"Clearly it would be lower" ⇒⇐ "will tend to be (will likely be)"
Those statements are equivalent, your pedantic interpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.
Because it's existence doesn't seem to jive with your claims
How so?
Minarchist:Those statements are equivalent, your pedantic interpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.
You're seriously arguing that "clearly would" = "will likely"?
Now I'm wondering if you're just a troll.
I would like to know how the existence of books which are sold for $0 disproves the notion that if you eliminate state monopoly on the provision of a specific good (say, Human Action, for example) the price of this good will decrease. What possible circumstances could result in the elimination of a harmful monopoly increasing the cost of the good sold? I mean sure, arsons could burn every book publisher to the ground but the one in question or something equally silly like that, but there's really no justification for the 'eliminating a monopoly will increase prices' argument.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
Meistro:I would like to know how the existence of books which are sold for $0 disproves the notion that if you eliminate state monopoly on the provision of a specific good (say, Human Action, for example) the price of this good will decrease.
1) It doesn't have to. The only person who alleged it "clearly would" happen later admitted in reality it would only be "likely".
2) I would like to know how a ban on drunk driving (something you admit you are in favor of) is philosophically any different than a ban on copying/ distributing/ deriving-from an existing work.
But hey, whattya gonna do?
how a ban on drunk driving (something you admit you are in favor of) is philosophically any different than a ban on copying/ distributing/ deriving-from an existing work.
AFAIK no e-pirate has ever crashed their e-book into a family of 4 and killed them all.
AFAIK, that's irrelevent. The two were likened with regard to principle. We're talking about forced restrictions on the use of property when no aggression has taken place. Again, please provide the philosophical difference.
I've been reading these forum since my junior year in high school; that was about three years ago. I read the daily articles posted and pretty much everything you guys discuss.
I'm a full ancap, as I suspect that many people who lurk here are, and I want to participate, but everytime I go into a thread with the intention of contributing I'm blown away by the logic and intensely critical thinking you guys are able to pull out on any seemingly random topic. Like Clayton on DMT; I completely disagree with his interpretation, but I can't present my ideas as well as he can. Your thinking is so much more ordered and self-aware than my own and I know I'm just not ready to compete or debate with you guys yet.
I keep meaning to ask you guys for books you reccomend on any topic, from economics to logic to history, but I never get around to it. So I guess I'm doing it now and I would appreciate any other thread on the topic you can link me to; I know there have been some on books in the past.
So, to answer your question Texas Trigger, we're out here and we're learning and sharpending our mental abilities and then going out and spreading these ideas into the world. I think that there are 40K daily visitors is highly encouraging. These forums work, and you're all helping liberty by posting and responding seriously to most questions that come up. I can't thank you guys enough for how much you've increased my intellectual capabilities and how you continue to do so every day.
Zephyr420: I've been reading these forum since my junior year in high school; that was about three years ago. I read the daily articles posted and pretty much everything you guys discuss. I'm a full ancap, as I suspect that many people who lurk here are, and I want to participate, but everytime I go into a thread with the intention of contributing I'm blown away by the logic and intensely critical thinking you guys are able to pull out on any seemingly random topic. Like Clayton on DMT; I completely disagree with his interpretation, but I can't present my ideas as well as he can. Your thinking is so much more ordered and self-aware than my own and I know I'm just not ready to compete or debate with you guys yet. I keep meaning to ask you guys for books you reccomend on any topic, from economics to logic to history, but I never get around to it. So I guess I'm doing it now and I would appreciate any other thread on the topic you can link me to; I know there have been some on books in the past.
Welcome
You must have pulled back on the lurking a bit in recent days, as I'm kind surprised you haven't come across these...
Your thinking is so much more ordered and self-aware than my own and I know I'm just not ready to compete or debate with you guys yet.
Feel free to jump in any time. If you're worried about "competing", just ask questions. As I was saying here, the nature of the conversation is largely driven by the nature of the posts that make it up. Check out the threads by -Joe-, danbeaulieu, and shackleford to see how great a newbie thread can go. FlyingAxe is a shining example of what an inquisitive newbie could be.
No, we are talking about someone deciding whether or not someone else can contract to use their property and whether or not someone can have a monopoly on a good and forbid others from using their own property in a non harmful and non invasive manner.
Like Clayton on DMT
ROFL - I doubt anyone agrees with me when I'm on DMT... :-P
Clayton -
Meistro:No, we are talking about someone deciding whether or not someone else can contract to use their property
Huh? Where did a contract come in? What are you talking about?
and whether or not someone can have a monopoly on a good and forbid others from using their own property in a non harmful and non invasive manner.
You mean like...forbidding someone from driving his own car?
I'm talking about road owners banning drunk drivers from using their roads. Duh.
