Minyin Bison

[Hasbinbad]

As far as the gobbledy**** in that url, it is my opinion that people like your man tend to fixate on the ideal and trend away from talking about reality. The description he would have you believe is of late 1940's - mid 1950's small business as the dominant economic force, and seems to ignore the fact that the economy is now dominated by dividends rather than providing a good or service.

[M.Bison]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As far as the gobbledy**** in that url, it is my opinion that people like your man tend to fixate on the ideal and trend away from talking about reality. The description he would have you believe is of late 1940's - mid 1950's small business as the dominant economic force, and seems to ignore the fact that the economy is now dominated by dividends rather than providing a good or service.

Ill agree with you that Friedman's model tends to relate to a small business driven market. But consider this, in the model, there are no state provided law enforcement. There would be a demand for a service(or "goods") that provided protection. Im sure I dont have to tell you that in any free market system(or black market), once there is a demand, supply will follow. If any one agency was guided purely by dividends rather than the service they provided, its customers would simply cease to use said agency, and it would decay. Conversely if an agency was driven to provide the best service it can, at the lowest possible cost, it would flourish.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by M.Bison [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ill agree with you that Friedman's model tends to relate to a small business driven market. But consider this, in the model, there are no state provided law enforcement. There would be a demand for a service(or "goods") that provided protection. Im sure I dont have to tell you that in any free market system(or black market), once there is a demand, supply will follow. If any one agency was guided purely by dividends rather than the service they provided, its customers would simply cease to use said agency, and it would decay. Conversely if an agency was driven to provide the best service it can, at the lowest possible cost, it would flourish.

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

[purist]

Anytime anyone says anything promoting libertarianism, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union.

Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose driving the libertarian ideology. This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.”

And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it.

The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union. That’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks. Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country.

We must be prepared to identify those who disrupt and sabotage our national purpose of creating this “more perfect union” identifying those who sabotage our national goal of “promoting the General Welfare”—and calling them by their name: traitors, and then spitting on them.

[Nakara]

Wow you typed up a lot of bullshit for nothing. He's promoting anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism, please don't lump the two together because they are nothing alike.

[Nakara]

Although you are obviously not serious dumb people will still believe what you said

[Nakara]

So stop posting ironically because people here won't get it

[Hoggen]

If you pay a "private police force" to enforce laws (wtf did they come from? The private law making company?), they ARE the government. Simple definition of government= a monopoly on force. In areas where there is no police force, or military, the mob is the government. Anarchism is not a system of government: it is a transitional period between governments. It is necessarily the shortest and most chaotic period in a society as the void left by the previous government is filled by the new.

As to Purist's post back on page 1, the Declaration of Independence is not written in modern phrasology. If you only read the Federalist and the Constitution, it should already be obvious that "welfare" and "union" are not even remotely defined as you attempted to define them.

The union is referring to the states: there can be no mistake if you read the Federalist. The purpose of the "union" is defended in the Federalist and spelled out in minute detail: to protect against foreign or domestic enemies, to aid in commerce, and to allow for uniformity of law. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to severely limit the powers of the Federal government, and this was cemented by the addition of the Bill of Rights. In this respect, Libertarians have it right: the government is doing much more than it was ever intended to do.

"Welfare," as quoted in Article 1 of the Constitution, refers to the security of the country itself, and has nothing to do with individuals, i.e. nothing to do with making sure each individual is happy/well-fed/clothed, whatever. The modern definition of "welfare" is a purely socialist concept and not connected with the original intent of the founders. The use of the word in Federalist 1 clearly is meant to apply to individuals, but you need look no further than Federalist 5 than to see that personal liberty, religion, and property were to be secured by the federal government: not restricted, abolished, and confiscated, respectively.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anytime anyone says anything promoting libertarianism, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union.

Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose driving the libertarian ideology. This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.”

And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it.

The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union. That’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks. Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country.

We must be prepared to identify those who disrupt and sabotage our national purpose of creating this “more perfect union” identifying those who sabotage our national goal of “promoting the General Welfare”—and calling them by their name: traitors, and then spitting on them.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinbad]

You people quit shitting up the thread.

Topic:

Originally Posted by M.Bison [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A government isnt a bad thing. A government that is localized and has consolidated all power on the other hand can be very dangerous. Under Friedman's model, no one PDA(private defense agency) would have any more power than the other. And if one agency did find themselves with more power, then people would stop patronizing it. Effectively putting them out of business. The free market would govern itself.

Originally Posted by M.Bison [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ill agree with you that Friedman's model tends to relate to a small business driven market. But consider this, in the model, there are no state provided law enforcement. There would be a demand for a service(or "goods") that provided protection. Im sure I dont have to tell you that in any free market system(or black market), once there is a demand, supply will follow. If any one agency was guided purely by dividends rather than the service they provided, its customers would simply cease to use said agency, and it would decay. Conversely if an agency was driven to provide the best service it can, at the lowest possible cost, it would flourish.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So if localized "PDAs" are constrained by some outside mechanism (people not patronizing them, w/e), what happens when my criminal organization outguns an individual force? Do they cooperate? Under what rules? Do innocent citizens get financially and perhaps literally burned as the trial and error sorts itself?

I can poke massive holes in your man's theory honestly, but I reject it outright. The only solution to organized crime is a scalable organized peacekeeping force. This is self-evident.

..but I thought you were against a state..?

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

I await your response, BISON.