Reasons to vote libertarian 2016 (Gary Johnson Q&A included)

[Mkuki]

Oh, indeed - but they are 'allowed' to do so only because the Constitution is being ignored.

This has happened before, and the Constitution wins in the end. We just have to fight for it.

And why do we adhere to the Constitution?

What reparations are there if a representative/government fails to adhere to the Constitution?

Getting voted out? Then why haven't they been so already?

I think the federal government would take away federal dollars that are given to the states.

[Blasveck]

And why do we adhere to the Constitution?

What reparations are there if a representative/government fails to adhere to the Constitution?

Getting voted out? Then why haven't they been so already?

I think the federal government would take away federal dollars that are given to the states.

So the states are punished if they fail to adhere to the Constitution.

Who punishes the Federal Government for not adhering to the Constitution?

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, indeed - but they are 'allowed' to do so only because the Constitution is being ignored.

This has happened before, and the Constitution wins in the end. We just have to fight for it.

And why do we adhere to the Constitution?

What reparations are there if a representative/government fails to adhere to the Constitution?

Getting voted out? Then why haven't they been so already?

Well, in theory, the system of checks and balances including the Supreme Court, etc. keeps us at some kind of close tangent to the Constitution.

People want what they want, and they try to impose that on the state and the Constitution... but the Constitution wins in the end, because the system is set up so it will.

[Blasveck]

And why do we adhere to the Constitution?

What reparations are there if a representative/government fails to adhere to the Constitution?

Getting voted out? Then why haven't they been so already?

Well, in theory, the system of checks and balances including the Supreme Court, etc. keeps us at some kind of close tangent to the Constitution.

People want what they want, and they try to impose that on the state and the Constitution... but the Constitution wins in the end, because the system is set up so it will.

And who enforces the Constitution?

Who makes sure that the Constitution "wins in the end"?

[Mkuki]

I think the federal government would take away federal dollars that are given to the states.

So the states are punished if they fail to adhere to the Constitution.

Who punishes the Federal Government for not adhering to the Constitution?

I'd assume it's the electorate who would punish the federal government. Not to mention that the federal government isn't some monolithic institution. That's why separation of powers and checks and balances exist. It gives the federal government the ability to punish itself. The judiciary invalidating laws deemed unconstitutional, for instance, are one way that such a thing is achieved.

Well, in theory, the system of checks and balances including the Supreme Court, etc. keeps us at some kind of close tangent to the Constitution.

People want what they want, and they try to impose that on the state and the Constitution... but the Constitution wins in the end, because the system is set up so it will.

And who enforces the Constitution?

Who makes sure that the Constitution "wins in the end"?

SCOTUS.

Define "wins in the end". The Constitution is a living document. It isn't set in stone.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, in theory, the system of checks and balances including the Supreme Court, etc. keeps us at some kind of close tangent to the Constitution.

People want what they want, and they try to impose that on the state and the Constitution... but the Constitution wins in the end, because the system is set up so it will.

And who enforces the Constitution?

Who makes sure that the Constitution "wins in the end"?

...Zoolander flashback.

[Orham]

And who enforces the Constitution?

Who makes sure that the Constitution "wins in the end"?

In the USA's case, the Supreme Court. They've been granted final authority on constitutionality, and as a consequence whatever they say is constitutional is, for all intents and purposes, constitutional until such time as their decision is overturned.

[Blasveck]

And who enforces the Constitution?

Who makes sure that the Constitution "wins in the end"?

In the USA's case, the Supreme Court. They've been granted final authority on constitutionality, and as a consequence whatever they say is constitutional is, for all intents and purposes, constitutional until such time as their decision is overturned.

On what grounds?

[Orham]

In the USA's case, the Supreme Court. They've been granted final authorityon constitutionality, and as a consequence whatever they say is constitutional is, for all intents and purposes, constitutional until such time as their decision is overturned.

On what grounds?

Marbury v. Madison.

[Distruzio]

If i possess the power and reaponsibility you believe i do (and it is a belief)...

I gave up reading any further when I realised you'd already been objectively and demonstrably wrong 4 times in 16 words.

There's simply no way I can keep up with that kind of wrong-to-word ratio.

You know what? I think I've finally grasped out miscommunication. When you say "responsibility" you mean involuntary obligation. When I say responsibility I mean duty to another person. All of this would have been avoided if you'd just stuck with the actual definition of the word.