Meistro:I'm talking about road owners banning drunk drivers from using their roads. Duh.
You never said anything about restricting access to roads. You said the drunk driving should be banned. Do you not understand the difference?
So banning someone from using something isn't the same as restricting their access to it?
Meistro:So banning someone from using something isn't the same as restricting their access to it?
You said "Drunk driving should be banned." That's what you said. It's right here. You never said anything about individual property owners simply restricting access to their roads (i.e. drivers who are drunk being banned from accessing specific areas). You said the act of driving drunk (aka "drunk driving") should be banned. As in, if you are drunk, you cannot drive. Anywhere. On any road. Period.
Now what you're saying is that as long as I own the road, I can drive on it no matter how drunk I am.
1) These are two different things. You have changed your position.
2) Do you even agree with your new position? As long I own the road, I can drive drunk on it?
So now I am responsible for every silly assumption you make?
I stand by my statement - drunk driving should be banned. Do you think it should be allowed? As a matter of fact, drunk driving on your own road that is open to the public would be a form of fraud, since there is the reasonable assumption that your road will ban drunk drivers, unless you specifically inform them otherwise. Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing. drunk driving should be banned.
Meistro:So now I am responsible for every silly assumption you make?
Assumption? You said it. I didn't have to assume anything. You're incredulous. (Or perhaps just dishonest).
Meistro:I stand by my statement - drunk driving should be banned.
Aww, no more dancing?
As a matter of fact, drunk driving on your own road that is open to the public would be a form of fraud, since there is the reasonable assumption that your road will ban drunk drivers, unless you specifically inform them otherwise.
So now a road owner is responsible for every silly assumption you make?
Fraud? That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.
Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing.
You're the one who seemed to be suggesting roads would be privately owned.
drunk driving should be banned.
By whom? Who is going to enforce this ban? Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk? What's going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught? (And again, by whom?) And under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?
A private property owner does not need to justify the rules he lays down on his private property.
What does that have to do with anything that was said?
1) According to you: "Driving on your own road while drunk = fraud" because people assume you're not drunk.
-a road owner is responsible for every silly assumption you make?
2) You seemed to be suggesting that roads would be privately owned, and that's how drunk drivers would be kept off of them...the private owners would ban them access to their roads. Now you tell me "Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing."
-So which is it? Are we talking about a situation in which roads are privately owned or not?
3) According to you: "drunk driving should be banned."
-By whom? Who declares this ban? Who is going to enforce this ban? Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk? What's going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught? (And again, by whom?) And under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?
1. Drunk driving is objectively bad. It leads to more car accidents. Ergo, the most likely case is that if roads were privatized drunk driving would be banned in virtually all cases. Since this would likely be the case, anyone who allowed drunk driving on their road, or drunk drove themself on their road, would be criminally negligent. 2. A lot is not a road. A lot is a lot. 3. I've already answered that. Two ears one mouth.
Meistro:Drunk driving is objectively bad.
"objectively bad".
1) Can you demonstrate there is such a thing?
2) Can you demonstrate simply driving an automobile (or some transportation device) while drunk fits into that term?
Ergo, the most likely case is that if roads were privatized drunk driving would be banned in virtually all cases. Since this would likely be the case, anyone who allowed drunk driving on their road, or drunk drove themself on their road, would be criminally negligent.
Negligent of what? Of not acquiescing to your silly assumption?
2. A lot is not a road. A lot is a lot.
If you're differentiating, why in the hell did you even bring up "lot"? I didn't say anything about a person driving on his own "lot". Go back up and read. I said "Now what you're saying is that as long as I own the road, I can drive on it no matter how drunk I am." And your response was "Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing."
If you weren't addressing the point I raised, why the hell is "lot" even relevant? Why would you even bother saying that? Are you just dancing again?
I've already answered that. Two ears one mouth.
You did? You answered:
-Who declares this ban?
I suppose you could claim that your answer is "private road owners do"...but again, that's just a ban on access to their private roads. They aren't declaring "the act of driving drunk is now banned." Who is making that declaration? And where does this person/group get that authority?
-Who is going to enforce this ban?
Again, if I drive drunk on my own road, obviously you can't claim "the owner of the road will enforce the ban". So, where exactly did you answer this question?
-Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-What's going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught?
-By whom?
-under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?
Virtually all driving occurs on roads. Drunk driving on a lot you own would be fine, but since that accounts for less than 1% of driving it`s irrelevant.
Meistro:Virtually all driving occurs on roads. Drunk driving on a lot you own would be fine, but since that accounts for less than 1% of driving it`s irrelevant.
Are you serious?
One more time. I never said anything about "lots". You did. You brought that up out of nowhere for no apparent reason. I said "if I own the road". Again, you can scroll up and read it. I even spelled out this point in my last post. So one more time, I have no idea why you're talking about lots.
