How Libertarianism leads to Aristocracy

[Alien Space Bats]

TRANSLATION: I am unable to explain how having to pay income tax is as bad as being raped, whipped, or killed without a trial, so I'm blaming you for being so thick-headed as to not agree with me on everything.

<nods>

Yeah, that's about the size of it. Because the horror that is the modern poultry industry is, indeed, worse than the Nazi Holocaust.

This is full blown bullshit. I never said it was "as bad" as slavery in the South. Why don't you focus on addressing the arguments?

I did, ZR. You specifically asked, as I recall:

What is the difference between slavery in the South and the slavery that the income tax imposes on us?

I responded with quite a powerful list of profound differences. Frankly, if you weren't prepared to hear the answer, then you shouldn't have ever asked the question.

Oh, and just for the record, the very form in which you framed your question...

What is the difference between slavery in the South and the slavery that the income tax imposes on us?

... Implies that you seriously can't see any, which is exactly the same as claiming that being taxed and regulated by the modern state is every bit as bad as slavery.

But I understand how, having been called out for being absurdly hyperbolic, you'd like to get your ass back under cover before you get paddled any further.

<pause>

Without idiotic carpentry analogies, would you care to offer examples?

It is actually irrelevant to whether income taxation is slavery or not, so in the effort of not giving you a red herring to exploit I will say that I am not going to go into that portion of the argument.

I'm glad to see that you recognize that your idiotic analogy was, indeed, spectacularly idiotic. Where I come from, we call that "progress".

You keep drawing parallels to income tax and slavery, and claiming there's no genuine difference. I have paid taxes. I have never been bought, been sold, been stabbed because my owner was in a pissy mood, worked from dusk till dawn for no pay, been raped by my owner, been fed to Lampreys for dropping a glass cup, or any of the other things that have historically happened to slaves. So trust me, I can tell the difference.

I have already explained this, over and fucking over. It is like you guys are conspiring against me, to literally make my head explode. There are OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF SLAVERY. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU AREN'T BEING WHIPPED, YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE. IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN THE HOUSE SLAVES THAT WERE TREATED WELL WERE IN FACT NOT ACTUALLY SLAVES. NOW ARGUE THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS.

It's simple enough, really.

Your position is that any involuntary obligation placed upon you by the state is absolutely identical to a total denial of all your human rights and liberties; in your eyes, there is no middle ground whatsoever, a position that normal people understand to be utter horseshit.

The truth is that the imposition of a few obligations on you by the state still leaves you largely free to order and organize your life pretty much as you see fit; indeed, few societies have granted their citizenry the broad liberties found in the world's developed democracies today. Even a century ago you would not have been as free as you are today, either here in America or in Europe, taxes or no; yet you still see your situation as functionally identical to that of an individual held in chattel slavery.

I can only conclude that you either have absolutely no sense of proportion, or that you don't understand how utterky lacking in liberty real slaves were - and that's not just African slaves in the antebellum South, but slaves living in just about every other culture that has ever existed in the history of the world. Just to help you, I'll give you a hint: It wasn't just about compensation for labor provided; there are many, many other things in life than that (although, strangely, libertarians seem to want to pretend otherwise, suggesting as a group considerable difficulty in getting laid, among other things).

Of course, what's truly ironic about this entire overblown analogy you continue to insist upon is the fact that most modern libertarians seem to think that slavery contracts - in which an economically distressed person agrees to become the chattel property of another individual, usually to avoid starvation or in an attempt to discharge a debt - are entirely proper. Slavery, then, really isn't a problem; the problem is having someone tell you what to do without your consent (which we actually get, BTW - but most of us just don't seem to think of it as the end of the bleeding world).

Taking that in perspective, then, the fact that libertarians can't see true slavery as a genuine evil, while talking about any involuntary public obligation as though it were absolute murder, tantamount to a complete and utter abrogation of all your human rights, tells me all I need to know in judging your ideology to be the cracked and idiotic thing it truly is.

[AiliailiA]

If government took 16% of a person's labor that could be called slavery (still loosely though, since the person could more easily avoid that compelled labor -- by illegally working for undeclared income -- than a slave could resist orders or escape).

Say for instance, that for each five days a person worked for a private employer, the government would require them to do one day of the same work for government.