[Distruzio]

As for the social contract argument you posit, we have, I think, come to an impasse, then. Such an impasse, however, only means we differ in certain respects. By no means do I resent society as it exists within the context of the contract. I merely point out that it only applies to an individual where the individual voluntarily acquiesces. Involuntary acquiescence invalidates the contract. And my heritage is exactly what I have in mind. If the social contract is, indeed, valid because your ancestors chose to abide it, and that contract is binding upon you because of their choice, then how, I must ask, does the same hold true for me? If the contract is valid per the individual choice to remain, I ask from where has my choice been determined? At what point was the contract negotiated? Since it never was, then it can never, in reality, apply until I actually choose to abide.

That's where the impasse is formed, see? You don't seem to see your continued consumption of state-provided services as implicit agreement to be bound by the contract. You instead insist on explicit consent, like putting your signature to paper or being asked to click "I Agree". I can say that I view your continued consumption of state services as your signature, just as Google can insist that your use of its search engine (regardless of whether you've clicked "I Agree" or signed a piece of paper) constitutes agreement to be bound by their terms, but I just don't know what I'm supposed to do to convince you that this is true. I thought providing a private market example might help, but it clearly hasn't.

I just don't know what to do to convince you at this point. Do you feel that implicit consent just plain doesn't exist?

Of course it does. The issue is that, in order for you to present an example of implied consent via market actors as applicable to implied consent via the State then you have to ignore the very real negotiating power of the consumer present in the market. Tell me, as a consumer of government services just how do you negotiate the prices for services rendered? Should you really pay for roads you never drive on? What if you don't own a car? Should you really pay for defense from enemies oceans away living in caves? What if they live oceans away and live in caves? The point is that, in a market, implied consent doesn't constitute an actual fee for services rendered.

Moreover, if I were to mow your lawn without your consent and then charge you for it no court would find in my favor upon a lawsuit. Why? Because services rendered prior to contractual obligation are invalid and of no force. If even the government asserts this then how can I be subject to implied consent relative to your example of market forces?

All in all, I'd say that you're correct. We are at an impasse in this regard but, please, do not assume this means I think any less of you or that there is anything but admiration from my end.

And, more unfortunate for proponents of the social contract theory, especially in a liberal (or social) democracy is that the very arguments they use for the services provided the citizen by the State that necessitates acquiescence contradicts the reality. If a certain degree of welfarism is necessary to promote as equitable a society as possible then where is the government program to allow those like myself who reject the contract?

The process of rejecting/terminating your agreement with the state is emigration.

Indeed. The process of it. Not the conclusion. The process. I actively agitate against democracy - therefore the "process" is begun. I actively ameliorate myself of certain financial responsibilities for the inevitable abandonment of the democracy in which I reside - therefore the "process" continues. Therefore I cannot be said to be subject to the social contract.

If it does, then what of the fringe men and women who exist on their own volition - away from society without use of the services provided by the State? Are they beholden to the contract?

Come now, Distruzio. Are you really going to try to convince me that a lonely woodsman who has produced every implement they use themselves doesn't consume the services provided by the state's national defense apparatus? Its law enforcement apparatus? Its environmental management apparatus?

Yes. I am.

If services render secures acquiescence which services are they? All of them?

Got it in one. If you benefit from even one service the state provides, however miniscule, and you exist within its sovereign territory, you're bound by its terms of service. Exactly.

Then you admit that this contract is, indeed, quantifiable and is, therefore, subject to consideration via market realities. Since I never explicitly agreed to pay for the services provided me I am not liable for them. I cannot be said to be subject to the social contract.

[Distruzio]

You seem to be trying to apply a kind of theological logic to an objective argument. It's not a format that's likely to be compatible. What you 'believe' is irrelevant to a question of definition.

I seem to recall you starting this inroad into theological interpretations of this subject here:

The Bible says: "And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

You cited scripture because you know I'm a Christian and that the Bible holds a special place in my perspective. Obviously, you had hoped to stir something in me by appealing to the Bible in order to substantiate your twisted concept of responsibility when wielding power. The thing is that while Jesus implored me to love my neighbors as though they were myself he didn't add and addendum stating, "if your neighbor take issue then wield thy sword against him until he do." Which is exactly what exercising my "power" in this paradigm you attempt to paint me as subject to does.

I am, if I accept your premise of wielding power, being quite responsible by not assaulting my neighbor with it. It is you and every other democratist who seek to raise arms against your neighbors until they acquiesce who act irresponsibly.

But again, that's presuming that your premise is even valid. Which it, of course, isn't.

[Grave_n_idle]

You cited scripture because you know I'm a Christian...

