-
[quote user="EmperorNero"]Not for commercial interests, no, it would be much more like a private charity. I'm picturing it as a club that all right-wingers join if they want to organize a military. Of course the main purpose the militia would be national defense. People would donate their money and some would volunteer to fight. You know
-
[quote user="z1235"]No action is undertaken with the assumption that it must eventually be beneficial (with 100% certainty). That would require omiscience. Are you suggesting that only the omniscient can really act voluntarily? [/quote] Good point. Very good point. In fact this demolishes my argument. [quote]More importantly, what does "eventually"
-
[quote user="Marko"]Britain violates human rights more than most overseas tyrants do. Except it does so abroad and to foreigners, rather than at home.[/quote] Our government/military violate rights abroad, there is no denying this but not on the same scale as some fascist dictatorships. [quote]Why phrase your argument specifically in terms
-
[quote user="EmperorNero"]I think that could be done much more efficiently with a free market system. Government military isn't very cost effective.[/quote] I agree that government military is not as cost effective as a private one would be, but we are, really and truly, assuming that it would be in the commercial interests of a PDA to
-
[quote user="Giant_Joe"]What I'm wondering is what you mean by "mutually beneficial"... do you mean at that instant, in the minds of the people making that deal, or in some long-term future forecast?[/quote] In a long-term future forecast. It was just a small thing I was thinking about, and it is rather important since a lot
-
[quote user="Marko"]What about the legitimate function of tyrants overseas to overthrow the warmongering Western states? Inability to see things from more than one side of things is indeed a bitch.[/quote] I have never been to the US and so do not know what it is like. Britain is not a perfect place but individual rights and civil liberties
-
I know Liam Antony; we debated on another forum rather extensively while I was a socialist. He is a diehard anarcho-capitalist. But he is also a Neolibertarian who believes that before anarchy is achieved, it is a legitimate function of Western states to overthrow blood thirsty tyrants overseas.
-
[quote user="EmperorNero"]About small print. I don't think it's really necessary to require a summary in a certain format. Firstly, short, simple contracts would probably emerge as a way to compete for customers. Secondly, even in our current legal system small print isn't always taken literally. You can usually argue in court
-
[quote user="liberty student"]Your issue isn't with contracts, it is with the market.[/quote] No. I am not a socialist anymore. [quote]You do not trust other human beings.[/quote] Correct. [quote]But the catch is, if you don't trust people to make decisions for themselves, then who do you trust? God? Who should rule humans, since humans
-
Hi, this is something I've thought about a lot and basically for the free market to operate, contractual agreements must be virtually sacrosanct, right? Well my problem with contract theory in its purest most unadulterated form is the fact that people do not always read the small print . Be honest, how many times have you signed up for something