But it's not like that is it? Income tax is a tax on income, and the person is free to take or leave the job. When they took the job, they took it knowing that their take-home pay would be less than their nominal pay, and if the work is not acceptable to them on those terms they could simply not take the job. They may be practically compelled to take the job by needing money ... but if we would call that slavery then we should call all paid work slavery too.

It's fair to say that income tax is a tax on jobs. The exchange of labor for wages is made less viable (for the employer and employee) by income tax. And while that's bad, to call it slavery is stretching the definition of slavery mendaciously.

[Norstal]

paying taxes = slavery?

Oh ooookay.

*backs away slowly*

Back as far away as you want, I don't want slavery apologists on my property

I'm sorry, what? Denying that paying taxes is a slavery makes you slavery apologists?

[ZombieRothbard]

I responded with quite a powerful list of profound differences. Frankly, if you weren't prepared to hear the answer, then you shouldn't have ever asked the question.

Oh, and just for the record, the very form in which you framed your question...

Just for the sake of putting this irrelevant pile of shite behind us, I will cede that my language was probably not clear enough for you to understand, even though it was pretty clear what I meant given the context, which is especially true after I spent the past several pages explaining that I do in fact believe there are several differences between slavery in the South and income tax slavery.

But I understand how, having been called out for being absurdly hyperbolic, you'd like to get your ass back under cover before you get paddled any further.

I actually addressed this exact point a while back, but you chose to ignore it. Maybe it was a mistake, or maybe it was pure dishonesty, who knows. I hope it is just a simple misunderstanding.

I'm glad to see that you recognize that your idiotic analogy was, indeed, spectacularly idiotic. Where I come from, we call that "progress".

Like I just said above, I gave an "idiotic carpentry analogy" and you basically said "eh, fuck your analogy, I am going to pretend you never even explained your position so I can later call you out for never explaining your position".

It's simple enough, really.

Your position is that any involuntary obligation placed upon you by the state is absolutely identical to a total denial of all your human rights and liberties; in your eyes, there is no middle ground whatsoever, a position that normal people understand to be utter horseshit.

The truth is that the imposition of a few obligations on you by the state still leaves you largely free to order and organize your life pretty much as you see fit; indeed, few societies have granted their citizenry the broad liberties found in the world's developed democracies today. Even a century ago you would not have been as free as you are today, either here in America or in Europe, taxes or no; yet you still see your situation as functionally identical to that of an individual held in chattel slavery.

If you read the parts I bolded in the second paragraph, you are basically admitting that you support slavery, you just say that the terms of our slavery aren't as bad as it used to be, and therefor slavery is justified, or we aren't slaves. Obviously this doesn't make sense, as "we have it better than we did before" is not an excuse to condone slavery. And like I said several times, again, I do believe there are differences between types of slavery.

I can only conclude that you either have absolutely no sense of proportion, or that you don't understand how utterky lacking in liberty real slaves were - and that's not just African slaves in the antebellum South, but slaves living in just about every other culture that has ever existed in the history of the world. Just to help you, I'll give you a hint: It wasn't just about compensation for labor provided; there are many, many other things in life than that (although, strangely, libertarians seem to want to pretend otherwise, suggesting as a group considerable difficulty in getting laid, among other things).

Again, like I said before, whether you are whipped or not does not define whether you are a slave. If it did, then house slaves in the South that were treated well were not actually slaves.

And wtf is this about not getting laid or whatever? Christ, I know you are probably as nerdraged as I am right now, but good god man, have some respect.

Of course, what's truly ironic about this entire overblown analogy you continue to insist upon is the fact that most modern libertarians seem to think that slavery contracts - in which an economically distressed person agrees to become the chattel property of another individual, usually to avoid starvation or in an attempt to discharge a debt - are entirely proper.

Well then I must not be a modern libertarian, since I reject slave contracts. I am glad that you acknowledge their existence though, that is more than most statists will do, so bravo.

Slavery, then, really isn't a problem; the problem is having someone tell you what to do without your consent (which we actually get, BTW - but most of us just don't seem to think of it as the end of the bleeding world).

Whether or not most people agree with you is irrelevant, since it is an appeal to majority.

Taking that in perspective, then, the fact that libertarians can't see true slavery as a genuine evil, while talking about any involuntary public obligation as though it were absolute murder, tantamount to a complete and utter abrogation of all your human rights, tells me all I need to know in judging your ideology to be the cracked and idiotic thing it truly is.

Erm, I reject all forms of slavery, including the one you support.