I cited scripture as one of three sources of the same sentiment, only one of which was 'religious' text, per se, showing that it stretches back thousands of years in one wording or another.

Yes, I thought you'd recognise that text. No, it wasn't the argument.

[Grave_n_idle]

I gave up reading any further when I realised you'd already been objectively and demonstrably wrong 4 times in 16 words.

There's simply no way I can keep up with that kind of wrong-to-word ratio.

You know what? I think I've finally grasped out miscommunication. When you say "responsibility" you mean involuntary obligation. When I say responsibility I mean duty to another person. All of this would have been avoided if you'd just stuck with the actual definition of the word.

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee Show IPA
noun, plural re·spon·si·bil·i·ties.
1.
the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.

Since you have some degree of power, control, and management in the democratic process, you are responsible, answerable and accountable by definition. Indeed, that's been a pretty consistent theme throughout the discussion.

Ironically, your smoking gun against the argument that you have a responsibility by definition, is that you are insisting on interpreting the words in a way contrary to how they are defined.

[Bottle]

I gave up reading any further when I realised you'd already been objectively and demonstrably wrong 4 times in 16 words.

There's simply no way I can keep up with that kind of wrong-to-word ratio.

You know what? I think I've finally grasped out miscommunication. When you say "responsibility" you mean involuntary obligation. When I say responsibility I mean duty to another person. All of this would have been avoided if you'd just stuck with the actual definition of the word.

Add me to the list of people who had no idea that "responsibility" is defined as "duty to another person."

I must be missing something in this exchange, because this seems like such an obviously backwards accusation.

[Orham]

Of course it does. The issue is that, in order for you to present an example of implied consent via market actors as applicable to implied consent via the State then you have to ignore the very real negotiating power of the consumer present in the market. Tell me, as a consumer of government services just how do you negotiate the prices for services rendered?

That would be voting for candidates which offer to move tax rates in your preferred direction. Taxes are the price mechanism of state services, a reflection of their cost of provision. The tax rate is the sticker price, and is adjusted by electing representatives which express an intention to either raise or lower said sticker price.

Should you really pay for roads you never drive on? What if you don't own a car? Should you really pay for defense from enemies oceans away living in caves? What if they live oceans away and live in caves?

Yes, because state services can't be practically provided on an a la carte basis. They are, rather, provided as a bundle. I expect an a la carte tax system would be a bureaucratic nightmare, truth to be told.

To borrow from Souseiseki, state services are like a can of crisps. You don't buy crisps individually, you buy a can or bag with a specified number of crisps inside. Just as you cannot walk up to the counter of your local store, tear open a bag of buns, and insist that you only be charged the per unit price for a single one because that's all you intend to eat, you cannot walk up to the state and insist that you only be taxed for the services you immediately and personally benefit from. You want one bun? We sell them in packs of twelve, so you're buying twelve to get it. You want national defense? We bundle that with everything else.

Moreover, if I were to mow your lawn without your consent and then charge you for it no court would find in my favor upon a lawsuit. Why? Because services rendered prior to contractual obligation are invalid and of no force.

I've seen you use this metaphor before, and I think there's a problem with how you're using it: the state is only able to charge for its services (that is, tax people) within its own sovereign territory. What I've described is not at all analogous to a situation where you wander in, mow my lawn without my consent, and then turn around and insist that I pay you for services rendered. What I've described would be more like if I lived in a housing complex you owned, you added the price of hiring a lawn care service to the rent, and then put a clause in your rental agreement such that people couldn't opt out of receiving said lawn care. Which is perfectly legitimate and would fly in any court. Private housing complexes charge maintenance fees every day.

Your metaphor would be best applicable to a situation where the US government was trying to tax citizens of Canada who have never come across the border or done business across the border in their entire lives. That would be like wandering onto someone else's lawn, mowing it, then demanding money for services rendered.

All in all, I'd say that you're correct. We are at an impasse in this regard but, please, do not assume this means I think any less of you or that there is anything but admiration from my end.

Admiration? Really? I appreciate that. Despite our sturdy and frequent disagreement I respect you too, and regard you as among the best of NSG's regular contributors.

Indeed. The process of it. Not the conclusion. The process. I actively agitate against democracy - therefore the "process" is begun. I actively ameliorate myself of certain financial responsibilities for the inevitable abandonment of the democracy in which I reside - therefore the "process" continues. Therefore I cannot be said to be subject to the social contract.

