The principle of libertarianism is that is it wrong to use force and fraud except in self-defense or defense of someone else from force and fraud.
Therefore, is the libertarian position that people should be able to walk around naked? Forgive the following, but what about other lewd acts such public sex and masturbation? Are these things in some way force or fraud, and if not, do you support continued criminalization or de-criminalization of these acts? If you support criminalization, in what why are these acts force or fraud?
They are force or fraud if they violate the rules of the public space where they take place.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I fail to see the problem in that. As long as nudists do not hurt other persons or their property they are OK in my book. If a shop owner or landlord does not want them on his premises it's in his right to deny access, even out of a whim.
Indecent acts per se are another entirely different matter. But if you take a stroll through some US and European cities they seem to have gained widespread acceptance.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Ok, another question.
How do you deal with the externality of a person running around on their private property doing very grotesquely lewd things, but in full few of others on their provate property? For example, what if someone with children can't let their kids go out and play in the yard because the neighbor is touching themself at the edge of his private property and saying lewd things in so that that the children can hear it?
There's no physical force or threat thereof in this situation, is it the libertarian position that the neighbor shold be allowed to do this?
I suppose one can simply move, but that's not an easy or fun process.
mike barskey:And I'm sure there are other liberty-based solutions.
Driving him off of his property by turning up a Kenny G album, for instance.
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
Well, I've seen discussions about shining lasers and flashlights onto other people's property - isn't the nudist reflecting light rays onto your property in an offensive way?
Now, back to reality. It seems pretty clear to me that this is a problem for the neighbor, not the nudist. Let the neighbor accept the cost and build a wall. However, I'm inspired by Long's handling of how to compensate the family of a murder victim to add another solution at a lower cost. The nudist clearly considers his actions perfectly acceptable, so respond in kind. Most people who complain about nudists aren't particularly attractive, and so the nudist is likely to be happy to stop his actions, in exchange for the neighbor stopping his/theirs.
mike barskey:You can communicate with your neighbor and ask them to not to certain things where you kids might see/hear them. Or better, you could trade with your neighbor, maybe paying them (or exchanging favors like not playing your own music so loud or whatever) to not do certain things in certain places. Or you could build a fence or wall on your property and let your children play within that area. Or you could talk to other people in the community that agree with you and see if you could arrange an ostracism-based boycott of this neighbor to try to encourage them to change their ways. Or you could move. And I'm sure there are other liberty-based solutions.
I actually had almost this exact question from a friend I was talking to about libertarianism. He is a religious guy, but not a dogmatic evangelical - just a family guy who goes to church and so forth. He asked me 'what if 2 guys move in next door to me and decide to start having gay sex outside?' The idea that there was no handy libertarian solution to such a thing was a real obstacle for him to keep moving in the direction of liberty.
I think the answer above is probably the best answer I've seen - but I don't think it will convince many.
I do think that it's at best a highly theoretical question - in reality, even if we were miraculously able to achieve a quasi-libertarian society, there would always be community standards and enforcement of them, regardless of the purist position.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
Trianglechoke7:The principle of libertarianism is that is it wrong to use force and fraud except in self-defense or defense of someone else from force and fraud. Therefore, is the libertarian position that people should be able to walk around naked? Forgive the following, but what about other lewd acts such public sex and masturbation? Are these things in some way force or fraud, and if not, do you support continued criminalization or de-criminalization of these acts? If you support criminalization, in what why are these acts force or fraud?
Yes. Why not? Is there something wrong with nudity?
If we abolished obscenity laws, the real world would just look more like the internet.
Sure, you'd see a fat naked person every now and then, public masturbation, and somebody eating poop, but it'd be pretty rare and when it happens, you can just look away.
In places where public nudity has been established, there haven't been any major problems other than some people in San Francisco being a little freaked out by the naked yoga of George Davis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monty_Davis
One case I saw in (I believe it was Colorado) involved a naked pedophile hanging out around a school bus stop, whacking off. Obviously, this could be dealt with through criminal charges on either stalking or harassment charges.
Obscenity laws aren't necessary, but make themselves necessary by making people oversensitive, precisely through shielding them from things that might offend them. They also act as a platform for people to ban political unpopular speech, in the case of Holocaust denial in Europe.