[Lomenore]

If that's the case, why is it taxation has been dropping on a steady scale since the 1950s? Why is it the amount of government services have expanded? If the state were merely interested in squeezing as much out of us as possible, they wouldn't bother with things like social security, the GI Bill, the EPA, Automobile safety legislation, free elections, tax refunds, public schools, or anything else they've done to benefit us. A state that's only interested in squeezing as much as possible out of its people would look more like a feudal fief then a democratic state.

People need to be kept happy to prevent them from revolting, that is the nature of the state. They need to give you enough so you can sustain yourself and create more wealth to loot. The state gives back money in the form of welfare for example in order to buy off the lower classes to keep them from revolting. If you keep the poor fed and housed you can avert revolution.

If the state is buying off the lower classes, then why don't they provide more services? You'd think the US would have had free universal healthcare for ages rather then arguing over creating it. If the state is simply interested in squeezing the population, why haven't they used their authority to outright nationalize all businesses? If someone wants something, they'll take steps to get it. The US government, indeed, most democratic governments, have not behaved in this fashion.

I'm seeing a pattern here. Whenever the state takes something from you, it's wicked evil theft. Whenever you take something from the state, it's just recompense, or simply being strung along to be used for more "slave labor." You're consistent at least, but that's about all I can say to compliment you.

[ZombieRothbard]

If the state is buying off the lower classes, then why don't they provide more services? You'd think the US would have had free universal healthcare for ages rather then arguing over creating it. If the state is simply interested in squeezing the population, why haven't they used their authority to outright nationalize all businesses? If someone wants something, they'll take steps to get it. The US government, indeed, most democratic governments, have not behaved in this fashion.

Communism doesn't work, that is why states don't monopolize the entire market. And if they tried to do that in a country like the U.S., it would likely result in civil unrest and a collapse of the people in power. They keep you happy so you don't complain, so you don't call them out on it or revolt. That is how the state operates, if you have a bunch of hungry unemployed people in the streets, Egypt happens. That is why they buy the poor off with welfare.

I'm seeing a pattern here. Whenever the state takes something from you, it's wicked evil theft. Whenever you take something from the state, it's just recompense, or simply being strung along to be used for more "slave labor." You're consistent at least, but that's about all I can say to compliment you.

When the state gives you something, they don't ask, they just hand it to you and force you to accept it.

[Trotskylvania]

Christ, you're not serious, are you?

<pause>

You are, aren't you?

• Slaves were not permitted to marry.
  
  
• Slaves could not travel about, even to and from town, without a signed note from their masters.
  
  
• Slaves could not own property.
  
  
• Slaves could not enter into contracts.
  
  
• Slaves could not refuse work ordered by their masters.
  
  
• Slaves could not refuse sex if ordered by their masters.
  
  
• Slaves could have their children taken from them for no reason at all.
  
  
• Slaves could be beaten or even put to death without legal recourse.

That's just a list I threw together in under a minute; I could come up with hundreds more differences.

The moral of the story? Extreme hyperbole only makes the person engaging in it look like an idiot.

Slavery is defined differently depending on each culture it is in. So you're just making yourself seem uneducated.

For fuck's sake....

Slaves are property. Are you property? Does someone control every moment of your existence, and has absolute power of life and death over you? If you say no to any of these questions, you're not a slave, Get the fuck over it, and cut this disingenuous argument.

[Gauthier]

Slavery is defined differently depending on each culture it is in. So you're just making yourself seem uneducated.

For fuck's sake....

Slaves are property. Are you property? Does someone control every moment of your existence, and has absolute power of life and death over you? If you say no to any of these questions, you're not a slave, Get the fuck over it, and cut this disingenuous argument.

But since he has slaves in his ancestry that means he can legitimately claim to be enslaved by The State.

[Lomenore]

Communism doesn't work, that is why states don't monopolize the entire market. And if they tried to do that in a country like the U.S., it would likely result in civil unrest and a collapse of the people in power. They keep you happy so you don't complain, so you don't call them out on it or revolt. That is how the state operates, if you have a bunch of hungry unemployed people in the streets, Egypt happens. That is why they buy the poor off with welfare.

So this evil despotic government makes sure its citizens are well fed, educated, healthy, and safe? That doesn't fit with any definition of despotism I've ever heard of. Now, if you argued that the US government routinely handled matters by imprisoning without trial, searching without warrants, and censoring the media so there was never any criticism of government policy, then you'd have an argument grounded in reality.