Not quite. You see, a process must be completed before its results become concrete. You cannot say that you've put your signature to paper after writing only one letter, can you? Likewise, merely beginning the process of terminating an agreement is not synonymous with having terminated said agreement.

Yes. I am.

I may be reading the tone on this portion wrong, but I do believe I may have struck a nerve. Sorry about that if I did.

Anyway, I just don't see how it is that a lonely woodsman who lives off the land and has built all their implements themselves is not benefiting from these services. The clean stream that the woodsman gets their water from is only clean of industrial contaminants because of the efforts of the state's environmental management services. The reason the area surrounding their hermit's hideaway isn't swarming with drug farms (and all the danger they bring with them) is because of the work of law enforcement personnel. The reason the area isn't invaded is because the threat of military retaliation against foreign occupation of the woodsman's area is ever-present.

There are even more examples of services the lonely woodsman consumes, but three seems enough for now.

Then you admit that this contract is, indeed, quantifiable and is, therefore, subject to consideration via market realities. Since I never explicitly agreed to pay for the services provided me I am not liable for them. I cannot be said to be subject to the social contract.

No, I don't think that's right. Sure, the contract is quantifiable, but we're not agreeing about the market realities. The lawnmower example and the bit about the can of crisps/bag of buns makes that pretty plain. We don't agree on even the basics, Distruzio. But that's to be expected, we're looking at things from two very different angles. The fact that I'm generally looking at things from a collective point of view and you're generally looking at things from an individual point of view is part of why we arrive at such different emphases, and as a result, different conclusions as to what ought to be and what ought not be. What's acceptable and what's not.

That's all it is, we just think about things in very different ways.

[Minarchist States]

American definition of Libertarianism is weird

I had always joked that in Europe the anarchists are left wing while in America they are right wing.

...

The end result of Classical Liberalism, when influenced by American history and philosophy, is Libertarianism. You'd need to understand the latter.

That's one way, anyway. Another is leaving the area.

<snip>

The existence of coalition building and minority governments undermines the argument that democratic governance inherently pits "the 51%" against "the 49%". Furthermore, that democratic systems don't perfectly reflect the every desire of every individual doesn't undermine either the concept of the social contract or the concept of popular sovereignty. Neither is founded on the premise that the system should perfectly reflect every individual's will.

<snip>

You mean "harming" majority factions by establishing a system such that they cannot simply do whatever they will provided they continue to retain 50% plus one vote? You mean establishing a system such that your initial complaint is effectively addressed? What are you even getting at?

It all comes back to this:

Because all agency stems from the individual. Society does not act, does not exist, without the individual. In order for liberty to be secured, that obvious fact must be recognized. Egalitarianism rejects this reality.

If there has to be a democracy, that democracy should be inclined to permissiveness and not control. The control which stems from a democracy, even with all the checks in place, compromises the liberty of the individual with the will of the majority. If the majority wants gay marriage to be illegal, what is a couple going to do about it if they don't have the proper representation? Move to a nation which erects borders or elects citizenship on another characteristic that is not shared?

[Orham]

It all comes back to this:

Because all agency stems from the individual. Society does not act, does not exist, without the individual. In order for liberty to be secured, that obvious fact must be recognized. Egalitarianism rejects this reality.

If there has to be a democracy, that democracy should be inclined to permissiveness and not control. The control which stems from a democracy, even with all the checks in place, compromises the liberty of the individual with the will of the majority. If the majority wants gay marriage to be illegal, what is a couple going to do about it if they don't have the proper representation? Move to a nation which erects borders or elects citizenship on another characteristic that is not shared?

I silently disagreed with Distruzio's premise that agency and egalitarianism are inherently opposed. It would seem I must answer this idea, and I will do so in minor detail for the sake of brevity.

Egalitarianism, by which here I mean the idea that all people should have equal access to identical lists of political and civil rights, may be interpreted as the idea that all individuals ought to be granted an equal amount of agency. Egalitarianism is not a rejection of the idea that societies are the sum of individuals and their interactions with one another (that's the definition of "society"), but rather it is a commentary about the preferred nature of those interactions. In the context of a liberal democracy which offers both positive and negative rights in such a way as to enable individuals to interact on relatively equal footing with one another with respect to the political and civil aspects of their lives, the circumstances are, I hold, set such that agency and structure are complementary forces rather than oppositional forces. That is, such a structure is explicitly designed to promote agency by ensuring that every single individual within society, regardless of their circumstances, has equal access thereto.