To understand the Libertarian justification for radical free speech, I suggest you read chapter two of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill:
http://utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html
He addresses your argument.
Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.
The worst part is the fact that obscenity can't even be accurately defined. Literally the Supreme Court's current definition of obscenity is "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it."
That's absurd.
Trianglechoke7: Ok, another question. How do you deal with the externality of a person running around on their private property doing very grotesquely lewd things, but in full few of others on their provate property? For example, what if someone with children can't let their kids go out and play in the yard because the neighbor is touching themself at the edge of his private property and saying lewd things in so that that the children can hear it? There's no physical force or threat thereof in this situation, is it the libertarian position that the neighbor shold be allowed to do this? I suppose one can simply move, but that's not an easy or fun process.
That would be very rare, because the person is damaging their own property in the process. Furthermore, gated communities won't allow such behavior. And, if all else fails, you could take him to court and claim property damages. Unlike externalities like environmental harm, an externality like "naked neighbors" can be pretty easily dealt with a civil suit. Plus, if the neighbor is sexy, it might be a positive externality.
JAlanKatz:Well, I've seen discussions about shining lasers and flashlights onto other people's property - isn't the nudist reflecting light rays onto your property in an offensive way? Now, back to reality. It seems pretty clear to me that this is a problem for the neighbor, not the nudist. Let the neighbor accept the cost and build a wall. However, I'm inspired by Long's handling of how to compensate the family of a murder victim to add another solution at a lower cost. The nudist clearly considers his actions perfectly acceptable, so respond in kind. Most people who complain about nudists aren't particularly attractive, and so the nudist is likely to be happy to stop his actions, in exchange for the neighbor stopping his/theirs.
You just need to distinguish between offense and harm. "Offense" is not harm, but it is true that emotional harm can exist.
Even if I have the right to own a gun, I do not have the right to follow you around with my gun pointed at you, while masturbating, etc, etc..
When a person is put in a situation where they feel a strong sense of life-threatening fear, that's "coercion."
Shining lights and being naked isn't in and of itself coercive. But if you're doing it with the intent of causing harm to another person (emotional or physical) -- which is the only real case where emotional harm would apply -- a legal injunction even in a silly theoretical "Anarchist court" would still be available.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Naythn,
How is the person damaging their property and yours by doing grotesque things on their property?
And yes, I wouldn't complain if my neighbor was a Victoria Secret model, but that's just to bad for the less attractive people! HA!
Nip this whole problem in the bud by establishing neighborhood covenants. A land developer, could, for instance, make all purchasers of parcels in his development agree to not act in lewd or indecent ways. The contract could define what "indecent" and "lewd" mean along with what happens when the contract is broken (who abritrates, potential penalties, etc.)
If I saw these covenants in place while I was in the process of purchasing a home, I would know that others have to abide by these rules as well and would know that this probably wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if I liked to walk around nude and masturbate in public, I would look for a housing development that explicitly allowed such behavior or I would purchase a home in an area that does not have covenants.
Covenants are not a religious concept, they are a legal concept, although the term is employed in religion as well. And they already exist, they're nothing new; they'd just play a greater role, presumably, in anarchism (or even minarchism.)
Trianglechoke7:Naythn,How is the person damaging their property and yours by doing grotesque things on their property
If they're just screwing on your front lawn, you probably won't have a case unless you can demonstrate some kinds of damages in court. I.E., if you're trying to sell your house and people keep getting freaked out by the nudist, you might be able to build a caseand have a legal injunction against them.
Vinnie: Nip this whole problem in the bud by establishing neighborhood covenants. A land developer, could, for instance, make all purchasers of parcels in his development agree to not act in lewd or indecent ways. The contract could define what "indecent" and "lewd" mean along with what happens when the contract is broken (who abritrates, potential penalties, etc.) If I saw these covenants in place while I was in the process of purchasing a home, I would know that others have to abide by these rules as well and would know that this probably wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if I liked to walk around nude and masturbate in public, I would look for a housing development that explicitly allowed such behavior or I would purchase a home in an area that does not have covenants.
mike barskey:Fantastic suggestion! I don't like the term "neighborhood covenants" though - it sounds a little too "religiousy" to me (or maybe too "indiana Jonesy" :) ). Maybe the phrase "deed restrictions?"