So, again:
Meistro:Drunk driving should be banned.
If we banned swimming, we could say 'we ban swimming IN WATER' but it really doens't make sense to say that we ban swimming in water, cause where the hell else are you going to swim? I suppose one could construct giant resevoir of milk and take a dive into it, but there's really no need to spell everything out in the nth degree. Just because I own property doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. My right to use my property as I please stops when I start injuring people.
Meistro: My right to use my property as I please stops when I start injuring people.
Exactly. And not before then. QED
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I have two humble suggestions:
1. This discussion merits a separate thread (it is not really about the "right price").
2. Compare you positions on an array of slightly different issues, where allowing drunken drivers is replaced by: allowing potholes on the road, allowing really deadly pits on the road, concealing these deadly pits, etc., so you see better about which principle(s) you have disagreements.
Jargon: Meistro:My right to use my property as I please stops when I start injuring people.Exactly. And not before then. QED
Meistro:My right to use my property as I please stops when I start injuring people.
Well then I suppose I can fire a gun into the air and if the bullet happens to land on someone and kill them it's not really my fault. I didn't MEAN to kill them, all I did was take an action that would increase the likelyhood of their death.
Meistro:Well then I suppose I can fire a gun into the air and if the bullet happens to land on someone and kill them it's not really my fault.
Where the hell did you get that idea? Certainly not from anything that me or Jargon said. More straw men, I presume?
Also, could you please provide a link to the post where you answered the questions that are asked in this post (and again, in this one)?
Does anyone have any solid statistics on alcohol related car deaths?
I've been looking but I can't find anything that useful.
1) it is obvious that drunk driving is bad because drunk driving kills people, and unless you are an environmentalist you will agree that killing people is bad.
2) see 1
3) negligent of intentionally providing an unsafe road which increases the chance of your dying while you drive on it. it's akin to selling deliberately spoiled meat or any other form of fraud where you appear to be offering something (nice safe road to drive on) but in fact are offering something else (road with crazy drunken drivers without warning). Of course if the owner informed potential customers that this was a drunk driving allowed route, then it would be fine, just as voluntary death ball games would also be fine, but on the other hand if you told someone they were playing soccer and they were actually playing death ball it would not be fine. 4) it would be established as a common practice very quickly, so that a vast super majority of owners would enforce it because it is in their self interest to do so. This is why I brought up the lot. Yes you could say 'drunk driving is only banned on roads' but since all driving is done on roads that seems silly to say. You could also say 'i breath air' but it makes more senese to say 'i breath'. What else are you going to breath? What else are you going to drive on, and what % of driving do you think that else is?
It is obvious that drunk driving is bad because drunk driving kills people, and unless you are an environmentalist you will agree that killing people is bad.
Does drunk driving kill people or does reckless driving kill people? I drove intoxicated 4 days this week, no one was killed. Do guns kill people or people with the intent to kill people kill people? When someone shoots another person you don't blame the gun, you blame the person, when a drunk driver causes an accident you don't (or shouldn't) blame the alcohol, you blame the person. I don't see drunk driving as bad, but this is from my own experience of driving more than the average person intoxicated. As myself, the driver, I am responsible, whether or not I've been drinking, others simply cannot do the same, it's on them not the alcohol.
Isn't the flaw in your first argument the absolute correlation between drunk driving and killing: that drunk driving is killing? Shouldn't you have written that it is obvious that drunk driving is bad because drunk driving can kill people?
Put another way, it's the difference between saying that "shooting a gun is bad because shooting a gun kills people", rather than saying that "shooting a gun is bad because shooting a gun can kill people" (not that I agree with either statement). But I presume that you knew that because putting it the latter way destroys the absolute correlation implied by your statement, which is what supports your argument.
@Bert
You know, people who like to bitch about drunk driving probably don't have the experience of driving while intoxicated. I know from my own personal experience that I actually pay more attention and drive at safer speeds precisely because I am intoxicated. I also have never killed anyone or gotten into an accident while intoxicated.
In a simpler manner: I drive drunk all the time and I have not killed anyone, thus what argument is left to sway my opinion?
Beat me to it, Bert...damn that quick reply button!
I find this to be true amongst those against drunk driving. When I'm intoxicated I pay more attention as well and I'm probably more cautious compared to when I'm sober (when I'm sober I don't concentrate on driving, I just drive because it's became habit, routine, so it feels "natural" without thinking) as to that when I'm drunk I feel more focused out of the aspect of trying not to get into a wreck (when I'm driving drunk I actually go the speed limit and pay attention to every little thing around me.)
How drunk are we talking?
....somewhere between talking too loud and waking up at the zoo.