Turning to your same-sex marriage example for a moment, one might argue as an egalitarian which promotes the existence of liberal democracy that the voting public ought not be allowed to decide whether or not homosexuals ought to be able to enter into civil marriage contracts with the state of interest. Such a person would instead argue that access to civil marriage ought to be a right which the state guarantees to all, and which may only be denied with reasonable cause to do so. You've actually inadvertently handed me a perfectly good example of an issue where egalitarianism is strong on promoting liberty through its establishment of equal access to civil rights, here the right to civil marriage. You've also handed me an example of how structure and agency can act as complementary forces, in this case the institutional limitation on political agency to vote to block same-sex marriage creating unimpeded agency to enter into same-sex marriages.

Now, when you say a democratic society ought to "be inclined to permissiveness", what you probably mean is that a democratic society should provide negative rights against itself, to agree to limit its own actions. I don't disagree, and I expect that's the point that you were trying to make when you brought up same-sex marriage: that negative rights are important in a democratic society, that the democratic state ought not be allowed to do whatever the majority wills it to (in this case discriminate against same-sex couples). No disagreement here, and as I pointed out before: democratic states have demonstrated that they can indeed establish such negative rights.

However, we appear to have very strong disagreement on the role positive rights, those rights which compel action rather than preventing it, have to play in promoting greater agency. It's no surprise that we disagree about this, because both you and Distruzio seem to feel that structure and agency are inherently oppositional forces while I feel that they can act as complementary forces. I would contend that a positive right to be provided public education is just as important as a negative right to express speech reasonably unimpeded in the endeavor of promoting greater agency, and thus am supportive of things like truancy laws and universal tertiary education.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

In the USA's case, the Supreme Court. They've been granted final authority on constitutionality, and as a consequence whatever they say is constitutional is, for all intents and purposes, constitutional until such time as their decision is overturned.

On what grounds?

On the grounds that things are going to inescapably work out that way anyway, so might as well recognize it.

Judicial review is just a formalization of an inescapable practical effect of an independent judiciary: if the courts decide a certain law is outrageous for whatever reason and refuse to enforce it, there's jack shit anyone else can do about it while still working within the system.

[Distruzio]

You know what? I think I've finally grasped out miscommunication. When you say "responsibility" you mean involuntary obligation. When I say responsibility I mean duty to another person. All of this would have been avoided if you'd just stuck with the actual definition of the word.

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee Show IPA
noun, plural re·spon·si·bil·i·ties.
1.
the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.

Since you have some degree of power, control, and management in the democratic process, you are responsible, answerable and accountable by definition. Indeed, that's been a pretty consistent theme throughout the discussion.

Ironically, your smoking gun against the argument that you have a responsibility by definition, is that you are insisting on interpreting the words in a way contrary to how they are defined.

That's a convenient sidestep, GnI. You know that. The words of the definition don't matter as you, perpetually, have used responsibility to denote an involuntary obligation in direct contradiction to the definition.

Here you're trying to change the subject of my commentary.

Even were I responsible within the democratic paradigm both my control and my power create that responsibility. They don't confine it. It isn't involuntary. The power to accept responsibility is just as valuable and necessary for the response to it. You seem to forget that.

Regardless - once more; if you insist on this perverted use of responsibility then I am pleased to be an irresponsible democratist.

[Lamaredia]

Nobody should ever EVER vote Libertarian, unless they want roads like this all over the place:



And also, no fire service, police service etc.

[Blasveck]

Nobody should ever EVER vote Libertarian, unless they want roads like this all over the place:

(Image)

And also, no fire service, police service etc.

If you're going to criticize Libertarianism, at least know what you're criticizing an know what you're talking about.

[Lamaredia]

Nobody should ever EVER vote Libertarian, unless they want roads like this all over the place:

(Image)

And also, no fire service, police service etc.

If you're going to criticize Libertarianism, at least know what you're criticizing an know what you're talking about.

Please explain to me what you are on about.

[Distruzio]

Should you really pay for roads you never drive on? What if you don't own a car? Should you really pay for defense from enemies oceans away living in caves? What if they live oceans away and live in caves?

Yes, because state services can't be practically provided on an a la carte basis. They are, rather, provided as a bundle. I expect an a la carte tax system would be a bureaucratic nightmare, truth to be told.

To borrow from Souseiseki, state services are like a can of crisps. You don't buy crisps individually, you buy a can or bag with a specified number of crisps inside. Just as you cannot walk up to the counter of your local store, tear open a bag of buns, and insist that you only be charged the per unit price for a single one because that's all you intend to eat, you cannot walk up to the state and insist that you only be taxed for the services you immediately and personally benefit from. You want one bun? We sell them in packs of twelve, so you're buying twelve to get it. You want national defense? We bundle that with everything else.