Nathyn:Oh boy. Instead of having government solve the problem, you have widespread monopolization of land in the hands of a few elite landlords that solve the problem.W(hat a perfect solution.Thank god I've got land developers telling me what I can and can't do on my own property, making sure I'm not doing anything dangerous or annoying to others.
Oh boy. Instead of having government solve the problem, you have widespread monopolization of land in the hands of a few elite landlords that solve the problem.W(hat a perfect solution.Thank god I've got land developers telling me what I can and can't do on my own property, making sure I'm not doing anything dangerous or annoying to others.
We don't already have land in the hands of a few elite landlords under government control?
Only those covenants and neighborhood associations that serve their customers will stick around. That is to say, home buyers will only purchase houses in neighborhoods with rules that they agree with. So its not land developers telling you what you can or can't do any more than Wal Mart tells you what you can or can't buy (you could always go to Target, or Home Depot, or your local grocery store.) Land developers must respond to the demands of their customers if they hope to make a profit, not the other way around. That's the beauty of the free market, it provides consumers with a dizzying degree of choice. The only function of establishing pre existing covenants and a neighborhood association with the means of altering those covenants is to provide customers with the peace of mind that they are moving into a community that will suit their life style.
Daybreak Cohousing in Portland, OR is an excellent example of the sort of free market community I would like to live in when I am ready to purchase a home.
"Knowing our neighbors, feeling like we belong, being a part of something that we care about and that cares about us...” The Cohousing Handbook: Building a Place for Community We are a growing, enthusiastic group of people planning to build a cohousing community in a lovely, older neighborhood of North Portland. We are individuals, couples and families of varied backgrounds and ages—from almost age one to 60 plus— who want to live in a community where we know each other like extended family, while our personal needs for privacy and independence are honored.
Cooperative Governance Daybreak’s group process is designed to be both highly effective and deeply egalitarian. Our decisions are generally made by consensus. Having a good process is of utmost important to us. We recognize that good process is a key ingredient for good decisions and for a strong sense of well-being among the group.
Upon purchasing a condo in their development, you become a voting member of the Daybreak community. All residents of the community *voluntarily* agree to abide by the rules set by the community. If you do not agree with the rules, then Daybreak Cohousing is not a place you should live and you should find somewhere else to purchase a home. Its a rather simple concept, really. And to me, feels far more "democratic" than submitting to the laws made by a city wide government. In the case of Daybreak Cohousing, your vote actually matters.
Nathyn: Vinnie: Nip this whole problem in the bud by establishing neighborhood covenants. A land developer, could, for instance, make all purchasers of parcels in his development agree to not act in lewd or indecent ways. Oh boy. Instead of having government solve the problem, you have widespread monopolization of land in the hands of a few elite landlords that solve the problem.What a perfect solution.
Vinnie: Nip this whole problem in the bud by establishing neighborhood covenants. A land developer, could, for instance, make all purchasers of parcels in his development agree to not act in lewd or indecent ways.
Nathyn, your leaps of illogic continue to astound. A land developer SELLS the land and house - it does not serve as a landlord. Similar to HOAs these days, such covenants would constitute voluntary transactions. I know that the word 'voluntary' sends shivers up your spine - coercive government approaches being your preferrence - but at least try to grasp the reality that land developers are not landlords and voluntary agreements are not inherently evil.
ozzy43: Nathyn: Vinnie: Nip this whole problem in the bud by establishing neighborhood covenants. A land developer, could, for instance, make all purchasers of parcels in his development agree to not act in lewd or indecent ways. Oh boy. Instead of having government solve the problem, you have widespread monopolization of land in the hands of a few elite landlords that solve the problem.What a perfect solution. Nathyn, your leaps of illogic continue to astound. A land developer SELLS the land and house - it does not serve as a landlord. Similar to HOAs these days, such covenants would constitute voluntary transactions. I know that the word 'voluntary' sends shivers up your spine - coercive government approaches being your preferrence - but at least try to grasp the reality that land developers are not landlords and voluntary agreements are not inherently evil.
Ozzy, I'm only pointing out that such developers are, in effect, local governments and in practice they actually act no differently than local governments...The same problems of local government exist in HOAs.
Some of them are dictatorships, others are democracies. Some of them work very well, others are very annoying, because the homeowners' association might forbid you from doing something benign, like painting your house yellow or welding stuff in your garage.
