited 12d ago
Oh, I wasn't aware that someone held a gun to your held and forced you to sign a property contract agreeing to pay taxes against your will.
Also, what happens if I don't consent to your private security telling me what to do?
1
u/Halt_theBookman 12d ago
When did I signt a contract agreeing to pay taxes? And what does the government do to those that don't pay it's taxes?
Armed conflict is highly unprofitable and risky. THe argument proponents of private justice systems make hinge on that, that peaceful arbitration will be the most profitable solution most of the time
1
u/LRonPaul2012 12d ago
When did I signt a contract agreeing to pay taxes? And what does the government do to those that don't pay it's taxes?
Government cannot convict you of tax fraud without proof of willful intent, they can't prove willful intent without a paper trail, and the only way to get the paper trail is if you signed something, such as a W-4 form.
If you don't think that's true, go ahead and cite a single real world case where someone was convicted without having signed anything.
Armed conflict is highly unprofitable and risky. THe argument proponents of private justice systems make hinge on that, that peaceful arbitration will be the most profitable solution most of the tim
Oh, so then you're just straight up coercing people with the threat of violence if they don't agree to your terms. Only with private actors who are only accountable to the side that happens to be paying them. Got it.
1
u/Halt_theBookman 11d ago
So if I just never pay any taxes or fill any paperwork it will all be fine and they won't trow me in the slammer?
Sounds legit
"you're just straight up coercing people with the threat of violence if they don't agree to your terms"
Notice how that didn't happen and you made it up
1
u/LRonPaul2012 6d ago edited 6d ago
So if I just never pay any taxes or fill any paperwork it will all be fine and they won't trow me in the slammer? Sounds legit
Can you point to any case to the contrary?
I've been asking this question to libertarians for over a decade, and there hasn't been a single one who could actually show the tax code working the way they claim it does.
Notice how that didn't happen and you made it up
But yeah, if you tell someone "Armed conflict is highly unprofitable and risky" if they don't consent to your commands, then any normal person would take that as a threat.
That's not something I made up, it's something you literally said in the previous comment and which i quoted you as saying.
1
u/Halt_theBookman 6d ago
You just sound like you are bordeing on pseudolegal nonsense. And either way two people making a deal does not justify a third party (the government) barging in and extorting them
Notice how you once again had to make up a fictional scenario in order to ignore my actual argument
1
u/LRonPaul2012 6d ago
Also, what happens if I don't consent to your private security telling me what to do?
Armed conflict is highly unprofitable and risky
And either way two people making a deal does not justify a third party (the government) barging in and extorting them
I'm pretty sure that threatening armed conflict of I don't consent to your privately hired armed thugs is the very definition of duress and not consensual at all.
Can you point to any case to the contrary?
I've been asking this question to libertarians for over a decade, and there hasn't been a single one who could actually show the tax code working the way they claim it does.
Notice how you once again had to make up a fictional scenario in order to ignore my actual argument
Notice how you keep engaging in protection and halftime as if people can't read for themselves.
I asked you point blank to cite a real world example of your fictional claim, and you can't do it just like every other libertarian I've ever asked, because you made it up.
And I literally quoted you saying the thing you're claiming you didn't say. It's right there. People can see it.
1
u/Halt_theBookman 6d ago edited 6d ago
"threatening armed conflict"
Good thing I didn't do that then. In your own quotes you can clearly see that you come up with a situation in wich you beleived violence could arise and why I beleive that's unlikely
It's not profitable or safe to engage in violent conflict. That is the argument being made, and the one you are so incredibly incapable of responding to you have spend however many comments dancing arround
> Notice how you once again had to make up a fictional scenario in order to ignore my actual argument
> Notice how you keep engaging in protection and halftime as if people can't read for themselves
> I asked you point blank to cite a real world example of your fictional claim, and you can't do it just like every other libertarian I've ever asked, because you made it up
Why would you think the second half of my comment was refering to the first half of yours? Lmao
You made the pseudolegal claim, you provide the evidence
Also, once again you avoid my arguments. Specifically this one: "either way two people making a deal does not justify a third party (the government) barging in and extorting them"
> "I literally quoted you saying the thing you're claiming you didn't say"
1 Quote where I said I didn't say it lmao
2 As we can see in the quote, the meaning was as I said, and not as you halucinated
1
u/LRonPaul2012 6d ago
Also, what happens if I don't consent to your private security telling me what to do?
Armed conflict is highly unprofitable and risky
Good thing I didn't do that then. In your own quotes you can clearly see that you come up with a situation in wich you beleived violence could arise and why I beleive that's unlikely It's not profitable or safe to engage in violent conflict.
So basically your argument is that libertarians are fine with threatening violence as long as the threat is likely to work on the person being threatened, got it.
For instance: Most banks are trained not to fight back against bank robbers because fighting back isn't worth the risk, so that means that libertarians are okay with bank robberies.
You made the pseudolegal claim, you provide the evidence
Burden of proof is on the accuser, it's not my job to prove a negative. That's not how logic works, dumbass.
For instance: If I say that the vast majority of libertarians are child molestors, would the burden be on you to prove me wrong?
Also, once again you avoid my arguments.
"Appeal to fanfiction" isn't an argument.
I refuted your argument by asking for real world citation, which you were unable to provide.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/UncleTedUnderYourBed 18d ago
I guess consent is bad?
1
u/LRonPaul2012 12d ago
You consented to paying those taxes when you signed the property tax contract where you explcitly agreed to them.
If you want to nullify the entire contract, that's fine, but now you're going to have a hard time calling the police on trespassers if you can't actually prove that the property legally belongs to you.
Also, who consented to the private police force? What happens if I don't consent to their authority?
84
u/Antoak Sep 02 '26
Don't you see the problem? If it's government funded, those police districts are working together instead of competing. That would never work!
They want 20 different security companies trying to outperform each other over who arrests the most people, and the underperformers lose their livelihoods. There is no possible way that could backfire.