I'm seeing a pattern here. Whenever the state takes something from you, it's wicked evil theft. Whenever you take something from the state, it's just recompense, or simply being strung along to be used for more "slave labor." You're consistent at least, but that's about all I can say to compliment you.

When the state gives you something, they don't ask, they just hand it to you and force you to accept it.

Not true. I'm eligible for food stamps, but I don't take it. My GI Bill offers me a stipend for books, but I buy my own off Amazon instead of the book store at the State college I attend. I'm allowed to bear arms, but gun ownership isn't mandatory. I'm allowed to take my legal disputes before a judge, but I'm also allowed to settle out of court. What country are you actually in? It doesn't seem to be one on this planet.

[Lomenore]

For fuck's sake....

Slaves are property. Are you property? Does someone control every moment of your existence, and has absolute power of life and death over you? If you say no to any of these questions, you're not a slave, Get the fuck over it, and cut this disingenuous argument.

But since he has slaves in his ancestry that means he can legitimately claim to be enslaved by The State.

I have Irish ancestors, does that mean I can legitimately claim the English government has mistreated me?

[Trotskylvania]

But since he has slaves in his ancestry that means he can legitimately claim to be enslaved by The State.

I have Irish ancestors, does that mean I can legitimately claim the English government has mistreated me?

My ancestors were Eastern European Jews and Poles... I think I win this one.

[Set the Unbound]

If that's the case, why is it taxation has been dropping on a steady scale since the 1950s? Why is it the amount of government services have expanded? If the state were merely interested in squeezing as much out of us as possible, they wouldn't bother with things like social security, the GI Bill, the EPA, Automobile safety legislation, free elections, tax refunds, public schools, or anything else they've done to benefit us. A state that's only interested in squeezing as much as possible out of its people would look more like a feudal fief then a democratic state.

People need to be kept happy to prevent them from revolting, that is the nature of the state. They need to give you enough so you can sustain yourself and create more wealth to loot. The state gives back money in the form of welfare for example in order to buy off the lower classes to keep them from revolting. If you keep the poor fed and housed you can avert revolution.

^ Its not often I whole-heartedly agree with one of your posts, but this. Exactly this.

I would add that the ruling class are afraid, not only of armed revolution, but also of riots and property crime, union strikes and go-slows, and political protests that publicize the prevalence of any of the above. And of espionage, sabotage and subversion sponsored by rival states or factions.

The more the above are realistic threats, the less the ruling class can afford to monopolize privileges, and the more likely they are to be replaced if they do. Benefits they share have less to do with benevolence and caring and more to do with political survival.

My question to you though - how does your vision of Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism compensate politically for the absence of any stabilizing influence of welfare, state infrastructure, healthcare etc. ?

[Nazi Flower Power]

My question to you though - how does your vision of Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism compensate politically for the absence of any stabilizing influence of welfare, state infrastructure, healthcare etc. ?

It doesn't.

[Lomenore]

The stock argument seems to be if people didn't have to pay taxes they'd have more income free to give to charity, so the less fortunate are covered. Of course, people who claim they can't afford to help will still find some way to avoid it, whether they pay taxes or not. And people who want to help will do it regardless of how much they pay in taxes. I know someone who recently filed for bankruptcy, and she's still looking for ways to help the less fortunate. She's trying to get permission from hospitals to take her little dog around to visit sick kids, and hopefully cheer them up that way.

[Set the Unbound]

My question to you though - how does your vision of Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism compensate politically for the absence of any stabilizing influence of welfare, state infrastructure, healthcare etc. ?

It doesn't.

I want ZR to answer though...

[Distruzio]

It doesn't.

I want ZR to answer though...

ZR is asleep I think, and since we are of VERY similar mind on this issue, I'll do my best to answer in his stead. I'm sure he'll correct any inconsistencies he sees.

how does your vision of Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism compensate politically for the absence of any stabilizing influence of welfare, state infrastructure, healthcare etc. ?

It doesn't.

[Set the Unbound]

I want ZR to answer though...

ZR is asleep I think, and since we are of VERY similar mind on this issue, I'll do my best to answer in his stead. I'm sure he'll correct any inconsistencies he sees.

how does your vision of Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism compensate politically for the absence of any stabilizing influence of welfare, state infrastructure, healthcare etc. ?

It doesn't.

Thank you, then, Distruzio.