The idea that problems can be fixed by land cartels forming in order to force consumers to take certain actions totally goes against your theories on how market competition can never "force" anybody to do anything they don't want to do. And it makes the false assumption that such cartels would always act to make a better gated community and not an inefficient aristocracy that charges high fees for poor services, that you have to pay with annoying, pointless regulation that you have to follow, under the threat of having your property taken away (forceclosure) -- in effect, it's government. The only reason they aren't arresting people is because the government doesn't give them that power.
In the not too distant past, such cartels made it difficult for blacks to find housing.
I live in a HOA and it's not perfect. Based on what I've read about council housing in Europe and places where local government plays the role of the HOA, we've basically faced the same kinds of problems described above.
Nathyn:I'm only pointing out that such developers are, in effect, local governments and in practice they actually act no differently than local governments.
Except they don't resemble local governments in the most fundamental way - local governments have local cops who can arrest or jail or kill you. Nor can land developers tax you. This is the difference between coercion and voluntaryism, and it's a gargantuan difference. So every step you take using this erroneous underpinning falls under the rules of garbage in garbage out.
Next, in regard to your statement "The idea that problems can be fixed by land cartels forming in order to force consumers to take certain actions":
car·tel /kɑrˈtɛl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kahr-tel] –noun
There is no land cartel being proposed here. There is no "force" being suggested here. So once again, you begin with flawed logic and the rest of your argument is by necessity nonsense.
I live in an HOA, too - I hate it. Moved in with my girlfriend. But I accept it because the tradeoff was worth it to me. It was my CHOICE. There was no force, violence or coercion involved, and that's what distinguishes it from government. It's astonishing to me that this concept appears to be so difficult for you to grasp.
ozzy43:Except they don't resemble local governments in the most fundamental way
Nathyn:The only reason they aren't arresting people is because the government doesn't give them that power.
If they can already use the threat of forceclosure to extort fees and establish silly regulations, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't take it a step further in Anarchism and arrest people for violating what's essentially a tiny social contract.
Nathyn:Ozzy, I'm only pointing out that such developers are, in effect, local governments and in practice they actually act no differently than local governments
So to sum up, land developers are in effect governments, except that they can't arrest/jail/kill/tax/draft you or use the threat of violence against you to get you to do what they want you to do, because governments don't give them the power to be, well, like governments. But they're really just like governments, even though the government doesn't let them do these government-type things. Are you serious?
C'mon, Nathyn - you are at the point of flat out contradicting yourself. You cannot logically have it both ways. The bottom line is: land developers cannot tax you, they cannot arrest you, they cannot jail you, they cannot threaten you with violence if you do not accede to their wishes. If you cannot bring yourself to see how this makes these two types of organizations vastly different, if you cannot grasp the rather simple reality that a govt is that institution which has a monopoly on the so-called legitimate use of violence and nobody else does (that's why it's a monopoly) - then I don't think we have anything to discuss.
Nathyn:Under market anarchism, your HOAs would be fining & arresting squatters who either refused to pay homeowners' fees (taxes) or abide by the rules of the community (laws).
Wow, another major leap of illogic. Who on this thread was suggesting giving police powers to HOAs? Please point me to that thread. Until you can, I'm simply going to dismiss this point as an exercise in fantasy on your part.
Nathyn:If they can already use the threat of forceclosure to extort fees and establish silly regulations, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't take it a step further in Anarchism and arrest people for violating what's essentially a tiny social contract.
Huh??? Another massive leap of illogic...
1. If you voluntarily sign a contract agreeing to pay for some service on a monthly basis, you cannot them claim each month that these payments constitute 'extortion.' And if you think the regs are sufficiently 'silly' - simple: choose not to sign the contract.
2. Who suggested that HOAs be given the power to foreclose? I'm pretty sure the banks are gonna have something to say about that! This is just a ludicrous assertion that seems to have sprung fully formed from your mind without any basis in logic or fact or reality. I'll therefore summarily dismiss it.
3. A step further?? You have not even come close to demonstrating that the first step would ever occur, and it seems exceedingly unlikely that it would, so without taking a first step to begin with, you certainly cannot go a step further. If you insist on an aswer to this assertion, I'll just out the aforementioned rebuttal: "Who on this thread was suggesting giving police powers to HOAs?"
