Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Full Libertarian Debate: Sam Seder u0026 Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate" video.

A fun question for libertarians is how they expect "competition" to get rid of monopolies if they end antitrust laws. I guess they have never heard of natural monopolies, either.
31
@xiam5941 If your "principle" falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, it is just an intellectually indulgent act rather than a desire for what government or lack thereof will look like. And as far as picking cotton goes, [in Homer Simpson whisper] the cotton gin was already a thing.
13
@xiam5941 And the slaveholders didn't get to keep their "property," either. Your way leads to what Hobbes called the war of all against all. I prefer not to live in a world where life is cold, nasty, brutish, and short. We have tried it before, and it doesn't work. That is why it was abandoned.
10
It looks like people are completely misunderstanding the original point: it's not that Kaczynski is a libertarian, but that he lived without governmental interference. I'm not sure if that is completely true. (If "Manhunt" is to be believed, he did use the public library.) Still, he did largely live a life of self-sufficiency.
10
@xiam5941 Except having a government is what prevents the war of all against all. Every ancap ends up with an explanation that is far more convoluted than what we have now or ends up in having rival competing factions. If two teams are playing soccer, does each get to hire a referee who can then determine whether or not the entire ball made it all the way past the line? Of course you wouldn't, because such a suggestion would be ridiculous. Yet some version of that seems to be the solution every time someone asks about how to determine who owns a piece of property, and if you really do believe in the non-aggression principle, you are going to end up with competing warlords defending people against raiders. Great improvement!
9
Maybe it wasn't so hypothetical after all. For all we know, this winner is one of these goofy tax protestors who just hasn't been busted yet.
8
@xiam5941 Pre-industrial society where might made right, and it didn't work, so it was abandoned, because surprise, surprise, if you have no restrictions on greedy people doing whatever they want to screw people, they will continue to do so. And you can say that that there is no slavery under your system, but others have said that if both sides agree (for example: to pay a debt), then it should be allowed.
8
@xiam5941 So, you can't voluntarily plan things involving lots of people, but you think this will work? [In Dr. Evil voice] Riiight.
7
@ChewyThomson The most ridiculous black hole I ever went down with one was finding out this was a special kind of stupid: the individual sovereign types who think that they should just be able to declare their private property to be its own country. I asked if he would need a passport to reenter the United States or pay tariffs for anything he ordered in the mail. He then got mad and sad that I was focusing on distractions. These are clearly people who never thought it through.
6
@xiam5941 There is no such thing as only purely voluntary interactions. If you use property rights uber alles, how do you determine who owns the property in your system? And to use some I asked others who insist that it is possible within the current system. Let's say that we enact your system where people can just voluntarily decide to individually secede from the government. Never mind that this "right" would by definition only be available to the propertied, would you have to get a passport to re-enter the United States? What you have to pay tariffs on imported goods into your own little country? Would you still use the USD, or would you make your own currency, and if the latter, how will the exchange rate be determined?
3
@terryarcona3254 How do you define "victimless"? I get that drugs are often the example used, but there are a lot of rules that libertarians want to do away with that lets people victimize a lot of people.
2
@terryarcona3254 Let's just say for the sake of argument that individual sovereignty is a thing. Let's say further for the sake of argument that you form Terrystan. If you want to leave your property, do you need to get a passport to re-enter the United States? If you order something through the mail, will you have to pay a tariff? Is this something that will need to be negotiated with each individual sovereign, or will there be a set rate? If you have children, and they want to move off that property when they grow up, will they have to be naturalized into the United States?
2
I knew someone who advocated something similar. I went with two prongs to show how silly this was: 1) pointing out that he is living on stolen property, and you don't get to keep stolen goods, and 2) How would this island work? The examples I used were if he would have to use tariffs to have goods imported to his property or if he would need a passport to leave it. I should have asked about currency while I was at it, this being before the bitcoin craze ;-)
2
@Ironcabbit And that government would probably enact a tariff that would he high enough that he'd probably be worse off financially than if he just paid his taxes.
2
If he sets up his own government on his property (never mind how he owns it in the first place or whether or not this supposed right is limited to property owners) and wants to buy anything or have anything delivered to him, would he have to negotiate tariffs with the United States? Would he need a passport when he leaves his country and re-enters the United States? Where would he get the passport stamped? Even if you grant all of the questions Sam asks and say that Darryl is right, this is still a ridiculous notion.
2
These Individual Sovereignty people clearly haven't thought things through. I remember debating someone on FB a few years ago who kept insisting I was trying to "distract" when I asked him whether, in his new system, he would have to get a passport to re-enter the US if he left his property and if he'd have to pay tariffs to import things. If you want to be your own country, these are the things you have to think about. You have the patience of a saint, Sam!
2
A version of this debate using sports as a parallel. Sam: Say we have one team that says that the ball was over the line and should be counted as a goal, and we have another team that says that the ball didn't cross the line. Who is correct? Daryl: Each time can get its own referee. Sam: What if each team's referee says two different things? Whose referee do we listen to? Daryl: DON'T TELL ME HOW FREEDOM WORKS! YOU CAN'T CENTRALLY PLAN LIBERTY! YOU HATE FREEDOM!
2
@Ap3xpredat0r2 Yes, because apparently things are true just because you want them to be.
1
@Ap3xpredat0r2 Says the person who made no argument. Even Milton Friedman agreed that natural monopoly is a thing.
1
@Ap3xpredat0r2 You're the one saying it's false.
1
 @xiam5941 I know of people who practice voluntary simplicity in order to keep their income below a taxable level. They have farmland and keep costs down, so why can't Darryl do that?
1
 @realzachfluke1 Thank you. When dealing with an incoherent notion such as libertarianism, it's just a matter of time before they walk into a trap of their own making ;-)
1
 @colico14 They also booed him for supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
1
Centrally plan liberty= Think through ideas to see whether or not they can or should work in reality.
1