Your ideal society sounds...brief.

[Distruzio]

Thank you, then, Distruzio.

Your ideal society sounds...brief.

Haha, okay, but seriously. Libertarian anarchists, be they anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-monarchists, agorists, voluntaryists, or objectivists (I include the objectivist very hesitantly since they border on vanguardism of a Stalinist flavor), do not seek an ideal society beyond one that embraces individual liberty first and foremost. All the amenities of the statist quo would, in a libertas quo, be absolutely dependent upon the determination of the local community. We don't oppose gov't. We oppose the State. Any community that decides that a centralized public utility cartel is in their interest should and would, under any one of our conceptualizations of anarchy, be free to do so. We don't seek to replace the institutions you worry about. We merely seek to allow an opt out for individuals.

Beyond that, there are significant free market laissez fair responses to "public goods" and negative externalities. First and foremost, privatize everything. And I mean everything. Privatize law, the ocean, roads, radio waves, everything. Negative externalities are easily addressed by the application of property rights (hence the privatization) to everything. Concern over roads, water, and public welfare are dealt with by fraternalism. The way America used to address social concerns before the second World War. For one days wage, a man could purchase a year long insurance policy from an organization that would provide him and his family with healthcare, daycare, education, and adoption service. These fraternities still exist, in various forms, although largely suspected as "secret societies."

[Set the Unbound]

Thank you, then, Distruzio.

Your ideal society sounds...brief.

Haha, okay, but seriously. Libertarian anarchists, be they anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-monarchists, agorists, voluntaryists, or objectivists (I include the objectivist very hesitantly since they border on vanguardism of a Stalinist flavor), do not seek an ideal society beyond one that embraces individual liberty first and foremost. All the amenities of the statist quo would, in a libertas quo, be absolutely dependent upon the determination of the local community. We don't oppose gov't. We oppose the State. Any community that decides that a centralized public utility cartel is in their interest should and would, under any one of our conceptualizations of anarchy, be free to do so. We don't seek to replace the institutions you worry about. We merely seek to allow an opt out for individuals.

Beyond that, there are significant free market laissez fair responses to "public goods" and negative externalities. First and foremost, privatize everything. And I mean everything. Privatize law, the ocean, roads, radio waves, everything. Negative externalities are easily addressed by the application of property rights (hence the privatization) to everything. Concern over roads, water, and public welfare are dealt with by fraternalism. The way America used to address social concerns before the second World War. For one days wage, a man could purchase a year long insurance policy from an organization that would provide him and his family with healthcare, daycare, education, and adoption service. These fraternities still exist, in various forms, although largely suspected as "secret societies."

It sounds attractive, and yes, fraternal organizations (and family/clans/tribes) are the only well-established working alternatives to government, historically speaking.

I have my doubts about how well they can operate in a modern, industrial, highly-networked trade-dependent society, however. Private companies in the absence of a central monopoly government tend to do the things prohibited here - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_Act_2010.

"Reputation" didn't stop these behaviors in the Middle Ages, nor does it in weakly-governed Third World nations today.
And civil suits are a disastrously impractical way to impose costs for sulfur-dioxide polluters, among other things.
And private charity is a very fallible way to address inequities in inherited wealth and opportunity.

There are a lot of positive ideas in Libertarian Anarchism, but I personally feel it is too vulnerable to the prompt emergence of little corporate governments to be realized fully...

[Distruzio]

It sounds attractive, and yes, fraternal organizations (and family/clans/tribes) are the only well-established working alternatives to government, historically speaking.

I have my doubts about how well they can operate in a modern, industrial, highly-networked trade-dependent society, however. Private companies in the absence of a central monopoly government tend to do the things prohibited here - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_Act_2010.

"Reputation" didn't stop these behaviors in the Middle Ages, nor does it in weakly-governed Third World nations today.
And civil suits are a disastrously impractical way to impose costs for sulfur-dioxide polluters, among other things.
And private charity is a very fallible way to address inequities in inherited wealth and opportunity.

There are a lot of positive ideas in Libertarian Anarchism, but I personally feel it is too vulnerable to the prompt emergence of little corporate governments to be realized fully...

Well, I have yet to see anyone but the most philosophically naive libertarian and the most poorly read statist suggest that private charity would by and large account for social welfare in any meaningful amount. Honestly, it is the position of the Church and other fraternal organizations to aide the unfortunate. Not the State. Although private charity would exist, it can not and should not be counted on.