I've seen some stretches from you before Nathyn, but this one is waaaaaaay out there, in terms of fallacy and illogic. You need to put some serious effort into developing cogent arguments, if you want to become the best troll you can be. This one was laughable.
My position is to abolish all laws regarding indecent exposure, stalking, and neighbor indecent exposure.
I first want to privatize all government-owned land so these things can be dealt privately.
Imagine that you are a farmer. And your neighbor is going to a skyscraper that is going to block "your" sunlight. Now imagine that you already live near huge skyscrapers. You want to build a farm. They already blocked your sunlight. You have no right to sue. There is no difference between your right to sue and temporal differences.
Sunlight and your neighbors are public goods. You cannot sue them.
To see this more clearly: you are moving to an apartment and deciding which apartment you are moving to. You heard that one apartment has a high sexual offense rate. You obviously don't want to move to that one. So you move to a much nicer apartment. But this nicer apartment progressively become more sexual offense. You cannot "sue" this apartment only because its people became more sexually offensive. (assuming that all its space is owned by the apartment) It's the individuals that needs to be punished (if there is a contractual agreement prohibiting sexual offensive acts), not the collective apartment. Of course you don't want to lobby regulations to provide safer apartment conditions. (however, it can be collectively "punished" by an indirect way such as competition between apartments).
Geographical land is considered oligopolistic and oligopsonistic by some socialists. This is not an excuse for the government to intervene your neighbors.
Trusting the government is the most dangerous thing. By overwriting the freedom of speech and religion in a few cases, you are letting the government much more easily to persecuting all religions and speech. States' rights and a Federal constitutional court are treatments. But these do not work, as you have clearly seen.
The German government bans neo-Nazi speech. By letting it ban stuff, it banned Scientology, considering that it as not a religion. It associates Scientology with Nazism, as an unhealthy cult. Soon it would ban all "unhealthy cults".
I do not believe that there is pure "emotional" harm. All emotional harm is caused by physical violence or threats (directly or indirectly); these are the ones that must be condemed, not pure "emotional harm".
Some detractors would cite that the brain is made up of physical material, thus emotional harm would cause physical brain damage. But we don't want Falun Gong or Scientology to be banned since they are alleged by bureaucrats to cause emotional harm.
Nevertheless, the prevention of "emotional" harm would be left to contractual agreements by private realms, not the state.
libertarian:Imagine that you are a farmer. And your neighbor is going to a skyscraper that is going to block "your" sunlight. Now imagine that you already live near huge skyscrapers. You want to build a farm. They already blocked your sunlight. You have no right to sue. There is no difference between your right to sue and temporal differences. Sunlight and your neighbors are public goods. You cannot sue them.
Hmmm...but don't plants need sun? What if the sun is indeed blocked in such a way as to cause the farmers crops to fail?
And what about the non-excludable requirement of a public good? Your scenario seems to indicate that the farmer is indeed being effectively excluded from enjoying that good. So how can it be a public good if he can be excluded from it?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'your neighbors are public goods' - ??
Anyway, just thinking out loud here...
libertarian:I do not believe that there is pure "emotional" harm. All emotional harm is caused by physical violence or threats (directly or indirectly); these are the ones that must be condemed, not pure "emotional harm".
Quick note: I can assure you that there IS most assuredly such a thing as emotional harm, and that it can come from scenarios far removed from violence or threats. My girlfriend's a PhD in that area who could write a textbook about it. And probably will.
BUT - this is not to say that emotional harm should be treated the same way as physical harm, under the law. Though, interestingly, the long term effects of emotional harm can be MUCH worse than physical harm - and harder to recover from. Just ask a Vietnam Vet.
Mr. Burns did that once in an episode of the Simpsons. Since he owned the power company, he could charge people nearly twice the amount of energy costs by blocking out the sun.
Do not misunderstand me. I believe that there is emotional damage. But I do NOT believe that the government can have to right to punish people for spreading emotional harm. Physical harm, threats and fraud are the only things that the government should and only prevent. I do not want the government to ban cross buring, neo-Nazism, offensive religions and counterfactual statements. The government can only defend the non-aggression axiom.
