Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Actually, the US is the only place in the world that distinguishes between anarchism and libertarianism. Most places do use them interchangeably.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
What country do you live in, anyway?

---

Quote:

---

If you'd bother to take some time to read libertarian authors (a web search would find them) you can find details of how a libertarian system might work. I'm not gonna quote entire books here. I suggested Murray Rothbard, I believe.

---

Quote:

---

As for 100% fair, probably not. Maybe fairer than a lot of the governments in the world. Would you prefer, say, Saudi Arabia to a society where folks were determined to not use force to get their way?

---

Quote:

---

As opposed to summoning random people to serve on juries, and allowing the lawyers involved to reject anyone they think might understand the law enough to rule against their client, or might be prejudiced against their opponent due to race, status, education, etc.? Seems that it'd be at least as impartial to me.

---

Quote:

---

You think jurors in our current system don't have prejudices that might unfairly influence their decisions? What fantasyland do you live in? Lawyers look for those prejudices during jury selection.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3. What would you do in your world if your random jurists did act unfairly? What recourse would the inured party have?

---

Random jurors, actually. Jurists are judges, lawyers, and legal scholars.

Appeal to another arbitrator? What recourse does a person in the U.S. - or anywhere there is trial by jury - have? Appeal is about it. Then there's the places where there is trial by government court only, or folks just disappear. I'll take the random jurors, please

---

Quote:

---

Well, actually it'd be judge selection, but the arbiter would have to be acceptable to all parties. As noted above, I'd as soon have random jurors as those pre-screened for lack of knowledge and presence of prejudice by the lawyers.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Could you explain who gets to decide what "fair" means? What if someone disagrees with what you think is obviously fair. Do you win, or them?

---

A libertarian "government" (for want of a better term), like all reasonably free governments, depends on the consent of the governed (This excepts places like, say, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Zimbabwe, et al.). It would need to have a pretty substantial percent of the people buy into the idea that neither a person or a group of persons could initiate force - physical, financial, or by intimidation - against any other person or group of persons.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, come on. I'm saying that the majority if folks in a libertarian society (and you couldn't have a libertarian society without a substantial majority agreeing to it) wouldn't support unfairness because it'd violate the non-aggression principle.

---

Quote:

---

Once again, consent of the governed. Most everyone agrees to play by the rules. Those that don't, and won't pay their debt, get shunned. No one will do business with them. They can't get a job. Folks can refuse to sell to them. Social pressure is applied.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I also get wht you say your fantasy can't come alive: because those Other People who aren't you won't let it. The cries of the poor victimized libertarian! Funny, you claim that everyone is responsible for pulling their own selves up by their bootstraps. But when libertarians can't do that, it's not their fault. They shouldn't be expected to, because that's somehow not fair.

---

So now it's just insults. Whoopee.

I believe that a society of folks who follow a few basic tenets, such as that all rights are at core property rights, and that you have no right to aggress against anyone else, could very easily work. I'd like to live there.

---

Quote:

---

You apparently believe that if you, as an individual, didn't have laws to constrain you, you'd become a ravening beast, grabbing everything you could for yourself, and to hell with everyone else.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And still you can't give a non-fictional situation where your dream system works/worked.

---

How long did it take in human civilization before democracy worked? What conditions had to be met before it could? Might be that the time just isn't right yet.

---

Quote:

---

Can you really say that you'd prefer, say, Stalinist Russia or North Korea to a society where most everyone thinks that coercion of anyone is wrong, and are willing to resist such coercion with force? If you do, then you're pretty scary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Actually, the US is the only place in the world that distinguishes between anarchism and libertarianism. Most places do use them interchangeably.]

---

Probably because the USA is different, being of an entirely different concept than what its founders had left behind, in old Europe.

A representative republic, from the founding, where there are no kings, no castes. An IDEA that starts with all being being equal.
/b]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
if you flipped your happy switch and made the US libertarian, they people would still be there.

---

Quote:

---

Nope. You claim this system is so great, YOU define it and YOU defend it. Can you?

---

Quote:

---

Strawman. I am not defending Saudi Arabia. I am defending the existing US. The existing US is not Saudi Arabia.

---

Quote:

---

At least as? Meaning no better and quite possibly worse.

---

Quote:

---

Funny thing is, what you are suggesting, the selection of random passers-by, is exactly the jury selection process but on a much smaller scale.