Private law would not be the only law in effect. Religious law, arbitration, legislation, public law, coded law, corporate law, and any manner of other forms of law would all be in effect. As I said, privatizing everything would account for any negative externalities. There would be no monopolist judiciary. Impracticality is a nonissue.

Your first point is a critique of proto-statism and the statist quo, not necessarily a critique of a libertas quo. With monopoly privileges being bestowed and market interventionism rampant, you can be sure that "reputation" would be a poor check, indeed. But again, not one of us argue against gov't. We all acknowledge the family as the origin of civilization and the most basic of gov'tal forms. Building from that, it should be of no difficulty to ponder the realities of social compulsion and how they'd affect a libertas quo.

I personally feel it is too vulnerable to the prompt emergence of little corporate governments to be realized fully

Why is this a bad thing? Hundreds of thousands of tiny competing mini-States is at least hundreds of thousands of times better than fewer than 200 mega-States. The more States there are, the greater chance for prosperity despite the fact that the State is anti-human. Abolishing the State cannot and should not be desirable if it happens overnight. It should be gradual. The State did not foist itself upon us overnight. If we stand against it, then we must think of propriety and keep individual liberty firmly within our scope, lest we get distracted by any number of confusions (the 14th amendment to the US constitution and intellectual property rights come to mind).

[Set the Unbound]

Well, I have yet to see anyone but the most philosophically naive libertarian and the most poorly read statist suggest that private charity would by and large account for social welfare in any meaningful amount. Honestly, it is the position of the Church and other fraternal organizations to aide the unfortunate. Not the State. Although private charity would exist, it can not and should not be counted on.

Private law would not be the only law in effect. Religious law, arbitration, legislation, public law, coded law, corporate law, and any manner of other forms of law would all be in effect. As I said, privatizing everything would account for any negative externalities. There would be no monopolist judiciary. Impracticality is a nonissue.

Okay, well said.

But what about "jurisdiction shopping" and "institution shopping" - where competing authorities exist, parties appeal to the one most likely to favor themselves. The Western hierarchical system has problems, too, I'll grant, but competing authorities has the potential to be worse, and lead to deadlock or violence. This happened a lot in the past...

Your first point is a critique of proto-statism and the statist quo, not necessarily a critique of a libertas quo. With monopoly privileges being bestowed and market interventionism rampant, you can be sure that "reputation" would be a poor check, indeed. But again, not one of us argue against gov't. We all acknowledge the family as the origin of civilization and the most basic of gov'tal forms. Building from that, it should be of no difficulty to ponder the realities of social compulsion and how they'd affect a libertas quo.

I like this.

I personally feel it is too vulnerable to the prompt emergence of little corporate governments to be realized fully

Why is this a bad thing? Hundreds of thousands of tiny competing mini-States is at least hundreds of thousands of times better than fewer than 200 mega-States. The more States there are, the greater chance for prosperity despite the fact that the State is anti-human. Abolishing the State cannot and should not be desirable if it happens overnight. It should be gradual. The State did not foist itself upon us overnight. If we stand against it, then we must think of propriety and keep individual liberty firmly within our scope, lest we get distracted by any number of confusions (the 14th amendment to the US constitution and intellectual property rights come to mind).

I like this too.

Although mini-states have an alarming historical tendency to be forcibly unified.

Well argued!

[Tergnitz]

'True libertarians' would not prohibit the use of slave contracts and should not be against the concept of slavery in general, as long at it is grounded in a market based system.

[Set the Unbound]

'True libertarians' would not prohibit the use of slave contracts and should not be against the concept of slavery in general, as long at it is grounded in a market based system.

I'm going to walk around with a clip board, offering six-year-olds Disney merchandise if they sign contracts to be my slaves-for-life starting at age 20. Age 20 is a long way away when you're six...

Failing that, I'll target adults with unequal contracts when they're drunk.

And if you disagree with my plans, then you must secretly believe in consumer / employee protection legislation, or oppose slavery, or both.

[Distruzio]

'True libertarians' would not prohibit the use of slave contracts and should not be against the concept of slavery in general, as long at it is grounded in a market based system.

Oh? And why is that, given that the purpose of libertarianism is to emphasize individual liberty and that slavery is the antithesis to that liberty?

[Lomenore]

How are you supposed to get any sort of justice with differing and conflicting legal codes?