You know why that if the government put less control on people who choose to be loud d'bags, there would be less of them? Because, intervention makes people feel important enough that they feel they are really affecting people and it only makes them feel like martyrs for their idiotic cause. Take the idea of God away from the Crusades, people lose interest, like what happened over there. The knights would rather trade with them and benefit than spread their own morality.
One million individuals offended is not worse nor better than one individual offended. Groups, in the abstract sense, do not act upon itself, but rather from individuals. Groups do not experience qualia. In layman's terms, groups are just psychological zombies, (NOT in the abstract algebra sort of way, since don't want to get confused between "commutative groups" and communism) Therefore, groups and individuals are not comparable. It is also impossible to evaluate or enumerate quantities of individuals.
But for public defense such as border security, private property can be effective to prevent illegal immigrantion. They have to trespass some private property to get into a country. But some private property allows trespassing. Border security is utilitarian. Not everyone would be affected. It is not right for a majority to dictate all.
But in the real world, groups of individuals can think together using telepathy. Groups are related, by their altruistic traits.
The rich individual has the right to do anything that the poor majority group dislikes, unless he is using coercion. Therefore, no laws should restrict offensive expression. Also no laws should be dealt with emotional expression, no matter how serious it is, no matter how many die from heart attacks from these offensive speech; even if it is a natural reaction.
Why anarchy, in some aspects, is better than minarchy: In minarchy, some individual dies from a heart attack because they are angry from offensive speech, the state would arrest the speaker. But in anarchy, people would have the economic incentive of whether or not to arrest the speaker.
Public defense funding is utilitarian. It is not right for a majority to dictate all. It is also not right for a single individual to dictate all. There is no distinction between the individual and the majority. Some individuals would not like public defense. Some individuals would like it, since it decreases the risk.
Voluntary funding for public defense is also immoral. Some individuals do not like and become offended by public defense, even if it is free. But in respecting the freedom of speech, voluntary funding for public defense turns out to be moral, since individuals do have the right to be offended by a presense of public defense.
Freedom of speech == Right to emotionally offend someone
So constitutional rights are essential. But under anarchy, some people would be arrested by private defense companies for saying offending stuff. That's why I am a constitutional paleolibertarian minarchist. But in anarchy, you can have governments competing, so if you don't like some government, you can move to a constitutional paleolibertarian minarchy! That argument for pro-minarchy is just an excuse! But I still think that I already live in a anarchist government. I am still analogizing that the 200 countries as corporations, however untrue that may be. The criticisms are just opinions, because they are subjective;
But in a different view, suppose some individual living in Afganistan owns a robot. That robot would react crazy and kill people if it hears or sees "public defense". Therefore, public defense is immoral because it makes that robot kill people. Therefore, you directly made the robot kill people!
But in another view, it is moral. Suppose you have very precious property in your lawn. If you are putting that precious property outside, you are risking it from being hit by an asteroid, a paratrooper, and birds that goes in your lawn and eating it. So in a reasonable situation, you have to protect that property by locking that property inside. This is the same thing as banks do. They have excellent security. Therefore, in the robot situation, it is your job to protect that robot from hearing "public defense" by locking him inside and censoring television that he sees. It is not the fault of public defense.
But in the real world, you cannot measure the precision and accuracy of anything 100% correct, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Thus, every action you do has a probability that it would produce a bad result. For example, when you lending assets to a bank, you are accepting the risk that the bank might use fractional-reserve banking. Even if the bank has shown its reserves, there is still a risk that some of its reserves are fake.
Because precision and accuracy are uncertain, it would be uncertain that the actions that you choose to do would produce uncertain results. But the probability that your action would succed is greater if you did this action than you would not do this action. The probability that your vote would elect Ron Paul would be greater if you vote than not vote at all. Therefore, there is no such thing as the "free rider" problem, as everything depends on probability. If you gamble, the probability of winning would be greater. But reasonable people would not gamble because of the low probability. Voting for an election is equivalent to gambling.
So practically, voluntary public defense such as national border security are not "free rider" problems. They are just private actions, but with a massive outcome that your contribution won't count, compared to other forms of investment.
But it is possible to have discrete spacetime universes. But the distinction between continuous and discrete simulations are subjective. Subjectivity is a synonym for "fuzziness", "ambiguity" and "vagueness". I said it because "ambiguity" and "vagueness" MAY be the same. Ambiguity can mean symbolic ambiguity such as the ambiguity of natural language processing. Vagueness can mean fuzzy three-dimensional pixels on a video.