---

Quote:

---

You mis-read what I was saying. I know people have biases, and I want a system that addresses that as our jury selection does. The question I asked was how would your system of random passers-by would reduce this bias. Because people would still be biased, and more likely to be so if all they have to guide them is to go by what their gut tells them is Right.

---

Quote:

---

3. What would you do in your world if your random jurists did act unfairly? What recourse would the inured party have?

---

Quote:

---

Random jurors, actually. Jurists are judges, lawyers, and legal scholars.

Quote:

---

OK, I guess that's sort of an answer. You so are so sure that your random passer-by jury would be more fair (though you have given no reason why it would) that you have no need for recourse.

---

---

Quote:

---

Fine, so when you're driving through the Bible belt in your libertarian-dream America and the locals arrest you for not having a Bible on hand and sentence you to a week's penance in the form of hard labor, you will meekly do as they command with no ability to appeal.

---

Quote:

---

And how, in reality and not a Heinlein novel, is that pre-screening different from jury selection?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Actually, the US is the only place in the world that distinguishes between anarchism and libertarianism. Most places do use them interchangeably.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I can see someone in the 16th century saying the same thing about monarchy."

Any cites for that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Geezer - I'm working on a reply that will group topics and shorten these posts a bit. Won't get to it for real until tomorrow.

Have to say, though, I entered this thread thinking this would be another RWA annoyance, but it's turned into an interesting discussion. Thank you for that.

(I still think you're wrong though. ;) )

---

Quote:

---

If you'd bother to take some time to read libertarian authors (a web search would find them) you can find details of how a libertarian system might work. I'm not gonna quote entire books here. I suggested Murray Rothbard, I believe.

---

Quote:

---

Explain to someone who believes in the divine right of kings how democracies decide whether a rule has been broken. All he knows is that the king makes the rules.

---

Quote:

---

If you'd bother to take some time to read libertarian authors (a web search would find them) you can find details of how a libertarian system might work. I'm not gonna quote entire books here. I suggested Murray Rothbard, I believe.- GEEZER

But I think the point was ... why has this never been tried in real life?? There are dozens of influential authors who've written about utopias of various sorts- Most notably Sir Thomas More who wrote the eponymous book Utopia, but starting with Plato's Republic... possibly even further back, if one includes The Garden of Eden. And in every book that claims to lay out how people could create a utopia, it requires that everybody adhere to a rigid ideology, or the system falls apart.-SIGNY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, libertarians are so wrapped up in doing ONLY what benefits them directly and immediately, that they are incapable of banding together long-term for the greater good of all.

Got it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

If you'd bother to take some time to read libertarian authors (a web search would find them) you can find details of how a libertarian system might work. I'm not gonna quote entire books here. I suggested Murray Rothbard, I believe.- GEEZER

But I think the point was ... why has this never been tried in real life?? There are dozens of influential authors who've written about utopias of various sorts- Most notably Sir Thomas More who wrote the eponymous book Utopia, but starting with Plato's Republic... possibly even further back, if one includes The Garden of Eden. And in every book that claims to lay out how people could create a utopia, it requires that everybody adhere to a rigid ideology, or the system falls apart.-SIGNY

---

STILL not answered?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
No. I have a life outside RWED, and it's been busy. Mowing the lawn, watching the Belmont, laundry, packing for a trip, etc.

---

Quote:

---

The people aren't "sheeple" because the people are stupid, just as Orwell's 1984 wasn't a great book because it was some fantastical fantasy future not grounded in reality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Who??? People who do stuff online are libertarians? Wow, way to stretch a definition!

Also, this statement about using an "unbelievably decentralized" internet... It is maintained by some VERY centralized servers and protocols, as well as de facto communications monopolies. Also, it can be (and has been) hacked by governments (centralized) and corporations (even more centralized) quite effectively. Writer does not know the first thing about the internet and appears to just be a rather stupid parasite on the system. Oh, wait, maybe he IS a libertarian after all!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

---

Quote:

---

Either way you're contradicting yourself in here somewhere, and the logic train derailed and exploded into dada-esque rainbow sparkles and a field of flowers that looks like something Dr. Seuss dreamed up. I suddenly no longer know if anything means anything, except to say, godDAMN man I want some chocolate or something.

---