Of course I can buy just one bun. Go to the provider of food service and order a hamburger.

The same would, and could, make perfect sense in the case of public services.

Moreover, if I were to mow your lawn without your consent and then charge you for it no court would find in my favor upon a lawsuit. Why? Because services rendered prior to contractual obligation are invalid and of no force.

I've seen you use this metaphor before, and I think there's a problem with how you're using it: the state is only able to charge for its services (that is, tax people) within its own sovereign territory. What I've described is not at all analogous to a situation where you wander in, mow my lawn without my consent, and then turn around and insist that I pay you for services rendered. What I've described would be more like if I lived in a housing complex you owned, you added the price of hiring a lawn care service to the rent, and then put a clause in your rental agreement such that people couldn't opt out of receiving said lawn care. Which is perfectly legitimate and would fly in any court. Private housing complexes charge maintenance fees every day.

Your metaphor would be best applicable to a situation where the US government was trying to tax citizens of Canada who have never come across the border or done business across the border in their entire lives. That would be like wandering onto someone else's lawn, mowing it, then demanding money for services rendered.

You know what? You're absolutely correct here. My metaphor is, indeed, inappropriate.

All in all, I'd say that you're correct. We are at an impasse in this regard but, please, do not assume this means I think any less of you or that there is anything but admiration from my end.

Admiration? Really? I appreciate that. Despite our sturdy and frequent disagreement I respect you too, and regard you as among the best of NSG's regular contributors.

I has a fan?

Indeed. The process of it. Not the conclusion. The process. I actively agitate against democracy - therefore the "process" is begun. I actively ameliorate myself of certain financial responsibilities for the inevitable abandonment of the democracy in which I reside - therefore the "process" continues. Therefore I cannot be said to be subject to the social contract.

Not quite. You see, a process must be completed before its results become concrete. You cannot say that you've put your signature to paper after writing only one letter, can you? Likewise, merely beginning the process of terminating an agreement is not synonymous with having terminated said agreement.

No, I cannot say my signature is there. But I can say that beginning my signature makes it clear that my existence outside the paradigm outside the terms of the paper is circumspect, at best. In reality, however, beginning my signature makes it clear that the previous paradigm of existence outside the terms of the paper is no longer appropriate. Of course I can, at any time, stop writing my signature and reject the alternative paradigm in order to avoid the terms of the paper and, of course, there would, and should, be certain repercussions for my indecision.

But nothing about the process of writing my name, qua process, renders either paradigm binding upon me. If anything, it puts me in flux, of a sort.

Yes. I am.

I may be reading the tone on this portion wrong, but I do believe I may have struck a nerve. Sorry about that if I did.

You didn't. I promise.

Anyway, I just don't see how it is that a lonely woodsman who lives off the land and has built all their implements themselves is not benefiting from these services. The clean stream that the woodsman gets their water from is only clean of industrial contaminants because of the efforts of the state's environmental management services. The reason the area surrounding their hermit's hideaway isn't swarming with drug farms (and all the danger they bring with them) is because of the work of law enforcement personnel. The reason the area isn't invaded is because the threat of military retaliation against foreign occupation of the woodsman's area is ever-present.

There are even more examples of services the lonely woodsman consumes, but three seems enough for now.

True. He benefits. That doesn't suggest his liability.

Then you admit that this contract is, indeed, quantifiable and is, therefore, subject to consideration via market realities. Since I never explicitly agreed to pay for the services provided me I am not liable for them. I cannot be said to be subject to the social contract.

No, I don't think that's right. Sure, the contract is quantifiable, but we're not agreeing about the market realities. The lawnmower example and the bit about the can of crisps/bag of buns makes that pretty plain. We don't agree on even the basics, Distruzio. But that's to be expected, we're looking at things from two very different angles. The fact that I'm generally looking at things from a collective point of view and you're generally looking at things from an individual point of view is part of why we arrive at such different emphases, and as a result, different conclusions as to what ought to be and what ought not be. What's acceptable and what's not.

That's all it is, we just think about things in very different ways.

Indeed. But that's alright. As long as we can agree that George Lucas is a hack and deserves to be slapped, then I'll be your buddy forever.

[Distruzio]

If you're going to criticize Libertarianism, at least know what you're criticizing an know what you're talking about.

Please explain to me what you are on about.

Where is the road and who built it?