Before we discuss further, we would discuss "asymptotic economics" (or neoclassical) and "discrete economics" (or Austrian). Asympotitic economics means infinite people in an infinite universe competing infinitely. Asymptotic is just an abstraction of descrete. Similarily, "abstract" is just a generalization abstracted from "concrete" instances. Asymptotic economics does NOT mean perfect competition, but it could mean it. Asymptotic economics can be impossible or cannot be impossible to simulate in our universe.
The sequence of prime numbers is discrete, but there is an asymptotic equation for the distribution of prime numbers. No matter how random the discrete numbers might be, the asymptotic sequence is perfect. Discreteness might lead to unstable dynamical systems. It is caused by the butterfly effect. It could lead to self-organizing criticality. Some proponents of socialism would cite that the Great Depression is a cause of the inherent drawback of free markets: Free markets have inherent self-organizing criticality, which are very unstable.
In asymptotic economics, you might require the speed of light to be infinite to transfer information efficiently so people would find cheaper products, depending on their time preference.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't know how many dimensions are in space. Some theories suggest 10 or 11 dimensions. But humans can perceive 3 or 4 because their sensory perception modalities are coded in three dimensions. The boson light particles can pass to the fermion retina cone and rod observers. Therefore, our eye can only perceive 3 dimensions. We are coded in three dimensional space and time. Therefore time is an illusion. "Human action" is an illusion because it the "action" is time.
Asymptotic economics is a fucking hoax. Asymptotic economics cannot exist without discrete economics. Decrete, or real-world economics made our economy richer so people would have the money to research asymptotic economics, theoretical economics, mathematical economics, continuous economics and neoclassical economics. Asymptotic economics cannot exist in our universe, but might be simulated on computers as one might first expect. That's wrong. Computers have to be Turing machines in order to simulate it. It is impossible to build a Turing machine. Therefore, it is impossible to simulate asymptotic economics, but possible to simulate discrete economics.
The free market is self-contradictory, as proved by Bertrand Russell. There is no such thing as perfect competition, as least in our universe. Everyting is statistical, so you cannot predict the outcomes (at least in the real world). There is no difference between "emotional coercion" such as offending someone to have a heart attack, and "physical coercion" in economics. The free market is an impossible utopia. But some say that the free market is practical because it eliminates the corrupt regulations that creates barriers to entry and lowers competition thus creating "monopoly tax" (the tax that means the price of the monopoly product minus the price or value of the competitive commidity) And it eliminates the corrupt central bank that controls our media. But in the book "Healing Our World", she said that libertarian is not practial nor ideological. That is wrong.
But our sheeps are very arrogant of Ron Paul. They think Ron Paul is corporatist. They think that Ron Paul is obsessed with the constitution, and thinks Ron Paul thinks that the constitution would solve everything. The constitution is god. The constitution is a genius. They read the constitution like a bible. Ron Paul small gov't libertarian the word sound unfriendly, inaltruistic. Immoral. Excessive free speech. Offensive religions.
libertarian:In minarchy, some individual dies from a heart attack because they are angry from offensive speech, the state would arrest the speaker. But in anarchy, people would have the economic incentive of whether or not to arrest the speaker.
I have not finished reading your post yet, but I wanted to know, before I do, what logic underlies this somewhat bizarre assertion. Under a minarchic system, the government is (conceptually) permitted only to perform negative interventions to protect people's rights. How do you suppose this translates into arresting a speaker who causes apoplexy??? I do not think you are using the standard and accepted definition of minarchy here. Can you clarif?
ozzy43: Under a minarchic system, the government is (conceptually) permitted only to perform negative interventions to protect people's rights.
Under a minarchic system, the government is (conceptually) permitted only to perform negative interventions to protect people's rights.
Not quite true, although that's a common enough claim by avowed minarchists. What that claim overlooks is that under minarchy government is also permitted whatever positive inrterventions in violation of people's rights that government decision makers deem necessary to preserve the governments coerced monopoly of law and security.
I am still analogizing that the 200 countries as corporations, however untrue that may be. The criticisms are just opinions, because they are subjective;
IOW, even if I am wrong, I am right. Gotcha.